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

Colorado turret change.

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

447
[SALTY]
Beta Testers
722 posts
8,243 battles

It seems WG has, for the third time, changed Colorado's (and by extension WV41's) turrets.

They are now 16in 45 Mk5. The problem is there are no models or textures for these turrets in the unpack tool, so skinning the turret is impossible.

If anyone can find out the file names for the new turrets, I'd be grateful.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
552
[VRR]
[VRR]
Members
1,452 posts

Wonder what else was changed . On other ships.

Hmmmmmm.....:cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,454
[SR-_-]
Members
4,952 posts
46,489 battles

The Freddy has googly eyes mounted on the directors in remembrance of the days when it "could not hit the inside of a barn with the doors closed." Just kidding of course. Or am I? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
249
[WHARF]
Members
486 posts
19,827 battles
1 hour ago, Versili said:

Wonder what else was changed . On other ships.

Hmmmmmm.....:cap_hmm:

LOTS....A LOT OF SHIPS ARE NOT ACCURATE NOW

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
793
[NUWES]
Members
3,492 posts
13,192 battles
3 hours ago, Kartaugh said:

It seems WG has, for the third time, changed Colorado's (and by extension WV41's) turrets.

They are now 16in 45 Mk5. The problem is there are no models or textures for these turrets in the unpack tool, so skinning the turret is impossible.

If anyone can find out the file names for the new turrets, I'd be grateful.

What were they before?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
447
[SALTY]
Beta Testers
722 posts
8,243 battles
42 minutes ago, Tzarevitch said:

What were they before?

16 inc 45 Mk1.

Until today they used the filename:

AGM156_16in45_Mk1_a

Now, they're back to looking bare metal and there are no files for a 16in 45 Mk5 anywhere in the unpack tool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
112 posts
3,528 battles
3 hours ago, dadeoo said:

LOTS....A LOT OF SHIPS ARE NOT ACCURATE NOW

 

 

You got that right, the Konig and especially the Bayern lost their stock hulls, the Konig doesn't look all that different unless you look carefully but the Bayern is just an absolute eyesore now, it now has only one funnel (a la Iron Duke), 6 casemate guns are gone (3 on each side), ugly rangefinders added, a whole new bridge design and the tripod mast is gone and Bayern now has a plane (yay?:Smile_unsure:),  it doesn't even look like the Bayern anymore, i took one look at it, got sick in my mouth and promptly sold it, thank god i still have the Nassau and the Kaiser and one of them is now going to get a nice shiny rank 10 commander, thanks WG.

Edited by Acme1970
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
447
[SALTY]
Beta Testers
722 posts
8,243 battles

Bump. Tagging Hapa to see if any official response can be had.

@Hapa_Fodder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,476
[D-H-O]
-Members-
4,756 posts
16,273 battles

Lemme do some digging!  I am not aware of any of these changes. :Smile_izmena:

Mahalo,

-Hapa

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
552
[VRR]
[VRR]
Members
1,452 posts

Whaaa they even shut out their own . Lol

 

WeGee you so silly ...:cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,664
[USRUS]
[USRUS]
Members
1,778 posts
22,334 battles

It's very clear that they are stealth nerfing a lot of ships to make them worse.

Missouri is a glaring example. They also moved hp around on the hulls without telling us how much they moved to various parts of the ships.

They full on just doing whatever they want, players be damned. 

Nerf the old silently, sell the new hotness.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
112 posts
3,528 battles
11 minutes ago, Cit_the_bed said:

It's very clear that they are stealth nerfing a lot of ships to make them worse.

Missouri is a glaring example. They also moved hp around on the hulls without telling us how much they moved to various parts of the ships.

They full on just doing whatever they want, players be damned. 

Nerf the old silently, sell the new hotness.

 

WG is more than welcome to nerf any of my ships, if i like the ship i'll still play it, if i don't like the new ships i won't play them no matter how good they are, i generally only get upset when they try to buff my things, like making them faster for example, like WG did with the Super Pershing in WoT a few months ago, i was the only person complaining about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,321
[-TRM-]
[-TRM-]
Members
3,916 posts

At some point the Nerfing must end. Or you will destroy the associated game ecomony an dven the under thehlld nerfs/.

I have experienced careful changes and punitive nerfing in game testing amog other behaviors from Devs and Builders.

Sometimes the players developed a workaround that takes a patch or two to end. I remember they took out rockets and left the ineffectie machine guns in. What the pilot then did was fly to a hilltop, land near it off a bridge. A jeep with automatic grenatde launcher showed uo, got onto the hotors and then we all flew that combo wiping out entire public servers. Airdefnses ignored the unnatural collection in the sky. That was pretty much the end of that game. The only way to elimiante it is to have a litle bird wtih 5 packs of C4 on the bottom fly to the thing bail out and hit the detonate while you fall to your death. kill about 20 people. But you would hve wiped them all out.

Another player behavior devloped and specivially weaponized was to walk past any chopper and spray i with gunfire from outside  the windshield glass and drive the grenade jeeps into waterholes that they cannot be extracted from.

Edited by xHeavy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[RSDWG]
Members
552 posts
12,476 battles

I noticed the skin on the Mk5 is the same as the original Mk1. I would say all they did was change the AGM156 number and put MK5 on the end. But what the new AGM number is the mystery!!!

I started with the new AGM156_16in45_Mk5_a, and got nothing. I've been going through AGM numbers, at least 10 different, and got nothing.

It could also have the format as AGM156_406mm_45_Mk5_a!!!

Would be great if some one from WG would get this fixed!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
447
[SALTY]
Beta Testers
722 posts
8,243 battles
9 hours ago, rustydawg said:

I noticed the skin on the Mk5 is the same as the original Mk1. I would say all they did was change the AGM156 number and put MK5 on the end. But what the new AGM number is the mystery!!!

I started with the new AGM156_16in45_Mk5_a, and got nothing. I've been going through AGM numbers, at least 10 different, and got nothing.

It could also have the format as AGM156_406mm_45_Mk5_a!!!

Would be great if some one from WG would get this fixed!!!

I tried a BUNCH of different filenames.

But yeah, without knowing the new AGM number, it's essentially impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[RSDWG]
Members
552 posts
12,476 battles

Y

6 hours ago, Kartaugh said:

I tried a BUNCH of different filenames.

But yeah, without knowing the new AGM number, it's essentially impossible.

You got that right!

Hope they put the correct file in the the next mini patch.

Edited by rustydawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[RSDWG]
Members
552 posts
12,476 battles

Did you notice the WV and Colorado are the only 2 BB that have the Mk1 now Mk5, 16 in 45 guns. 

But they still have the Mk1 skin in the files!

No BB has that skin or gun!!!

Like I said above, I hope they get it fixed.

PS...I wonder if Hapa Fodder found out anything about this conundrum?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×