Jump to content

ThisIsClassic

Members
  • Content Сount

    3,493
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    21291
  • Clan

    [INTEL]

Community Reputation

1,174 Superb

About ThisIsClassic

Profile Information

  • Location
    Fort Worth, TX

Recent Profile Visitors

5,739 profile views
  1. ThisIsClassic

    Some guy throwing Ranked Games

    Thanks for pursuing this, sincerely. I think the process itself can use some help. The flow of the Support page and the ticket system process discourages or even appears to be a dead end for players looking to report bad behavior. https://na.wargaming.net/support/en/products/wows/article/26679/ Starting with the first page of Rule violations and harassment — how to report them, there is no obvious way to report a player via a Support ticket. This page is solely informational and in no way indicates you can contact Support to report a player. It goes into detail on the familiar way of how to report a player in game. You can scroll down about 2 pages and see the Contact Support button, but that hides the issue in a layer that obfuscates the possibility. If you do decide to Contact Support, you then have an option for Violations and Penalties. Once you click here you go through the path above (Report-><where>-><what>) and then are presented with choices that don't obviously cover the violations we are discussing here. This process will likely discourage players from going down the path in multiple places as it would appear that WG is not interested in those reports as there aren't any appropriate options. Frankly, I've thought this is deliberate so as to reduce the load on support and force people to be satisfied with the automated reporting in game. I work in Retail so I am a bit jaded (and biased I'm sure) on the CS processes some companies employ. I'm sure many casual players are satisfied with this as they either think something is being done behind the scenes or they are just happy to briefly vent. The other missing piece that's been discussed here is meaningful evidence of action. Why would anyone continue to report player bad behavior without any feedback or indication of results? And much of the result we do see is that the offender is still around doing the same thing for years. And it's not just this player. There are a few others I can come up with off the top of my head that I'd bet people on this thread will recognize. And as an aside I find it humorous that there's an alternative Karma reporting site. It's not widely used but it serves a market, albeit a redundant purpose and result.
  2. ThisIsClassic

    Some guy throwing Ranked Games

    https://na.wargaming.net/support/en/products/wows/help/ Select Violations and Penalties->Report-><where>-><type> You'll eventually get here: You can attach the file here. ^^^ There is one caveat, if you choose "In Battle" as the where, there's no selection for the type of behavior being discussed here. @Ahskance , does it matter which of these is chosen?
  3. I'm on earth and I didn't do that. Those first two camos aren't linked to Bismarck. The chain icon shows that they can be linked. Once they are linked, they look like this: The New Year is linked, the Infernal is not. In the Bismarck clip, the next to last camo is the Varg camo, specific to Bismarck. And all of the others without the link icon are specific Bismarck camos.
  4. Consider that getting players to achieve gameplay objectives is why WG created these. These linkable camouflages were incentives to play more of the game and hit certain objectives. The more you played, the more linkable camos you got to put on different ships. And they were a flexible choice beyond the one ship only permanent camouflages. If they were unlinkable, yes, they could make some money but it would also deincentivize the play objective and likely lose some money.
  5. You've just convinced me I play the game too much and in the way WG intended. As a result, I have too many choices.
  6. I think there is some correlation between load time and number of ships in port. I don't think that's entirely it as load times will likely increase as functionality is added to the game and if performance optimizations don't keep up with that.
  7. The old players were new players once. So they too had to suffer through getting the less desirable ships and they've already spent that money you are looking at. You're asking to start the race alongside the older players near the finish line. But look at it this way, with the changes this year, new players do have it better than the new players of yesteryear.
  8. ThisIsClassic

    WOWS bricked 2 of my 3090s

    I highly suggest anyone who has one of these cards to make sure you are running at Default settings. I had been playing with my settings, well, just because. Ultimately I got the card in a state where it was obviously pulling more power than it really needed so I decided to just reset it and leave it alone. These are static captures of the card without and with the game running (Fjords port). These would improve if I used a better fan setup than I have and pulled the system out into an area that has better airflow. Where it sits now minimizes the noise and that's a priority as I'm on calls most of the day. I'm going to get a better cooling solution in place at some point. When I built the system I was planning on a 3070 but ended up with the 3080 ti because of availability. Warships not running Warships running while sitting at Fjords port Warships in the Armory screen
  9. ThisIsClassic

    WOWS bricked 2 of my 3090s

    I wish I had bought an 850+ Watt PSU now. My original intent was to buy a 3060 or 3070 but I waited so long to find one that when the 3080ti popped up at a 'reasonable' price, I jumped on it. So far no issues and if I start having issues, I'll upgrade, with another Seasonic.
  10. ThisIsClassic

    WOWS bricked 2 of my 3090s

    My setup is somewhat close to yours and I've had no problems. I do have my GPU temp limit capped at 82C. i9-10850K , EVGA 3080ti FTW3, 32 GB of RAM , Seasonic FOCUS Plus Platinum 80+ 750W PS
  11. ThisIsClassic

    T10 special = T10 tech camo??

    I apologize that my question came across as aggressive. It wasn't meant to be. I was trying to understand if there was something missing in my understanding of your issue.
  12. ThisIsClassic

    T10 special = T10 tech camo??

    When you say, "along with Missouri', I don't understand where this is coming from. The Missouri change was specific to the credit earning potential of the ship so that WG could rerelease it without the credit buff. The existing owners were compensated with a mission to make up the difference in credit earning. The Roma and Kii get additional credit earnings from applying the Kobayashi camo. That has not been announced as changed and no one that I know of up until now has raised it as changed. The Missouri credit change is unrelated. What is your basis for raising the question?
  13. ThisIsClassic

    T10 special = T10 tech camo??

    There are two scales there. The first is the assumed base modifier and the second is the credit income with the best camo applied. The left scale just reflects what is assumed as the base modifier. Once you take into account the 50% vs 30% service reduction cost, the T10 comes out ahead in total credit income. And I *think* the base tier credit income is also factored in. The higher tiers naturally earn more. And that's what is reflected on the right, head to head with the permanent camo, the T10 edges out the T8.
×