Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'fire chance'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Forum
    • English Speaking Forum
    • Deutschsprachige Community
    • Polska Społeczność
    • Česká a slovenská komunita
    • Communauté francophone
    • Comunità Italiana
    • Comunidad de habla española
    • Türkçe Topluluk
  • Mod Section
    • Rules, Announcements and General Discussion (English)
    • Modding Tutorials, Guides and Tools (English)
    • Interface Mods
    • Visual Mods
    • Sound Mods
    • Modpacks
    • Other Mods and Programs
    • Archive
  • Historical Section


  • Community Calendar
  • This Day in History

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL








Found 5 results

  1. When talking about "RNG", "chance", "probabilities", etc., many misinterpretations are made. "That is only natural". Mistakes are made, imo, because the math regarding 'random' is different to what most people know and correctly use every day. This can lead to frustration and anger about RNG, MM, fire chance, etc. Plz, let me try to explain how to avoid this... NO WORRIES... i will not bother you with boring math. With all things "RANDOM" ... to avoid frustration may I suggest you simply try and remember that "all things random" are strange, counterintuitive, and that the 'chances' are other than they appear. If you look at them the same way you use everyday math, they seem "deceiving". You might even feel like someone is cheating on you. Actually it's more like a 'misunderstanding'. As a 'rule of thumb' what can help to avoid frustration: simply lower your expectations, e.g. when you look at the numbers. Drastically! Basically that's it. It's that simple, really : ) Oh, ... and don't get into the math if you don't need it for work, school or science. Or, of course, if you feel so inclined ; ) (I wouldn't have, but for it's too late for me - and now i have Statistics Stockholm Syndrome aaaaaaaaaaaargh ;->) More? Ok, here's a simple example (No worries, still not explaining math. Promised! For those of you who have been frustrated by statistics and numbers on probabilities: I hope you can now avoid frustration and have more fun - with the game and elsewhere. For those of you who, like me, have some understanding of stochastic, statistics and the math 'behind it': I hope you can now understand a little better how people get frustrated and angry, and be less frustrated by that and have more fun - with the game and elsewhere. For those of you who are (probably, haha) far more proficient in this field: I hope to have at least entertained you a little and not embarrassed myself to blatantly ; ) Fair seas and good hunting. Regards, HentaiSquirrel (xkcd.com)
  2. TheNamelessLegend

    Nerf HE and fires.

    Ever since the game has been released from open beta, all I can remember is the huge focus Wargaming has on fires and high explosive. Time and time again I have returned to the game only to meet with continuous, overpowered high explosive spam. Even when I play ships that are supposed to be resistant to high explosive, it is impossible to avoid the damage. And the damage is way too much. And then I see what ships are in testing... More stupid, high rate of fire, high fire chance ships that have too little armour for armour piercing shells to do sufficient damage. Over the years I have seen more and more ships get their citadels lowered or changed in a way to make it impossible to hit, mainly the American battleships. Not to mention the overpowered heal that British ships get! WHY?! ALL BATTLESHIPS SHOULD GET THAT KIND OF HEAL, ESPECIALLY TO COUNTER AGAINST THE DUMB DAMAGE OVER TIME AND HIGH EXPLOSIVE SPAM. The aircraft carrier "rework" (ruin) was a joke. I hope that gets reverted as soon as possible. If Wargaming considers that a success, then I'll consider my life a success. Which neither are.
  3. Apparently there's a myth that a penetrating HE shell in more likely to set a fire than a shattering one. Decided to test it Ship: La Gallis.... you know which one I'm talking about. 12% Fire chance (no flags / modules / commander skills), 152mm guns with 24mm of HE pen Target: Yamato (19mm superstructure / 32mm bow) - bot so no DCSM1 / FP. Fire resist x0.5005 so effective fire chance is 6.006% (1 fire per 16.65 shells or 50 fires per 833 shells) 50 fires set in both cases (while that's not a high amount it should be a good enough to show a trend if there is one) Hits scored per each fire: 2 points to note: LaGal... has 3x barrels per turret, so theoretically part of those numbers could be 1 or 2 shells lower as I don't know which of the last impacting shells scored the fire Not all of the numbers are divisible by 3 - while shooting at superstructure shells going slightly high may skip past the funnel, while shooting at the bow shells going slightly high or slightly low will fly over it or hit the water before it respectively Total penetrations for 50 fires: 741. That's 14.82 shells per fire or 6.75% fire chance. Take out the x0.5005 fire resistance and we have 13.48% original fire chance (+1.48%) Total shatters for 50 fires: 773. That's 15.46 shells per fire or 6.47% fire chance. Take out the x0.5005 fire resistance and we have 12.92% original fire chance (+0.92%) Both cases (total of 4 training room battles) have average fire chance above the average, and both cases are pretty close to each other differing by just 0.56% (completely covered by the RNG). Thus we can safely conclude that penetration or shatter - they don't impact your shells fire chance
  4. Risalan


    As wiki says Fire DamageEdit Damage dealt by each instance of fire on a ship is fixed as 0.3% of its total health pool per fire per second (0.4% for aircraft carriers). Each fire has a base duration of 60 seconds, meaning that a fire which is allowed to burn for the full duration will consume 18% of a ship's maximum health (24% for carriers). Captains of capital ships — aircraft carriers and battleships — can quickly see, then, that while one fire might be considered a nuisance, two or more are a major threat to their ship. But the question is: Fire reduces HP of all ship or just the section burning? When section has 0 HP left fire makes no damage?
  5. conductiv

    HE ammo

    currently still looking into the viability of HE ammo, and hoping its better then the HE ammo available in WG's flagship game WoT. in order to do that, I played a few games "HE only" the results where ...well ...pretty pathetic when compared to the typical "AP only" game. but damage aside, the thing I noticed most was the severe lack of fires on any ship class but the aircraft carrier. so I'm thinking that most ships have a hidden protection against fire, in order to see that..I would like some help of the community by posting screenshots of games where they used HE shells..but did not engage a carrier. name of the ship used and any possible perks that affect fire chances (like pyromania) would be greatly appreciated. the second thing I wanted to see is the "critical strike rate" of the HE shell, while probably based on where the shell lands on the enemy ship..the screenshot provided should give a indication as to how "damaging" a HE shell actually is against modules. edit: in order to give WG some feedback, my personal experiments with HE ammo show that the ammo could use some love. -damage proves poor, even on targets that generally get over-penetrated by AP and where HE is the recommended ammo -fire chance seems lower then advertised against all but the CV ( roughly 1/4th of listed) -critical damage rate seems low (20% or so rate of breaking modules..(thunderbolt insignia))