Stealth firing removal: "compensation" mechanic idea

[Admiral_noodle]

So stealth firing in open water is very likely to be removed by WG as an unintended mechanic. I'm not discussing that or whether it *should* go. Or needs to. I think it looks silly, can be frustrating at times but certainly isn't a problem or one I'd bother to get rid of... however assuming stealth fire from open water *is* going to be removed, I would like a new mechanic to be put in instead. 

 

Right now it takes some 20s for your detection to go down after firing. This "bloom" is the same for all ships and gun sizes (in duration). But why not change that?

 

Instead my idea is that small caliber guns could return to stealth quicker - maybe 10s for a dd with 128s - and then increases in duration for each higher caliber gun. This way you could compensate dds for loss of invisifire with a faster return to stealth. With priority target this should make dds more able to fire then drop off when they need to. Meanwhile you could *nerf* bb big guns. Maybe 30s to drop off so making it harder for BBs to "hide" at the back. 

 

What do you think? Again I'm not wanting to discuss invisifire removal rather the idea here *assuming* it's going to be removed. 

[xxNihilanxx]

Seems like a sensible idea so, as such, it is highly unlikely to be implemented.

[Shirakami_Kon]

Yes, DDs specially need some compensation. Even if it's a not intended mechanic players aren't guilty of exploiting a mechanic that was there and proved effective. I think the reduced time to the extended visibility range while firing could be a nice idea.

[shockinhockin]

This is a simple but well thought out idea. I'd go for that, makes a lot of sence and is certainly more realistic than the invisafire we have now,

[EsaTuunanen]

Seems like a sensible idea so, as such, it is highly unlikely to be implemented.

Especially when BBs won't benefit from detectability penalty duration change...

[loppantorkel]

I'm not that opposed to the idea, but I'd rather see a slight buff to specific ships than a general one to gun dds that don't need one.

[WashedandDeceased]

Seems logical.. 

 

[Spellfire40]

DDs that are not dependen on visilty like RU DDs would be masivly overbuffed by it thogh. And i would rather see they not remove it instead of signaling them ist ok if you throw us some bread Crumbs. what for example would that bring a aki that is depending on keeping its guns hot to arceive its damage. Such a mechanic halp do disengage it do NOT helps them to get their old dps.

[NoirLotus]

It has already been proposed to WG devs, they said that they would think about it.

 

So I guess it will never happen ...

[EsaTuunanen]

I'm not that opposed to the idea, but I'd rather see a slight buff to specific ships than a general one to gun dds that don't need one.

There's problem in buffing individual ships.

Like if you give Akizuki higher alpha or firerate it would chew other DDs in seconds.

Zao would be similar problem.

[loppantorkel]

There's problem in buffing individual ships.

Like if you give Akizuki higher alpha or firerate it would chew other DDs in seconds.

Zao would be similar problem.

Either they would need a slight buff in some department or not, after invisfire is gone. I'm not sure how that possible buff could look like. What I believe is that Khaba with a buff to HE, a heal ability and a buff to survivability with the change suggested by the OP, would make the Khaba slightly too OP. ..but I haven't played the Khaba. Maybe it would be fine.

[Culiacan_Mexico]

Seems like a sensible idea so, as such, it is highly unlikely to be implemented.

 

 

[mtm78]

You can laugh about it... but it makes me sad not giddy at all

 

[TheCoolBird]

It sounds like an idea, but I am not sure if it would work completly. When using my Amagi I have about a 10 second period when I am invisible, which is what helps me to survive. Otherwise tier 10 shells destroy me. But for other battleships, it's probably fine. As I think I would suffer more when using Amagi, I'm slightly against this. For destroyers however, it sounds like it would work in place of stealth firing for those that can do it. I'm not sure, I could be completely wrong with what I'm saying. 

[Culiacan_Mexico]

You can laugh about it... but it makes me sad not giddy at all

 

Just enjoying well placed sarcasm.   

[Culiacan_Mexico]

 

What do you think? 

Interesting idea.  

[Webley_Mark]

Well... It's a good idea!

[eliastion]

DDs that are not dependen on visilty like RU DDs would be masivly overbuffed by it thogh. (...)

 

RU DDs have extra caliber-independent penalty to their concealment after firing. They could just get similar penalty to their fade-out time after firing - so that's hardly a problem here.

 

(...) And i would rather see they not remove it instead of signaling them ist ok if you throw us some bread Crumbs. what for example would that bring a aki that is depending on keeping its guns hot to arceive its damage. Such a mechanic halp do disengage it do NOT helps them to get their old dps.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. It would make Priority Target a skill tax but other than that? Akizuki with her caliber would have ridiculously short fade-out time. The trick would be to stop firing when people start locking in on you and their guns turn in your direction... before they can really fire, you're gone. Basically, enemies would have the choice of pre-aiming guns in the direction where they expect you (and there's no guarantee that you're going to open fire, especially if you see their guns facing in your direction!) OR they will just ignore you until better targets are gone. What BB or cruiser will waste their potential firepower on looking scary into general (expected) direction of enemy DD to keep the latter from firing? There are ships that need shooting at around!

[Dampfboot]

Not sure...I thought stealthfiring in open water was a silly mechanic first time I was on the receiving end of it executed by a double Blyska division. Same as firing from smoke. On the other hand some DDs really rely on it (like my most beloved Akizikuki ) and the game is currently balanced around it. I would suggest that DDs receive a dispersion buff when shot at increasing the farer away the shooter is. So below 8km it would not apply but increase rapidly from 10km+, so a BB would have a very low chance to hit a DD at 12km+

[Elenortirion]

welp I like the idea overall but still would like for DDs that relied on invisi-firing for survivability to be compensated somehow in survivability department

 

and the argument that no ship was meant to rely only on invisi-fire seems bland when you look at pretty much every review of revamped IJN DD tree - I don't remember which exacly ship it was but I do recall that in pretty much every review of this ship invisifire ability was listed as pretty much only pros of this ship

 

in case of mentioned here akizuki I think that maneuverability buff [turn radius decrease] should be sufficient

[and I come to it by comparision of how I play akizuki and how I play byłskawica - aki feels on most fields like a buffed błyskawica sacrificing torps [and some of range] for more guns and hp - the only real difference is that in 10-12km range on błyski I can evade shots by zigzagging while similar zigzagging scheme that works for błyski does not work for aki as she just turns way too slow

[eliastion]

Not sure...I thought stealthfiring in open water was a silly mechanic first time I was on the receiving end of it executed by a double Blyska division. Same as firing from smoke. On the other hand some DDs really rely on it (like my most beloved Akizikuki ) and the game is currently balanced around it. I would suggest that DDs receive a dispersion buff when shot at increasing the farer away the shooter is. So below 8km it would not apply but increase rapidly from 10km+, so a BB would have a very low chance to hit a DD at 12km+

 

On the other hand, it would mean more trouble in actually dodging shotgun salvos from BBs and cruisers with many barrels.

[EsaTuunanen]

and the argument that no ship was meant to rely only on invisi-fire seems bland when you look at pretty much every review of revamped IJN DD tree

Without doing major overhaul Akizuki is definitely built around stealth firing mechanics.

 

There's even bigger argument for it being planned. (to need team play to counter)

If stealth firing wasn't supposed to be there then programmers would have just made ship firing guns visible to any ship in line of sight instead of lot more complex system with different penalties for different ships.

Because only bad programmer's would make unnecessarily complex code.

And basing to how little game crashes I've had they definitely aren't bad programmers.

[mtm78]

If stealth firing wasn't supposed to be there then programmers would have just made ship firing guns visible to any ship in line of sight instead of lot more complex system with different penalties for different ships.

 

Because only bad programmer's would make unnecessarily complex code.

 

Ding ding ding ding ding.....

 

WG's PR department running wild to convince people SF was a 'mistake' is just....  

[Mayv]

People believe the "stealth fire was mistakenly added to the game" excuse?

[loppantorkel]

I believe it might have been a mistake to put it into the game. Don't really care what their explanations are. If it's a bad mechanic, it's better removed.