Is there a way to argue that AI is not cheating?

[MyTeitoku]

How is it possible to have such a big difference in hit ratio??? especially when it's a CA.

[MyTeitoku]

And how can a Funnel penetration deal 2k damage???

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

In response to your question about a funnel hit counting as a penetration, I believe it is because of funnels being counted under the superstructure when it comes to armoring. So for an example, if you put 1 inch of armor on your superstructure and the enemy's guns have a penetration value around 1 inch on their HE shells, it is very possible that your funnel had just enough armor and the shell had just enough pen to cause a full penetration and deal full damage.

[MyTeitoku]

What is the possibility of having 10% hit chance but 0 hit among 600 tries?

That's 0.9^600=3.5E-28

This match alone is worth 10 billion billion powerballs.

[Norbert Sattler]

In my experience there's no difference between the calculations for AI and players.

As for the funnel hit, one of my battleships just landed a 280mm HE shell on an enemy funnel and did 4.9k damage, so one way or the other it is not a case of AI cheating, but simply something that can happen regardless of who fired the shot and who's the target.

The only clear advantage I've seen the AI have over the player is that they appear to always know your ship's position far more precisely than the 8 cardinal and in-between directions the player gets for smoke being sighted beyond the line of sight.

Edited June 11, 2022 by Norbert Sattler

[Somhairle]

As others have said, most likely the 'funnel' and associated armor/structure/etc. was sufficient to arm the shell fuse, causing a full detonation. Now as to the amount of damage it caused, a realistic possibility is that (although I have no idea if this is how the damage model is currently working) would be for the detonation to have sent splinters, fire, and other miscellaneous items down the funnel, into the intakes, and then into the boilers leading to internal damage in that area. I could also have done damage to nearby structures (foremast, tower, bridge) or things below it on deck (ammo lockers, open secondaries, boats, crew).

[MyTeitoku]

Why my hit ratio says 43% while in fact it's 6.6%？？？？

[slightlytreasonous]

Because, 43% doesn't mean you're guaranteed to hit 43% of the time, and the hit chance always changes

Like in the 2nd most recent picture you can always see what modifiers are in play, and you can mouse over the gun reload thing to see their base accuracy, it's different for different countrys and quality. 

[CPS]

Slightly Treasonous this doesn’t make sense. What does having a 43% chance to hit mean if not that out of 100 shots fired you should expect around 43 to hit? I have found there’s a (frustratingly) huge discrepancy between my indicated chance to hit and the actual performance of my gunnery. Why?

[Skeksis]

2 hours ago, CPS said:

Slightly Treasonous this doesn’t make sense. What does having a 43% chance to hit mean if not that out of 100 shots fired you should expect around 43 to hit? I have found there’s a (frustratingly) huge discrepancy between my indicated chance to hit and the actual performance of my gunnery. Why?

"Hit chance always changes". Starts off at 0% (laddering), then maybe 1.2% later 3.4% and finally with your example all the way up to 43%. Which you will then hit 43/100 times (about!). But that hasn’t happen yet, your screenshot is of that moment, not everything that has happen before or leading up to. You didn't start off at 43%.

Damage done, exampled at 6.6% is the hits received total over time from 0% to 43% accuracy. Continue the battle at 43%+ and you will see hits received % climb rapidly.   

Edited June 13, 2022 by Skeksis

[MyTeitoku]

Well I could equally argue that the hit chance would be even higher than 43%, and I happened to screenshot a moment when the chance was lowest?

The thing is, it was already at 196 hits. There was already abundant time to gain the full aiming bonus. 

Even with the worst case, when every moment before this 43% had a lower hit chance, then the average hit chance should be (0+43%)/2=21.5%, still far higher than the actual hit chance. 

And in fact, my ship had been circling around the target for quite a long time. And it achieved the full aiming bonus long time ago. 

 

[Norbert Sattler]

18 hours ago, MyTeitoku said:

Why my hit ratio says 43% while in fact it's 6.6%？？？？

Hit-chance is not a constant factor, but something that chances depending on the distance, speed of your ship, speed of the enemy ship, damage to your ship, angle the enemy ship has to you, how far along in the aiming-process you are, course-changes by you and the enemy, whether there's any smoke deployed near your or the enemy ship, wind and waves and whether your ship is currently flooding... in addition to the static factors of the range-finders, radar, crew-training, pitch and such...

In short the 43% you see on your probably main gun is your hit-chance in that very moment... and only that moment. Make sharp turn and suddenly the number goas down for example.

The number you circled in the second screenshot is the hit-average of ALL shots (main and secondary batteries) that were fired at that ship throughout the entirety of the battle.

So if your ship started blasting away at maximum fire distance, it almost asuredly had a hit-chance of single digit %, maybe even below 1% and racked up lots of misses before it closed in enough to go up to 43%.

Edited June 13, 2022 by Norbert Sattler

[MyTeitoku]

On 6/13/2022 at 8:31 AM, Norbert Sattler said:

In short the 43% you see on your probably main gun is your hit-chance in that very moment... and only that moment. Make sharp turn and suddenly the number goas down for example.

Well I could equally argue that the hit chance would be even higher than 43%, and I happened to screenshot a moment when the chance was lowest?

The thing is, it was already at 196 hits. There was already abundant time to gain the full aiming bonus. 

Even with the worst case, when every moment before this 43% had a lower hit chance, then the average hit chance should be (0+43%)/2=21.5%, still far higher than the actual hit chance. 

And in fact, my ship had been circling around the target for quite a long time. And it achieved the full aiming bonus long time ago. 

 

And again, please try to explain how possible to miss 677 hits on target with 10% chance. Note that target is a TB and I have already done much damage to rest of the enemy fleet, meaning my ship wasn't shooting the TB until it got really close, therefore the hit chance would be near 10% for a long time.

[slightlytreasonous]

11 hours ago, MyTeitoku said:

Well I could equally argue that the hit chance would be even higher than 43%, and I happened to screenshot a moment when the chance was lowest?

The thing is, it was already at 196 hits. There was already abundant time to gain the full aiming bonus. 

Even with the worst case, when every moment before this 43% had a lower hit chance, then the average hit chance should be (0+43%)/2=21.5%, still far higher than the actual hit chance. 

And in fact, my ship had been circling around the target for quite a long time. And it achieved the full aiming bonus long time ago. 

 

And again, please try to explain how possible to miss 677 hits on target with 10% chance. Note that target is a TB and I have already done much damage to rest of the enemy fleet, meaning my ship wasn't shooting the TB until it got really close, therefore the hit chance would be near 10% for a long time.

It is not the average hit chance, it is the average amount of actual hits.

 

You didn't get 196 hits, the top right shows the total amount of hits and damage, for both you and the enemy team.  You've only got 13.

The "X/Y" is the amount of hits VS the amount of shells fired at the target.

 

Like I said, 10% hit chance doesn't mean you'll hit 10% of the time. You can expect it to be in that ballpark, but there is simply nothing stopping RNGesus from having 1k of your shells miss with a 99% chance.  And, as said by many, your hit chance always varies.  With the constantly changing maluses due to manuevering, it's more then likely your hit chance against the TB wasn't 10% forever.

[MyTeitoku]

3 hours ago, slightlytreasonous said:

It is not the average hit chance, it is the average amount of actual hits.

 

You didn't get 196 hits, the top right shows the total amount of hits and damage, for both you and the enemy team.  You've only got 13.

The "X/Y" is the amount of hits VS the amount of shells fired at the target.

 

Like I said, 10% hit chance doesn't mean you'll hit 10% of the time. You can expect it to be in that ballpark, but there is simply nothing stopping RNGesus from having 1k of your shells miss with a 99% chance.  And, as said by many, your hit chance always varies.  With the constantly changing maluses due to manuevering, it's more then likely your hit chance against the TB wasn't 10% forever.

Of course I know that 193 isnt actual hits.

What I am questioning is the vast difference between the expected hit ratio versus the actual hit ratio. And again, the scenario you said, the possibility of having 10 hits out of 1000 total tries, despite of having a 10% supposed hit ratio, is extremely rare. That possibility would amount to (C(1000,10)*0.9^990*0.1^10)=1.32E-32, while the most likely outcome is 100 actual hits, being 4%. That's a 10^30 difference.

Therefore if what you have said happened, which actually happened in my 677 misses pic, then that's a very good indication that the hit ratio is rigged. Nothing to do with RNGesus.

[slightlytreasonous]

8 hours ago, MyTeitoku said:

Of course I know that 193 isnt actual hits.

What I am questioning is the vast difference between the expected hit ratio versus the actual hit ratio. And again, the scenario you said, the possibility of having 10 hits out of 1000 total tries, despite of having a 10% supposed hit ratio, is extremely rare. That possibility would amount to (C(1000,10)*0.9^990*0.1^10)=1.32E-32, while the most likely outcome is 100 actual hits, being 4%. That's a 10^30 difference.

Therefore if what you have said happened, which actually happened in my 677 misses pic, then that's a very good indication that the hit ratio is rigged. Nothing to do with RNGesus.

Notice I also said "With the constantly changing maluses due to manuevering, it's more then likely your hit chance against the TB wasn't 10% forever."

Maybe that was the case and you were just monitoring the hit chance?  I don't know, you just ignored it.  Seems to me you want to believe AI cheats, so you cant be convinced.

 

[MyTeitoku]

1 hour ago, slightlytreasonous said:

Notice I also said "With the constantly changing maluses due to manuevering, it's more then likely your hit chance against the TB wasn't 10% forever."

Maybe that was the case and you were just monitoring the hit chance?  I don't know, you just ignored it.  Seems to me you want to believe AI cheats, so you cant be convinced.

 

OK if it was changing, then the hit ratio is even higher than 10% in other moments.

Btw do you know how big a 10^28 or something is? Or do you know what this sort of huge numbers mean is stats? Even if the average hit ratio was 1% and somehow I took a pic of 10%, that would still be very impossible to miss 677 hits. And no, the hit ratio was much higher than 1%.

[Dave P.]

On 6/16/2022 at 7:47 AM, MyTeitoku said:

OK if it was changing, then the hit ratio is even higher than 10% in other moments.

Btw do you know how big a 10^28 or something is? Or do you know what this sort of huge numbers mean is stats? Even if the average hit ratio was 1% and somehow I took a pic of 10%, that would still be very impossible to miss 677 hits. And no, the hit ratio was much higher than 1%.

The 46% in your screenshot is the base hit probability at a given distance, but that doesn't take into account bonuses, maneuvers, damage, gun tech, weather, etc. The actual probability of a hit is in the bottom of the "Shoot Info" window on the left hand side of the screen. (Per round and per salvo.) You can see that the per weapon chance to hit % is much lower than 46%, and it drops off significantly at higher ranges. (1.0km is basically point blank range.)

This is just a UI issue.

Edited July 5, 2022 by Dave P.

[Dave P.]

Also, with the right tech, weapons choice, and maneuver/tactics, you can absolutely score hits.

 

[Nick Thomadis]

8 hours ago, Dave P. said:

The 46% in your screenshot is the base hit probability at a given distance, but that doesn't take into account bonuses, maneuvers, damage, gun tech, weather, etc. The actual probability of a hit is in the bottom of the "Shoot Info" window on the left hand side of the screen. (Per round and per salvo.) You can see that the per weapon chance to hit % is much lower than 46%, and it drops off significantly at higher ranges. (1.0km is basically point blank range.)

This is just a UI issue.

The accuracy indicated is per gun barrel, and it is the actual using all dynamic parameters plus the aiming progress factor, which increases according to fire rate and bearing offsets of target per time interval. It is highly complex, as in real life, to fully control the outcome of those values, but in general it works as expected. Large and slow ships are easier to target than fast and maneuverable ships which change course often. Moreover, large guns which turn slower and have slow fire rate, will not target so easily against highly maneuverable targets. This is why secondary guns can be much more effective in close range vs the bigger guns.

The accuracy is highly depended on many factors, all listed in the stats for someone interested to read them and understand if the AI cheats or not... the AI certainly does not cheat, we do not make a cheating AI game, I assure you, I despise such approach in games.