Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jarkorsis

Yorck isn't as bad as people say

Recommended Posts

I am almost done with the Yorck. Another 12-14k exp and I have the hipper unlocked. I really like this ship. I like it better than either the T5 or T6 German CA's. It has a great HE round and once you figure out how to hit anything with it, the AP round isnt to bad. The High arc of the AP shell can damage BB's by penning the deck or superstructure. The torps make it better than the Pensacola and the small size and better Torp arc make it more flexible than the Myoko. I have gotten some of my best CA games driving this ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found that it is the mid range that is the problem with Yorck... 9-15KM. Because of the shell arc (AP) it is very difficult to hit smaller targets and the HE isn't very impressive. Against BBs at this range, dmg is good with HE but you don't have a lot of time to react against a salvo... at long range, it's the opposite!

Under 9 if you're against a broadside target, you're devastating (AP + torp @6km).

I had a game this WEwhere i fought against a baltimore and a fubuki.  Torped the DD (he was at maybe 4KM) and dodge hers, while devastating the baltimore with AP. They both were bad (balti should have wreck me), but it was a good feeling with the Yorck, which is not often...

The yorck isn't that bad, but it is definetely not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the Yorck a logical keeper given popular competitors like the Myoko or Pensacola exist? I have a thing for hipster paraphernalia and I could use a training ship to hone my skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Casas5591 said:

Is the Yorck a logical keeper given popular competitors like the Myoko or Pensacola exist? I have a thing for hipster paraphernalia and I could use a training ship to hone my skills.

Myoko is not only the best tier 7 cruiser, it's arguably better than any tier 8 except Atago in the post-BFT/AFT world.  Yorck is merely "fine", and probably a poor practice ship because the shell arcs aren't comparable to anything except the tier 8+ US cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mesrith said:

Yorck is merely "fine", and probably a poor practice ship because the shell arcs aren't comparable to anything except the tier 8+ US cruisers.

It might be a good practice ship if you're trying to train a flight-time based aiming technique, as the totally different HE and AP arcs will ruin any other method :P

An annoyance there is that the flight time value in the UI appears to be increasingly wrong for long-range shots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yorck is a unique ship. It is not like any other ship in the game. It has good agility but, not as good as US CAs. It is much better than the Hipper however. I don't think it is a great trainer for the Hipper. It's performance characteristics are to different. The IJN CA line from T7 to T9 have very similar ships. The German ships are all different. The Yorck is a keeper if you like it's unique game play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, OnboardG1 said:

I suspect that's because of the aim compensation correcting for the plane of the target compared to the plane of the sea intersected by the cursor. 

I tested flight times with no target selected, although it's possible that the vertical-adjustment code still interferes with that. Waiting on the training room mod for 0.5.3 and hoping WG didn't disable it entirely this time.

Another oddity of the flight time calculation is that it has extremely low numerical precision at long range. I'm not sure what sort of broken code you'd need to generate that effect. Maybe a lookup table vs gun elevation with no interpolation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RichardNixon said:

Another oddity of the flight time calculation is that it has extremely low numerical precision at long range. I'm not sure what sort of broken code you'd need to generate that effect. Maybe a lookup table vs gun elevation with no interpolation.

I don't know what kind of model or code they use for ballistics, but it sounds like they used time on target that is calculated by muzzle velocity and distance ( or even arc length distance if they are fancy) while ignoring the drag component possibly? It would explain the increasing inaccuracy of the ToT estimate as distance increase. 

 

Share this post


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

I tested flight times with no target selected, although it's possible that the vertical-adjustment code still interferes with that. Waiting on the training room mod for 0.5.3 and hoping WG didn't disable it entirely this time.

Another oddity of the flight time calculation is that it has extremely low numerical precision at long range. I'm not sure what sort of broken code you'd need to generate that effect. Maybe a lookup table vs gun elevation with no interpolation.

Edit your preferences.xml  Search for <LobbyType> which is usually set to RandomBattle, Set it to TrainingBattle and launch the game.  Game type will show Co-op, but it should lead you to a training battle.  The names are off the top of my head right now, but the form of the instructions should be correct.

Share this post


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

I tested flight times with no target selected, although it's possible that the vertical-adjustment code still interferes with that. Waiting on the training room mod for 0.5.3 and hoping WG didn't disable it entirely this time.

Another oddity of the flight time calculation is that it has extremely low numerical precision at long range. I'm not sure what sort of broken code you'd need to generate that effect. Maybe a lookup table vs gun elevation with no interpolation.

It probably is using a lookup table but I doubt it would be causing that interference. If you're precalculating you can have almost any interval and precision you want as long as you aren't maxing out your storage. You shouldn't be seeing big mistakes at long range. I guess they could be going super skimpy on their precision to reduce the memory footprint but why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/20/2016 at 3:53 AM, OnboardG1 said:

It probably is using a lookup table but I doubt it would be causing that interference. If you're precalculating you can have almost any interval and precision you want as long as you aren't maxing out your storage. You shouldn't be seeing big mistakes at long range. I guess they could be going super skimpy on their precision to reduce the memory footprint but why?

Maybe they have different lookup tables for different guns & ships?  If you are looking at the scalability, 1 table have a negligible memory footprint but at some point when you have as many table as there are tanks in WoT then it may not be that negligible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ncc81701 said:

Maybe they have different lookup tables for different guns & ships?  If you are looking at the scalability, 1 table have a negligible memory footprint but at some point when you have as many table as there are tanks in WoT then it may not be that negligible. 

That's possible, but I'd have thought you'd only have to client-load the LUT for the current ship, since the player is the only one to see their time of flight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another idea I had is that the flight time estimate is generated by iteratively guessing elevation values and forward-simulating, until the landing position is within X of the target distance. Fits the precision error a bit better, and it's plausible for an intern solution.

I'm not sure what reasons are for the qualitative difference is between the flight time calculation and the real version. Both calculations take account of air drag, and probably gravity too. It's possible that flight time uses quadratic drag while the rest of the code uses a linear approximation.

The best way to detect whether drag algorithms are linear or quadratic would be to test shells with very long flight times, preferably with high drag. Something like an Atlanta, Gearing or Sims with AFT, or maybe a Yorck with AP shells should be good. I don't personally have anything unlocked past tier 3 (I only watch & test), so that would need to wait for the next test server. If someone else fancies testing it, I'd need estimated and real flight times at maximum and ~half range. For real flight times, you need to correct for firing latency, and only count shots that land at the correct range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, OnboardG1 said:

That's possible, but I'd have thought you'd only have to client-load the LUT for the current ship, since the player is the only one to see their time of flight. 

I was thinking more of the server load, I wouldn't be surprised if such LUT are multi-purpose and are on server side with the server doing look-ups as well. An example use would be, using the lookup table to prioritize ballistics/pen calculations for close-range shots or sending client location & speed updates. I remember back in early beta, ships at ~20+km often have delayed location updates which made it look like they were either sliding or teleporting. I have no idea exactly what is going on, this is just pure conjecture coupled with some working experiences with multi-user servers. 

Even if it is just client side, it seems like they do have a lot of things to load already given how even on my machine built specific for gaming still takes > ~30 sec to load into a game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, ncc81701 said:

 

Even if it is just client side, it seems like they do have a lot of things to load already given how even on my machine built specific for gaming still takes > ~30 sec to load into a game. 

Really? It takes only ~10 seconds for me. After the first battle that is. The first one always takes a little bit longer.

Share this post


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

Really? It takes only ~10 seconds for me. After the first battle that is. The first one always takes a little bit longer.

>~30 sec is first battle but it gives an idea of just how much gets loaded into memory. Mind you this is after a very long loading time when you first open the executable, WoWS is by far the longest game to load. It just seems to me that the game is not very memory efficient or that they have a lot of data.

Share this post


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

Try XCOM2 for very long loading times, sometimes you wait a minute :)

I recall a friend using a parallel port zip drive to load games in the mid/late 90s (Warcraft 2, Mechwarrior 2).  Now that is a slow load time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have anyone played with the Yorick lately? I recently got it from the German Tech Tree sale and the ship seems to get its engines KOed more than even my destroyers (2-3 times per match, most times in very quick succession). Is this a bug or was the Yorick's engine protection always that weak?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In patch 5.5 when turret HP were buffed, I think they removed them from steering and engines. At lot of my ships have started getting rudder damage and steering damage. This includes BBs as well as CA's. My Yorck, Myoko and Mogami have has this happen quite a bit. (USSR CA's as well)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ncc81701 said:

Have anyone played with the Yorick lately? I recently got it from the German Tech Tree sale and the ship seems to get its engines KOed more than even my destroyers (2-3 times per match, most times in very quick succession). Is this a bug or was the Yorick's engine protection always that weak?

Is that from HE shells? The citadel roof on the Yorck is pretty thin (30mm) and might be vulnerable to HE splash at some calibres.

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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...