World of Tanks

[Berkut]

That December gift shop special is tempting. $54 for 5 million credits and 5000 gold...

[DGuller]

That December gift shop special is tempting. $54 for 5 million credits and 5000 gold...

That's like $70 worth of stuff for $54.  Not that tempting to me, especially considering that silver for gold conversion is widely considered to be a poor value.

[Berkut]

Silver for gold?

This isn't silver for gold - it is silver for cash.

[DGuller]

Silver for gold?

This isn't silver for gold - it is silver for cash.

Yeah, but isn't cash just gold, ultimately?  You're in effect buying 17,500 in gold, and are forced to convert 12,500 of it into silver, something which is considered to be a poor use of gold.  That amount of gold is worth about $70, before you subtract for the lack of option on what to do with 12,500 of gold.

[Berkut]

It is considered a poor use because the default exchange rate is generally quite bad. This is quite a bit better. At least....I think it is.

Let's see.

1G = 400C

Assuming you buy gold at the default cost of $30/6500, you get about 217G per dollar.

So that means buying gold and converting it run about 87,000C/$1.

Here we are getting 5000G, so that is worth ~$23 alone. So take that out, and we are looking at 5MC for $30, which is about 167,000/$. That is about twice the value, if I am doing the math right.

[DGuller]

Wow, that Churchill I can really take a hit.  If you're lucky, even two hits.  Unfortunately, it can't do much of anything else.

[Iormlund]

So I decided to take my tanks for a ride, first time since 7.2 except a couple games when 7.3 came out.

First thing I notice is I can't hit shit with my Russian 122mm cannons anymore. I'm missing pretty much every mid-range shot, even in perfect aiming conditions. It's ridiculously frustrating.

[DGuller]

So I decided to take my tanks for a ride, first time since 7.2 except a couple games when 7.3 came out.

First thing I notice is I can't hit shit with my Russian 122mm cannons anymore. I'm missing pretty much every mid-range shot, even in perfect aiming conditions. It's ridiculously frustrating.

I don't think there were any changes in that department.  You're probably out of practice, since it takes a lot of knack to hit even the broad side of the barn with those things.

[Iormlund]

Well there's not much more I can do when I'm already stopped with the smallest possible circle. I do hit pretty much always with short 88 and KV-13's 85mm (problem there is ofc lack of penetration).

Maybe it's the server-side aiming. I've assumed it's now built into the normal crosshairs (since UPCASE + 0 does nothing). Am I wrong?

[DGuller]

When you fire with inaccurate gun, the trick is to fire at a spot that gives you the least area for a miss, unless you're firing at a high tier where you really have to hit the weakspot.

[Berkut]

I dunno, I think the difference between an "inaccurate" gun (say the Soviet 122mm gun swith ~.41-.43 accuracy) and the "accurate" guns (like the German long 88 or 128s with their ~.34 or so accuracy guns is not really that great. In both cases, skill matters more than the gun accuracy, and I typically miss when I am taking shots that don't have a great chance of hitting (mostly obscured target, firing on the move, firing at a moving target) and mostly hit otherwise.

Comparing my overall hit rate for the JagdPanther for example (which has .34 or .35 guns) and the SU-152 (which has .43 and .41 guns), my SU-152 had an overall hit rate of 69% and the JagdPanther had 74%. A decent difference, but hardly that big of a deal.

[DGuller]

I dunno, I think the difference between an "inaccurate" gun (say the Soviet 122mm gun swith ~.41-.43 accuracy) and the "accurate" guns (like the German long 88 or 128s with their ~.34 or so accuracy guns is not really that great. In both cases, skill matters more than the gun accuracy, and I typically miss when I am taking shots that don't have a great chance of hitting (mostly obscured target, firing on the move, firing at a moving target) and mostly hit otherwise.

Comparing my overall hit rate for the JagdPanther for example (which has .34 or .35 guns) and the SU-152 (which has .43 and .41 guns), my SU-152 had an overall hit rate of 69% and the JagdPanther had 74%. A decent difference, but hardly that big of a deal.

Mathematically speaking, it's not linear.  An extra point of accuracy (or rather inaccuracy) increases the area of the circle where your shots are likely to land, so the relationship between probability of an intended hit and accuracy stat is squared.  I suspect that the reason the hit stats with two different guns may not look radically different is that you're more likely to take those wild "try to hit the cupola sticking out from behind the hill" shots with an accurate gun, or just fire before the circle is fully contracted to avoid getting hit first. 

[DGuller]

This has to be a record:  my S-51 delivered a shot to E-75, which gave 1214 points of damage and 5 (!) critical hits.    That 203 mm shell must've fallen straight down the open hatch.

[Berkut]

I dunno, I think the difference between an "inaccurate" gun (say the Soviet 122mm gun swith ~.41-.43 accuracy) and the "accurate" guns (like the German long 88 or 128s with their ~.34 or so accuracy guns is not really that great. In both cases, skill matters more than the gun accuracy, and I typically miss when I am taking shots that don't have a great chance of hitting (mostly obscured target, firing on the move, firing at a moving target) and mostly hit otherwise.

Comparing my overall hit rate for the JagdPanther for example (which has .34 or .35 guns) and the SU-152 (which has .43 and .41 guns), my SU-152 had an overall hit rate of 69% and the JagdPanther had 74%. A decent difference, but hardly that big of a deal.

Mathematically speaking, it's not linear.  An extra point of accuracy (or rather inaccuracy) increases the area of the circle where your shots are likely to land, so the relationship between probability of an intended hit and accuracy stat is squared.  I suspect that the reason the hit stats with two different guns may not look radically different is that you're more likely to take those wild "try to hit the cupola sticking out from behind the hill" shots with an accurate gun, or just fire before the circle is fully contracted to avoid getting hit first. 

Of course it isn't linear - that is not my point.

My point is that gun accuracy is not THAT large a factor in the rate that you get hits or not - in other words, comments like "It is so much harder to hit with the Russian guns!" are not really accurate. It isn't much harder to hit with them at all, and in fact I hit with them at a rate on slightly less than I hit with more accurate guns. Because the guns accuracy is a relatively minor variable in the factors that go into whether a given shot hits or not. It is dominated by other variables (like whether or not you or that target are moving, as an example).

This is one way I contend that there is a subtle (or maybe not so subtle) bias in the game towards the Soviet vehicles. Their "inaccuracy" isn't that important if you know how to shoot, in most cases.

[DGuller]

Well, my main point was that accuracy doesn't have to manifest itself just in the hit rate.  Like with many things, an advantage in one area may be used to shore up disadvantages in other areas, or at least give you more options. 

If I have an accurate gun, I'm more likely to snipe.  That won't necessarily help my hit rate over the inaccurate gun, it may even hurt it, but the advantage of gun accuracy would result in a less tangible benefit of staying alive for longer to take more shots.  I hit with my HEAT derp PzIV probably just as often as I hit with other tanks.  However, my HEAT derp has to always get close to the action, because trying to snipe with it is just a waste of very expensive ammo.  I'd rather stand back and snipe, but I don't have that option, and therefore I often get killed if I don't kill the enemy with my first shot.