Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Skitzo_Sam

Pyotr Bagration NOT as advertised?

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[OOPSY]
Players
118 posts
7,347 battles

The description of the P.Bagration is not what you get. In the Armory it says the Hydro detects ships @ 5km but its actually only 4km 

Screenshot (26).png

Screenshot (27).png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
4,195 posts
11,532 battles
1 minute ago, Skitzo_Sam said:

The description of the P.Bagration is not what you get. In the Armory it says the Hydro detects ships @ 5km but its actually only 4km 

Screenshot (26).png

Screenshot (27).png

@MrConway

 

Check this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoWs Wiki Team, Supertester, Privateer
2,074 posts
12,883 battles

Yes, it's wrong values and will be fixed with 9.5 latest. 

image.thumb.png.beabf36ab89465e572bcc7402c165643.png

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
4,195 posts
11,532 battles
Just now, Wizard27_1979 said:

Yes, it's wrong values and will be fixed with 9.5 latest. 

Did they post this info anywhere? I must have missed it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoWs Wiki Team, Supertester, Privateer
2,074 posts
12,883 battles
1 minute ago, Yoshanai said:

Did they post this info anywhere? I must have missed it. 

I don't know, but flamu did a PSA (see above). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OOPSY]
Players
118 posts
7,347 battles
2 minutes ago, Wizard27_1979 said:

Yes, it's wrong values and will be fixed with 9.5 latest. 

 

Which values are wrong? The Armory or the Mod?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WoWs Wiki Team, Supertester, Privateer
2,074 posts
12,883 battles
1 minute ago, Skitzo_Sam said:

 

Which values are wrong? The Armory or the Mod?

Hydro in PB is currently not correct if you own her. Armory is right, but ingame-values are not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
28,192 posts
14,917 battles

It was also posted on their website...

Quote

Please note: in Update 0.9.5, the action range of the Hydroacoustic Search consumable carried by cruiser Pyotr Bagration is going to be changed to match the values specified in the article.

https://worldofwarships.eu/en/news/sales-and-events/premium-shop-094/

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BATES]
Alpha Tester
3,077 posts
12,073 battles
1 hour ago, Wizard27_1979 said:

Yes, it's wrong values and will be fixed with 9.5 latest. 

image.thumb.png.beabf36ab89465e572bcc7402c165643.png

How hard was this for them to get this right? I mean, the ship was tested and aside from really technical issues this type of relatively simple oversight should not have happened?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BFS]
Beta Tester
2,011 posts
13,445 battles
8 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

How hard was this for them to get this right? I mean, the ship was tested and aside from really technical issues this type of relatively simple oversight should not have happened?

It involves QA (Quality Assurance) - that costs them more......

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BATES]
Alpha Tester
3,077 posts
12,073 battles
1 minute ago, BrusilovX said:

It involves QA (Quality Assurance) - that costs them more......

Quality assurance wouldn't really be needed for this silly little error if they ran a more efficient office....just saying :)

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
78 posts
8 hours ago, BrusilovX said:

It involves QA (Quality Assurance) - that costs them more......

Why doe QA,  shove out the door and let the paying customers do your quality checks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
4,678 posts
19,819 battles
8 hours ago, Shaka_D said:

How hard was this for them to get this right? I mean, the ship was tested and aside from really technical issues this type of relatively simple oversight should not have happened?

Yeah. Happens all the time. Explains why CVs are so broken, Smolensk and the rather strong ru cruisers and BBs. I‘ll guess, those are getting fixes as well, the latest with the last patch WoWS receives. 

19 minutes ago, gslick said:

Why doe QA,  shove out the door and let the paying customers do your quality checks.

 

Reminds me of Graf Zeppelins release and the CV rework. 

 

Luckily, WG learned from their mistakes and approached the upcoming U-Boat release in a much more sensible way. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,673 posts
11,704 battles
10 hours ago, Shaka_D said:

How hard was this for them to get this right? I mean, the ship was tested and aside from really technical issues this type of relatively simple oversight should not have happened?

Are you new to the game? Well, in that case: Welcome and have many fun & engaging battles :cap_like:

 

 

 

:Smile_hiding:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
550 posts
9,101 battles

It’s a crap ship anyway, constantly losing rudder and turrets can’t keep up to track DDs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×