There are no artillery bugs in the game, everyone claiming otherwise is lying.

[Yedwy]

Target lock gives the improved dispersion and changes the auto aim assisted stuff a bit but the shells dont go to target lock, shells go to the racticle point (once guns come into the position ofc) and the minimap circle should designate the impact point given current aim...  Thats how one can target lock a nearby ship and fire into the smoke at the other boat with improved dispersion in the first place... IDK if it was ever any different in WOWS but this stuff isnt the problem in itself anyway, problem is that sometimes salvoes randomly fall short for no apparent reason, salvoes aimed and fired in clear water sometimes from single digit km distances I might add, hence the island aiming bug and stuff shouldnt come into play... Actually occurence is so prevalent that I guess most people started just aiming higher then ideal to get hits they need even if they are less damaging ones... Anyway is it just a ridiculous roll of RNG on the dispersion stuff or some other glitch IDK but its there all right and annoying, I lost many a duel becouse of it and won some as well ofc surviving where I should have died... Maybe its not a bug, maybe WG added a bit of "RNG upon RNG" to help potatoes not get wiped right away every time they drive broadside and give them a bit more stay in the matchess and thats why devs cant find the aiming bug and look confused about what are people talkign about, who knows... Anyway WOWS is not a normal shooter and expecting repeatable results is moot, thats why its laughable in comp setting

[WorthyOpponent]

8 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

thats why devs cant find the aiming bug and look confused about what are people talkign about

I have a better explanation

They just don't play their own game 

[MixuS]

Just imagine how much more money the company can make having halved the server costs. Why pay for actually working servers when average potato, I mean paying customer, won't notice the issues anyway.

[Yedwy]

7 minutes ago, WorthyOpponent said:

I have a better explanation

They just don't play their own game 

There is a point in that yes but IDK if it applies here, I mean your argument is valid on matters of balance for sure but I am sure they play at least a bit in their closed server in the offices when they are testing the code of new releases... I rember back in "ye olden times" when I was a kid and still doing some coding in my free time I always tested the compiled stuff, several times actually, I mean every programmer has to at some point, you cant just leave it a the checker level "and done" or sooner or later you get shafted by a proper bug breaking the app completely and leaving one looking like a dork... 

[wot_2016_gunner]

Just dropping this in. WG does say in their own guide (timestamp below)

 

 

"if your reticle is locked onto an enemy ship, a vertical plane is formed through the center of the enemy ship in accordance with the vector of the ship's movement, so the dispersion ellipse will be formed at the intersecting point between your reticle and the plane; thus, the vertical sensitivity of your reticle is reduced allowing you to focus on taking the right lead."

 

"if you're locked onto an enemy that is closer to you, but you then decide to fire at a more distant enemy then, in the majority of cases, your shells will fall short of your intended target"

 

now, that "in the majority of cases" i think counts for the fact that the enemy ships might be close enough together that it won't really matter who you're locked on to.

 

[Nadrick]

Thread re-opened.

Removed off-topic comments. Feel free to continue discussing the topic, but please stay on topic.

Thank you.

[WorthyOpponent]

Thread reopened, pog

 

[DFens_666]

7 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

The aim-assist doesn't trigger. 

 

There is an easy explanation for that which i tested myself recently:

The Aim-assist only works upwards so to say. You see, that your crosshair line is still intersecting with the Petros Superstructure. Thus the game thinks, you want to hit the Petro. If you lock-on at the Hannover, while aiming at the Petro, the Aim doesnt recognise that you are aiming at the Hannover, sind you at no point aim remotely at the ship.

 

So you can use the lock-on to shoot at other ships in 1 way only basically:

If you lock-on to a ship further away, while you want to shoot a ship which is closer (in Smoke, behind an island). The aim-assist will not trigger.

If you do it the opposite way, i.e. you lock-on to a ship closer and want to shoot something further back, you will most likely miss. Atleast as long, as your crosshair still intersects with the ship you are locked-on.

 

I tested that myself not long ago, because i was confused why in certain circumstances my shells hit and other times they splashed between 2 ships while i was playing OPs. In Aegis its easy to realise because the ships often are close to one another.

 

This also has nothing to do with the bugs present in the game. Or maybe it does depending how you look at it. Because the aim-assist certainly [edited] up when you shoot at ships which are moving slowly/stopping. No matter how high you aim, they will always go short. Bots fall victim to the same bug too.

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

13 hours ago, WorthyOpponent said:

He said what the hell before he fired the shot. So what's your point?

 

 

So...

Are you completely missing the part where he moved the chat to show the minimap, where it was locked on Nakhimov? Look at the aiming circle. That is where you lock on the minimap.

 

Some time ago I also discussed against Pete, an I finally concluded that it's a lot more useful to hide his posts in the forum (there's a way to do it) and use the time in a more clever way 

[ImTryingButYouDontHelp]

9 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

In general I would recommend taking Flamuu with a grain of salt. Why repeat his observations like a parrot, when we have the means to check results for ourselves?

Your explanation, not very complete (only WG knows the truth), only would explain a small part of Flamu's video. The rest is still very worrying.

[AraAra_My_Ass_Is_Blasted]

Il y a 13 heures, AtaIante a dit :

the dispersion is improved on the marked target only. Yes aim is on nakhi but you dont get the aim assist on him

CV main proving again he doesn't know crap about surface combat.

[Ronchabale]

3 hours ago, Nadrick said:

Thread re-opened.

Removed off-topic comments. Feel free to continue discussing the topic, but please stay on topic.

Thank you.

Thankyou

[HMS_Kilinowski]

7 hours ago, WorthyOpponent said:

Can we replicate that in the training room, or would it require more random battle samples? In the second case we would at least know it is completely about the servers or it could end up being coincidental.

 

The training room has been neglected quite heavily. It does not allow for setting waypoints for bots or changing their default behavior. The bots themselves don't beach that often. Only when their target changes and they want to make a turn that is not possible, they might run aground. So to check results, you will need a second person and replicate a situation in a ceteris paribus condition, i.e. keeping all conditions constant and only changing one factor at a time. I did that when testing my hypothesis on the dynamic crosshair 3 years ago.

 

11 hours ago, AtaIante said:

 One should disable auto target lock and only lock manually to fix this problem for themselves.

 

I am too chaotic for that. I'd forget to lock onto a target in the heat of the battle, especially when brawling. I'd say I would miss more shots overall by forgetting to lock onto the right target than missing shots on targets that are not auto-locked.

 

4 hours ago, Nadrick said:

Thread re-opened.

Removed off-topic comments. Feel free to continue discussing the topic, but please stay on topic.

Thank you.

 

Thanks. We do appreciate the free exchange of ideas.

 

4 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

 

There is an easy explanation for that which i tested myself recently:

The Aim-assist only works upwards so to say. You see, that your crosshair line is still intersecting with the Petros Superstructure. Thus the game thinks, you want to hit the Petro. If you lock-on at the Hannover, while aiming at the Petro, the Aim doesnt recognise that you are aiming at the Hannover, sind you at no point aim remotely at the ship.

 

So you can use the lock-on to shoot at other ships in 1 way only basically:

If you lock-on to a ship further away, while you want to shoot a ship which is closer (in Smoke, behind an island). The aim-assist will not trigger.

If you do it the opposite way, i.e. you lock-on to a ship closer and want to shoot something further back, you will most likely miss. Atleast as long, as your crosshair still intersects with the ship you are locked-on.

 

I tested that myself not long ago, because i was confused why in certain circumstances my shells hit and other times they splashed between 2 ships while i was playing OPs. In Aegis its easy to realise because the ships often are close to one another.

 

This also has nothing to do with the bugs present in the game. Or maybe it does depending how you look at it. Because the aim-assist certainly [edited] up when you shoot at ships which are moving slowly/stopping. No matter how high you aim, they will always go short. Bots fall victim to the same bug too.

 

Yeah I noticed Flamuu once saying he was using a lock on one ship to get tight dispersion for blind fire into smoke. I wouldn't call it an exploit, but it seems Wargaming deliberately wanted to prevent good players from accurately blind-firing by having bad dispersion when not locked onto a target.

One question tho: You say the shells are falling short, cause the targets are intersecting. Down that imply that once the vertical distance is large enough, shells stop falling short and hit the target further away reliably, while maintaining the tight dispersion?

 

2 hours ago, DontExpectMeToCarryThis said:

Your explanation, not very complete (only WG knows the truth), only would explain a small part of Flamu's video. The rest is still very worrying.

 

One phenomenon at a time. I don't think it would be helpful if we discuss several suggested bugs parallel, cause then people keep jumping back and forth between bugs. Internet forums are already more about being right and avoiding to admit being wrong than about finding an objective facts. So staying on one matter is a good approach, if one is seeking insights.

 

What I find a bit puzzling is that Wargaming employees try to not touch the subject a lot. If these ideas were utterly wrong, it should be trivial to check the results with employees familiar with aiming and making some clarifying stream, walking people through the mechanics. For once it's not about money and about trying to avoid an inconvenient truth, but about something rather technical.

 

Chances are, they are aware of certain bugs and don't want to touch them, as long as they are not official.

Another possibility is poor documentation and insufficient comments within code that was written years ago. I once read a bit saying that external programmers of aim-bots used original WG-code about aim-assist that was in the data of the client in the early state of the game. That code hasn't changed, which is why external aim-bot still yields accurate results. It might well be that some parts of the server-side programs are almost a black-box for current WG-employees, since code was not commented sufficiently or in a foreign language and since the people programming it, now stayed with Lesta or have left the company years ago.

I mean we can see how again and again tiny bugs occur, because changing the code in one file triggers an unanticipated error in some other file. Imagine the sludge program produces that has been changed and updated over ten year. It's a patch work, a Frankenstein monster.

[WorthyOpponent]

13 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

One question tho: You say the shells are falling short, cause the targets are intersecting. Down that imply that once the vertical distance is large enough, shells stop falling short and hit the target further away reliably, while maintaining the tight dispersion?

I think we can test that with the same Karlshure + Nakhimov setup Flamu used, but not zooming out this time.

[HMS_Kilinowski]

22 minutes ago, WorthyOpponent said:

I think we can test that with the same Karlshure + Nakhimov setup Flamu used, but not zooming out this time.

 

I'd rather use something with a lot of range and naturally good dispersion and sigma value.

Also, I like to think of her more as Karl's wife. Bit of a german joke.

[DFens_666]

2 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

One question tho: You say the shells are falling short, cause the targets are intersecting. Down that imply that once the vertical distance is large enough, shells stop falling short and hit the target further away reliably, while maintaining the tight dispersion?

 

From what ive seen:

Yes i think it also works, but you have to aim MUCH further than the ship you have locked on to. Maybe i can do a training room test and show the result.

 

[Altsak]

I wonder why Private Penguin's Conde does that thing that it does at Flamus video at 38:30.

[DFens_666]

@HMS_Kilinowski

As i thought, i got the expected results, here some screens:

 

Here you see, the crosshair intersects with the tip of the superstructure. Thus the game thinks, you want to shoot the ship you are locked on to. As we know the result i didnt take any more picutres. Pay attention to the minimap, the marker shows the position the shells would go to (roughly).

Spoiler

 

Now if i aim far enough away, so that the crosshair doesnt touch the ship anymore, i can shoot the repu which im looking at. Again, minimap marker shows the proper position of the aim. I shot once - dispersion looks good as with lock on.

Spoiler

 

Tried another one with the Repu in the back. Dispersion looks fine again, as if i have a lock on. Shot twice just to make sure. But i got 8 hits on the first salvo anyway.

Spoiler

 

[endlessBoogie]

Vor 38 Minuten, Altsak sagte:

I wonder why Private Penguin's Conde does that thing that it does at Flamus video at 38:30.

Can´t say why , but i got similar weird salvos since that "railgun-fix-thingie" ... i think weegees fix for the railgun was some duct-tape-level bugfixing

[DFens_666]

4 minutes ago, endlessBoogie said:

Can´t say why , but i got similar weird salvos since that "railgun-fix-thingie" ... i think weegees fix for the railgun was some duct-tape-level bugfixing

 

Not sure how long thats going on, but id say like 3-4 years at this point? Maybe longer even... I think atleast in 2019 this was a thing already.

[endlessBoogie]

Vor 6 Minuten, DFens_666 sagte:

@HMS_Kilinowski

As i thought, i got the expected results, here some screens:

 

Here you see, the crosshair intersects with the tip of the superstructure. Thus the game thinks, you want to shoot the ship you are locked on to. As we know the result i didnt take any more picutres. Pay attention to the minimap, the marker shows the position the shells would go to (roughly).

  Versteckte Inhalte sichtbar machen

 

Now if i aim far enough away, so that the crosshair doesnt touch the ship anymore, i can shoot the repu which im looking at. Again, minimap marker shows the proper position of the aim. I shot once - dispersion looks good as with lock on.

  Versteckte Inhalte sichtbar machen

 

Tried another one with the Repu in the back. Dispersion looks fine again, as if i have a lock on. Shot twice just to make sure. But i got 8 hits on the first salvo anyway.

  Versteckte Inhalte sichtbar machen

 

Good to know that dirty little trick...will try to use it when blindfiring...

[endlessBoogie]

Vor 5 Minuten, DFens_666 sagte:

 

Not sure how long thats going on, but id say like 3-4 years at this point? Maybe longer even... I think atleast in 2019 this was a thing already.

i had a break of about 1 1/2 years during that timespan, so maybe i just noticed it more recently

[Dutchy_2019]

4 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Chances are, they are aware of certain bugs and don't want to touch them, as long as they are not official.

Another possibility is poor documentation and insufficient comments within code that was written years ago. I once read a bit saying that external programmers of aim-bots used original WG-code about aim-assist that was in the data of the client in the early state of the game. That code hasn't changed, which is why external aim-bot still yields accurate results. It might well be that some parts of the server-side programs are almost a black-box for current WG-employees, since code was not commented sufficiently or in a foreign language and since the people programming it, now stayed with Lesta or have left the company years ago.

I mean we can see how again and again tiny bugs occur, because changing the code in one file triggers an unanticipated error in some other file. Imagine the sludge program produces that has been changed and updated over ten year. It's a patch work, a Frankenstein monster.

 

I think you are quite close to the mark here.

 

One CC mentioned how he talked to a WG employee about modding the sounds in the game and why it was so difficult (other than say add captain voices)- and the WG employee basically responded that the current WG Devs / Coders actually have no clue where in the spaghetti of code the relevant files are located, let alone how to effectively mod them.

 

IIRC Last year there was a major bug (not sure which), where WG first for a considerable time denied its existence, then when many people in the community including CCs made a stink with tons of evidence finally admitted it was a bug, they then needed help from the community in gathering evidence and actually defining what the bug was, and it then took them quite a while to (a) locate the bug in the code, and (b) alter the code without completely borking a lot of other stuff. Might even be that their initial solution broke more than it fixed.

 

My guess is there are numerous bugs in play here, but WG / Devs are unwilling to touch them out of fear of completely breaking the game, assuming they would be able to find the bug in the code in the first place. Mind you, the code and servers being ancient was also an argument used by WG why they could not add extra slots to MM to accomodate the addition of submarines. Leading to some of the less than ideal match-ups we see today.

[Yedwy]

4 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Another possibility is poor documentation and insufficient comments within code that was written years ago. I once read a bit saying that external programmers of aim-bots used original WG-code about aim-assist that was in the data of the client in the early state of the game. That code hasn't changed, which is why external aim-bot still yields accurate results. It might well be that some parts of the server-side programs are almost a black-box for current WG-employees, since code was not commented sufficiently or in a foreign language and since the people programming it, now stayed with Lesta or have left the company years ago.

I mean we can see how again and again tiny bugs occur, because changing the code in one file triggers an unanticipated error in some other file. Imagine the sludge program produces that has been changed and updated over ten year. It's a patch work, a Frankenstein monster.

Agreed it might very well be the case nothing compared to the level of cr*p in coding like taking over somebody elses code and having the task to fix it esp when poorley commented, i get sick by the mear memory of some stuff... 

[Seraphice]

On 11/12/2022 at 2:05 AM, MidoriFuse said:

@Seraphice @YabbaCoe should this be fixed or ignored, yes or no?

 

if only I could see what's actually going in more than 480x270p format. I really dont know what im looking at here. Can you provide a bit more?

Looks to me here that shells landed on target there.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera