Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
anonym_DKZABZXaXZld

Fake random fire chance

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
67 posts

Right now, fires work on a true random basis, so every HE shell hitting a shippart not on fire has a X% chance to start a fire. This leads to a bunch of problems: Everyone knows those cruiser games where you hit 200 HE shells and only get one fire, and also those BB-games where every cruiser salvo seems to set a double fire on you instantly. It can be, without question, punishing for both players involved on a purely random basis. This is the nature of true randomness: Sometimes a certain event occurs very often, sometimes never.

 

The sequence of shells not setting a fire (O) and setting one (X) could look like this in true random:

OOOXOOOOOOXXOOOXXXOXOOOXXXXXOOOOOOOOOOOOOXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOXXOXOOXOOOOOOXOOXXXXOOOOOOOOOO

As one can see, this is truely completly random, and there are parts of frustration for both the cruiser and its target in there. (The fire chance shown here is clearly that of a conqueror though, as the 'O's can last for an entire battle for normal ships.)

 

Instead, a fake random fire chance should be used. The first HE shell hitting the target (shippart not on fire) has (for example) a 3% firechance, 8% for the next if no fire is caused, 13% for the third (again, if no fire is caused), 18% after that, and so on, always increasing your odds, until you actually get a fire and it resets to 3% again. Hitting a shippart not on fire does not increase the chance. The starting value and the increase in fire chance should be chosen in such a way that in the end, you get the same fire chance on average as before.

 

Now, the fake random sequence will look more like this:

OOOOXOOOOOXOOOXOOOOXXOOXOOOOOXOOOOOXOOOXOOOOXOXOOOOXOOOOOXOOOOOOOXOOOXOOOOOXOOOXOOOOOOOXOOOOXOXXXO

Fires are now more evenly spaced between the shell hits. The sequence is way more understandable for both players involved, is more fair and doesn't put such an emphasis on RNG while still simulating randomness. As long as you keep hitting HE you will get a few fires sooner or later, and if you get hit by too much HE, you will be set on fire.

 

I don't see any downside to handling it this way (other than loading more calculations on our poor engine), since the random nature of fires is still kept.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles

Fire chance isn't completely random no and better for it.

 

Ship tiers, the shell fire chance and where it hits and even the ship type have some say in the fire chance.

 

For instance hitting the side of a BBs hull isn't going to start very much but sprinkling HE on its superstructure will.

 

And firing enough will result in fires in the current model too...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
2,634 posts
16,262 battles

Honestly. I like the random fires as it is now. In the end it all balances out ( after enough games ) and there is no 'prediction' factor in it. 

You'll have a lot of normal games, but when rng giveth you can have great games and when rng taketh you'll have a lousy one. And this randomness I like. It's part of the fire charm i like.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BABBY]
Beta Tester
1,591 posts

This PRNG doesn't just increase proc chance when the proc doesn't occur, it also reduces the chance after a proc does occur, otherwise the nominal and actual % chances would differ. I think it's a nice idea, and implemented in srs bsns games like Dota, so if WG still have delusions of WOT esports they should consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BLITZ]
Modder
4,718 posts
8,745 battles
1 hour ago, Duke_of_Lauenburg said:

As long as you keep hitting HE you will get a few fires sooner or later

and this is the problem, why your idea is bad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,657 posts
11,770 battles
2 hours ago, Negativvv said:

Fire chance isn't completely random no and better for it.

 

Ship tiers, the shell fire chance and where it hits and even the ship type have some say in the fire chance.

 

For instance hitting the side of a BBs hull isn't going to start very much but sprinkling HE on its superstructure will.

 

And firing enough will result in fires in the current model too...

Fire chance isn't random - but the rolls that determine whether you set it or not ARE. And that's precisely what OP complains about - that, while fair, it's frustrating (there's a reson why many games "cheat" with their RNG).

 

Another thing is that you seem to be mistaken. AFAIK the fire chance of firing into the side plating and into superstructure is just as likely to start a fire. It might be different for torpedo bulge or french spaced armor, I'm also not sure about shells that land on turrets and other modules, but in general it doesn't matter how tough the part you're shootiing at is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles
12 minutes ago, eliastion said:

Fire chance isn't random - but the rolls that determine whether you set it or not ARE. And that's precisely what OP complains about - that, while fair, it's frustrating (there's a reson why many games "cheat" with their RNG).

 

Another thing is that you seem to be mistaken. AFAIK the fire chance of firing into the side plating and into superstructure is just as likely to start a fire. It might be different for torpedo bulge or french spaced armor, I'm also not sure about shells that land on turrets and other modules, but in general it doesn't matter how tough the part you're shootiing at is.

Ah I thought fire was linked to starting taking damage! 

 

So the infamous 0 damage burn is real? :cap_money:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,657 posts
11,770 battles
2 hours ago, Negativvv said:

Ah I thought fire was linked to starting taking damage! 

 

So the infamous 0 damage burn is real? :cap_money:

Yep. Some people were testing that and confirmed that shatters don't seem to be starting any less fires than penetrations. Even Akizuki with no IFHE is capable of starting fires that way :Smile_izmena:

The one thing I'm not sure about is whether spaced armor and/or modules (say, gun turrets) count as viable targets for fire-starting purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-NFG-]
[-NFG-]
Players
213 posts
7,596 battles

That guaranteed thing where every single ship catches fire only with the final shot to kill it looks likely here.  Seems to happen to me anyway now lol

 

The solution is to be a bot in operations - where the sequence is XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,831 posts
19,202 battles

a really big flaw of your proposal is that  you wouldnt be able to get fires right awa on the first salvos.

 

this would eliminate some strategies and would encourage tunnlevison.

 

also it  doesnt synergize well with the fact that you need to hit spots that dont already have a fire.

 

all in all interesting but terrible idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,113 posts
8,919 battles
6 hours ago, Duke_of_Lauenburg said:

Right now, fires work on a true random basis, so every HE shell hitting a shippart not on fire has a X% chance to start a fire. This leads to a bunch of problems: Everyone knows those cruiser games where you hit 200 HE shells and only get one fire, and also those BB-games where every cruiser salvo seems to set a double fire on you instantly. It can be, without question, punishing for both players involved on a purely random basis. This is the nature of true randomness: Sometimes a certain event occurs very often, sometimes never.

 

The sequence of shells not setting a fire (O) and setting one (X) could look like this in true random:

OOOXOOOOOOXXOOOXXXOXOOOXXXXXOOOOOOOOOOOOOXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOXXOXOOXOOOOOOXOOXXXXOOOOOOOOOO

As one can see, this is truely completly random, and there are parts of frustration for both the cruiser and its target in there. (The fire chance shown here is clearly that of a conqueror though, as the 'O's can last for an entire battle for normal ships.)

 

Instead, a fake random fire chance should be used. The first HE shell hitting the target (shippart not on fire) has (for example) a 3% firechance, 8% for the next if no fire is caused, 13% for the third (again, if no fire is caused), 18% after that, and so on, always increasing your odds, until you actually get a fire and it resets to 3% again. Hitting a shippart not on fire does not increase the chance. The starting value and the increase in fire chance should be chosen in such a way that in the end, you get the same fire chance on average as before.

 

Now, the fake random sequence will look more like this:

OOOOXOOOOOXOOOXOOOOXXOOXOOOOOXOOOOOXOOOXOOOOXOXOOOOXOOOOOXOOOOOOOXOOOXOOOOOXOOOXOOOOOOOXOOOOXOXXXO

Fires are now more evenly spaced between the shell hits. The sequence is way more understandable for both players involved, is more fair and doesn't put such an emphasis on RNG while still simulating randomness. As long as you keep hitting HE you will get a few fires sooner or later, and if you get hit by too much HE, you will be set on fire.

 

I don't see any downside to handling it this way (other than loading more calculations on our poor engine), since the random nature of fires is still kept.

That is not how 3% fire chance works. You can't just advertise 3% fire chance, then slap 5% ontop everytime. Apart from the 3% being a total lie then, because while it is 3% at first hit, it'll be far higher after a few non-fires, allowing for far more fires than before. So, tell me how this is less frustrating for the target, which now either gets regular fires or trolled hard by RNG, but has now far less chance for good RNG to save them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KG_CZ]
[KG_CZ]
Beta Tester
120 posts
10,214 battles
6 hours ago, Duke_of_Lauenburg said:

Instead, a fake random fire chance should be used. The first HE shell hitting the target (shippart not on fire) has (for example) a 3% firechance, 8% for the next if no fire is caused, 13% for the third (again, if no fire is caused), 18% after that, and so on, always increasing your odds, until you actually get a fire and it resets to 3% again. Hitting a shippart not on fire does not increase the chance. The starting value and the increase in fire chance should be chosen in such a way that in the end, you get the same fire chance on average as before.

Yeeees I am all in :D I can only imagine how nice it would be with my atlanta which have 14 shells in the air every 4.5 second :D every second salvo vould be guaranteed fire :D totally ballanced :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
483 posts
7,502 battles

It`s fact that RNGesus plays quite big role in WoWs, so i`d happily swap out current, random distribution for pseudo-random distribution where each hit causing fire reduces the chance for any subsequent fires, and each hit without a fire started increases it.

Such distribution is implemented with  % chance skills in MOBA`s like DotA, and LoL and it works just fine there.

 

For obvious reasons the less RNG is involved in the game the better the balance between ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
5,061 posts
8,562 battles
9 hours ago, Duke_of_Lauenburg said:

Right now, fires work on a true random basis, so every HE shell hitting a shippart not on fire has a X% chance to start a fire

amazing-every-word.jpg

 

9 hours ago, Duke_of_Lauenburg said:

Everyone knows those cruiser games where you hit 200 HE shells and only get one fire, and also those BB-games where every cruiser salvo seems to set a double fire on you instantly

Learn what "chance" is, you clearly have no clue

 

One way I can offer to you how you can do it is by using RNG site like this one:

https://andrew.hedges.name/experiments/random/

 

How to set it up:

Lets simulate you having 10% fire chance - so 1 in 10.

Put it at these settings:

zKhQDxz.png

Feel free to increase your "I want" number - that's the amount of shells that you hit.

Important - keep it as "not sorted"

Select any number between 1 and 10 that you like - each time that exact number is rolled you get a fire

Now click on the "Get Random!"

 

Lets say... I like 8. That's going to be our fire number in my example.

 

7 2 4 1 1 1 9 8 1 2 10 2 6 6 3 1 6 5 8 8 3 4 8 4 8 8 3 5 10 4 6 4 8 10 10 8 4 5 7 3 8 6 5 4 1 9 3 2 9 6 4 7 5 4 2 4 7 9 5 3 6 1 4 4 3 2 4 2 1 10 7 4 2 5 7 8 1 7 10 8 2 9 7 5 9 5 3 4 9 8 2 9 5 9 7 1 5 4 5 3

 

Now lets see how many fires did we set there:

100 shells, 10% chance, 11 "8s" = 11 fires

How many shells were needed to set a fire? (in order as it is above)

8  11  1  3  2  1  7  3  5  35  4  10  (followed by 10 more that never set another one)

 

See? Chance. Doesn't mean that every 10th will set a fire

 

9 hours ago, Duke_of_Lauenburg said:

OOOXOOOOOOXXOOOXXXOXOOOXXXXXOOOOOOOOOOOOOXOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOXXOXOOXOOOOOOXOOXXXXOOOOOOOOOO

98 shots, 22 fires. That's 22.45% fire chance after fire resistance.

 

Funny how if you assume that's fired at tier 10 ships (so 44.9% full fc) you've almost hit spot-on to a Conquerors fc, you could just say that it's a Conq with slightly sad RNG

 

9 hours ago, Duke_of_Lauenburg said:
Spoiler

 

Instead, a fake random fire chance should be used. The first HE shell hitting the target (shippart not on fire) has (for example) a 3% firechance, 8% for the next if no fire is caused, 13% for the third (again, if no fire is caused), 18% after that, and so on, always increasing your odds, until you actually get a fire and it resets to 3% again. Hitting a shippart not on fire does not increase the chance. The starting value and the increase in fire chance should be chosen in such a way that in the end, you get the same fire chance on average as before.

 

Now, the fake random sequence will look more like this:

OOOOXOOOOOXOOOXOOOOXXOOXOOOOOXOOOOOXOOOXOOOOXOXOOOOXOOOOOXOOOOOOOXOOOXOOOOOXOOOXOOOOOOOXOOOOXOXXXO

Fires are now more evenly spaced between the shell hits. The sequence is way more understandable for both players involved, is more fair and doesn't put such an emphasis on RNG while still simulating randomness. As long as you keep hitting HE you will get a few fires sooner or later, and if you get hit by too much HE, you will be set on fire.

 

 

All of this part looks simply stupid, that's all I'll comment on it for now

 

 

 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
67 posts
14 hours ago, Negativvv said:

For instance hitting the side of a BBs hull isn't going to start very much but sprinkling HE on its superstructure will.

Wrong.

 

8 hours ago, Gojuadorai said:

a really big flaw of your proposal is that  you wouldnt be able to get fires right awa on the first salvos

Only at the very start of the battle. I never said it is supposed to reset when you switch targets.

 

8 hours ago, Riselotte said:

That is not how 3% fire chance works.

This is not meant to represent a 3% fire chance. The fire chance in this EXAMPLE is ofc much higher.

 

7 hours ago, Kpt_Silas said:

Yeeees I am all in :D I can only imagine how nice it would be with my atlanta which have 14 shells in the air every 4.5 second :D every second salvo vould be guaranteed fire :D totally ballanced :)

Like I said, the base fire chance and increment is chosen in such a way that in end, the average value is like before. Like someone else said, this is common practice in for example DOTA, where no rng based hero gets more bashes (per hit) just because he has a high attack speed. The increment and base chance is ofc different for each ship and can be a balacing factor.

 

5 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Learn what "chance" is, you clearly have no clue

Get a dictionary and learn the meaning of 'example', and maybe also ackknowledge that I put an emphasis on the problems of true RNG to highlight them. Yes, the fire chance shown was very high, LIKE I SAID, conqueror-like because it is an EXAMPLE. If you still don't like it, exchange conqueror with orion, so the fire resistance based on tier is lower, idc.

Btw, look at my sequence of true random and yours. Look at the distribution of fires in-between shell hits. There isn't much of a difference apart from the actual fire chance. So there you go, I clearly got it right.

I am very well aware that in true random, a 10% fire chance doesnt mean a fire after every 10th shell hit, and if you had actually read my post, instead of trying to boast with basic 5th grade math, you would have noticed that THAT IS MY POINT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
5,061 posts
8,562 battles
17 minutes ago, Duke_of_Lauenburg said:

Btw, look at my sequence of true random and yours

Your one "truly random sequence" perfectly fits a ship that would have 45% +/- a few % fire chance, as I already pointed out.

 

Meanwhile as your "truly random sequence" could next time go into anything else (lets say - 97 empty + 1 fire), that same 45% fc ship would still have something much closer (on average)  to the 1st one you gave.

 

So...

21 minutes ago, Duke_of_Lauenburg said:

there you go, I clearly got it right.

No, no you didn't. Because you still have no clue how chance works

 

22 minutes ago, Duke_of_Lauenburg said:

I am very well aware that in true random, a 10% fire chance doesnt mean a fire after every 10th shell hit, and if you had actually read my post, instead of trying to boast with basic 5th grade math, you would have noticed that THAT IS MY POINT.

If that is your point - why isn't it included in your post then?

Because your point in the original post clearly is "fire chance is so random your given % matters nothing and any ship can have any fire chance" which is not the case outside of "RNG in this short time span".

 

Take that 10% fc again.

  • Do 1 roll
  • Do 5 rolls
  • Do 10 rolls
  • Do 100 rolls
  • Do 1000 rolls

Do you know what will happen as you increase the roll count?  Of course you don't. The more rolls you have, the closer your fires set will get to that 10% fc. Single game where you land 50 shells may easily have half of the fc or double it. Take 20 of those games and they will average to what you actually have.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
67 posts
2 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

No, no you didn't. Because you still have no clue how chance works

I am very well aware that everything averages out over multiple games. I say it should average out within one game. I am very well aware my chosen fire chance is very high. I say it is an example, it is not meant to represent a certain ship in a certain situation.

 

8 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

fire chance is so random your given % matters nothing and any ship can have any fire chance

Funny that you didn't quote me there, because I never said that.

 

Wilkatis, I am sorry but no matter how you respond to this, I won't answer anymore. It looks to me like you can't or you don't want to understand what I am saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
5,061 posts
8,562 battles
3 minutes ago, Duke_of_Lauenburg said:

I say it should average out within one game

Why should it?

 

3 minutes ago, Duke_of_Lauenburg said:

Funny that you didn't quote me there, because I never said that.

Rather obviously that's a TL;DR of the nonsense that was your post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
67 posts

For anyone interested in this, you can learn a bit more about this topic here:

https://dota2.gamepedia.com/Random_distribution

It is about DOTA 2, but that game has a pretty high playerbase, so there is a good chance some of you understand enough of the game to understand the article. I couldn't find a related article about the topic that isn't related to a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
67 posts
40 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Why should it?

Fair enough, I will respond to this because it is an actual question/criticism.

 

1) Competetive play / Ranked play

The system I describe is common practice in pretty much every competetive game out there when it comes to RNG. The reason for that is, that RNG is not meant to be THE deciding factor in the outcome of a battle, especially if the stakes are high. Granted, the ranked system is currently not that well implemented and the competetive scene is small.

 

2) A counter to frustration

When you play a cruiser and you can live with getting 200 hits and 1 fire in a game, or enjoy getting set on multple fires in one salvo, that is great. All the power to you. Some people are different though (Both of those things can still happen after the change, but with a lower chance).

 

3) A higher skill factor

Whereever true rng is in play, the gap between a highly skilled player and a bad one becomes smaller. This effect actually doesn't average out. The more of a game is decided by rng, the less influence a player can have.

 

4) It literally changes nothing

In the end, it all averages out, I think we both agree in that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,831 posts
19,202 battles
1 hour ago, Duke_of_Lauenburg said:

 

Only at the very start of the battle. I never said it is supposed to reset when you switch targets.

 

 

 

that would still carry a LOT of negative implications.

 

-things like "fire probing" (sticking fires on multipletarget to see whos stupid and puts it out) wouldnt work wich whould have negative implications for display of skill using dcp as well as for the probing player.

-when will stacks reset?

-will stacks be fire location specific? if not there might be an excessive fire setting potential  creating an sudden "burst of flames"

-etc....

 

ther more i think it will be create a situation where you will end up with a system thats so complicated to see through that it make the situation far worse that it is now 

(which in my honest opinion isnt really bad at all)

 

 

3) It literally changes nothing

In the end, it all averages out, I think we both agree in that.

 

and as i explained above this is where youre fundamentaly wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
67 posts
27 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

-things like "fire probing" (sticking fires on multipletarget to see whos stupid and puts it out) wouldnt work wich whould have negative implications for display of skill using dcp as well as for the probing player.

You need around 10 HE hits on to get a fire. I think it is not that hard to get 10 hits on a single target, switch to the next, proceed. Tactic gets even dirtier once you find someone who puts it out, as focus fire would ensure that you can get multiple fires on him afterwards. But you are right, this tactic would change.

27 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

-when will stacks reset?

Don't know what you mean... The chance resets when you get one fire.

27 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

-will stacks be fire location specific? if not there might be an excessive fire setting potential  creating an sudden "burst of flames"

No, the chance should be handled on the side who fires, no matter who or what he hits. Chance only increases if you hit a part of the ship that is not on fire obviously. Right now, you can only get a fire if you hit  shippart not on fire after all.

 Burst of flames? Why? You get one fire, chance resets to a pretty low one, how do you get the next one fast enough to describe it as a burst?

 

I think you did't quite get the resetting of the chance every time you get a fire. So you get one fire max out your increasing fire chance.

27 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

ther more i think it will be create a situation where you will end up with a system thats so complicated to see through that it make the situation far worse that it is now 

The system sounds complicated, but isn't. Look at my fake random sequence. There is nothing complicated about it. There is more going on behind the scenes ofc, but the player doesn't notice that.

Funny side note: The fake random sequence is actually the sequence most people not accustomed to math and chance expect out of a random sequence (like Wilkatis accused me to not understand). So the game would actually become more intuitiv for most players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,831 posts
19,202 battles
26 minutes ago, Duke_of_Lauenburg said:

The system sounds complicated, but isn't. Look at my fake random sequence. There is nothing complicated about it.

 

youreally dont  see the implications here.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×