Jump to content
Deusmortis

3rd person firing more accurate?

Recommended Posts

Platooned with Allurai a few nights back, and he told me something that seemed nonsensical. He told me to stop using sniper mode on my newly purchased T49. Seemed stupid, but I tried it and noticed an immediate increase in accuracy. I still have my doubts. The possibility for confirmation bias and small sample size fallacy is just too high.

Is anyone able to confirm or deny that certain guns (high impulse guns, perhaps?) perform better when using 3rd person aiming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never noticed it myself, although I've asked about it in the official forums and got a negative answer. We could do tests on training rooms with hundreds of shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Shackram would have noticed,I tend to get out of sniper mode before actually firing,this is purely preference/aesthetics,so I'd be really curious if it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious as well, never got a solid answer.

I've tried that a few times myself but didn't have much luck, most times the reticled woobled when it left sniper mode with the shift key which made the shot miss.

Not sure if it's my hand twitching unconsciously or something to do with the camera position change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not more accurate but it provides a form of stabilization allowing you to circumvent certain terrain instabilities.

I'm pretty sure the stabilization you can results in quicker gun aiming due to a lesser degree of dispersion from turning the turret and bouncing along terrain.

I'm not convinced they make the guns impulse values higher - but 3rd person shooting does seem to result into faster times when getting the first shot out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've definitely pulled off some ridiculously long hip shots, shots that would almost certainly have missed if I'd been in first person mode. Anecdotal evidence, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was some bug in there that manifested itself from time to time in 3rd person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never noticed but I always fire from 3rd person whenever I can (I also shoot on the move a lot so meh) lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard similar stories of third person giving better accuracy. One youtube video I watched, the tanker said that he only shoots derps in third person because he feels it gives better accuracy. In my personal opinion this is something similar to good luck charms. You want to believe that you have better accuracy in third person, so you remember all the times it works.

When you first try it, it feels amazing because it actually works, you can shoot tanks without being in sniper mode. It's novel, and when you do miss, you attribute it to bad luck and that you'd probably had missed the shot if you were in sniper mode as well. You forget that miss. I think that if you took two identical tanks and sat them side by side in El Halluf, aimed for a rock and had somebody counting hits on the rocks, you'd probably find that the two tanks had identical accuracy.

However this is two tanks sitting.... idle... not moving... As well, the rock isn't moving, shooting back or are any of the rocks 14 rock friends shooting you either. I could think of several situations were I personally feel third person targeting is superior to first person, simply because the way you aim is two separate systems. And that's the real key. How you aim in third person is different to how you aim in first person.

What it boils down to is how well the player can use either mode in any given situation. The easiest way to test this is to set up a shooting course and run through it multiple times and compare the results. There's several scenarios you could test such as aiming and then shooting random targets as they light on a ridge 400m away for exampe. Shooting a moving target, shooting while on the move, coming to a stop and shooting a stationary target and so on. What you'd be looking for is the time it takes you to bear down on the target, how long it takes you to aim all the way in, and then accuracy (did you actually hit the target and did you do damage). Once you've figured this out, you have your answer, but that answer only works for you and may not hold true for the next person.

In the end, it's all a matter of finding a play style that works best for you, taking advantage of the nuances of each system and knowing when you use one or the other.

As a side note, when the new accuracy changes hit, will it even be worth while to let the aim circle fully close in? I think you'll find people start making snap shots more and more with these coming changes, in fact you'll probably find people that believe they do better if they don't let the aim circle fully close before taking the shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting commentary thus far. One thing I'd like to note is that in my comparison, all shots were taken while stationary, fully zoomed in, on mostly unmoving targets. Sniper mode seemed to give me curveballs, sinkers, shots that started in the top right of my reticule instead of that middle area where the gun is, etc. 3rd person shots flew true more often.

I may steal my nephew's account later today, and empty a few racks of ammo into his high tier heavies. Same distance, same conditions, just sniper aiming vs 3rd person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually do it quite a bit in my Leopard PT A and it seems to work better than actually going into sniper mode, when I use sniper mode a lot of my shots randomly fling out of the reticle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems nonsense. I'll be interested to see tests on this. For long distance shots, how can you tell that shots were flying more true when it's looking at a few pixels?

I'm trying to think about it in terms of game coding, and it could go either way:

-Either a projected target reticle is drawn at the plane of the target (sized according to gun accuracy), retardless of which method you're aiming, and dispersion is calculated from that. The only difference between the aiming method is how precise you can place the center of the reticle (jumping all over the place when not zoomed in, since moving one pixel in 3rd person translate to huge movement at the actual plane of the target). Shown in pic below, moving a couple of pixel in 3rd person could lead to change in entire height of the target.

2ytyxig.jpg

-Or that the target is "projected back" to you, in the way that since the target is only appears to be only a few pixels in 3rd person, then you're actually drawing a few pixel circle on a few pixel target, so there isn't much room left to disperse due to lack of resolution. I'm leaning towards the first method, as it would be simpler to code.

o5ye1f.jpg

As Shackram would have noticed,I tend to get out of sniper mode before actually firing,this is purely preference/aesthetics,so I'd be really curious if it did.

That tend to shift your reticle so that aiming in sniper mode in the first place is pointless. I've seen a noob on youtube missed 80% of his shots shifting out of sniper mode right before fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to sponsor a test sometime this weekend. I have plenty of ammo for my 3601 still stocked up, so I'll do 100-200 shots in sniper mode, 100-200 in 3rd person. The range would be 400m on the airfield strip. I can use a little more ammo if people still want more evidence, but I'd prefer to have some left over for pubbing seals. I'd also use a 50% gunner.

The target would be a mid-sized, heavily armored tank (one that can take hits and not die before my ammo runs out). I might also need a scout to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okeano, sniper mode works a bit wonky from the mind set of an average person. I put together a little demonstration for you...

WoTZoom.jpg

So as you can see in "The Setup" I've positioned my tank behind a bush. I'm more than 10 meters away from the bush so it appears opaque rather than translucent. At a basic 8x zoom you the bush obscures your vision, however at 30x zoom, the bush is "magically" gone for the most part. What's basically happening is that the camera only narrows down to a certain focal length, my guess is something close to a 75mm camera lens. If you're trying to achieve a zoom range that would be narrower than this, it simply slides the camera down "rail" to get closer to the target.

This is pretty much just a tech trick to increase image quality at longer zoom ranges. The idea is that when you zoom in, the image displayed on screen is less pixelated and still looks pretty to the user. As a side note, when you swivel your view that crosses the path of an object that you can collide with, the camera slides back up the "rail" so that you are looking directly at that object and not through it. The other thing to point out, your shot still originates from the turret of the tank you're driving, not from the location of the camera, thus your gun barrel might be pointed in a slightly different direction and can send the shell into some overhead obstacle. As well, even if it did glitch and you were able to see through solid walls you still wouldn't be able to shoot through said walls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems nonsense. I'll be interested to see tests on this. For long distance shots, how can you tell that shots were flying more true when it's looking at a few pixels?

In sniper mode, my gunners ruthlessly engaged their eternal enemy: The Ground. In 3rd person, they seemed content to hit that big metal box o' xp I was aiming at.

I have an odd suspicion. BRB, running test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In sniper mode, my gunners ruthlessly engaged their eternal enemy: The Ground. In 3rd person, they seemed content to hit that big metal box o' xp I was aiming at.

I have an odd suspicion. BRB, running test.

My experience has been the opposite. I've had enough tracking, through track below hull, or odd angle glancing shots off thin armor at closer than 100 meters when I'm no scoping that I zoom in even at close range.

Stuff

I'm... not following on what you're trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just ran two tests. Cruiser III vs Leo A, 300 M, side shots. Hit 102/112 in 3rd, 99/112 in sniper. Difference falls within expected deviation, so nothing conclusive. Odd thing, though: 28 pens in 3rd and 20 pens in sniper. Likely biased observation noted that several shots flew higher in sniper, bouncing off the side of the turret.

Clearly not enough for a consensus, but it has increased my interest. I may run more tests later, but for the moment, they have bored me out of my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm... not following on what you're trying to say.

Sorry, I went back and read back over your older post I was replying too, between the graphic and the wording I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. You can disregard it. IMO though, I think that it's just a simple math formula being applied to were your looking....

If you look at it from a coding stand point the variables you need to fire your gun would be these....

Horizontal Direction - The direction the turret is facing; value between 0 and 360

Elevation - The angle the gun is pointed; value between 0 and 180

Dispersion - The current dispersion of the gun; probably number between 0 and 1

X, Y, Z map location - Were the tank is on the map

Let's just ignore dispersion for now, if you toss in a set of numbers into these variables, and simulate a firing test. Every single shot would end up hitting the same location 100% of the time assuming these numbers never changed. If you changed the values, they'd start hitting a new location, but 100% of all shots fired would hit that new location.

Let's just assume for simplicity that we're using dispersion values for a tank at rest so we don't have to worry about tracking current dispersion. Now what would be the easiest way to simulate dispersion? All you have to do is slightly modify Horizontal Direction and Elevation. You use the dispersion value, apply it against the formula WoT uses. And then take that output and apply it against the against the horizontal Direction and Elevation. You've now simulated dispersion.

Trying to add in distance to target, or create a plane were the target is just adds unneeded complexity to a relatively simple problem. I think that Deusmortis' test shows fairly conclusively that both firing modes are equally accurate, as he actually hit the tank about 90% of the time in both test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its probably better to use 3rd person firing mode when moving on slightly uneven ground as your gun will automatically tilt towards your target as much as elevation/depression allows, however, i find it better to open sniper mode when the ground is extremely uneven (20 degrees or greater at high density).

But if you are standing still, i think the "3rd person is better" theory is just because you feel more disappointed when you actually scope in and miss than if you just pointed and clicked, in which case the lack of expectation means you won''t feel disappointed no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I went back and read back over your older post I was replying too, between the graphic and the wording I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. You can disregard it. IMO though, I think that it's just a simple math formula being applied to were your looking....

If you look at it from a coding stand point the variables you need to fire your gun would be these....

Horizontal Direction - The direction the turret is facing; value between 0 and 360

Elevation - The angle the gun is pointed; value between 0 and 180

Dispersion - The current dispersion of the gun; probably number between 0 and 1

X, Y, Z map location - Were the tank is on the map

Let's just ignore dispersion for now, if you toss in a set of numbers into these variables, and simulate a firing test. Every single shot would end up hitting the same location 100% of the time assuming these numbers never changed. If you changed the values, they'd start hitting a new location, but 100% of all shots fired would hit that new location.

Let's just assume for simplicity that we're using dispersion values for a tank at rest so we don't have to worry about tracking current dispersion. Now what would be the easiest way to simulate dispersion? All you have to do is slightly modify Horizontal Direction and Elevation. You use the dispersion value, apply it against the formula WoT uses. And then take that output and apply it against the against the horizontal Direction and Elevation. You've now simulated dispersion.

Trying to add in distance to target, or create a plane were the target is just adds unneeded complexity to a relatively simple problem. I think that Deusmortis' test shows fairly conclusively that both firing modes are equally accurate, as he actually hit the tank about 90% of the time in both test.

If aiming is just taking the angle of your gun as input (and it makes sense) and dispersion is indeed calculated by adding randomness to the up down or left right in the shell protection, in terms of degrees that will lead to a circle of X size at 100 meters, then it would make sense that 3rd person view would not in any way add accuracy to the shot. Let's put dispersion aside and assume this type of coding.

Your turret angle with relationship to the map and your gun elevation are the input. From those you can draw a vector across the map that would be the shell travel line (ignoring the ballistic project the game automatically create for slow shells). Then when it comes to aiming, it all depends on how accurate you can place that vector. Zooming in would increase the resolution. For a target 10 meters wide and 10 meters tall, at 300 meters away, it would only take 0.955 degree of change to either side of center to miss the target; the whole target width is 1.91 degrees. Zooming basically allows you to change the degrees of your gun more precisely than 3rd person, as now you have to move your mouse a few times more on the screen in order to move your gun the same amount of degrees, where as slight jerk of the hand in 3rd person could lead to a couple of degrees of change. This is also why it's easier to shoot on the move in 3rd person, because you don't have to adjust up and down as much with your mouse to correct the bounce of the gun, you can just kinda keep the reticle on the tank, where as in sniper you have to furiously move your mouse up and down.

This doesn't address the "sniper = hit dirt, 3rd person =hit tank" theory. Shells not flying true to center is dispersion related, not aiming method in the coding. But it makes more sense that there is only one sector of the code calculating dispersion, instead of separate ones that governs zoomed in and not zoomed in shots.

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...