Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Kizarvexis

Unique (Legendary) Upgrades end dates update

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,715
[PVE]
Members
14,934 posts
9,477 battles

@Sub_Octavian

You posted this about 5 months ago.

Today's patch notes had the following. https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/development/update-0712-holidays/

 

Quote

The countdown displayed in combat missions for getting unique Upgrades for Tier X ships has been changed from 31.12.2018 to 31.08.2019. Combat missions don't have any fixed end dates.

 

So, is Aug 31st, 2019 the end date for grinding Unique Upgrades or another temp date that will be changed later please?

 

FYI, @Radar_X, @iKami, @Gneisenau013, @Pigeon_of_War, @turbo07

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
233
[RLGN]
Members
715 posts
5,718 battles

The update posted today saying the date is being moved also specifically says there is no time limit.  My guess is that combat missions by the nature of their format require a date to be attached to them and we'll keep just seeing placeholder dates.  I missed the first time they said that though and definitely rushed the grind on my Montana to get it done before the end of the year.  Oops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,715
[PVE]
Members
14,934 posts
9,477 battles
1 minute ago, FirestormMk3 said:

The update posted today saying the date is being moved also specifically says there is no time limit.  My guess is that combat missions by the nature of their format require a date to be attached to them and we'll keep just seeing placeholder dates.  I missed the first time they said that though and definitely rushed the grind on my Montana to get it done before the end of the year.  Oops.

Yeah, but it would be nice for @Sub_Octavian to confirm it for those that will worry that the last sentence in the section was a typo or misunderstanding. Also, when the Update drops tomorrow, people will see the date has changed and worry. There are a lot of people who are still very salty over the Missouri is here to stay, only to have it leave. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
944
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
3,614 posts
14,727 battles

Sounds like there will always be an end date for "technical reasons" and they will continue to slide the date "forever" (or until they forget or get tired of doing it).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
233
[RLGN]
Members
715 posts
5,718 battles
23 minutes ago, Kizarvexis said:

Yeah, but it would be nice for @Sub_Octavian to confirm it for those that will worry that the last sentence in the section was a typo or misunderstanding. Also, when the Update drops tomorrow, people will see the date has changed and worry. There are a lot of people who are still very salty over the Missouri is here to stay, only to have it leave. 

Understandable.  I certainly wouldn't mind word of god confirmation either.  The second example though isn't a typo, it's a lie they told us.  Which. that being the case, they could in theory change their mind about these modules somewhere down the line.  I've said before don't trust WG farther than the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,715
[PVE]
Members
14,934 posts
9,477 battles
15 minutes ago, Khafni said:

Sounds like there will always be an end date for "technical reasons" and they will continue to slide the date "forever" (or until they forget or get tired of doing it).

That is fine, but after the Missouri debacle, some people won't trust that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,733
[SQUAD]
Members
7,989 posts
8,369 battles

They've said repeatedly the missions don't end, that the date is there for purely technical reasons. I mean "won't end" is pretty specific, to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
233
[RLGN]
Members
715 posts
5,718 battles
1 minute ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

They've said repeatedly the missions don't end, that the date is there for purely technical reasons. I mean "won't end" is pretty specific, to me.

To the OP's point, the Missouri was similarly "here to stay."  But yeah, even if they confirm it it's not like they can't pull a "account unification will include FXP and gold after open beta" and "the Missouri is here to stay" and "we'll never have submarines."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,026
[SALVO]
Members
19,958 posts
19,909 battles
46 minutes ago, Kevs02Accord said:

Would be nice if they tweaked some of these modules, in there current state they just aren't very good.

I thought that I read in some post here regarding a developer Q&A that they were possibly going to take a look at the legendary modules, to see if some tweaks were needed.  This would be nice, IMO. 

OTOH, I'm not really a fan of the entire implementation of these legendary upgrades.  I don't like that all of the LU's are tied to a single ship.  I don't like that some are tied to slot 5 and some to slot 6.  Slot 5 is critical to DD performance, since that's where the concealment module resides.  And for a DD to give up the concealment module to gain the LU can be exceptionally painful, if there isn't some concealment benefit tied to the LU.  I kind of wish that all of the LU's were tied to slot 6 instead, though that opinion is just off the top of my head without any research and consideration.

The way I wish that LU's had been handled would have been to have around 3-4 unique LUs per ship type (i.e. CV, BB, CA/CL, or DD), with each LU aimed at enhancing a general area of performance, such as durability or main gun performance or secondary gun performance for BBs, for example.  Or for DDs, the areas might be gunboat enhancement, torpedo boat enhancement, or concealment enhancement (or possibly including an engine/maneuverability enhancement as well).  Cruisers might be durability enhancement, main gun enhancement, or engine/maneuverability enhancement.  (I'll skip carriers, since I really don't know what would be a good idea for enhancements, particularly with the rework in the wings.)   And with these 3 or 4 possible upgrades per ship type, they would NOT be tied to any specific ship.  Any tier 10 DD could choose any of the DD LU's as the player saw fit.  To me, this would create more variety, particularly if the various upgrades were designed in such a way that any DD could get good value from using each of them.  Of course, there might seem to be a preferred LU for certain ships, like the Khab probably preferring a gunboat LU, whereas the Shimmy might prefer either a concealment or torpedo LU.  But hybrid DDs might be able to make a strong case for any of the possible DD LUs, depending on the player's personal playstyle.

 

Anyways, that's my take on legendary modules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,026
[SALVO]
Members
19,958 posts
19,909 battles
4 minutes ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

They've said repeatedly the missions don't end, that the date is there for purely technical reasons. I mean "won't end" is pretty specific, to me.

I take it that the technical issue is that they need to have an end date field filled in their database.  The question I'd have is why can't that end date value be something a little further out, like say, 12/31/2022, for example.  Just put a date into the end date field that's real but a few years out.  

Meh, whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,715
[PVE]
Members
14,934 posts
9,477 battles
15 minutes ago, GE_Capital said:

Stop trying to make mountains out of molehills.

The idea is to get a WG Dev to comment that "Yes, the Patch notes are correct", so that the people wanting to make mountains out of molehills can be stopped before they start shoveling. The date is going to change tomorrow in the client and I'm sure this will not be the last thread asking about it. We can just post this thread into those threads and hopefully keep most of the discussion in this one instead of 24 different threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,492
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
5,989 posts

What we often fail to realize is that the face of the truth changes on a daily basis. At one time, the Japanese people were our enemy. That was the truth. Now they are our friends. They are not our enemy now. Did they lie during WW2? No. They were telling the truth. Would their being our enemy be a lie now?? Absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
605
[KRAK]
Members
2,170 posts
15,433 battles
1 hour ago, Kevs02Accord said:

Would be nice if they tweaked some of these modules, in there current state they just aren't very good.

Not true for all of them some are very good others are so pointless they are not worth having.

For example the Montana one is good and the Shima one is complete trash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,733
[SQUAD]
Members
7,989 posts
8,369 battles
2 hours ago, FirestormMk3 said:

To the OP's point, the Missouri was similarly "here to stay."  But yeah, even if they confirm it it's not like they can't pull a "account unification will include FXP and gold after open beta" and "the Missouri is here to stay" and "we'll never have submarines."

Did anyone ever consider that people constantly bothering them about things they've made clear were a certain way is why they go back on what they say? That it annoys them to no end?

 

People appear to forget, WG is staffed by human beings, with human nature. I mean, the constant barrage of "reaffirm this" and "reaffirm that" after it being made clear repeatedly, annoys me, and I don't even work for WG. I can only imagine how bad it must feel to them, at times.

 

I'm not apologizing for anything WG has done, I'm simply making a point. Quit bothering them so much about stuff they've already gone on record repeatedly about, or they might change things, just to spite us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,715
[PVE]
Members
14,934 posts
9,477 battles
16 minutes ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

Did anyone ever consider that people constantly bothering them about things they've made clear were a certain way is why they go back on what they say? That it annoys them to no end?

 

People appear to forget, WG is staffed by human beings, with human nature. I mean, the constant barrage of "reaffirm this" and "reaffirm that" after it being made clear repeatedly, annoys me, and I don't even work for WG. I can only imagine how bad it must feel to them, at times.

 

I'm not apologizing for anything WG has done, I'm simply making a point. Quit bothering them so much about stuff they've already gone on record repeatedly about, or they might change things, just to spite us.

Unfortunately, for some people, unless they see a WG employee say it, they will no longer believe it because of Missouri leaving and Subs coming. :Smile_sad:  MO was supposed to be here to stay and did not. Subs were not coming and now are looking to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
233
[RLGN]
Members
715 posts
5,718 battles
10 hours ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

Quit bothering them so much about stuff they've already gone on record repeatedly about, or they might change things, just to spite us.

This is why companies generally have various levels of oversight and boards of directors make decisions instead of just decrees from the CEO.  Furthermore when a CEO goes off the rails like that they usually end up separated from the company (albeit with a hefty severance).  Despite what the American Supreme Court would say, corporations are in fact not people and successful ones generally have safeguards to prevent one person from being that immature.  The ones lacking such safeguards generally don't survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×