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

IFHE Skill Bug on "Aigle"

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
3,288 posts
15,196 battles

 

Apologies if this has already been posted.

 

As Flamu warned in this youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLUxhE4W2mg) there is a bug with the IFHE skill on the "Aigle".

 

THIS BUG HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO GO LIVE.

 

So, be careful people!

 

Aigle has 139 mm guns and should only be penalised with a 1% reduction in fire chance when choosing the IFHE skill.

Instead it is being penalised by 3%, as if the gun calibre was greater.

 

As Flamu also points out in his review, the 139mm threshold is working correctly for the "Expert Marksman" skill and the "Basic Firing Training" skill.

 

Official in-game description of the attributes of the IFHE skill

Spoiler

Inertia Fuse for HE Shells

 

Increases the armor penetration capacity
of HE shells fired from both main and
secondary battery guns at the expense of
decreasing the chance of setting the
enemy ship on Fire.

 

+30% to the armor penetration capacity of HE
shells with a caliber of up to 139 mm


-1% to chance of fire on target caused by HE
shells with a caliber of up to 139 mm


+30% to the armor penetration capacity of HE
shells with a caliber exceeding 139 mm


-3% to chance of fire on target caused by HE
shells with a caliber exceeding 139 mm

 

EDIT: Tried to raise a support ticket for this but all I get when I try the "Support" page is:

500 Internal Server Error

Server got itself in trouble

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,933 posts
17,514 battles

Hmmh, unfortunate that one... Was planning to take it too but maybe I'll wait until it is fixed then. :cap_hmm:

 

Which reminds me, the other 2 links fro our previous conversation:

Watch the Paint Dry Simulator (in Steam):

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=398745942

AND

Knitting Simulator

http://www.molliemakes.com/craft-2/knitting-simulator-2014/

val.jpg.86406c2bf21feaf4ff81bf1c6e5c3ed0.jpg

Hhehehe! Have fun.:Smile_Default:

Share this post


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

how certain are we that that is indeed a mechanics bug, and not just a display bug? As in, is the fire chance actually reduced more than it should ingame? Not like the port UI has never had its oddities...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,632 posts
9,357 battles
1 hour ago, Miessa3 said:

I wonder... what was the point of the Supertest again? :cap_yes:

fixed:Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
4,945 posts
7,413 battles
9 hours ago, Tyrendian89 said:

how certain are we that that is indeed a mechanics bug, and not just a display bug? As in, is the fire chance actually reduced more than it should ingame? Not like the port UI has never had its oddities...

Well, a 1000 hits (or more) on a target with known fire resistance (a.k.a. a bot in a training room keeping the ship constant) and who's not on fire (set a fire = shoot some other ship of that same name) would give us an idea of the fire chance, right? :Smile_trollface: Anyone up for it? :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,190 posts
12 hours ago, Tyrendian89 said:

how certain are we that that is indeed a mechanics bug, and not just a display bug? As in, is the fire chance actually reduced more than it should ingame? Not like the port UI has never had its oddities...

 

As pointed out testing it with a statistically significant number of shots would be exceptionally tedious. At least 10k shots and on targets not on fire or damage saturated. Basically we can't know for sure without a clear statement from the developers if it's a bug in display or the effect of IFHE being broken on the ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Beta Tester
1,649 posts
8,132 battles
16 hours ago, Panocek said:

fixed:Smile_trollface:

Nope Supertest is for detecting balancing issues and getting rid of them.

PTS is should be for testing in large numbers to weed out bugs/slipups that made it through qualitycheck (lol) unnoticed.

 

This issue is clearly something that SHOULD have been solved by the latter but as we can't test Premiumships on PTS for whatever greedy reason, this could happen.

Hence i wonder... Why we still have the PTS again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,288 posts
15,196 battles

Status Update, 15th February 2018 at 15:10 London time.  

I have now been able to raise a ticket for this case:

ID 4483481: Shooting and armour penetration mechanics

I will wait to see Wargaming's response.

 

I spent Elite Captain XP IN GOOD FAITH to get the skill points needed so that I could get the IFHE skill added to my Captain.

 

At the very least, I think that it would be fair to revert my Captain & Elite XP back to their previous state, i.e.

1- Take the IFHE skill and the skill points back from the Captain, AND

2- Refund the Elite Captain XP.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,000 posts
7,566 battles
12 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

As pointed out testing it with a statistically significant number of shots would be exceptionally tedious.  At least 10k shots

 

I don't think so, if you went into a training room against T3 BB with zero fire resistance I reckon you could get a decent idea of the effect within a few hundred shots (provided that you switched targets every time a fire started).

 

 

Edit:

 

Results using Nurnberg against 12 x South Carolina, (150 mm guns 8% ---> 5%):

 

Spoiler

image.thumb.jpeg.d78197fbad96904ccce756b79699057f.jpeg

 

596 hits, expected fires 29.8, actual 29, I'd be happy to conclude that IFHE is having the expected effect on fire chance in this case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,190 posts

Sorry @Capra76, just because it looks like it from a few hundred, it could easily be a fluke, you could have had no fires and concluded it was broken your sample size is far too small.

The term statistically significant is important (that's why it's used in formal mathematics and science papers) and it's the only way to establish the facts other than a statement from the developers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
4,906 posts
9,400 battles

Sub_Octavian just announced on the stream that the IFHE fix for Aigle is coming with 0.7.3 (or at least they doing their best to implement it with that patch).

 

 

Greetings

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,190 posts
48 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Sub_Octavian just announced on the stream that the IFHE fix for Aigle is coming with 0.7.3 (or at least they doing their best to implement it with that patch).

 

 

Greetings

 

That's fine, they've at least acknowledged there's a fault and it will be fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,000 posts
7,566 battles
4 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

Sorry @Capra76, just because it looks like it from a few hundred, it could easily be a fluke, you could have had no fires and concluded it was broken your sample size is far too small.

The term statistically significant is important (that's why it's used in formal mathematics and science papers) and it's the only way to establish the facts other than a statement from the developers.

 

Show me your workings please (presumably you used a chi-squared test).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,190 posts
3 hours ago, Capra76 said:

 

Show me your workings please (presumably you used a chi-squared test).

Now you're just trolling, I simply pointed out your few hundred is not a significant test. Try harder, I didn't need to do any workings to make the statement your "test" doesn't prove anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,000 posts
7,566 battles
6 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

Now you're just trolling, I simply pointed out your few hundred is not a significant test. Try harder, I didn't need to do any workings to make the statement your "test" doesn't prove anything.

 

My workings:

 

Spoiler

Null hypothesis: the expected rate of fire is 7%.

 

If the null hypothesis is correct we would expect 596 x 0.07 = 41.72 ~ 42 fires.

 

Using the formula (O-E)2 / E we get (29 - 42)2 / 42 = 4.02.

 

Comparing the calculated Chi-squared value with this table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-squared_distribution#Table_of_.CF.872_values_vs_p-values we see that 4.02 exceeds the figure of 3.84 required to reject the null hypothesis that the fire chance is 7% with a 95% confidence (which is a usual benchmark for statistical significance).

 

Which demonstrates that my results are statistically significant.

 

This is why I asked you to show your workings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SICK]
Weekend Tester
4,870 posts
10,127 battles
11 minutes ago, Capra76 said:

 

My workings:

 

  Hide contents

Null hypothesis: the expected rate of fire is 7%.

 

If the null hypothesis is correct we would expect 596 x 0.07 = 41.72 ~ 42 fires.

 

Using the formula (O-E)2 / E we get (29 - 42)2 / 42 = 4.02.

 

Comparing the calculated Chi-squared value with this table https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi-squared_distribution#Table_of_.CF.872_values_vs_p-values we see that 4.02 exceeds the figure of 3.84 required to reject the null hypothesis that the fire chance is 7% with a 95% confidence (which is a usual benchmark for statistical significance).

 

Which demonstrates that my results are statistically significant.

 

This is why I asked you to show your workings.

 

God I love that test.

When the expected results are pretty far apart, it's pretty shocking how low the amount of datapoints can to be to get 95% significant results.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,288 posts
15,196 battles

Situation Update: 20th February, 2018

 

I have received a response from Wargaming Support

Spoiler

Solved

 

Hello Admiral_H_Nelson,

 

Thank you for contacting us.

The problem in question has been escalated to our developers for further investigation.

Once the problem is resolved, the modification will be directly implemented into the game.

Thank you for your cooperation.

By no stretch of the imagination do I call that "SOLVED". I think that a more accurate description would be "UNDER INVESTIGATION"

 

Therefore I have reopened the ticket, with this text.

Spoiler

As I pointed out in the original problem report:
QUOTE
I spent (IN GOOD FAITH) 321,649 Elite Captain XP to get the skill points necessary so that I could add the level 4 IFHE skill to my captain.

THIS VALUABLE ELITE XP HAS BEEN WASTED.
END-QUOTE

 

Until Wargaming actually fix the problem, the least that they can do is to restore the situation to how it was before I spent this Elite XP on a Captain's skill WHICH IS NOT BEING PROVIDED.  

Since there is no timescale or even estimates provided for the resolution of this problem then a huge amount of Elite XP (which I could make good use of) is being wasted for an undefined amount of time.

 

Therefore, I propose this as the fairest solution to the problem:
1) The IFHE skill is removed from the captain "Philippe Villecourt"  (Specialization ship : "Émile Bertin")
2) The three skill points purchased with the Elite Captain XP are removed from this captain
3) The 321,649 Elite Captain XP is returned to my account.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,609 posts
2,812 battles
On ‎2018‎-‎02‎-‎15 at 8:21 PM, BeauNidl3 said:

 

That's fine, they've at least acknowledged there's a fault and it will be fixed.

 

If they also fix those horrible firing angles, all would be well. As it is, I think the Aigle will be resting in port indefinitely once I've completed the French collection.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PC]
Players
112 posts
On ‎2018‎-‎02‎-‎15 at 7:30 PM, Allied_Winter said:

Sub_Octavian just announced on the stream that the IFHE fix for Aigle is coming with 0.7.3 (or at least they doing their best to implement it with that patch).

 

 

Greetings

Did they mention if it is just an display bug while in port or does it affect the fire chance in battle too?

 

I know the Enterprise got a ship parameter bug when fitting one of the modules and that is not affecting battles, just the text while in port.


Wonder if its the same with Aigle, otherwise ive also wasted a lot of Elite XP for no reason.

 

 

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.

×