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

Turning Circle Triumph of LittleWhiteMouse

43 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
136 posts
11,294 battles

Hey, for those of you who haven't read the patch notes, WG finally addressed the inconsistency of the turning circles of many ships in game vs their in-port statistics.
The information is in the patch notes at the bottom of the page under the tab titled "Turning Circle Radius Changes".

This topic of the incongruity between the stats and the reality of the turning circles has been a long-standing "research project" by @LittleWhiteMouse and it is nice to see that her work has been appreciated. 
 

I am especially excited that Warspite has a tad more tightness in her turn!

Thank you WG and thank you LittleWhiteMouse!

  • Cool 11
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
992
[NSC]
Members
2,333 posts

I was just going to post this but I had to wait ~10 min for the forums to let me log in. :(

Also, tagging @LittleWhiteMouse. Great work! Very impressed that WG actually fixed this because of you bugging them for years. Did they credit you correctly?

image.thumb.png.e924ba9e0b39735ec663809f63070e1f.png

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,941
[TBW]
Members
10,278 posts
17,457 battles

My question is, are they adjusting the radius to what Miss Mouse has found them to be or does she have to do all that testing over again. Quite a task that would be.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38,003
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
12,032 posts
10,080 battles
15 minutes ago, Rokkator said:

Thank you WG and thank you LittleWhiteMouse!

Thank you for the shout out. :)

1 minute ago, Sovereigndawg said:

My question is, are they adjusting the radius to what Miss Mouse has found them to be or does she have to do all that testing over again. Quite a task that would be.

For most of them.  That doesn't preclude me from having to test them all again.  Some of these ships had some very serious bugs in their agility -- for example, Audacious bled more than half of her speed in a turn -- and that needs to be checked if it's corrected.  I'll be putting out a request for help to crowd-source some 360º turn times for various ships over Reddit / the Forums to properly evaluate not only the ships listed but those that were missed.

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
992
[NSC]
Members
2,333 posts
1 minute ago, Sovereigndawg said:

My question is, are they adjusting the radius to what Miss Mouse has found them to be or does she have to do all that testing over again. Quite a task that would be.

There are two categories:

1) Original radius did NOT follow description and radius has been changed to follow description.

2) Original radius did NOT follow description and both original radius and description have been changed to a new value.

Does this make sense? It's outlined pretty clearly in the patch notes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
980
[A-I-M]
Members
2,994 posts
21,988 battles

Go Mouse!

Hilarious that WG did not know the actual performance of many of their ships, especially since a few of the more obvious examples have been known to observant players for some time. 

Edited by Pugilistic
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
381
[WOLF5]
Members
1,061 posts
8,865 battles

I take it this was related to your request to the community to measure various ship turns rates many months ago? Thanks for your hard work on this matter to benefit this game!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38,003
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
12,032 posts
10,080 battles
1 minute ago, DJC_499 said:

I take it this was related to your request to the community to measure various ship turns rates many months ago? Thanks for your hard work on this matter to benefit this game!

That's part of it.  The first batch of numbers was delivered about two years ago.  I've been riding WG ever since.  The batch in August / September was to deliver a fresh-set and confirm that the old ones were still not fixed.

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
627 posts

Well it's nice that Wargaming actually showed they can listen if you berate them enough. 

Edited by Neko_Ship_Akashi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
571
[PEED2]
Beta Testers
2,013 posts
25,493 battles
5 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

..................  The first batch of numbers was delivered about two years ago.  I've been riding WG ever since.  ...................................

I guess this shows the WGs definition of "soon".  :Smile_teethhappy:

Good job LWM....  +1

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,610
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,704 posts

Yeah, I see a lot of ships I like are getting a nominal or actual nerf, just so that the paperwork is correct. 

Lovely. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,173
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,889 posts
11,581 battles

if anything the fact it took Mouse telling them this over who knows how long of a time period, kinda shows that Mouse pays more attention to things in the game than the people that work on the damn thing do, and thats kinda sad for the people at WG, a player is able to notice things arent right in your game better than you are, also, these are some pretty big buffs to some ships that had pretty a bad turning radius

Edited by tcbaker777
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[D3BT]
Members
371 posts
6,199 battles
23 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Yeah, I see a lot of ships I like are getting a nominal or actual nerf, just so that the paperwork is correct. 

Lovely. 

Which ones in particular are you referring to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
627 posts
29 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Yeah, I see a lot of ships I like are getting a nominal or actual nerf, just so that the paperwork is correct. 

Lovely. 

 

It's not just 'so the paperwork is right'. It's so the game actually functions properly, and please list these "lot of ships getting nerfed" because unless you have evidence like LWM did you're just blowing hot air here.

Edited by Neko_Ship_Akashi
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
627 posts
40 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

That's part of it.  The first batch of numbers was delivered about two years ago.  I've been riding WG ever since.  The batch in August / September was to deliver a fresh-set and confirm that the old ones were still not fixed.

Maybe you can ride Wargaming to start giving a damn about scenarios again (I kid, I know you have more important things to ride them on like AA interactions).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,173
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,889 posts
11,581 battles
4 minutes ago, Neko_Ship_Akashi said:

It's not just 'so the paperwork is right'. It's so the game actually functions properly, and please list these "lot of ships getting nerfed" because unless you have evidence like LWM did you're just blowing hot air here.

well, some of them are getting a bit worse if you look at the chart in the WOWS post linked, not extreme nerfs, but still a slight nerf, except Midway, that thing is going from 800+ to 1200+ turning radius, NDJ is by far the one gaining the most from this with over 100m being shaved off its turning radius though

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,610
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,704 posts
2 minutes ago, Neko_Ship_Akashi said:

It's not just 'so the paperwork is right'. It's so the game actually functions properly, and please list these "lot of ships getting nerfed" because unless you have evidence like LWM did you're just blowing hot air here.

There's a long list of ships being affected in the patch notes.

Some of those ships are having their turning circles increased to match the posted value.  

https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/game-updates/update-096-german-carriers/

FDG, Gneisenau, Prinz Eugen, Hipper, Grosser Kurfurst, Konig, Bayern, Hindenburg, etc, and even a few ships that aren't German, are all having their real turning radius increased to match the old listed value or something closer.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
627 posts
1 minute ago, tcbaker777 said:

well, some of them are getting a bit worse if you look at the chart in the WOWS post linked, not extreme nerfs, but still a slight nerf

Maybe so, but a sweeping statement like whatcwas said with the reasoning 'to make the paperwork look right' is just not true. The ships being nerfed are the Capital Ships that were way more maneuverable then they should have been, like the Midway for example. 

Heck several ships actually got buffed as well, the Iowa got buffed, Montana got buffed, Fletcher got buffed, Alabama was buffed, even Shimakaze was buffed.

You can't blanket statement this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,610
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,704 posts
Just now, Neko_Ship_Akashi said:

Maybe so, but a sweeping statement like whatcwas said with the reasoning 'to make the paperwork look right' is just not true. The ships being nerfed are the Capital Ships that were way more maneuverable then they should have been, like the Midway for example. 

Heck several ships actually got buffed as well, the Iowa got buffed, Montana got buffed, Fletcher got buffed, Alabama was buffed, even Shimakaze was buffed.

You can't blanket statement this.

I didn't say it was all nerfs, I said it was a bunch of ships I like getting nominal to actual nerfs (a couple meters isn't a nerf, forty meters definitely is). 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38,003
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
12,032 posts
10,080 battles
Just now, tcbaker777 said:

well, some of them are getting a bit worse if you look at the chart in the WOWS post linked, not extreme nerfs, but still a slight nerf

You can divide them into X number of groups:

Ships whose performance isn't changing
These are ships whose performance has always been different than what was listed in-port.  Wargaming is simply correcting the in-port value to reflect what they have always done.  Most of the British light cruisers are here: 

Midway, Conqueror, Thunderer, Minotaur, Fiji, Weymoth, Neptune, Leander, Dmitri Donskoi, Caledon, Perth, Emerald, Black Swan, Danae, Belfast, Edinburgh, Texas, Missouri, New Mexico, Colorado.

Ships that are buffed by these changes
These are ships who are getting improved in-game handling.  This assumes that there is more going on here than just a numbers-in-port tweak and that the ships themselves are having their performance values massaged to make them conform to their new values.  These have to be double-checked by the player base.

Nueve de Julio, Iowa, Audacious, Montana, Vaquelin, Phoenix, Warspite, Kitakaze, Marceau, Kleber, Molotov, Murmansk, Roon, Fletcher, Jervis, Minekaze, Alabama, Baltimore, Shimakaze, Zao, New Orleans, Takao, Atago, Atago Black, Des Moines, Tirpitz, Tirpitz Black, Moskva

Ships that are nerfed by these chanegs.

These are ships who are getting worse in-game handling.  This assumes that there is more going on here than just a numbers-in-port tweak and that the ships themselves are having their performance values massaged to make them conform to their new values.  These have to be double-checked by the player base.

New York, Sinop, Le Fantasque, Langley, Friedrich der Große, Myogi, Kongo, ARP Kongo, ARP Hiei, ARP Kirishima, ARP Haruna, Gneisenau, Turenne, Prinz Eugen, Arkansas Beta, Bourrasque, Kawachi, Iron Duke, Admiral Hipper, Großer Kurfürst, König, Imperator Nikolai I, Bayern, Fuso, Kaiser, Kuma, Hindenburg, Lion

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
627 posts
1 minute ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I didn't say it was all nerfs, I said it was a bunch of ships I like getting nominal to actual nerfs (a couple meters isn't a nerf, forty meters definitely is). 

 

Your statement implied otherwise, my apologies for the misunderstanding. But if you look at it almost all the ships nerfed actually make sense, since they are Capital Ships and should be less maneuverable because of their size, Midway is a prime example. Even then some large ships like Iowa and Montana actually got some nice buffs as well.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,610
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
15,704 posts
5 minutes ago, Neko_Ship_Akashi said:

Your statement implied otherwise, my apologies for the misunderstanding. But if you look at it almost all the ships nerfed actually make sense, since they are Capital Ships and should be less maneuverable because of their size, Midway is a prime example. Even then some large ships like Iowa and Montana actually got some nice buffs as well.

Many of the capital ships in the game are already artificially lacking in agility, actually.  

But that's another argument. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,120
[CVA16]
Members
5,373 posts
16,127 battles
1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

That's part of it.  The first batch of numbers was delivered about two years ago.  I've been riding WG ever since.  The batch in August / September was to deliver a fresh-set and confirm that the old ones were still not fixed.

Thanks for the work. I did notice the end of the patch notes on turning circles gives credit to AprilWhiteMouse. Relative of yours?:Smile-_tongue:

I also notice that, overall, ships I own seemed to have been nerfed more often than improved (actual vs now claimed)

Edited by Sabot_100
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
248
[TIAR]
[TIAR]
Beta Testers
1,240 posts
19,466 battles
2 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Thank you for the shout out. :)

For most of them.  That doesn't preclude me from having to test them all again.  Some of these ships had some very serious bugs in their agility -- for example, Audacious bled more than half of her speed in a turn -- and that needs to be checked if it's corrected.  I'll be putting out a request for help to crowd-source some 360º turn times for various ships over Reddit / the Forums to properly evaluate not only the ships listed but those that were missed.

Didn't see your post. please link it here or pin it in the forum so we can help

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38,003
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
12,032 posts
10,080 battles
30 minutes ago, barbaroja_Ar said:

Didn't see your post. please link it here or pin it in the forum so we can help 

I haven't put it together yet.  I'm waiting for the patch to go live.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×