Shells still falling short

[woppy101]

Why the hell cant the *EDIT* that run this game fix one of the most basic things, I’m absolutely sick of my shells falling short and then when you try and adjust they go way over the top, if they can’t get the basics right then what’s the point, all they want to do at the minute is rinse us for as much cash as possible 

[kfa]

But they already fixed the AP bomb desync, give them a bit of slack. Thats enough bugfix for a month (before fixing the bugged AA mounts on a tier3 cruiser) 

[DFens_666]

I dont know how they should fix that, because its their glorious aim correction doing that crap.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

Just aim a bit higher. the Shells that land short then land in the citadel. 

[kfa]

9 minutes ago, _Warfarin_ said:

Just aim a bit higher. the Shells that land short then land in the citadel. 

Yep, and aim a lot further forward to compensate desync. 

And if none of the bugs happen you shoot way in front and over. 

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

12 minutes ago, _Warfarin_ said:

Just aim a bit higher. the Shells that land short then land in the citadel. 

 

Nope, you know they will be overpens

[Odo_Toothless]

Playing coops I see lately a lot of bots salvo fired at me, falling short. So even program working on server has problems with desync.

[Yedwy]

Servers having hiccups again... 

 

You would expect that with all that cash they get thy can at least have a  server that works

[VeryHonarbrah]

1 hour ago, Yedwy said:

Servers having hiccups again... 

 

You would expect that with all that cash they get thy can at least have a  server that works

you gotta remember that wows is run on the same servers as WOT, but with secondary priority since its a lower pop game, and in general slower placed. The servers are run so cheaply that even though we have to deal with desync ect, wot still has ghost shells, and desync to a lesser extent.

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

Aims at citadel; shells land in the water

Aims above citadel; shells bounce of the deck

 

Y u do dis? *Throws keyboard away*

 

Really annoying lock on bug that is already in this game for  a couple of patches...

[CptBarney]

Explains odd aiming behaviours from both myself and enemies. But yeah weegee is too cheap to upgrade servers it seems.

Im guessing it might be a complex operation (or just really tedious). But still, apprently they have known about this for 5 years now.

[Lootboxer]

It's to encourage you all dirty unicums to stop clubbing seals with AP and start using ammo that does not care bow, aft, or superstructure

[MementoMori_6030]

Betcha RU ships get Krasnopol ammo soon to compensate.

[Johnny_Moneto]

Vor 8 Stunden, kfa sagte:

But they already fixed the AP bomb desync, give them a bit of slack. Thats enough bugfix for a month (before fixing the bugged AA mounts on a tier3 cruiser) 

Just imagine they would fix the ghost shell bug? Cause why should shells disappear just because they hit an island? Better to let those marbles continue flying and let the player be baffled as his shells fly through the target for no hits and no damage.

Why would we need proper visual feedback about our ship, targets, and shots?

[wilkatis_LV]

13 hours ago, woppy101 said:

Shells still falling short

Give me the replay. I can almost guarantee they fell "short" well within the dispersion ellipse of your ship.

 

People constantly underestimate just how massive the dispersion ellipse "vertically" (so going short-to-long) is and don't even think about why is it reasonable to see far more "fully short" salvos than "fully long" ones.

Here, the same 2 images I always use:

 

At least 99% of these "short shell bug" cases are fully explained by this. Wouldn't be surprised if this is one of those

[waxx25]

15 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Give me the replay. I can almost guarantee they fell "short" well within the dispersion ellipse of your ship.

 

People constantly underestimate just how massive the dispersion ellipse "vertically" (so going short-to-long) is and don't even think about why is it reasonable to see far more "fully short" salvos than "fully long" ones.

Here, the same 2 images I always use:

 

At least 99% of these "short shell bug" cases are fully explained by this. Wouldn't be surprised if this is one of those

IDK, I have had some <8km shots that hit nothing by falling significantly short of point of aim.

[wilkatis_LV]

1 hour ago, waxx25 said:

IDK, I have had some <8km shots that hit nothing by falling significantly short of point of aim.

I've seen salvos dropping some 3...4 km from the target - clearly far out of the range of the ellipse. These cases most definitely happen.

But... they're relatively rare. Almost none of the cases people call out as such. As long as people keep calling every single shell landing before the target as "bugged" WG will keep ignoring this and insist that we don't know what we're talking about.

 

That's exactly why I asked for a replay. Taking a top-down view of the salvo will show us where it dropped, and then we can calculate the approximate distance of it away from where he aimed. Typically that would be just a couple hundred meters (well, I've "worked with" cases from BBs and supercruisers only, for anything smaller I'd need to do some extra checkups) which is perfectly reasonably within the dispersion ellipse. Meanwhile if it really does drop further away we immediately have a replay to submit to WG for checking & explaining what went wrong.

[Migantium_Mashum]

I had that too... so many shells falling short even though I am aiming bang on the mark...

 

Perhaps they can only afford the cheaper mechanics now after last years debacle maybe the financial affect of 8.0 is beginning to bite now on their purse... (15 players gone from my Clan and all were financial contributors)... I don't know, but it is a possibility.

 

 

 

 

 

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

@wilkatis_LV It is more easily noticed by high shell arc style ships; eg Atlanta, Worcester etc. 

It is weird to have shells land in front of a Stalingrad with a Venezia, despite aiming for the upper hull.

[cracktrackflak]

Its nothing to do with the dispersion ellipse because, typically, all the shells fall short of the point of aim. Nothing "disperses" onto the target or over it.

 

Its as if the server is snapping to a different aim point somewhere in the foreground.

 

The fact that this occurs when the reticule is visibly locked to the target ship means that this isn't simply poor estimation of range by the player (i.e., if you were trying to land shots without the game's ballistic computer assist).

[wilkatis_LV]

21 minutes ago, cracktrackflak said:

Its nothing to do with the dispersion ellipse because, typically, all the shells fall short of the point of aim.

Fairly reasonable because:

 

 

There's a lot of empty space in front of the target, most of the emptiness inside your ellipse in fact. As it seems only the "distance from center" (for simplicity call it an orbit) is controlled by the game, all points on said orbit seem to have equal chance to be landed upon. With nearly 50% of that orbit being "short" of target it's perfectly reasonable to expect most of your shells dropping there, and then all of your shells dropping in said region being a rarer "step up" of that same expected outcome.

[cracktrackflak]

7 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Fairly reasonable because:

 

 

There's a lot of empty space in front of the target, most of the emptiness inside your ellipse in fact. As it seems only the "distance from center" (for simplicity call it an orbit) is controlled by the game, all points on said orbit seem to have equal chance to be landed upon. With nearly 50% of that orbit being "short" of target it's perfectly reasonable to expect most of your shells dropping there, and then all of your shells dropping in said region being a rarer "step up" of that same expected outcome.

 

 

• The "bug" occurs even at short range, when the dispersion ellipse is relatively small compared to the size of the ship model.
   
• The rounds often fall short by one or more Km, so are right outside the predicted ellipse anyway.

 

I think you have to give players some credit; we're not really talking about unfamiliarity with game mechanics or ballistic ellipses here. If they've fired hundreds of thousands of salvoes in the course of thousands of games, then they are going to be able to spot those few salvoes that behave anomalously. The "desynch" issue is another example of aimed salvoes not behaving according to the familiar game mechanics.

[wilkatis_LV]

20 minutes ago, cracktrackflak said:

The "bug" occurs even at short range, when the dispersion ellipse is relatively small compared to the size of the ship model.

And yet again you ignore just how MASSIVE vertical dispersion is, even at short range. It's NEVER small compared to the ships size

 

23 minutes ago, cracktrackflak said:

The rounds often fall short by one or more Km, so are right outside the predicted ellipse anyway.

You say often, and yet that's almost never the case. Almost always whenever there is a report the actual drop distance is just couple hundred meters, well within the expectable ranges from target. I've seen actual cases of shells dropping some 3 to 6 km below target. Those are actual examples of said bug. But they are RARE. And as long as people call every short shell bugged nothing will be done about that. Hence the need for a replay to actually confirm or dismiss the case. Can't help but to notice OP still hasn't given it to us. In b4 "I don't save any replays" comment

 

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

12 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Give me the replay. I can almost guarantee they fell "short" well within the dispersion ellipse of your ship.

 

Yeah, yeah 

 

https://clips.twitch.tv/GiftedFragileFlamingoPogChamp

[gabberworld]

5 months ago?