Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Skyfaller

Soviet Bias (compendium of pic evidence)

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Testers
1,488 posts

100% health khaba. 

Takes 1 hit from a Shimakaze 20km torpedo. 

Only takes 11k damage. 

This, on a ship with ZERO damage (no 'damage saturation' bullship excuse), ZERO torpedo protection bulges and took it FLAT BROADSIDE in the MIDDLE of the ship at 2.3km range (not angled, not on the bow, not on the stern). 

Oh, and that Kutuzov? It was 40% HP. Again, a single shima torpedo struck it...and it once again, soviet bias reduction kicks in and the torp does the SAME DAMAGE (how CURIOUS!!!) of 11k rather than the full or near full damage of 20k+ that a shimakaze torpedo should do. 

Only soviet ships apparently get 50% torpedo damage reduction no matter where it hits and no matter how damaged (or not damaged) they are. 

 

First image of many to come. Go ahead devs, I would love to hear you dissemble on this subject. 

sovietbias.jpg

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,528
[HINON]
Members
10,772 posts

Damage saturation can take effect in a single hit. Replay? If you actually want to test this, setup a training room and prove your hypothesis.

Edited by RipNuN2
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,046
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,924 posts
2,810 battles
1 minute ago, Skyfaller said:

100% health khaba. 

Takes 1 hit from a Shimakaze 20km torpedo. 

Only takes 11k damage. 

This, on a ship with ZERO damage (no 'damage saturation' bullship excuse), ZERO torpedo protection bulges and took it FLAT BROADSIDE in the MIDDLE of the ship at 2.3km range (not angled, not on the bow, not on the stern). 

Oh, and that Kutuzov? It was 40% HP. Again, a single shima torpedo struck it...and it once again, soviet bias reduction kicks in and the torp does the SAME DAMAGE (how CURIOUS!!!) of 11k rather than the full or near full damage of 20k+ that a shimakaze torpedo should do. 

Only soviet ships apparently get 50% torpedo damage reduction no matter where it hits and no matter how damaged (or not damaged) they are. 

 

First image of many to come. Go ahead devs, I would love to hear you dissemble on this subject. 

sovietbias.jpg

Does WoWS do hit detection on the front end of the shooter or on the server?  I doubt it is on the front end of the shooter, that is too easy to write exploits for.  This means that where you see the torpedo hit is not necessarily where it hits and thus it could have been a bow or stern hit that saturated at 11k damage.  Same for the Kutuzov hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200
[DANKY]
Members
726 posts
2,066 battles

I guarantee that a Shima torp that hits Khab amidships will do more than 11k. RNG extremes are possible but that sounds like a bow hit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25,553
[HINON]
Supertester
20,705 posts
14,133 battles
19 minutes ago, Eugenie_101 said:

RNG extremes are possible

There is no RNG in damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,930
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
5,860 posts
8,915 battles
31 minutes ago, Skyfaller said:

100% health khaba. 

Takes 1 hit from a Shimakaze 20km torpedo. 

Only takes 11k damage. 

This, on a ship with ZERO damage (no 'damage saturation' bullship excuse), ZERO torpedo protection bulges and took it FLAT BROADSIDE in the MIDDLE of the ship at 2.3km range (not angled, not on the bow, not on the stern). 

Oh, and that Kutuzov? It was 40% HP. Again, a single shima torpedo struck it...and it once again, soviet bias reduction kicks in and the torp does the SAME DAMAGE (how CURIOUS!!!) of 11k rather than the full or near full damage of 20k+ that a shimakaze torpedo should do. 

Only soviet ships apparently get 50% torpedo damage reduction no matter where it hits and no matter how damaged (or not damaged) they are. 

 

First image of many to come. Go ahead devs, I would love to hear you dissemble on this subject. 

sovietbias.jpg

one word, Stalinium:Smile_trollface:

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200
[DANKY]
Members
726 posts
2,066 battles
3 minutes ago, Lert said:

There is no RNG in damage.

I stand corrected! For some reason I thought torps had some variability...probably because of saturation effects. 

Edited by Eugenie_101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25,553
[HINON]
Supertester
20,705 posts
14,133 battles
5 minutes ago, Eugenie_101 said:

I stand corrected! For some reason I thought torps had some variability...probably because of saturation effects. 

Probably, yes.

As for the OP, I strongly suspect his claim of hitting the Khab amidships is the problem and he actually hit him in the stern portion. The damage to the steering system makes me suspect so.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25,553
[HINON]
Supertester
20,705 posts
14,133 battles

@Skyfaller The sky isn't falling, there is no Soviet bias, you simply hit the aft damage section of the Khab.

Observe:

Center mass hit:

kzvu4ah.jpg

Aft section hit:

c9QMeDR.jpg

Problem solved.

  • Cool 10
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[ICBM]
Members
558 posts
11,405 battles

I feel all warm and fuzzy knowing this has been solved...

A round of drinks for everyone! Courtesy of OP...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,990 posts
78 battles
1 hour ago, Lert said:

@Skyfaller The sky isn't falling, there is no Soviet bias, you simply hit the aft damage section of the Khab.

Observe:

Center mass hit:

kzvu4ah.jpg

Aft section hit:

c9QMeDR.jpg

Problem solved.

Ahh so that solves everything.

 

I do sometimes wonder when I play DDs why I don't die even if I took a torp to my bow/stern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,694 posts
4,400 battles
2 hours ago, Helstrem said:

Does WoWS do hit detection on the front end of the shooter or on the server?  I doubt it is on the front end of the shooter, that is too easy to write exploits for.  This means that where you see the torpedo hit is not necessarily where it hits and thus it could have been a bow or stern hit that saturated at 11k damage.  Same for the Kutuzov hit.

Server. Client-server desync is a very longstanding problem in WoWS, and leads to hits registering in different parts of the ship than they appear to. Typically the server-side ship is around 1/3 to 1/4 of a ship length ahead of the client-side ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,046
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,924 posts
2,810 battles
Just now, Aetreus said:

Server. Client-server desync is a very longstanding problem in WoWS, and leads to hits registering in different parts of the ship than they appear to. Typically the server-side ship is around 1/3 to 1/4 of a ship length ahead of the client-side ship.

This is not a problem in WoWS.  It is a problem in multiplayer games in which the speeds and/or distances are large.  Keep in mind that speeds in WoWS are 5.25 times faster than reality.  When your Scharnhorst is showing 30 knots in the game, it is actually going 157.5 knots.

The faster the speeds the greater the potential discrepancy between what the player sees and what the server sees due to ping time.  Of course longer ping times exacerbate the issue, but even low ping times will have the problem.

FPS games have much less of an issue with this because 1) the speeds are lower and 2) the ranges are lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,694 posts
4,400 battles
Just now, Helstrem said:

This is not a problem in WoWS.  It is a problem in multiplayer games in which the speeds and/or distances are large.  Keep in mind that speeds in WoWS are 5.25 times faster than reality.  When your Scharnhorst is showing 30 knots in the game, it is actually going 157.5 knots.

The faster the speeds the greater the potential discrepancy between what the player sees and what the server sees due to ping time.  Of course longer ping times exacerbate the issue, but even low ping times will have the problem.

FPS games have much less of an issue with this because 1) the speeds are lower and 2) the ranges are lower.

No, this is a problem with WoWS. It's a problem with any sort of high relative speed game, but at the same time relative speeds in WoWS are actually not nearly as high as you think. Yes, ships in WoWS travel up to around 130 m/s. But ships are also hundreds of meters long- IIRC ship scaling is 2.something, so you're looking at targets that are around 400-600 meters in their primary dimension.

Typical FPS characters run around 4-10 m/s(which is stupidly fast for a normal person, but whatever). But an FPS character is a person maybe 1.9-2 meters tall and perhaps .4 meters across. Ships are relatively much slower than FPS characters! If any sort of FPS had the levels of desync that aren't entirely uncommon in WoWS, i.e. on the order of several hundred ms, it would be panned.

Truly high relative speed games deal with objects travelling around 200-300 m/s(aircraft, typically) that are only a few meters in any dimension. At that point you are well into the hit detection weeds, but there's plenty of games that have good enough netcode, sub-frame hit detection, rewinding, to fight this issue back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,323
[NGAGE]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
4,437 posts
6,603 battles
2 hours ago, Lert said:

@Skyfaller The sky isn't falling, there is no Soviet bias, you simply hit the aft damage section of the Khab.

Observe:

Center mass hit:

kzvu4ah.jpg

Aft section hit:

c9QMeDR.jpg

Problem solved.

I regret to inform you that you are not a credible source of information on the matter.  As a super tester the developers have given you super secret reverse bias RNG in order to mask the fact that they secretly are making all Soviet ships over powered in a subliminal propaganda campaign to encourage Americans to purchase more Russian made vodka.  

/s

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,046
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,924 posts
2,810 battles
32 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

No, this is a problem with WoWS. It's a problem with any sort of high relative speed game, but at the same time relative speeds in WoWS are actually not nearly as high as you think. Yes, ships in WoWS travel up to around 130 m/s. But ships are also hundreds of meters long- IIRC ship scaling is 2.something, so you're looking at targets that are around 400-600 meters in their primary dimension.

Typical FPS characters run around 4-10 m/s(which is stupidly fast for a normal person, but whatever). But an FPS character is a person maybe 1.9-2 meters tall and perhaps .4 meters across. Ships are relatively much slower than FPS characters! If any sort of FPS had the levels of desync that aren't entirely uncommon in WoWS, i.e. on the order of several hundred ms, it would be panned.

Truly high relative speed games deal with objects travelling around 200-300 m/s(aircraft, typically) that are only a few meters in any dimension. At that point you are well into the hit detection weeds, but there's plenty of games that have good enough netcode, sub-frame hit detection, rewinding, to fight this issue back.

The gunnery ranges in WoWS are massively more than they are in a flight sim too.  In Aces High, a relatively realistic MMO flight sim, getting hits past 1000 yards is pretty rare whereas most hits in WoWS are at ranges far in excess of 1000 yards.  While a WWII fighter, in maneuvering combat, is moving at, generally, 1.5 to 3 times the speed of ships in WoWS the ranges are also very much shorter.  

The size of the target is very different, but what we are discussing isn't so much misses that we thought were hit, but hits that looked like they hit part X of the ship and actually hit part Y, well within these smaller distances.

The fact that WoWS, unlike AH, changes the speeds and sizes of the objects in question willynilly while still pretending they haven't makes it much harder to nail down how good the code is.

Edited by Helstrem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,694 posts
4,400 battles
1 minute ago, Helstrem said:

The gunnery ranges in WoWS are massively more than they are in a flight sim too.  In Aces High, a relatively realistic MMO flight sim, getting hits past 1000 yards is pretty rare whereas most hits in WoWS are at ranges far in excess of 1000 yards.  While a WWII fighter, in maneuvering combat, is moving at, generally, 1.5 to 3 times the speed of ships in WoWS the ranges are also very much shorter.  

The size of the target is very different, but what we are discussing isn't so much misses that we thought were hit, but hits that looked like they hit part X of the ship and actually hit part Y, well within these smaller distances.

The fact that WoWS, unlike AH, changes the speeds and sizes of the objects in question willynilly while still pretending they haven't makes it much harder to nail down how good the code is.

That doesn't matter though. We're talking cases where the client and server think an object is in different places, how far away it is from the shooter doesn't matter except to the shooter's ability to place a shot on target. Now that might be effected by desync with regards to target speed and position, but that is an entirely separate issue than seeing a shell appear to travel through the target.

Even then, you're looking at tens of meters on objects travelling at a bit more than a hundred m/s in the case of the fastest destroyers. It's a much easier problem than even handling FPS players- WoWS ships are relatively slow, can't suddenly change vectors, and projectiles are entirely server-side. My guess is that WoWS has a fairly minimal level of lag comp, which is badly impacted by packet loss in some way(you can test this If you have a lossy wifi connection- desync can get very bad even with only moderately subpar ping). 

It's easy to pin down how good the code is: not good enough. Desync like this should never be visible to the player during typical network conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,046
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,924 posts
2,810 battles
2 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

That doesn't matter though. We're talking cases where the client and server think an object is in different places, how far away it is from the shooter doesn't matter except to the shooter's ability to place a shot on target. Now that might be effected by desync with regards to target speed and position, but that is an entirely separate issue than seeing a shell appear to travel through the target.

Even then, you're looking at tens of meters on objects travelling at a bit more than a hundred m/s in the case of the fastest destroyers. It's a much easier problem than even handling FPS players- WoWS ships are relatively slow, can't suddenly change vectors, and projectiles are entirely server-side. My guess is that WoWS has a fairly minimal level of lag comp, which is badly impacted by packet loss in some way(you can test this If you have a lossy wifi connection- desync can get very bad even with only moderately subpar ping). 

It's easy to pin down how good the code is: not good enough. Desync like this should never be visible to the player during typical network conditions.

143m/s is how fast the Le Terrible can move in WoWS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38
[NET]
Beta Testers
474 posts
4,339 battles

wot began the whole russian bias of op medium and heavy tanks, why should this crappy game be any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[SUPRS]
Members
559 posts
2,872 battles
2 hours ago, Aetreus said:

Server. Client-server desync is a very longstanding problem in WoWS, and leads to hits registering in different parts of the ship than they appear to. Typically the server-side ship is around 1/3 to 1/4 of a ship length ahead of the client-side ship.

Well this explains a lot. No wonder I can't hit anything but a fat bb from other than point blank. .... That would have been helpful to know earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×