RNG - Can you dial it back a bit now?

[Herr_Reitz]

The amount of RNG injected into this game should now be eligible for review. You guys have pretty much nerfed out of the game everything requiring copious amounts of RNG injection. So I'm wondering - do you ever review the affect of RNG upon the game? Or is it set once and forget it - we never touching it again.

 

I just had a match where I utterly destroyer a cruiser at 8km from my Edinburgh. I had a PARKED DESTROYER sitting 4 km in front of me and guess what - nearly every round missed. The first salvo should have obliterated him. He was in smoke. I had my radar on. Okay, so I give one to RNG.

 

Next salvo - completely misses. Guess what - he firest torps bow on and sinks me. Uh huh.. no RNG in torps that's for sure. None. They go where you aim them. 

 

Guys, I am not that bad at shooting broadside DDs at 4km. In three salvos, RNG just jacked itself up to unbelievable. 

 

So - given the recent removal of blah, blah and don't forget blah-blah with quite a few buffs to this and that... how about a close review of RNG? 

 

I'd say a 50% reduction would make a whole lot of folks happy. 

[Mesrith]

Guys, I am not that bad at shooting broadside DDs at 4km.

 

Well, I guess you were in this case, because the amount of dispersion on cruiser guns is already very low, and it's pretty much nonexistent at 4km.  Either your aim was off or there's some serious exaggeration here.

[AspiringCodger]

I definitely wouldn't mind seeing some changes.  It's super frustrating when all rounds go over or fall short from 2km out on a properly aimed shot.  Or when you broadside a cruiser at less than 6km in a BB and shells bounce and over penetrate in the same salvo. Or when you're bow on in a BB doing nothing but over penning and bouncing cruisers at close range then all of a sudden 2/3 of your health is gone from one salvo fired by a corner hugger over 20km out.  I could go on and on...  It's not like any of these are rare occurrences either. 

[Dr_Richtofen]

I don't completely disagree that some elements of the games RNG is a little to strong... but....

 

I'm going to be that guy and say id like to see this game you say RNGsus chose to send you to the depths of Davey Jones for.

[Wulfgarn]

The amount of RNG injected into this game should now be eligible for review. You guys have pretty much nerfed out of the game everything requiring copious amounts of RNG injection. So I'm wondering - do you ever review the affect of RNG upon the game? Or is it set once and forget it - we never touching it again.

 

I just had a match where I utterly destroyer a cruiser at 8km from my Edinburgh. I had a PARKED DESTROYER sitting 4 km in front of me and guess what - nearly every round missed. The first salvo should have obliterated him. He was in smoke. I had my radar on. Okay, so I give one to RNG.

 

Next salvo - completely misses. Guess what - he firest torps bow on and sinks me. Uh huh.. no RNG in torps that's for sure. None. They go where you aim them. 

 

Guys, I am not that bad at shooting broadside DDs at 4km. In three salvos, RNG just jacked itself up to unbelievable. 

 

So - given the recent removal of blah, blah and don't forget blah-blah with quite a few buffs to this and that... how about a close review of RNG? 

 

I'd say a 50% reduction would make a whole lot of folks happy. 

 

[Spyde]

The amount of RNG injected into this game should now be eligible for review. You guys have pretty much nerfed out of the game everything requiring copious amounts of RNG injection. So I'm wondering - do you ever review the affect of RNG upon the game? Or is it set once and forget it - we never touching it again.

 

I just had a match where I utterly destroyer a cruiser at 8km from my Edinburgh. I had a PARKED DESTROYER sitting 4 km in front of me and guess what - nearly every round missed. The first salvo should have obliterated him. He was in smoke. I had my radar on. Okay, so I give one to RNG.

 

Next salvo - completely misses. Guess what - he firest torps bow on and sinks me. Uh huh.. no RNG in torps that's for sure. None. They go where you aim them. 

 

Guys, I am not that bad at shooting broadside DDs at 4km. In three salvos, RNG just jacked itself up to unbelievable. 

 

So - given the recent removal of blah, blah and don't forget blah-blah with quite a few buffs to this and that... how about a close review of RNG? 

 

I'd say a 50% reduction would make a whole lot of folks happy. 

If you missed a DD at 4k in a Cruiser.. that's 100% on you.

[Herr_Reitz]

Replay controls are funked up it seems. 

 

Not one of my best to be sure...

 

I do find these numbers intriguing:

Ship Class    Friendly    Enemy
Carrier           N/A       N/A
Battleship    83.67       89
Cruiser         78          95.8
Destroyer    69.75       80.25

 

It seems "if" their team rating values based upon ships are correct... our team's taking a hit on cruisers/destroyers while being six points up on bb's... 

 

 

[SireneRacker]

Next salvo - completely misses. Guess what - he firest torps bow on and sinks me. Uh huh.. no RNG in torps that's for sure. None. They go where you aim them.

 

Not really, they also disperse to the sides. It seems like they don't because it's only a one-dimensional change rather than a two-dimensional one. This picture shows it fairly well:

 

Notice the difference in the gaps between the Torps.

[giovybez]

I agree with you OP. RNG needs to be adjusted. How many times have we shot at a stationary target and all the shells miss...all and then there is my favorite, perfect waterline shot at a broadsiding ship 6km away, some of the shells sail way over the target, others splash in front of the target and to add insult to injury the one shell that hits is an overpen. You cant help but throw your hands up in the air in complete disbelief.

[Herr_Reitz]

 

Not really, they also disperse to the sides. It seems like they don't because it's only a one-dimensional change rather than a two-dimensional one. This picture shows it fairly well:

 

Notice the difference in the gaps between the Torps.

 

Yes but that's not rng, that's just dispersion. The torps will always spread at the same, constant rate. Tell me the last time you saw one of your torps jet off at a 10 degree angle from the rest of them. Or simply die in the water and stop moving? Such affects would be RNG influence on torps. 

[Herr_Reitz]

I agree with you OP. RNG needs to be adjusted. How many times have we shot at a stationary target and all the shells miss...all and then there is my favorite, perfect waterline shot at a broadsiding ship 6km away, some of the shells sail way over the target, others splash in front of the target and to add insult to injury the one shell that hits is an overpen. You cant help but throw your hands up in the air in complete disbelief.

 

What I have been attempting to do is close the gap and fire in the "sweet spot"... it isn't always easy to be sure... I guess where I'm at with this is the variance between shots - with thousands of games we more or less know where our shots "should" go most of the time. When they vary wildly - as you describe - it becomes an irritant, not a "realistic" implementation of gunfire. 

[CaptGodzillaPig]

Quick game last night after work in my Bismark gave me a double citadel delete on a Edinburg at 14k, a double cit salvo on an Iowa at 9k, and a double cit salvo on a Montana at 6k.  The last one saved my bacon as I just came out of the brawl with the Iowa and was broadside to his broadside.  Thought I was a gonner there for sure.  No complaints here.

[SireneRacker]

Yes but that's not rng, that's just dispersion. The torps will always spread at the same, constant rate. Tell me the last time you saw one of your torps jet off at a 10 degree angle from the rest of them. Or simply die in the water and stop moving? Such affects would be RNG influence on torps. 

 

The gaps are pretty much random. I could give you ten pictures of that and all would have a different pattern. At those gaps get huge at 10km you can believe that.

[Korval_BB55]

Sounds more like a desync issue than rng.  You were shooting where you thought the destroyer was, problem is it wasn't there.  Hate it when that happens. 

[Quaffer]

If you look at the game screen you may get the impression that the ocean is a huge bathtub. i.e. flat as a billiard table. Chances are your ship is rolling back and forth and may be pitching up and down.  Not a lot, unless you're in a storm, but some. This will play merry hell with your aim. Later vessels have mechanical compensation for these effects but they aren't perfect.

 

Expecting the accuracy you may get from a stationary tank at ten times the ranges a tank sees is a little misguided. The rng has already been tweaked; in your favor. Historically naval gunnery was much less effective, think in single digit percentage points, than we enjoy in the game. You are not on land and you are not firing a sniper rifle.

 

Welcome to the briny.

[Herr_Reitz]

I'm only suggesting another review since they kicked the invisifring option out the window. It could be argued - guess I am - the amount of RNG +/- is too much. 

 

Such fluctuations were necessary when ships had a "window of invisibility" at range. But think about the process. You sight on an enemy. You provide the appropriate lead for the target. You pull the trigger. While your rounds are going downrange the game is calculating all the adjustments needed for that shot - like camo, commander skills, flags, you name it - probably asks what day it is too. These values affect where your round is going to land - then on top of it they insert some RNG just for S&G mind you. 

 

Which is why they say some days RNG is with you, most days she ain't. This game's not a simulator but an "arcde-y" game meant to look a bit like a simulator. 

 

It's just mho the fluctuations vary too much - the pendulum swings too far both ways, for and against. I'm just asking it maybe they'll take a look at it. 

[tcbaker777]

you forget the #1 rule of Warships, RNG Giveth and RNG Taketh away

[m373x]

I watched the replay 4 times and I must say that you exaggerate way too much.

 

With 19k total dmg for 12 min gameplay you didn't utterly destroy that Kutuzov, in fact he was making a turn giving you broadside at 5.2 km and you led the shot so much that you hit him with only 1 shell out of 12.

 

 Your first  salvo on the DD was bad, aiming for the top part of his bow almost deck high, still you managed to hit 2 shells out of 6. On your second salvo you again misjudged the speed of the enemy and led him so much that you completely missed. I am sorry but it is your aim, not RNG.

[CLUCH_CARGO]

The amount of RNG injected into this game should now be eligible for review. 

 

 

The amount of RNG injected into this game should now be eligible for review. 

So - given the recent removal of blah, blah and don't forget blah-blah with quite a few buffs to this and that... how about a close review of RNG? 

 

I'd say a 50% reduction would make a whole lot of folks 

[Lillehuntrix]

Main battery dispersion is RNG, correct?  And main battery dispersion is also a balancing element - the advantage that Japanese BBs hold over German BBs, for instance, or the "compensation" for the OWSF nerf in the form of a dispersion modifier added to the concealment module.  So if main battery RNG were eliminated or greatly reduced in favor of shots going where you aimed them, there would arise the need for a whole lot of interline rebalancing.

 

(Lots of other things have RNG elements as well - AA - but main battery appears to be the issue at hand.)

[Herr_Reitz]

I watched the replay 4 times and I must say that you exaggerate way too much.

 

With 19k total dmg for 12 min gameplay you didn't utterly destroy that Kutuzov, in fact he was making a turn giving you broadside at 5.2 km and you led the shot so much that you hit him with only 1 shell out of 12.

 

 Your first  salvo on the DD was bad, aiming for the top part of his bow almost deck high, still you managed to hit 2 shells out of 6. On your second salvo you again misjudged the speed of the enemy and led him so much that you completely missed. I am sorry but it is your aim, not RNG.

 

It is possible for me, at the time, lag or ping might affect it?  Maybe my eyes aren't as good too... but the when I aimed that shot on the DD that gave 2xxx damage it was center mass slightly towards the bow in case he started to move off. At least as i recall it that's where I aimed. 

 

The "utterly destroying" the Kutuzov (which I typed destroyer ;-)) means the shots went where i wanted them - not that i totally wasted him on my own. My accuracy remarks about my shooting not being that bad is valid - it's about average. In fact, the first salvo (at the end) towards the cruiser in my mind should have finished him - but nada... misses - it took a second salvo. 

 

By the way - do the replay controls work for you? They aren't working for me - I'd like to be able to speed up/slow down and change view angles. Used to be able to - but can't now. 

 

I do appreciate your review, taking your time to watch it. Thanks. 

[Herr_Reitz]

Main battery dispersion is RNG, correct?  And main battery dispersion is also a balancing element - the advantage that Japanese BBs hold over German BBs, for instance, or the "compensation" for the OWSF nerf in the form of a dispersion modifier added to the concealment module.  So if main battery RNG were eliminated or greatly reduced in favor of shots going where you aimed them, there would arise the need for a whole lot of interline rebalancing.

 

(Lots of other things have RNG elements as well - AA - but main battery appears to be the issue at hand.)

 

This is to the best of my limited knowledge - but dispersion has horizontal and vertical values (they have proper tech names). These are set per boat and/or gun, one or the other - perhaps both. The RNG I'm asking to be reviewed is the "random" value stuffed into every round. They have multiple, additional factors that can affect your shot.

 

You got a camo that induces what, a 4% chance of your rounds not going on target. I thought there were flags that can induce the same effect as well. You got the regular old "roll of the dice" so on and so forth. Oh, are you locked on the target or firing in lead of a target that's not yet in range? You know - legal open water stealth firing.

 

I guess we'll see what they mess with in the weeks ahead after they review their "data" from the update. 

[Lillehuntrix]

There may be a distinction I'm not seeing, in which case, fair enough.

[Herr_Reitz]

I was thinking German ships are "known" for mostly accurate "rail guns" but i could simply be mis-remembering things. 

 

The point in dialing it back a smidge would be an experiment... I would think a slight increase in accuracy would result in potentially shorter matches time-wise. Instead of theoretically four matches an hour... maybe five or six... 

 

But then it probably would slide everyone out of WoWS's happy spot for players. 

[Nergy]

So - given the recent removal of blah, blah and don't forget blah-blah with quite a few buffs to this and that... how about a close review of RNG? 

 

I'd say a 50% reduction would make a whole lot of folks happy. 

 

And a hell of a lot of people a hell of a lot unhappier.

 

My guess is (I watched a lot of other players) that when you change the RNG that much, 90 % of the player will now miss 90 % of the time and those guys that know how to shoot will decimate the enemy team single handed.