The only premiums we get that are not “earned” are the low level rewards in construction events - otherwise there’s never been such a thing as a premium that “dont (sic) cost money and can be earned”
1 Like
Can you update us on the internal report so we know what the nature and status of it are?
1 Like
first, thank you for coming to explain.
while i disagree the necessary sources were not provided, the issue here is that there is a lack of communication from you to us on reports.
if you are merging with a duplicate report when none can be found by us players because its internal, just say you are aware of the issue internally while acknowledging the report. then we dont have to all wonder what is going on.
if you think there is not a good enough source, state that and ask for more so we know you need additional information.
on this particular issue it shouldnt be difficult to find more information since there are many books that should provide and extreme weight of secondary source evidence if nothing else. i doubt there is anything listing this class as having 14/45 primary guns but the members of the naval community can work on finding whatever is needed to fill out any missing details.
i understand your job is probably endlessly frustrating dealing with all of us people who think there is a problem that doesnt exist, or report things already known, or are just jerks. but the lack of clear communication only ever makes things worse and causes more frustration, and eventually toxicity, in the community.
cheers for coming to explain here however, it is appreciated.
1 Like
I mean internal report does mean it was probably planned. Not sure why add unfinished vehicle so soon. Its like adding M4A1 76 with not 76mm gun so i doubt it was something else than copy paste guns from arizona and check later situation. What worries me the most is it getting proper guns makes it easily 7.3 vehicle compared to arizona and it should be 7.3 then but we don’t have that br in naval yet. We already have 7.3 material boats in game so not that big of an issue but its like adding 12.0 or event tanks right now. Worried devs might try to nerf the guns artificially to balance it more at 7.0 but honestly with AA/Secondary/ Layout/ Survivability buffs its still way better than Arizona.
Jeez, calm down, no need to be so hostile
- Don’t paint any conspiracies. It wasn’t necessarily “planned”. Internal report means that they are aware of the problem and plan to fix it - that’s it. There’s no conspiracy, no evil Gaijin chasing you. Also: It’s better to catch issues before the release, than after the release
- We do want to see unfinished vehicles. It’s always fun to have some upcoming vehicles in the files and to be able to check them out. You want Gaijin to become even more closed down? Why would you do it to us?
- No, the L50 guns do not make it 7.3, what are you talking about?
1 Like
Im not hostile
by that i meant giving it proper guns was planned just not done cause pasted version was added 1st not meant that “evil” gaijin planned to give it unhistorical stuff.
and yes I think L50 guns, bit lower water line. bit better ammo layout, better secondaries better AA, way more crew, does make it 7.3 if arizona is 7.0 its only lacking in bridge protection really. Now should Arizona be 6.7 or 7.0 as it was raised recently i cant speak on this but gaijin moved it up but i don’t think these should be same br even with current compression.
And yeah my fears didn’t come true as they did just fix it now so before event started.
even with changelog the guns so far probably not done yet. they did gave it mk.16 AP with proper weight and pen but with L45 muzzle velocity i think (its 792m/s not sure why not 823)and Mk.19 HC over Mk.9 HE but almost same stats so far apart from Mk.19 HC having 10m/s bigger MV so matches MK.19 HC velocity on L45 (734m/s) still i think for some reason.
Our guidelines on appropriate source material are clear and straightforward. None of this was included in your report.
I chose not to do this simply because it would have ended up with the same result, albeit with a slightly different message, and would have prolonged the process pointlessly + you would have had to put more work into your report for very little gain.
As you can see, the issue has already been resolved.
1 Like
Can I just ask if the added info from other users in comments count towards the original report?
I don´t want to argue but I linked to the OP1112 in the comment under the report and that itself should be suficient since that is primary source. So the report should have enough info to be accepted.
I just ask this for clarification for further situations.
No, it does not, unless the author updates their report with the information.
please update that policy…
stuff like this causes needless frustration with the community.
not being able to update after mod closes issue and not counting commented stuff only leads to people needing to fresh copy paste report with same stuff in it + stuff they lacked. which is pretty stupid or users should be allowed to reopen comments or edit report or more information needed flairs should be used so people can add stuff.
If need be to correct muzzle velocity I’ll make new report with op1112 or someone else but maybe will be fixed anyways before event.
//
Or not cause they already gave it proper Muzzle velocity and even more pen.
I’m trying to find sources (that they will accept) to show the fire rate should be 1.75 RPM and not the 1.5 RPM we currently have.
well good luck its not impossible task since there should be sources but i doubt it will happen. but accepting sources is one thing devs always can keep reload same or change it for balance reason. I doubt just that proving turret design cut down on reload will be enough. Well devs did make L40 1.5 rpm aced from 50 seconds despite being against it at 1st so might happen who knows.
- The first naval AP shell to exceed 700mm penetration
- 26mm fuze sensitivity
- Average 14in level of dispersion
An experienced naval player should know well what does it mean when the above points combined. Even without 1.75 rpm or higher RoF this ship’s firepower is going to be a havoc.
even with worse reload It would be incredible ship for wt standards HE also very devastating and should be rather easy to land compared to earlier rounds. It takes good stuff from both Nevada and Arizona but not too much bad stuff so i think its gonna fare very well. Secondary firepower can help harrassing stuff very well unlike arizona but it doesn’t suffer from less main guns and lacking survivability like nevada. This thing being added along with Roanoke seems extremely strong. we will probably see next phase of bbs very soon for other nations i think with stuff like Mutsu leak.
No one is claiming otherwise. The “trick” with Gaijin seems to be figuring out if it’s worth tracking down sources or not proving the rate of fire is incorrect.
If I do will it be ignored in the name of “balance?” It just gets a little frustrating being asked to confirm something if the ultimate result is going to be that it’s going to be unsuccessful. I’d rather be told up front “yes, we know the rate of fire in game is lower than the actual rate of fire in real life, but we did this for game balance reasons.”
It doesn’t seem like a big ask.
Actually my reply goes for the question “if Mississippi worth grinding”. For rate of fire it never hurts to report but given the recent buff on the shell I don’t think there’s a high chance of getting addressed because of “balance” you already know.
I don’t think there was much doubt it was worth grinding. Mine was more of a general statement. It’s hard for us to differentiate when something is a bug versus a balance decision, so any communication you can provide is appreciated.
I think the community is happy to report bugs and provide sources as long as it’s being done in an environment of open cooperation. Thank you for your response and work.