Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'penetration'.



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

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 9 results

  1. Before we start, special thanks are given to: TTaro (SEA server) for bringing the various discrepancies and the reverse engineered code to my attention as well as testing the USN 5" max ranges. warabi99 (SEA server) for helping me implement the updated model. @CVsNTCsmolRUBBPay2Rico19 for testing and corroborating some of these cases before hand. In summary: Based on reverse engineered code (found in this EU forum post) from earlier an World of Warships client, we were able to piece together the formulae and methods used to generate a ballistics model that closely matches the one seen in game. This new model is able to accurately predict shell behavior in numerous situations where even the previous model failed. Note: the previous model refers to the model first created by fnord_disc on EU [more info on Reddit] and is used on most penetration implementations Model Performance: Cases where the new model out performs the previous model [all of which are reflected in game]: 1. The new model correctly predicts the maximum range of Yamato HE - previous model predicts a maximum range of ~29km; new model predicts a range of ~32km 2. The new model requires a time multiplier that is nearly identical to the stated in game time multiplier of 2.61 - previous model used a time multiplier of 3.1 3. The new model correctly predicts the distance at which ships like North Carolina begin to and consistently "deck pen". - tested by @CVsNTCsmolRUBBPay2Rico19 4. The new model correctly predict the maximum ranges of USN 5" Shells Implementation differences: The previous model contained a linear drag component partially determined by the caliber of the shell. [code here] L44 - 45 for drag implementation The new model only contains a quadratic drag component - that is partially determined by total velocity. [code here] L206 - 211 for drag implementation [note: cw_2 is 0] This causes shells in the new model to be considerably faster which also contributes to the lower impact angles at a given distance. Remaining questions: Penetration Formula: In order to make penetrations work properly (due to the higher impact velocities) I had to generate a new equation regressed from WG Armada data which is as follows: Raw Penetration(mm) = 0.00046905491615181766 * V(m/s)^1.4822064892953855 * D(m)^-0.6521 * M(kg)^0.5506 * K/2400 R²: 0.9955230522916081 While the regression performs well, the lack of data outside of the range [5km, 15km] means that the prediction is less certain when outside of these bounds. Deck Penetrations: According to previous testing, deck penetrations do not work at expected ranges for Minotaur even with the new model. - tested by @CVsNTCsmolRUBBPay2Rico19 There are some theories ranging from deck penetration may not be correctly applied properly for ships with improved autobounce to height compression. But no evidence currently points to or excludes either. Viewable Implementation: Currently you can view an implementation of this new ballistics model here at: https://jcw780.github.io/wows_ballistics/ Additional Notes: - The previous model graphs are generated from a local instance of the website that I use for testing purposes - the site originally used that model. - In the spirit of full disclosure, I do actually run wows_ballistics and maintain a library that models this. - pardon me for the spaghetti code though :) - This post is not meant to bash the original model or author(s) - I actually use fnord_disc's post-penetration velocity formula on my site and if it wasn't for his work I probably would not have gotten so far into this and gone to create the updated model. - If you have any additional questions feel free to ask me in this thread or join this discord server: https://discord.gg/fpDB9y5
  2. Hello everyone, greetings from the Warships Legends Community, my name is Victor and I have a question to you all. I think Wargaming didn't changed the game that much, so the Legends may be very close the to Warships. That being said, I would like to ask: "Which is more important on a Commander: the Increase Damage or Increase Penetration?" I'm still on Low tiers like Tier 6 with the Gaede (my fav DD and the thickest caliber Destroyer) and I just choose Erich Bey to increase Concealment, Philippe Auboyneau to increase HE damage and Anton Gurin to increase AP penetration. But, when it comes to Battleships, I really don't know what exactly to do. Or select Ciliax to increase the AP damage or select Jaujard to increase the AP penetration. I hope you can clarify this question for me, as for the new players. By the way, greetings from the Warships Legends Community. Feel free to play with us someday. Peace!
  3. I propose that there should be a new information line on the AP shell type that lists the armor penetration at x/y/z ranges. As the HE and SAP shell types list their armor penetration values in game, I believe it only makes sense that the AP shells should also. An example could be: AP Shell Armor Penetration Capacity at (5km / 10km / 15km): 300mm / 225mm / 150mm I feel this would help with guesswork when using AP in general, and will also make penetration/non-penetration hits feel more justified for players that don't (want to) look up armor penetration curves, or just want an easy estimate on how much armor the shell can penetrate. If there's any other forum posts out there about this topic, let me know, I'd like to give them a read.
  4. WG rolls out the Fen Yang. It's more or less an Akizuki clone having similar ship-handling and AA. It is distinguished from the 'Zukis by carrying deep-water torps, only good against BB and CV, and hydro plus defensive AA. I'd say this is balanced. It has the same 100mm cannon as well. But not the same, really. Akizuki pens 30mm of armor (with 5% chance of fire.) Fen Yang pens 17mm (with 8% chance of fire.) Asashio has 19mm of fore, aft, and side plating. Charging or running from Fen Yang in Asashio is pretty safe, IMHO, unless the chaser can always hit the superstructure. Sure you can spec for IFHE (and probably should) to get 21mm of pen (with 4% chance of fire). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WG, could a mistake have been inadvertently made here? 1. The IJN 100's have a buffed pen to make them competitive. Was it a mistake to not give this to Fen Yang? OR 2. Fen Yang has guns that fit the penetration mechanic. Was it a mistake to buff all the other IJN 100's? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I will happily remain a Fen Yang-less DD main until one or the other mistake is resolved.
  5. Carbapenem_17

    Torpedo belts and HE damage

    So, I remeber that torp belts supposedly 'nullifies' damage and went back to the WoWs wiki to confirm that : Does that mean if I shoot at the broadside of the ST ship Minnesota (the part covered with 32mm torpedo bulge up to the deck) with like a IFHE Worcester, I'd do almost no damage but get pen ribbons?
  6. I really don’t understand why Wargaming won’t list vital detailed statistics such as shell penetration, sigma values, Krupp figures, and other values that are very important to understanding your ships capabilities. World of tanks list shell penetration and dispersion values for all tanks, why can’t wows do the same? I hate how we have all these hidden stats that can only be found out through testing or devblogs, as WG doesn’t list them in the game where they could be easily accessible. Why can’t we list he pen and AP overmatch angles for all guns in the game without having to enter it into a formula? Why can’t I know the AP pen of my battleships and cruisers at different ranges so I know what broadsides I can pen and where? And don’t give me the excuse of “it’s too confusing for new players”. Yeah well devs get off your fat asses and actually make good detailed tutorials that can teach new players how to actually play and understand the game. This is not very hard. You have all the stats, why don’t you list them in the game UI? WoT is listing more and more stats every patch, what is so hard about doing the same for WoWs? These quality of life improvements would really improve the game much more than another round of forgettable premiums. To me there is no excuse for not listing stats as essential as shell penetration in the game. All we have is a rough idea and the rare armada video that actually tells us pen values. This is ridiculous. Wargaming please add these stats and stop hiding them for no logical reason.
  7. In world of tanks when you move your aim reticle on an enemy it will be green, red or orange based on the calculated probability of penetrating armour where you aim. In this game, some ships can have troll armour, where you think your HE for example can pen/not shatter but in reality it can't. The Khaba and Gearing are great examples of this but so is the Kutuzov, as it's the only CL with 26mm instead of 25mm plating. Showing a new player that their HE shells can't pen parts of a ship with troll armour is still trollish but will removed much of the potential confusion and frustration, especially as you can't always look to your right to track the number of shatters when you're fighting someone else. Doing this for AP shells will also show in real time how much angling can change a ship's effective armour in a way that will make the game more newbie friendly imo. The only downside is when brawling and doing a drive-by, otherwise bad players (who also happen to not use the mods that show ship angles) who would shoot you too soon can now have a better chance at blapping you. So from the experienced brawler's perspective (or from the perspective of someone using the angle indicator mod) this is a negative but otherwise I'd say this change would be mostly positive, and in theory because WoT and WoWS use the same game engine it should be easy to implement (they'll have to redesign how the reticle looks like/works since right now colours are used for reloading time) This feature would work the best when fighting someone really close up, where you're aiming near the ship already (since you need to mouse over parts of the ship for the indicator to give you information). This could arguably 'dumb down' the game but it would also make it easier for newbies to learn fairly simple game mechanics that we take for granted, like the fact that a ship's extremities are weaker.
  8. Out of curiosity, has anyone actually run Inertial Fuzes for High Explosives (IFHE) on 203mm guns, and is there any noticeable benefit to doing so? I'm asking because 0.8.2 is around the corner, and I'm considering specializing one of my Exeter captains toward brawling. You see, I play hyperaggressively with Exeter and often end matches with 15+ Secondary Battery Hit ribbons for ~400 damage. Most of the damage I deal with secondaries is against BB superstructures, and IFHE would open up penetration of 102mm secondaries to a much wider surface area on several ships from Tiers 4 through 7, BBs and CLs alike. My current captain focuses heavily on tracking enemy DDs and predicting torpedo attacks: While the extra heal from Superintendent is nice, I find that I rarely (if ever) have cause to use it (I run Damage Control Party II, Repair Party II, and Hydroacoustic Search II), and my aggressive play style means Radio Location is generally pointed straight at the nearest visible enemy - not exactly the most useful. At best, RPF is helpful late-game when hunting for the last DD or CV hiding out on the fringes of the map. Which brings me back to the question: does the 42mm penetration matter at all, or should I get AFT instead with this build: Note: The extra flak from AFT is of little importance to me because I still think flak relies too heavily on OpFor CVs' misplays to deal damage. I'm also considering keeping RPF, but again, it feels like it's not super relevant the way I play Exeter. (I'd never consider taking it off of more "conservative" cruisers like Furutaka or Aoba, though.)
  9. I'm working my way up the French BB line and am in the stretch of 3 ships with the 340mm guns. They have been infuriating. When I use AP against BB's half my hits will over-penetrate and the other half will either not penetrate or ricochet. This doesn't make any sense to me. These things are both extreme's of the possible outcomes. How can all my rounds be too strong, or not strong enough. When I shoot CA's with AP they seem to do fine. You think if they don't overpen a CA then they should definitely not overpen a BB. The idea of an over-penetration against a BB seems kind of ridiculous to me, actually an over-penetration pretty ridiculous on any ship. If the round goes right through the ship without hitting anything critical it will put holes through it. Holes are not a good thing to have in a ship. Holes below the water line should cause flooding, and holes in bulkheads should cause flooding to spread from one compartment to the next. Especially 340mm holes. I understand the need to balance gameplay, but it's pretty frustrating when you are in a BB shooting at another BB, using HE has very little penetration, and AP does either not enough or too much at the same time result being very little damage. Anyone else notice this? I haven't noticed the problem with any other BB gun.
×