World of Dice: Warships Edition

[Tpaktop2_1 NA]

Playing Co-Op to knock out Festive token missions, a thought just occurred to me as to how WoWS is playing now. The amount of RNG that is happening in a match, it would be better off if diced were rolled instead. AP pen and armor mean nothing anymore. Citadels are just luck now.  Aiming gains you some results, but a broadside Mogami does not means nothing.

You could have two game battle modes, one with dice, while the other will be the system WG is producing. If WG makes the other battle mode dice rolls everyone will save time, less server time wasted on WG's part, less player time wasted. Everyone's happy then. I have seen a similar system used by Hasbro's in playing Axis and Allies to help speed up the game.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Tpaktop2_1 NA

[Ensign Cthulhu]

19 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

The amount of RNG that is happening in a match, it would be better off if diced were rolled instead.

I tend not to attribute to malice what can easily be explained by my own incompetence.

[Admiral_Karasu]

Is there a typo in the topic heading?

Asking for a friend, as always.

[Tpaktop2_1 NA]

7 minutes ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Is there a typo in the topic heading?

Asking for a friend, as always.

Corrected- Damn Autospell! speech to text does not translate well sometimes.

Edited October 1, 2023 by Tpaktop2_1 NA

[Admiral_Karasu]

34 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

Corrected- Damn Autospell! speech to text does not translate well sometimes.

Ah.... you meant 'edition' with 'addition'. How interesting...

[Wulf_Ace]

1 hour ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

Playing Co-Op to knock out Festive token missions, a thought just occurred to me as to how WoWS is playing now. The amount of RNG that is happening in a match, it would be better off if diced were rolled instead. AP pen and armor mean nothing anymore. Citadels are just luck now.  Aiming gains you some results, but a broadside Mogami does not means nothing.

You could have two game battle modes, one with dice, while the other will be the system WG is producing. If WG makes the other battle mode dice rolls everyone will save time, less server time wasted on WG's part, less player time wasted. Everyone's happy then. I have seen a similar system used by Hasbro's in playing Axis and Allies to help speed up the game.

isnt real life RNG also

[LittleWhiteMouse]

3 hours ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

Playing Co-Op to knock out Festive token missions, a thought just occurred to me as to how WoWS is playing now. The amount of RNG that is happening in a match, it would be better off if diced were rolled instead. AP pen and armor mean nothing anymore. Citadels are just luck now.  Aiming gains you some results, but a broadside Mogami does not means nothing.

You could have two game battle modes, one with dice, while the other will be the system WG is producing. If WG makes the other battle mode dice rolls everyone will save time, less server time wasted on WG's part, less player time wasted. Everyone's happy then. I have seen a similar system used by Hasbro's in playing Axis and Allies to help speed up the game.

I'm not sure I understand.  How is there more RNG in game now than in 2015?

[Ensign Cthulhu]

56 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

I'm not sure I understand.  How is there more RNG in game now than in 2015?

Interpretation: OP is laying the blame for his own poor performance at WG's door.

[pepe_trueno]

44 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

I'm not sure I understand.  How is there more RNG in game now than in 2015?

you probably know more than anyone in here but  long time ago a broadside ship was usually a dead ship but they did something years ago that made overpens far more common.

4 hours ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

Playing Co-Op to knock out Festive token missions, a thought just occurred to me as to how WoWS is playing now. The amount of RNG that is happening in a match, it would be better off if diced were rolled instead. AP pen and armor mean nothing anymore. Citadels are just luck now.  Aiming gains you some results, but a broadside Mogami does not means nothing.

You could have two game battle modes, one with dice, while the other will be the system WG is producing. If WG makes the other battle mode dice rolls everyone will save time, less server time wasted on WG's part, less player time wasted. Everyone's happy then. I have seen a similar system used by Hasbro's in playing Axis and Allies to help speed up the game.

unfortunately WG loves RNG so don't expect a low rng variant any time soon. We are playing baldurs gate warships.... Heck i think baldurs gate has less RNG 😆

 

if you are interested i created a topic if it was posible a world of warships without RNG

 

[NMA101]

1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

I'm not sure I understand.  How is there more RNG in game now than in 2015?

I think a better term instead of RNG would be "arcane game elements": you now have spaced armor, hidden plates, icebreaker bows, weird damage saturation mechanics, and more BS armor schemes on a lot of ships, so at the range most games take place (i.e. 12 km+), the only thing you can do is point and click and pray that the shells go where you want. 

The OP may also be referencing that many RNG elements were discovered over the years, that were originally present in the game at launch but went unknown.  

[Project45_Opytny]

3 minutes ago, NMA101 said:

I think a better term instead of RNG would be "arcane game elements": you now have spaced armor, hidden plates, icebreaker bows, weird damage saturation mechanics, and more BS armor schemes on a lot of ships, so at the range most games take place (i.e. 12 km+), the only thing you can do is point and click and pray that the shells go where you want. 

Then how are these related to the complaint of failing to land citadel hits on Mogami?

[LittleWhiteMouse]

3 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

you probably know more than anyone in here but  long time ago a broadside ship was usually a dead ship but they did something years ago that made overpens far more common.

unfortunately WG loves RNG so don't expect a low rng variant any time soon. We are playing baldurs gate warships.... Heck i think baldurs gate has less RNG 😆

if you are interested i created a topic if it was posible a world of warships without RNG

 

Citadel hits were more common up until November (or was it December?) 2015 owing to a bug where AP shells didn't have to penetrate the citadel to cause citadel hits.  I cannot remember the exact cause of this bug -- I seem to think it had something to do with including hits that arrested against citadel armour.  But nothing else has changed mechanically to generate fewer citadel hits since then.

Getting citadel hits is complicated but predictable.  You're dealing not only with overmatch, ricochet and penetration mechanics, but also fuse timers.  Warspite cannot citadel an Omaha-class cruiser inside of 7km or so.  The shells just blow clean through the ship, exploding on the far side of the hull because they have too much velocity.  This problem is chronic for Italian battleships, many of which cannot citadel the broadside of cruisers inside of ranges of 12km or so (though it depends on ship width).  Smolensk has such a narrow beam, she could pull the same trick off to even further distances.  If you weren't dunking your hits into the water short of the ship's hull, you couldn't get citadel hits.

The only additional RNG added to the game in the last couple of years has been the depth charge sink-times.  That's it.  Gunnery has been unaffected.  If you're struggling, provide replays and the community can analyze them and offer help.

[LittleWhiteMouse]

3 hours ago, NMA101 said:

I think a better term instead of RNG would be "arcane game elements": you now have spaced armor, hidden plates, icebreaker bows, weird damage saturation mechanics, and more BS armor schemes on a lot of ships, so at the range most games take place (i.e. 12 km+), the only thing you can do is point and click and pray that the shells go where you want. 

Those elements have been in the game since Open Beta.  In fact, it's gotten EASIER to damage ships since hits to main battery guns now deal 10% shell damage to ships health.  They used to absorb damage entirely, appearing to deal zero damage penetrations.

• Spaced armour has been in the game forever.  Anything with an anti-torpedo bulge counted as spaced armour.
• HIdden plates have been in the game forever. 
• Icebreaker bows (specifically, diffused armour plating) has been present since Open Beta (Warspite) and release (Tirpitz).
• Damage saturation has gotten gentler than it used to be.  It used to be possible to completely saturate an area and result in zero damage hits.  Now you always do at least 10% shell damage.
• I have no idea what you qualify as a "BS armour scheme".  Barring weirdness of structural armour values, WG has kept pretty close to historical "as designed" values, so at least they've been fairly consistent.

RNG affects all players equally.  Which means, play enough games and RNG cancels out.  All that's left is player skill.  If you're not getting the numbers you want to see, that's a skill issue, I'm afraid.

[Project45_Opytny]

3 hours ago, NMA101 said:

I think a better term instead of RNG would be "arcane game elements": you now have spaced armor, hidden plates, icebreaker bows, weird damage saturation mechanics, and more BS armor schemes on a lot of ships, so at the range most games take place (i.e. 12 km+), the only thing you can do is point and click and pray that the shells go where you want. 

If you want to learn something about game mechanics that can really be described as arcane, read about how players studied the mechanics of ship accleration and deceleration and discovering the already fixed bug of Last Stand can unintentionally improve accleration, and how Vertical Dispersion rules were discovered that explained some myths as well as explaining why some ship's gunnery feels erratic despite favorable Horizional Dispersion stated in port, and how tweaked internal HP distribution of Scharnhorst 1943 may make her a much better brawler than the current Scharnhorst.

It may be discussed that some important internal armor has been hidden from the in-port armor model viewer, yet as long as a ship is available in conventional means, her exterior and primary (like Herni IV's spaced scheme that makes use of ricochet mechanics to be so trollish) armor protection scheme, regardless of how trollish it may be, is all but public. Yet Mogami is really a poor example (and effectively irrevelant to all the truely or supposedly arcane stuff) if you are really serious on this aspect: meet Piemonte, for example, with interior turtleback, icebreaker bow, 40-mm midship that is immune to any overmatch and a large part of cruiser HE, AP overmatches 16-mm, and as an Italian cruiser with full-throttle smoke and 67-mm pen on SAP...

[pepe_trueno]

2 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Citadel hits were more common up until November (or was it December?) 2015 owing to a bug where AP shells didn't have to penetrate the citadel to cause citadel hits.  I cannot remember the exact cause of this bug -- I seem to think it had something to do with including hits that arrested against citadel armour.  But nothing else has changed mechanically to generate fewer citadel hits since then.

Getting citadel hits is complicated but predictable.  You're dealing not only with overmatch, ricochet and penetration mechanics, but also fuse timers.  Warspite cannot citadel an Omaha-class cruiser inside of 7km or so.  The shells just blow clean through the ship, exploding on the far side of the hull because they have too much velocity.  This problem is chronic for Italian battleships, many of which cannot citadel the broadside of cruisers inside of ranges of 12km or so (though it depends on ship width).  Smolensk has such a narrow beam, she could pull the same trick off to even further distances.  If you weren't dunking your hits into the water short of the ship's hull, you couldn't get citadel hits.

The only additional RNG added to the game in the last couple of years has been the depth charge sink-times.  That's it.  Gunnery has been unaffected.  If you're struggling, provide replays and the community can analyze them and offer help.

if memory serves me right in 2020 cruisers received some armor changes that made scoring citadel a bit harder  also quite sure some BBs got their citadel lowered long time ago, montana did for sure.

may be i remember more citadels from the days 150mm secondary guns used AP and DDs had a citadel... those where the fun days. Now i wish atlantico had AP secondary guns 😁

 

when it comes to citadel hits fuse time is the number 1 problem, most cruisers are not thick enough for shells with the standar 0.033 fuse time to arm and explode inside so  one has to either hit a small zone slightly below the waterline (make the water arm the fuse so the shell can detonate in the citadel) or shoot from far away so the shell has reduced speed by the time it gets there  

now add the guns wonky dispersion and is not a surprise people feel cheated when they see a perfect broadside, aim slighly below the waterline for those juicy citadels hits and end with nothing but overpens or shots falling short and doing nothing.
 

Edited October 2, 2023 by pepe_trueno

[Admiral_Karasu]

6 hours ago, Project45_Opytny said:

It may be discussed that some important internal armor has been hidden from the in-port armor model viewer, yet as long as a ship is available in conventional means, her exterior and primary (like Herni IV's spaced scheme that makes use of ricochet mechanics to be so trollish) armor protection scheme, regardless of how trollish it may be, is all but public.

Based on what we can see, I've always thought that, for instance, the Yamato armor is not modelled correctly. I'm not really knowledgeable enough to evaluate my gut feeling any further, though.

[LittleWhiteMouse]

7 hours ago, pepe_trueno said:

if memory serves me right in 2020 cruisers received some armor changes that made scoring citadel a bit harder  also quite sure some BBs got their citadel lowered long time ago, montana did for sure.

may be i remember more citadels from the days 150mm secondary guns used AP and DDs had a citadel... those where the fun days. Now i wish atlantico had AP secondary guns 😁

when it comes to citadel hits fuse time is the number 1 problem, most cruisers are not thick enough for shells with the standar 0.033 fuse time to arm and explode inside so  one has to either hit a small zone slightly below the waterline (make the water arm the fuse so the shell can detonate in the citadel) or shoot from far away so the shell has reduced speed by the time it gets there  

now add the guns wonky dispersion and is not a surprise people feel cheated when they see a perfect broadside, aim slighly below the waterline for those juicy citadels hits and end with nothing but overpens or shots falling short and doing nothing.
 

• The only armour changes to cruisers which I'm aware was the standardization of structural plate across cruisers.  These are changes to the bow, stern, upper hull and deck values.  This coincided with changes to HE penetration.   Barring a particular gun no longer being able to overmatch select targets that they once might have, there was no change to citadel protection.
• Iowa, Missouri and Montana had their citadels lowered in Patch 0.6.6 back in June of 2017.  This was to keep them competitive against German battleships released the previous year and in anticipation of yet more British battleships coming out in a couple months time.
• Destroyers haven't had citadels since before I joined in Closed Beta in March of 2015.  They had pseudo-citadels then, where they took 50% of shell damage to hits to what would have been their citadel (there was no citadel ribbon), but that was removed before Open Beta in July of 2015.  You didn't need AP shells to get that damage either.  The Destroyer "citadel" abutted against the exterior of the hull, so even HE hits could give you this spike in damage, provided you had enough penetration to beat their outer hull.  Given that destroyers at the time only had structural plate, it was no-contest.
• AP secondaries were interesting but generally performed poorly relative to HE -- so much so that it was perceived as an advantage to have large calibre secondaries that fired HE over AP. 
• Fuse timer issues depends upon the target ship in question and the energy within the shell at the time of impact.  Thicker belt armour can help too as this slows the shell down.  For example, in order to explode inside Baltimore, your shell cannot be travelling faster than 654m/s, which isn't a tall order.  Contrast this with trying to pop Omaha and the shell velocity has to drop to 515m/s.  This is part of the skill issue in World of Warships -- building an extensive knowledge of how to aim and land citadel hits against a variety of targets.
• Humans focus on the negative.  You can see this even in the language used to frame the expectation of a "perfect broadside".  The best results (citadel hits) is expected and therein lies so much of the frustration.  Planning around the best case scenario will always lead to disappointment. 

[Tpaktop2_1 NA]

15 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

I'm not sure I understand.  How is there more RNG in game now than in 2015?

Call me late to the party. Maybe I just had an my Aha moment. I don't think I am original at this point.

14 hours ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Interpretation: OP is laying the blame for his own poor performance at WG's door.

I am not laying blame on my performance. I know where to hit the citadels on citadel city ships. I am saying those hits are turning into straight damage instead of citadels. It's kinda hard to hit an Omaha on the broadside and sink it without a citadel hit. Nothing but pure damage is happening with me.

10 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Citadel hits were more common up until November (or was it December?) 2015 owing to a bug where AP shells didn't have to penetrate the citadel to cause citadel hits.  I cannot remember the exact cause of this bug -- I seem to think it had something to do with including hits that arrested against citadel armour.  But nothing else has changed mechanically to generate fewer citadel hits since then.

Getting citadel hits is complicated but predictable.  You're dealing not only with overmatch, ricochet and penetration mechanics, but also fuse timers.  Warspite cannot citadel an Omaha-class cruiser inside of 7km or so.  The shells just blow clean through the ship, exploding on the far side of the hull because they have too much velocity.  This problem is chronic for Italian battleships, many of which cannot citadel the broadside of cruisers inside of ranges of 12km or so (though it depends on ship width).  Smolensk has such a narrow beam, she could pull the same trick off to even further distances.  If you weren't dunking your hits into the water short of the ship's hull, you couldn't get citadel hits.

The only additional RNG added to the game in the last couple of years has been the depth charge sink-times.  That's it.  Gunnery has been unaffected.  If you're struggling, provide replays and the community can analyze them and offer help.

The Tripitz use to be a cruiser's night mare with its AP pen. Now the Tripitz's AP shells bounce more for me in my example. Maybe my impression now is what you just explained.

10 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Those elements have been in the game since Open Beta.  In fact, it's gotten EASIER to damage ships since hits to main battery guns now deal 10% shell damage to ships health.  They used to absorb damage entirely, appearing to deal zero damage penetrations.

• Spaced armour has been in the game forever.  Anything with an anti-torpedo bulge counted as spaced armour.
• HIdden plates have been in the game forever. 
• Icebreaker bows (specifically, diffused armour plating) has been present since Open Beta (Warspite) and release (Tirpitz).
• Damage saturation has gotten gentler than it used to be.  It used to be possible to completely saturate an area and result in zero damage hits.  Now you always do at least 10% shell damage.
• I have no idea what you qualify as a "BS armour scheme".  Barring weirdness of structural armour values, WG has kept pretty close to historical "as designed" values, so at least they've been fairly consistent.

RNG affects all players equally.  Which means, play enough games and RNG cancels out.  All that's left is player skill.  If you're not getting the numbers you want to see, that's a skill issue, I'm afraid.

I don't think player skill matters anymore. My opinion I suspect that server performance maybe an under lying issue that is affecting game play performance. However, we can't investigate that process. All we can do is note it. I have noticed YT and Twitch WoWS players with more games and better game play getting the same weird RNG game results. I am noting if you are doing RNG, you are better off using dice to save everyone's time.

Edited October 2, 2023 by Tpaktop2_1 NA

[Admiral_Karasu]

I'm still surprised though that you can get citadel hits with HE.

[LittleWhiteMouse]

23 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

The Tripitz use to be a cruiser's night mare with its AP pen. Now the Tripitz's AP shells bounce more for me in my example. Maybe my impression now is what you just explained.

The 2020 changes to cruiser armour have resulted in 380mm AP shells being unable to overmatch American and German heavy cruiser extremities at tiers VIII+ (with some tier VII cruisers also included).  Furthermore, increases to deck armour have also undermined her overmatch potential.  This is not unique to Tirpitz and applies across the board to any guns of insufficient calibre.  The changes made increased the value of larger calibre guns; especially those 429mm or greater as they were guaranteed to be able to overmatch the structural armour of most (but not all) cruisers.  Note, that this didn't affect everything -- there was a long list of ships Tirpitz already couldn't overmatch that had armour already exceeding the minimums being implemented. 

The penetration values of Tirpitz AP shells has not changed, just the number of targets she can overmatch.  Tirpitz also had the problem of over-penetrations at medium to close ranges owing to the high velocity (and flat trajectory) of her AP shells. 

40 minutes ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

I don't think player skill matters anymore.

Well, you're very wrong. 

It's simple math.  Over a large enough sample size, we are all affected by the same levels of RNG.  Sometimes we get lucky.  Sometimes we do not.  Bad teams?  Doesn't matter.  We all get them. A stretch of bad dispersion?  I don't care, we all deal with it.  Unwinnable matches?  Been there, just as I've been in games where I couldn't lose even if I tried.  Your experiences are not unique.  You're not special.  None of us are.  All of these variables cancel out over a large sample size of several hundred games.  All that's left is the decisions we make.  That's player skill.

If you're not performing to the level you imagine yourself capable then you're not as good at the game as you imagine yourself to be.  That's the harsh truth of the matter.  It sucks.  It's frustrating to hit that wall.  But you can improve if you're willing.  To what degree is up to you.

But blaming the RNG boogieman?  The evidence isn't there.  Bugs may exist, but they are uncovered, tested and demonstrated and are always a big deal (and loudly broadcast) when flagged.  Over the years, we have seen VERY few bugs like the one you describe and NONE that apply selectively to individual players.

The choices before you are:  Git gud or take a break.

[Nevermore135]

31 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

The 2020 changes to cruiser armour have resulted in 380mm AP shells being unable to overmatch American and German heavy cruiser extremities at tiers VIII+ (with some tier VII cruisers also included).

Minor point, but the buff of German and American high tier CAs to 27mm bow and stern plating preceded this. I started playing in 2018 and they have always had these armor values during that time. I think it was also slightly before the IFHE/plating rework that Yorck, Pensacola, and NO received 25mm extremity armor.

The changes to most 6”+-armed CLs and CAs that had the greatest effect from the 2020 rework involved changes to deck armor values: a lot of mid-tier cruisers received 25mm center deck armor which made them much tankier vs. 11-14” AP, while high tier cruisers were standardized to 27mm. Heavy cruisers in those brackets received the same buffs to their upper belts. Most tier X cruisers received 30mm deck armor, with CAs getting 30mm upper belts.

Edited October 2, 2023 by Nevermore135

[LittleWhiteMouse]

1 minute ago, Nevermore135 said:

Minor point, but the buff of German and American high tier CAs to 27mm bow and stern plating preceded this. I started playing in 2018 and they have always had these armor values during that time. I think it was also slightly before the IFHE/plating rework that Yorck, Pensacola, and NO received 25mm extremity armor.

The changes to most 6”+-armed CLs and CAs that had the greatest effect from the 2020 rework involved changes to deck armor values: a lot of mid-tier cruisers received 25mm center deck armor which made them much tankier vs. 11-14” AP, while high tier cruisers were standardized to 27mm. Heavy cruisers in those brackets received the same buffs to their upper belts. Most tier X cruisers received 30mm deck armor, with CAs getting 30mm upper belts.

Correct, I totally worded that wrong -- my brain is pudding with editing review stuff right now.  So have a +1!

I originally wrote what was in my second sentence, talking about how overall this was a buff to most cruisers out there (Smolensk got deservedly nerfed and she was like the one exception).  But then I got to thinking about 380mm and the 27mm threshold came up and my post ended up a garbled mess. 😛

[Asym]

23 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Well, you're very wrong. 

It's simple math.  Over a large enough sample size, we are all affected by the same levels of RNG.  Sometimes we get lucky.  Sometimes we do not.  Bad teams?  Doesn't matter.  We all get them. A stretch of bad dispersion?  I don't care, we all deal with it.  Unwinnable matches?  Been there, just as I've been in games where I couldn't lose even if I tried.  Your experiences are not unique.  You're not special.  None of us are.  All of these variables cancel out over a large sample size of several hundred games.  All that's left is the decisions we make.  That's player skill.

If you're not performing to the level you imagine yourself capable then you're not as good at the game as you imagine yourself to be.  That's the harsh truth of the matter.  It sucks.  It's frustrating to hit that wall.  But you can improve if you're willing.  To what degree is up to you.

But blaming the RNG boogieman?  The evidence isn't there.  Bugs may exist, but they are uncovered, tested and demonstrated and are always a big deal (and loudly broadcast) when flagged.  Over the years, we have seen VERY few bugs like the one you describe and NONE that apply selectively to individual players.

The choices before you are:  Git gud or take a break.

Ah, you are assuming that all "things are equal" in this system....  They aren't.  And, skill as a metric?  Really?  How:  considering the game itself is not in any way, a meritocracy nor is "a skill metric" used to control level of:  game play; advancement; nor, sales.

We'd have to obtain the source code to determine:  fair or skewed.  If Occam is right, and we have enough "interaction with RNG" in this system as individuals, as RNG is a determinate in this system;  and, we are all treated equally and we all face an "ordering process" (and, we do and it's called living or not living) in which RNG is applied in a non controlled way.......then, GiT GuD has some merit........otherwise, get good at what?  Measured how and by whom???  None of which, applies to where you are in this game because.........the code precludes that.... That artificial barrier....  I believe there is some merit to that argument.....and, I'll be taking a 400 match sample to "illustrate a lack of RNG...."   That I experience everyday.......

BTW, what if I told you that there have been a lot of studies and papers that have taken the "evidence isn't there" and have changed their tune on "guessing" based on experiences in that system....  To the tune of +/-2 to 5% accuracy?  Some really cool Six Sigma studies were done....   Some "experienced players", such as your self, would fall into the sample size of that study.......and, many of us reading these threads actually got "paid full time to guess based on observations"....  Ask any Company Commander in a combat zone how accurate "guessing based on multi dimensional threats" can be and how they are trained to make decisions in difficult asymmetrical situations....  RNG?  Some.  Luck?  Some....but, "seeing the patterns of cause and effect, weighed against the hard physics of where we work/play, can make for some rather interesting conclusions that absolutely look like a "balk" in baseball......as an example.    That can't be right.........sure seems that way.......but, oh my were we wrong.....happens....

Just a thought.  No hit nor harm intended......just a good conversation I've had several dozen times where I was working or teaching....

[LittleWhiteMouse]

41 minutes ago, Asym said:

Ah, you are assuming that all "things are equal" in this system....  They aren't.  And, skill as a metric?  Really?  How:  considering the game itself is not in any way, a meritocracy nor is "a skill metric" used to control level of:  game play; advancement; nor, sales.

I am.  I have been given no reason (and more importantly, no evidence) to demonstrate that RNG is applied differently across different players.

In the case of the topic at hand, the ability to land citadel hits is the metric by which we're measuring skill.  Put different players in the same ship and have them play a few hundred games.  The number of citadel hits they generate will be influenced by their abilities of setting up, aiming and surviving long enough to generate those hits.  Tadaa, skill measured.

It's not hard.

[Andrewbassg]

2 hours ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

I am not laying blame on my performance. I know where to hit the citadels on citadel city ships. I am saying those hits are turning into straight damage instead of citadels. It's kinda hard to hit an Omaha on the broadside and sink it without a citadel hit. Nothing but pure damage is happening with me.

 

2 hours ago, Tpaktop2_1 NA said:

I don't think player skill matters anymore. My opinion I suspect that server performance maybe an under lying issue that is affecting game play performance. However, we can't investigate that process. All we can do is note it. I have noticed YT and Twitch WoWS players with more games and better game play getting the same weird RNG game results. I am noting if you are doing RNG, you are better off using dice to save everyone's time.

Its not that simple, I'm afraid. Don't get me wrong, it is quite a bit harder to score citadels, from a time And yes it is mainly Wargambling's fault, no question about it. I see it all the time , even in ops and i play cruisers, not babbies. in Molotov, In AEGIS I was able to cit the begeesus out of the happless IJN cruisers. But It is much harder now  (tho not with Molotov, she is aport queen now).

As I see it ,there are two main culprits for this. Camera rework with its distorted, braindead, "fish eye" perspective. Remember, what we see is NOT what the server "sees". The server "see" things linearly and we.....not. The more one deviates from standard, with the camera settings, the more likely to get.... unexpected results. Heck, I literally can't play the game without the "Old Camera mod" because induces dizziness, like no tomorrow and the mod doesn't solves completely the problem.

Yes, they are THAT dumb.

Then, the infamous "hypersonic shells" bug and Weegee's so called "solution" for it. (More accurately the proof of their casual, careless laziness). Plainly, they reduced  the overall tick rate of the servers, instead of actually finding the cause of the bug. But that affects literally everything in the game, from the lock on, to the snappiness of the response of the consumables. And.... here we are.

So what helps, in my experience is a) do not mess with the camera settings, leave it at 50/0 (i.e neutral)

                                                           b) manually unlock/relock every target you want to shoot at 

                                                           c) wait a bit before you shoot, stabilise the aiming for at least(!!) one second, don't just put the crosshair where you want to aim and shoot.

Then we have the problem of people, rightfully, continuously second guessing themselves and losing whatever familiarity they had before.

Yeah.... WarGambling is full of it, just not where people think ..

Edited October 2, 2023 by Andrewbassg