Yet another MAJOR omission from Wedgie.....

[SolitudeFreak]

5 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

That's true. However, as a player of the game, that's the very best I can do.

But then why did you say:

58 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

And actually it is quite easy to implement.

[Andrewbassg]

1 minute ago, SolitudeFreak said:

But then why did you say:

Because, again, from "my chair", that's the best AND easiest solution.  it is efficient, insofar as no new metric needed to be implemented for a .....lets say, marginal game mechanic.

[SolitudeFreak]

3 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Because, again, from "my chair", that's the best AND easiest solution.  it is efficient, insofar as no new metric needed to be implemented for a .....lets say, marginal game mechanic.

You think it is easy, therefore it must be easy. Gotcha.

[Andrewbassg]

1 minute ago, SolitudeFreak said:

You think it is easy, therefore it must be easy. Gotcha.

I didn't say easy, I said easiest. And, again.; " from my chair".

[SolitudeFreak]

7 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

I didn't say easy, I said easiest.

Bro...

1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

And actually it is quite easy to implement.

Why are you like this?

[Admiral_Karasu]

59 minutes ago, torino2dc said:

Precision in language matters. 

How about 'corporal' then?

 

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, SolitudeFreak said:

Bro...

Why are you like this?

Ok so........I wanted to dwell into this and thoroughly explain how and why mines are different from other ordnance and why my solution is the easiest but, ...... decided against it. It would have been very long winded and needed to start with what is a game object and other .... stuff and while those are related to wows .... it is bit abstract.

I'm still convinced that it is the easiest solution  (coz spotting them is an "event" and that could be tied to ..... many things) but, in the end, is not my call.

 

 

Edited June 1 by Andrewbassg

[Wolfswetpaws]

4 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yooo .......I just gave a solution. For Free!!! 

Sometimes the conversations in this topic are like "spaghetti code" in programming.  🙂 

[torino2dc]

6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Yeah, and respectfully, it is. It is a new, separate game mechanic, which is not fully thought out and implemented. Inflict dmg, yet doesn't gives pot dmg.

A minor accounting mechanism in a new game mechanic within a temporary game mode isn't working as you expect it to (which is different than saying it is broken). This is the opposite of a "major omission."

I push back because 1) WG is a group of humans (an error-prone species) and minor mistakes are not news; and 2) calling any little oversight "major" saps the word of its meaning. That description should be reserved for game-breaking, customer-exodus type problems.  

[mashed68]

Its not potential because its not shot at you. Its layed in a specific area and you drive into it. Everything counted as potential moves. 

[Andrewbassg]

3 hours ago, torino2dc said:

A minor accounting mechanism in a new game mechanic within a temporary game mode isn't working as you expect it to (which is different than saying it is broken). This is the opposite of a "major omission."

 

And that's why I called it, a major omission of a new, marginal, game mechanic. I never claimed it as being broken, but omission it is, there were no patch notes about it, so.... yeah.

3 hours ago, torino2dc said:

1) WG is a group of humans (an error-prone species) and minor mistakes

Absolutely and never claimed otherwise. And that is true for all of us. When i refer to Wedgie I refer to an entity, not persons. In fact helps humanize an otherwise kinda abstract entity.

But, again, this is an honest omission, not a mistake.

 

3 hours ago, torino2dc said:

are not news

Correct information and education are crucial for decision making. Generally speaking.

3 hours ago, torino2dc said:

calling any little oversight "major" saps the word of its meaning.

That's 100% true.  Still, I explained it above.

3 hours ago, torino2dc said:

That description should be reserved for game-breaking, customer-exodus type problems.  

I disagree. Wedgie's preference for any other class but cruisers, is a major problem. For cruiser players. Does that fall into the latter categories?

3 hours ago, torino2dc said:

I push back

Oh no worries .  We are all peers here. in fact, the  discussion helped me understood what are the ingame minefields, exactly how they are implemented etc etc.

The thing is, I like calling an A an A with all that implies. Helps keeping things clear. it is a "me thingy". 

Edited June 2 by Andrewbassg

[Andrewbassg]

2 hours ago, mashed68 said:

Its not potential because its not shot at you.

in this mode. But how about CB? And ......by the same metric torps also should fall into the same category. I mean they are also launched at a presumed, predicted position, right? And both can function as area denial means, so......

Also not at least their names  in the past were used in an interchangeable manner.

"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!!"   

Edited June 2 by Andrewbassg

[Lord_Slayer]

21 hours ago, Verytis said:

nothing explicitly stated by WG but its still a good point.

although I also wonder if it'd be too easy to abuse for farming potential dmg, since by travelling through one it'd count all the mines in the entire minefield.

I agree.

I think they have been left off as potential damage just for the fact sailing through them would be an easy way to farm potential damage. Way to easy .