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

All ships may become 4% more accurate

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

296
[DMGS]
Members
673 posts
9,510 battles

So one aspect of the latest dev blog I wanted to highlight is the fact that all ships will now have their -4% dispersion increase for attackers removed entirely no matter the camo while the -3% detection range will become baked in.

Quote:

  • In order to make camouflages an exclusively visual customization, their combat bonuses are also separated from them. The 3% detectability range by sea bonus previously present on all camouflages is now built into the default parameters of all ships. The 4% increase of dispersions of shells fired by enemies attacking your ship will be entirely removed;

The latter is obviously a good thing, but the former makes me wonder since I recall what a massive impact Deadeyes' 10% had one the game. Will Italian BBs actually hit something now and will Yamato become the equivalent of an orbital laser? 

Discuss away!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
62 posts
1,650 battles

If thats the case my legendary yamato and regular zao is going to have even more fun.

Edited by Kataclysms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,923
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
16,294 posts
23,625 battles

Yep the folks who hate RNG rejoice!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,316
[WOLF5]
Members
2,436 posts
17,212 battles

Agree with OP with regards to the Yamato and especially the Smolensk, Siegfried and Atago...and a couple of others

Edited by DJC_499

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
833 posts
12,757 battles

You could easily test the implications of this in a training room with 1 other person. Personally I think it's smaller than what you are making it out to be.

While Deadeye was a thing it was overblown by emotion and confirmation bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,354
[BONKZ]
Privateers
8,023 posts
21,267 battles
46 minutes ago, Meatshield_No13 said:

You could easily test the implications of this in a training room with 1 other person. Personally I think it's smaller than what you are making it out to be.

While Deadeye was a thing it was overblown by emotion and confirmation bias.

Also the fact that "10%" was a whole lot more than 10% due to vertical and horizontal dispersion both being affected. 

It ended up making the dispersion ellipse about 38% smaller. 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
293
[BOTES]
[BOTES]
Members
168 posts
19,284 battles

Still don't understand why WG can permanently add the 3% detection reduction, but can't add the 4% dispersion as well, since every camo has both of those items in it. Apparently there are "technical" limitations, but again that makes no sense. If it is so limiting, how has it worked on regular camo's then?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,691
[HOP4S]
Members
6,983 posts
35,369 battles
45 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

Also the fact that "10%" was a whole lot more than 10% due to vertical and horizontal dispersion both being affected. 

It ended up making the dispersion ellipse about 38% smaller. 

 

I kind of look at this as "4% increase in damage +/- "x"" per game isn't all that much in one game.  10,000 games where you take 10% more damage is a large number that has limited you "x" percent of longevity and that is a revenue reduction if you look at 10,000 players x 10,000 matches....!    This is a macro level, tier one Value Stream calculation...  Will it affect daily play..........maybe, if that 4% is the one round that dev strikes you, eh?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,577
[CAAT]
Members
6,206 posts
8,031 battles
3 hours ago, Firewalk said:

Quote:

  • In order to make camouflages an exclusively visual customization, their combat bonuses are also separated from them. The 3% detectability range by sea bonus previously present on all camouflages is now built into the default parameters of all ships. The 4% increase of dispersions of shells fired by enemies attacking your ship will be entirely removed;

woo-i-like-this.gif.9f0f78274c4350ea6c4cf82665410df1.gif

(I swear to the Moon, this is the ONLY Sequel Trilogy meme I actually unironically use)

Jokes aside, this could be a VERY interesting change for ALL ships!!! I really like it actually. I think it will be a net positive change overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,577
[CAAT]
Members
6,206 posts
8,031 battles
2 hours ago, paradat said:

Yep the folks who hate RNG rejoice!

All ships ingame:

6ddqhr.gif.f73b7cbed087a7cd1f0919593a5eb135.gif

Listen, I'd take getting hit a bit more often if *I* get to hit a bit more often ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also, CVs and subs are slightly more vulnerable now? 👀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,577
[CAAT]
Members
6,206 posts
8,031 battles
2 hours ago, Meatshield_No13 said:

You could easily test the implications of this in a training room with 1 other person. Personally I think it's smaller than what you are making it out to be.

While Deadeye was a thing it was overblown by emotion and confirmation bias.

Well no, the MAIN problem with deadeye was the condition, not necessarily the bonus (although the bonus was indeed immensely strong, it was pretty much a must-have, there is a reason EVERYONE takes Dispersion mod on ships). the condition however, was promoting this "back-of-map playstyle", which is ALREADY encouraged due to the meta, as well as penalties on brawling. We didn't need Deadeye to further incentivize this playstyle. We actually needed the opposite, something that promoted pushing, brawling.

UNFORTUNATELY, all we ended up with was the useless skill Furious. Great.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
511
[-HUGS]
Members
966 posts
13,151 battles

Battleships will rejoice; losing 4% dispersion bonus on a huge ships, but gaining 4% of accuracy against everything is a net win.
Destroyers won't care as much; they are either stealth boats and killed mostly by other DDs, or the gunboats exploit skills and maneuverability to dodge shells anyways. Also, they are often quite small compared to the dispersion ellipse already so 4% isn't super significant to them. At least not at the range they operate (12-14km typically).  
 
Light cruisers with no repair or smaller health pools are the ones that will see a net negative impact IMHO. I know that people don't want to believe it but....  the 4% accuracy bonus they get doesn't mean much due to the fact they already get super good dispersion. But there is a huge difference, between catching 2 or 3 BB shells, even if none of them hit the citadel. Consider Sejong (30k HP) catching Satsuma shells.... 4% is a huge diff when you operate at 13/14km of Satsuma, due to the relative size of the ship vs the dispersion ellipse. 

Sure, it won't make a difference every game, but over time... It really does. And BTW....   It did make a difference for lots of ships using Dead Eye. It is a rather controversial subject but I remember they admitted it had an impact that was significant, more than anticipated.  Over the stream where they announced Dead Eye removal.   Another way to see this is that  if the issue was only the meta it created (stay back at range), they could have gone another route to address the issue by changing how the skill is activated.  But the real problem was than 10% was a HUGE bonus in lots of circumstances, having a significant impact that could require rebalancing ships.

Every time you play with dispersion in such a system, there is an impact. 4% will be a lot less than 10% but still, it is going to be felt over time. And mostly by the ships that don't need the nerf or the bonus accuracy.


 

Edited by Mr_Argamas
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
616
[WOLFX]
Members
807 posts
1,713 battles

Now, if they remove that dazzle buff for certain DDs, then it will be a more-level playing field.

How can a ship have an extra 20% dispersion protection just because someone saw it? It flies in the face of logic. But, then again WG has nothing to do with logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,255
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,105 posts
30,874 battles

Battleships are the ones to gain most from this.  Destroyer and Cruiser guns are already accurate enough.  It's Battleships that have the big dispersion size.

1 hour ago, cammaj said:

Now, if they remove that dazzle buff for certain DDs, then it will be a more-level playing field.

How can a ship have an extra 20% dispersion protection just because someone saw it? It flies in the face of logic. But, then again WG has nothing to do with logic.

I can throw this right back at Battleships.  They should have far worse hit %.

Below is for the USN 16"/50 guns as found on the Iowas during late war gunnery exercises.  They're using the latest and greatest in radar gunfire control systems, etc.

6SwLmas.jpg

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
296
[DMGS]
Members
673 posts
9,510 battles
1 minute ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Battleships are the ones to gain most from this.  Destroyer and Cruiser guns are already accurate enough.  It's Battleships that have the big dispersion size.

Certain supercruisers too. I believe Kronshtadt has BB dispersion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,649
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
11,842 posts
30,530 battles

PvP players are probably  not going to notice a big difference with this change because MOST players know to use camos. The big change will come to Co-op were the bots generally do not have camo applied now so they are going to get a bit harder to hit. That will affect every match and personally I am good with tougher bots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
296
[DMGS]
Members
673 posts
9,510 battles
49 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

PvP players are probably  not going to notice a big difference with this change because MOST players know to use camos. The big change will come to Co-op were the bots generally do not have camo applied now so they are going to get a bit harder to hit. That will affect every match and personally I am good with tougher bots. 

I believe you got that the wrong way around. If anything the bots will have a easier time hitting you.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
853
[-TDF-]
Beta Testers
1,321 posts
5,393 battles

Cruisers CA's and CL's not super heavies should get the -4% baked into there default stats. The other classes no.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
616
[WOLFX]
Members
807 posts
1,713 battles
5 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

They should have far worse hit %.

I was relating to the game, not real life. It is a game, after all. 

A good DD player can (at the moment) flit in and out on detection using smoke, island cover and judicious use of their detection range to spot and launch torpedoes with a greater protection not in place for other classes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,577
[CAAT]
Members
6,206 posts
8,031 battles

It's fair. EVERYONE can hit everybody a little bit more effectively. I'd rather that, than missing more often just because RNG said no.

ALSO it affects ALL dispersions, main battery AND secondary. So yeah, that is pretty interesting to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,577
[CAAT]
Members
6,206 posts
8,031 battles
5 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Battleships are the ones to gain most from this.  Destroyer and Cruiser guns are already accurate enough.  It's Battleships that have the big dispersion size.

I can throw this right back at Battleships.  They should have far worse hit %.

Below is for the USN 16"/50 guns as found on the Iowas during late war gunnery exercises.  They're using the latest and greatest in radar gunfire control systems, etc.

6SwLmas.jpg

Ok, but on the flipside, the 127mm/38 secondary mounts would be at 16km range, and fire every 5s at slowest. Also, main battery range would be increased beyond 30km IIRC. If it was historical, AA and secondaries would be a heckuva lot more effective, and BB AP would WRECK a DD (literally wreck the hit part of the ship). And CVs would be even more broken, DDs would only have one load of torpedoes or at most a single reload, and bow-tanking would not be a thing.

So unfortunately, we can't ALWAYS take historical over gameplay. As much as I like historical. and I do like historical! But again....gameplay balance. So.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,255
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,105 posts
30,874 battles
15 minutes ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

Ok, but on the flipside, the 127mm/38 secondary mounts would be at 16km range, and fire every 5s at slowest. Also, main battery range would be increased beyond 30km IIRC. If it was historical, AA and secondaries would be a heckuva lot more effective, and BB AP would WRECK a DD (literally wreck the hit part of the ship). And CVs would be even more broken, DDs would only have one load of torpedoes or at most a single reload, and bow-tanking would not be a thing.

So unfortunately, we can't ALWAYS take historical over gameplay. As much as I like historical. and I do like historical! But again....gameplay balance. So.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Don't threaten me with a simulation good time.

%ED%81%AC%EA%B8%B0%EB%B3%80%ED%99%98_falDAlAh.jpeg

Also, Battleships would also be a lot scarcer and costlier to operate.  WoWS would make one believe there are more Battleships in WWII than there were Destroyers and Cruisers.  I've clamored in the past for a scarcity system so that capital ships do not outnumber the real workhorses of WWII.

8JpRqYv.jpeg

 

 

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Funny 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,649
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
11,842 posts
30,530 battles
5 hours ago, Firewalk said:

I believe you got that the wrong way around. If anything the bots will have a easier time hitting you.

Ahh yeah I did. Thanks. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,577
[CAAT]
Members
6,206 posts
8,031 battles
13 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Don't threaten me with a simulation good time.

%ED%81%AC%EA%B8%B0%EB%B3%80%ED%99%98_falDAlAh.jpeg

Also, Battleships would also be a lot scarcer and costlier to operate.  WoWS would make one believe there are more Battleships in WWII than there were Destroyers and Cruisers.  I've clamored in the past for a scarcity system so that capital ships do not outnumber the real workhorses of WWII.

8JpRqYv.jpeg

 

 

Ok, picture it though: a MIX of Battlestations Pacific-level mechanics/gameplay with all the goodness WoWs brings to the table. Manual secondaries and AA. DYNAMIC CV gameplay. Battleships that fire off each cannon in a sequential salvo! AUTOMATED GUNNERY ensues when switching from main battery to AA or secondaries!! Submarines that act like submarines! Destroyers and cruisers acting as they should! Yes, more cruisers and DDs than BBs (but BBs can decimate surface ships, as they should!). You would need concerted attacks to bring down battleships. Torpedoes would be pretty lethal, as always. DDs primary attack against BBs would be their torpedoes, never their guns. HE spam would be reduced in effectiveness....

...Actually, it would be freakin' GLORIOUS, tbh. Especially with the more accurate longer WoWs ranges than BSP's range system. It could work!! But the amount of overhaul World of Warships would require for all of this goodness would be....extensive. But maybe with baby steps huh? This game is great, but it CAN be better.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×