Aiming and Leading the Target

[Admiral_Karasu]

I asked perplexity about WoWS aiming, and it didn't really say anything I didn't already know, or hadn't already tried. I tried it again and, I think it just isn't as simple and easy as perplexity makes it sound. For instance, I tried it with the stock dynamic crosshairs and made it six seconds = six markings, and the shots fell way ahead the targeted BB. I know that you'd have to factor the target speed and course into it, you just don't have any readings for that, but I can't help to think that there's something wrong with the equations that perplexity is using. Or rather, there's something wrong with the shell velocity and range indicators that the WoWS crosshairs is giving.

Anyone having any thoughts on this? This is what perplexity answered:

(easier to read here: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/in-world-of-warships-the-cross-UD3RelGEQ4WjW77reaPXRA )

 

Yes, there is a way to use the shell flight time and distance information in conjunction with the crosshair markers to more accurately lead targets in World of Warships. Here's a method to improve your aim:

    Use the dynamic crosshair, specifically the Nomogram Classic crosshair1

5
.
The top tick marks on the crosshair correspond to a ship moving at 30 knots, while the bottom tick marks are for 20 knots2
.
For a target moving perpendicular to you at 30 knots, use the shell flight time to determine how many tick marks to lead. For example, if the shell flight time is 6 seconds, aim 6 tick marks ahead of the target6
.
Adjust your lead based on the target's speed:

    For average speed battleships (23-25 knots), use about 0.75 tick marks per second of flight time3

.
For destroyers (around 37 knots), use about 1.25 tick marks per second3

    .

For targets at extreme ranges (over 15km), use about 2 seconds per tick mark as a starting point, then adjust based on experience3

    .

Regarding static vs. dynamic crosshairs, opinions vary:

    Dynamic crosshairs automatically adjust for different gun calibers and shell arcs, making them more versatile across different ships1

3

    .
    Some experienced players prefer static crosshairs as they allow for more precise manual calculations5
    .

Ultimately, the choice between static and dynamic crosshairs depends on personal preference and playstyle. It's recommended to try both and see which one works better for you.

 

[100 Krakens]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Anyone having any thoughts on this?

I think you are wasting your time trying to use AI (which is not actually an intelligence of any kind — just a black box full of math and stats rife with hallucinations and biases.)
There is also a knowledge cutoff in place for this abomination (DDs' speed is about 37 knots in the model which is a far cry from the current state of things.) 

Here goes three really useful videos on this topic (you can use automatic translation into your language or English — whichever works better.) 

 

 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

2 minutes ago, 100 Krakens said:

I think you are wasting your time trying to use AI (which is not actually an intelligence of any kind — just a black box full of math and stats rife with hallucinations and biases.)
There is also a knowledge cutoff in place for this abomination (DDs' speed is about 37 knots in the model which is a far cry from the current state of things.) 

Here goes three really useful videos on this topic (you can use automatic translation into your language or English — whichever works better.) 

 

 

 

Thanks, I think the AI used some videos as a reference point. Effectively, think of it more as an advanced search engine assistant.

[Aethervox]

2 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

about WoWS aiming

#1) Historically, only about 1 - 2% (or so) of warship shells actually hit their target.

#2) WG uses a much higher % of hits in WoWS, otherwise, the 'Herring school' )player base) would continuously whine about accuracy

#3) whatever accuracy parameters WG uses is not consistent. This is one of the infamous areas where WG 'arranges' and 'massages' battle results.

[Admiral_Karasu]

14 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

#1) Historically, only about 1 - 2% (or so) of warship shells actually hit their target.

#2) WG uses a much higher % of hits in WoWS, otherwise, the 'Herring school' )player base) would continuously whine about accuracy

#3) whatever accuracy parameters WG uses is not consistent. This is one of the infamous areas where WG 'arranges' and 'massages' battle results.

Well at least my aiming remains the most consistently historically accurately depicted element in the game, then. WG should probably use me as their 'historical accuracy' mannequin....

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I asked perplexity about WoWS aiming, and it didn't really say anything I didn't already know, or hadn't already tried. I tried it again and, I think it just isn't as simple and easy as perplexity makes it sound. For instance, I tried it with the stock dynamic crosshairs and made it six seconds = six markings, and the shots fell way ahead the targeted BB. I know that you'd have to factor the target speed and course into it, you just don't have any readings for that, but I can't help to think that there's something wrong with the equations that perplexity is using. Or rather, there's something wrong with the shell velocity and range indicators that the WoWS crosshairs is giving.

Anyone having any thoughts on this? This is what perplexity answered:

(easier to read here: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/in-world-of-warships-the-cross-UD3RelGEQ4WjW77reaPXRA )

 

Yes, there is a way to use the shell flight time and distance information in conjunction with the crosshair markers to more accurately lead targets in World of Warships. Here's a method to improve your aim:

    Use the dynamic crosshair, specifically the Nomogram Classic crosshair1

5
.
The top tick marks on the crosshair correspond to a ship moving at 30 knots, while the bottom tick marks are for 20 knots2
.
For a target moving perpendicular to you at 30 knots, use the shell flight time to determine how many tick marks to lead. For example, if the shell flight time is 6 seconds, aim 6 tick marks ahead of the target6
.
Adjust your lead based on the target's speed:

    For average speed battleships (23-25 knots), use about 0.75 tick marks per second of flight time3

.
For destroyers (around 37 knots), use about 1.25 tick marks per second3

    .

For targets at extreme ranges (over 15km), use about 2 seconds per tick mark as a starting point, then adjust based on experience3

    .

Regarding static vs. dynamic crosshairs, opinions vary:

    Dynamic crosshairs automatically adjust for different gun calibers and shell arcs, making them more versatile across different ships1

3

    .
    Some experienced players prefer static crosshairs as they allow for more precise manual calculations5
    .

Ultimately, the choice between static and dynamic crosshairs depends on personal preference and playstyle. It's recommended to try both and see which one works better for you.

 

WOWs uses time-compression and distances are distorted/compressed and the size of the ships is distorted for easier viewing.
(You don't think a ship really looks that big at 26 km in real-life, do you?  🙂 )

So, I'm wondering if the in-game flight time and the real-life equations are incompatible?  Unless the distance & time compression are accounted for?

Anyway.
In-game, I use estimations based upon...
type of ship/length of ship
speed the target is traveling
target's direction of travel 
my direction of travel
how many "ship lengths" must I aim-ahead to hit?
 

Quote

Example:
Destroyer and I are charging towards each other.
My speed = 30 knots
DD's speed = 35 knots
Rate of closure = 65 knots
Distance at time of firing my guns = 10 to 11 km
Aim point = one eighth of a ship-length ahead of the target and at their waterline.  Actual impact will be somewhere in the superstructure or towards the middle-aft of their deck.

Example:  
Cruiser moving towards me while I am kiting away from them.  Distance = 10 km.  Rate of closure = zero knots.
Aim point = the tip of their bow.  Actual impact likely to be somewhere behind the forward turrets to somewhere ahead of the aft quarterdeck.

Aiming requires some practice, of course.
And the mental adjustments a player makes will be derived from a lot of experience and the specifications of the main-guns being used.

I suggest picking a ship you play often and writing down the projectile weight and the muzzle velocity.
Then practice.  A lot.
And get gud enough to hit the target at a specific distance in a variety of course/speed/closure/non-closure situations.
Then pick another distance, and repeat the experimentation until you can reliably hit the target in various situations.

The real-life ballistics are nice to know & understand, and are be helpful to get one "in the ballpark", so to speak.
But, I think that the game distorts things enough to require a player make some adjustments (in comparision with "real life" aim-point calculations).
 

[Admiral_Karasu]

3 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

WOWs uses time-compression and distances are distorted/compressed and the size of the ships is distorted for easier viewing.
(You don't think a ship really looks that big at 26 km in real-life, do you?  🙂 )

So, I'm wondering if the in-game flight time and the real-life equations are incompatible?  Unless the distance & time compression are accounted for?

Anyway.
In-game, I use estimations based upon...
type of ship/length of ship
speed the target is traveling
target's direction of travel 
my direction of travel
how many "ship lengths" must I aim-ahead to hit?
 

Aiming requires some practice, of course.
And the mental adjustments a player makes will be derived from a lot of experience and the specifications of the main-guns being used.

I suggest picking a ship you play often and writing down the projectile weight and the muzzle velocity.
Then practice.  A lot.
And get gud enough to hit the target at a specific distance in a variety of course/speed/closure/non-closure situations.
Then pick another distance, and repeat the experimentation until you can reliably hit the target in various situations.

The real-life ballistics are nice to know & understand, and are be helpful to get one "in the ballpark", so to speak.
But, I think that the game distorts things enough to require a player make some adjustments (in comparision with "real life" aim-point calculations).
 

I know something's really off. Think of any ship coming straight at you, you only see them bow on, or when they are approaching at a slight angle it's even clearer... the perspective is somehow warped. Basically, with a BB you aim nearly at the bow, with a cruiser a little before the bow, and with a DD even a little more. Likewise, when the target is going away from you, you need to lead a lot less that you would expect.. or at least a lot less that what I would expect, although clearly more than in the case when they are approaching.

Some things just don't add up in the visuals.

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I know something's really off. Think of any ship coming straight at you, you only see them bow on, or when they are approaching at a slight angle it's even clearer... the perspective is somehow warped. Basically, with a BB you aim nearly at the bow, with a cruiser a little before the bow, and with a DD even a little more. Likewise, when the target is going away from you, you need to lead a lot less that you would expect.. or at least a lot less that what I would expect, although clearly more than in the case when they are approaching.

Some things just don't add up in the visuals.

Well, just to add to the mix.  Torpedoes and bombs dropped by a CV.

A Battleship is traveling 20 knots, and I'm a CV dropping torpedoes which travel at 35 knots.
Assuming I approach from directly to their port/starboard, I have to aim ahead of them by at least one-quarter of their ship's length (provided I "drop" at nearly the last moment and the torpedoes will arm just before hitting the hull, between 50 to 100 meters from impact).

Same set-up, but with a DD travelling at 35 knots, and I have to aim beween one and one-and-a-half ship-lengths ahead of them.
Faster DD's may require me to aim two ship-lengths ahead of their path of travel.
(Most will be smart and aware enough to "just dodge".  But, occasionally they're distracted or are in the middle of a maneuver that has limited their options.)

Anyway, back to main-guns.
When the projectile flight-time is more than a few seconds, even slight maneuvers by the target may be enough to prevent a well-aimed shot from hitting (because the target deftly maneuvered out of the intended impact zone).
There's even a topic somewhere on this forum involving a video of a famous youtuber who "rage-quit" after they missed a shot (because the target maneuvered enough for the shot to hit the water instead of enter the hull and result in a citadel hit).
So, it is good that you're exploring the variables involved in gunnery with an open mind.  🙂 

 

[Admiral_Karasu]

4 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Well, just to add to the mix.  Torpedoes and bombs dropped by a CV.

A Battleship is traveling 20 knots, and I'm a CV dropping torpedoes which travel at 35 knots.
Assuming I approach from directly to their port/starboard, I have to aim ahead of them by at least one-quarter of their ship's length (provided I "drop" at nearly the last moment and the torpedoes will arm just before hitting the hull, between 50 to 100 meters from impact).

Same set-up, but with a DD travelling at 35 knots, and I have to aim beween one and one-and-a-half ship-lengths ahead of them.
Faster DD's may require me to aim two ship-lengths ahead of their path of travel.
(Most will be smart and aware enough to "just dodge".  But, occasionally they're distracted or are in the middle of a maneuver that has limited their options.)

Anyway, back to main-guns.
When the projectile flight-time is more than a few seconds, even slight maneuvers by the target may be enough to prevent a well-aimed shot from hitting (because the target deftly maneuvered out of the intended impact zone).
There's even a topic somewhere on this forum involving a video of a famous youtuber who "rage-quit" after they missed a shot (because the target maneuvered enough for the shot to hit the water instead of enter the hull and result in a citadel hit).
So, it is good that you're exploring the variables involved in gunnery with an open mind.  🙂 

 

You mean it more or less doesn't matter how much I ponder about those calculations?

[Wolfswetpaws]

Just now, Admiral_Karasu said:

You mean it more or less doesn't matter how much I ponder about those calculations?

What matters is that your journey of pondering allows you to satisfy your curiosity.  🙂 

[Admiral_Karasu]

1 minute ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

What matters is that your journey of pondering allows you to satisfy your curiosity.  🙂 

Aw crap.

[thornzero]

I use the Static 7. I have tried the dynamic and have failed miserable and every time I do, I go back to Static 7.

Whenever something is broadside [I'm in a BB], it is obviously easier to lead. I basically count the shell time and add or subtract a few clicks, sometimes more if they look real slow. I have penetrated many croozers with devstrikes with this method and got some nice chunks of hp off BBs. [and I find the higher tiers more satisfaction with these strikes for much more damage than mid-tiers.]

Where I struggled is when the target is at an angle, coming or going. So I particularly watched people aim for hours on twitch and discovered how they do it. More success more of the time, with some misses. RNG is a biznatch though and is out of your control obviously. But sometimes, if you do it right it is citadel city. 

When they are bow or stern on I am finding that it is probably better to have HE loaded but I don't always do it in case the mistake happens and something is turning.

Part of the problem is changing ships often. Since I DD main aiming is an entirely different animal than BB particularly at range. It is more of an art than a science. What I find is the guys with thousands of randoms generally don't miss, RNG be damned. So the process of getting good so to speak is practice and experience. 

[Nevermore135]

7 minutes ago, thornzero said:

Part of the problem is changing ships often. Since I DD main aiming is an entirely different animal than BB particularly at range. It is more of an art than a science. What I find is the guys with thousands of randoms generally don't miss, RNG be damned. So the process of getting good so to speak is practice and experience. 

This is where a properly working dynamic crosshair (not the vanilla one) really shines. The “ticks” on the reticle are adjusted for your shell flight time, so aiming is more consistent across different ships. It saves another set of mental calculations, because you just need to adjust for your target’s speed relative to 30/20 knots.

Edited January 11 by Nevermore135

[Admiral_Karasu]

I've played using both static and dynamic versions. I've always thought that I shoot a little better with the static one. Somehow the lead seems more consistent, but trying to figure how much is what is problematic.

[Asym]

Just now, Admiral_Karasu said:

I've played using both static and dynamic versions. I've always thought that I shoot a little better with the static one. Somehow the lead seems more consistent, but trying to figure how much is what is problematic.

We are playing with "generic reticles" that are not designed to each and every shell we fire... 

I spent an entire career shooting tank ammunition's through the M32 and M105D sights...  Long story made short, there is a concept called "burst on target".  

What that means in the shortest way possible is that where your shell lands, use the point of impact as the aiming point for the next salvo...  What you are manually doing, is referring the impact site as the primary aiming point "at that distance."  As the distance increases or decreases, if you understand the ballistics of your guns, you then can move the Point-of-Impact around to remain accurate.... 

It sound impossible;  but, "ballistic ammunition"-  isn't line-of-sight = line-of-fire -   to begin with.  It's an art. 

I used the static 9 reticle.  Why, because it displays "lines of associated movement" that can be used to match the ship hull and direction of movement to better judge burst-on-target adjustments.   It takes me "one salvo" to "refer my aiming points....

It "mitigates" the time to adjust fire.

It's an art with any weapon to "judge where the round, bullet, arrow or whatever" will go. 

I hope this makes you think about why there are so many squiggly lines in some of our reticle choices.

[thornzero]

7 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

I've played using both static and dynamic versions. I've always thought that I shoot a little better with the static one. Somehow the lead seems more consistent, but trying to figure how much is what is problematic.

You have been playing for a long time. Some of the people that explain aim by feel. This is the art more than the science. They use obscure reticules with nary regular ticks.

You should be one of those guys that never misses. 

Which ships are you playing? BB? When the speed looks normal, I do shell flight time lead. So 8 seconds is 8 clicks. Give or take a 1 click. If the speed is real slow looking I do half which is 4 clicks in this example. Croozers on the other hand are a bit quicker. I do shell lead + 3 so 11 clicks. Give or take a click. DDs I always do 10 to 15 clicks and hope for good RNG at distance. Close quarters is another story. 

At an angle is the tricky part. I don't know if I can explain it in text. It's about 1/2 the lead time though. If that makes any sense.

[Admiral_Karasu]

23 minutes ago, thornzero said:

You have been playing for a long time. Some of the people that explain aim by feel. This is the art more than the science. They use obscure reticules with nary regular ticks.

You should be one of those guys that never misses. 

Which ships are you playing? BB? When the speed looks normal, I do shell flight time lead. So 8 seconds is 8 clicks. Give or take a 1 click. If the speed is real slow looking I do half which is 4 clicks in this example. Croozers on the other hand are a bit quicker. I do shell lead + 3 so 11 clicks. Give or take a click. DDs I always do 10 to 15 clicks and hope for good RNG at distance. Close quarters is another story. 

At an angle is the tricky part. I don't know if I can explain it in text. It's about 1/2 the lead time though. If that makes any sense.

Sounds like you are doing roughly what I've been trying out as well. This seems to be something I can only half manage with a static crosshairs. I've just been trying to figure out how exactly to make use of the data that there is, not just try to 'use the force', in other words.

[Wolfswetpaws]

I just checked in-game.
I'm using "Static 2" reticle.

[Nevermore135]

3 hours ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Sounds like you are doing roughly what I've been trying out as well. This seems to be something I can only half manage with a static crosshairs. I've just been trying to figure out how exactly to make use of the data that there is, not just try to 'use the force', in other words.

“Using the force” is, IMO, a good way to put it. I should start referring to dynamic crosshairs as targeting computers. 

Static crosshairs are just that: static, and don’t change based on range to the target. Aiming with any given gun (ship) will be different at different ranges, and since the crosshair doesn’t take into account shell ballistic properties aiming will also vary from ship to ship. Dynamic crosshairs remove those considerations, as the ticks constantly adjust in real time based on your shell flight time to the aim point (distance to target). All you need to account for is estimating the target’s speed and heading and aiming the appropriate number of ticks based on the shell time indicator on the reticle UI next to the crosshair.

I use the Nomogram crosshair from the ModStation (pretty sure it’s also on Aslain’s), so if I have a perfectly broadside target sailing at thirty knots, I just lead the appropriate number of ticks on the 30-knot scale of the reticle. If a ship’s speed is more or less than that, I just need to make a proportional adjustment (i.e. if a ship is going ~33 knots, like a full speed Iowa, you just add 10% more lead). There’s a second scale on the reticle as well scaled for a target speed to 20 knots, so between the two it’s fairly easy to account for most ship speeds in the game. This aiming process would be identical for any guns I was shooting. It makes it much easier to casually play a large number of ships because you don’t have to constantly re-learn and account for different shell characteristics.

I haven’t messed around with the stock dynamic crosshair in quite a while, but at least years ago it was broken and didn’t properly scale with range. I also frequently forget to reapply my mods after a new patch and inevitably get dropped into a battle with the stock static crosshair. I can make it work based on 6+ years of experience, but it’s a lot more difficult and I take longer to estimate the needed lead, especially at longer ranges. I can see the advantage of some of the static crosshairs that also implement additional lines to make estimating and accounting for a target’s heading easier, but I’ve never had much problem with visualizing and accounting for that.

Edited January 12 by Nevermore135

[Wolfswetpaws]

2 hours ago, Nevermore135 said:

“Using the force” is, IMO, a good way to put it. I should start referring to dynamic crosshairs as targeting computers. 

Static crosshairs are just that: static, and don’t change based on range to the target. Aiming with any given gun (ship) will be different at different ranges, and since the crosshair doesn’t take into account shell ballistic properties aiming will also vary from ship to ship. Dynamic crosshairs remove those considerations, as the ticks constantly adjust in real time based on your shell flight time to the aim point (distance to target). All you need to account for is estimating the target’s speed and heading and aiming the appropriate number of ticks based on the shell time indicator on the reticle UI next to the crosshair.

I use the Nomogram crosshair from the ModStation (pretty sure it’s also on Aslain’s), so if I have a perfectly broadside target sailing at thirty knots, I just lead the appropriate number of ticks on the 30-knot scale of the reticle. If a ship’s speed is more or less than that, I just need to make a proportional adjustment (i.e. if a ship is going ~33 knots, like a full speed Iowa, you just add 10% more lead). There’s a second scale on the reticle as well scaled for a target speed to 20 knots, so between the two it’s fairly easy to account for most ship speeds in the game. This aiming process would be identical for any guns I was shooting. It makes it much easier to casually play a large number of ships because you don’t have to constantly re-learn and account for different shell characteristics.

I haven’t messed around with the stock dynamic crosshair in quite a while, but at least years ago it was broken and didn’t properly scale with range. I also frequently forget to reapply my mods after a new patch and inevitably get dropped into a battle with the stock static crosshair. I can make it work based on 6+ years of experience, but it’s a lot more difficult and I take longer to estimate the needed lead, especially at longer ranges. I can see the advantage of some of the static crosshairs that also implement additional lines to make estimating and accounting for a target’s heading easier, but I’ve never had much problem with visualizing and accounting for that.

As you said, in your own way, the problem with Mods is that they "break" nearly every time a new update of the game comes along.
Sure, someone can wait a few days and the Mod creators will have updated the mods and everything will be working again.

Personally, I would prefer to learn how to use what is in-game "as is". 
And then I won't be crippled if a mod that I've been relying upon gets broken or is no longer supported.

But, I am glad that players have choices available to them.  🙂   
 

[Nevermore135]

5 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

As you said, in your own way, the problem with Mods is that they "break" nearly every time a new update of the game comes along.
Sure, someone can wait a few days and the Mod creators will have updated the mods and everything will be working again.

To be clear, the crosshair mod is not “broken” in my example. I simply forget to open the ModStation to reinstall it and the other mods. After the first battle I close the game, make a few clicks, and then everything is fine.

7 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Personally, I would prefer to learn how to use what is in-game "as is". 

Personally, I would prefer what is in the game to work as it’s supposed to. Per my post, the “dynamic” crosshair options in the vanilla client do not do what they are supposed to do.

[Wolfswetpaws]

8 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

To be clear, the crosshair mod is not “broken” in my example. I simply forget to open the ModStation to reinstall it and the other mods. After the first battle I close the game, make a few clicks, and then everything is fine.

Personally, I would prefer what is in the game to work as it’s supposed to. Per my post, the “dynamic” crosshair options in the vanilla client do not do what they are supposed to do.

Like I said.   \/\/\/\/\/\/

17 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

But, I am glad that players have choices available to them.  🙂 

 

[HogHammer]

You have to achieve a certain comfort level whether you prefer static or dynamic crosshairs.  Beyond that, I view reticles as imperfect tools, along with certain mods (for example showing ship angle relative to you).

17 hours ago, Asym said:

It's an art with any weapon to "judge where the round, bullet, arrow or whatever" will go. 

 

^^^This statement^^^ is very true in this game. It is an acquired skill area I have really focused on, but I am still not perfect.  If you ever watch the really good players in WoWs, one can marvel at many of the "on-target" shots they make.  It's like an instinctive habit for them.  For the rest of us, including myself, it takes practice.

I do believe too many players place nearly complete confidence in the reticle, tick marks, and any mods, that in reality, are tools created to "assist" aiming.  There is much more to landing a shot on target, and it takes practice.  I use these tools, including the ship angle mod for my initial point of reference, then however I focus on my target - I look at the wake, the ship's smoke, angle relative to my guns and make a call on what I believe that red ship captain will do in the next few seconds.  I'll fire that shot when and only when the tools provided to me in-game and my mental calculations match up.

Hitting a static ship camped or a full broadside ship is rather easy.  Rarely, however, within the time span of the game are you presented with these opportunities.  On an angled ship you can basically throw out the tick marks, because here you have to do a quick mental calculation.  And depending on that angle, you are mentally either adding or subtracting seconds to target of your projectile.

You also have to know the capabilities of your ship's guns - their velocity and trajectory (flat or arc).  This and the above are more mental calculations you have to make.

Basically, aiming is an acquired skill in this game that for many of us just takes a lot of practice.  If you place complete confidence in the tools (reticles/mods) provided, at some point you will become frustrated.  You have to use some grey matter, too.

There are many good videos that show how reticles work, but there are more "human/mental" factors involved that just take a lot of practice.

[Wolfswetpaws]

When a player gets really good, they'll put their first shot on-target.  🙂 

[Admiral_Karasu]

4 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

When a player gets really good, they'll put their first shot on-target.  🙂 

Do uhm... dings count?

Asking for a friend.