brumbarr

Verified Tanker [EU]
  • Content count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About brumbarr

  • Rank
    Arty Protector

Profile Information

  • Server
    EU

Recent Profile Visitors

587 profile views
  1. brumbarr

    Do you EVEN 90?

    I suggesr enabling assault and enounter if you havent already, they give you a lot more open maps and less kharkov/stalingrad/pilsen.
  2. brumbarr

    Do you EVEN 90?

    You need to know the righ positions and than use your camo to always stay out af VR of the enemie and in VR of yourself. Stay alive!!! Also make sure you have 100% camo and more than 445m vr. As a first spot, always first go somewhere to counter the enemy scouts, than take your position. Its hard to really give tips on how to spot, but here is some of my twitch gameplay, maybe it will help you out: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/224585548 https://www.twitch.tv/videos/224585548 Statistics of those 2 sessions:
  3. brumbarr

    Do you EVEN 90?

    Before I got the tank I thought it was crap. But after I bought it and played and marked it. It actually works. It shouldnt work but it does somehow. I cant tell why that is. Its just gets away with some stuff you cant get away with in any other light due to the smalll size, seed and camo. Best spotter at tier8 and the you are always in a position to get your gun working so the dmgoutput isnt even that bad. Is it OP or UP? I honestly cant tell, but I did enjoy it a lot and you cant argue with 2300 avg assist and 76% WR. The tank just works.
  4. I was trying to test it in a trainingroom aswell. Basicly just recording a tank aiming, measuring initial size. And then measuring the size after 1 aiming time has past. Didnt really work out because I recorded in the wrong format to wathc frame by frame. But ill try it again. But then again, if I cant trust the client side reticle. Can we even test what the real percentage is supposed to be or do we trust WG? hmm, thats kinda annoying. But I wil try the following: First try what you suggested , so against a stationary target we know the size of. See how bgi the aimign circle actually is. Second, drive at a constant speed ( so double or triple R), measure that, and how it correlates with the forumula.
  5. My result pretty much agrees with that, I only did it for moving. So then that square root and power go away and have have the exact same formula I found. Only problem is I have a 0.68 coefficient because I found that was needed to fit the data, not using that like in the game files results in a worse fit to my data. The theoretical circle is much bigger than what I measured. So I must have done something wrong when measuring or there is something else going on I dont know about. Not that much of a PC guy, so I rather gather data and get resutls that way than lookign at files.
  6. I come to the same conclusion as the formulas you showed, I think we are just having a misunderstanding here. So the formula you have is: ComputedDispersion = GunAccuracy * SQRT (1 + DispMovingTraverse^2 + DispHullTraverse^2 + DispTurretTraverse^2) My first point was: - Accuracy has a massive influence on aiming circle size on the move, they are proportional. Which is entirely correct, if you look at the formula , everything is multiplied by gun accuracy, so it has a massive influence, improve accuracy by 20% and your aiming circle at all times gets better by 20%. I am not sure why you think this is wrong, its simply looking at the formula. · - Aiming circle size is proportional to speed/dispersion. Obviously, we agree on this. · -To determine what gun has better actual gun handling: multply accuracy with dispersion, the lower the numbers the better the gun handling. · - Influencing accuracy gives a better boost than influencing dispersion values. So, if we take the formula, and we improve the accuracy by lets say 5% we get: ComputedDispersionImproved =0.95* GunAccuracy * SQRT (1 + DispMovingTraverse^2 + DispHullTraverse^2 + DispTurretTraverse^2) So: ComputedDispersionImproved = 95%*ComputedDispersion A 5% improvement in accuracy is a 5% improvement in ComputedDispersion. Now lets improve dispersion values by 5%: We get : ComputedDispersionImproved =GunAccuracy * SQRT (1 + (0.95*DispMovingTraverse)^2 + (0.95*DispHullTraverse)^2 +(0.95* DispTurretTraverse)^2) =GunAccuracy * SQRT (1 + (0.95)^2*(DispMovingTraverse^2 + DispHullTraverse^2 +DispTurretTraverse^2)) Which is ALWAYS bigger than: 0.95* GunAccuracy * SQRT (1 + DispMovingTraverse^2 + DispHullTraverse^2 + DispTurretTraverse^2) So improving accuracy by a certain percent will always have a bigger effect than improving dipsersion by the same percent. Sipmly because of the fact you have that 1+ in the square root. Now why I think acc*dispersion is a good measure of gun handling: We take a look at only movign dispersion, so the rest is 0, I use D=DispMovingTraverse, A=GunAccuracy. S=ComputedDispersion. We can write that as : S=A*sqrt(1+D^2) S^2=A^2 *(1+D^2) S^2=A^2 + (A*D)^2 The first term in the sum is the size of the circle when the gun is fully aimed, when the tank is stationary. The second term tells how much the circle gets bigger. How much the circle gets bigger on movement is what I call gun handling. Just like effective traverse isntead of nominal one, this is effective dispersion instead of the displayed one. With this value you can compare tanks with different accuracy to eachother and tell which one will have a bigger size increase when moving. If you tell me I am wrong, atleast tell me exactly in what I am wrong.
  7. For the aimtime figure I used to game client as source, movign over the aimtime the popup says: the time it takes for the aiming circle to shrink by 40%. But I will try to do some test to confirm this figure. This is correct as it was, I mean accuracy as the final accuracy of the gun as given in the client or tanks.gg. No native english speaker, sometimes hard to convert mathmatical terms in english from dutch. I meant 'evenredig' in dutch if that helps This is also correct as I originaly wrote it, multiplying accuracy with dispersion gives an excelletn single number figure for how much the circle gets bigger and allow tanks to be compared without doing any compliacted calculations. Its a number for comparison, not for determining absolute size. Euhm? No? Did you read my thread actually? If you look at the formula accuracy has a bigger influence on aimign circle size than the dispersion values. Improving accuracy by 5% has a bigger improvement in gun handling than improving dispersion by 5%. Easy to see why if you look at the formulas.
  8. After a thread on the forums about aimtime and how it works. I decided I wanted to figure it out exactly. All we know for now is that aim time is the time it take to reduce the aimcircle to 40% its size, dispersion is something that say show much the circle gets bigger and accuracy is the size of the aimingcircle when fully aimed. However, we do not know the exact relations between these 2 and how exactly they influence the size of the aiming circle at all times. So thats what I set out to do, finding a mathmatical description of the size of the aimingcircle. The method is simple: measure the size of the aimingcircle for different tanks and speeds in a trainingroom. Thanks for uglycousin for giving me a second person to set up the trainingroom. To measure the size of the circle, first I did the test driving in the room. Then I watched the replays and paused at certain moments. I then took a screenshot of my whole screen, makign sure I was always in 8x zoom. Then I took those screenshots into paint and measured the circle diameter in pixels. I will now describe the process and results of my investigation. But if you dont want to read that, scroll down tot he conclusion on the bottom. Disclaimer: the following formulas are NOT what WG uses, I made a linear model that describes the size of the aimingcircle as close as possible. Aiming circle bloom I assumed there where 3 variables that had an influence on bloom: speed, dispersion and accuray. I tried to do test in which I held 2 variables constant to see the influence of 1. I started with gathering data of 2 different dispersion numbers for which I picked 4 tanks with different accuracy and measured the size at each speedincrease of 10 untill 50 kph. These are the raw results: From that I made a graph of the dispersion in function of speed , and calculated the gradient of the graph assuming linear increase. Then obviously the aiming circle size = C*v+accuracy. With V=speed and C being the gradient, which consist of unknown factors. To check the linear approach was decent I plotted the model and experiment: As you can see the linear approach to the speed factor isnt perfect but not massivly different, only in the middle it differs. I am happy enough with this. Now we need to determine what the C factor consist off. Since there are only 2 variables left, it has to consist dispersion or/and accuracy components. As you can see in the data, with the same dispersion numbers, the aiming circle fort he same speed is bigger when the accuracy is bigger. So there has to be an accuracy factor in C, which is proportional to accuracy. Here you can see accuracy vs circle size: As you can see, the increase isnt marginal. We can now rewrite our formula as: Size=Acc(D*v+1) With D an unknown factor containing dispersion in some form. As we can see, size of aiming circle is directly proportional to accuracy. So an increase in accuracy of 25% will results in 25% better gun handling. This is why the E50/E50M have such amazing gun handling , their dispersion isnt great , but good, but due to the very good accuracy their gun handling is much better than at first glance. The WZ-132-1 has the exact same dispersion values, so you would think the gun handling would bet he same, but no, since it has 33% worse accuracy is will have 33% worse gun handling, which is massive! Thats more than a vstab! Next task is determining the factor D. The only variable left is dispersion, so I tested different tanks with differnt dispersion at the same speed, their accuracy was different, but thats fine, sicne we can normalise for that. These numbers showed that the factor D was proportional to the dispersion values, so D=c*dispersion, with c an unknow constant. Now the formula looks like this: S=Acc(c*d*v+1) Determining c was done by plottign the experminetal result and trying some numbers until the model best fits the experiment. I took c=0.68. The influence of dispersion can be see in this graph: Now we have a formula that gives a perfect description of aiming circle size in function of all variables. Next up is determing a the time it takes fort he circle to shrink, or the actuall aiming time for the tank. Aiming time: We know aiming time is the time it takes fort he circle to shrink by 60% its startign size. So we can write: S1=S2*(4/10)^(t/T) with T=aiming time, S1 size after time t, S2= starting size. Solving this for t we get: t=T*(log(S1/S2)/log(4/10)). We can now determine the time it take from any speed to reach any size we want. To determe the time it takes to fully aim, jsut replace S1 by the accuracy of the gun. Note this time is independant of accuracy! ( which is logical, since it needs to go to a smaller circle but also does it faster, these 2 cancel out) Plotting this for 3 different tank in fucntion of time comming to a stop from a speed of 50 (40 for conway) we get: Influence of equipment/skills etc. Now that we have every formula we need we can quantify the influence of equipment/skills/directives/modules. To do so simply multiply the variable that gets influenced by (1-0,01*improvement in %). Dispersion values only get influenced by vstabs and the smooth ride skill.Other equipment only influences the accuracy value. Note that the same improvement to acc or dispersion results in a bigger improvement in size for what improves acc than what improves dispersion. Vstabs for example do not make the size of the circle shrink by 20%, they make the increase in size less by 20%. Lets take a look at a common dillema:vstabs vs gun laying drive, lets try this on 2 different tanks: We can clearly see what the difference in vstab and gld is, vstab makes the circle smaller, so you start smaller but the decrease is still the same, gld starts at a bigger size but then starts to decrease faster, catching up tot the vstabs. In the BCs case, the time to fully aim is actually lower when equiping gld than when equiping vstabs. Mathmaticly, gld decrease the total time to aim by 10%, whereas vstabs decrease the total time to aim by subtracting 20% *initial size. To know wether vstabs or gld is better depends on the tank and how much you want to aim, you can determine this by pluggin in the numbers and plotting it for each vehicle, sicne i twill be different for each. As general rules however, these apply: · - Bad dispersion + bad aimtime: Vstab better, unless you fully aim from full speed. · - Bad dispersion + good aimtime :Vstab better, unless at high speed when fully aiming. · -Good dispersion + bad aimtime :Vstabs always superior · -Good aimtime + good dispersion :Vstabs always superior Conclusion and TLDR: · - Accuracy has a massive influence on aiming circle size on the move, they are proportional. · - Aiming circle size is proportional to speed/dispersion. · -To determine what gun has better actual gun handling: multply accuracy with dispersion, the lower the numbers the better the gun handling. · - Size of aiming circle= Acc(0.68*d*v+1) · - Time to fully aim = Aiming time*(-log(0.68*d*v+1)/log(4/10)) · - Vstabs is superior to gld in most situations. · - Influencing accuracy gives a better boost than influencing dispersion values. Whats next? Next up I need to investigate how turning the turret and hull effect dipsersion and work with the above formulas. I wil also try to combine this with my previous thread where I determined shot distribution in the aiming circle, then I can plot change to hit a target vs time and determine the optimal time to shoot. I hope you enjoyed the read and that i twill help you determinign how a tank will perform. I hope that youtubers do become aware that accuracy has a massive influence over dispersion, as currently reviews are misleading since they dont know what actually effects gun handling. Spread the word!
  9. brumbarr

    M48 Patton 4700 Combined = 87% MOE

    Had the same thing in my stb-1, at 100 games played I was at 3.9K dpg and 1000 assist, was only at 86%. Prob 2 reasons for that: 1) Your assist is total of tracking and spotting, whereas for marks only the highest each battle counts. 2) Each next game counts twice as much for your marks as the game before, so if your last couple of games where a bit worse, you wont get the marks.
  10. brumbarr

    T-54 AP only 3 mark Quest

    Atleast you get it, but yeah, thats basicly why I dont like prem ammo
  11. brumbarr

    T-54 AP only 3 mark Quest

    Well, this is boring It was way too easy, there goes my journey to 3 marks, it has been rather short lol I played 10 games in it today, averaging 2680 damage and 1830 assist, which is 4500 combined, way more than the target 3550 needed for 3 marks. Won 9 out of 10 battles. I have to give some credit here to Ferox86, he invited me to a dynamic platoon in my first battle, I accepted and stayed with him, he supported me well and made even more enjoyable to get this. Sometimes, random guys can be nice! So , what is my conclusion? Is it posible to play the T54 without HEAT and perform well? Definalty, just adjust your playstyle to it and you will have excellent results. Should you do it? Thats up to you, do whatever you want, but next time someone says the T54 is shit without heat, they can shut up Do you perform better with HEAT? ofcourse you do! no doubt about that. What tips do I have to people who want to try this? Focus on assisting your team, spottingdamage is a big part! Always have a position where you can get out, if there is something you cant pen, just get away, find a different angle and wreck them with your dpm. You need to change your thought that you should be able to pen everything, read the tank layout, go where you can spot and wont meet any heavily armored tanks, later on, use vision control to outplay them. Consistency is key! Conserve your HP, dont be too aggresive and constantly think of how to get side and rear shots. If you wanna see some replays : here are my 4 ace tankers I got the last 2 days , they are all with me toptier, ofcourse, that is where this tank rules, at tier 10, you need to assist. The second last replay is of a tier 10 battle. The last is my last battle, tier 10, where I got the 3 marks. http://wotreplays.com/site/2531150#lakeville-brumbarr-t-54 http://wotreplays.com/site/2535256#stats http://wotreplays.com/site/2532863#malinovka-brumbarr-t-54 http://wotreplays.com/site/2535253#lakeville-brumbarr-t-54 http://wotreplays.com/site/2535259#prokhorovka-brumbarr-t-54 http://wotreplays.com/site/2535249#mines-brumbarr-t-54 If you dont believe me shooting AP only, all my battles are uploaded to VBaddict. I am honestly quite proud of this and I learned a lot, I read the battle beforehand where I used to just tab out durign countdown, I learned to stay safe and be patient and to use your team to your advantage. I hope I inspired some of you, I certainly enjoyed it. First of all, prem ammo does not give you an unfair advantage, everyone can get it. However , it is unhealty for the game. Prem consumables and crew skills dont take away an advantage te enemy has, it doesnt take away a key aspect of the game. Neither do crew skill , they do not totaly negate a weakpoint of your tank. They help, but they dont just take away the disadvantage your tank has been given to be balanced.
  12. brumbarr

    T-54 AP only 3 mark Quest

    working good so far, I am at 93,27 now
  13. brumbarr

    T-54 AP only 3 mark Quest

    Gold ammo was not intended to be so popular, it used to be for gold only, so the tank was balanced to be played, ( this is what I mean by intended) without it. Bad wordign on my part, I get your point though
  14. brumbarr

    T-54 AP only 3 mark Quest

    Well, I didnt want this to turn into a goldammo discussion thread, but I guess it is my fault. So let me explain my position. Gold ammo was once avaible only for gold, this means tanks were balanced around their standard ammo. When gold ammo was avaible for credits, it became widespread, but the tanks are still balanced around standard ammo. This means tanks like the Maus, E-100 etc are having there strong points taken away from them. People also think you should be able to pen everything, IMO this is the wrong approach. Tanks have there weaknesses and strenghts, skilled players maximize these strenghts and minimize the weaknesses. However, with gold ammo, some tanks only weakness can be surpassed, making the tank totaly OP with gold ammo, or some tanks strenghts can just be ignored. You should play a tank like it was intended to be, skilled players find a way to make it work. Yeah, you can only pen an E-75 in the cupola frontally, but the sides are huge and weak, it is slow and cant chase you, use this to your advantage. and btw, yesterday I was shooting at an O-HO and for some reason penned him everytime from the front at 300 meters range, I was shooting the tracks straight on. I was surprised by that though So this is a challlenge for me , setting certain goals and really learning the tank in and out. I learn alot, I learn a different playstyle, I learn map reading in a different way. The situations you describe with heavily armored tanks I just dont have. Ofcourse, like some of you said , why limit yourself. Gold ammo is not a standard, it is a luxury, just like food , bia etc is. But it is in the game , and aslong as it is there, you are free to use it and should take advantage of it. But I hope you understand it is not really good for the game in general. Anyway, this has been way too long, I started this to prove you CAN do it without gold, to show that there is a way, actions speak louder than words! I use the better handling gun, the 219 pen gun is really bad in gun handling, and the way I play this, I need the gun handling, not the pen. As for 219 vs 201, I dont think it makes much of a difference, you will hit less, and if you aim well with 201 you can pen most tanks, against T-54 ofcourse you have to track them, get there side, get them in an akward situation and use your team.
  15. brumbarr

    T-54 AP only 3 mark Quest

    The key word there is 'usefull' , so its not needed, its better for sure, but not needed The T-54 is actually a pretty balanced tank with AP, it is unique and has its own strong points, with AP you are forced yo use thse strong points to the max and minimize your weaknesses by tactical descissions, not by pressing 2 You gold nub! For al my previouw 3 marks, I loaded about a 1/3 of gold, so I am not innocent either, makes it a damm lot easier though