Jump to content
Hapa_Fodder

Update 0.9.6: German Carriers

95 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

4,428
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
2,882 posts
13,317 battles

German carriers in Early Access, Clan and Ranked Battles, technical improvements, and much more!


Read it on the portal
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53
[WHEE]
Members
70 posts
1,980 battles

I’m a little confused on the Hull (C) removal from the three US DDs. Does this mean there’s no longer an option for a Hull with more AA guns with one less main gun?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,999
[WOLF5]
Supertester
3,717 posts
3,936 battles

So, everyone excited for the Famous and Historical German Aircraft Carriers?

 

It is good to see that @LittleWhiteMouse finally got WG to fix the turning radii. I knew they were bugged, but holy cow didn't realize some of them were off by that much.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,400
[RKLES]
Members
12,478 posts
14,198 battles

Love the fact thanks to the turning circle discrepancy that at least some of the ships I like to use are in essence getting a buff to their turning radius. :cap_like:

Would like to thank @LittleWhiteMouse For discovering these issues and helping WG in making this fix to these ships. :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
246
[MIBR]
[MIBR]
Members
924 posts
5 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

So, everyone excited for the Famous and Historical German Aircraft Carriers?

 

It is good to see that @LittleWhiteMouse finally got WG to fix the turning radii. I knew they were bugged, but holy cow didn't realize some of them were off by that much.

I am!!

 

Bring more Carriers!!!

 

:cap_viking:

  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,803 posts
15,036 battles

Please correct me if I'm wrong but are some ship's turning radius actually increasing (worse) after the update. For example, take a look at Conqueror and Thunderer. Currently 938.19  changing to 940. Maybe I'm reading it wrong

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37,055
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,940 posts
9,799 battles
5 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

It is good to see that @LittleWhiteMouse finally got WG to fix the turning radii. I knew they were bugged, but holy cow didn't realize some of them were off by that much. 

I'm curious to see if they correct other agility problems -- for example, Missouri and Iowa both bled too much speed in a turn.  So did Audacious (to an almost comical level in the British carrier's case).  I'll probably put up a request to crowd-source testing a bunch of ships to find out what changed and how.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37,055
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,940 posts
9,799 battles
1 minute ago, STINKWEED_ said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong but are some ship's turning radius actually increasing (worse) after the update. For example, take a look at Conqueror and Thunderer. Currently 938.19  changing to 940. Maybe I'm reading it wrong

You won't notice the difference.  In most of these cases, they're simply changing the in-port radius value to list what the ship actually does without tweaking performance at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,803 posts
15,036 battles
1 minute ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

You won't notice the difference.  In most of these cases, they're simply changing the in-port radius value to list what the ship actually does without tweaking performance at all.

OK, thanks!  I was hoping for some real buffs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37,055
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,940 posts
9,799 battles
1 minute ago, STINKWEED_ said:

OK, thanks!  I was hoping for some real buffs

There are a few.  Warspite is getting buffed, for instance.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[-_W_-]
Members
46 posts
8,347 battles
Quote

The game can now be launched only with the Wargaming.net Game Center running.

RIP direct shortcuts to the .exe to bypass the Game Center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,999
[WOLF5]
Supertester
3,717 posts
3,936 battles
6 minutes ago, STINKWEED_ said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong but are some ship's turning radius actually increasing (worse) after the update. For example, take a look at Conqueror and Thunderer. Currently 938.19  changing to 940. Maybe I'm reading it wrong

That is correct. Though I doubt a 1.8m change is going to be remotely noticeable over a 200m+ ship. There are more significant changes though. Missouri went up by 40m for example. However, I don't think even the bigger changes are going to change much of anything. This was more a standardization than a rebalancing.

8 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

I'm curious to see if they correct other agility problems -- for example, Missouri and Iowa both bled too much speed in a turn.  So did Audacious (to an almost comical level in the British carrier's case).  I'll probably put up a request to crowd-source testing a bunch of ships to find out what changed and how.

Ah yes, I remember reading about those. I think GA loses a ton as well. That's not in any port parameters though, so no way to tell without testing. It would make sense if the two are linked though, so they may have gotten fixed by association. Or made worse I suppose...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37,055
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,940 posts
9,799 battles

Game center is a horrible resource hog.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[ARC]
Members
784 posts
9,856 battles
8 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

There are a few.  Warspite is getting buffed, for instance.

I noticed a buff to Nueve de Julio's turning circle (from 814 m to 690 m), but none to Boise. That implied Boise was not bugged? Or the change apply to both ships? A 100m turning radii difference should have been noted, unless you did your review checking only one ship while thinking they both perform identical. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
147
[PDCB]
Members
408 posts
7,908 battles

Nueve de Julio had the 2nd biggest difference between all the ships that were fixed, losing to Midway. And she was supposed to be exactly equal to the Boise, but she was turning like a battleship instead. 123m of difference between the two.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37,055
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,940 posts
9,799 battles
Just now, hanesco said:

I noticed a buff to Nueve de Julio's turning circle (from 814 m to 690 m), but none to Boise. That implied Boise was not bugged? Or the change apply to both ships? A 100m turning radii difference should have been noted, unless you did your review checking only one ship while thinking they both perform identical. 

Boise is bugged in the exact same way.  There are other ships that missed being added to the list.  I'll have a full list of ships that I'll wanted tested when this goes live.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,803 posts
15,036 battles
6 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Game center is a horrible resource hog.

Yup but much less than Google Chrome

image.png.cecee8ff0dfff88072c44b87a78c1654.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37,055
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
11,940 posts
9,799 battles
1 minute ago, STINKWEED_ said:

Yup but much less than Google Chrome
 

It's bad on bandwidth in particular -- it causes spikes as it checks constantly for updates / content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,993
[WOLFG]
Members
8,874 posts
7,368 battles

Great, I have to spend more time balancing out the sound "improvements"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
617
[LLMF]
Alpha Tester
2,401 posts

I don't even like the new mission layouts and now you are expanding the bad mission layout screens to ship modules... It's like a management decision to make something look nice but the nice sucks out all the functionality and makes the UI garbage to use... yeah, that's the new mission interface.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,803 posts
15,036 battles
9 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

It's bad on bandwidth in particular -- it causes spikes as it checks constantly for updates / content.

It's doing checks during game play? Wow, they need to change that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
246
[MIBR]
[MIBR]
Members
924 posts
13 minutes ago, STINKWEED_ said:

Yup but much less than Google Chrome

image.png.cecee8ff0dfff88072c44b87a78c1654.png

Use it from Steam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
147
[PDCB]
Members
408 posts
7,908 battles
16 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Boise is bugged in the exact same way.  There are other ships that missed being added to the list.  I'll have a full list of ships that I'll wanted tested when this goes live.

Your nickname on the website is bugged as well

April.thumb.JPG.e84b89e3cdc692634273b7916a40bf53.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
246
[MIBR]
[MIBR]
Members
924 posts
2 minutes ago, MaxVladimus said:

Your nickname on the website is bugged as well

April.thumb.JPG.e84b89e3cdc692634273b7916a40bf53.JPG

Isnt it her real name?

 

I think it is her name on patreon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×