Ship classification?

[Yamato hugger]

Joe, put this on your fix list. I think theres room right between 298 and 300 [;)]

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Bullman

I'm sorry if there has been any confusion in actually WHAT part of the game I was refering to.  Just in case, this is the screen I am talking about.

Bullman:

The confusion that I had about your question was finally cleared up with this screenshot. I think that the reason people had a problem answering your question is because few people really LOOK at that portion of the screen. I know that I have not paid any attention to it for years because the information it provides is much more easily accessible (and without the problem you question) with the base mouseover

[Dili]

I know that I have not paid any attention to it for years because the information it provides is much more easily accessible (and without the problem you question) with the base mouseover

Precisely.

[rockmedic109]

I thought you were talking about the popup when mouseover of a port.  I never gave much regard to that screen or the mouseover, usually clicking the anchor of the port and looking.

[Bullman]

ORIGINAL:  Local Yokel
Bullman's criticism is justified.  The grouping of ships on the base screen is arbitrary and in some cases counter-intuitive.  For example:
'AU' was presumably intended to be a shorthand for 'Auxiliaries', yet vessels in the PC and PG catagory are included in this grouping.
'DM' is the code for a destroyer-minelayer, yet all mine warfare craft get included within this grouping - with the exception of MLE's, which (probably correctly) get assigned to the 'AU' group.
Most confusing of all is the treatment of scout cruisers ('CS' type vessels).  On the ships screen, these get filtered in and out by selecting 'CA/CL', but in the base screen CS ships are assigned to the 'AV' group.
For me this isn't a big issue as I can usually keep a reasonably accurate picture of critical ships' whereabouts "in me 'ead".  But for those hoping to receive enlightenment from the base details screen, the ship groupings used aren't very helpful.  Have some sympathy for the interface designer, though: presenting this information unambiguously isn't straightforward.

ORIGINAL:  pompack
The confusion that I had about your question was finally cleared up with this screenshot.  I think that the reason people had a problem answering your question is because few people really LOOK at that portion of the screen.  I know that I have not paid any attention to it for years because the information it provides is much more easily accessible (and without the problem you question) with the base mouseover

At last!  Thank you!  I probably should have saved myself the frustration and anyone else any confusion by posting that screenshot earlier even though I was using the correct terminology referencing the that screen in question (the "Base Information Screen") as used in the manual. [:(]  I thought I was going crazy there for a while. [X(]  In the four or so years this game has been released and discussed here, I was SURE at least SOMEONE would of AT LEAST pointed this out. [&:]

I agree that the mouse over option is a nice way of checking what ships types are at a port/in a TF but it does not provide you with the much more complete summary of unit type information that the Base Information Screen is MEANT to show you.
eg. it shows info on both ships, aircraft and troops as well as other stuff all at once on the same screen.

So for a "lets see what is going on at this base" kind of inquiry by a player, accessing the Base Information Screen gives them (or should give them) a much better overall picture of what is going on at the base as opposed to mousing over the port icons and TF icons.

NOTE: The equivalent portion of that screen that shows the aircraft located at the base, on the otherhand, seems to work/be presented WITHOUT inconsistency and confusion in terminology used elsewhere in the game.

If anything needs "fixing" here, it would probably be just reviweing/tidying up/rationalisation/documentation of the categories/classes being used in that ship summary part of the screen I have shown to make it consistent with similar terminology used elsewhere in the game.

NOTE: The confusion/conflicts in terminology spread between THREE different screens available to the player in the game:
1. The Base Information Screen
2. The screen that comes up when you click the Naval Unit icon on the Base Information Screen
3. The mouse over information

Here is just ONE example of the confusion that is generated by this inconsistency. How is this not OBVIOUSLY confusing??? [&:]:

[Mynok]

I am another that doesn't really even look much at the BI screen. I go right to the screen on the right above. On that screen, it is quite clear that AUX is "everything else". Not confusing at all...at least to me.

The BI screen is a leftover from Uncommon Valor, where many of the types in Witp don't even exist in the game.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Bullman

Here is just ONE example of the confusion that is generated by this inconsistency. How is this not OBVIOUSLY confusing???

Odd that in 4+ years of service, no one has ever complained about this before. If this confuses you, seriously, you really shouldnt play. There is little more I can say.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Bullman

Here is just ONE example of the confusion that is generated by this inconsistency. How is this not OBVIOUSLY confusing???

Odd that in 4+ years of service, no one has ever complained about this before. If this confuses you, seriously, you really shouldnt play. There is little more I can say.

That was not a very nice thing to say.

While I had no problem, not everybody has the background to easily get a handle on all of the information in the game. There is nothing wrong with the Bullman asking a question and offering his suggestion.

That is what forums are for.

[Bullman]

ORIGINAL: Mynok
The BI screen is a leftover from Uncommon Valor, where many of the types in Witp don't even exist in the game.

Ah...well if that is the case, that it is a carry-over, then it does explain WHY the inconsistency is there in the first place. Still it is no justification for it being left like that in WitP.

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
Odd that in 4+ years of service, no one has ever complained about this before. If this confuses you, seriously, you really shouldnt play. There is little more I can say.

[X(] Well thanks for the encouragement.[:'(] Seriously, based on what you said, you probably shoouln't have said anything at all. I won't bother even trying to understand how you think it is not confusing. I am sure you mean well however.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Bullman

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
Odd that in 4+ years of service, no one has ever complained about this before. If this confuses you, seriously, you really shouldnt play. There is little more I can say.

[X(] Well thanks for the encouragement.[:'(] Seriously, based on what you said, you probably shoouln't have said anything at all. I won't bother even trying to understand how you think it is not confusing. I am sure you mean well however.

No, I meant exactly what I said. If this minor thing that no one to date has even cared enough to mention is suddenly this huge confusing thing for you, then this game is way beyond you. WAY beyond you. Find a new game. I sincerely mean that.

[Chris21wen]

Bullman

I think you are missing a patch. One of the patches created more ship class for the naval base information screen. It should look like this.

Yes the Bsae Info Screen ship classifications are confusing if used. Like others I use the mouse over to get that information but the confusing categories, at least to me are as follows:

DM - All minewarfare
AO - AO/TK
AV - AV only
AP - AP/AK
AU - Anything else beginning with A, including AVDs/PC/SC/PG/MLE

My advice is don't use it and get the patch. Oh and enjoy the game.

[Bullman]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

No, I meant exactlly.....[blah blah].......sincerely mean that.

OK. Someone has issues. Hey Yamato, have you perhaps considering taking up a job in sales/promotion/customer service or maybe even as a sharp-eyed bug hunting beta teseter for WitP:AE. You seem to be a natural.

Thanks Chris. Maybe with all the other things that I have read about that can detract from the simulation aspect of the game (like the A2A combat algorithms) and the plethora of mods that try to address some of these issues, I should probably not worry about the whole game too much and just wait for AE to come out. [:D] I am sure it will address many of the niggly issues that have been brought up by the community. I certainly am looking forward to it!

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Bullman

OK. Someone has issues. Hey Yamato, have you perhaps considering taking up a job in sales/promotion/customer service or maybe even as a sharp-eyed bug hunting beta teseter for WitP:AE. You seem to be a natural.

You seem to be mdiel on a troll or one of his little butt rangers. Welcome to ignore (thank God and the programmers for the little green button). Congrats. In 4 years, you are the 3rd person to make it, unless you are mdiel, in which case only 2 people but 3 screen names.

Have a nice life.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Bullman

OK. Someone has issues. Hey Yamato, have you perhaps considering taking up a job in sales/promotion/customer service or maybe even as a sharp-eyed bug hunting beta teseter for WitP:AE. You seem to be a natural.

You seem to be mdiel on a troll or one of his little butt rangers. Welcome to ignore (thank God and the programmers for the little green button). Congrats. In 4 years, you are the 3rd person to make it, unless you are mdiel, in which case only 2 people but 3 screen names.

Have a nice life.

YH:

Bullman seems to me to be exactly what he purports to be: a noob asking noob questions. Perhaps it's best if you do green button the noobs and let the rest of us help them get up to speed in the game: we need you to beta as hard and fast as you can on AE [&o]

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: Bullman
Thanks Chris. Maybe with all the other things that I have read about that can detract from the simulation aspect of the game (like the A2A combat algorithms) and the plethora of mods that try to address some of these issues, I should probably not worry about the whole game too much and just wait for AE to come out. [:D] I am sure it will address many of the niggly issues that have been brought up by the community. I certainly am looking forward to it!

It probably will cue many of the niggly aspects but what will be introduced with AE? I suspect it will have its own range of niggly problems which is probably why its taking so long to come out. Can't say I blame the those who are testing it considering all the flak received over certain aspects oe WitP. One thing you can't say about the game and that is its not worth it. It does evoke passionate feelings with those that play it and subscribe to this forum but its hell of a game. That is game, not a simulation.

Please play it (even against the dumb AI) as the learning curve for AE will probably be even steeper. It is the most comprehensive and complex wargame game that I've ever played or is that any computer game. Intersesting thread in it's own right.

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

You seem to be mdiel on a troll or one of his little butt rangers. Welcome to ignore (thank God and the programmers for the little green button). Congrats. In 4 years, you are the 3rd person to make it, unless you are mdiel, in which case only 2 people but 3 screen names.

Have a nice life.

Just my two cents of neutral watcher, but in this thread, you have been the troll. Come one, your earlier comment was just as rude as would have been saying "you're too dumb to play this game, leave now, stupid child", and this latest is just lame and shameful defamation. Other members tried to understand Bullman and answer his question (which you never even tried to), but you started to ridicule him in your very first post (the fix list). Had a bad day IRL ? it could happen, but it has nothing to do here.

[Yamato hugger]

No "noob" rants like that over nothing. There are a billion other things that a "noob" would ask about before this. This person is a mdiehl like troll that just wants to stir the pot for his own amusement.

And if he isnt and really is a "noob" then my earlier comment stands: if that 1 little thing confuses him that much really, then this game is way beyond him and he really needs to find a new pastime.

Edit: Lets face it, WitP isnt for everyone.

[Ambassador]

I don't care.  I agree that WitP is not for everyone, some people don't like the wealth of details that are there, but it's not a question of intelligence.  People who don't have an extensive knowledge of the subject can still play, they just have to work harder ; and make some research - research that makes them better, since they learn things they would not have learned if it weren't for the game.  If personnally I, or any other, never saw any problem understanding the weird grouping of abbrevations, it's not the matter here.  Fact is (or are) : a member came asking someone to explain something he didn't understand (read his first post : no ranting, again you're purely defaming), you did not even tried but ridiculed him from the beginning (and still do).  That's rude.  And that's stupid, because even if Bullman = mdiel, you just gave them what they wished for : upsetting you into a rude behaviour.  And if they're not the same person (default assumption, since neither you nor I do have any means of knowing for sure one way or the other), you've been rude for no reason at all, and should apologize to Bullman.
 
Your behaviour would have been akin to "forums are for social people only, YH, you'd better never come here because you're devoid of any social skills".  True ?  not at all (IMO).  Nice ?  certainly not.  Social skills are not the only criteria to come on a forum.  No more than understanding some weird and inconsistent feature of a game like WitP is a required skill to play it.  And I don't know you enough to make such judgment call anyway, no more than you know Bullman enough to call him stupid.
It's a game forum.  WitP is a game, nothing more, nothing less.  People come on this forum for help, to share their insights in the game and IRL WWII history, to rightfully boast about their accomplishments, etc.  Calm down and relax.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

(read his first post : no ranting, again you're purely defaming), you did not even tried but ridiculed him from the beginning (and still do).

Did I now? Perhaps you should go back and read it from the beginning then. But I will save you some time. He had 7 posts before I said anything at all. And when I did respond what I did say was "Joe put this on your list". Now in what way is this ridiculing him?

His next post:

At last! Thank you! I probably should have saved myself the frustration and anyone else any confusion by posting that screenshot earlier even though I was using the correct terminology referencing the that screen in question (the "Base Information Screen") as used in the manual. I thought I was going crazy there for a while. In the four or so years this game has been released and discussed here, I was SURE at least SOMEONE would of AT LEAST pointed this out.

I agree that the mouse over option is a nice way of checking what ships types are at a port/in a TF but it does not provide you with the much more complete summary of unit type information that the Base Information Screen is MEANT to show you.
eg. it shows info on both ships, aircraft and troops as well as other stuff all at once on the same screen.

So for a "lets see what is going on at this base" kind of inquiry by a player, accessing the Base Information Screen gives them (or should give them) a much better overall picture of what is going on at the base as opposed to mousing over the port icons and TF icons.

NOTE: The equivalent portion of that screen that shows the aircraft located at the base, on the otherhand, seems to work/be presented WITHOUT inconsistency and confusion in terminology used elsewhere in the game.

If anything needs "fixing" here, it would probably be just reviweing/tidying up/rationalisation/documentation of the categories/classes being used in that ship summary part of the screen I have shown to make it consistent with similar terminology used elsewhere in the game.

NOTE: The confusion/conflicts in terminology spread between THREE different screens available to the player in the game:
1. The Base Information Screen
2. The screen that comes up when you click the Naval Unit icon on the Base Information Screen
3. The mouse over information

Here is just ONE example of the confusion that is generated by this inconsistency. How is this not OBVIOUSLY confusing??? :

Now I dont know what you consider a rant, but 7 paragraphs of how confusing this is to him seems awful rantish to me. Now to this I responded simply:

Odd that in 4+ years of service, no one has ever complained about this before. If this confuses you, seriously, you really shouldnt play. There is little more I can say.

Again, I dont know what you consider "defaming" but by my definition this isnt it. Now Websters defines ridicule as "laughter with contempt, mockery, satire.". I see no mockery in what I said. I fail to see me laughing at him. I simply stated my view of what I considered an over-exaggeration on his part (7 paragraphs).

And then his coup de grace

OK. Someone has issues. Hey Yamato, have you perhaps considering taking up a job in sales/promotion/customer service or maybe even as a sharp-eyed bug hunting beta teseter for WitP:AE. You seem to be a natural.

This guy has a total of 22 posts. 11 of them are in this thread, and none of the other 11 threads are in this forum. Yet somehow he "knows" I am "a sharp-eyed bug hunting beta teseter for WitP:AE". This is when I was convinced that he is a troll. Somehow he knows this and yet I havent said a thing about it for weeks. So he has at least read the forum for weeks at least and has likely posted on another screen name. Since mdiehl knows most of us have him on ignore it is likely that he (or a friend of his) popped in on this troll screen name to stir the kettle. Clearly he isnt a "noob" either because as I have already said, this is NOT a question that someone just starting the game would take the time to ask about. Remember, this is the ONLY topic he has ever posted on this forum about. So unless its indeed mdiehl since he has only played the game once and doesnt actually own a copy (according to a post he made in Dec of 05) this guy isnt likely to be a "noob" either.

That's rude.  And that's stupid, because even if Bullman = mdiel, you just gave them what they wished for : upsetting you into a rude behaviour.

Not really, when I recognized the pattern of a typical pot-stirring troll I said so and hit the button.

And if they're not the same person (default assumption, since neither you nor I do have any means of knowing for sure one way or the other), you've been rude for no reason at all, and should apologize to Bullman.

Now you can say or do whatever you like, its your right. But it is also MY right to say what I think as well, and I did. And I am certainly not going to apoligize for anything I said because it is what I believe. Note that he hasnt posted a thing since I hit the little green button on him. Doesnt that even make you say hmmmm, maybe hes right?

Your behaviour would have been akin to "forums are for social people only, YH, you'd better never come here because you're devoid of any social skills".  True ?

Actually I am a truck driver. I have no social skills. I see no need for them. I tell truths as I see them. I am human and I make mistakes and when I do I acknowledge those mistakes. I dont for an instant feel I made a mistake here.

 no more than you know Bullman enough to call him stupid.

Please read every post I have ever made and point out where I EVER called anyone stupid. EVER. If anyone owes anyone an apology here it would be you for saying that.

Calm down and relax.

Good plan. Practice what you preach [;)]

[Ambassador]

Won't be drawn in that kind of arguing.  That last post of yours tells me too much about you.