Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
tm63au

What's Wrong With These Pictures

32 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,073
[UNHLY]
Members
3,257 posts
25,349 battles

Just finished a game in my HMAS Perth and thought something didn't look right.

WG please explain to me what's wrong with the pictures.

shot-20_05_14_14_14.29-0514.thumb.jpg.46fd5a2582b29ff9507dbc5632392be3.jpg

This screen from May.

shot-20_08.02_22_34.19-0991.thumb.jpg.e05531f379a95ebc9f231368f5b9b632.jpg

This one from tonight.

In fact as I write this post I quickly looked at HMS leander, USS Dallas and VMF Budyonny all have the same issue !!!!.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,683
[WPORT]
Members
9,921 posts
14,411 battles

The Submarine testing event is over.

We're still awaiting Submarines to arrive to stay.

That WOWs would temporarily disable (but not remove) the depth charges to reduce the server workload (or whatever the reason may be) is okay with me.
One might even interpret it as a confirmation that Submarines are coming.  It is a matter of when.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,073
[UNHLY]
Members
3,257 posts
25,349 battles
6 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

The Submarine testing event is over.

We're still awaiting Submarines to arrive to stay.

That WOWs would temporarily disable (but not remove) the depth charges to reduce the server workload (or whatever the reason may be) is okay with me.
One might even interpret it as a confirmation that Submarines are coming.  It is a matter of when.

The racks were always there even before Subs were introduced so why take them off the ships now all of a sudden

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,093
[SMLSK]
Beta Testers
1,409 posts
2,241 battles
12 minutes ago, tm63au said:

The racks were always there even before Subs were introduced so why take them off the ships now all of a sudden

Subs too balanced to implement in game confirmed?

 

Also /s in case it wasn't caught.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35,783
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
25,804 posts
21,723 battles
1 hour ago, tm63au said:

The racks were always there even before Subs were introduced so why take them off the ships now all of a sudden

In preparation for animating them? Or did you think that the change from static decorative 3D object to animated gameplay element was the snap of a finger?

Honestly, of all the things to be upset about. Sometimes it seems like some people are just looking for something to complain about.

Edited by Lert
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,758
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Banned
16,985 posts

I'd only be interested if they're being removed because the subs are going away in an admission of their unworkability in the existing game modes.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
390
[PHD]
Members
1,931 posts
7,441 battles

Maybe they are removing the depth charges because they will not be needed. WG may have decided to combine problems and create Flying  Subs!!! :cap_rambo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,771
[YORHA]
Members
5,370 posts
10,521 battles
1 hour ago, Lert said:

In preparation for animating them? Or did you think that the change from static decorative 3D object to animated gameplay element was the snap of a finger?

Honestly, of all the things to be upset about. Sometimes it seems like some people are just looking for something to complain about.

You know, you saying that really enrages me!

  • Funny 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,107
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,842 battles
2 hours ago, Lert said:

Or did you think that the change from static decorative 3D object to animated gameplay element was the snap of a finger?

Yes. Yes I did. And I've been snapping my fingers for months trying to get things changed around here!

2 hours ago, Lert said:

Sometimes it seems like some people are just looking for something to complain about.

 After some of the things you've seen players complain about, are "Sometimes" and "some" words that were really necessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35,783
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
25,804 posts
21,723 battles
1 minute ago, Umikami said:

 After some of the things you've seen players complain about, are "Sometimes" and "some" words that were really necessary?

Well, my therapist told me to try to be more positive.

  • Funny 3
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,107
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,842 battles
3 minutes ago, Lert said:

Well, my therapist told me to try to be more positive.

Good luck with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35,783
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
25,804 posts
21,723 battles
Just now, Umikami said:

Good luck with that.

He also warned me away from this forum.

  • Funny 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,433 posts
1,852 battles

Well, considering the top picture is of the bow & the bottom picture is of the stern, what am I supposed to be explaining here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,107
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,842 battles
9 minutes ago, Lert said:

He also warned me away from this forum.

Pay his bill, he earned it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,423
[META_]
Members
2,282 posts
7,823 battles

the color is a little off, specifically red heavy, and it appears the resolution is low as well. 

the effects of this are not insignificant. working in a red heavy environment can lead to being in a state of rage frequently. the low resolution can lead to eyestrain, and blurry vision resulting can lead to even MORE frustration!

please don't take this as another attempt to be funny, this time i'm completely serious.

sincerely, spud

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,053
[HINON]
Members
9,003 posts
13,164 battles
1 hour ago, Umikami said:

And I've been snapping my fingers for months trying to get things changed around here!

i hear they make a gauntlet for that, but it needs these strange stones in order for it to work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,073
[UNHLY]
Members
3,257 posts
25,349 battles
9 hours ago, Lert said:

In preparation for animating them? Or did you think that the change from static decorative 3D object to animated gameplay element was the snap of a finger?

Honestly, of all the things to be upset about. Sometimes it seems like some people are just looking for something to complain about.

Well considering the late great gamer @dseehafer was a ardent advocate of making the model graphics of ships historically accurate and lobbying WG many times and posting many posts and articles pointing out many of WG omissions in the look of many ships I don't see what the problem is.

First I was not aware WG were going to animate them.

Second why? The system looked and worked fine the way it was.

Third I have every right to ask the question however trivial you or anyone else thinks it is but I guess the next time a ship from your home country is released by WG and the model is not correct you wont mind ?.

Fourth on this very subject your quite happy to see others championing and or support something that appeals to you but of course when these same people have point of you about anything else or when they question WG on something then its a different matter altogether, out comes the condescending attitude and or comments.

Regards        

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
664
[-AFK-]
Members
1,282 posts
15,962 battles
10 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I'd only be interested if they're being removed because the subs are going away in an admission of their unworkability in the existing game modes.

nope, just a good old player culling for those whom want to show us they no longer want to play the game. :D
I love reading those crazy Rants "Do what I say or I will quit the game" bwahaha like your opinion or anyones for that matter even means anything. 
Especially because WG Russia, Don't read these forums :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35,783
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
25,804 posts
21,723 battles
49 minutes ago, tm63au said:

Well considering the late great gamer @dseehafer was a ardent advocate of making the model graphics of ships historically accurate and lobbying WG many times and posting many posts and articles pointing out many of WG omissions in the look of many ships I don't see what the problem is.

First I was not aware WG were going to animate them.

Second why? The system looked and worked fine the way it was.

Third I have every right to ask the question however trivial you or anyone else thinks it is but I guess the next time a ship from your home country is released by WG and the model is not correct you wont mind ?.

Fourth on this very subject your quite happy to see others championing and or support something that appeals to you but of course when these same people have point of you about anything else or when they question WG on something then its a different matter altogether, out comes the condescending attitude and or comments.

Regards        

1) I am not dseehafer.

2) Of course they're going to animate them. Logic would dictate that they do. This is all educated guesswork on my part, but they've always animated 'small objects' to a limited extent - it's even a setting you can turn on and off in the settings menu - so why would this be any different? Now why they'd remove them from the published model I couldn't tell, I'm nowhere near deep enough in WG's development cycle to even venture a guess on that.

3) You do have every right to ask the question, but you didn't just 'ask the question', did you. The passive aggressive tone of "What's wrong with these pictures?" combined with just listing the pictures and letting everyone look for themselves, combined with "WG please explain what is wrong with these pictures" comes across very pointed and whiny. If you were only interested in "just asking a question" you would've just asked a question. "Hey where did the depth charge launchers go?" But no, you didn't. You went the passive aggressive route, and jump on the defensive when someone responds in kind.

4) Again, I am not dseehafer. I don't mind minor inaccuracies in models. A missing winch here, a wrongly placed pipe there, a door missing here, the wrong kind of secondary mount there. I honestly couldn't care less. So, no, I would honestly not protest if WG introduced a Dutch ship with minor inaccuracies. These are pixel representations of amalgamations of ships, I'm willing to bet that most ships in this game have things wrong with them.

Now just the fact that I don't care about inaccuracies doesn't mean I have anything against you caring. On the contrary, find all the inaccuracies you want and post about them. I'll gladly throw in my support for honest "what happened here?" questions. But if all you truly wanted was to just ask a question, you would've just asked a question, and please don't jump on the defensive when replies to your post match the tone of yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,073
[UNHLY]
Members
3,257 posts
25,349 battles

 

28 minutes ago, Lert said:

1) I am not dseehafer.

2) Of course they're going to animate them. Logic would dictate that they do. This is all educated guesswork on my part, but they've always animated 'small objects' to a limited extent - it's even a setting you can turn on and off in the settings menu - so why would this be any different? Now why they'd remove them from the published model I couldn't tell, I'm nowhere near deep enough in WG's development cycle to even venture a guess on that.

3) You do have every right to ask the question, but you didn't just 'ask the question', did you. The passive aggressive tone of "What's wrong with these pictures?" combined with just listing the pictures and letting everyone look for themselves, combined with "WG please explain what is wrong with these pictures" comes across very pointed and whiny. If you were only interested in "just asking a question" you would've just asked a question. "Hey where did the depth charge launchers go?" But no, you didn't. You went the passive aggressive route, and jump on the defensive when someone responds in kind.

4) Again, I am not dseehafer. I don't mind minor inaccuracies in models. A missing winch here, a wrongly placed pipe there, a door missing here, the wrong kind of secondary mount there. I honestly couldn't care less. So, no, I would honestly not protest if WG introduced a Dutch ship with minor inaccuracies. These are pixel representations of amalgamations of ships, I'm willing to bet that most ships in this game have things wrong with them.

Now just the fact that I don't care about inaccuracies doesn't mean I have anything against you caring. On the contrary, find all the inaccuracies you want and post about them. I'll gladly throw in my support for honest "what happened here?" questions. But if all you truly wanted was to just ask a question, you would've just asked a question, and please don't jump on the defensive when replies to your post match the tone of yours.

 Fair comments I will certainly concede there is a in your face element to the post ( to WG ) but its seems these days its the only way in my view that they actually take notice, I have tried the regular by the the book standard post as have many others, shock tactics seems the best approach in some cases.

I find this game slipping from what it once was a fun great game to something that's being harder to enjoy and one the last bastions was the model graphics,so I'm venting more than I'm like to these days.

But I will go back to more congenial approach with posting see if that will make a difference.

cheers      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35,783
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
25,804 posts
21,723 battles
6 minutes ago, tm63au said:

but its seems these days its the only way in my view that they actually take notice

What evidence do you have to suggest that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,073
[UNHLY]
Members
3,257 posts
25,349 battles
19 minutes ago, Lert said:

What evidence do you have to suggest that?

Apart from the myriad of CC's views when it comes to new ships, Alabama gate, Graf Zeppelin first release, NTC, GC upgrade to tier 6, CV rework, of course these are all subjective and open to peoples other views on how they went down.

West Virginia is another example where people were up in arms but actually WG still released it anyway.

If your asking me to actually show you a or some specific posts by members just to show well its just easy google or use search, I'm pretty certain you have seen all the posts and threads yourself, and there were some pretty spicy ones that make mine pale in comparison.

 Hope that has answered your question.

regards 

      

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35,783
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
25,804 posts
21,723 battles
21 minutes ago, tm63au said:

Apart from the myriad of CC's views when it comes to new ships, Alabama gate, Graf Zeppelin first release, NTC, GC upgrade to tier 6, CV rework, of course these are all subjective and open to peoples other views on how they went down.   

None of those were "WG caved because we were rude aholes to them".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,073
[UNHLY]
Members
3,257 posts
25,349 battles
4 minutes ago, Lert said:

None of those were "WG caved because we were rude aholes to them".

So now your calling me a 'Ahole" correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×