Fire70

Showcase of MM is fine, Arty is balanced and the map team are gud

31,432 posts in this topic

As we all know, when you play VIII's you continually face X's.  Then, when you do get a game as top tier the result is sadly predictable...  **surprise**

4 / 11 today (36.36%) - oh to be a 46%'er.  How do people get that gud?

GBb9r82.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Hellvn said:

Picked up 4 Top Guns and 1 Radleys over the weekend.

And one Battle Buddy...

sigh

 

 

Kicked from clam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently doing speed/acceleration tests to determine why tanks like the 277 and the 65T are faster/slower than their stats would suggest.
https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldofTanks/comments/9kp2pg/the_why_is_the_277_so_fast_why_is_the_65t_so_slow/
To that end, I am willing to brave the Kangaroo POW server in the name of science. If anyone over there is free and has a 277/IS-7 or 65T, PM pleasu~

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both the 277 and IS-7 (fuck the 65t) but am stuck at work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Siggy said:

I have both the 277 and IS-7 (fuck the 65t) but am stuck at work.

No worries. I realised just now I could set up a training room, invite a random joe, and record myself going along the rails on Himmelsdorf across two games, one in the IS-7 and the other in the 277. Then I could just crunch the numbers and see how long/at what rate the IS/Obj take the accelerate from 0-10, 10-20, 20-30, etc, etc, on flat ground, in a straight line, on the same route.

I still need a masochist with a 65T, running the top tracks and engine tho.

Basically what is postulated rn is that each tank has a hidden differential/gear modifier (or modifiers) that affects power output/effective HP/T differently at different speeds. It would basically be a stat simulating tank gearboxes, and could go a long way in explaining why tanks like the 65T are so slow, or why the IS-6 or the E 75 seem to be deceptively nimble at low speeds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, lavawing said:

No worries. I realised just now I could set up a training room, invite a random joe, and record myself going along the rails on Himmelsdorf across two games, one in the IS-7 and the other in the 277. Then I could just crunch the numbers and see how long/at what rate the IS/Obj take the accelerate from 0-10, 10-20, 20-30, etc, etc, on flat ground, in a straight line, on the same route.

I still need a masochist with a 65T, running the top tracks and engine tho.

Basically what is postulated rn is that each tank has a hidden differential/gear modifier (or modifiers) that affects power output/effective HP/T differently at different speeds. It would basically be a stat simulating tank gearboxes, and could go a long way in explaining why tanks like the 65T are so slow, or why the IS-6 or the E 75 seem to be deceptively nimble at low speeds.

Isn't this mostly explained via terrain resistances and power to weight though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I thought too, but he may be adding some other factors in for some kind of experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, StormCrowReaperManyHats said:

Isn't this mostly explained via terrain resistances and power to weight though?

That's what I thought, but the IS-7 has a higher HP/T and top speed than the 277 with the same resistances, yet goes slower.

As far as I have been able to determine, the 277 accelerates roughly twice as fast than the IS-7 in the 0-10 and 30-50 km/h ranges, but somehow accelerates just as fast/slow as the IS-7 when between 10-30 km/h. The two tanks are identical to all intents and purposes when going up hills.

I still haven't decided on how to explain this anomaly, but my current take is that there is a hidden hidden stat for tank transmission which acts as a modifier for engine power when the tank is at different speeds (on flat ground, that is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is it possible that it's not hidden stats but merely the way the physics engine interprets and applies the stats?  I really have no idea, but just pointing out that your assumption is that the rest of the system is flawless, always 100% consistent, and behaves exactly as we expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, AdrianK said:

is it possible that it's not hidden stats but merely the way the physics engine interprets and applies the stats?  I really have no idea, but just pointing out that your assumption is that the rest of the system is flawless, always 100% consistent, and behaves exactly as we expect.

I can't rule out physics and no one really knows what's going on in the new physix engine, but the way that the two tanks accelerate equally at some speeds and then one of them suddenly accelerates half as fast as the other makes me doubt that. 

To illustrate, the 277 accelerates at different speeds, compared to the IS-7:
0-10: twice as fast
10-30: equal
30-50: twice as fast
50-55: rip IS-7

The fact the IS-7's acceleration is suddenly halved at some points compared to the 277 seems at least to suggest some sort of modifier stat that changes when the tank is moving at 30 km/h or above, or below 10 km/h.

I have been able to rule out track size/contract area, as well as tank weight. The IS-7 is heavier yet goes slower than its counterpart; the M4 49 is heavier yet goes faster.

It is a physics system and you don't generally expect RNG in that. I do assume there would be some hitches and bumps in testing, but if it were physics I'd expect some sort of gradient in the way the two tanks accelerate: not the IS-7 becoming a slug to accelerate past a certain point.

I'm going to have to do some more testing on the 65T/49, and then some more tanks with identical resistances and similar HP/Ts. Otherwise, even if this were true, I fear it would be just another tinfoil pubby theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking tanks.gg may have wrong data for terrain resistances for the 277 vs IS-7, as well as 65t vs M4 49.

Their terrain resistances are the same between both 277 and IS-7, and 65t and M4 49; it's like there was a copy-paste error.

 

EDIT: So I checked wot-news.com and they say that the terrain resistances for the tanks were the same as well. Client would also say that they're the same resistances. So it might be a hidden 3rd "gearshift" variable similar to that between KV-2 and KV-2 (R)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mttspiii said:

I'm thinking tanks.gg may have wrong data for terrain resistances for the 277 vs IS-7, as well as 65t vs M4 49.

Their terrain resistances are the same between both 277 and IS-7, and 65t and M4 49; it's like there was a copy-paste error.

 

EDIT: So I checked wot-news.com and they say that the terrain resistances for the tanks were the same as well. Client would also say that they're the same resistances. So it might be a hidden 3rd "gearshift" variable similar to that between KV-2 and KV-2 (R)

Was thinking the same. The issue then becomes whether the community extracted stats are accurate. And if not why not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, mttspiii said:

I'm thinking tanks.gg may have wrong data for terrain resistances for the 277 vs IS-7, as well as 65t vs M4 49.

Their terrain resistances are the same between both 277 and IS-7, and 65t and M4 49; it's like there was a copy-paste error.

 

EDIT: So I checked wot-news.com and they say that the terrain resistances for the tanks were the same as well. Client would also say that they're the same resistances. So it might be a hidden 3rd "gearshift" variable similar to that between KV-2 and KV-2 (R)

Wait is the KV-2R faster? :awyeah:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, MagicalFlyingFox said:

Likely the mass of the tank is included in the calculations. 

If mass was in some way inversely proportional to acceleration, you'd expect the M4 49 (which is heavier) to be slower than the 65T (the two tanks have identical resistances and near identical HP/T). But the M4 49 is in fact decently mobile notwithstanding its shit track resistances; while the 65T is even worse than its track stats would suggest.

That said, I still haven't gotten round to testing the 65T/M4 49 - it seems no one I know is masochistic enough to keep the 65T in the garage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Decided to take a break from WoT. Hitting up the Playstation, playing Horizon Zero Dawn and Assassins Creed Odyssey.

Best decision I have made in a while, the idea that I now don't have to rely on shitters is so stress relieving. Keen to finish Odyssey and buy Spiderman as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.