Wows Testing

[Skywalkre]

Getting tired of pub games and the current HE meta so finally grabbed the mod that enables training rooms. Really nice feature as it's actually more detailed than what we have in WoT. You can face off against bots, choose whether they're active or not and armed or not.

 

One of my biggest interests has been secondaries and effectiveness so messing around with that right now.

 

In my first battle I threw my NC against a stationary, unarmed NC bot (bots appear to all be stock config). My NC has Secondary Battery Modification 2 and Basic Fire Training and Advanced Fire Training on the Captain. First thing I wanted to do was test how effective that extra 20% range and accuracy gives me from the mod. So, I parked my NC in the 5.4-6.3 km range on the bot.

 

After nearly 10m the enemy NC was still alive. Secondaries fired 1238 shots (all fire HE on the NC) and hit with 197 (15.6% hit rate on a stationary target that was offset) for a total of 26840 dmg (~136 dmg/hit). They started 2 fires and those combined for 19562 dmg.

 

Next went against several Bensons. Engaged again from a range of greater than 5.4km. 808 shots fired for 60 hits (7.5% hit rate on stationary targets) for 37402 dmg (~623 dmg/hit). No fires were started.

 

One thing I'm curious about is critical damage. The first page on the after battle report showed 8 against the Bensons. The third page showed 4 for the symbol which I thought was critical hits on the upper right hand side.

 

Anywho, next plan is to get in closer in the 4.5-5.4 band and compare with and without the accuracy mod. After that plan on getting in even closer and again comparing with and without the accuracy mod.

 

Edit: I forgot you can turn off secondaries so the profiles on all the enemy ships was different. Most were offset. Only one of the Bensons was fully broadside and it died about 30s faster than the previous two which were offset from the NC.

Edited June 5, 2015 by Skywalkre

[Skywalkre]

Initial rounds of tests are back and... Secondary Battery Modification 2 appears to be garbage.

 

As mentioned above in the extra range band it gives you compared to not having it you're not hitting squat. Compared results at 4.8km with and without the mod (while the captain has the increased range skill) and then again at 1.5km, effectively point blank range.

 

At 4.8km, against a stationary enemy NC with its side to me I hit 20.63% of my secondary shots with the mod. Without it was 17.14%. Not bad.

 

However, at 1.5km I hit 47.4% of my shots with the mod and 48.75% without. It appears there's a sweet spot where the accuracy is boosted but it's fairly minimal. Close enough and most shots will hit regardless.

 

Haven't finished testing on the Bensons yet (the real concern for me equipping the mod in the first place) but under ideal conditions, with the mod equipped, a stock Benson (12,800 hps) survives for over 30s at 1.5km. That's an eternity at that range and nearly 3/4 of the reload time for the tier 8 IJN DDs torp reload. Fully upgraded with the extra hps the IJN DD could actually come out from cover at 1.5km, fire, reload, and fire again before you kill it with just secondaries.

 

So... initial lesson seems to be the mod is meh and you can't rely on secondaries to obliterate DDs up close. I'm going to keep an eye out for when secondaries go off in games now and realize that means I've gotten too close and need to get out of Dodge.

[Skywalkre]

Latest one for kicks.

 

I had read 203s could punch through BB armor but never seen it happen in game. Jump in my Pensacola and load up 3 Amagis.

 

Take on the first one at ~1.1km. Get 8 citadels and 24 hits (I've never paid close enough attention... is that 8 out of 24 or 8 and 24?). Got Citadels aiming waterline and aiming right on the side of the hull. Ok... this is promising.

 

Then I move on.

 

Fire on the next one at 3.3km. Zero, zilch, nada for citadels. Move on to the last at 10+ km and get the same result.

 

I think I'll stick with HE for the time being...

[RETAC21]

"Golf clap"

 

Really useful stuff, thanks!

[Marek Tucan]

Re. secondaries range... While the hit rate at the outside of the envelope is poor, trust me, as a DD captain you cannot afford to ignore them - more for the risk of critical after critical than for actual hitpoint damage. At the very least they may motivate me to launch from suboptimal position and retreat out of range, esp. if I am already damaged.

[Skywalkre]

Regarding criticals, each Benson took 2-3 before getting killed regardless of range.

[Skywalkre]

Someone on wotlabs pointed something else out yesterday. Apparently you can visually see the dispersion of your guns in-game, but only in 3rd person view. When in that view you'll see two vertical bars near your aiming reticule. That's the dispersion of your guns at that range.

 

So my NC, when aiming at another NC about 10km away has a dispersion that's basically 3/4 the length of the ship.

 

I just engaged 4 NCs in the training room to see what kind of % of citadels out of all hits I can expect (and I just noticed that you can register a citadel without a hit registering, so they're separate). I fired 126 shots... 51 hit... 7 were citadels. If this holds up over continual testing that means you can expect to hit with just 1 in 3 shots at 10km and only expect to get a citadel 15% of the time.

 

Ouch.

[zaarin7]

In this game 2-3 6"/8" cruisers can kill a BB from any range once they are in range because of the higher rates of fire. The damage system in this game reminds me a great deal of miniature system I used to play where every hit did some damge even if it didn't penetrate and given time a Yamato could be killed by 5" gunned DD just using it's guns.

[Harold Jones]

Someone on wotlabs pointed something else out yesterday. Apparently you can visually see the dispersion of your guns in-game, but only in 3rd person view. When in that view you'll see two vertical bars near your aiming reticule. That's the dispersion of your guns at that range.

 

So my NC, when aiming at another NC about 10km away has a dispersion that's basically 3/4 the length of the ship.

 

Makes sense, the dispersion on the Colorado is 227 meters so close to 700 feet,

[Skywalkre]

Curious what Gun Fire Control System Modification 1 actually does (the increased accuracy one). From the visual cue we have in-game it doesn't shrink the dispersion like we're used to in WoT. So... off to the training rooms to see.

 

Took the Fuso. Engagements were as close to 10km as I could get (averaged to 10.13 and 10.12 for the two different runs). First run is with the mod against 6 stationary Fusos. Second run is without.

 

1st Run w/ Accuracy Mod - 324 shots, 101 hits, 17 citadels (36.41% combined hit rate)
2nd Run w/o Mod - 324 shots, 85 hits, 15 citadels (30.86% combined hit rate)

 

Noticeable increase. Seems it's worth taking. I'm curious about the mechanics, though. We have no idea how shots disperse inside the current aiming circle (which we can't see). Does the mod make shots go more towards the center? Unlike WoT, though, that's not necessarily a good thing. You actually want shots to go along a horizontal line from your aiming point (so if you're aiming waterline you want all your shots to go waterline... one that's waterline but edge of circle is more valuable than one close to mid but too low).

 

The training rooms also highlight how much larger a role RNG plays in this game. On my last run without the mod my first salvo on one of the Fusos took 26k from him. Didn't touch the aim point, fired again, and got 9k. Same aim point then netted 5k and 3k. WTF?

[Colin]

Sea battles in real life really seemed to depend highly on RNG, just look at the HMS Hood, wrong end of RNG stick that was

[Harold Jones]

I read a dev post a while back which if I recall correctly stated that the ships were made up of various hit boxes that had their own HP totals and once the total for a hit box was depleted you would only get minimal damage per hit. I'm not sure if that's what you were seeing but it is one possibility.

[Skywalkre]

Sea battles in real life really seemed to depend highly on RNG, just look at the HMS Hood, wrong end of RNG stick that was

The concern, though, is good gameplay. I'm not looking at WoWS as a simulator (there are better options out there for that) but as a fun game where my decisions matter. I've already had countless encounters in the CB where I've positioned myself better than the enemy, come into an engagement with more hps than him, but he sails away while I'm sinking all because my aimed salvos ended up doing 3k dmg each while his one snapshot of one, probably aiming at the wrong spot if he even aimed at all, somehow landed a citadel and sunk me.

 

That's frustrating. If folks think WoT has a toxic playerbase wait til WoWs goes live if mechanics like this are left in place.

[Skywalkre]

I read a dev post a while back which if I recall correctly stated that the ships were made up of various hit boxes that had their own HP totals and once the total for a hit box was depleted you would only get minimal damage per hit. I'm not sure if that's what you were seeing but it is one possibility.

Good point.

 

I need to go back and do those tests with the Fuso again. Your comment reminded me of something I saw on wotlabs not too long ago. There's a website you can go to that lets you look at internal layouts for WoT. They recently released info for WoWs and when I was looking at ships they were basically broken down into multiple components with varying hps (which I didn't understand why). Also, I seem to recall my biggest hits being the first ones on ships when I was running my tests. Both would seem to point to what you're talking about still being the case.

[Skywalkre]

Also learned Air Groups Modification 1 doesn't affect bombs (and I'm guessing torpedoes as well). Was hoping it was more than just a fighter buff.

 

As far as hit % of manual vs auto DB drops...

 

Scenario was my Hiryu vs 12 Essex which were all turned off and stationary (ran the manual drop 3x so got in attacks on almost 36 Essex). Manual drop rate ended up with just an ~70% hits rate (despite most of the oval covering the ship) while auto was ~50%. Not much of a drop considering how much work manual runs are.

 

The bombs themselves consistently did 1/3 their listed dmg. Fires were what did most of it. An unchecked fire burned for over 12k which is a lot more than the 2-300 per tick every 2s I'm used to. Don't know if fires scale as you tier up, based on target ship, or something else.

Edited June 7, 2015 by Skywalkre

[Colin]

 

I read a dev post a while back which if I recall correctly stated that the ships were made up of various hit boxes that had their own HP totals and once the total for a hit box was depleted you would only get minimal damage per hit. I'm not sure if that's what you were seeing but it is one possibility.

Good point.

 

I need to go back and do those tests with the Fuso again. Your comment reminded me of something I saw on wotlabs not too long ago. There's a website you can go to that lets you look at internal layouts for WoT. They recently released info for WoWs and when I was looking at ships they were basically broken down into multiple components with varying hps (which I didn't understand why). Also, I seem to recall my biggest hits being the first ones on ships when I was running my tests. Both would seem to point to what you're talking about still being the case.

 

that actually makes some sense as ships are divided into compartments to control flooding, fire and other damage.

[FlyingCanOpener]

 

 

I read a dev post a while back which if I recall correctly stated that the ships were made up of various hit boxes that had their own HP totals and once the total for a hit box was depleted you would only get minimal damage per hit. I'm not sure if that's what you were seeing but it is one possibility.

Good point.

 

I need to go back and do those tests with the Fuso again. Your comment reminded me of something I saw on wotlabs not too long ago. There's a website you can go to that lets you look at internal layouts for WoT. They recently released info for WoWs and when I was looking at ships they were basically broken down into multiple components with varying hps (which I didn't understand why). Also, I seem to recall my biggest hits being the first ones on ships when I was running my tests. Both would seem to point to what you're talking about still being the case.

 

that actually makes some sense as ships are divided into compartments to control flooding, fire and other damage.

 

But at the same time, they make none of this information public to the player, so you're busy dropping rounds on the bow of the ship wondering why you're not doing damage when it's because of hidden parameters. It's literally the opposite of Tanks where you can shoot the same spot over and over and deal damage.

 

It sounds unfair of me, but neither damage model makes sense. I shouldn't be able to shoot a cupola and it deal the same damage as hitting a tank's engine, just like a ship shouldn't effectively get an armour boost when someone hits a depleted hp box. Frankly you should have catastrophic flooding or an automatic citadel when the section's hp reaches zero. I mean, if the bow of a ship is shot off, they don't get to sail around and continue to fight as though nothing happened...

[Skywalkre]

 

It sounds unfair of me, but neither damage model makes sense. I shouldn't be able to shoot a cupola and it deal the same damage as hitting a tank's engine, just like a ship shouldn't effectively get an armour boost when someone hits a depleted hp box. Frankly you should have catastrophic flooding or an automatic citadel when the section's hp reaches zero. I mean, if the bow of a ship is shot off, they don't get to sail around and continue to fight as though nothing happened...

 

That reminds me of what I've heard of the earlier version of the game where they had hps and buoyancy. Supposedly they ran into situations where a ship was immobile due to too much flooding but weaker ships couldn't kill it. Guessing they didn't have fires in that version of the game. "Let's discard this cool idea because we've implement 1% of the game and so far it doesn't work!"

 

There is still the concern that this game is too simple. Maybe they should revisit some of the old ideas they tossed already.

[Harold Jones]

Take some time to read ArdRaeiss's posts on the official cbt forum especially the stuff in the earlier pages, he took the time to explain why they switched from 2 bars to one and some of the thinking behind damage in general. He engages in a lot of threads, some of which are the equivalent of FFZ stuff but he does drop a fair amount of info.

 

BTW have you figured out what constitutes a hit? I know that regular hits are counted and that crits are counted separately but what about fires and citadels. I assume they get included in the general hit number but can't be sure. Also it looks like crits deal 0 damage other than what system they knock out. Which makes me wonder if the shot that starts a fire cause damage or just start the fire?

Edited June 8, 2015 by Harold Jones

[FlyingCanOpener]

Take some time to read ArdRaeiss's posts on the official cbt forum especially the stuff in the earlier pages, he took the time to explain why they switched from 2 bars to one and some of the thinking behind damage in general. He engages in a lot of threads, some of which are the equivalent of FFZ stuff but he does drop a fair amount of info.

 

I've tried to look for them, but I ended up losing the will to live trying to piece together the information because the signal-to-noise ratio for the WoWS forum is less than pointing a radio telescope at a supernova.

 

I don't mind a single HP bar, but if they want to compartmentalize the armour model, there needs to be a consequence for losing all the hp for an armour section. I'm just throwing some ideas out here, but if you lose your bow hp, you should start flooding automatically, citadel causes a magazine explosion, and stern you lose engine room/steering. Consumables could give you hp back in those sections (not the overall hp, but the module hp), but if the module hp is at zero, you get the same critical hit (flooding/steering) damage. You give the citadel the most module HP of course, but with this set up, you ensure that sustained fire on a target guarantees that you will hurt your opponent. With dispersion the way it is--especially at range--you can' only kinda sorta aim at parts of a ship, so it's difficult to game a system like this.

[Harold Jones]

I use the advanced search paste in ArdRaeiss for the author and then limit the search to closed beta forum. Still have a bunch of posts to wade through but at least you don't have to wade through the normal forum dreck.

[Skywalkre]

Take some time to read ArdRaeiss's posts on the official cbt forum especially the stuff in the earlier pages, he took the time to explain why they switched from 2 bars to one and some of the thinking behind damage in general. He engages in a lot of threads, some of which are the equivalent of FFZ stuff but he does drop a fair amount of info.

I think the below is what I remember reading previously:

 

 

Okay, let me explain the whole "BP was great!" situation and why it was not so great in practice.

 

Long ago in the seas far-far away there were ships with two bars to represent structural integrity, stability and combat value - the "HP" for crew/machines/hull/etc and "BP" for buyoancy. You could have sunk the enemy by reducing eiter to zero - BP by hitting with torpedoes/floods/underwater hits, HP by hitting parts over the water(especially citadel space) and causing fires.

And then you would find yourself in the situation when ship with 1% BP could not be sunked as you just can't hit his underwater parts. You have to remove all his HP bar to sunk this 1% BP pile of rust.

On the other hand, some destroyer player could've find himself in situation when he could not penetrate citadel of 1% HP battleship and could not hit him in the unarmored parts - they were already destroyed. No way to sink except by hitting her underwater(if you got some torpedoes left or loaded)... all under fire from such battleship as it keep fighting no matter what.

Frustrating expirience in both cases, happened too often. Bad for game experience.

 

Here the best example of 1% BP with some HP left battlecruiser - HMS Zeydlits(1, 2). Watch these fotos. As you can see, her bow is underwater. This is due to floods that filled her bow... thru the overwater shell holes. She got so much water from nose wave and firefighting that her bow flood get out of control due to catching more and more water thru the shell holes she got in the battle. All over the waterline. The SMS Lutzow haven't made it to the base as her flood was event worse - but situation and reasons were the same. Any hit to something like water pipes, secondary generator, additional hole to the upper belt near the bow - and SMS Zeydlitz could've been lost too.

1% HP with lot of BP left example would be the KM Bismarck in her last battle - citadel space intact(despite several holes in armor belt - armor slopes were strong enough to hold, as designed) and enemies just could not penetrate underwater part as her belt protectected her from torpedoes due to heavy floods. Any underwater hit - and she would go down.

 

So, we went back to drawing board. The idea behind HP bar was to represent the ship's ability to fight via number of alive/uninjured crew members, machines state, structural integrity of the hull, etc. The idea behind BP bar was to represent ship's ability to stay afloat; flood lists for various reasons were left behind by setting "your crew is professional enough able to automaticly counterflood your ship"(pretty much realistic - it was crew's task to counterlist while captaing thinks on whole picture).

As you can see, early idea to have them separated was, realistically, wrong - they are inteconnected. And this connection is not simple to simulate, especially when you have limited server power(yes, it is limited, we got enough issues with shell physics; unfortunately we doesn't have unlimited resources even on the horizon). Then we try the single bar idea as combined complex "ability to fight" status. Everything in one at the same time. Easier to show, easier to understand, much easier to finish "almost done!" target. Much easier to store, calculate and to send to clients.

And this is what in the game right now.

 

I would like to see the full simulation of ship myself(I've played "Destroyer Command" long ago an enjoyed it)... but I know how bad it is for the server and for connection.

The problem with the above is the gameplay issues don't make sense given what we have in the game right now. DDs have infinite reloads so would have no issue getting the last 1% of a ship that's stationary due to flooding. Ships without torps and with low calibre guns could eventually burn down a high hp/low buoyancy ship even with the fires we had under 3.0. Reading this again the gameplay reasonings just feel tacked on to help support a decision which likely was driven strictly by programming limitations on their part (since he closes with this one). I'm a little less sympathetic in this regard since WG is hardly cutting edge in this department.

 

Going back to gameplay related reasons you could also use the ones he gives to simplify WoT's sytem even further down. It's bizarre to read about a game like WoWs, which is simpler than their flagship title WoT, and how it's good for them to take it further in the direction of a glorified browser game? I don't get it...

Edited June 9, 2015 by Skywalkre

[Skywalkre]

BTW have you figured out what constitutes a hit? I know that regular hits are counted and that crits are counted separately but what about fires and citadels. I assume they get included in the general hit number but can't be sure. Also it looks like crits deal 0 damage other than what system they knock out. Which makes me wonder if the shot that starts a fire cause damage or just start the fire?

Citadels are listed as hits on the detailed page of the after battle screen. The first one would show something like "50 hits, 4 citadels" while the final page would list just 54 hits. No idea about fires and criticals.

[Edmund]

I have a question. Could a 6" shell/round from Cleveland really hurt a New Mexico?

[Fritz]

 

 

It sounds unfair of me, but neither damage model makes sense. I shouldn't be able to shoot a cupola and it deal the same damage as hitting a tank's engine, just like a ship shouldn't effectively get an armour boost when someone hits a depleted hp box. Frankly you should have catastrophic flooding or an automatic citadel when the section's hp reaches zero. I mean, if the bow of a ship is shot off, they don't get to sail around and continue to fight as though nothing happened...

 

That reminds me of what I've heard of the earlier version of the game where they had hps and buoyancy. Supposedly they ran into situations where a ship was immobile due to too much flooding but weaker ships couldn't kill it. Guessing they didn't have fires in that version of the game. "Let's discard this cool idea because we've implement 1% of the game and so far it doesn't work!"

 

There is still the concern that this game is too simple. Maybe they should revisit some of the old ideas they tossed already.

 

 

Agree, buoyancy would be great, esp. if it was separated by front/mid/rear and sides so you can sink a ship if too much of one side is flooded.

 

Right now does flooding really do anything besides draining your hp?... Basically not in any way different than fire?