So, how accurate is the Slava?

[Miscommunication_dept]

I've been working out dispersion ellipse areas and have found a few interesting things.

 

Below is a list from smallest to largest dispersion ellipse at 18km in my very limited sample rounded to whole numbers:

 

Dead eye Slava: 7306m²

Petropavolosk: 8224m²

Moskva:             8262m²

Slava:                 9018m²

Thunderer:        12744m²

Stalingrad:         13468m²

Bourgogne:        19196m²

Puerto Rico:       19641m²

 

Observations:

 

Slava with 'dead eye' active has significantly better dispersion than the cruisers.

Dead eye yields a near 19% decrease in actual dispersion area.

Petropavolosk's long range accuracy is surprisingly good due to a low vertical dispersion value.

Worst dispersion at tier 10 is a cruiser?

 

Disclaimer:

 

I am only measuring dispersion here. To measure accuracy we would need to take into account sigma and angle of impact.

Figures are taken from Proships.ru. There is a discrepancy between their figures and those on wowsft.com.

 

 

 

[ColonelPete]

Is the area calculated at the same distance for all ships?

[Leo_Apollo11]

HI all,

 

2 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

I've been working out dispersion ellipse areas and have found a few interesting things.

 

Below is a list from smallest to largest dispersion ellipse in my very limited sample rounded to whole numbers:

 

Dead eye Slava: 7306m²

Petropavolosk: 8224m²

Moskva:             8262m²

Slava:                 9018m²

Thunderer:        12744m²

Stalingrad:         13468m²

Bourgogne:        19196m²

Puerto Rico:       19641m²

 

Observations:

 

Slava with 'dead eye' active has significantly better dispersion than the cruisers.

Dead eye yields a near 19% decrease in actual dispersion area.

Petropavolosk's long range accuracy is surprisingly good due to a low vertical dispersion value.

Worst dispersion at tier 10 is a cruiser?

 

Disclaimer:

 

I am only measuring dispersion here. To measure accuracy we would need to take into account sigma and angle of impact.

Figures are taken from Proships.ru. There is a discrepancy between their figures and those on wowsft.com.

 

 

 

 

At what range did you do your math? Was it same for all ships that you used as example? 

 

 

Leo "Apolo11"

[Miscommunication_dept]

2 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

Is the area calculated at the same distance for all ships?

Yes, at 18km. I've edited the initial post.

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

 

Just now, gopher31 said:

Yes, at 18km. I've edited the initial post.

 

RGR!

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[KielYourself]

1 hour ago, gopher31 said:

I am only measuring dispersion here. To measure accuracy we would need to take into account sigma and angle of impact.

Figures are taken from Proships.ru. There is a discrepancy between their figures and those on wowsft.com.

Proships.ru is notorious for having incomplete, old or just incorrect stats and information in some occasions.

Also why compare bb dispersion with cruisers? Why not compare it to shikishima and yamato, or even thunderer?

[StonerStanley]

or in other words the shell grouping is a pixel on your monitor 

[Miscommunication_dept]

23 minutes ago, Miki12345 said:

Proships.ru is notorious for having incomplete, old or just incorrect stats and information in some occasions.

Also why compare bb dispersion with cruisers? Why not compare it to shikishima and yamato, or even thunderer?

Thunderer and Bourgogne are there.

 

Comparing with cruisers gives an indication of what this accuracy might feel like for those who have yet to spend their RBP.

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

 

1 hour ago, gopher31 said:

Figures are taken from Proships.ru. There is a discrepancy between their figures and those on wowsft.com.

 

 

How different are the numbers?

 

IMHO the "WoWs Fitting Tools" is one of the BEST WoWs sites there is - immensely helpful and useful - 100% recommended!

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[StonerStanley]

4 minutes ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

 

 

How different are the numbers?

 

IMHO the "WoWs Fitting Tools" is one of the BEST WoWs sites there is - immensely helpful and useful - 100% recommended!

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

too bad its pretty useless now since the meta now only focuses on BBs 

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

 

1 minute ago, StonerStanley said:

too bad its pretty useless now since the meta now only focuses on BBs 

 

Why do you think the "WoWs Fitting Tools" is useless now?

 

I still have all my (currently in TEST during this patch) Captain setups there first and only after I "copy" the selections to actual WoWs...

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[StonerStanley]

Just now, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

 

 

Why do you think the "WoWs Fitting Tools" is useless now?

 

I still have all my (currently in TEST during this patch) Captain setups there first and only after I "copy" the selections to actual WoWs...

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

because the only good skill is deadeye every BB just stays back, cruisers or dds try to push get melted. pointless having a testing environment when there is nothing to hit lol especially if thunder and conquers are on the team which is pretty every game then DDs and  light cruisers have no chance 

[tocqueville8]

1 hour ago, gopher31 said:

Dead eye yields a near 19% decrease in actual dispersion area.

 

Well...obviously :D

 

Area of an ellipse = pi * a * b, where 'a' and 'b' are the semi-major and semi-minor axes.

With Dead Eye: Area = pi * a (1 - 10%) * b (1 - 10%) = pi * a * b * (1 - 20% + 1%) = A (ellipse) * (1 - 19%)

[Miscommunication_dept]

8 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

Well...obviously :D

 

Area of an ellipse = pi * a * b, where 'a' and 'b' are the semi-major and semi-minor axes.

With Dead Eye: Area = pi * a (1 - 10%) * b (1 - 10%) = pi * a * b * (1 - 20% + 1%) = A (ellipse) * (1 - 19%)

Well I pointed that out long ago! 

Though the equation is helpful. I simply worked out the area with and without deadeye then worked out the percentage change.

 

I first noticed this when I was comparing modules for the Montana long ago and have mentioned it in previous  ‘dead eye’ threads.

 

I firmly believe that Wargaming think that dead eye gives just a 10% advantage as this skill yields far greater improvement than other skills with no downside. 

 

This skill will I’m sure be nerfed to 5-7% in time. Hopefully, not after free respec finishes and every BB had it!

[tocqueville8]

2 hours ago, gopher31 said:

I firmly believe that Wargaming think that dead eye gives just a 10% advantage as this skill yields far greater improvement than other skills with no downside. 

 

This skill will I’m sure be nerfed to 5-7% in time. Hopefully, not after free respec finishes and every BB had it!

Until I see some actual tests, like dmg results from trying to hit a moving BB at roughly a certain distance with and without Dead Eye, I'm skeptical about its actual power:

 

1) sometimes you can't use it because of what the enemy does: spotted DD in the way, or one of those Soviet cruisers that just ram an island in the middle of the map to radar the cap, or a yoloing BB;

2) sometimes you can't use it because of what you have to do: middle-late game, you have to push (and you probably have the hp to do it, if you sniped for the first 8 minutes...) and get into brawling range;

3) it works, but you're shooting AP at range and get mostly shatters or bounces;

4A) it works, but it's overkill: 2 citadels is a great result, but sometimes you only need 1 citadel and a regular pen to do the job;

4B) it works, but it's overkill: perfect dispersion, but someone else shot first and you don't get the kill;

5) it works, but you aim poorly, or the autoaim screws you, or the enemy makes a sudden turn and you get fewer straggler shots on him.

 

I'm trying it on several ships, but I still haven't made up my mind. Overall, it has very few downsides, but it's still a 4-point skill that sometimes you simply can't use or that doesn't matter.

And in general I'm not a fan of skills that have downsides: the old Torpedo Acceleration, IFHE, this new one for cruisers that trades concealment for HE/SAP damage, etc. I prefer a tradeoff between upsides than a tradeoff between tradeoffs. So yes, Dead Eye is basically just a clean (situational) upgrade, but that's what I expect of my captain skills.

EDIT:

If your target is broadside, there's going to be a better superposition with the dispersion ellipse, and the advantage is indeed quadratical (meaning it's roughly double for small variations, like 10% ---> 19%).

But if your target is perpendicular to the dispersion ellipse (enemy bow-in or stern-in), you don't care about reducing the vertical dispersion as much as the horizontal one, so the gain is actually closer to 10%.

[Bindolaf_Werebane]

When the downside of a skill is, "you might get two citadels when you just need one", I know WG have released another masterpiece. 

[Miscommunication_dept]

1 hour ago, tocqueville8 said:

Until I see some actual tests, like dmg results from trying to hit a moving BB at roughly a certain distance with and without Dead Eye, I'm skeptical about its actual power:

 

1) sometimes you can't use it because of what the enemy does: spotted DD in the way, or one of those Soviet cruisers that just ram an island in the middle of the map to radar the cap, or a yoloing B;

2) sometimes you can't use it because of what you have to do: middle-late game, you have to push (and you probably have the hp to do it, if you sniped for the first 8 minutes...) and get into brawling range;

3) it works, but you're shooting AP at range and get mostly shatters or bounces;

4A) it works, but it's overkill: 2 citadels is a great result, but sometimes you only need 1 citadel and a regular pen to do the job;

4B) it works, but it's overkill: perfect dispersion, but someone else shot first and you don't get the kill;

5) it works, but you aim poorly, or the autoaim screws you, or the enemy makes a sudden turn and you get fewer straggler shots on him.

 

I'm trying it on several ships, but I still haven't made up my mind. Overall, it has very few downsides, but it's still a 4-point skill that sometimes you simply can't use or that doesn't matter.

And in general I'm not a fan of skills that have downsides: the old Torpedo Acceleration, IFHE, this new one for cruisers that trades concealment for HE/SAP damage, etc. I prefer a tradeoff between upsides than a tradeoff between tradeoffs.

EDIT:

If your target is broadside, there's going to be a better superposition with the dispersion ellipse, and the advantage is indeed quadratical (meaning it's roughly double for small variations, like 10% ---> 19%).

But if your target is perpendicular to the dispersion ellipse (enemy bow-in or stern-in), you don't care about reducing the vertical dispersion as much as the horizontal one, so the gain is actually closer to 10%.

 

Assuming your aim is good, more shells toward the centre of where you are aiming, the better!

 

You really are stretching to try and make 19% better accuracy a bad choice!

 

[22cm]

Slava on Deadye is extremely, insanelly accurate for a BB. From my experience at the receiving side, cruiserass. Hopefully they ll remove that shitty skill.

[tocqueville8]

37 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

Assuming your aim is good, more shells toward the centre of where you are aiming, the better!

Of course.

I'm just saying that unless one camps the entire game, which is a losing strategy in general, it's still a pretty situational skill, like all the rest.

I wouldn't rate it above RPF for DDs, for instance, or FP for BBs, and I don't think they should nerf it.

 

37 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

You really are stretching to try and make 19% better accuracy a bad choice! 

I'm really not, and as I said I am trying it.

But for instance, in my last game I was in the Minnesota and I Dev Struck 2 cruisers within my concealment range (it's bugged, so I only got 1 medal): I had Dead Eye, but it wasn't necessary.

I'm sure it helped me do more damage later, as I chased (by Minnesota standards) 3 retreating BBs outside of my concealment radius, but it wasn't decisive to win the game.

[VC381]

2 hours ago, tocqueville8 said:

If your target is broadside, there's going to be a better superposition with the dispersion ellipse, and the advantage is indeed quadratical (meaning it's roughly double for small variations, like 10% ---> 19%).

But if your target is perpendicular to the dispersion ellipse (enemy bow-in or stern-in), you don't care about reducing the vertical dispersion as much as the horizontal one, so the gain is actually closer to 10%.

 

This is a classic misunderstanding that people keep repeating. The dispersion ellipse is longer than it is wide (looking from the top). Every dispersion analysis picture proves this. The only thing that mitigates this is the fact the target has a physical height, meaning shells that in theory would be falling really long (if there was nothing in their way), are actually hitting anyway just higher up on the target.

[Miscommunication_dept]

14 minutes ago, VC381 said:

 

This is a classic misunderstanding that people keep repeating. The dispersion ellipse is longer than it is wide (looking from the top). Every dispersion analysis picture proves this. The only thing that mitigates this is the fact the target has a physical height, meaning shells that in theory would be falling really long (if there was nothing in their way), are actually hitting anyway just higher up on the target.

This is true but the game draws dispersion on a vertical plane.

This was explained by Suboctavian long ago. 

[VC381]

29 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

This is true but the game draws dispersion on a vertical plane.

This was explained by Suboctavian long ago. 

I know that, but it doesn't change the fact that firing at a broadside target is not "taking up more of the ellipse" and more likely to hit than firing at one bow-in.

[tocqueville8]

1 hour ago, VC381 said:

This is a classic misunderstanding that people keep repeating. The dispersion ellipse is longer than it is wide (looking from the top). Every dispersion analysis picture proves this.

I'm confused.

 

This is from LWM's review of the Bourgogne: https://imgur.com/Z24fJqH

You mean to tell me that she shot at that Fuso (in the training room) when she was nose/stern-in, rather than broadside on?

 

I mean, fair enough, but then I guess things are switched and there's still a preferential axis.

 

Then again, here https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_and_Aiming#Accuracy it looks like a circle.

[VC381]

1 hour ago, tocqueville8 said:

I'm confused.

 

This is from LWM's review of the Bourgogne: https://imgur.com/Z24fJqH

You mean to tell me that she shot at that Fuso (in the training room) when she was nose/stern-in, rather than broadside on?

 

I mean, fair enough, but then I guess things are switched and there's still a preferential axis.

 

Then again, here https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Ship:Gunnery_and_Aiming#Accuracy it looks like a circle.

 

Yup, all of Mouse's test shots like that are done with the shells flying in from right to left. She usually makes it clear in the text somehwere, but I think it would be more obvious if that image was rotated 90 degrees. I wouldn't take the diagram in the wiki at face value.

 

EDIT:

 

However as I said before and gopher also alluded to, a large vertical dispersion doesn't necessarily mean amiss on a broadside target, especially at close range. This is a concept called "target shadow" or "danger space" and is to do with the angles the shells fall at.

 

 

[tocqueville8]

19 minutes ago, VC381 said:

However as I said before and gopher also alluded to, a large vertical dispersion doesn't necessarily mean amiss on a broadside target, especially at close range. This is a concept called "target shadow" or "danger space" and is to do with the angles the shells fall at.

Indeed, though the argument started about max range dispersion, so I was thinking about plunging fire, which doesn't cast a shadow.

 

All clear, thanks.