Jump to content


[0.8.8] Tank Camouflage Tables

camo camouflage spotting

  • Please log in to reply
261 replies to this topic

Veril #81 Posted Oct 25 2012 - 14:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 18922 battles
  • 2,156
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

View Postjerv, on Oct 25 2012 - 06:11, said:

If the equation were linear, you would be correct.  It isn't, so you aren't.

Your way does not really allow for accurate calculation of the effects of Camouflage skill, Camo nets, or anything other than the base camo of the tank with no modifiers of any kind.

In your example above, it could also have a camo of ~13.7% and a Camouflage skill of 100. Or maybe it's only ~11.7% with 110 Camo skill and a net... unless it also has a fancy paint job.

Don't be lazy; do the math.

My statement obviously implies you have control over the target, such as a friend in a training room and know there are no other modifiers. Use common sense?

Embiggener #82 Posted Nov 10 2012 - 06:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 14780 battles
  • 4,722
  • [RDSQ] RDSQ
  • Member since:
    05-01-2011

View PostVerilogus, on Aug 03 2012 - 18:56, said:

An unexpected statement form someone with your stats.
Ultimately the camo difference amounts to no more than 10% which is at best 40 meters, soviet low accuracy does not get compensated for with such a small camo difference. And their heavy tanks have less camo than American ones.
Or are you just trolling?

A very expected statement from someone like me.   Camo skills, nets, and paintjobs stack, making the difference even larger, with those things useful on some tanks and utterly useless on others - but even 40m is an eternity when it comes to time needed to get off the first shot.

The camo values are going not going to make sense across large tier differences, and they don't need to - there is no point comparing an MS-1 to, say, an ELC, or an ELC to a T-62.   But you can't sit there an tell me that it's believable to have 2 tanks at the same tier, with one tank being a couple feet shorter and virtually half the size, and have the bigger (and Russian) tank have 50% more base camo value.  That's just freaking silly, and it's blatantly dishonest design.

As I said before... game is still fun, it just is what it is. Wargaming may come to regret it eventually, though.

Also, WOOHOO! Necropost!

Veril #83 Posted Nov 10 2012 - 17:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 18922 battles
  • 2,156
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011
Updated to 8.1, now includes British tanks.

tomego #84 Posted Nov 10 2012 - 17:59

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22122 battles
  • 1,142
  • Member since:
    10-09-2011
Numbers! Thanks!

Veril #85 Posted Nov 11 2012 - 01:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 18922 battles
  • 2,156
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

View Posttomego, on Nov 10 2012 - 17:59, said:

Numbers! Thanks!

Numbers are always good to have, not like the useless info you see in WG videos where they just tell you the camo is 'good' sometimes.

warrends #86 Posted Nov 23 2012 - 13:47

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 21439 battles
  • 2,920
  • Member since:
    05-19-2011

Verilogus, on Nov 11 2012 - 01:51, said:

Numbers are always good to have, not like the useless info you see in WG videos where they just tell you the camo is 'good' sometimes.

I can see WG NOT handing out specifics like this. Their intent is to have you go figure it out yourself, as opposed to just giving you all stats on all tanks and therefore let everyone know exactly what is happening. This is war, isn't it? Too many variables in what is 'simulating' (yes, I know ...) a real tank battle. Regardless, I really appreciate you posting this table and keeping it up to date --- I refer to it often. A "necro +1" to the OP!!!

Question: For "Stationary" and "When Firing", when exactly do these numbers take effect? Is it similar to the "Sit still for 3 seconds and then your camo net and binocs kick in?" So if I am moving and then stop, how long until the "Stationary" number kicks in? And same after firing a shot?

ArmoredCorps #87 Posted Nov 23 2012 - 13:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 58925 battles
  • 6,428
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    02-07-2011
Ah, you edited out the old values.

At any rate, I believe my memory serves me correct here: I immediately noticed (cause I sold it) that the T110E3's camo advantage against the T110E4 is minuscule. Previously, the advantage was quite pronounced but you really only get armor and DPS advantages in the E3; no camo bonus though. (and no turret and less speed)

The M48A1 is now twice as stealthy as a King Tiger. \o/ Before it was, well, almost the same. (depressing for a medium tank to say)
Lastly, British tanks are what I thought they were: American levels of camo, with the especially tall Centurion's enjoying very little tangible benefit, but the FV 4202 enjoying a quite large advantage against an M48, for example.

Thanks for the update.

Veril #88 Posted Nov 24 2012 - 00:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 18922 battles
  • 2,156
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

warrends, on Nov 23 2012 - 13:47, said:

Question: For "Stationary" and "When Firing", when exactly do these numbers take effect? Is it similar to the "Sit still for 3 seconds and then your camo net and binocs kick in?" So if I am moving and then stop, how long until the "Stationary" number kicks in? And same after firing a shot?

I am not sure. It could be instant.

Rhomer #89 Posted Nov 24 2012 - 22:49

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22634 battles
  • 1,042
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

lm2f, on Oct 22 2012 - 19:25, said:

Why is it that T95 was higher than the Jagdtiger historically and yet it is smaller in game and has more camo?

You don't believe in anti-german bias? That's cute, sugarcube.
came here to say the same

therowman #90 Posted Nov 24 2012 - 23:19

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9938 battles
  • 5,663
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

Rhomer, on Nov 24 2012 - 22:49, said:

came here to say the same

Because the T-95 moves at 13kmh, unable to avoid any arty fire at all. It can't move from cover to cover.

Veril #91 Posted Nov 25 2012 - 00:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 18922 battles
  • 2,156
  • Member since:
    11-07-2011

therowman, on Nov 24 2012 - 23:19, said:

Because the T-95 moves at 13kmh, unable to avoid any arty fire at all. It can't move from cover to cover.

You would be surprised at how much arty it avoids because its so low.

Rhomer #92 Posted Nov 25 2012 - 01:04

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22634 battles
  • 1,042
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

therowman, on Nov 24 2012 - 23:19, said:

Because the T-95 moves at 13kmh, unable to avoid any arty fire at all. It can't move from cover to cover.
arty doesnt shoot at what it cant see. the difference in arty dodging in a 13km/h vhicle and a 20km/h vehicle is negligible, what ISNT negligible is getting artied first because some E-50 spotted me across the map because WOT felt like arbitrarily gimping a vehicles camo rating for no reason at all

therowman #93 Posted Nov 25 2012 - 01:51

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9938 battles
  • 5,663
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

Rhomer, on Nov 25 2012 - 01:04, said:

arty doesnt shoot at what it cant see. the difference in arty dodging in a 13km/h vhicle and a 20km/h vehicle is negligible, what ISNT negligible is getting artied first because some E-50 spotted me across the map because WOT felt like arbitrarily gimping a vehicles camo rating for no reason at all

There is a big difference between 13 and 20. Specially when moving between cover.

Rhomer #94 Posted Nov 25 2012 - 15:34

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22634 battles
  • 1,042
  • Member since:
    07-23-2011

therowman, on Nov 25 2012 - 01:51, said:

There is a big difference between 13 and 20. Specially when moving between cover.
In regards to arty? Especially flocks of high tier arty that a JT or T95 would see? No there isnt.

The only thing the speed advantage the JT allows for is better choice of initial location. Everybody and their grandmother knows that if a game has a T95, its gonna be way in the back mostly guarding the flag and within 100 meters of it. Once spotted however? if you have 6th sense, you've already been on the enemy map for 3 seconds, during that time they've already started aiming. If you arent ALREADY in cover, you are certainly going to get hit, whether in transit or not. A JT has a top speed of roughly 20km, but only see's it on flat open roads, and even then its acceleration aint exactly what one would deem as jumpy.

So in the T95 we have a TD that is:
Harder to initially detect
Harder to kill once detected
Has significantly higher alpha.

Im supposed to be comforted in the fact that im inconsequentially more accurate, and have a higher rof. Problem is when i fire, i get spotted,and thus artied giving me maybe 2 or 3 shots if the enemy isnt specifically looking for me. A T95 can lay waste to that same group before he's spotted which is probably why the T95 is regarded as a far scarier tank to go up against than a JT. i could be wrong though. I dont tend to bother looking at individual tanks stats across the length and breadth of the villainy that play this game.

Keckers #95 Posted Nov 25 2012 - 19:44

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 28341 battles
  • 974
  • [LQC] LQC
  • Member since:
    11-11-2011
I agree with the previous poster. The T95 is clearly undersized compared with history and all the tall German tanks and TDs get a massive camo nerf.  Fine, give them bad camo, but any tank of equivalent historical size or larger should have at least the same bad camo values. The problem is that camo is all over the place, it is used for balancing the same what the armour homogenisation coefficient is. Instead of giving better RHA to those thanks that HAD better quality armour, it gets used to balance instead.

i really get annoyed with balancing some times, just accept that some tank designs were better, make them more expensive to operate limit them to 3  match and move on, stop with the constant balancing act!

timwahoo #96 Posted Nov 25 2012 - 21:00

    Captain

  • Players
  • 11207 battles
  • 1,587
  • Member since:
    01-28-2011
.

KiwiMark67 #97 Posted Dec 05 2012 - 20:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 51394 battles
  • 5,060
  • [ANVIL] ANVIL
  • Member since:
    08-24-2011

Hristosko, on Dec 05 2012 - 18:48, said:

"ЛТ   7    AMX 13 75    17,5 17,5 4,14 75mm SA50
ЛТ   8    AMX 13 90    17   17   3,9 90mm F3"

This is incorrect. WG stated that the amx vehicles DON`T get the scout bonus( e.g. same camo while static as camo when moving)

Did you not read:

Quote

These tables and the information in them is NOT official, they were obtained through tests conducted by members of the Russian WOT community,

What that means is that regardless of what WG may have said, those tanks were tested and found to have the same camo value moving as stationary.

ComradeHX #98 Posted Dec 08 2012 - 17:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 13810 battles
  • 5,791
  • Member since:
    12-02-2011
Why does T-34-85 still have data when shooting with D-10T?

Zeramas #99 Posted Dec 08 2012 - 18:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 24139 battles
  • 5,809
  • [MAPLE] MAPLE
  • Member since:
    05-18-2011
I don't understand the last question.

KiwiMark67 #100 Posted Dec 08 2012 - 20:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 51394 battles
  • 5,060
  • [ANVIL] ANVIL
  • Member since:
    08-24-2011

ComradeHX, on Dec 08 2012 - 17:47, said:

Why does T-34-85 still have data when shooting with D-10T?

Because that was the gun mounted on the tank when tests were done!
Personally, I doubt that the camo value when firing will be that much different with a different gun mounted, do they really need to go into a training room to re-test the T-34-85 for you just so they can get the new 'When Firing %' with the 85mm gun?





Also tagged with camo, camouflage, spotting

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users