No, he said “identical” not “under the hood”. Which is still a gross misrepresentation of the differences between the two. In RB you had to continually manually adjust the distance, by hand. Reguardless of the “math” going on behind the scenes in the code, they were not “identical” as he so blatantly misrepresented.
Screenshot from Alvis’s original incorrect statement, before he made multiple edits to try and make it appear that he didn’t post such blatantly incorrect information initially:

Full screenshot of his original post
I have no patience for a person who refuses find/review the facts presented, and instead tries to gaslight me/everyone else instead of just saying “oh yeah, oops, they were not identical, there were some differences” etc.
Editing his original post to make it seem like he made a reasonable statement all along is gaslighting. Trying to make it appear like I made something out of nothing, instead of him just making a new statement and/or edit, and leaving his original incorrect statement there, is gaslighting.
He also reported my posts to try and avoid facing the facts and/or having a reasonable discussion. That is why my post has the tone it does, as a response to his gaslighting and abuse of the report system.
Cheers.
Hopefully this patch wakes them up to the realization more ships wont save the mode and a serious complete overhaul of everything is needed.
For now I’ve decided to give up on naval completely until that happens and ive completely ground out germany and half of russia.
I’d like to see better maps, and game modes that incentivise using different classes of ships beyond using coastal to cap in high tier domination matches.
3 Likes
Thanks everyone for the lively discussion — I’m really glad to see that the appeal is getting attention at all.
However, I’d like to gently remind everyone that the point of this thread was to focus on the core issues of the Naval mode: map design, rewards, objectives, replay value — not to rehash the usual NAB vs NRB arguments or who pressed which UI button correctly.
I believe this is also where our strength lies: We all see the problems — and even if we describe them differently, we ultimately want the same thing: for this mode to finally get the attention and rework it deserves.
Thanks again to everyone contributing constructively — let’s keep our eyes on the topic.
1 Like
modern ships will. I want modern ships
How? Just so you launch missiles from over the horizon? (Would need some massive maps for that.) I would imagine that more modern ships would actually exasperate the issues we’re currently seeing with naval in either AB or RB. I feel it would make far more sense to add more engaging game modes, add creatively better maps, fix the messed up AB aiming mechanics, and fix some of the currently borked ships in blue water (like the mofo Sovetsky Soyuz). I really can’t understand how simply adding modern ships would somehow magically fix all the issues that currently exist in the naval modes. Please help me understand your perspective.
1 Like
Fixing the maps won’t help with the problem that the ships in naval is just not appealing enough to most players. This mode is just a version of world of warships now and there is really nothing unique to it. For many people who have not played naval a better game mode or map will still not get them to play. Modern ships would attract that group of people and make the game mode stand out. There’s many games that lets you play in a world war 2 battleship but not many that lets you launch missiles in a ship made in the 21st century. And with modern ships you could add premiums like the ekranoplans which would attract even more people. The fundamental problem of naval is not being appealing enough, not that it needs better maps and game modes. Air and ground also have bad maps and game modes and yet people still play them. Only way to fix this is just to make more things that people actually wants to play