Jump to content


25% min max on damage rolls


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

Kalonianhydra #1 Posted 14 January 2020 - 04:38 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 30681 battles
  • 132
  • Member since:
    07-19-2013
I think they need to change the 25% min max on the damage rolls you can get when playing.

The difference is way too big when you have large caliber guns that do big damage.
Lower it ti 15%

BR33K1_PAWAH #2 Posted 14 January 2020 - 04:42 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 8158 battles
  • 2,079
  • Member since:
    04-11-2018
Ok

demon_tank #3 Posted 14 January 2020 - 04:54 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 27926 battles
  • 1,755
  • [3ADS] 3ADS
  • Member since:
    11-18-2012

Of course they should but they wont. It should have been 20% max.

 

But WG want the bad players to have some chance and good players to get unlucky sometimes.



TungstenHitman #4 Posted 14 January 2020 - 04:59 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 31834 battles
  • 6,322
  • [B_M_G] B_M_G
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

My German Skorpion tends to always low roll so 490 alpha is generally 420 dmg while my Russian SU 130 tend to high roll so 520 alpha is generally 550 dmg.

 

Pure coincidence I'm sure, not a case of Russian bias. :hiding:



malachi6 #5 Posted 14 January 2020 - 05:00 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 51289 battles
  • 4,391
  • Member since:
    04-14-2011
When you are the one doing the damage, are you bothered by high rolls?

azakow #6 Posted 14 January 2020 - 05:19 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 84759 battles
  • 5,194
  • Member since:
    05-23-2011

View PostTungstenHitman, on 14 January 2020 - 04:59 PM, said:

My German Skorpion tends to always low roll so 490 alpha is generally 420 dmg while my Russian SU 130 tend to high roll so 520 alpha is generally 550 dmg.

Same impression here.



MeetriX #7 Posted 14 January 2020 - 05:33 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 24915 battles
  • 4,166
  • [_ACE] _ACE
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012

View PostTungstenHitman, on 14 January 2020 - 04:59 PM, said:

My German Skorpion tends to always low roll so 490 alpha is generally 420 dmg while my Russian SU 130 tend to high roll so 520 alpha is generally 550 dmg.

 

Pure coincidence I'm sure, not a case of Russian bias. :hiding:

You need +55% wr to unlock +10% Dmg.



Element6 #8 Posted 14 January 2020 - 05:42 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32148 battles
  • 11,669
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View Postdemon_tank, on 14 January 2020 - 04:54 PM, said:

Of course they should but they wont. It should have been 20% max.

 

But WG want the bad players to have some chance and good players to get unlucky sometimes.

Uhm...all players will have the same amount of luck/bad luck with all RNG in the game. So if a bad player is lucky with a high damage roll, so he will be with a low damage roll, just as a super unicum will be. This has nothing to do with skill level of the player.



Balc0ra #9 Posted 14 January 2020 - 05:47 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 74969 battles
  • 21,629
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
On damage? Not needed IMO. On pen? having 15% max on low pen rolls would help stock grinds and vs +2 targets etc. As on damage, I doubt you get so many in the -25% area vs between 15% high and low to ruing so many 1 vs 1's you will notice a major difference on losing 1 vs 1's etc.

Edited by Balc0ra, 14 January 2020 - 05:48 PM.


ChristOfTheAbyss #10 Posted 14 January 2020 - 06:01 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 251 battles
  • 751
  • Member since:
    07-22-2019

View PostElement6, on 14 January 2020 - 05:42 PM, said:

Uhm...all players will have the same amount of luck/bad luck with all RNG in the game. So if a bad player is lucky with a high damage roll, so he will be with a low damage roll, just as a super unicum will be. This has nothing to do with skill level of the player.


Whoosh...



pecopad #11 Posted 14 January 2020 - 06:12 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 30254 battles
  • 2,308
  • [UGN] UGN
  • Member since:
    09-04-2015
I have no problems with the +-25% in damage, but in penetration values its to much and it leads to frustration.

Tealo #12 Posted 14 January 2020 - 06:31 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 43841 battles
  • 418
  • [RIFF] RIFF
  • Member since:
    04-26-2012

View PostElement6, on 14 January 2020 - 04:42 PM, said:

Uhm...all players will have the same amount of luck/bad luck with all RNG in the game. So if a bad player is lucky with a high damage roll, so he will be with a low damage roll, just as a super unicum will be. This has nothing to do with skill level of the player.

:D:D

Like Foch gets 50% win rates with wn8 of over 3000 whilst another 'Admiral'  gets 60%+ win rate with wn8 of about 900 :D

 Kind of like my different accounts (recent below 50% one with above 59% on another= not including my Ru accounts) and guess which one gets the lowest WR and the worst MM??

Even when using the exact same tanks with same crew skills etc.. Within the same time frame, on the same server, using of course a VPN :P

  Of course the answer is this one that I'm a bit vocal with :popcorn: 


Edited by Tealo, 14 January 2020 - 06:35 PM.


Nishi_Kinuyo #13 Posted 14 January 2020 - 06:31 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9956 battles
  • 6,952
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011


Kalonianhydra #14 Posted 14 January 2020 - 06:39 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 30681 battles
  • 132
  • Member since:
    07-19-2013

View Postpecopad, on 14 January 2020 - 05:12 PM, said:

I have no problems with the +-25% in damage, but in penetration values its to much and it leads to frustration.

So when you have 390 in avg damange, and the tank you are shooting at has about 300 in health and you roll below 300, what do you think about that?



Echotun #15 Posted 14 January 2020 - 06:45 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 23349 battles
  • 698
  • [FA-1] FA-1
  • Member since:
    03-15-2015

View PostElement6, on 14 January 2020 - 05:42 PM, said:

Uhm...all players will have the same amount of luck/bad luck with all RNG in the game. So if a bad player is lucky with a high damage roll, so he will be with a low damage roll, just as a super unicum will be. This has nothing to do with skill level of the player.


That is how the real world works, yes. But not everyone cares about reality. Much easier to twist fantasy than reality. 

17:48 Added after 3 minute

View PostKalonianhydra, on 14 January 2020 - 06:39 PM, said:

So when you have 390 in avg damange, and the tank you are shooting at has about 300 in health and you roll below 300, what do you think about that?


Very unlucky. 



TungstenHitman #16 Posted 14 January 2020 - 08:05 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 31834 battles
  • 6,322
  • [B_M_G] B_M_G
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View PostBalc0ra, on 14 January 2020 - 04:47 PM, said:

On damage? Not needed IMO. On pen? having 15% max on low pen rolls would help stock grinds and vs +2 targets etc. As on damage, I doubt you get so many in the -25% area vs between 15% high and low to ruing so many 1 vs 1's you will notice a major difference on losing 1 vs 1's etc.

 

I think it's fair to say that with a lot of players the so called "gold spamming" is down to the trollish RNG rolls on pen values and so because of such a large % discrepancy value and because battles can be so tight and a players hp so precious, we select premium ammo vs armor where our standard pen should pen it there was no RNG but would not pen because of RNG if we low roll not just 25% but even 15%. 

 

IMO reducing RNG values on pen to +-8% max would have addressed a large % of the so called gold spamming. If we as players are in a tight battle or have worked a situation whereby we get the first and killer shot on a 1 shot target, a target that can really hurt us in return if we fail to pen what we SHOULD have no problem penning, then you bet your backside its a 2 key situation. With 25% RNG on pen that just leaves way too much to chance that your 200mm pen standard shell is going to pen what is 180mm of effective armor lower plate... it's just a total kick in the balls when that situation does not pen the targets weakspot like it should and instead we eat a needless shot from a target that should be dead... and maybe this happens again for the next shot after the reload too and suddenly an enemy tank that should be dead actually ends up "outplaying" us...  nah, for me the pen RNG is bs, just way to variable, and as such, we press the premium ammo option because suddenly 250mm of pen isn't likely to give us the middle finger even if it low rolls for pen... so we as players sadly have to almost get forced into using premium ammo as a safety net in situations where -25% pen rolls or even 15% and 10% would simply not pen. 

 

WG are sandboxing solutions with ammo in some sad effort to address gold spamming whiners but like I just said above, if they simply reduced RNG on pen to 8%, players can trust their 200mm pen on their tier8 med will almost always pen the 180mm lower plate on an enemy tank and SHOULD be rewarded for aiming at weak spots like that. As it stands it's a farce and making untrue accusations of players that WOULD use standard ammo if it wasn't for the huge difference in pen value rolls caused by a ridiculously huge 25% variable. It's making out players to be lazy and auto-aiming with a 2 key option when very often it's just as I described, it's just a player fail safing against an overly harsh RNG system whereby the repercussions of low rolling and continuing to low roll for pen vs targets it really SHOULD be penning is an unfair exit back to the garage or losing lots of hp needlessly which could be the crucial difference later on the battle whereby you literally ran out of hp vs a tank you would have beaten if it wasn't for that bs non pen engagement earlier against another tank which drained you of hp unfairly.. So until then, for any situation that would be a not pen with a -25% stated pen value rng roll, it's going to be the 2 key "anti-rng" safety net for many players. It's one thing to be outplayed but to be out "RNG'd" is entirely too frustrating. I know it works both ways and for all players but regardless, it's bs for all players. 



Bigtime_Alarm #17 Posted 14 January 2020 - 08:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 22358 battles
  • 576
  • Member since:
    05-14-2013
As far as I can tell 25% RNG means I have a 25% chance of my shell going where I aimed, while the opposition has a 99% chance. same for penetration, same for hitting a module. Their chance is even higher if they bother to stop and aim but they never do.

Edited by Bigtime_Alarm, 14 January 2020 - 08:21 PM.


Ceeb #18 Posted 14 January 2020 - 09:29 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Beta Tester
  • 34254 battles
  • 6,518
  • [BEXF] BEXF
  • Member since:
    01-14-2011

View PostBigtime_Alarm, on 14 January 2020 - 07:21 PM, said:

As far as I can tell 25% RNG means I have a 25% chance of my shell going where I aimed, while the opposition has a 99% chance. same for penetration, same for hitting a module. Their chance is even higher if they bother to stop and aim but they never do.

 

25% RNG is why this game fails as an E-sport. 

 

But then again, who wants to watch 10 T-100-LTs or EBRs running around 

 



killer999death #19 Posted 14 January 2020 - 09:38 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 26761 battles
  • 652
  • [JHS] JHS
  • Member since:
    06-25-2011
Roll for accuracy
Roll for penetration
Roll for damage


3 layers of dice rolls. It's like D&D doing a sneak attack with a bard and you 1 hit kill the strongest boss with your lute.

Element6 #20 Posted 14 January 2020 - 10:23 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32148 battles
  • 11,669
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013

View PostTealo, on 14 January 2020 - 06:31 PM, said:

:D:D

Like Foch gets 50% win rates with wn8 of over 3000 whilst another 'Admiral'  gets 60%+ win rate with wn8 of about 900 :D

 Kind of like my different accounts (recent below 50% one with above 59% on another= not including my Ru accounts) and guess which one gets the lowest WR and the worst MM??

Even when using the exact same tanks with same crew skills etc.. Within the same time frame, on the same server, using of course a VPN :P

  Of course the answer is this one that I'm a bit vocal with :popcorn: 

You should learn the difference between RNG as a game element, and the random factor that is humans. There is nothing odd about Foch getting a session WR of 50% with a WN8 of 3000 while a noob gets 60% WR with a WN8 of 900, and the reason for that is that this is a team game, you are not supposed to be a one-man army that can reliably carry any team to a victory. You can perfectly well get an above normal amount of bad team mates in one evening, or even during a whole week or two, giving you a WR for that period that is below your account average.

 

Now, if Foch had 50% WR after 10.000 battles with WN8 of 3000, and an 'admiral' had 60% WR after 10.000 battles with a WN8 of 900, you'd have a case. But that is not happening, so you do not have a case, you are cherry picking low samplesizes that doesn't tell you anything really, and then you use that small samplesize to try and prove a point.

 

And it doesn't matter if you use the exact same tanks with the exact same crews, withing the same timeframe and on the same server, proxy servers, VPN and whatnot, because those two accounts or sessions will not give you the exact same ratios of good/bad team members and enemy players. But you can be pretty sure that the RNG that you get in this comparison will be just about identical as long as the number of battles is high enough. 50 is probably sufficient.

 

Can you show me two accounts with thousands of battles, where one has a 60%-ish WR with below 1000 WN8 and the other with 50%-ish WR and 3000 WN8? They could exist in theory, since what happens on the servers for two players with a combined battlecount of 20.000 brings us into the realm of very large numbers (all possible combinations accounted for), a realm where such deviations are bound to occur, just at an extremely low rate.

 

 

View PostEchotun, on 14 January 2020 - 06:45 PM, said:

That is how the real world works, yes. But not everyone cares about reality. Much easier to twist fantasy than reality. 

The funny part is that it's not actually people consciously twisting fantasy, but rather that their own brains are playing tricks on them. It's called confirmation bias, and it is so strong a force that you suffer from it even if you are very aware of it. True skeptics remind themselves constantly about it's effect becuase they know if they don't, then they are bound to make errors.

 

 






4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users