Jump to content

Oops!! Aka Wedgie did it again.


Recommended Posts

Posted

 

Looks like a new artillery bug. ANY module that improves main gun dispersion is activating twice, once in port, another time in battle D4250899-7637-4DB1-9393-24C11B63FACC.gif

Ofc bought to you by no other than the most known bughunter in the world. 14728F2B-B3A1-4254-850F-95D0D4BC5353.gif

 

of warships

 

 

  • Like 5
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)

It seems like Flamu and his subscribers have found some new bug that affects certain ships that get dispersion buffs by Funny buttons etc, for example giving Conde almost DD dispersion.

 

Edited by OldSchoolGaming_Youtube
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

Looks like you created your topic about the same phenomena, and enclosing the same youtube video, two minutes before @OldSchoolGaming_Youtube created his topic.
  🙂  
 


"hare trigger; bugs bunny draws a gun scene but i voice the lines"


Edit:  Looks like the two topics were merged by the Moderators.  But, they didn't "sign their work".  🤔

Edited by Wolfswetpaws
  • Haha 1
Posted

Cool. Must play Bungo in ops then before they patch it.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

It seems like Flamu and his subscribers have found some new bug that affects certain ships that get dispersion buffs by Funny buttons etc, for example giving Conde almost DD dispersion.

 

nop Flamu and his genius subscribers dont find anything, they dont have brain cells to do that. The bug was posted in discord and like always other people find out and then he cant wait to troll WG to earn some toxic fans.

It gives better dispersion,a bug, amazing. Report, move on.

  • Thanks 2
  • Bored 3
Posted
21 minutes ago, UnderTheRadarAgain said:

Cool. Must play Bungo in ops then before they patch it.

Doesn’t affect it. He mentions that in the video. It’s limited to modules like ASM1 or ships with burst fire like Alvaro. Combat instructions aren’t affected as shown when he tests satsuma.

  • Like 1
  • HogHammer changed the title to Oops!! Aka Wedgie did it again.
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Ofc bought to you by no other than the most known bughunter in the world. 

Isn't that some guy from 'Starship Troopers'? 😁   (AI generated image, btw)

realistic starship trooper infantryman image.jpg

Edited by Aethervox
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
29 minutes ago, Aethervox said:

Isn't that some guy from 'Starship Troopers'? 😁

Starship Troopers (1997)
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120201/  

Quote
  • Jean Rasczak: This is for all you new people. I have only one rule. Everybody fights, no one quits. If you don't do your job, I'll kill you myself! Welcome to the Roughnecks!

u5n3cradkmcq1h2wqoho.0.png&f=1&nofb=1&ip  
 

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, UnderTheRadarAgain said:

Cool. Must play Bungo in ops then before they patch it.

Affects ALL ships which can mount disp modules/upgrades  AND ALL of them (modules).

Mainz in port with the regular disp upgrade: 146m

Mainz in training  with the regular disp upgrade: 133 m

 

Illinois in  port with the regular disp upgrade: 203 m

Illinois in training  with the regular disp upgrade edit+APRM: 181 m

 

And you can bet that sec disp is ALSO affected across the board

Edited by Andrewbassg
  • Thanks 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Affects ALL ships which can mount disp modules/upgrades  AND ALL of them (modules).

Mainz in port with the regular disp upgrade: 146m

Mainz in training  with the regular disp upgrade: 133 m

 

Illinois in  port with the regular disp upgrade: 203 m

Illinois in training  with the regular disp upgrade: 181 m

 

And you can bet that sec disp is ALSO affected across the board

If everybody gets the same cards dealt I guess they can then leave it as it is, gunnery in this game is a joke anyway so nothing new there…

  • Like 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

If everybody gets the same cards dealt I guess they can then leave it as it is, gunnery in this game is a joke anyway so nothing new there…

Well not exactly coz US bbabbies can mount APRM from T9 onwards. And now bbabbies can smash cruisers even more so.....

  • Thanks 1
Posted
34 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

And you can bet that sec disp is ALSO affected across the board

Secondary dispersion is, in fact, not affected. Tested with the aid of @Sailor_Moon

  • Thanks 2
Posted
Just now, MBT808 said:

Secondary dispersion is, in fact, not affected. Tested with the aid of @Sailor_Moon

46721D76-957C-425A-9701-8D106F1B2173.gif

Still, how can you tell the difference? Mk1 eyeball?

  • Like 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

46721D76-957C-425A-9701-8D106F1B2173.gif

Still, how can you tell the difference? Mk1 eyeball?

hit ratio. If the dispersion has been doubled, then the dispersion should get more hits than it would normally. Double 20% dispersion would be quite noticeable on secondaries.

  • Thanks 2
Posted
1 hour ago, Andrewbassg said:

Well not exactly coz US bbabbies can mount APRM from T9 onwards. And now bbabbies can smash cruisers even more so.....

Well yeah, like instead you dying by one full salvo only half of it will be enough to zap you but still one will have been fired...

  • Like 1
Posted

Most, if not all players mount Aiming Systems Mod 1 for dispersion buff, but it didn't help the Vittorio Cuniberti player who last match couldn't strike my super-slippery Cossack at 6km.
Nerf the W-A-S-D jinker!

It's ok, Wargaming, we've grown accustomed to sequential patch bugs, patch after patch.

I luv this game!!!!! 

  • Haha 1
Posted
8 hours ago, Wulf_Ace said:

nop Flamu and his genius subscribers dont find anything, they dont have brain cells to do that.

Your use of ad hominems reveal the one who doesn't have. 😂

  • Thanks 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Frostbow said:

Your use of ad hominems reveal the one who doesn't have. 😂

we have a flamu fan boy here

  • Haha 1
  • Bored 1
Posted
42 minutes ago, Wulf_Ace said:

we have a flamu fan boy here

Calling out your ad hominems does not a fanboy make. 😂

Posted
47 minutes ago, Wulf_Ace said:

we have a flamu fan boy here

In fact it seems more like you are a WG fanboy. That company deserves all the poison Flamu throws at them and then some. Mind you, they aren't any different from most other big publishers, but that doesn't make it any better that quality seems to be inversely proportional to revenue.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, Kruzenstern said:

In fact it seems more like you are a WG fanboy. That company deserves all the poison Flamu throws at them and then some. Mind you, they aren't any different from most other big publishers, but that doesn't make it any better that quality seems to be inversely proportional to revenue.

dont like streamers that feed on hate. Yeah WG sucks we all know that but still we play ships beacouse we love them.

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)

UMMMM........

lLet's ignore the messenger and concentrate on the issue, shall we? We all have our preferences or non-preferences.Nor do I think that either is a damsel in distress, needing a stronk man to jump in to defend.

I called him most known, not best, for a reason, although he did prove a non-colleration between consumables and the bug.

Edited by Andrewbassg
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted

That being said, wazz ur prediction on the shelf life of this bug? I think it is related to the Flagships Operations. so we gonna see it for a while...

Posted
1 hour ago, Kruzenstern said:

In fact it seems more like you are a WG fanboy.

WTH? No. I've seen Wulf drop a week's worth of dysentery on WG more than once. If you think he's a WG fanboy= you have issues with perception, my friend.

Bugs that improve things for the players across the playerbase should be LEFT UNREPORTED.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Posted
53 minutes ago, Ensign Cthulhu said:

Bugs that improve things for the players across the playerbase should be LEFT UNREPORTED.

1.  That would violate the "truth in labeling" principle. 
2.  WG/WOWs has published a lot of performance data/specifications on the dispersion of main-gun projectiles for each ship.
This "bug" apparently makes all of that data false.
3.  Even if this bug improves performance and some players want to keep it, the improved performance may tilt the "balanz" a bit too much. 
And thus the performance of a number of ships could achieve an average outcome that is undesired for "balanz" purposes?

Either a lot of Wiki pages and in-game reference specifications need to be edited (a time-consuming process, at best), or, the "bug" needs to be fixed.
Personally, I'm inclined to have the bug fixed.  
 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.