Jump to content


Random..but is it?


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

Easymeat72 #1 Posted 19 July 2018 - 12:28 AM

    Private

  • Player
  • 22944 battles
  • 4
  • [DUDE] DUDE
  • Member since:
    05-27-2012

Ok, so we all understand that the base mechanics of WOT include a RNG factor to add an element of 'real life' surprise to the art of 

A) hitting exactly what you were aiming at

B) penetrating whatever the round actually hits

and C) the damage profile that follows a successful pen including 'special' damage effects, obviously dependent on ammo type used

 

We have all that those completely infuriating moments when point blank shots miss, big shells against non existent armour bounce, kill shots return a no damage track result and the return round takes YOU out.

Now, experience tells us to accept the fact that in real life 'unexpected' results do sometimes happen, so there should reasonably be some factor in game to add an unexpected variation. I think back to real combat veterans talking about bouncing shells off the arse of ww2 tanks from only metres away where the consequences really were life and death....

So if we expect a bit of the unexpected in the mechanics, just how much are we actually getting?

We all remember the bad 'luck', maybe not so much the good and how many instances do we really see in game.

Perception is normally very subjective so does anyone have any insight/evidence/analysis of how much randomness is present in the above functions. Is it a standard deviation?

Are we REALLY being shortchanged and only getting low rolls! 

 

 



iztok #2 Posted 19 July 2018 - 12:47 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 35215 battles
  • 2,460
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010
Ummm, what's your point? :amazed:

PoIestar #3 Posted 19 July 2018 - 12:48 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 31501 battles
  • 4,070
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-02-2013
Everything in this game is 25% -/+ RNG and every odd 'exception' is either (un)lucky or a delusion.

DutchBaron_ #4 Posted 19 July 2018 - 01:44 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 9955 battles
  • 141
  • [FDAD] FDAD
  • Member since:
    10-06-2016
You mean that we need to compare the current rng with historical stories. Although I think there is a bit to much rng in this game I don't think that comparing it to something historical ( with is pretty much impossible with the limited amount of historical data) will result in quality gameplay.

Enforcer1975 #5 Posted 19 July 2018 - 08:39 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20675 battles
  • 10,572
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
Saving rng on oneshots exist.
Experienced it often enough myself and on my targets.
Just yesterday i have been tooning with 2 clan mates. I shot a tank a couple times....went like hit pen hit pen hit pen hit pen...killshot...bounce miss miss bounce kill....clan mate asked what i was doing,i replied rng.

Homer_J #6 Posted 19 July 2018 - 08:43 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostEasymeat72, on 19 July 2018 - 12:28 AM, said:

 

We have all that those completely infuriating moments when point blank shots miss, big shells against non existent armour bounce, 

 

 

Nope and nope.

 

Never seen anything which can't be explained by the game mechanics as we know them, not in my games, not in replays.

 

I am sure you have the evidence though.

 

Quote

Perception is normally very subjective so does anyone have any insight/evidence/analysis of how much randomness is present in the above functions. Is it a standard deviation?

Are we REALLY being shortchanged and only getting low rolls!

 

Dig around the forums, there are people who have recorded the damage rills of 1000's of shots and not been able to show anything other than the average damage is as stated.


Edited by Homer_J, 19 July 2018 - 08:47 AM.


Dr_ownape #7 Posted 19 July 2018 - 10:42 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 41922 battles
  • 5,386
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013

View PostPoIestar, on 18 July 2018 - 11:48 PM, said:

Everything in this game is 25% -/+ RNG and every odd 'exception' is either (un)lucky or a delusion.

 

 

well actually there is the 10% rules first and foremost, then the 25% rule comes into play (can't recall the exact % of times the 10% rule is enforced though)



ThinGun #8 Posted 19 July 2018 - 10:51 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34082 battles
  • 1,073
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014
Historically, the shots-per-kill ratio is staggeringly poor.  I don't know about tanks, but it's verifiable that, in WW2, up to 50,000 bullets were fired for each person killed.  In that context, +/- 25% seems very reasonable.

Jigabachi #9 Posted 19 July 2018 - 10:51 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17858 battles
  • 18,542
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
We had and still have countless threads about this, where people claim all kinds of things about rigging. But to this very moment - and we are talking about 8+ years here - we didn't get any reason to doubt what WG stated regarding RNG and stuff. Absolutely ZERO evidence so far, just stupid claims by people who obviously lack common sense and basic education.
 

View PostThinGun, on 19 July 2018 - 10:51 AM, said:

Historically, the shots-per-kill ratio is staggeringly poor.  I don't know about tanks, but it's verifiable that, in WW2, up to 50,000 bullets were fired for each person killed.  In that context, +/- 25% seems very reasonable.

Err. How are those things even rudimentary connected? That is completely irrelevant when talking about the balance of a computergame.


 

jabster #10 Posted 19 July 2018 - 11:21 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12532 battles
  • 22,811
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostDr_ownape, on 19 July 2018 - 09:42 AM, said:

 

 

well actually there is the 10% rules first and foremost, then the 25% rule comes into play (can't recall the exact % of times the 10% rule is enforced though)

 

I don’t beleive there’s anything such as a 10% rule but instead it’s just a way of saying that as the RNG follows a normal distribution then on average a certain percentage of values will be within certain limits. Indeed I think, could be wrong here, that the only time WG have described the RNG like this was with reference to accuracy/dispersion which doesn’t use +/-25%.

 

View PostThinGun, on 19 July 2018 - 09:51 AM, said:

Historically, the shots-per-kill ratio is staggeringly poor.  I don't know about tanks, but it's verifiable that, in WW2, up to 50,000 bullets were fired for each person killed.  In that context, +/- 25% seems very reasonable.

 

An interesting use of the word verifiable there.


 

Edited by xxTANK_Uxx, 19 July 2018 - 05:19 PM.


ThinGun #11 Posted 19 July 2018 - 11:24 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34082 battles
  • 1,073
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View PostJigabachi, on 19 July 2018 - 10:54 AM, said:

Err. How are those things even rudimentary connected? That is completely irrelevant when talking about the balance of a computergame.

 

It's connected because OP states 'the fact that in real life 'unexpected' results do sometimes happen,' - so I referenced real life.  Problem?
 

View Postjabster, on 19 July 2018 - 11:22 AM, said:

 

An interesting use of the word verifiable there.

 

Really?  One can look up the number of rounds fired and the number of casualties.  It's not difficult, even for you.
 

jabster #12 Posted 19 July 2018 - 11:30 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12532 battles
  • 22,811
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostThinGun, on 19 July 2018 - 10:25 AM, said:

 

Really?  One can look up the number of rounds fired and the number of casualties.  It's not difficult, even for you.

 

Really so you think armies accounted for every single bullet fired and every casualty caused by a bullet. I’d love to see the sources for that.

Dr_ownape #13 Posted 19 July 2018 - 11:30 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 41922 battles
  • 5,386
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013

View Postjabster, on 19 July 2018 - 10:21 AM, said:

 

I don’t beleive there’s anything such as a 10% rule but instead it’s just away of saying that as the RNG follows a normal distribution then on average a certain percentage of values will be within certain limits. Indeed I think, could be wrong here, that the only time WG have described the RNG like this was with reference to accuracy/dispersion which doesn’t use +/-25%.

 

 

yeah I think it was just about aiming too....now I need to find it. can I be bothered ????



jabster #14 Posted 19 July 2018 - 11:32 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12532 battles
  • 22,811
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostDr_ownape, on 19 July 2018 - 10:30 AM, said:

 

 

yeah I think it was just about aiming too....now I need to find it. can I be bothered ????

 

Personally I wouldn’t be as I vaguely remember the article that I’m pretty sure you’re referring to.

ThinGun #15 Posted 19 July 2018 - 11:35 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34082 battles
  • 1,073
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

View Postjabster, on 19 July 2018 - 11:30 AM, said:

 

Really so you think armies accounted for every single bullet fired and every casualty caused by a bullet. I’d love to see the sources for that.

 

I don't think anything of the sort.  I just looked up the number of rounds fired and the number of casualties.  

As I understand it, most battlefield casualties and injuries were caused by artillery fire, not small arms.  But - the point was to draw attention to the massive amount of lead needed to be expended in real life, not some pedantic debate on cause an effect.

jabster #16 Posted 19 July 2018 - 11:39 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12532 battles
  • 22,811
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostThinGun, on 19 July 2018 - 10:35 AM, said:

 

I don't think anything of the sort.  I just looked up the number of rounds fired and the number of casualties.  

 

So it’s verifiable even though you really don’t know how many rounds were actually fired or how many casualties were caused by those rounds. As I say an interesting defintion of verifiable. The word you were looking for is estimated.



Dr_ownape #17 Posted 19 July 2018 - 11:39 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 41922 battles
  • 5,386
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    03-27-2013

View Postjabster, on 19 July 2018 - 10:32 AM, said:

 

Personally I wouldn’t be as I vaguely remember the article that I’m pretty sure you’re referring to.

 

 

damage graph that WoT follows (IMO it's 33% for within 10%):

 

http://wiki.gcdn.co/images/4/4f/Standard_deviation_diagram.png

 

 

9.6 accuracy changes:

 

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2015/02/06/9-6-accuracy-change-explained/

 


 

didn't take longer the 5 mins


Edited by Dr_ownape, 19 July 2018 - 11:40 AM.


Graeme0 #18 Posted 19 July 2018 - 11:42 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24148 battles
  • 479
  • [M-O-M] M-O-M
  • Member since:
    02-15-2015
Sounds like OP needs to craft a tin fiol hat and step away from the computer...

jabster #19 Posted 19 July 2018 - 11:43 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 12532 battles
  • 22,811
  • [WSAT] WSAT
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View PostDr_ownape, on 19 July 2018 - 10:39 AM, said:

 

 

damage graph that WoT follows (IMO it's 33% for within 10%):

 

http://wiki.gcdn.co/images/4/4f/Standard_deviation_diagram.png

 

 

9.6 accuracy changes:

 

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2015/02/06/9-6-accuracy-change-explained/

 


 

didn't take longer the 5 mins

 

Sorry to be a pain but does the damage information come from WG? I do remember something about it but I can’t remeber if it was also  talking about the accuracy changes in 8.6. Google is my friend.

 

Edit: Did a quick google and the only reference I found was second hand saying that Storm has said it was 2.5.


Edited by jabster, 19 July 2018 - 12:03 PM.


AliceUnchained #20 Posted 19 July 2018 - 12:09 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 38165 battles
  • 8,807
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostEasymeat72, on 19 July 2018 - 12:28 AM, said:

I think back to real combat veterans talking about bouncing shells off the arse of ww2 tanks from only metres away where the consequences really were life and death....

 

Never, ever, came across any such recounting. Please, do provide the source for this.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users