Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'dispersion'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • 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

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 18 results

  1. So one aspect of the latest dev blog I wanted to highlight is the fact that all ships will now have their -4% dispersion increase for attackers removed entirely no matter the camo while the -3% detection range will become baked in. Quote: In order to make camouflages an exclusively visual customization, their combat bonuses are also separated from them. The 3% detectability range by sea bonus previously present on all camouflages is now built into the default parameters of all ships. The 4% increase of dispersions of shells fired by enemies attacking your ship will be entirely removed; The latter is obviously a good thing, but the former makes me wonder since I recall what a massive impact Deadeyes' 10% had one the game. Will Italian BBs actually hit something now and will Yamato become the equivalent of an orbital laser? Discuss away!
  2. LittleWhiteMouse

    Secondary Dispersion List

    I've been combing through data-mine resources for my Agincourt review, specifically looking at secondary accuracy (secondaries are an important feature on Agincourt). While doing so, I started cataloguing and doing the math for secondary horizontal dispersion. It was pretty eye opening. To date, I've found seven distinct dispersion types. This is by no means an exhaustive list but it should provide players with an idea of how "good" their secondary guns are on any given ship in the game. See below for an explanation on each category. Standard FORMULA: { [ (Range in km) x 57 ] + 30 } Includes most secondaries in the game barring the ones listed below. Soviet 130mm BL109A FORMULA: { [ (Range in km) x 49 ] + 30 } The secondaries on the tier X Soviet battleships and cruisers have slightly reduced dispersion. This includes Moskva, Petropavlovsk, Stalingrad, Kremlin and Slava German Battleships FORMULA: { [ (Range in km) x 45 ] + 30 } German battleships received a buff with the commander skill rework. It includes the following ships: German tech tree battleships at tier VII+ The premiums Prinz Eitel Friedrich, Scharnhorst, Scharnhorst B, Tirpitz, Tirpitz B, Odin and Pommern Accurate FORMULA: { [ (Range in km) x 33 ] + 30 } Long associated with Massachusetts, this dispersion type has existed for a while and is present on a long list of ships. German tech tree aircraft carriers. The premium & reward ships: Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Massachusetts B, Georgia, Ohio, Agincourt and Max Immelmann The casemate mounts (only!) of Iron Duke, Warspite, Mutsu, Nagato, Ashitaka, Hyuga, Amagi, Kii, Ignis Purgatio and Ragnarok Exceptions There are a handful of exceptions out there. In increasing order of accuracy they are: FORMULA: { [ (Range in km) x 27 ] + 30 } - Wichita's and Florida's 127mm/38 Mod 30 mounts specifically, not any of the others. FORMULA: { [ (Range in km) x 12 ] + 30 } - Pensacola FORMULA: { [ (Range in km) x 8.4 ] + 48 } - Graf Zeppelin & Arkansas Beta. Note this is the same horizontal dispersion calculation for "battlecruiser" main battery guns, like Graf Spee, Thunderer and Georgia. Depending on how much of a keener I'm being, I may add to this list as I find more. If there's a specific ship you think should be on here, give me a shout. I'll take a look.
  3. The Upgrade "Secondary Battery Modification 1" gives "-20% Maximum dispersion of secondary battery shells" -- but I fail to see anywhere, including on the Wiki and in the API where secondary dispersion is mentioned, let alone listed. Also, the Commander skill "Manual Fire Control for Secondary Armament" lists "Maximum dispersion of shells for the secondary armament of Tier A-B ships: -15% or -60%". Wargaming: how can this stat for the upgrade be applied if there's nothing to apply it to? Either the stats is not being applied to anything and it's meaningless, or you've forgotten to show that stat in the game (ship inspector -> Artillery -> Secondary Armament / Secondary battery), on the Wiki (eg <https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Arkansas_Beta> -> Arkansas Beta (right panel) -> Secondary Armament #1, and in the API (same as the Wiki, because this is where you're pulling the Wiki data from). You do list the dispersion for the Main Battery (again, for the AB: "Maximum Dispersion: 203 m.") - so... what's going on here?
  4. Admittedly it had been a while since I played a number of my BBs and cruisers. But today I just kept seeing the same thing and had to ask. When firing my German BB guns (Tirpitz, Odin) I could not help but notice the dispersion of the shells fired. Imagine holding your hand straight out, your fingers extended but side by side. Your fingers represent the shells being fired. Now spread your fingers out on a horizontal line, as far apart as you can. That's what the dispersion on my main batteries looked like today. Absolutely bonkers. Of course, it could be bad memories so I thought it best to ask. I don't remember it ever being that bad. You? tiafyc
  5. The idea that being spotted by one opponent means the rest have targeting-quality info, even from radar, is ridiculous. Particularly in smoke or from hydro. Other opponents should get lower quality information, at least a 15% additional dispersion of fire from non-spotting ships.
  6. The 'Customer Service' here, is minimal at best. A rep once told me its 'Computer Magic' and she couldn't explain it. Oh bother: Among other jobs within a iT department I was a computer programmer and analyst for over 30 years. No such thing as magic sweet-thing. Back to X's and O's. Algorithm's and its artificial 'AI' is it, and its controlled, all by humans. Nuff said. My issue (aah finally getting to it): is the lack of understanding on my part to their accuracy formula of the main guns. Say you have two (2) tier 8 battleships; a T8 KII (Japanese) and a T8 N. Carolina (USA) Specification: NC; 701m/s shell speed - KII; 806m/s -- dispersion NC: 330 max dispersion, KII: 208 max dispersion. Shell size is: NC-406mm the KII is 410mm. This should be the most important spec's in gun accuracy, right? By far the KII gun spec's are better. They are: bigger, faster, with far better dispersion, but in reality the T8 N.Carolina guns are better. Just talkin' accuracy here. Why is that I might ask! The wows stat's charts proves the KII is worse and my experience cry's out the same anguish. In my last random match with the KII was typically horrible. 60 main guns fired (short match, we won) and a single 4128 damage hit. Firing at long range 17k or longer the dispersion was normal high,low,left.right but the KII is actually far worse the N.Carolina, is simply better: how is this possible? Signed, Perplexed
  7. I recently got Erich Loewenhardt and I've played a few games with it. So far it is a fun CV to play, I don't have enough battles with her to give an overall impression. At any rate, I was curious & decided to test E. Loewenhardt's secondaries vs. her tech-tree counterpart, the Weser. Both have 5 x 2 105mm guns, but E. Loewenhardt has additional 8 x 2 150's in the hull, 4 turrets on each side. The test is as follows: both ships are taken into a training battle vs. a stationary Fuso bot. Both Weser & Loewenhardt have the secondary battery ship module, with a secondary signal mounted. I used my Graf Zeppelin captain, who has BFT, & AFT. Both ships secondaries reach 7.6 km fully spec'd. The carrier was approx. 7km away from the Fuso for each test & all secondary guns were able to fire on target. A timer was started when the secondaries began firing & stopped when the Fuso was sank. Each test was repeated 3 times for both Weser & Loewenhardt (6 tests total), to get an average of three. Here are the results: WESER vs. FUSO (Averages): Secondary Battery: Hits - 223.6 Shots fired - 1,037.3 Damage - 16,641.3 Fires: 4.3 Damage Caused by Fire: 40,458.6 Time to Sink: 5 min. 11.3 sec. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ERICH LOEWENHARDT vs. FUSO (Averages): Secondary Battery: Hits - 147.3 Shots fired - 1,082.6 Damage - 14,517.3 Fires: 4.6 Damage Caused by Fire: 42,582.6 Time to Sink: 4 min. 2.6 sec. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For every 4-5 shots fired by Weser, 1 would hit the target. (4.63) For every 7-8 shots fired by E. Loewenhardt, 1 would hit the target. (7.35) Based on the data & observations from the testing, E. Loewenhardt does not have the improved secondary dispersion & accuracy that Weser & the tech tree German CVs have. It seems to have standard secondary dispersion patterns, like other nation's CVs have. However, Loewenhardt was able to sink the Fuso quicker than Weser. Weser relies on her 5 x 2 105's, which pen 26mm by default. Loewenhardt's additional 150's can pen 38mm of armor. Fuso's central deck armor is 36mm, while her bow, stern & side plating are all 26mm (not including her side casemate armor, which is 152mm). Weser could only pen Fuso's superstructure, side plating, bow & stern, whereas Loewenhardt's additional 150's could pen all that plus the deck armor. So, in conclusion, E. Loewenhardt doesn't have the improved secondary dispersion the tech-tree German CVs get, but having the additional 150's makes up for the accuracy difference. I believe this test would go a lot differently vs. a smaller cruiser or destroyer instead of a Fuso, Weser might win in those cases. Any comments or questions are welcome! - FairWindsFollowingSeas [NA]
  8. I decided to check the dispersion formula for the new line of Soviet ships, and to my surprise Tallinn has different dispersion formula compared to the other cruisers. Riga and Petropavlovsk use the same dispersion formula as Azuma and Yoshino (IJN large cruisers). Tallinn has worse dispersion than those 2, getting closer to Alaska's dispersion at max range. Riga and Petro's dispersion formula is: R x 9.5 + 15 While Tallinn's dispersion formula I found is: R x 9.3 + 26 Resulting in the following graphs: https://imgur.com/gallery/RWrBWlT I included the destroyer formula because all japanese heavy cruisers use it. Kronshtadt and Puerto Rico uses the American/British/German BB dispersion formula that, while it is not there, have even bigger dispersion than the other large cruisers. Between 10 and 15 km (the new line's "optimal" range), Tallinn has 10% more dispersion than the other members of the line, and 20% more dispersion than all other cruisers. Would like to ask if this is intentional, or if there is something off about it @LittleWhiteMouse and @Lert PS. Mikoyan (Tier 5 premium cruiser) seems to use the same dispersion, but I can't adjust it to give me a clean graph. That would explain the wonky dispersion pattern Mouse found in her review.
  9. 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.
  10. monpetitloup

    0 damage pens need to go

    enough with the nonsense WG, 0 damage pens need to be eliminated. if you pen the ship damage needs to be done. you yourselves admit to wanting faster matches and shorter wait times. eliminating zero damage pens accomplishes both. one of the most annoying parts of this game is the rng component. the fact that your rounds fall nowhere near where you intend them to is ridiculous. the auto aim component exemplifies this. if i aim at a certain point, the fact that i am "locke on" to a a target should have no influence on the behavior of shell dispersion. its not that difficult to understand. that plus the fact your ui is like watching pong yet you decide to "revamp" cvs is not in your long term benefit. in any event, enough with the shell hits for no damage: FIX IT ALREADY!
  11. Played my tier six New Mexico as a low tier ship in a 4 CV battle (the new norm!) on the NORTH map. Started on southern side of C. Advanced to the island just south of the cap on the west side. Moved slightly forward and back protected from direct torps by a tiny sandbar. Had forward guns keeping a Chappy, Duke of York, and Bismarck from coming forward. We won...and I got both Dreadnought and Fireproof achievements. I was in that position for probably 7 min of the match. Both the Bismarck and Duke of York made broadside transits north of the cap firing on me from 12km or so. I was thinking....you all are gonna pay for this...then watched as my shot pattern from my six guns went absolutely wild....the width of pattern used by the 6 shells was at least 33 degrees. No shell went straight...though two center ones each diverged only 6 degrees or so. I thought I had noticed this last night playing games...but this time..sitting in one position....firing straight on...it was plain as day. My question is this just the random number generator for shots fired givin me the "random" you aren't gonna hit them no matter what you do....or is the dispersion of the shells greater because I was facing ships two tier higher? My other guess is that flags that are dispersion related helped them...but I could find no flags, camo, or upgrades that would account for that wide a dispersion. I have also watched alot of Twitter streams in last several months for BB play ....trying to improve at the ship type I have the most problems with. I particularly watched the shell patterns...trying to understand why different ships are better at certain distances. I never once saw the dispersion pattern I was getting repeatedly...weird. No one from the clan is on tonight.....thought I might see what forum readers had to say. Thanks in advance for helpful comments.
  12. Hello friends, I recently got the iowa after a long grind, and the first thing I did was install the artillery plotting room 2 modules for that -11% bonus. However playing it in the past few games has been anything but accurate. I constantly struggle to get past 40k damage on average for a game with this ship. First I thought I was just bad, but I do very well with cruisers and even when I took out the New Mexico again for a spin. I've seen videos from Noster, etc. on youtube playing with the Iowa and their shot groupings are very tight, however when I shoot most of the time my shots end up all over the place. I try to limit my engagement range between 13 to 16km so I should not be having these problems. Did something change in recent updates, why is the Iowa so bad?
  13. survivingscout

    Roma Balance Discussion

    Does anyone else feel that the Roma is lacking? I have most of (if not all) the available t8 battleships at the moment. (Massachusetts, Roma, Kii, Alabama, Tirpitz, and Gascogne) The Roma in particular feels extremely inaccurate. The shotgun feeling is even worse than the germans, with no hydro or worthwhile secondaries to account for. The Roma has a great 227m maximum dispersion with the aiming systems mod 1 installed, and yet, every shot is like rolling the dice. On top of this, Roma's shells have a very high chance to overpen, even on broadside battleships like Amagis. Either one of these issues would keep Roma from being overpowered as a gun platform, but together, they make the ship unpleasant to play due to the high inconsistency of the guns. Every other t8 battleship feels more accurate, even the Tirpitz with its German dispersion. Can we please try to improve the Roma's main battery accuracy to make it competitive with other t8 premium battleships? Leaving the high chance to overpen as a national flavor would be a fair compromise in my opinion. Link to a few of many posts on Reddit on this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/90lxws/roma_needs_a_rework https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/7ryag6/roma_is_a_frustrating_experience https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/8wxvm2/massachusetts_vs_roma_main_battery_guns
  14. BlackDragonOfApocalypse

    Dispersión de proyectiles

    Hola amigos del foro. Llevo un rato jugando por aquí, es agradable por ahora.. Bueno iré directo al grano, tengo una duda: Cada barco tiene una mejora en el sistema de artillería (La imagen corresponder al acorazado Myogi) Pero al comprar esta habilidad note que en todos los casos (barcos) se tiene un aumento de dispersión en los proyectiles, entonces.. ¿vale el riesgo investigar y comprar estas habilidades?. Lo pregunto porque he visto la dispersión de los cañones (en especial los acorazados japon y frances) y me parece muy mala a este nivel y si compro esta habilidad la dispersión seria aun mas mala quizás.. No lo se.
  15. Tigerspook

    range and dispersion

    If my ship has a dispersion of 200m at 12km, and I upgrade the guns to have a range of, say, 14km, does the dispersion ellipsoid remain the same size at 14km? Or is it scaled so I have the same dispersion at 12km as I did before?
  16. So I happened to put all dispersion values for T10 Cruiser‘s (and a few random Cruisers to have a nice mix) into a nice chart to visualize how the Cruiser dispersion formula. Except this happened: (Excuse my handwriting, and that mistake I made there. I blame @Kaga_Kai_Ni) Every other Cruiser fits perfectly into that chart, with the dispersion/range ratio staying more or less constant (including rounding errors from WG‘s part). Except Zao... it‘s noticable off. Even adding the range mod it stays well below the line. For the sake of comparison Ibuki is also in there. She is normal. Just Zao... EDIT: Just for clarification, all values in the chart are stock unless noted otherwise (except that point I had to scratch out)
  17. 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?
  18. (Place tongue firmly in cheek before proceeding. And remember: Irony is Truth) Invisible ships that whine about radar and battleship AP Big fat clumsy ships that whine about invisible ships, fires and walls of torps Floating citadels that win by hiding behind cover and lobbing lameness onto hapless targets that can’t fire back at them Smoke, smoke, smoke and some more smoke Fire-spitting smoke clouds featured prominently in the naval battles of the early to mid-20th Century Overpenetrations: 16” shells go right through a canoe, you know, for only 10% damage The Dispersion Slot Machine---feeling lucky? Well, are you, punk? Hair-pulling and rage incumbent upon the attempt to get a few digital stars next to one’s name through “competitive play” (mark you: there is no monetary compensation for this) Wailing, frustration and rage about the matchmaker Wailing, frustration and rage about “having a bad team” Wailing, frustration and rage about “losing 10 games in a row and it’s not my fault” Cyclones: “Well, Yuri Ivanovich, you have to encourage people to close the distance somehow.” “Great idea, Igor Semyonovich, let’s implement it!” (leaked conversation from WG St. Petersburg office, circa 2016). Angling: Because 2700 lb shells aren’t that dangerous if they hit you at 65 degrees. To borrow a phrase from WoT: "Bounced off!" Overmatch: The number 14.3 is extremely important in naval combat (who knew? I’ll tell you: The designers of 460mm Japanese naval guns. Smart!) One of the greatest innovations in naval strategy in this period involved pointing the bow of the ship toward the enemy and slowly reversing. Don’t you dare cross the T, noob. What do you think this is, a historical game? British battleships: Because to heck with your angling Great Naval Battles in bodies of water full of large masses of strangely-shaped land An aircraft carrier? Never seen one of those. Deep Water torps: Because battleship players are stupid and there are too many of them Radar: Because if your own DDs die, how will you ever see the little buggers? Egos and Tempers the size of the USS Midway Who knew the Soviet Navy boasted such a formidable surface fleet with artillery more accurate than anything any capitalist pig-navy could ever devise? “Destroyers in World War II primarily performed fleet and convoy escort, as well as antisubmarine warfare duties” Oh wait…. Detonations: “We at Wargaming.net believe in fun and engaging gameplay!” Detonations: “Buy this piece of striped cloth and hoist it up the mainmast. It will prevent the unlimited supply of torpedoes in your hull from going off when hit.” Fires: Because how else can a 127mm gun sink a 60,000 ton ship? 33% Skill, 67% Luck. Want to change that? Carry harder and git gud, scrub. “I play World of Warships because it helps me relax.” “I play World of Warships because of the friendly, welcoming and helpful community.” Losing credits? “May I interest you in a premium account, dear sir?” Armor penetration mechanics more Byzantine than organic chemistry Soviet Battleships: The End of the World is Coming