Jump to content

asalonen

Privateer
  • Content Сount

    768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    14224
  • Clan

    [THESO]

3 Followers

About asalonen

  • Rank
    Officer Cadet
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Helsinki

Recent Profile Visitors

1,873 profile views
  1. asalonen

    Edgar has homing torpedoes?!

    Maybe a rendering or physics glitch? I don't know. In any case, it's a very narrow hit. But you can see the trail of that first torp, and it is straight.
  2. asalonen

    Edgar has homing torpedoes?!

    I think it's mostly an illusion caused by the fact that the Edgar is launching single torps. Each of the torps does in fact go straight. The new British battlecruisers have underwater launchers whose torps DO steer after launch towards the aiming direction. But Edgar has regular deck-mounted launchers, just like the ones you have in British destroyers.
  3. asalonen

    Pointless mechanics in WOWS

    You overthink it greatly. Many 60+ % players just use the static crosshair and shoot by feel. There's no calculation, but just a feeling based on experience and an understanding how floaty the arcs are in the current ship. I don't get the part about dispersion. All turrets have the same dispersion. A ship has a specific kind of dispersion of course, but it mainly affects how you want to position yourself in that ship -- along with many other variables.
  4. I cannot comment on the Wowsft, but as the author of shiptool.st I can comment on the calculation of vertical dispersion. Patrie, Bourgogne, République and Alsace all have the same vertical dispersion formula. This dispersion formula is defined in the game client files as follows: At zero range, the vertical dispersion is 20 % of horizontal dispersion. At 50 % of maximum range, the vertical dispersion 50 % of horizontal dispersion. At maximum range, the vertical dispersion is 60 % of horizontal dispersion. This is how the game defines vertical dispersion for all artillery batteries. There are three fixed points in the formula, and for other ranges you interpolate. The percentage values differ between ships. For a comparison: the Japanese BB's have terrible vertical dispersion, defined as 80 % of horizontal dispersion at maximum range. Because the vertical dispersion is calculated based on the ship's maximum firing range, at a given range the vertical dispersion is slightly different for each of these ships. At 20 km range, Alsace is firing at almost 100 % of its maximum range while Patrie is firing at less than 80 %, so the same formula produces a different result. The formula gives the size of the dispersion ellipse that is perpendicular to the landing shells. If you look at the dispersion ellipse as splashes in the sea -- like in LWM's ship reviews -- the shell trajectory also comes into play. If the shells have low trajectory, the missing shells will land more short or far than shells with high trajectory. In the case of these French ships, the 431 mm's and 380 mm's have near-identical trajectories.
  5. asalonen

    Can anyone explain the latest LWM/Huron drama?

    It is especially arbitrary because WG has been "fooling around" with shell ballistics since day one. The classic example are the tech-tree Japanese battleships: The AP shells match the real-world ballistics surprisingly closely. Firing angle, impact angle and flight time are all within about 5 % of the real-world values, to any range, if you adjust for the in-game scaling of shell speed. Meanwhile the HE shells have been given super high drag, and as far as I can tell, totally unrealistic ballistics. I guess this was something that was -- way back in 2015 -- used to differentiate the Japanese battleship line from the US battleship line. The later-released Japanese premiums mostly don't have this. But now we're trying to be led to believe that touching shell ballistics in sister ships is somehow unholy, because... I don't know really? It's totally arbitrary. And like a wise man once said: "Why do you have to be mad? It's only a game".
  6. asalonen

    Can anyone explain the latest LWM/Huron drama?

    The port could use some kind of a standard figure for shell flight time. Some shells have a high initial velocity, some low drag, some both. But mostly what makes a difference to the player is what sort of flight time you get to a certain range. If you know that, what the trajectory looks like doesn't usually matter too much.
  7. asalonen

    Can anyone explain the latest LWM/Huron drama?

    In a recent development blog, WG announced that Huron will be getting flatter shell arcs. Technically, they'll likely give Huron's shells artificially low drag coefficients. This will be for balance reasons, I'm sure -- Huron does not have smoke, so maybe it hasn't been performing well enough in testing with the traditionally floaty arcs of the British 120 mm's. Likely they want to give it longer efficient range. Mouse is fairly pedantic about the numbers -- exactly what gives her content such high value -- and in a real world these short-caliber 120 mm's would not have been able to lob shells at a flat trajectory. Yet they are present on Huron's 3D model. And it's Canadian. And WG for the most part HAS kept the gun ballistics connected with reality. Balancing and ship line differentiation has mostly been done elsewhere. Yet I'm not really sure why the ballistics should be particularly sacred.
  8. As the author of shiptool.st, I can give a comment here. In the game files, all AP bombs have the "standard" ricochet angles of 45–60°. This is something that is defined for every AP projectile in the client-side files, be it a shell, rocket or bomb. However, I'm not sure if AP rockets and bombs really have the same ricochet mechanics as AP shells. The reason why I say this is that AP rocket and bomb penetration is NOT calculated from the client-side parameters like it is for shells. Instead, the game uses penetration values that are hard-coded at the server-side, so there could be similar server-side logic for the ricochets as well. And in any case, having played most of the CV's that have AP bombs, I don't feel like there are any significant differences in the ricochet angles.
  9. Do you mean the total number of shells fired, by all guns? For the secondary batteries I have this. See the screenshot below and the "Shells / min" column, for tier 8 battleships. I thought for secondary batteries it is more important, because there can be a huge number of guns with different reload times. So a single number showing the amount of dakka is helpful. And now that you say it, maybe it should be shown also for main batteries -- just for the consistency.
  10. New record in secondary kills! Previous record was 4 in a Massachusetts.
  11. asalonen

    Tech tree free xp calculator

    I also did this feature on my hobby project: https://shiptool.st/nations?n=usa Right-click on the ship that you want to start the calculation from, then just hover on the target ship to get the XP and credit totals. I think it's reasonable to only include the necessary hull modules, since people look at this when they're often considering free-XP'ing a line. If they're going to play the line, then most likely none of this matters that much?
  12. I have never played Tanks so no comment there. Also, despite the popularity mistakes may have been made and WG uses the lessons learned in Warships. They're different products for different audiences, and so I'm looking at solely Warships here -- just like WG does. There's no logical reason why tier 10 should be the end of things until the end of time. It's just a round number that they started with, partly for historical reasons.There IS real-world ship design some nations that goes beyond the current tier 10's. For most there definitely isn't, but as far as I can see, the fantasy ship argument has sailed many years ago. Otherwise we wouldn't have 70 tier 10 ships in the game. I don't get the balance argument either. There's nothing special about balancing a tier 11, and whatever new ship content WG adds they need to figure it out. The game needs content for old-time players, something that is slow to get and feels special. It's the same challenge for WG that brought as the Research Bureau content. Because of the modest player numbers in Warships, WG cannot go wild with new game modes. And I don't think that a shooter with such awkward pace as Warships can become that much more popular.
  13. The number of tier 10 ships in the game is almost 70. Within a couple of years it could be 100. It's almost inevitable that eventually the game goes beyond tier 10, and I don't see why it couldn't be now. The game needs something that feels special, especially for the old timers. They cannot keep adding more of the same forever. So for me, this was always going to happen, and I don't see much wrong in the way WG is doing it. The decision to keep them locked from players that don't have three tier 10 silver ships is spot-on, since there won't be a fast track to these ships. Realistically, it will be maybe 2000+ games for a typical new player? My only wish is that for at least for a couple of years, the tier 11's will be tech-tree only.
  14. asalonen

    New Ships Revealed at the WoWS Discord!

    They belong in the game just as much in the game as the German CV's, no? Aquila was close to completion, and Sparviero was also being built.
  15. asalonen

    1440p ultrawide on a 1660 Super?

    Upgrade is now done, and indeed it works beautifully. Game is near full detail and FPS is stable. I dropped anti-aliasing from 8x to 4x to ease the load on the GPU a bit, but I'm not sure if this was even necessary.
×