Nobody Knows About this Hidden Mechanic in World of Tanks

[@Kaleopan]

I think what you tried to reverse engineer here seems to be the ratio of vehicle camo to vehicle camo after firing the game tells you about. Given your example of the stock bat chat 25t (90mm): 16.87 stationary camo, 4.02 camo while firing. 4.02/16.87= 0.2383 = 23.83% camo retention. Apply the same camo retention ratio on a bush: 0.2383 * 0.5 = 0.1192 = 11.92% camo left on bush after firing. Gets pretty close to your numbers on other tanks/guns too. So your findings suggest that bushes use the same camo retention formula as the tank thats sitting in it (or the same retention ratio is just applied to both tank camo and bush camo). The game only displays integer numbers for distance between tanks, so there will always be a bit of inaccuracy when testing it on a map. To confirm these findings i'd suggest re-testing it with K-91, Obj.140 and TVP T 50/51 as all of the have 100mm guns but the TVP seems to have a slightly higher retention ratio. (20.9% on TVP vs. 19.85% on K-91/Obj.140) Or you should see a difference on the Luchs depending which 50mm gun you are using.

[@darkninja___]

I will recalculate all the values to see if you are correct. It would make sense as the fv 4005 has around 1/9 the camo while firing and I got around 5%. If you are right which I think you might be then gun caliber is probably a correlate and not the causative variable, but since the camo after firing depends on caliber I bet then it still is technically an accurate predictor. I’ll get back to you on it.

[@Kaleopan]

@@darkninja___ Thanks for investigating. From my calculation the stock FV4005 should retain 0.16/1.37=0.1168=11.68% of camo or 0.1168*0.5=0.058=5.8%. If this is true, the camo retention could be on a per-gun basis as i've already seen guns of the same caliber having different "camo after firing" ratios like the two 88mm (8,8cm) guns on the Tiger (P) with some guns of the same caliber sharing the same value by coincidence. For the 88mm Tiger (P) guns, the shorter gun has the better camo retention after firing. Don't know if it's the lenght of a gun that further modifies it. Shell velocity is unlikely as firing slow HE would affect your camo then.

[@darkninja___]

@@Kaleopan woops calculated it wrong. Lemme compare experiemntal values with predicted values from the caliber equation and the predicted values from the rf value

[@Kaleopan]

@@darkninja___ ​ @DarkNinja Yea i saw that. Full camo FV4005 is 2.77/24.26=0.1142=11.42% or half of that (5.7%) for 50% bush which matches the stock 11.68%/5.8% almost perfectly, maybe a bit of inaccuracy because only 2 decimals are being displayed ingame and on tanksgg.

[@darkninja___]

I will link you the tables im making. Unless we can find a tank with the same caliber gun and a large enough difference in RF value then i cant really test it accurately enough. A 1% camo difference (due to the bush) is about 3 or 4 meters and 0.5% is 1.5-2 meters difference in spotting range so I could not fully trust the results. The difference between rf predicted values and caliber predicted values would need to be calculated then some statistics that I forgot how to do needs to be done to determine which is better. But just looking at it it looks like ur predictor is slightly better but only by a small amount and its a tossup because the experimental values are not perfect in the first place. I would pin your comment but if u look at the pinned one now you will probably understand why I can’t.

[@Haglar6]

Again groundbreaking research from the CRAKD science department

[@ramrod9556]

Hats off to you for all the testing. According to Wot Wiki the gun on each tank has it's own " camo at shot " value, even if it's the same gun. It would be extremely hard to figure the exact camo just by testing. For example the AMX 13 105 and the Panhard EBR 105 both use the same gun, the 105mm D.1504. The difference is the autoloader mechanism, not the gun itself. With both stone stock with 100% crews, the AMX loses about 14.5% camo upon firing while the EBR lose about 17% when fired. You can find differences on Russian meds that use the same gun too. Wargaming uses it as a balancing tool, like many other "hidden" stats like ground resistance that players need to look up on their own. Doing videos like this makes many of realize there is much to learn in this game and we greatly appreciate what you do for us. o7

[@grogggx1057]

I am just discover your channel. I am nearly to pass an exam in english so it's perfect to improve my english and learn some news skills. Nice job for this one and this contents for some other vids. Don't stop, keep going :)

[@darkninja___]

I did not realize until after uploading that my cam blocked part of the table. Apologies. It can be seen in the link in the description as mentioned in the video. Also P.S. you can watch at 1.25/1.5 x speed if my talking is too slow.

[@darkninja___]

50b = 120 mm Is7 = 130 mm BZ 176 = 160 mm JP e100 = 170 mm FV 4005 = 183 mm T92 = 240 mm

[@shifterrex7875]

Great video. I’ve always had a couple times a week where I’m in a bush and fired at like 380 meters away and not got lit and was confused why not. Well now I know lol. Funny thing is Wargaming says in its official videos that you get zero camo…

[@Subskyz]

Crakd myth buster team out here doing the most elaborate experiments to help me farm more damage what a GOAT

[@imperialscout5566]

I heard something like this a long time ago. Something along the lines of smaller calibers, more camo retained in the bush after firing.

[@jakreu]

You and your friends who helped you are absolute geniuses. Thank you for making this video. One of the best WOT content videos I have ever seen.

[@justdoingitjim7095]

I found out about the caliber correlation to camo with my AMX ELC. I noticed that when I replaced the big gun with the smaller gun my camo percentage rating went up. Also I could fire from bushes without double bushing and not get spotted, where previously with the larger gun I would be spotted. I didn't think it was significant enough to tell anyone, because I thought everyone else just already knew this.

[@David-ce1nh]

The determining factor is not the actual Bush density. It's how much camo you have on your tank and distance you are away.

[@darkninja___]

It is the camo you have on your tank plus the camo you have from bushes I think.

[@David-ce1nh]

@@darkninja___ true

[@Andres-jg2ws]

So you saying i should play the SQonq with binos to spot the ebr? Not even QB was so peculiar . Nice video.

[@darkninja___]

Yes

[@Duke49th]

First the reticle size thing. Now this. What's next? Great video. Playing since January 2012 and still always something new.

[@peterashton7522]

This is great stuff. Thanks. I've been mounting the 90mm gun on my American turreted TDs but I might get less punch but more stealth ( along with the much higher ROF) from the 76mm. Interesting.

[@Volccis]

I haven't played World of Tanks for a long time (except tried few matches this year), but back in 2013 you were able to spot an opponent when you were inside a bush and then just reverse like 20-30 meters. When you were completely behind a bush and you had certain amount of camouflage, like TD's have, you were able to fire without getting spotted. It was so much fun to hide inside a bush with Obj704 and do this. People were confused :P Does that still work or have they reworked camouflage/spotting system?

[@darkninja___]

Yeah it still works. People call it “double bushing”. Its when u drive in the bush, spot them, then pull behind 15 or more meters and when it becames no long transparent you can fire without getting lit most of the time.

[@robertmacfarlane8176]

Nice video. I've noticed through play that I am not often spotted while shooting from a bush as you described in your video. Now I know why. Thanks.

[@robertmacfarlane8176]

Oh, the Maus. A really long time ago on a map which is no longer in play, I watched a Maus disappear behind a bush which the Maus dwarfed. The bush didn't even cover the first few feet of the tank. Yet it disappeared. I wrote a ticketed and the response was pretty stupid. The size of the bush didn't matter....I think that was fixed as I've not seen any tank disapear behind a small bush.

[@darkninja___]

@@robertmacfarlane8176 yeah they fixed a bunch of bush models a while ago

[@cloud9847]

gotta come make sure and give a like and comment on youtube, not just the forum.

[@mikespark72]

Love it! Thanks for this beautiful explainer!

[@Skerrry]

Are there still bushes in the game that provide a camo value that is not 25% or 50%? I'm thinking of an old website called WOTINFO that lists a whole host of different values for different bushes. WG's "Explaining mechanics" videos only mention the values 25% and 50% but they also imply that bushes lose all of their camo when firing within 15m of them so are the videos incorrect about the camo values too?

[@darkninja___]

It would be worth testing more bushes to see but all the ones we tested (probably 10 bushes across 3 maps) were all 25 or 50%. I know what website you are talking about but idk if wg changed the bush values or not at some point.

[@strongsick2866]

Wow nice work the old me would of eaten this info up but its still interesting and good to know .

[@YAPGodPringLe]

Dark ninja out here busting the WG wiki myths

[@jeffreyleatherman334]

so if im understanding you correctly. No matter if you have camo on the tank or not it does not make a difference in a bush or no bush what your camo rating is. Even though they say you get like a 3% bonus for buying the camo and putting it on your tank ? That means i wasted a shit ton of gold and credits and real money buying camo for all 276 tanks i own in my garage. War gaming got some splaining to do !!!!!

[@darkninja___]

The 3% helps you outside the bush at least

[@darkninja___]

It helps you both in and out of the bush but in this video Im just talking about the camo you get from bushes. Camo paint counts as the tank’s camo which still contributes to your total camo value.

[@jeffreyleatherman334]

@@darkninja___ oh got ya. I was thinking i always remember it saying it gives you like a 3% camo value. But i see people with camo just on the hull. I take it that its not necessary to have camo on the full tank to get the extra 3%

[@darkninja___]

@@jeffreyleatherman334 Yes only the hull

[@GamVino_WoT.1]

a very very worthwhile 6 hours of your time to research this .. thanks Dark

[@quentinw9951]

Excellent job!

[@craterbait9302]

Thank you for taking the time to provide this info. Epic as always!

[@eroticgrimreaper1086]

Actually some cool stuff mate thanks for the video 👌🏻

[@Hal-uz4nl]

thanks, your time is appreciated.

[@Uberrandom]

This is good shit, knowledge is power

[@jelee01]

Gr8 stuff guys!

[@eziodeldegan414]

if this is true what other mechanics are also wrong? wargaming needs to update its info

[@Iksta]

The concept of bushes still providing concealment but at a reduced value when firing + the calibre affecting the amount your concealment covers was mentioned in their old concealment video - kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJiodmqCbM-LrKsfeature=shared&t=413

[@darkninja___]

I checked the timestamp and I don’t see where they mention that. They mention you lose camo when firing and that it depends on your caliber, yes, but nothing about retaining camo from the bush when firing in a bush. In fact, in their next camo video part 2 they say the exact opposite. I will link you the timestamp but they say “All flora in a 15 meter radius around a firing vehicle becomes transparent, and doesn’t provide any bonus to concealment”. That is a factually incorrect statement as I show in the video.

[@darkninja___]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pou5iKB-hruojKssi=673l3EuYxD1pDx_n&t=322

[@Iksta]

@@darkninja___ hmm valid, surprised they didn't touch on that. I always defaulted to assuming if the caliber size makes a difference, it would be to all aspects where concealment values drop. Nice vid anyways, looking forward to seeing how your content style develops

[@darkninja___]

​@@Iksta thanks. My guess is they didn't know it existed otherwise they would not have claimed that all the bushes provide no camo. That is too decietful of a claim to be attributed to them trying to simplify the mechanics for viewer understanding in my opinion. Out of ~10 very good players I asked when researching the vid only 1 claimed to know about it and that person didn't know the details (and they are kind of an arrogant person so Im not sure they were telling the truth). But either way what I would like to see is the wiki updated to reflect this information. It is really out of date. Also, this video is technically incorrect as I've learned more since making it. It is true that camo from the bush correlates highly with gun caliber but the actual value they use is not that. The value they use is the ratio between a tank's stationary/moving firing camo vs its stationary/moving camo while not firing. For example, a stock strv with nothing on it has a stationary camo while firing of 4.81 and stationary camo of 23.03. If you do 4.81/23.03 and multiply it by 0.5 (50% base camo from a bush) you will calculate that a 50% bush gives 10.4% camo extra when you are firing. Add this value to your base camo after firing which I mentioned before to get the final answer of total camo. This matches up perfectly with testing. I will probably make an update video regarding this and how I managed to test it. The caliber equation works fine but this one is perfectly accurate as far as I can tell which fellow nerds might appreciate.

[@Iksta]

@@darkninja___ honestly after working for them, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a translation error or miscommunication that nobody picked up on.

[@captainnapalm6081]

very nice to know ty

[@hallesberries7813]

good stuff!!

[@DustinSilva]

Interested to see what you've found for us!!

[@carneasadaburrito]

This was a ridiculous amount of work to confirm that a tanks 'camo when firing' values correlate to the gun caliber. May the wiki burn in hell lol.

[@wotanodyn4014]

Interesting

[@martyparty231]

wargaming watching this video: 🤯

[@zp2682]

interesting

[@jeffreyleatherman334]

Boy you guys must have been really bord out of your mind to make this video. But thanks nice info.

[@darkninja___]

I was so stimulated by this conundrum that i committed 6+ hours into testing it. WoT is truly an intruiging and mentally captivating game.

[@jeff1563]

@@darkninja___ don’t get me wrong it was great info I’m just saying must have been a lot of work and testing to get the final results. So I know it was probably a lot of doing the same thing over and over that’s what I meant as in you had to have been bord out of your mind. Guess I should have worded it differently. I loved the video.

[@darkninja___]

@@jeff1563 Nah I understood you, just making a joke