Jump to content


URGENT DIRECTIVES ISSUE

Directive Directives Not working problem directives patch

  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

SporkBoy #61 Posted Mar 27 2019 - 04:07

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42820 battles
  • 1,919
  • [PZB] PZB
  • Member since:
    02-06-2014
Maybe you should reread my post and think harder. Nothing in this thread helps measure camo in the slightest.

Imspotting #62 Posted Mar 27 2019 - 05:13

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 27643 battles
  • 233
  • [TRAX] TRAX
  • Member since:
    11-27-2016

View PostSporkBoy, on Mar 27 2019 - 04:07, said:

Maybe you should reread my post and think harder. Nothing in this thread helps measure camo in the slightest.

 

All too true. So if you believe WG then you should assume that... umm... 

Here's the point when you should realize it's abit unlikely it's only a garage display issue.



Imspotting #63 Posted Mar 27 2019 - 05:26

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 27643 battles
  • 233
  • [TRAX] TRAX
  • Member since:
    11-27-2016

View PostImspotting, on Mar 27 2019 - 05:13, said:

 

All too true. So if you believe WG then you should assume that... umm... 

Here's the point when you should realize it's abit unlikely it's only a garage display issue.

 

To be blunt:

In the garage display NC seems to only give the camo a 100% crew across all members with 100% camo each would get which is far less than the amount you would be getting when taking Commanders bonus, Food, BIA, Vents and directives into account <nearly 35% less for a fully pimped crew> . 

Do you have any reason to assume this  isn't the actual CAMO you will be getting? I'm afraid not.

Since NC is giving far less camo than you would be getting if your actual crew had 100% camo skill there exists a large gap between NC and having your actual crew at 100% camo. If your crew is within this gap NC has no effect in the garage. The exception to this is when your crew is so close to 100% camo that Vents themselves are enough to get the crew past the level of a 100% camo crew. In this case NC is programmed to give the 10% bonus as if your crew already was at 100%.

There is absolutely no reason to assume this has anything to with garage display WG release notes notwithanding. 


Edited by Imspotting, Mar 27 2019 - 05:26.


SporkBoy #64 Posted Mar 28 2019 - 02:38

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42820 battles
  • 1,919
  • [PZB] PZB
  • Member since:
    02-06-2014
How about you explain how you would go about determining the camo on a tank in a training room?

For starters do the same for the 6th sense directive. You could actually do both simultaneously.

How are your probability and statistics skills? You are going to need them.




MakersMike #65 Posted Mar 28 2019 - 13:29

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 2673 battles
  • 211
  • Member since:
    12-12-2017

View PostSporkBoy, on Mar 26 2019 - 14:48, said:

Did y'all read the release notes where WG says this is a comparison tool display bug? Nothing about if its actually working or not.

Figuring out if camo is working would be very difficult.

 

My post was started before the release notes.  But I'm glad they mentioned something.  I can't seem to find it in the most recent release notes, so if you have a link or something ... thanks.

MakersMike #66 Posted Mar 28 2019 - 13:44

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 2673 battles
  • 211
  • Member since:
    12-12-2017

Spork: How about you explain how you would go about determining the camo on a tank in a training room? 

            For starters do the same for the 6th sense directive. You could actually do both simultaneously.

 

I would do something pretty simple. 

2 tanks.  Tank A and Tank B

 

Apply NC directive to tank A.  In training room, put Tank A in open field at a specific location marked by bush or building etc.

In training room, have Tank B start at distance and move towards tank A until Tank A is spotted.  Mark location of Tank B.

Now remove NC directive from Tank A and repeat same process, marking the new location the tank is spotted from.  This will tell you if the NC directive is working. 

 

And when doing the test without the NC directive, place the 6th sense directive on Tank A, and make sure the 6th sense alerts the tank, once Tank B is able to spot Tank A. 

 

Of course, you won't have the exact distance, but you can get a pretty accurate estimate as to whether it is close to the improvement listed for the directive, and at least know if both are working.  


Edited by MakersMike, Mar 28 2019 - 13:50.


Imspotting #67 Posted Mar 28 2019 - 15:29

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 27643 battles
  • 233
  • [TRAX] TRAX
  • Member since:
    11-27-2016

View PostSporkBoy, on Mar 28 2019 - 02:38, said:

How about you explain how you would go about determining the camo on a tank in a training room?

For starters do the same for the 6th sense directive. You could actually do both simultaneously.

How are your probability and statistics skills? You are going to need them.

 

 

While RNG is a big factor in many things in WOT, camo mechanics is not one of them so i shouldn't need any probability skills.

 

I don't feel training room is necessary WG release notes notwithstanding. If you want to do training room it can be done easily and accurately as follows.

 

1. Tank A. Get a stock 100% commander for any tank doesn't matter what it's VR is. (We can simply calculate for it's VR.) make sure you have no vents/BIA/recon/situational awareness/food etc. that can raise the effective VR. Double check in garage to make sure you have base VR and no more or less.

2.Tank B is the tank we are testing the NC directive on.

3.Use a wide expanse of open field map in training room <malinovka field in west is perfect>. Make sure you have setting/mod that shows exact distance to target in meters.

4.now simply drive tank A towards tank B until you spot tank B. Then back up slowly bit by bit and wait to see if tank B becomes unspotted. This should easily show  you exact distance in meters tank B is being spotted at. (tank B need not take any active part in this exercise)

 5. Once we have exact distance in meters it is no big deal to calculate exact camo value.

 

Example. Tank A has 400m base VR. Tank B is spotted at 289m. 400m VR = 50m proximity spotting + 350m VR spotting, (Camo has no effect on the first 50m. ) So use distance spotted -50 <239>, divided by  base VR -50 <350> now simply:

100 - (239/350) = Exact camo value. In this case it is 31.714%.

 

 

Good luck if you actually want to try this. I personally will be very surprised if garage numbers are wrong.

 


Edited by Imspotting, Mar 28 2019 - 15:45.


Imspotting #68 Posted Mar 28 2019 - 15:39

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 27643 battles
  • 233
  • [TRAX] TRAX
  • Member since:
    11-27-2016

Sixth sense DIrective much easier to test. Though again I don't see the need to test i personally have never used it but why assume it doesn't work as intended.

Use a tank with decent camo as your test tank<tank B>

Simply drive tank B<with directive mounted> towards tank A until tank B is spotted then pull back a good few meters until you are sure you are not spotted. Now fire your gun this will reduce your camo and you will get spotted. measure the time between firing and sixth sense going off. 

p.s. Make sure turret of tank A is facing tank B directly to minimize any RNG  <camo mechanics have no rng spotting mechanics have a bit as the server can only run spotting checks several times a second, the front of a tank's spotting check is refreshed far more often than side and back (see wiki) and should be small enough to barely effect this test.>

 

Good luck.

 



cavalry11 #69 Posted Mar 28 2019 - 15:48

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 47355 battles
  • 230
  • [11BAT] 11BAT
  • Member since:
    06-24-2013
don't understand where this is a big surprise to anyone.

SporkBoy #70 Posted Mar 28 2019 - 17:37

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42820 battles
  • 1,919
  • [PZB] PZB
  • Member since:
    02-06-2014

Better rethink the RNG, spotting and camo interplay. Getting there.

 

If you do the test and get good numbers and the results are different than the garage values you have just shown 1) WG assessment of display issue is correct and 2) presuming the numbers say so the camo directive is working as intended and all your huffing is wrong. Wonder why you don't want to find out? Hmm.



Imspotting #71 Posted Mar 28 2019 - 18:01

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 27643 battles
  • 233
  • [TRAX] TRAX
  • Member since:
    11-27-2016

View PostSporkBoy, on Mar 28 2019 - 17:37, said:

Better rethink the RNG, spotting and camo interplay. Getting there.

 

If you do the test and get good numbers and the results are different than the garage values you have just shown 1) WG assessment of display issue is correct and 2) presuming the numbers say so the camo directive is working as intended and all your huffing is wrong. Wonder why you don't want to find out? Hmm.

 

1.I don't even have client installed now i have no plans in doing this test. The wg release notes were not specifically addressing NC and based on what were seeing in garage this does not appear to be a display issue.

2.You seem to be totally missing the point here. what does working as "intended" even mean? Do you think in reality your getting the bonus as if your actual crew was 100% and not a 100% stock crew as shown in garage? There is no rational reason to think so. So kind of hard to say they are working as intended unless we're being very liberal with "intended".

 

 


Edited by Imspotting, Mar 28 2019 - 18:01.


SporkBoy #72 Posted Mar 28 2019 - 18:55

    Captain

  • Players
  • 42820 battles
  • 1,919
  • [PZB] PZB
  • Member since:
    02-06-2014

View PostImspotting, on Mar 28 2019 - 17:01, said:

 

1.I don't even have client installed now i have no plans in doing this test. The wg release notes were not specifically addressing NC and based on what were seeing in garage this does not appear to be a display issue.

2.You seem to be totally missing the point here. what does working as "intended" even mean? Do you think in reality your getting the bonus as if your actual crew was 100% and not a 100% stock crew as shown in garage? There is no rational reason to think so. So kind of hard to say they are working as intended unless we're being very liberal with "intended".

 

 

 

So, pointless gripes with no intention of understanding. Got it.

killerman1997 #73 Posted Mar 28 2019 - 19:35

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 29750 battles
  • 75
  • [BLIST] BLIST
  • Member since:
    07-21-2012

View PostSporkBoy, on Mar 26 2019 - 17:48, said:

Did y'all read the release notes where WG says this is a comparison tool display bug? Nothing about if its actually working or not.

Figuring out if camo is working would be very difficult.

 

Do coders need innocent until proven guilty? I mean its not uncommon for bugs to happen. This could be bad code it could not be. But we wont know and we might never know if its two different calculations, one for the garage and one for in game.

 

The fact is, as its stands, the only evidence we have is that we see a bug.



Imspotting #74 Posted Mar 28 2019 - 22:04

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 27643 battles
  • 233
  • [TRAX] TRAX
  • Member since:
    11-27-2016

View PostSporkBoy, on Mar 28 2019 - 18:55, said:

 

So, pointless gripes with no intention of understanding. Got it.

 

After the obvious large amounts of effort that was put into actually understanding what is going on to have to deal with brainless **** is simply unfair.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users