Jump to content


Does shooting behind bushes reduce camo of other tanks behind the bushes?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
26 replies to this topic

yun9 #21 Posted 14 April 2014 - 06:59 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 2996 battles
  • 395
  • [GO-IN] GO-IN
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012

The camo multiplication factor of said bush drops for everyone standing within 15m from it.

I tried it myself, no conclusions what so ever though, most bushes are to small to properly hide two tanks.

 

But (as you stated above, IS-7 and E 25) If the E 25 was the one who fired, instead of the IS7, then chances are the E 25 will make the IS-7 spotted easier than the other way around.
I play a lot of scout tanks. As a passive scout, something firing through the bush behind me, made sixth sense activate even though Im still stationary and 120m away, and in a bush, I shouldn't spotted until 50m if I don't move or shoot.



niko9911 #22 Posted 14 April 2014 - 07:55 PM

    Corporal

  • Clan Commander
  • 20495 battles
  • 168
  • [SW100] SW100
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

I think, this tell more than 1000 words.

 

 

Good luck! :great:



aaOzymandias #23 Posted 14 April 2014 - 10:04 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 6713 battles
  • 36
  • [E100] E100
  • Member since:
    06-02-2013

View PostGleb_Reawer, on 14 April 2014 - 03:26 PM, said:

 

Almost right, the underlined part is wrong, but not by mutch. Quote from wiki: "However, as soon as a tank fires its gun, the environment bonuses within the 15m radius no longer stack. Instead, only the bonus from the bush with the highest camouflage bonus is taken into account. In addition, the bonus from that bush is reduced to 30% of its original value"

 

In this example they're talking about a 1 vs 1 situation. The thing they fail to mention is that the bonuses for other tanks within that 15m radius doesn't change provided they don't shoot themselves.

 

+1 to you sir

 

Regards

 

Gleb_Reawer


Cool, appreciate your testing! This seems to be what I had thought as well, but was not entirely 100% sure of.

 

View Postniko9911, on 14 April 2014 - 08:55 PM, said:

I think, this tell more than 1000 words.

 

 

 

Good luck! :great:

 

Appreciate the link, but it did not actually answer this specific question, nor did the wiki entry :)


Edited by aaOzymandias, 14 April 2014 - 10:05 PM.


Gleb_Reawer #24 Posted 15 April 2014 - 01:34 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28806 battles
  • 1,209
  • [-HOW-] -HOW-
  • Member since:
    10-23-2011

Here is another one, a bit trickier to execute as 2 heavy tanks are quite hard to hide behind one bush :tongue:

 

Crews: Spotter AMX, target E-75

Spoiler

 

The replays:

Spotter: http://wotreplays.com/site/775875#malinovka-gleb_reawer-amx_13_90

Target: http://wotreplays.com/site/775878#malinovka-gleb_reawer-e-75

Camo breaker: http://wotreplays.com/site/775880#malinovka-gleb_reawer-is-7

 

Once again we failed to get the target spotted because the other tank was shooting. We took turns with the E-75 and IS-7 shooting alternating and neither could get the other to become spotted, in the end we did a simultaneous shot and that was the only time when both tanks became visible at the same time.

 

kolnidur, a bush might give you enough camo boost so that the enemy would need to come to the 50m auto spot range, but it doesn't neccessarily provide that much bonus. The only things that guarantee that you will not be spotted before the 50m auto spot range are solid obstacles as rocks and houses(mind the windows, they're dangerous) You have to also consider the possibility that the advancing enemy might have spotted you "besides" the bush or even beneath it, a corner of your tank etc. getting exposed to the advancing enemies.

 

I hope you have replays of the events you describe, it would definetly bring light on the question and most likely explain why you got spotted.


Edited by Gleb_Reawer, 15 April 2014 - 01:46 AM.


RichardNixon #25 Posted 15 April 2014 - 02:28 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 4395 battles
  • 2,351
  • Member since:
    06-26-2013

View PostSeekless, on 14 April 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

As far as I got the mechanics of this game camo is a value of your tank, if there is a bush between you and and enemy tank (line of sights) then there is a camo multiplier added to your tanks camo value.

 

Bushes are actually additive, not a multiplier, so all tanks benefit equally from them. That's how you can hide a WTF despite it having no natural camo.

 

Camo paint and camo nets are also additive, but class-dependent, so TDs gain more from them than heavies. Camo skill is a multiplier, so it's much more effective on tanks that already have good camo stats.

 



yun9 #26 Posted 21 April 2014 - 01:24 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 2996 battles
  • 395
  • [GO-IN] GO-IN
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012
Another thing to mention is that the tank who shoots loses a lot of base camo, meanwhile the other behind bush haven't. This makes it easier for him to remain unspotted due to the fact that he hasn't shot and therefor hasn't lost any camo at all except for the bushcamo.

Gleb_Reawer #27 Posted 21 April 2014 - 01:50 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 28806 battles
  • 1,209
  • [-HOW-] -HOW-
  • Member since:
    10-23-2011

View Postkolnidur, on 21 April 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

Another thing to mention is that the tank who shoots loses a lot of base camo, meanwhile the other behind bush haven't. This makes it easier for him to remain unspotted due to the fact that he hasn't shot and therefor hasn't lost any camo at all except for the bushcamo.

 

Seriously, did you even watch the replays I made?

 

You can clearly see that the spotter has to relocate a few metres for the E-75 to fit behind the bush we're using for test purposes. A stationary E-75 will be spotted if it has no camo from bushes or other solid obstacles if the spotter is 211m away and like in the replay is using binoculars.

 

Have you managed to replicate any of the effects you seem so keen on mentioning in this thread? How about any kind of evidence to support those statements?






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users