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

Fighting the Variance with a BB?

33 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
367 posts
6,306 battles

Hey,

 

everybody knows that RNG is a [edited]. From a statistical point of view getting that expected valuesis dependend from the variance, however, repeated and consistent deviations from the ev are - to the say the least - improbable. I say this because I am struggling with my Montana for more than a month now: the unlucky bb shots where shells just go all around the enemy ship (which is especially prominent in lower tiers) have become a consistent experience. The "bug" where it appears you didnt lock on

the target or the "bug" where shells just go through the enemy ship also occur much more often in my Montana compared to my other BBs - which again, makes from a statistical point of view no sense. I got this problem only with my Montana and I know of other players reporting the same issue (maybe most known Runner). So I just would like to know if everyone of you have ever experienced the same issue that your (certain) BB just wont "work" over an extended period of time and therefore against all statistical properties (1)?

 

 

 

(1) This actually holds true independent from the given statistical distributions as long as you assume a random variable and thus RNG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
24,678 posts
13,670 battles
16 minutes ago, The_Noob_Commander said:

So I just would like to know if everyone of you have ever experienced the same issue that your (certain) BB just wont "work" over an extended period of time and therefore against all statistical properties (1)?

No. Never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
5,449 posts
22,580 battles
19 minutes ago, The_Noob_Commander said:

Hey,

 

everybody knows that RNG is a [edited]. From a statistical point of view getting that expected valuesis dependend from the variance, however, repeated and consistent deviations from the ev are - to the say the least - improbable. I say this because I am struggling with my Montana for more than a month now: the unlucky bb shots where shells just go all around the enemy ship (which is especially prominent in lower tiers) have become a consistent experience. The "bug" where it appears you didnt lock on

the target or the "bug" where shells just go through the enemy ship also occur much more often in my Montana compared to my other BBs - which again, makes from a statistical point of view no sense. I got this problem only with my Montana and I know of other players reporting the same issue (maybe most known Runner). So I just would like to know if everyone of you have ever experienced the same issue that your (certain) BB just wont "work" over an extended period of time and therefore against all statistical properties (1)?

 

 

 

(1) This actually holds true independent from the given statistical distributions as long as you assume a random variable and thus RNG.

You should take into account that US BBs T8 and upwards have SHS and quite steep trajectories at the longer ranges and hence have a proportionally higher chance not to hit any part of ship while falling down around the target compared to some others that will at least get overpens by hitting the stack or some other part of supersteucture, if the target is just too small for the dispersion on that distance you will have this alot

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
9,335 posts
10,985 battles
2 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

SHS

Yes. Which have absolutely no game impact besides energy retention and slightly higher damage, compared to other shells of the same caliber.

3 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

quite steep trajectories at the longer ranges

You still need to be past 20km to stop ricocheting off the decks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
5,449 posts
22,580 battles

Ricoshets are not important here, look at the average dispersion ellipse you will see that if shells come down at a steeper angle you have less chance of "grazing" the target while shells fall in the water around it, even few degrees can have a significant statistical impact...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
24,678 posts
13,670 battles
4 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Yes. Which have absolutely no game impact besides energy retention and slightly higher damage, compared to other shells of the same caliber.

Just higher pen at range and less overpens, because of the lower speed.

... and steeper angles of fall that hit the citadel easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
9,335 posts
10,985 battles
Just now, ColonelPete said:

Just higher pen at range and less overpens, because of the lower speed.

... and steeper angles of fall that hit the citadel easier.

Also longer time to impact because of not-balans shell velocity:Smile_smile:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
367 posts
6,306 battles
14 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

You should take into account that US BBs T8 and upwards have SHS and quite steep trajectories at the longer ranges and hence have a proportionally higher chance not to hit any part of ship while falling down around the target compared to some others that will at least get overpens by hitting the stack or some other part of supersteucture, if the target is just too small for the dispersion on that distance you will have this alot

My problem is that what I described occurs independent from the range I am shooting at. Because I am usually close to the caps, what I am talking about here refers in ~90% of the cases to encounters below 15km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
5,449 posts
22,580 battles

IDK m8 no expl for that, I assume you have the disp module in slot 6?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTTX]
[TTTX]
Players
4,608 posts
8,081 battles

yup, used to be the Yamato for me. to the point where I just gave up on playing the ship.

 

the difference is, I knew and know it's just a matter of perception and confirmation bias as opposed to some magical me-specific bug or conspiracy... I just didnt care enough about the Yamato to persevere and prove myself wrong :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
367 posts
6,306 battles
5 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

yup, used to be the Yamato for me. to the point where I just gave up on playing the ship.

 

OK. But what explains this phenomena? Getting kicked in the [edited]over "some" games, ok, who doensnt know that - but over long periods of time? With certain ships only? I dont get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
1,863 posts
3,558 battles
9 minutes ago, The_Noob_Commander said:

OK. But what explains this phenomena? Getting kicked in the [edited]over "some" games, ok, who doensnt know that - but over long periods of time? With certain ships only? I dont get it.

I think I understand what you are saying, I have ships that I just don't connect with. Or should I say  I don't think I connect with. I've just looked at your stats for Montana. Your avg damage in her is in the top 25% for the server, so you are clearly doing OK in her. Your avg main battery hit accuracy is 33% overall but is 28% in Montana.

 

As said above I think this might just be a case of confirmation bias.

 

Put her down for a week or two, play other ships, and then come back to her and see what happens.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
47 posts
3,534 battles
6 minutes ago, Fat_Maniac said:

I think I understand what you are saying, I have ships that I just don't connect with. Or should I say  I don't think I connect with. I've just looked at your stats for Montana. Your avg damage in her is in the top 25% for the server, so you are clearly doing OK in her. Your avg main battery hit accuracy is 33% overall but is 28% in Montana.

 

As said above I think this might just be a case of confirmation bias.

 

Put her down for a week or two, play other ships, and then come back to her and see what happens.

+1

You don’t really notice the inaccurate shots early in the game but you immediately think the ship is broken when you need that viral shot.

 

You’re close range, enemy citadel right in front of your sights, begging for a paddling, you fire and the shells go everywhere except into the enemy ship.

 

I used to put it down to the ship being broken until I started reviewing my replays (although the KGV is pretty bollox)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,414 posts
8,246 battles
1 hour ago, Panocek said:

Yes. Which have absolutely no game impact besides energy retention and slightly higher damage, compared to other shells of the same caliber.

You still need to be past 20km to stop ricocheting off the decks.

Good thing you can easily get like 27+ km range on Montana, given AA mod and secondary mod are kinda useless.

1 hour ago, Yedwy said:

Ricoshets are not important here, look at the average dispersion ellipse you will see that if shells come down at a steeper angle you have less chance of "grazing" the target while shells fall in the water around it, even few degrees can have a significant statistical impact...

Slower shell velocity usually also mean less vertical dispersion, thus a smaller ellipse, meaning shells don't fall as far in front or behind a ship in the first place. It's one of the reasons why NC shells can be so darn accurate apart from 2.0 sigma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
9,335 posts
10,985 battles
2 minutes ago, Sleepy_Bunny said:

Good thing you can easily get like 27+ km range on Montana, given AA mod and secondary mod are kinda useless.

And chances of putting rounds against non afk target at such ranges are kinda useless too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,414 posts
8,246 battles
4 minutes ago, Panocek said:

And chances of putting rounds against non afk target at such ranges are kinda useless too

Indeed, but it's 0 opportunity cost to take APR1. You lose out on virtually nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
367 posts
6,306 battles
2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Oh, THAT is why you miss a lot :fish_palm:

I tell you something: there are unicum and even super unicum players (in the montana) who report the same issue as of late :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OMPG]
Beta Tester
315 posts
5,799 battles
1 hour ago, Panocek said:

Yes. Which have absolutely no game impact besides energy retention and slightly higher damage, compared to other shells of the same caliber.

You still need to be past 20km to stop ricocheting off the decks.

If I can read this correctly...

 

Deck armor auto-ricochet ends with Montana 23,1km and with North Carolina 20,9km. Montana needs to fire at 30km distance that the deck will not ricochet at all anymore. With NC this range is 26,8km.

PD deck armor pen.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
24,678 posts
13,670 battles
3 minutes ago, The_Noob_Commander said:

I tell you something: there are unicum and even super unicum players (in the montana) who report the same issue as of late :)

People who feel entitled to special RNG. But no matter how perfect your aim, RNG makes you miss sometimes. It is the same for everyone.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
8,700 posts
11 minutes ago, The_Noob_Commander said:

27133*0.05 = ~1357. So if you order Montana based upon there average damage i would be around 990; 990 < 1357 = Top 5% :Smile_teethhappy:

 

You arent listed in there, because you dont have 80 battles - and so are many others aswell :Smile_hiding:

Thats why it shows you at 25%, and not top 5%. We are missing "some" Montana players in the overall list, because they dont have 80 battles played in it.

8 minutes ago, The_Noob_Commander said:

I tell you something: there are unicum and even super unicum players (in the montana) who report the same issue as of late :)

 

Played Monty 2 days ago- perfectly fine imo. 69 out of 180 shells hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×