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

1,769 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,190
[WOLF5]
Supertester
5,238 posts
4,365 battles
17 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

My personal favorite is a fleet of Mikasas spawning on an island mountain.  That was hilarious.

 

That's down to abusing the spawn mechanics which were never meant to handle that kind of MM. Ships going airborne is a completely different issue. And yes, I'm guessing that new undersea features are primarily responsible for the reocurrance of that issue. Hopefully WG is fixing those problems as they find them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
96 posts
5,055 battles
21 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

No it doesn't.  We have a pretty good idea what it is (negative depth).  It's essentially harmless, and I hope they leave it just for the LOLs.

Even at that, the poor Warspite in the video was largely able to participate normally in the battle (without moving, having run hard aground).  And he now bears the sole distinction of having had a main battery turret destroyed by a torpedo. Oh, but it gets both better and worse!
Enjoy -  https://youtu.be/I2AtIMztDKg

 

My personal favorite is a fleet of Mikasas spawning on an island mountain.  That was hilarious.

 

Not bounds checking something is a fairly large no-no when it comes to programming.

If they're not bounds checking in something as simple as depth, who knows where else they've decided to neglect it (call it programming intuition here. . .poor programming practice in one place generally bleeds to another).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,667
[WPORT]
Members
12,340 posts
16,594 battles
47 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Arguably the biggest bug affecting the game right now is the torpedo bug and it's apparently so deeply rooted in the code that it's taking them forever to isolate and patch it out.  Ships popping out of the water is nothing new, though it does seem that with more maps with detailed subsurface details, the problem has seen an uptick in frequency.  More distressing is how frequently this is causing beaching. Floaty ship bugs are always memorable when they happen, but it's nowhere near as bad as it used to be in the past.  We used to have battleships doing barrel rolls as they died, or destroyers doing a "I have to go now, my home planet needs me". 

Was in a brawl match the other night.  The opposing DD somehow ensconced themselves into a nook of an island. 
If the DD were a tank, it would've been a very good position to be "Hull Down" and act like a pill-box.
As it turned out, the DD was still a DD.
It was in shallow water and possibly beached.
From my perspective, I saw the DD get destroyed by incoming ordnance. 
The explosion of the DD literally popped it up into the air about three times the height of the DD and tossed it away from the island by a couple of ship-lengths.  
Then it began to sink.

I'm thinking we could make a camouflage and name it "Popcorn DD", eh?  :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
12,956 posts
11,393 battles
5 minutes ago, AJTP89 said:

That's down to abusing the spawn mechanics which were never meant to handle that kind of MM. Ships going airborne is a completely different issue. And yes, I'm guessing that new undersea features are primarily responsible for the reocurrance of that issue. Hopefully WG is fixing those problems as they find them.

I think it's more to do with submarines themselves.  They've introduced diving physics and ships are just submarines that cannot dive according to the engine.  So when they encounter something that would affect submarine depth, ships get catapulted and bounce around ludicrously.

Edited by LittleWhiteMouse
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
123
[FU8AR]
Alpha Tester
522 posts
11,753 battles

The torp bug is annoying.  But I am a little disappointed there are not guides how to exploit the bending torps to your advantage.  And I have noticed that face hugging islands can cause a serious grounding.  What used to be an easy reverse now takes a few minutes to work yourself off the grounding.  And I think that is something that we will have to adjust to when subs are brought into randoms.  I haven't witnessed the ships acting weird like in Jingles video,  But I don't think either bug is a game breaker right now. 

As for older ships still being popular, that is good.  It shows that for the most part ship balance is working.  There is some power creep, and some ships, both in tech tree and premiums, really need an update.  But seeing the first ships released are still fighting in numbers shows that the game isn't broken.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,576
[-BCO-]
Members
3,370 posts
5,925 battles
17 hours ago, iDuckman said:

No it doesn't.  We have a pretty good idea what it is (negative depth).  It's essentially harmless, and I hope they leave it just for the LOLs.

Even at that, the poor Warspite in the video was largely able to participate normally in the battle (without moving, having run hard aground).  And he now bears the sole distinction of having had a main battery turret destroyed by a torpedo. Oh, but it gets both better and worse!
Enjoy -  https://youtu.be/I2AtIMztDKg

 

My personal favorite is a fleet of Mikasas spawning on an island mountain.  That was hilarious.

 

And here's da mine :)

Jumpy3.thumb.png.0cc9cc05d9c74daa1670af86e8f94390.png

Jumpy4.thumb.png.2ff368bdada32f08dabe7f4d6c592ab5.png

Jumpy5.thumb.png.a68e7c7b478b24b4fd0484c0ce132762.png

Jumpy6.thumb.png.1bf8aade4da85b90327fda7e52e04f8d.png

Jumpy8.thumb.png.ae51a8ec8ebfe4ba753805784c634dc4.png

I call it the Andrew maneuver because it is from my Eu account and...while it can't be seen from this angle, got me out of trouble (i.e broadsideing to the Graf :)

20210807_202642_PBSC106-Leander_45_Zigzag.wowsreplay

Ps. Sorry for the intrusion, prob we should start a separate thread, buuut....I did that a LOT lately...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
672
[VVV]
Members
3,000 posts
5,065 battles
19 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

I think it's more to do with submarines themselves.  They've introduced diving physics and ships are just submarines that cannot dive according to the engine.  So when they encounter something that would affect submarine depth, ships get catapulted and bounce around ludicrously.

Nice to know that subs are already screwing up random battles before even being added to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FOXDN]
Beta Testers
994 posts
5,029 battles

Oh boy, another debacle to add to the list. Their latest summer sale crate scam..... They cant even make it a month without screwing something else up. I really dont know what to say anymore, this has gone far past any level of acceptable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,667
[WPORT]
Members
12,340 posts
16,594 battles
8 hours ago, Angel_With_A_Shotgun said:

Oh boy, another debacle to add to the list. Their latest summer sale crate scam..... They cant even make it a month without screwing something else up. I really dont know what to say anymore, this has gone far past any level of acceptable. 

I think you're right, on that score.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
123
[FU8AR]
Alpha Tester
522 posts
11,753 battles

The summer crate debacle is just another example of WG HQ not giving a [edited] about the NA community.  That could have been easily avoided by having someone in the NA shop proof the type prior to publishing to make sure it is clear, and not open to misinterpretation by  sea lawyers like that certain ex-CC who's video went viral.  While he did spend a lot of time focusing on the line that implied each container contains a permanent camo, he only paid lip service to the top of that article that stated that the loot box had a perm. camo OR signal flags.  But not having someone review the article before publishing to make sure things like that didn't happen seems to be a common occurrence at WG NA.  Which is a shame because little errors like that do create a lot of drama that is easily avoidable.  Instead of bribing players with a 3,000$/month payout to stream their game, how about just hire a person to play red team and catch future miscommunications before they happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
12,956 posts
11,393 battles
2 hours ago, Irishwind said:

The summer crate debacle is just another example of WG HQ not giving a [edited] about the NA community.  That could have been easily avoided by having someone in the NA shop proof the type prior to publishing to make sure it is clear, and not open to misinterpretation by  sea lawyers like that certain ex-CC who's video went viral.  While he did spend a lot of time focusing on the line that implied each container contains a permanent camo, he only paid lip service to the top of that article that stated that the loot box had a perm. camo OR signal flags.  But not having someone review the article before publishing to make sure things like that didn't happen seems to be a common occurrence at WG NA.  Which is a shame because little errors like that do create a lot of drama that is easily avoidable.  Instead of bribing players with a 3,000$/month payout to stream their game, how about just hire a person to play red team and catch future miscommunications before they happen.

Devil's advocate: This wasn't neglect of the NA-community, but the English-speaking community globally.  According to iEarlGrey, the use of the word "sale" also is in violation of some regional definitions of the word in at least parts of the EU. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37
[EGO]
Members
95 posts
18,966 battles

At this point, I feel like they just need to sack their marketing team, hire a new one, and implement a policy where any offers or sales need to be expressly vetted by each region's respective legal team before it can be released to ANY of them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
12,956 posts
11,393 battles
1 hour ago, Wrayeth said:

At this point, I feel like they just need to sack their marketing team, hire a new one, and implement a policy where any offers or sales need to be expressly vetted by each region's respective legal team before it can be released to ANY of them.

I think it's more of a case they need to change internal practices.  Actually hire people specifically to deliver customer facing material instead of adding it as "just one more task" onto an overworked pile.  The mistakes we're seeing speak more of having too many plates to spin with not enough internal support rather than someone just being lazy or bad at their job. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,379
[SALVO]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,514 posts
7,300 battles

I wonder what happened to the bloke who promised West Virginia 44 "soon".

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
96 posts
5,055 battles
1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

I think it's more of a case they need to change internal practices.  Actually hire people specifically to deliver customer facing material instead of adding it as "just one more task" onto an overworked pile.  The mistakes we're seeing speak more of having too many plates to spin with not enough internal support rather than someone just being lazy or bad at their job. 

I stated this in another thread. . .

A lot of their communication really comes across very academic and obtuse; as in written with ESL. There's a lot of nuance and context in English, and of the few languages I know, nuance and context rarely exist. 

So I definitely agree, more support is needed. Just my opinion, though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
123
[FU8AR]
Alpha Tester
522 posts
11,753 battles

WG has different webpages representing EU, NA, RU, ect.  So the start to tailoring offers to a region is there.  Make a disclaimer that any offers made on the NA webpage will be for NA customers only, and same for EU or others websites.  There are many other international companies doing business on the internet, so this isn't exactly a trailblazing legal issue.  So again, lack of respect and being weirdly stingy over making sure each community's webpage isn't a source of 'miscommunication' is WG HQ's baby.  I lost count on the YouTube videos of someone just reviewing the Dev Blog for upcoming content and commenting that Google Translate must have had trouble with the phrasing since it wasn't clear what the blog was trying to say.  Having at least one person who's job is to review any publication for clarity and prevent sea lawyers from making drama would go a long way to solve a lot of angst.  When I was in the military I cannot think of anything that was released from a command that did not have at least two sets of eyes review before it leaving the command to make sure there were not errors.  A little embarrassment in the command for a typo was a lot easier to deal with than having a CO call you in wanting to know why something went out under his name all jacked up.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
123
[FU8AR]
Alpha Tester
522 posts
11,753 battles

I stand corrected.  This is WG HQ's fault.  I watched Mingles with Jingles this morning.  If the same issue popped up across 15 translations on the EU website, it wasn't google translate making the error.  So it looks like the original was written poorly (or worse on purpose), and was translated with the errors, and the command climate is such that no one is allowed clarification when something doesn't make sense. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,385
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
10,647 posts
27,432 battles
4 minutes ago, Irishwind said:

I stand corrected.  This is WG HQ's fault.  I watched Mingles with Jingles this morning.  If the same issue popped up across 15 translations on the EU website, it wasn't google translate making the error.  So it looks like the original was written poorly (or worse on purpose), and was translated with the errors, and the command climate is such that no one is allowed clarification when something doesn't make sense. 

This kind of thing happens so often with Wargaming that I believe it is a sales tactic of theirs. I get a mistake here or there but there is a trend with "communication errors" that help spur sales.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
96 posts
5,055 battles
59 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

This kind of thing happens so often with Wargaming that I believe it is a sales tactic of theirs. I get a mistake here or there but there is a trend with "communication errors" that help spur sales.... 

Sometimes I think that if I had the money, I'd just troll back with lawsuit after lawsuit going after them for poor communication. 

Of course, I also think if I had the money, I'd be developing a similar game as WOWS but actually listening to CC/community feedback. And, ya know, addressing game-altering bugs instead of just releasing junk to up the bottom line.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
831
[XG]
Members
472 posts
6 hours ago, Irishwind said:

I stand corrected.  This is WG HQ's fault.  I watched Mingles with Jingles this morning.  If the same issue popped up across 15 translations on the EU website, it wasn't google translate making the error.  So it looks like the original was written poorly (or worse on purpose), and was translated with the errors, and the command climate is such that no one is allowed clarification when something doesn't make sense. 

The only way to be 100% sure of getting your money's worth from WG is by not spending any.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,667
[WPORT]
Members
12,340 posts
16,594 battles
6 hours ago, Window_Licking_Potato said:

Sometimes I think that if I had the money, I'd just troll back with lawsuit after lawsuit going after them for poor communication. 

Of course, I also think if I had the money, I'd be developing a similar game as WOWS but actually listening to CC/community feedback. And, ya know, addressing game-altering bugs instead of just releasing junk to up the bottom line.

With unlimited money, one could purchase WG outright, and take-over.
I figure they wouldn't mind very much.

Of course, with unlimited money, one could build fleets of ships to use on open oceans for real "war games" using various paint-ball or laser-tag "munitions".  :cap_hmm:
Even if they were small-scale replicas with room for a handful of people to crew them, I imagine it would be interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[B33RS]
Members
40 posts
17,581 battles
On 7/7/2021 at 8:13 AM, Sub_Octavian said:

@Chobittsu @LittleWhiteMouse, I have good news for you and for everyone else.

I've just received an answer from our historical and research team and also talked to the development right away.

We are happy to confirm we can implement one of the ships you brought up - HMCS Huron - to honor you and own our mistakes that lead to the incident.

While we will be taking all care of design and production process ourselves, we also would be happy to implement a Permanent camo for this ship based on your design/ideas, if, of course you'd be interested.

Moreover, even though our content is in works for ~2 years ahead, after some squeezing and plans changing we're ready to commit to releasing this ship in 2022.

We humbly hope that you will appreciate this commitment and it will show you that despite of the mess we created around Yukon, we want you to feel valued and repair our relations.

Please let us know what you think, and if you're fine with us going there, we will get things started in the near future. 

 

A step in the right direction for sure.  I hope you can repair the relationship, and make good on your goals.

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
558
[GOCRY]
Members
1,142 posts

While sorry to see you go, I fully support your choice and your reasons.  I have also decided to not support this company any more, based on how I’ve seen them treat you and frankly, all of us. :Smile_honoring:

  • Cool 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,043
[TOG]
Members
4,627 posts
29,518 battles

Dear LWM,

 

My Pateron contribution will remain on going for as long as you need it. I'm also wondering how the management is going to respond? Another "communication issue?"

 

Edited by Bill_Halsey
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×