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

Excellent video on perspective from my lord Jingles.

61 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,433
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
12,338 posts
17,511 battles

This video is very timely. 

 

  • Cool 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,187
[KWF]
Members
5,757 posts
7,003 battles

Jingle's argument on perception is valid to a certain extent. But for all the love and respect I hold for him since his early days, the "it's just a 10% difference" defence doesn't hold much water. Because in the case of dispersion we are talking about an ellipse. So, from ducky_shot's Reddit thread and based on LWM's Deadeye test, here's what a 10% difference looks on Roma (due to a mixup white is dispersion with Deadeye, red without). So an on paper 10% dispersion buff translates to a 38% tighter dispersion on the dispersion ellipse.

Source:

Spoiler

 

u0ij1gzol7f61.jpg

 

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,426
Banned
1,424 posts
6,083 battles

Jingles dropped the ball on this one by contradicting himself.

"You can trace all of this back to the Deadeye skill, but that doesn't mean deadeye skill is responsible for it"

 

Well, if you can trace it back to the cause, then it is responsible for it.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,141
[PISD]
Members
1,839 posts
6,092 battles
3 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Because in the case of dispersion we are talking about an ellipse. So, from ducky_shot's Reddit thread and based on LWM's Deadeye test, here's what a 10% difference looks on Roma (due to a mixup white is dispersion with Deadeye, red without). So an on paper 10% dispersion buff translates to a 38% tighter dispersion on the dispersion ellipse.

Albeit, Roma is one of the main winner of it. Having 10% buff on such large dispersion will make a massive difference, but in the case of Thunder, UU Yamato and Slava, the acurate effect will be  less relevant. Also, since it doesn't change the sigma, the actual number of shot on target barely change. In LWM test, it was basically 2 more hit on the target only, and that is for one of the ship having the bigger gain from it. (those image are from @cmdr_bigdog)

207088876_LWMdeadeyeandASM1Fusodispersion.thumb.png.fb0e62835dac7711a0c451e8c129991c.png

1890700643_LWMgraphicoverlayFusoASM1dispersion.thumb.png.4d9adee39433261c36681e2767608ee7.png

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
165
[WOLF9]
Members
199 posts
2,401 battles

What I got from this video

1) Everyone's has there own perception of who's at fault and what's causing it. Also we are all right at the same time.

2) if your in a cruiser stay behind the battleships or an island until they whittle each other down after DD's spot for them  ..... Then go in to take caps and fight with said DD's ....

3) His video's are much easier to watch when he doesn't fake laugh out loud after everything he perceives to be funny.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,024
[WOLF9]
Wiki Lead
15,736 posts
4,771 battles
20 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

u0ij1gzol7f61.jpg

 

That's a very poor visualization.  The reduction in the major axis is clearly *far* greater than 10%, and were it centered the minor axis would be suspect too.

I'm waiting for a Ms. Mouse graphic for visualization (beyond the hit plots that I find difficult to interpret).

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,426
[SALVO]
Members
26,113 posts
29,100 battles
11 minutes ago, SeaCat_ said:

What I got from this video

1) Everyone's has there own perception of who's at fault and what's causing it. Also we are all right at the same time.

2) if your in a cruiser stay behind the battleships or an island until they whittle each other down after DD's spot for them  ..... Then go in to take caps and fight with said DD's ....

3) His video's are much easier to watch when he doesn't fake laugh out loud after everything he perceives to be funny.

 

2.a.  "you are" or "you're", but NOT "your".

2.b. Or you can take a cruiser and try to engage from behind hard cover, if you're in a cruiser whose main guns have lofty enough shell arcs to get up and over those islands.

3. But then Jingles wouldn't be Jingles.  I don't watch Jingles for cold, hard analysis.  I watch him for entertainment.  And part of that is his odd sense of humor.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,187
[KWF]
Members
5,757 posts
7,003 battles
14 minutes ago, Karstodes said:

Albeit, Roma is one of the main winner of it. Having 10% buff on such large dispersion will make a massive difference, but in the case of Thunder, UU Yamato and Slava, the acurate effect will be  less relevant. Also, since it doesn't change the sigma, the actual number of shot on target barely change. In LWM test, it was basically 2 more hit on the target only, and that is for one of the ship having the bigger gain from it. (those image are from @cmdr_bigdog)

207088876_LWMdeadeyeandASM1Fusodispersion.thumb.png.fb0e62835dac7711a0c451e8c129991c.png

1890700643_LWMgraphicoverlayFusoASM1dispersion.thumb.png.4d9adee39433261c36681e2767608ee7.png

 

Just now, iDuckman said:

That's a very poor visualization.  The reduction in the major axis is clearly *far* greater than 10%, and were it centered the minor axis would be suspect too.

I'm waiting for a Ms. Mouse graphic for visualization (beyond the hit plots that I find difficult to interpret).

 

Sadly I'm not that good with math to make my own, so gotta make do somehow. Am also waiting for a relevant graphic from Ms.Mouse, though I will both grant you that some of the "outlier" shells that randomly end up too far or low on the major axis especially can skew the result. Still, it's a larger reduction than a 10% on paper alludes to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,141
[PISD]
Members
1,839 posts
6,092 battles
1 minute ago, warheart1992 said:

 

Sadly I'm not that good with math to make my own, so gotta make do somehow. Am also waiting for a relevant graphic from Ms.Mouse, though I will both grant you that some of the "outlier" shells that randomly end up too far or low on the major axis especially can skew the result. Still, it's a larger reduction than a 10% on paper alludes to.

it is, but missing by 10m or 50m is irrelevant: you still miss. The sigma staying the same, you have a similar number of shell on the target. They will land close for sure, which can help against target maneuvering, but that's all.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,598
[CYNIC]
Members
2,911 posts
7,782 battles

Jingles is still playing?  I thought he was quitting or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,314
[SALVO]
Members
6,935 posts
5,502 battles
37 minutes ago, Karstodes said:

Albeit, Roma is one of the main winner of it. Having 10% buff on such large dispersion will make a massive difference, but in the case of Thunder, UU Yamato and Slava, the acurate effect will be  less relevant. Also, since it doesn't change the sigma, the actual number of shot on target barely change. In LWM test, it was basically 2 more hit on the target only, and that is for one of the ship having the bigger gain from it. (those image are from @cmdr_bigdog)

207088876_LWMdeadeyeandASM1Fusodispersion.thumb.png.fb0e62835dac7711a0c451e8c129991c.png

1890700643_LWMgraphicoverlayFusoASM1dispersion.thumb.png.4d9adee39433261c36681e2767608ee7.png

Interesting... :cap_yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
165
[WOLF9]
Members
199 posts
2,401 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

2.a.  "you are" or "you're", but NOT "your".

2.b. Or you can take a cruiser and try to engage from behind hard cover, if you're in a cruiser whose main guns have lofty enough shell arcs to get up and over those islands.

3. But then Jingles wouldn't be Jingles.  I don't watch Jingles for cold, hard analysis.  I watch him for entertainment.  And part of that is his odd sense of humor.

1) My bad (being on my phone is no defense) But you missed "Their" instead of "there" If your going to be a superior grammar nutzi go all the way or not at all     https://www.sciencealert.com/people-who-pick-up-grammar-mistakes-jerks-scientists-find

2) " behind the battleships or an island" =hard cover

3)  I don't care why you watch jingles..... glad You're happy though 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,083
[SIM]
Members
5,785 posts
9,263 battles
57 minutes ago, CV_Jeebies said:

Jingles is still playing?  I thought he was quitting or something.

He’ll always talk a good game about quitting or being unhappy, but his livelihood stems from World of Tanks and World of Warships. His attempts to rely on content from other games were comparative failures. 

Also, obligatory Jingles in 2021 lol

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,372
[CVA16]
Members
6,162 posts
19,015 battles
2 minutes ago, Vasili_One_Bonk_only said:

It's not even a case of accuracy. It's a case of how it's made the meta even more passive and slow. 

Perception is a major factor.

A non WOWS example would be the tax deduction for charitable giving. A lot of people would give or give more because it was tax deductable. Then they raised the standard deduction so most folk didn't itemize anymore. That donation no longer provided a tax benefit and charitable donations declined.even though the amount out of pocket was the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,024
[WOLF9]
Wiki Lead
15,736 posts
4,771 battles
1 hour ago, Karstodes said:

it is, but missing by 10m or 50m is irrelevant: you still miss. The sigma staying the same, you have a similar number of shell on the target. They will land close for sure, which can help against target maneuvering, but that's all.

That's not quite true.  With a smaller ellipse the statistical cluster will be even tighter, so if your aim is spot on (you have a real dead eye) your number of hits should be a little greater.

IMO this may well be balanced over a large number of salvos by the hits you don't get because of reduced scatter.  Given a similar distribution of your aimpoints, it's possible to math out the overall effect, but

Spoiler

477525807_mybrainhurts.gif.c2ae4314e22d279ee047c05c8ffba4c8.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,141
[PISD]
Members
1,839 posts
6,092 battles
7 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

That's not quite true.  With a smaller ellipse the statistical cluster will be even tighter, so if your aim is spot on (you have a real dead eye) your number of hits should be a little greater.

IMO this may well be balanced over a large number of salvos by the hits you don't get because of reduced scatter.  Given a similar distribution of your aimpoints, it's possible to math out the overall effect, but

  Hide contents

477525807_mybrainhurts.gif.c2ae4314e22d279ee047c05c8ffba4c8.gif

 

It is somewhat true, and Little White Mouse test show roughly 2 more « hit » on 50 rounds. But it is still of limited impact.

 

I would argue that its the opposite tho: the biggest change is a move from the far side , making near miss more likely to end with hit, unless your accuracy is IJN 25mm aa level in which case yes, the bigger the better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
971
[4HIM]
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
2,250 posts
16,098 battles

I hate that LWM drew attention to the Roma...I knew right off Roma would be the real winner of the deadeye sweepstakes...and one of my favorite ships got what she needed, dispersion help.  I have always liked her and now I just feel like I am hitting more... wish the overpens would go away on CAs though.  Some CAs I hit with so many overpens, they fill with water and sink from all the holes...but it takes a loooong while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,032
[GRETA]
Members
1,378 posts
10,609 battles

He assumes the entire reason for the new meta is one skill and forgets that it was also the nerf to secondary skills that has a part in it.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,060
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,751 posts
5,999 battles
1 hour ago, HallaSnackbar said:

He assumes the entire reason for the new meta is one skill and forgets that it was also the nerf to secondary skills that has a part in it.

There wasn't a nerf to secondary skills.  At least not for German BBs.  

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,489
[WKY04]
Members
3,879 posts
24,865 battles
4 hours ago, iDuckman said:

That's a very poor visualization.  The reduction in the major axis is clearly *far* greater than 10%, and were it centered the minor axis would be suspect too.

I'm waiting for a Ms. Mouse graphic for visualization (beyond the hit plots that I find difficult to interpret).

As I understand this:

A beam that projects obliquely onto a plane produces an ellipse. Percentage changes in the width of the cone produce an ellipse that varies proportionately more than the change in the size of the beam.  

If it projected perpendicular to the plane, it would produce a circle, and variation in the size of the beam would produce a directly proportionate difference in the size of the circle. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,032
[GRETA]
Members
1,378 posts
10,609 battles
1 hour ago, Helstrem said:

There wasn't a nerf to secondary skills.  At least not for German BBs.  

Yes there was, manual fire control got nerfed from 60% accuracy to 35% and the build lost it's aa buffs.  All because the secondaries will now fire off both sides (which it always should have anyway) and that is useless because those blind side secondaries can't hit anything. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
717
[TIMT]
Members
1,362 posts
4,904 battles

Thing is, unless we get some good numbers on how effective it really is, all we have is perception. The situation is not helped by WG guarding the knowledge on how vertical dispersion works or artillery performance in general (like, why is there no AP performance chart in game? Why do I have to go to an external 3rd party site?).

What interests me though, is why the early tests and visualization attempts as shown here show that it appears to be more than 10% (or 19% for the area). Because this leaves three possibilities:

  • We can't measure dispersion correctly through our observations. This is quite likely, given that the process is manual, quite laborious, and since it is a process with a human involved, quite error prone.
  • We don't understand how dispersion values affect the shell hits seen in game. Quite likely, given that we have only limited information on the subject and people are still trying to reverse engineer the vertical dispersion.
  • There is a bug with Deadeye and it is actually more effective than it should be.

Of course, combination of the above factors are also possible. So I guess we have to wait for someone to come up with a good and practical way to get some numbers here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,060
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,751 posts
5,999 battles
10 minutes ago, HallaSnackbar said:

Yes there was, manual fire control got nerfed from 60% accuracy to 35% and the build lost it's aa buffs.  All because the secondaries will now fire off both sides (which it always should have anyway) and that is useless because those blind side secondaries can't hit anything. 

You are being very selective in what you are describing. You also seem to be ignoring, or unaware of, the base accuracy buff of 22.5% for Tier VII+ German BBs.

For the effective loss of about 10% accuracy on designated targets and the annoying, but negligible, AA bonuses you gained range, infinitely more accuracy on undesignated targets (not just secondaries on the other side of the ship, but any target of opportunity from any secondary gun when it couldn't bear on the designated target or there wasn't a designated target), 10% higher rate of fire with your main battery and enough remaining points to take another 4 point skill such as Fire Proof, Emergency Repair Expert or Concealment Expert.  That is unequivocally better than it was.

The problem is the meta has made any sort of pushing into secondary range nigh suicide and thus none of the above matters at all.

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.

×