With removal of stealth fire, a nice addition to the game will be:

[Kazomir]

The detection penalty after firing should last based on gun caliber. The smaller the caliber, the less time it takes to get back into stealth. 

 

I propose to keep the current 20 seconds for all Battleships, but DDs based on gun size should have around 10. Akizuki should have about 7. Obviously russian DDs will get shafted a bit having near the same penalty as light cruisers at 12 seconds while CAs should have about 15.

 

How does that sound?

[Drunken_Jedi]

Sounds like a decent suggestion to me, would mean that the smaller ships will be able to engage a little more without fear of being lit up for the whole team to target for 20 seconds which is an ETERNITY when you're getting focus fired by everything within range.

 

Also, nice Yoda impression with the title phrasing ;)

[Migulaitor]

Well, I proposed this: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/76884-alternative-to-invisifire/

 

Got moved

 

[Tyrendian89]

been proposed several times in the last few days at least, and has been tested by WG as well - their answer being nope

[Kazomir]

Well, I proposed this: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/76884-alternative-to-invisifire/

 

Got moved

 

Ive seen this idea pop up a few times over my stay in the forums and I in no way claim to be the one who thought of it. 

 

The issue with moved topics are that I cant find them.

[Kazomir]

been proposed several times in the last few days at least, and has been tested by WG as well - their answer being nope

 

Is there a reason? I cannot find a theoretical negative.

[Kysmet]

It was addressed by Octavian in one of the Q&A threads. WG doesn't want ships 'poppng' in and out of view on the minimap was the official answer to this suggestion. I don't agree, but there you have it.

[Kazomir]

It was addressed by Octavian in one of the Q&A threads. WG doesn't want ships 'poppng' in and out of view on the minimap was the official answer to this suggestion. I don't agree, but there you have it.

 

Fair point. Then let em stay visible on the map but not ''targetable'' by the game's innate aim assist? Can be visualized by making the ship half transparentish

[Migulaitor]

Fair point. Then let em stay visible on the map but not ''targetable'' by the game's innate aim assist? Can be visualized by making the ship half transparentish

 

Or just be marked on the minimap.

Another reason they give "its too complicated" yeah because saying the biggest the boom the more time you are spotted is quantum physics, maybe for some border lickers it is, 

Edited.

This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inflammatory remarks

[Krikkio82]

I'm not a serious BB addicted player but will be a 30 sec visibility after fire a nerf to BBs? Sounds to me like a real small and situational change... I hope that WG is not thinking at that as the only balance change after 0.6.3....

[Kashuken]

The detection penalty after firing should last based on gun caliber. The smaller the caliber, the less time it takes to get back into stealth. 

 

I propose to keep the current 20 seconds for all Battleships, but DDs based on gun size should have around 10. Akizuki should have about 7. Obviously russian DDs will get shafted a bit having near the same penalty as light cruisers at 12 seconds while CAs should have about 15.

 

How does that sound?

 

I proposed something like this in another thread.

 

But my idea also took into account ship size and detection range.

[AnuSuaraj]

The detection penalty after firing should last based on gun caliber. The smaller the caliber, the less time it takes to get back into stealth. 

 

I propose to keep the current 20 seconds for all Battleships, but DDs based on gun size should have around 10. Akizuki should have about 7. Obviously russian DDs will get shafted a bit having near the same penalty as light cruisers at 12 seconds while CAs should have about 15.

 

How does that sound?

 

I'm saying no to vanishing ships.

 

20 seconds is easy to minimize with evasion and it also makes people think twice before acting. It's tactical element and I for one like it.

 

Also, most battleships load for more than twenty seconds so this adds the option: Wait for BB to fire at someone, then fire one salvo at BB, then cloak up before BB loads guns...rinse and repeat.

 

It has the potential to be even more senseless and annoying than stealth shooting.

 

So no, it's not going to happen.

 

The Suaraj has spoken. Please close topic now (and all the similar ones)...

 

Gracias.

[loppantorkel]

Also, most battleships load for more than twenty seconds so this adds the option: Wait for BB to fire at someone, then fire one salvo at BB, then cloak up before BB loads guns...rinse and repeat.

 

It has the potential to be even more senseless and annoying than stealth shooting.

It would be annoying as hell for all parts because it would be so stupid. One salvo at bb, the wait until bb shoots again 25s later..? I think 10-12 bloom for dds could be good, but there may be some issues with it. Your example isn't one of them, imo.

[Bladezfist]

 

I'm saying no to vanishing ships.

...

 

I want my vertical space back :/

[mtm78]

 

I'm saying no to vanishing ships.

 

20 seconds is easy to minimize with evasion and it also makes people think twice before acting. It's tactical element and I for one like it.

 

Also, most battleships load for more than twenty seconds so this adds the option: Wait for BB to fire at someone, then fire one salvo at BB, then cloak up before BB loads guns...rinse and repeat.

 

It has the potential to be even more senseless and annoying than stealth shooting.

 

So no, it's not going to happen.

 

The Suaraj has spoken. Please close topic now (and all the similar ones)...

 

Gracias.

 

C'mon.... who the heck would limit their own output just to do this? Can you have a decent game in anything but a BBaby boat if you fire your guns once every BBaby reload?

 

[eliastion]

 

I'm saying no to vanishing ships.

 

20 seconds is easy to minimize with evasion and it also makes people think twice before acting. It's tactical element and I for one like it.

 

Also, most battleships load for more than twenty seconds so this adds the option: Wait for BB to fire at someone, then fire one salvo at BB, then cloak up before BB loads guns...rinse and repeat.

 

It has the potential to be even more senseless and annoying than stealth shooting.

 

So no, it's not going to happen.

 

The Suaraj has spoken. Please close topic now (and all the similar ones)...

 

Gracias.

 

Do you literally just suggest as a possible abuse of the system... the approach where YOU FIRE ONE DD SALVO FOR EACH ONE THE BB FIRES!?

It makes about as much sense as worrying that a BB has a hard time avoiding being rammed by a determined DD due to the difference in speed and maneuverability.

[loppantorkel]

 

Do you literally just suggest as a possible abuse of the system... the approach where YOU FIRE ONE DD SALVO FOR EACH ONE THE BB FIRES!?

It makes about as much sense as worrying that a BB has a hard time avoiding being rammed by a determined DD due to the difference in speed and maneuverability.

Well he didn't say it was going to be good or abusive, just annoying

[AnuSuaraj]

You guys are forgetting two things:

 

1. Fires (which are all RNG induced)

2. And that my example was just one situation. I'm sure better exploitations could and would be found. For example, just imagine if the BBs guns were not perfectly turned toward the DD...

 

In my mind, I just see some DD behind me pouring out 4-5 salvos and a fire on my Izumo's tubby a*s, and then just cloaking up the moment that I put my guns to bear.

 

Even twenty seconds is pushing it, if I am to be honest. I simply don't want a meta where things disappear just as I aim at them.

[Inked9]

just something to think about for the ones in favor of stealth fire remival...whenever you haven fallen victim do a lone dd firing from stealth, there were most likely multiple of following conditions met:

 

1. no friendly cruiser near you. 2. no friendly dd near you 3. no spotting/fighter plane up 4. not keeping track on minimap where enemy dd are 5. trying to snipe at max range more than 5 minutes into the game.

 

...so you most likely made multiple mistakes, all only your own fault, and someone playing the counter to your class capitalized on it...you deserved it. besides, a dd takes ages to burn down even an allready crippled, half hp battleship. so of you're so far from your team that you die to a lone stealth firing dd...you just made multiple mistakes and got outplayed. 

 

of course the only logic thing is, call for nerfs to the one taking advantage from your mistakes.

Everyone should realize that most dd players are the stealth aggressors and there ones that are trying to cap and torp as they should.Their the first to get taken out when doing this by a volley of fire from everyone that has seen them when spotted by their opposite enemy dd's. This also means that their usually further away from the team to start out with to get that cap before any one else moves (in most case) and lack support. The amount of radar that is being used makes it much more hard to accomplish this, which is make capping a challenge. In most cases ships higher than a dd are focus on what has been spotted by the dd's that they pay no attention to enemy dd that do show up (they assume that their own dd will take the enemy dd out). A dd doesn't get extra xp for spotting, get less if all dd player is doing is capping and torping (provided the torps hit a ship). Their main xp comes from their artillery and that really depend on what dd they are using. The IJN line artillery is the worse out of all the dd lines for reload time and damage it does, compared rate of fire to the other dd lines. The SF balances out this in a sense specially (as stated in the quote) when there are bb's that are alone and sniping. The nerf made them less effective. The latest nerf made  all the dd line worse at what there suppose to be good at. Allot also had to do with players themselves. There been plenty of set were most if not all the bigger ships hug islands, move a few kilometer at a slow rate, stay behind the cap point/in a cap, not paying attention with situational awareness and or boarder hugging just to long distance snipe for damage collecting. I play both dd's and BB's and I believe this new nerf on the dd's has done more harm than good and the dd's should be as they were before the patch and this is coming from my bb player side. As for a dd player, cruisers are a dd worst nightmare. Most nerfs are for those who don't want to play better. I rather learn to play better with out nerfs!!!!!!   

[mtm78]

The only situation where it would work ONCE is if the BB has to cap or lose and you just need to reset him. And I do mean ONCE because in that situation the BB wouldn't be shooting at other targets ( or the whole example would be even more nonsensical ) so he would always remain loaded, and you can't really relocate fast enough in any DD to cause a BB to need more then 20s to realign his guns. 

 

Even twenty seconds is pushing it, if I am to be honest. I simply don't want a meta where things disappear just as I aim at them.

 

The thing is, concealment at least was governed by some skill ( don't argue, just say yes ). The only replacement we are getting for it is more RNG ( higher dispersion when shooting at targets which have concealment module ). Don't tell me you think this is a good direction for the game. 

[Kysmet]

You guys are forgetting two things:

 

1. Fires (which are all RNG induced)

2. And that my example was just one situation. I'm sure better exploitations could and would be found. For example, just imagine if the BBs guns were not perfectly turned toward the DD...

 

In my mind, I just see some DD behind me pouring out 4-5 salvos and a fire on my Izumo's tubby a*s, and then just cloaking up the moment that I put my guns to bear.

 

Even twenty seconds is pushing it, if I am to be honest. I simply don't want a meta where things disappear just as I aim at them.

 

You realise you're denying the DD it's prime defense in stating that?

 

The BB will always have it's armor, massive hp pool and repair party. The DD isn't allowed to slink back into stealth, but must remain visible long enough for you to turn your turrets and blow it up for the sheer gall of shooting you with it's puny guns. It's fine to have stealth, as long as it doesn't attack. Next we'll get destealthed when launching torps.

[AnuSuaraj]

The thing is, concealment at least was governed by some skill ( don't argue, just say yes ). The only replacement we are getting for it is more RNG ( higher dispersion when shooting at targets which have concealment module ). Don't tell me you think this is a good direction for the game. 

 

Yes, I will tell you so, since I believe that the removal of SF as a counter intuitive and senseless mechanic has made DD game play more skill demanding and therefore better...

 

There was very little skill in stealth shooting. Basically, you just had to keep slower and less agile targets within a certain range buffer and that was it. I did it in my DDs with little effort and I always felt dirty afterward.

 

Speed and evasion tanking, even with that little bit of RNG is a lot more skill based mechanic.

 

Secondly, I would also like to emphasize that this recent emergence of "No more SF?! Let's change gun bloom now!" topics is nothing more than a certain type of people clutching at straws.

 

The people who are suggesting these things are not looking for a higher skill alternative for SF or a way to improve DD game play. They just want bring back low skill mechanics like stealth shooting in a different form.

 

They just want to replace that lost mechanic of annoying tracers flying out from places unknown to a similar and perhaps even more frustrating mechanic of tracers flying out from a DD that remains visible just long enough for his target to realize that he's there, but never long enough for the said victim to return any effective damage to the DD.

 

Listening to you guys whine about how being spotted for those whooping twenty seconds is simply too much for a DD is almost like I'm listening to BBabies whine about those "OP torpedoes" and open topics entitled "torpedo nets" in which they profess their love for shooting while stationary at targets 20 km away.

 

If you're a DD player, than you already own and operate the only ships in the game that can navigate the whole map without being spotted, sneak within 6-7 km of any ship and employ a greater variety of roles than any other class of ship in the game.

 

I find it strange that you guys don't see any issue with taking the ships that already have the lowest detection radius in the game and giving those ships the lowest detection cycle in game as well.

 

It's not going to happen.

[AnuSuaraj]

 

You realise you're denying the DD it's prime defense in stating that?

 

The BB will always have it's armor, massive hp pool and repair party. The DD isn't allowed to slink back into stealth, but must remain visible long enough for you to turn your turrets and blow it up for the sheer gall of shooting you with it's puny guns. It's fine to have stealth, as long as it doesn't attack. Next we'll get destealthed when launching torps.

 

And DDs have their epic concealment, smoke, low silhouettes, speed and agility.

 

You wanting more than that makes you no better than a BBaby.

 

Also, you're saying that you can't haz a gun duel with a BB and win? Now that's a sad story bro...

[loppantorkel]

Actually I think removing SF was a good idea, so no whine... We'll see how it plays out, but I think high tier capping dds will have a tougher time and I think there's a risk we'll see a bit more stagnated games where capping bases is less of a focus.

[AnuSuaraj]

Actually I think removing SF was a good idea, so no whine... We'll see how it plays out, but I think high tier capping dds will have a tougher time and I think there's a risk we'll see a bit more stagnated games where capping bases is less of a focus.

 

Well, capping should be high risk.