Jump to content


PLEASE watch out! Ricochet mechanics in 5.4

5.4

  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

minitel_NA #61 Posted 11 October 2018 - 05:55 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 454 battles
  • 3,965
  • [EUREF]
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View PostInkaPanzer, on 11 October 2018 - 05:21 PM, said:

And how do you know Armor/Map Inspector is working correctly? Did you test it?

 

Nobody knows if armor Inspector is correct, and the main reason for this is that WG doesn’t communicate any of their mechanics.

so armor Inspector is in fact the best we have to try to understand. In fact in my discussions with WG, in my experience of the game, in watching replays, armor Inspector often times is more reliable than WG itself. 

 

 and yes I have spent the past 3 years testing armor inspector.

 

hitskin for exemple, is usually more reliable in armor Inspector than in game the game is often deceiving. except recently where a whole lot of weird things are happening. hence the investigation about the ricochet mechanics.

 

replays for exemple, will be based on user input in the client, and based on server input in map inspector. When there is lag, the client will show you weird things that map inspector will actually sort out.

 

now I’m not going to pretend it’s perfect, it has tons of issues. But the main cause of these issues is WG’s total secrecy.

 

Yo are welcome, and if you want more details, just ask. 

 


Edited by minitel_NA, 11 October 2018 - 05:59 PM.

Minitelrose visiting from EU, occasional player/forumer in the NA

 


InkaPanzer #62 Posted 11 October 2018 - 08:12 PM

    Tanquista Peruano

  • Players
  • 44551 battles
  • 2,666
  • [DBLAT]
  • Member since:
    04-01-2016

View Postminitel_NA, on 11 October 2018 - 12:55 PM, said:

 

Nobody knows if armor Inspector is correct, and the main reason for this is that WG doesn’t communicate any of their mechanics.

 

This is my point! Im a software engineer with more than 25 years in the field so my question is for the tech side,I myself have helped with the Spanish translation of that software (let me know if you need an update for it), BUT  based in that tool you are showing a BIG problem in the game, a broke mechanic, but if the tool with which we measure is not certified, how can we say that the measured software is wrong? How are you completely sure 20 is not 20.3 or 21???

Saludos desde Perú!

 


reluctanttheist #63 Posted 11 October 2018 - 08:39 PM

    Canuck Didactics

  • Players
  • 23138 battles
  • 6,042
  • [III-H]
  • Member since:
    01-12-2015

Visually, confirming the angle with a screenshot is enough to confirm that Map/Armor Inspector have shown the impact accurately.  There is a possibility that hitting tracks is preventing the ricochet, since I have got more reliable bounces from hitting above the tracks.  When aiming at the track hitbox, penetrations happen more often.  The exterior modules are additional protection to the tank, so shells impacting here should bounce as well as they should above or below the tracks.

 

From the top of this thread I copy the following:

 

UPDATE: this problem continues in 5.4.  Impact angles as low as 16° can result in penetrations even with shells that are less than 3x the armor thickness.  Ricochets are thus broken in 5.4.

 

If you submit a ticket to WG to complain, make sure you include a replay showing the issue at impact angles less than 20°.  Make sure you refer WG to Minitel's original ticket number which is 110066097.


Edited by reluctanttheist, 11 October 2018 - 08:41 PM.

Tanks:  _X: T110E5, T110E3, FV215b(183), IS-7, Obj.140  _IX: M103, T-54  _VIII: IS-6, T34, Lowe, T-44, IS-6, IS-3D  _VII: T-43, Comet, E25, AT-15A, SU-122-44
Usually on in the evenings Pacific time.  Intake Contact for Triarii Clan (PM for details)
Be a better player  |  Click here if you have lag  |  Graphics Settings for iOS  |  Check your ping with Pingplotter  |  Get good: watch Bushka!  |  Check out tanks on Tank Compare  and  BlitzHangar


Icefang50 #64 Posted 11 October 2018 - 08:53 PM

    Endeavor to Persevere

  • Players
  • 34617 battles
  • 1,161
  • [-MAX-]
  • Member since:
    12-26-2014

View Postreluctanttheist, on 11 October 2018 - 08:39 PM, said:

Visually, confirming the angle with a screenshot is enough to confirm that Map/Armor Inspector have shown the impact accurately.  There is a possibility that hitting tracks is preventing the ricochet, since I have got more reliable bounces from hitting above the tracks.  When aiming at the track hitbox, penetrations happen more often.  The exterior modules are additional protection to the tank, so shells impacting here should bounce as well as they should above or below the tracks.

 

From the top of this thread I copy the following:

 

UPDATE: this problem continues in 5.4.  Impact angles as low as 16° can result in penetrations even with shells that are less than 3x the armor thickness.  Ricochets are thus broken in 5.4.

 

If you submit a ticket to WG to complain, make sure you include a replay showing the issue at impact angles less than 20°.  Make sure you refer WG to Minitel's original ticket number which is 110066097.

Good info.  Good references to other tickets. 

 

but I just think this gets “put off” by WG as either “working as intended”, or the “new” way, or 2 updates before a “fix”.  Fingers crossed 



InkaPanzer #65 Posted 11 October 2018 - 09:24 PM

    Tanquista Peruano

  • Players
  • 44551 battles
  • 2,666
  • [DBLAT]
  • Member since:
    04-01-2016

View Postreluctanttheist, on 11 October 2018 - 03:39 PM, said:

Visually, confirming the angle with a screenshot is enough to confirm that Map/Armor Inspector have shown the impact accurately.  There is a possibility that hitting tracks is preventing the ricochet, since I have got more reliable bounces from hitting above the tracks.  When aiming at the track hitbox, penetrations happen more often.  The exterior modules are additional protection to the tank, so shells impacting here should bounce as well as they should above or below the tracks.

 

From the top of this thread I copy the following:

 

UPDATE: this problem continues in 5.4.  Impact angles as low as 16° can result in penetrations even with shells that are less than 3x the armor thickness.  Ricochets are thus broken in 5.4.

 

If you submit a ticket to WG to complain, make sure you include a replay showing the issue at impact angles less than 20°.  Make sure you refer WG to Minitel's original ticket number which is 110066097.

 

I cant believe a screenshot of a one dimension monitor is enough for test angles, there are too much errors factors...

BUT yesterday I got penned from everyone.. today in my VK B I bounce almost all the shots... we will see the answer from WG, you both did a great job in testing this thing!


Saludos desde Perú!

 


reluctanttheist #66 Posted 11 October 2018 - 10:59 PM

    Canuck Didactics

  • Players
  • 23138 battles
  • 6,042
  • [III-H]
  • Member since:
    01-12-2015

View PostInkaPanzer, on 11 October 2018 - 01:24 PM, said:

I cant believe a screenshot of a one dimension monitor is enough for test angles, there are too much errors factors...

BUT yesterday I got penned from everyone.. today in my VK B I bounce almost all the shots... we will see the answer from WG, you both did a great job in testing this thing!

 

Screenshot uses the spectator view high and directly above the line of fire - you'll see the tracer line and the ricochet angle.  You can figure out the angle to nearest degree because the KV-1 sides are very flat.  Armor Inspector also shows impact angles to nearest degree - both are good enough when the impact angle is 16 °

Edited by reluctanttheist, 11 October 2018 - 10:59 PM.

Tanks:  _X: T110E5, T110E3, FV215b(183), IS-7, Obj.140  _IX: M103, T-54  _VIII: IS-6, T34, Lowe, T-44, IS-6, IS-3D  _VII: T-43, Comet, E25, AT-15A, SU-122-44
Usually on in the evenings Pacific time.  Intake Contact for Triarii Clan (PM for details)
Be a better player  |  Click here if you have lag  |  Graphics Settings for iOS  |  Check your ping with Pingplotter  |  Get good: watch Bushka!  |  Check out tanks on Tank Compare  and  BlitzHangar


InkaPanzer #67 Posted 11 October 2018 - 11:12 PM

    Tanquista Peruano

  • Players
  • 44551 battles
  • 2,666
  • [DBLAT]
  • Member since:
    04-01-2016

View Postreluctanttheist, on 11 October 2018 - 05:59 PM, said:

 

Screenshot uses the spectator view high and directly above the line of fire - you'll see the tracer line and the ricochet angle.  You can figure out the angle to nearest degree because the KV-1 sides are very flat.  Armor Inspector also shows impact angles to nearest degree - both are good enough when the impact angle is 16 °

 

Can you share it? I want to check it.

Saludos desde Perú!

 


minitel_NA #68 Posted 12 October 2018 - 02:56 AM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 454 battles
  • 3,965
  • [EUREF]
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View PostInkaPanzer, on 11 October 2018 - 08:12 PM, said:

 

This is my point! Im a software engineer with more than 25 years in the field so my question is for the tech side,I myself have helped with the Spanish translation of that software (let me know if you need an update for it), BUT  based in that tool you are showing a BIG problem in the game, a broke mechanic, but if the tool with which we measure is not certified, how can we say that the measured software is wrong? How are you completely sure 20 is not 20.3 or 21???

 

 

Thanks for the translation. I’m sure a lot of Spanish speakers appreciate it every day.

I’m not saying it’s wrong based on the tool, I’m saying it’s wrong based on all the mechanics we know of and the experience we have accumulated over many years and millions of battles. 

 

Something is not working like we expect it to be, like we got used to, like we were told it would.

 

WG says the side of E50m are 80mm and shots will bounce beyond 70° except if the caliber overmatched the thickness by 3 times. 122mm is not 3 times, how did it penetrated ? Which part is wrong ? WG needs to answer that question.

 

Either the rule is broken, the model is broken, or the rule or model has changed.

 

Armor inspector just makes it easier to inspect batches of shots, rather than making a lot of calculations that would be impossible by hand, and it’s just the best tool we have.

 

 

about rounding numbers, yes maybe WG uses the integer part of the number, maybe they use the nearest integer. But I think that question is covered.

Spoiler

 

TBH i will do another  training session with very consistent shooting as soon as I have time. In conditions where WG simply can’t simply brush it off.

but i think reluctant already made some good job at it. The results are strong. 

 

About tracks

 they shouldn’t cancel the autobounce rule, otherwise nobody would have started the entire sidescraping technique in the first place. Not even mentioning it makes no sense at all. I also agree that. It seemed that shots entering the tracks first tended to pen more. But there were also penetration without tracks. If anything, it should reduce the pen power of the shell, not increase the probability of a pen. 

 

What is more, is that I have noticed a fair number of shots that don’t pen in very nice flat weak panels. It’s just much more difficult to find which is the rule that is not working in this case, and therefore harder to demonstrate so I keep that for later. Starting with the ricochet case is easier, and who knows it might lead to solving this second issue as well.


Edited by minitel_NA, 12 October 2018 - 03:15 AM.

Minitelrose visiting from EU, occasional player/forumer in the NA

 


__Crusader6__ #69 Posted 12 October 2018 - 03:54 AM

    BANNED

  • Players
  • 56087 battles
  • 10,314
  • [III]
  • Member since:
    12-08-2014

Something is broken.  

 

Repeated pens of areas that should auto bounce —- but on other angles that should be auto oen I am getting bounces.  

  

Side of E75 with 170mm effective based on his angle and 3 fails to pen from my STB at 47m...

 


Tank Hoarder: 352 tanks in Garage:  355/355 aced (AMX 30B, Mk1 and T49A repo),    wallet warrior.  Loyal M60 owner
I think 5.5 was good for the game - But I also want my Kenny OP nerfed

 


gordonchau #70 Posted 12 October 2018 - 04:48 AM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 7281 battles
  • 471
  • [SLAPP]
  • Member since:
    02-27-2013
what if the tracks helped normalize the shell by their respective degrees? Like A shell hitting tracks at 70 degrees will normalize the shell, causing it to hit the main armor at 65 degrees?

http://www.blitzstar.../1004189253.png

"60% players don't exist without 40% players"


SAsk8er #71 Posted 12 October 2018 - 05:00 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 32006 battles
  • 96
  • [FOE]
  • Member since:
    12-04-2016
This explains my WR drop over the last month
If you aren't reloading, aiming or shooting...you probably need to MOVE!!

reluctanttheist #72 Posted 12 October 2018 - 05:25 AM

    Canuck Didactics

  • Players
  • 23138 battles
  • 6,042
  • [III-H]
  • Member since:
    01-12-2015

View Postgordonchau, on 11 October 2018 - 08:48 PM, said:

what if the tracks helped normalize the shell by their respective degrees? Like A shell hitting tracks at 70 degrees will normalize the shell, causing it to hit the main armor at 65 degrees?

 

That might be happening, but that is not how WoT has handled incoming shots prior to now.  Before, incoming fire under 20 degrees to the side armor (but hitting the tracks hitbox) might damage the hitpool of the tracks completely, tracking the tank - but still allow the shell to bounce off, without causing any loss of hitpoints.

 

Now, tanks are losing hitpoints from what were previously ricochets - at angles as low as 16 degrees.  This is a major change in game behaviour.


Tanks:  _X: T110E5, T110E3, FV215b(183), IS-7, Obj.140  _IX: M103, T-54  _VIII: IS-6, T34, Lowe, T-44, IS-6, IS-3D  _VII: T-43, Comet, E25, AT-15A, SU-122-44
Usually on in the evenings Pacific time.  Intake Contact for Triarii Clan (PM for details)
Be a better player  |  Click here if you have lag  |  Graphics Settings for iOS  |  Check your ping with Pingplotter  |  Get good: watch Bushka!  |  Check out tanks on Tank Compare  and  BlitzHangar


kickme0000 #73 Posted 12 October 2018 - 08:31 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Players
  • 5 battles
  • 38
  • Member since:
    10-11-2018
WG Wants all GOOOOOOOOOD PLAYERSSS to DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Derpomagix #74 Posted 12 October 2018 - 01:39 PM

    Senior Sergeant

  • Players
  • 14410 battles
  • 518
  • [YUMY]
  • Member since:
    11-06-2017

You'll probably find the explanation for this as thus: Igor (our friendly programmer) had a little too much vodka and orange at lunch. When he went onto the server, he accidentally clicked on the section of the server that had the game mechanics. In his haste to get out of it, he backspaced the "0" in "70" thus resulting in a 7 degree autobounce.

However it happened, this ensures that I'll be sticking with WoT PC for now, until this is fixed... if it doesn't get fixed I'll probably uninstall.


Derpomagix (formerly PlaneCrazy01)

If you have less than 5000 battles, it is NOT COOL to have a tier 10. Having a Tier 10 does not make you good. If you think you're good, you probably aren't.

"To improve is to change. To be perfect is to change often." - Winston Churchill, when addressing a large crowd of noobs and TD drivers.

"Boom! One day your tank goes boom! Boom! BOOM!!!!" - Thompson and Thomson


minitel_NA #75 Posted 12 October 2018 - 02:19 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 454 battles
  • 3,965
  • [EUREF]
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View Postgordonchau, on 12 October 2018 - 04:48 AM, said:

what if the tracks helped normalize the shell by their respective degrees? Like A shell hitting tracks at 70 degrees will normalize the shell, causing it to hit the main armor at 65 degrees?

 

external modules don’t normalize or bounce. They just reduce pen power. 

 

What is more is that normalization in real life is a change of trajectory angle. 

In wot it is not, it is only the angle factor used in the effective armor thickness calculation that is changed, not the actual trajectory.

therefore the new angle can not be transferred to another impact later on.


Minitelrose visiting from EU, occasional player/forumer in the NA

 


YetiWild #76 Posted 12 October 2018 - 03:14 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 367 battles
  • 1
  • [CMIND]
  • Member since:
    10-04-2018
wth.  Just bounced a Hellcat shot of the turret side of a KV2. Flat shot, no angle on it.  

reluctanttheist #77 Posted 16 November 2018 - 07:06 PM

    Canuck Didactics

  • Players
  • 23138 battles
  • 6,042
  • [III-H]
  • Member since:
    01-12-2015

Folks, this came back from WG on the subject:

 

WG Customer Support says...

We apologize for the long waiting time.

Please note, that after pass-through penetration of tracks, ricochet does not calculate (That's why ricochet doesn't happen).
This is how game mechanics work.

If you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

 

So if you're sidescraping and someone shoots at your tracks, all bets are off :sceptic:

 


Tanks:  _X: T110E5, T110E3, FV215b(183), IS-7, Obj.140  _IX: M103, T-54  _VIII: IS-6, T34, Lowe, T-44, IS-6, IS-3D  _VII: T-43, Comet, E25, AT-15A, SU-122-44
Usually on in the evenings Pacific time.  Intake Contact for Triarii Clan (PM for details)
Be a better player  |  Click here if you have lag  |  Graphics Settings for iOS  |  Check your ping with Pingplotter  |  Get good: watch Bushka!  |  Check out tanks on Tank Compare  and  BlitzHangar


Icefang50 #78 Posted 16 November 2018 - 07:13 PM

    Endeavor to Persevere

  • Players
  • 34617 battles
  • 1,161
  • [-MAX-]
  • Member since:
    12-26-2014
There was a thread about this...I think...

TO_Dominator #79 Posted 16 November 2018 - 07:18 PM

    First Sergeant

  • Players
  • 6354 battles
  • 2,094
  • [FYRE]
  • Member since:
    09-26-2017

View PostIcefang50, on 16 November 2018 - 07:13 PM, said:

There was a thread about this...I think...

 

Were in 5.5 now, so it doesn't matter.
Seal clubbers won't understand my WR curve.

InkaPanzer #80 Posted 16 November 2018 - 07:47 PM

    Tanquista Peruano

  • Players
  • 44551 battles
  • 2,666
  • [DBLAT]
  • Member since:
    04-01-2016

View PostTO_Dominator, on 16 November 2018 - 02:18 PM, said:

 

Were in 5.5 now, so it doesn't matter.

 

Another of your "GREAT" comments... there is no proof that the bug has been corrected in the actual version.

Saludos desde Perú!

 






Also tagged with 5.4

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users