Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'accuracy'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Calendars

  • World of Warships Events

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 11 results

  1. In the recent “Torplushie” contest: the winner of the most “single battle artillery hits” had 15,608 hits. I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around this, and am curious: Any insights into how this was achieved: ship used, accuracy etc? What’s your highest ever hits scored in a single battle?
  2. Darkshadow86

    CV: HAND OF GOD BUILD

    Good day CV Community! It's your spokesman for all CV things related, and I'm here to bring you a build that is sure to blow any enemy ship out of the water. Do you ever have that feeling, "Dang, it is so hard to hit DD(s) after this CV rework." If that's the case, you're in luck, because I know a build that will cure what ails you. Some of you may have already discovered the build, but for you folk that are new, and still have trouble smack a DD that wants to figure skate in the water, well, then your problems are now solved. As you all know, this is the commander skill, selection board. Here you can select the skills you want for your ship commander. Each skill has a predetermined number of required points needed to make the selected skill active. If you want to make a skill called Engine Techie active, you need for your commander to have 1 skill point available for use. Now, let's get into the fun part of this, the build. Before that, a quick note: If you don't have a commander who has ten available skill points, you can purchase one in the armory for a low quantity of coal(a type of in-game currency). For the sake of making this build more commonly acquirable I'll limit the first section to 10 commander points. Hand of God Build 1 Air Supremacy 6 Torpedo Bomber Swift Fish Improved Engines 3 Sight Stabilization 10 Total Here is what you gain from each individual skill. Air Supremacy -5% aircraft restoration time. Torpedo Bomber -10% torpedo arming distance. Swift Fish +5% to torpedo speed. Improved Engines +2.5% aircraft squadron speed. Sight Stabilization +7.5% aiming speed. The reason you want this build is that it allows for faster targeting speeding, which means less damage you received from flak while you aim or attack the target. The target will get less time to react or turn their hull as you quickly blitz them and deal a heaven's worth a punishment. I was going to make more builds, but I don't know the player average for the number of commander skills points most have, and I wouldn't want to create a build that most people can't obtain. Summarization time: The goal of this Build: Become the enemy that surface ships will fear with your godly accuracy, and the heavy damage you will rain upon them. Pros and Cons: Pros Cons Quick damage Your planes won't be as tanky in comparison to other builds. Your enemies will fear you and hide behind islands all game. Your enemies will fear you and hide behind islands all game. This will greatly raise your average damage dealt per game. You may become overreliant on the quick aiming. (You decide) (You decide) You're playing the best class in-game. Enemies will hate you for existing, knowing you can delete them in a minute. Alright CV Community, I hope this build helps you, and I will happily receive, thoughts, constructive feedback, and any alternations you feel that will truly make this a HAND OF GOD BUILD. Have a wonderful day everyone.
  3. NovaTempest

    So about aiming...

    Just another little thing I wanted to ask about here on the forums, see if anyone knew of anything good to look at or had some advice. Obviously I know (for the most part) how aiming works in ships, I picked up how to lead targets and whatnot, but i've always had a bit of an "Annoying itch" in my aim game... When the target you are aiming at is more than 12 KM away and is traveling in a weird angle from your position. Sometimes I even have trouble landing any shots if they are bow-on or stern-on from 16 km or further out. I say this because I recently obtained the Yamato (first ever tier 10 in ships, and thus i now have at least 1 tier 10 in all three titles). And after the first two battles, which i did 100k+ damage in, I faceplanted on the aim. I will admit this is also half the reason I stalled out on the Iowa, I feel HORRIBLE aiming at super long ranges, because after a certain point the simple "Lead the target" tricks taught to newer players just fall apart. Your target could do a 90 degree turn by the time your shells are halfway there. I would rather do well in such a good ship than make myself seem like an utterly inconsistent dingaling - granted 1/3rd of the time I already am like that. I did setup my Yamato with a stealth build to allow myself to close some distance in this situations, but that has only helped so much. I'd appreciate any resources or advice here, and thanks.
  4. Hello everyone, some of you may have seen this on Reddit but I'd like to bring this home to NA. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1N3J2SIkED_rny9I8tYXrDwhZRkp3jX8eXWw8HnxiLqo/edit?usp=sharing This is a dispersion chart for every ship in the game, at every range. simply find which line your ship falls under in the first row, and the dispersion will listed below. For a quicker comparison, a graph has been added at the bottom. Now i also need help maintaining this for a few reasons Content is always changing and i can't keep up with all of it. (especially the barrage of premiums) Better organization of information. If it can be simplified without sacrificing the integrity of the information it should be done. Adding other content if needed. There's lots of hidden things going on in this game, some are need to know (sigma), others are completely unimportant to know (krupp). Adding that information and organizing it in a meaningful way should be beneficial to everyone. Sadly I cannot Allow everyone to edit this sheet. I should be able to, but past experience has shown that it only takes 1 bady to ruin something for everyone. If you are a CC, Wiki Editor , or ST, you are exempted from this; If you want edit permissions, please PM me so i can get you set up. If you do not have edit permissions, you can still help. If you want to suggest an edit, you can either comment for a change below, or if you go file/make copy you can work from whats already been done and then post your work in the comments. I would recommend asking if what your working on is wanted, or needed before burning your time on something no one asked for. Feel free to use this, or any deviation of it, in your own content.
  5. So, seeing as they lowered (sort of) most of the shop prices, gave me a 30% coupon and I could free up the cash, I bought myself Ark Royal - something great to have especially as the ship that helped sink the Bismark. Which of course I thought meant a bit more care and attention would be paid to it but of course - why we would do that? The lengths to get other ships right, but disregard it for CV's. I just can't understand some of these decisions in balance and history. The Balance - Seriously, what the hell tier are these planes supposed to be? The Skua is tier 5 it seems, as the starter on Furious, but the Swordfish is, for whatever insane reason, the bomber on Hermes. Further adding to this quandary - the HP. You wanna say Hermes uses tier 5's, or Ark Royal uses tier 4's - fine. The Skua is the same at least but the Swordfish has around 300 less HP. On a group level, yes, they have more HP than Furious's, but are slower and even less agile meaning more time in AA, and more hits. On the subject of speed - 100 knots? As it is that can be slow and painful on the tier 4 maps, that are actually close in small maps. 100 knots on maps meant for tier 8 ships - it takes that much longer to get anywhere - and is even more 'fun' when you have tier 8 CV's to deal with as well. 40 lb bombs - So, lets even forget for just a second, that the RP-3 actually had almost double the explosives than these, and that actually even the common shells of USN DD's with the 5/38 guns that we call HE had 1-2 pounds more, with some of the same filling but I'm assuming 'Balance' is why these magically do 500 more damage per hit than those rounds and nearly double the RP-3's - Why are these even back in the game? They were removed from Tier 4 because they are ineffective. So because you added another plane per strike you thought that'd fix the issue? BB's still shrug this off like it's nothing, hell, some of the cruisers this thing sees do. A lower tier battle with tier 5's, some low AA tier 6's - yeah, 7 hits have put a pretty good hurting on a cruiser. The amount of bombs, decent for ensuring at least a hit on a DD, though not what I'd call 'effective' against them. Now if the idea were that this is a cruiser hunting ship - great, I'm all about CV's having something in particular they hunt better - but the key is actually giving it tools to do so regardless of tier. That means planes that can actually withstand tier 8 cruiser AA decently, with somewhat better speed and y'know, bombs that against some of the higher tier cruisers don't shatter against deck plating. The History - I don't really have a way to sort this one because a lot of it loops together. Case in point - The ship, as completed, only had 4 of her 8 barrel cannons, the other 2 were added later - the rough date seems to point to around May 1941 - when she hunted down Bismarck - a fact that I suppose goes with her getting the camo options she does. But here's the problem - the Skua was pretty much pulled from service in 1940, with a handful staying around in early 1941 in places - but by the time of getting those added cannons and going to hunt the Bismarck - she was operating Fulmar's alongside the Swordfish, not Skua's. But if the idea is 1939/40 Ark Royal, well, you have a couple extra guns it shouldn't actually have. And really, taking them away won't hurt as the AA in general is pretty pathetic anyway, I doubt there would be a truly noticeable change. Also, as I said, the Skua was pulled in 1940 - it never saw usage of the RP-3 at all, it wasn't even in actual service at the same time. Now - actually finding accounts of the Fulmar using them, again, seems to have not been a thing but it was operational when they were introduced at least - and the Firefly was basically a modified Fulmar and it did carry them so far less of a stretch. If your team even just wants to copy/paste the firefly and just call it a Fulmar and not edit it/build it from the ground up - I'll even take that at this point. But then there is even what it has. While we finally get the Swordfish as a TB, it is again a level bomber, while the Skua, one of the only real DB's the Royal Navy actually had and used, least that they made themselves, is again a rocket armed plane. Look, if you gave the Skua all those 40 lb bombs yeah, you'd be wrong historically - but your already wrong with the rockets this at least makes it a bomber, better yet if you actually have it being a DB. While the Swordfish did in fact carry rockets and could fill that role. But the bigger sin here is I think missed opportunity. You have SAP shells in development - why not bombs, especially as the Skua was armed with a 500 lb SAP bomb? Doubly so cause that's actually the type IJN used other than HE, especially as the AP bombs you have in game weren't used on DB's they were limited to the TB's and B7A, with the TB's acting as level bombers, jury's out on the B7A. Make it actually unique to the game and as a test bed for something new that can add more flavour options because there are more CV lines we can and should add once we get the rework fixed up more.Maybe it's like Italian SAP rounds, maybe it's like an HE bomb with IFHE, maybe something else - like a British AP shell but with a small fire chance. A (more) historically accurate ship, testing a concept that can be used for others. And it's not like the Fulmar is a high performance plane for the tier, if anything fits around 5 a bit better than 6, especially as the Hurricanes replaced them. And look, I'm not here saying the ships bad, a weak AA cruiser on it's own - it's gonna have a bad time those bombers start hammering it. The 3 TB's are nice, again, when you have targets with not that great AA. It's one of the few CV's that actually feels comfortable because of it's shorter time to replace those losses it takes, still can feel them pretty hard in higher tier fights though. Against tier 5 and some 6 ships, pretty terrifying stuff, against other 6's and 7 and 8's..... not quite as much. But at this point - that's a frustrating 'par for the course' when it comes to tier 6 CV's and well, CV's in general. Against the lower tier ships and some same tier, you may as well be the grim reaper, against higher tier and some same tier, banging your head on things trying to actually damage a ship sometimes taking 10+ minutes of constant attacks to kill it. I'm glad to see it finally added, even if I think it should still be in the tech tree maybe around tier 7 but hey more reason to toss in a "what if it had survived further" version just have to think up a name unless we wanna call the premium version Ark Royal 1939 or 1940 or whatever. While it seems 'fine' short term I have concerns long term, especially cause some AA still needs buffing even if others it see's need a nerf. And while yes, the current NA stats look amazing at under 300 battles, I know part of that is skewed by dropping in 10+ point commanders, and the other is that other than people that got it RNG from a box, maybe some collectors, that most of the people who have it are likely those of us that play CV's a lot, and are actually kinda good at it or better, and can take a ship that has issues but work around them and do well in them making it look better than it really is (though a rocket hit detonating I think it was a Nurnberg from around 70% hp certainly helps too). And that if we ever get to a point where it's not us few specialists or stubborn fools and is actually a class played by a larger group - that it's going to have quite a few issues. @Umbaretz - any insight you can give why these choices were made? Especially some of the history stuff because honestly - it's really starting to get irritating that the new norm is seemingly "Any surface ship, especially premiums, as absolute historical as possible with all the right modules and all" while CV's is "screw it just throw whatever planes on it and screw history and all too even if it's not for gameplay or balance".
  6. I know that "Short range" AA also has an "accuracy" stat but I also know that Flamu is never wrong so I don't know what to think anymore... Somebody in the comments wrote this: ...what development blog?
  7. I, along with several clan members and in game contacts, recently noticed some weirdness going on with Yamato and its accuracy. I'm not really sure how to explain it other than, the ships just not accurate since last patch. I did a test bed by taking yamato into a training room against 12 ships, mix of T10 cruisers and Battleships. I then fired 3x salvos at each target ship, which was set to sit still, from 17km, 12km, then 8km. I equipped the yamato with aiming systems mod 1, and the legendary modification. In the training session, i boated to the broadside of all targets to ensure optimal hitting chances and aimed at the citadel for each target. I did this in two sessions to see an average. The results were concerning... The first game I ended up firing all three guns, generating 297 shots 197 were hits. Before the session of 20mins ended. I achieved 550k damage...but achieved only 15x citadels. Second session I fired 300x shots, 210 hits. 16x citadels were achieved. 520K damage was achieved. I then switched the battleship to the Montana, with aiming systems mod 1, and its legendary mod. Also, for a better 1-1 comparison, I only fired 3x main guns to mimic the yamato's 3x main guns. I generated 209 shots, 115 hits, and produced 15x citadels. The session ended abruptly in 15mins since I outright obliterated enough bbs and cruisers to drop the enemy bots team points to zero. In a second session with montana, I fired 180 shots. 17x citadels. Again, the session ended abruptly, this time at 13mins. I took a little longer to get in position this time around, and make sure only to fire 3x main guns. This is where im concerned... the yammy is suppose to be "the most accurate" with a "higher chance to citadel". At least this is what's touted. Before the rework, id totally agree. If you had the aim, you could produce reliable citadels. Post rework patch, it definitely doesn't appear as reliable in my testing. I mean... the montana seems to hit the mark (citadel) much more reliably, and it doesn't even have the same levels of accuracy as the yamato. Again... im not the only one noticing this. Are we just coo-coo for cocoa puffs here, or has yammy's accuracy been nerfed? Or is this just a fluke and everything is normal? Can someone explain why this might he happening? We just want confirmation as to whether we are or are not crazy here regarding this topic.
  8. Okay, compared to the overall massive balance issues, this is minor. But it is seriously annoying that with the focus shifted to planes as if they were our ships, that there are details about placement and all that are just completely botched and I can't fathom a reason why. For Starters "Lexington" and it's planes - Wargaming mounting of HVAR rockets - The worst part being if you look - the actual mount for the rocket is there on the wings. Which is where an HVAR rocket should be mounted. That is the proper instillation of HVAR's here. Then you have the SB2C DB's - I haven't gotten quite a good enough shot to confirm they are in fact 1000 lb M-65 GP bombs - but that part is somewhat irrelevant because the SB2C wing hardpoints for bombs were rated only for 500 lb bombs, the 1000 lb bombs would have been carried in the internal bay. And for the guy who wants to say "But Tiny Tim's weigh more and were carried like that" It used a different mount, and the weight distribution is different. Actually surprised the Corsairs with Tiny Tim's are actually right. Seeing the count of rockets on the F4U at tier 9 - already know it's wrong simply on count, and I'd take a guess that the 2 center mounts are used like above. But then we have this - the F8F Not the greatest shot I know - but the obvious center mount rocket is obvious unlike the extra rocket jammed on to the port wing more or less clipping with the inboard most rocket. Forgoing the fact the F8F was limited to 4, and there are plenty of aircraft options in the attack role that could carry 10 and that applies even to the F4U at 9, hell, the AD-1 you already have at 9 has the hard points for it, you haphazardly jammed 1 in and the other is mounted wrong - really, really wrong. Personally I say remove it for a plane that could carry that many or change the distribution of rockets and aircraft to match, but could you not at least go with a more believable and logical 5 per wing? No picture at the moment, brought it up elsewhere - Saipan's Tiny Tim's - the center mounting is wrong, didn't carry 3, just go to 3 planes with 2 rockets - it's fair on Lexatoga, and I will gladly trade the extra 3x2 for 2x3 as a Saipan owner. Granted at this point I don't think 3x3 would really put it over the top either cause it's not exactly stellar and still just puts it on par with Lex and still the same number of rockets. Also no picture at the moment but unless something changed - IJN torpedoes have the wrong stabilizer for single engine planes. The Box Type in this link is what was used for single engine planes - like the B5N. Those are the immediate glaring ones that have really kinda bothered me as it is from the start (The Lexington ones kinda put me over as I decided to take the Halloween camo off finally after wondering why I could only see 3 rockets per wing), aside from other certain ones pertaining to Kaga's uptiering. Something that would be a nice touch though would actually to also have right squadron markings, or closer, tied to the ships and planes. Especially if say we added a couple of the Essex classes, the other Yorktowns, etc. In Lexington by which I mean Saratoga's case while she never had Corsairs, These were the markings for the F6F fighters Saratoga had in February 1945. The current marking are, somewhat ironically given I'm the guy who's suggested it as a premium without them, the markings of F4U's of USS Shangri-La. You wanna focus this game play around the planes - fine. But then at the very least as much care and detail should be applied to their appearance and all as any ship in the game because especially with the longer flight times were going to be spending a lot of time looking at them. And while I'm sure say a Colorado player would appreciate the extra barrel per turret in terms of damage increase would be distracted and possibly annoyed by it being mounted on the roof of the turret if they weren't going after it cause history. This is arguably my biggest gripe with the rework - the seeming lack of care about CV's, their history, and details like any of the other 3 classes. Removing odd tiers, Kaga, and some of these feel like forcing ships to fit something easy for you guys, screw history and all that.
  9. Essentially, the title. I've been thinking about going back to using Aiming Systems Mod 1, but I'm not sure if it's the right call. On one hand, I've found that Aiming Systems Mod 1 makes my main guns substantially more accurate at ranges beyond my secondaries, and my highest damage game in the Bismarck to date came with it equipped. On the other hand, the German BBs are all about those secondaries: If the Space Battles taught me anything, it's that the GK's secondaries are literally perfect. I'm just not sure if it's the right move. Thanks in advance to anyone who responds.
  10. Quick question. I know that all ships have a fixed sigma rating, dispersion cone size when it comes to fire accuracy. However, does doing evasive manoeuvre while firing affect my fire accuracy?
  11. Occasionally when browsing threads, you come accross statements about how far apart a ship's turrets are spaced influences accuracy (particularly where it concerns Hood). It got me wondering: How much does turret distance influence accuracy? At what ranges is it relevant? Keep reading, and we'll find out. Be aware, there will be a fair bit of math involved. To start out, it's important to state the obvious: Each shell from each gun in each turret has its own individually calculated trajectory using the dispersion formula WG uses. This means that every shell from every gun on your ship has the same potential dispersion pattern centered on the same aim point, but the dispersion patterns don't fully overlap. They are each at the angle of each gun relative to the target. We'll illustrate this using this poor sketch (don't worry, I have better quality stuff later): As we can see, the closer the angle of origin, the more overlap of the individual gun dispersion ellipses-ie, better dispersion/less are to disperse to. You might also notice a few other things; 1. the drawing has a very close target, and 2. it also influences the angle a shell will hit an enemy at, which can determine a bounce or shatter. This will be the focus of our little investigation. We'll use 3 ships: Hood, Colorado, and Nelson for our case studies, as they represent 3 types of turret arrangement: Long, Stubby, and Clustered. We'll start with Hood. To determine the change in dispersion patterns and angle, we must first find that angle. To do this, we must first determine what scale the ships and distances in WOWS are relative to each other. We know the ships in WOWS are bigger so that they can be hit more realiably, but how much bigger? We also know that the ships are relatively accurately modeled in relation to each other. For this we need a top down view-an aircraft carrier. I used Kaga: We know that distance is calculated from the center of a ship, so the distance to the planes (4.7km) is approximately 9.5 Kagas (possibly a little more at 9.7). We know that Kaga is 782 ft, or around 238 m in length. We divide 4700 m by 9.5 to find the length in game: 495m; by 9.7 we get 482m. This is roughly double the lenght of historical Kaga. Therefore we can say Kaga is twice as big in game as in real life. Let's now apply this to HMS Hood to find the distance between the foremost and aftmost turret: If you use the scale provided, we find this distance to be around 500 ft. In game this becomes 1000 ft, or 300 m due to the ships being twice the size. Now we can solve for the angles by using the quadratic equation and arcsin. Let's select a target dead perpendicular to the ship perfectly centered between the fore and aft turrets. We'll also only solve for the outside (relative to the center of the ship) gun of each turret; we're interested in maximum effect, after all. Let's chose a target 4km away. Now we have a triangle: We need to solve for two things to determine our angle: h (the hypotenuse) and θ, our angle. The total difference between the turrets will be 2*θ. We find h using the quadratic equasion of a^2+b^2=c^2, where h=c and b=150m so that 4000^2+150^2=h^2. Therefore h^2=16,022,500m^2 or h=4002.8m. Now we solve for θ. sinθ = opposite/hypotenuse, or sinθ = 150/4002.8. Therefore arcsin(150/4002.8)= θ. θ therefore is equal to approximately 2.15 degrees. 2*θ=4.29 degrees. We can use this same equasion for all ranges, so I plugged it into an spreadsheet: Here we see that the angle is quite large at close range, but is around 2 degrees or below at ranges exceeding 8km. How about Colorado and Nelson? How does Hood stack up? Colorado has a distance between turrets of about 330 ft, or 100 m; Nelson 50 m. If we plug this into our spreadsheet, we get the following: As can be seen, at close ranges, Nelson has a notable advantage in both dispersion and unified angles. However, the difference between Colorado and Hood outside 7km is less than 1 degree, and outside 11km, the difference between Nelson and Hood is also less than 1 degree. Besides bounce angles, what does this mean? Well, I've compiled a chart of identical dispersion patterns offset by several of the degrees we came up with in our spreadsheet: As can be seen, anything below 2 degrees is practically meaningless, but it is noticable at greater than 5 degrees. Our conclusion then is that outside of brawling ranges, there is no relevant difference, though one does exist. How is this applicable in game? Well, there are some tricks. You remember how for the sake of simplicity, our ship was entirely broadside? If you angle to 60 degrees (ie, bounce angles) to the enemy ship, this decreases the relative distance between your guns by half, and therefore that angle by half. Simple trigonometry: The other thing is that widely spaced guns can be an advantage or disadvantage in certain situations. Yup, it's a mixed bag. It can be the difference between a bounce or a penetration on an enemy ship. Have two last terrible sketches to illustrate: Increasing the angle may mean some guns pen that would otherwise bounce. The inverse is also true. This is not to say you should go broadside when brawling-unless you're on the enemy team. TLDR: Distance between guns is irrelevant in most situations concerning bounce angles and dispersion, but when at close range, closely spaced guns offer a noticable advantage. This advantage can be halved/doubled by simply angling to bounce angles. At usual engagement ranges, however, it's a non issue, so stop arguing that Hood has a massive disadvantage in dispersion and bounce angles due to length.
×