Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Curly__san

dispersion

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

444
[A-D-F]
Members
1,163 posts
10,448 battles

Pretty [edited] sad when 193 meter dispersion (@19km range) completely misses a 270+ meter battleship at ranges between 7 & 9 km; broadside.

That's not RNG, that's just [edited], WG, pure unadulterated [edited]. Go ahead and ban me; your forum is as meaningless as your grasp of math, apparently.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,210
[0456]
Members
3,608 posts
9,553 battles

Dispersion is from right to left. There’s also vertical dispersion which means you undershoot and overshoot your target. 

So go ahead and recalculate. I’ll wait. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,872 posts

Be careful what you wish for. I don't think you BB mains wanna live in a world with pinpoint dispersion... if it can work for you, it can work against you...

Imagine if 4 sniper BB's all teamed up on you and citadel-ed you 10 times in a hail of uber accurate shells from 20 or so kms away?

The game wouldn't last 20 minutes...

Edited by ElectroVeeDub

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,082
[TSG4B]
Volunteer Moderator
2,920 posts
15,357 battles
26 minutes ago, Curly__san said:

Pretty fucknig sad when 193 meter dispersion (@19km range) completely misses a 270+ meter battleship at ranges between 7 & 9 km; broadside.

That's not RNG, that's just [edited], WG, pure unadulterated [edited]. Go ahead and ban me; your forum is as meaningless as your grasp of math, apparently.

there is a replay in the replay folder, please post it.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,953
[TBW]
Members
10,287 posts
17,483 battles

One of the biggest flaws in the game is dispersion RNG. Good shots should be rewarded and bad shots should not, unfortunately it doesn't always happen that way.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55
[DTB]
Members
264 posts

Naval Gunnery:
 

Quote

 

The Gunnery Problem:

Naval gunnery is unlike shooting a bb gun at an arcade, where hit after hit can be achieved by a skilled shooter. Naval gunnery is more comparable to a boy standing by a lake who throws rocks at a distant turtle. The splash of the first rock is short and the boy throws harder. Soon, the boy "finds the range"; but even then, he cannot repeatedly hit the target. The arc of the throw and variations of wind frustrate absolute accuracy. The best he can achieve is to drop rocks in a cluster, about the turtle. After "the range is found", some statistical percentage will hit. Naval gunnery is much the same.

For boy and naval gunnery alike, two parameters describe capability.

  1. The time required to "find the range" (i.e. throws before "clustering" about target)
  2. The percentage of hits achieved after "the range is found."

There is a loose connection between these two parameters. Generally, the gunnery system which can find the range quickly, is more likely to keep the range and achieve many hits; however, other factors come into play. Repeated hitting of the target after the range has been found also relies on the "tightness" of the shell clusters (i.e. they should land in a small ellipse) . Ironically, a very tight cluster actually makes finding the range a bit more difficult.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
671
[PT]
Members
783 posts
2,777 battles
5 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

Dispersion is designed to drive us nuts.

I fired 3 full salvos at a stationary Tirpitz that had crashed into a island yesterday at 12k in my North Carolina. Only 2 hits for zero damage after 27 shells fired. 

Its just roll of the dice luck with BB accuracy. 

Edited by LunchCutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55
[DTB]
Members
264 posts
1 minute ago, LunchCutter said:

I fired 3 full salvos at a Tirpitz that had crashed into a island yesterday at 12k in my North Carolina. Only 2 hits for zero damage after 27 shells fired. 

Its just roll of the dice luck with BB accuracy. 

Reminds me of the salvo I launched at a stuck cruiser from my PEF on Aegis. Eight shells, seven missed and the last ricocheted.

And then my secondarys opened up and finished it.

As close as I was the dispersion should have been close to nil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,445
[WOLFG]
Members
29,019 posts
8,268 battles
6 hours ago, Sovereigndawg said:

One of the biggest flaws in the game is dispersion RNG. Good shots should be rewarded and bad shots should not, unfortunately it doesn't always happen that way.

It's not a flaw, it's how you keep mediocre players playing with good players. 

Without that "flaw", newer and mediocre players wouldn't last more than a few games before uninstalling.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,374
[WOLFG]
Members
9,583 posts
8,569 battles
7 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

Dispersion is designed to drive us nuts.

Dispersion is good at it's job.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,953
[TBW]
Members
10,287 posts
17,483 battles
16 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

It's not a flaw, it's how you keep mediocre players playing with good players. 

Without that "flaw", newer and mediocre players wouldn't last more than a few games before uninstalling.

 

True, this can be seen every time I make a terrible shot, (the kind ya know ya done really messed up) one shell always flies wonky and hits for 10,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
662
[CAST]
[CAST]
Members
2,607 posts
10,459 battles
Just now, Sovereigndawg said:

True, this can be seen every time I make a terrible shot, (the kind ya know ya done really messed up) one shell always flies wonky and hits for 10,000.

I've been on the other end of this one.  I've maneuvered and successfully avoided a long range BB volley in my cruiser, only to have a single stray shell catch the tail end of my ship.

I understand the frustration on some shots.  When the dispersion causes a framing of the ship you are aiming at, with no shots in the center of the ellipse, it can be a hair pulling moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,178
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts

Real Battleship (and warship in general) guns had a Precision vs. Accuracy issue:

image.png.53948dfd23a418c1d9a8aa2e3fec39

They were highly precise as momentum is what it is and a 1200 kg shell with ~800 m/s muzzle velocity is NOT going to just shift direction randomly in flight, but they were HIGHLY inaccurate, due in large part to sighting equipment being so poor. Radar gunnery alleviated this greatly. Now in game this is NOT an issue since the guns aim EXACTLY where you aim them, which was impossible in WWII as you had to (a computer did) do the back calculation of the declination and angle to equal the assumed ranged (from visual spotting).

Wargaming has decided to split the difference, allowing automatic range targeting, thus raising the accuracy, but dropped the precision WAY below realistic phyical values and introducing a 'dispersion' that is basically non-existent on real naval guns. I can think of a few better solutions, like a fine-range adjustment being made at point of firing (add or minus 100 meters let's say so your shells fall short or long (horizontal dispersion of real naval guns was almost totally non-existent). Alternatively they could have dropped the alpha damage of all weapons and let the accuracy AND precision be better, and from a gameplay standpoint, this is typically the better solution; players desire 'feedback' (that is, notice results of in-game actions), so the 'ping' of a hit is that desired feedback that players crave, but if you are doing 10-15% of the targets health per ping that does not work in a Sudden Death Match (i.e. no respawns (another major flaw but that's a whole other thing)). So that would require an increase to damage incidence, but reduction of that incidence impact. Wargaming won't do that because a) It's too easy to balance and thus, mistakes are more noticeable (and the game is designed to frustrate to a degree, that's how Freemium games work as a business) b) it's too divergent from their other products and they deplore moving out of their comfort zone, and c) it dilutes relative power too noticably, reducing the impact of tiers and overpowered singular ships, which again, works against the freemium model.

We've had this threat dozens of times before (and likely will again) but one of my posts in a previous rendition is still relevant:

On 4/26/2018 at 7:04 AM, _RC1138 said:

 

I see the problem here: you don't know what you're talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_Fire_Control_Table

An FCS Fire Control Table is a computer. It is not a *digital* computer, but rather an analog computer but it is *STILL* a computer by definition. Navies have been using devices such as this since the late 1800's and land based Artillery has been range-keeping differential computers since the 1880's.

They are jam packed with differentials, PID Controllers, and clocks that take in *hundreds* of different data points to give a firing solution. These include obvious things like (estimated) range, bearing, and speed, but less obvious things such as a ship's pitch *+a few seconds* to account for the coming roll, relative humidity (dry bulb), V_0 of the barrels themselves (since you're ship IS moving and going to impart a lateral V_0 on the shells), and hundreds more. This is why, especially when comparing the USN, RN, and to a slight degree KM BB's to any other nations, especially the IJN, the accuracy of battleships is beyond comparison: it's why Radar assisted gunnery allowed *first SALVO* hits by both the USN and RN *during* battles: by feeding in the most accurate, up to date information into their Fire Control computers, they were able to land shells with unparalleled accuracy. The only reason *some* cruisers had similar accuracy was because, specifically, the USN placed their Fire Control Tables on EVERY ship larger than a DE. Fletchers had Fire Tables, New Orleans had fire tables. But say, a Myoko? Nope, it was all just range finding and printed range tables, no computers. That's why *most* the vast, vast VAST majority of warships smaller than a BB have WORSE accuracy than a BB: because they all are reliant on printed tables to set declination and angle on their guns, which ALREADY reduces precision on the guns, but then the innate physics of mass*velocity makes the BB guns that much MORE accurate, if not precise.

And for those that don't know:

image.png.53948dfd23a418c1d9a8aa2e3fec3989.png

BB guns were *very* Precise, while smaller, lighter Cruiser and Destroyer guns were FAR less precises, but *all* naval guns were VERY inaccurate which brings me back to the original point I brought up: the vast majority of you have a FUNDAMENTAL misunderstanding on how accuracy vs. precision works AND specifically how it applies to Naval Gunnery.

What you are all mistaking is that because real BB's, Cruisers, and Destroyers had low hit%'s that they were both very imprecise and very inaccurate. Both are wrong for different reasons. For one, basic physics will tell you that the heavier the shell, heavier the projectile, the more PRECISE it's fall will be shot to shot. This is VERY true for BB guns. The problem is, at sea, over distances in excess of 18 km, ACCURACY, not dispersion (the word dispersion (really, Sigma) in WoWs context is synonymous scientifically to precision) is the problem.

The way long range sighting, gunnery or otherwise works, is by having a VERY wide set of binoculars, 10-15 meters between objectives, that are (hopefully) calibrated in a way that when you get one sight picture to super-impose on the other sight picture, it will read a range. Unfortunately, due to limitations of OPTICAL technology and calibrations in the 1910's to 1940's, this was RARELY accurate to less than 500 meters. *THIS* is not a flaw in GUNNERY, this is a flaw in OPTICS. Thus I pick an aim point, the information is fed to the aforementioned range table, it spits out a gun declination and angle, and they fire. Now they will LAND where I *think* I was aiming. The problem comes in that the accuracy of the OPTICS is barely 500 meters, that means that the fall of the shells, due to the SSE, will be that much more inaccurate. Again, this is NOT the same and being imprecise. All those shells will fall FAIRLY close together, they just won't go where I *wanted* them because *I* got it wrong due to the limitations of the OPTICS relied upon for Naval gunnery (at that time).

This is WHY when radar assisted gunnery, pioneered by the RN and then used to GREAT effect by the USN, allowed for *FIRST SALVO* hits by Battleships: by having SUPER accurate, real time data on a target's range, speed, and bearing (by having offset Radar array which was *standard* by 1942, it's just simple trig), you took the poor quality optics out of the equation and allowed for SUBSTANTIALLY higher quality, and thus ACCURACY of shots. The precision was always there, the accuracy was not.

Now, to make an analogy, as I *DO* target shoot and own a number of firearms (both here in the US and a few back in the UK (it is possible if you have the money)) this is the equivalent of my lying down, on a range, without being told what the ACTUAL distance to my target is (but it's greater than 100 meters, how much, I do not know) and trying to hit the bullseye: if the gun is capable of sub-MOA shots, and I am too, if I aim at my target I will be *very* precise; my groupings will be super tight. BUT I will PROBABLY not hit the specific bullseye. What I have to do is after shooting a few rounds, check to see WHERE might tight groupings are and adjust my sights (or aim) accordingly. Then I will be BOTH precise and accurate.

And range tables were ABSOLUTELY capable of that level of computation. Or do you not know what a Differential/PID is? Hell, the first PID controller was tested ON a Battleship to control steering. Also, this is only true of *JAPANESE* computers, the USN and Royal Navy ones were FAR more capable of taking real-time data and spiting out a firing solution. That is why there are pitot tubes on USN/RN ships but *not* on IJN ships.

 

You're both still misunderstanding the key difference in game vs. reality, vs. Science: Precision and Accuracy is *NOT* the same thing. Again, I cannot stress this ENOUGH, if the guns are properly aligned (so if I set it to 20 degrees all the guns ARE in fact facing 20 degrees, this is a maintenance issue, not a science one) BB guns are, by the *laws* of physics, more precise than smaller guns at the same range. They *have* to be, because that's how Forces/Momentum WORK.

What's different in *game* vs. reality is that we take, mostly, accuracy out of the equation. We have a pointer, a cross hairs that we can VISUALLY point at our target and the guns automatically adjust to that range and bearing. That's not how real naval gunnery worked. As described above, a range keeper had to use a mechanical optic to more or less GUESS the range within 500 meters. Well what happens if he's off by 1000 meters? Again, *he's* off, a person, not a machine. Then the shells will fall 1000 meters off. They'll be in a tight grouping, but they will ALL miss because HE got the range (and perhaps bearing and speed of the target) wrong. The human was the weak point (as usual) in Naval Gunnery, not the guns. So yes, in MOST cases, both Battleship AND other gunnery was VERY poor, but you need to step back and PLACE these in context and look at the big picture: where they poor because of an inherent problem with the human-machine interface or poor because guns are inaccurate? If you know physics and technology the answer is obvious.

We all know the story of why the Royal Navy under performed at the Battle of Jutland right? Poor communication. It had nothing to do with numbers, or ship quality; Jellico couldn't talk to Beatty (or anyone else to anyone else) and the whole thing was a wash as a result. Does that mean the Royal Navy BB's were crap? Of course not, no one with a degree of engineering sense would think that ever; but the communications technology (which is the MOST direct version of human-machine interface) was NOT up to the job. Naval gunnery works, or rather, DOESN'T work, because of the same principle: a range keeper standing in the FCS on a BB may get the range, bearing, and speed of a target COMPLETELY wrong placing his shot WILDLY away from where it should go. This has NOTHING to do with the precision of the guns, but the ACCURACY by which they are directed.

To put in game, that is, WoWs terms: imagine if there was a built in feature that nudged your mouse up or down by an inch or two, randomly, from time to time. All of a sudden you'd miss a GREAT deal of shots right? The guns could be laser PRECISE, but it won't mater cause they'll all fall in a small circle 2km away from your target. THAT'S how real gunnery worked and THAT'S why real warships had 'poor' hit%. Context, as it often is, is key.

40 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

It's not a flaw, it's how you keep mediocre players playing with good players. 

Without that "flaw", newer and mediocre players wouldn't last more than a few games before uninstalling.

 


IDK if I agree; plenty of games out there have no such forced skill cap but are very accessible to new players; they typically DO NOT rely on spike damage and movement the way WoWs does, usually focusing on one or the other (Spike focus: CoD, movement doesn't matter much, it's just who shoots first with the right aim. Movement Focus: Quake/TF2: Entirely about movement and who fires first is largely irrelevant in nearly all cases and very few spike damage sources are present, damage itself being less important than movement as if you understand the movement system you can typically outlast any opponent).

 

 

Edited by _RC1138
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
671 posts
2,685 battles

I missed all my shots on a broadside Richileu in my Montana at 400 meters yesterday. I swear some went through the hull.

I always try to remind myself before firing that no matter how good my aim is I might just miss all my shots or get overpens, and thats ok because my BB can still do a lot of work over the whole game. It usually helps, if not always. I did ask my computer in elevated tones how it thought that math was acceptable yesterday.

Edited by Tanuvein
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,119
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,444 posts
6,499 battles

9km seems close in game.....  However hitting most things from 5.5 miles is not easy.   naval accuracy in game is far superior to what was experienced during the time frame of this game....  probably close to as many BB salvos landed in a single match in WOWS than the entirety of WW2.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,445
[WOLFG]
Members
29,019 posts
8,268 battles
51 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

IDK if I agree; plenty of games out there have no such forced skill cap but are very accessible to new players; they typically DO NOT rely on spike damage and movement the way WoW does.

Just let me clarify, I meant that's the reasoning behind WG's dispersion mechanic, not that it has to be done that way. Given the existing gameplay mechanics though, it's probably the simplest.

All games, even sims, have some level of abstraction. 

I do wish they had stuck with more realistic dispersion, that way we might have more realistic dynamics, instead of fantasy bow tanking and broadside aspect being an all but automatic death sentence.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,200
[--K--]
Members
1,343 posts
10,202 battles
8 hours ago, ElectroVeeDub said:

Be careful what you wish for. I don't think you BB mains wanna live in a world with pinpoint dispersion... if it can work for you, it can work against you...

Imagine if 4 sniper BB's all teamed up on you and citadel-ed you 10 times in a hail of uber accurate shells from 20 or so kms away?

The game wouldn't last 20 minutes...

So 4 kremlins? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,374
[WOLFG]
Members
9,583 posts
8,569 battles
3 minutes ago, BarneyStyle said:

So 4 kremlins? 

At 20km?

4 Slavas.

Edit:  With no dispersion, it could be 4 anything.

4 Yama's.

Edited by DrHolmes52
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,178
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
26 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

Given the existing gameplay mechanics though, it's probably the simplest.

I think there are simpler ways I detailed in my post, but they are inherently not frustrating and thus does not fit the Freemium business model.

 

14 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

no31991-pic4.jpg

 

All 3 ships are from the same class :Smile_coin:

Do knew someone would post this picture, because some rocket scientist aways does without knowing or understanding the context. For one, it does not circle groupings, which even someone doing bench rest shooting would understand is FAR more important than just all the holes in the paper. For two, this is NOT a valid test of accuracy. If you read up on this test picture that is reposted add-nausium, this test is invalidated from a 'dispersion' standpoint, in both accuracy *and* precision, as they both failed to cite which shells belong to which salvo, but also more importantly, they did not maintain a CONSTANT aim point (rather, declination on the guns) and adjusted fire per salvo, totally invalidating the test. If you shoot firearms, you would know that when zeroing a rifle, you aim at the same spot visually, and adjust the SIGHTS to walk the fire onto the target. That's not what they did here, they aimed at a DIFFERENT spot and tried to walk the fire onto the target (closer to kentuky windage than formal accuracy sighting).

I've addressed this picture in the past too:

On 4/25/2018 at 2:06 PM, _RC1138 said:

There is a *high* degree of fundamental misunderstanding's on the forums to how naval gunnery, ship type notwithstanding, functioned and the accuracies associated with: most seem to be basing their knowledge and understandings of accuracies 100% on this picture:

no31991-pic4.jpg

This is a bad picture, taken WOEFULLY out of context, and ignoring some BASIC facts and realities of how ships function.

This, is a far better example of what gunnery on a 1940's era Battleship was capable of:

 

TPeCem8.gif

 

 

 

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,624
[WOLF3]
Members
27,053 posts
23,842 battles

Sweet, so according to the last picture, In game Iowa's 293m (321 yards) dispersion at 23.35km (about 25,500 yards) is correct!

I have to admit, this surprises me.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,178
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
8 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Sweet, so according to the last picture, In game Iowa's 293m (321 yards) dispersion at 23.35km (about 25,500 yards) is correct!

I have to admit, this surprises me.

No, because dispersion in game is based on a per salvo basis, the second picture involves corrective fire but shows the high precision of that kind of artillery. Basically if you aimed at the SAME spot with a BB in reality, most shells would fall in ~75 to 100 meter space. This is why groupings are so important. If I fire one salvo and it lands far, and rest my aim with a lower declination, I'm not reflecting the GUNS dispersion, but rather MY ability to aim. In reality Naval guns were VERY precise, and initially, very inaccurate. Radar directed gunnery reduced that HEAVILY as it gave HIGHLY accurate range calculations that reduced the error propagation considerably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,445
[WOLFG]
Members
29,019 posts
8,268 battles
41 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

I think there are simpler ways I detailed in my post, but they are inherently not frustrating and thus does not fit the Freemium business model.

 

Do knew someone would post this picture, because some rocket scientist aways does without knowing or understanding the context. For one, it does not circle groupings, which even someone doing bench rest shooting would understand is FAR more important than just all the holes in the paper. For two, this is NOT a valid test of accuracy. If you read up

 

Quote

...this test is invalidated from a 'dispersion' standpoint, in both accuracy *and* precision, as they both failed to cite which shells belong to which salvo, but also more importantly, they did not maintain a CONSTANT aim point (rather, declination on the guns) and adjusted fire per salvo, totally invalidating the test. If you shoot firearms, you would know that when zeroing a rifle, you aim at the same spot visually, and adjust the SIGHTS to walk the fire onto the target. That's not what they did here, they aimed at a DIFFERENT spot and tried to walk the fire onto the target (closer to kentuky windage than formal accuracy sighting).

 

This is true, but it seems a more accurate representation of accuracy under combat conditions, and how the average WoWS player shoots, because they're not going to maintain a constant aim point, and they are going to adjust fire per salvo.

I think the difference here is that you're detailing how accurate naval guns could be under ideal test conditions, not how accurate they were in practice. Either has to also compensated for the fact that, unlike RL, the gunners don't have a standard of competence from training. Pick the best and worst naval gunners from any major nation, and the difference between them will be far less than the difference between the worst gunners and untrained personnel.

If you gave ships in game the accuracy they were capable of, it just increases the skill gap. 

As far as other solutions, I don't like the idea of reducing damage and increasing accuracy. In the CoD and TF2 examples you mention, having either firing first or movement matter (but not both) means that only one skill matters. In a game where movement is what matters, I can't make up for slower twitch skills with patient and accurate shooting. In a game where who shoots first matters, I can't make up for that by maneuvering to be a harder target. There are reasons why I don't like to play most shooters, and you've summed them up nicely. 

Adding 100m short or long is merely a different application of RNG, one that would be capitalised upon by skilled players, at the expense of the mediocre.

This is important, because whatever WG is trying to accomplish as far as frustration, they want it of a type you might think you can buy your way out of. Because they don't sell anything to improve your aim, and the difference in accuracy between various ships is really not that distinguishing for the most part, (buying premium ships doesn't make you more accurate) they don't want players with low shooting skill constantly frustrated by players with high shooting skill. (that makes them leave, because there's nothing they can buy to remedy the situation) So they use dispersion to normalise accuracy between low and high skill players, like a non-individualised handicap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,843
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,427 posts
14,165 battles
9 hours ago, Sovereigndawg said:

One of the biggest flaws in the game is dispersion RNG. Good shots should be rewarded and bad shots should not, unfortunately it doesn't always happen that way.

I disagree, we already have highly increased hit rates compared to the real ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×