Jump to content
Deathpig_Jones

T49 -- Land Arty in a Bite-Size Package

Recommended Posts

:disco:

edit: i didn't want to double post (though i'm not sure if it matters anymore) but I did some things.

replay link is at the bottom of the spoiler if you really want it

One disadvantage of the new autoaim system is that now it's really easy to tell when i'm being bad and autoaiming

I got away with that one scot-free and then also got away with some super dumb bullshit - basically assault and attempted murder - mostly intact

Farmed some free damage (turns out he was a 90mm heretic too)

Padded my stats by firing HEAT

Derp sniping is a lost art

http://wotreplays.eu/site/5261321?secret=c11e148f5b2ee0566a998be8e618a347

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God this tank is still so fun. The ability to punish anyone from any angle is underappreciated. It might not be anything like when the Waffen was released, but I feel like nowadays with the Swedish meds, wheelies, and Pregnantos running around you can have even more of a blast with the 152.

Seriously sad about how bad the Sheridan is, I want an excuse to play something like this at T10.

image.png.aea3235068a34afa104948d01e34d136.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2020 at 3:50 PM, Rexxie said:

God this tank is still so fun. The ability to punish anyone from any angle is underappreciated. It might not be anything like when the Waffen was released, but I feel like nowadays with the Swedish meds, wheelies, and Pregnantos running around you can have even more of a blast with the 152.

Seriously sad about how bad the Sheridan is, I want an excuse to play something like this at T10.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

@CraBeatOff will evangelize to you about how underappreciated the Sheridan is, and likely show this as proof...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PlanetaryGenocide said:

okay so now that the Equipment 2.0 update is live... what're you guys gonna do with your T49's?

This is a topic of some debate and some personal preference.

Improved VS is uncontested. Then either improved optics or improved vents. The third slot can either get optics, improved rotation, or commander’s vision system. @CraBeatOff runs iVents/IVS and rotates the third slot based on platoon (one vision centered tank and one handling centered). I can’t shoot as well so I run rotation/IVS for max gun handling buff with iOptics for the phat scouting. I thought about iVents for even better gun handling but the VR loss was too much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, PlanetaryGenocide said:

I'll have to try em all I guess but i'll probably end up doing maxed vision still for solopubbing, thanks

Right, but now there are several max vision builds. The math is still being worked out, but the early testing suggests that if you can get to >445 VR without optics, then CVS may be better than optics. That means a vision centered build would look like CVS/iVents/iVS with 6 or more crew skills plus food +/- VR directive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, sr360 said:

Right, but now there are several max vision builds. The math is still being worked out, but the early testing suggests that if you can get to >445 VR without optics, then CVS may be better than optics. That means a vision centered build would look like CVS/iVents/iVS with 6 or more crew skills plus food +/- VR directive

oh i just meant literally stacking max viewrange with a CVS, so probably iOptics/iVents/CVS with the CVS in the scouting slot

but maybe i'll wait for the mathemagicians to figure it all out so i don't have to waste credits or time fucking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I'm bad at tanks, and can't hit the broad side of a barn, I'm interested in how the new handling equipment pans out, especially since IRM has been mentioned a lot on equipment threads. And since I'm such a huge fucking nerd, I mathed it out. I used the formulas and info from 

and https://docs.google.com/document/d/17LQIEI4SmxGoaIWEqq-qUlbsBDYX-vy5n5mDw_XuVi8/edit#

I used the stats from tanks.gg, and only used enhanced equipment if that option was available.

First, I tested out one gun handling option at a time.

image.thumb.png.79befe0b0f9c65b31c2fc1f12b74d708.png

So, unless I screwed up the math royally (very possible, I didn't say I was a smart nerd), the most surprising takeaway is how underwhelming the IRM is, and how surprisingly good the eGLD is compared to everything but the eVS. The cause is two-fold. First, the T49's long aimtime make the GLD significantly better compared to it's normal gun peers, and second, the IRM is seriously hurt by large hull and turret traverse speeds and dispersion penalties. This was confirmed for me after I initially did the calcs without accounting for the additional 10% speed. In that situation, eGLD didn't catch up to the IRM until about 2.6 seconds instead of about 1.4. That's a huge difference that just a little speed makes, given the T49's dispersion penalties.

Now, since it's not surprising that the eVS won huge, I then did the calcs with eVS plus one other handling item.

image.thumb.png.9578448377a43cac0da742fd805c5d36.png

I'm becoming even more suspicious of my math at this point, since the IRM becomes even less viable here compared to eGLD. I suspect that the T49's relatively fast traverse speeds are playing a bigger role here than I initially thought. Again, I initially did the calcs without speed increase accounted for, and the eGLD caught up at again about 2.6 seconds, instead of about 0.8. Also, IRM was better than IAU at every point except for a fully aimed shot, as opposed to here with the updated calcs, where IAU is always better. I'll have to review my calcs again later, but I've checked my work several times so far, and it seems good. Also, I should probably include vents. The other interesting takeaway here is that while eVS + eGLD is generally the best option, it loses to eVS + IAU for both snap shooting AND fully zoomed accuracy.

And, for shits and giggles, I also did the options for three gun handling pieces, because why not?

image.thumb.png.fe91e8574511bab2914868fc7c96c435.png

The eVS + eGLD + IAU is the clear winner here.

Thoughts? Keep in mind, the T49 is unique, and probably penalizes IRM usage more than most other vehicles in the game, so these graphs can't be translated to general performance of these equipment pieces on other vehicles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Caomhanach said:

Since I'm bad at tanks, and can't hit the broad side of a barn, I'm interested in how the new handling equipment pans out, especially since IRM has been mentioned a lot on equipment threads. And since I'm such a huge fucking nerd, I mathed it out. I used the formulas and info from 

and https://docs.google.com/document/d/17LQIEI4SmxGoaIWEqq-qUlbsBDYX-vy5n5mDw_XuVi8/edit#

*lots of great math*

Oh EGLD is certainly better than anything if you sit and aim down on large bloom/long aim time tanks, but given that EGLD stops working the moment you adjust turret aim or move a bit, and that your calculations are predicated on fully aiming down (which many of us rarely do!), in practice, EGLD suffers. In practice, a lot of T49 shots are drive-by pens, circling and getting behind and derping someone's rear, with the occasional half aimed shot where you can sit with locked tracks and turret for a full aimdown. In most practical scenarios, having the slightly tighter circle from the IVS/IRM combo is better. No doubt there are those whose playstyle favors the GLD setup -- and some have immense success with it, such as Muscles1 (who runs a fully gun-centric setup). For someone like myself who found it hard to hit shots and found few opportunities to get a full aim down, the IRM+IVS combination has made a significant improvement to my T49 comfort.

What I find intriguing in your math is the IAU>IRM argument. If your math is correct, for snapshots the IAU+IVS combo is superior to the IRM+IVS combo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, sr360 said:

**stuff**

What I find intriguing in your math is the IAU>IRM argument. If your math is correct, for snapshots the IAU+IVS combo is superior to the IRM+IVS combo?

other way around unless you're sniping 

Aim time is:
original radius * (1/e)^(time passed/aim time) or 36.39% per tick of the previous value  not max value vs final value (as confirmed by WG devs)

but the IAU just lets the final accy be tighter and doesnt speed up aim. The only time the IAU is valid is when you get below your nominal final accuracy.
GLD/VStab both work ALL THE TIME when moving or being still/after firing penalties

IRM works by limiting the dispersion put into your gun equation, thus making your Vstab THAT much more efficient and quick.to aim in. so for a t49 Derp IRM+Vstab+CVS is probably your go-to solution unless you like sniping in it in which case the IAU has a valid case to be used.


I haven't had the time to look at the post 1.10 patch aiming math yet but I THINK the way the IRM is plumbed in is:
ComputedDisp = GunAccuracy * SQRT  ((1 + DispMovingTraverse^2  + DispHullTraverse^2 + DispTurretTraverse^2) / 1.1 )
Full disclosure: I literally dont know yet. its just a guess knowing how WG maths are coded in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, sr360 said:

Oh EGLD is certainly better than anything if you sit and aim down on large bloom/long aim time tanks, but given that EGLD stops working the moment you adjust turret aim or move a bit, and that your calculations are predicated on fully aiming down (which many of us rarely do!), in practice, EGLD suffers. In practice, a lot of T49 shots are drive-by pens, circling and getting behind and derping someone's rear, with the occasional half aimed shot where you can sit with locked tracks and turret for a full aimdown. In most practical scenarios, having the slightly tighter circle from the IVS/IRM combo is better. No doubt there are those whose playstyle favors the GLD setup -- and some have immense success with it, such as Muscles1 (who runs a fully gun-centric setup). For someone like myself who found it hard to hit shots and found few opportunities to get a full aim down, the IRM+IVS combination has made a significant improvement to my T49 comfort.

What I find intriguing in your math is the IAU>IRM argument. If your math is correct, for snapshots the IAU+IVS combo is superior to the IRM+IVS combo?

So, to clarify, this is a max bloom scenario, and after thinking about it, I don't think it's an accurate representation of what players actually do, just like you say. In this case, IRM is hampered by the increased traverse speed, but from what I've seen from watching good player replays, it's not like you're always bombing it around taking potshots. The good players are managing their traverse vary carefully (except doing drive-bys), which means they're not maxing out their bloom. In this case, IRM would get drastically better, because the speed increase isn't really impacting the aim bloom. In the original calcs, when I didn't account for the speed increase, IRM>IAU, except for fully aimed sniping. Even when you are doing drive-bys, which, like you said, is often the case, you may not be maxing out traverse speeds. So even if my calcs are right, the IAU's slim superiority is easily mitigated (likely without even trying to), and certainly not worth losing the benefit of IRM to a good player taking longer distance shots. I would imagine that this way of playing also lets IRM beat out eGLD in both cases, like you say.

10 hours ago, Wanderjar said:

other way around unless you're sniping 

Aim time is:
original radius * (1/e)^(time passed/aim time) or 36.39% per tick of the previous value  not max value vs final value (as confirmed by WG devs)

but the IAU just lets the final accy be tighter and doesnt speed up aim. The only time the IAU is valid is when you get below your nominal final accuracy.
GLD/VStab both work ALL THE TIME when moving or being still/after firing penalties

IRM works by limiting the dispersion put into your gun equation, thus making your Vstab THAT much more efficient and quick.to aim in. so for a t49 Derp IRM+Vstab+CVS is probably your go-to solution unless you like sniping in it in which case the IAU has a valid case to be used.


I haven't had the time to look at the post 1.10 patch aiming math yet but I THINK the way the IRM is plumbed in is:
ComputedDisp = GunAccuracy * SQRT  ((1 + DispMovingTraverse^2  + DispHullTraverse^2 + DispTurretTraverse^2) / 1.1 )
Full disclosure: I literally dont know yet. its just a guess knowing how WG maths are coded in

Is that how it works? I assumed that IAU reduced the circle at all times, and that's how I did my calcs. Even if it doesn't speed up aim time, it effectively speeds up aimtime in the same way VS and IRM do, by limiting the circle size. Just, in this case, by applying it to the circle size directly, rather than to the dispersion penalty values. If all it does is allow the final circle to get smaller, than my IAU calcs are invalid, and makes the equipment trash on a vehicle like the T49.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's the question I haven't seen answered: does the IAU reduce circle at all times or only when fully aimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sr360 said:

I think that's the question I haven't seen answered: does the IAU reduce circle at all times or only when fully aimed.

It would be logical if it makes accuracy better at all times (like how some guns in stock turrets have worse accuracy as in top turret)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sr360 said:

I think that's the question I haven't seen answered: does the IAU reduce circle at all times or only when fully aimed.

it's only final accuracy. aimtime calc has no bearing on actual max or min bloom since it works "per tick" and just get 36% smaller every time
original radius * (1/e)^(time passed/aim time)
note that its not MAX bloom or MIN bloom values and is ONLY based on the nominal aim time of the tank. 
the Nominal values dont change with a IAU, just that it can keep shrinking past its value. quick testing shows that the given aim times (roughly 60% zoomed in) remain the same with a IAU or not but that total aim in time takes longer, as expected

4 hours ago, Caomhanach said:

Is that how it works? I assumed that IAU reduced the circle at all times, and that's how I did my calcs. Even if it doesn't speed up aim time, it effectively speeds up aimtime in the same way VS and IRM do, by limiting the circle size. Just, in this case, by applying it to the circle size directly, rather than to the dispersion penalty values. If all it does is allow the final circle to get smaller, than my IAU calcs are invalid, and makes the equipment trash on a vehicle like the T49.

ditto. see above. that formula was actually confirmed by Minsk as being what it is.

IIRC @RichardNixon was the one that figured out most of it originally years back but only relatively recently (like 2 years ago?) the exponent was refined to( time passed/nominal aim time )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wanderjar said:

quick testing shows that the given aim times (roughly 60% zoomed in) remain the same with a IAU or not but that total aim in time takes longer, as expected

That is both disappointing and somewhat deceptive on WG's part. This makes IAU terrible in most cases, relegated to dedicated snipers. Even then, I'd probably prioritize other handling pieces, but I generally don't play snipers, so I wouldn't really know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Caomhanach said:

That is both disappointing and somewhat deceptive on WG's part. This makes IAU terrible in most cases, relegated to dedicated snipers. Even then, I'd probably prioritize other handling pieces, but I generally don't play snipers, so I wouldn't really know.

You're right, that reduces the IAU's utility significantly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

basically IRM+Vstab+whatever your pick is for 3rd (CVS, GLD, rammer, optics etc) is your best dispersion overall. what other tweaks you make is up to you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I reran the calcs, but I updated the variable in two ways. First, I changed the IAU parameters per the above discussion, and 2nd, I changed the speed values to model a situation where dispersion is limited by the player micromanaging their movement. In this case, the player is going 55 km/h, and turret and hull traverse is 35 degrees/s.

image.png.a14de5ffc73b92ef34356ae8944ea3c3.png

As you can see, even a modest amount of mitigation of traverse dispersion drastically improves IRM. And, like @sr360 pointed out, if you're an mobile and active situation, you're going to constantly be in that initial bloom section of the graph, where IRM is always better. And if you're moving very carefully and slowly when taking long distance shots, IRM would get even better. Also, IAU completely follows the baseline until the end, because it sucks. All this to confirm what people were already saying.

Next, with eVS + something else. Remember, this is not max speed/rotation.

image.png.ec9c0dcf31e3ee9dfbb2f7f0d35647e0.png

Again, confirming what's already been said, eVS + IRM is really good.

I won't bother with the graphs for what 3 gun handling pieces would be. Since IAU sucks, it's obviously eVS+eGLD+IRM. My vision right now is 462 with food, so I might try this out, just to see how it does. I recognize that optics or CVS would be more optimal for winning, but who cares? I just want to blap shit with 152mm shells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, monjardin said:

This was a lot to take in... I'm running iVent, iVS and IRM. My view range is 480. CVS > iVent?

CVS if you want a VR/spotting setup, iVents if you want a more blapping setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always forgone vision in favour of blapping. The damn thing is so huge I don't bother too much with vision games.

 

Even more so with the amount of EBRs in the game.

 

I generally laugh at suggestions made by my team to get me to scout. Fuck that, I'm just here for big numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, you have to include the increase to traverse speed when calculating with IRM, the net reduction to bloom is in best case scenario only about 1%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CandyVanMan said:

Guys, you have to include the increase to traverse speed when calculating with IRM, the net reduction to bloom is in best case scenario only about 1%

The first post I made with graphs does (although the IAU is modeled wrong in those), the second post with graphs is if the player is intentionally making more careful movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...