I see the above poster continues to be confused about basic math, graphs, and the English language (again that’s the charitable explanation). Not worth discussing further when someone simply can’t understand simple concepts and/or doesn’t want to try.
I will again maintain that spreading lies about how naval is somehow secretly popular or good could have worked in 2024 but ended with Statshark showing up in 2025, for better or worse. My position is always that we need to be honest about what the new statistical clarity is telling us and not live in a cloud of lies, if we really want this mode to survive and improve.
For the record, here’s a post where someone made up an entirely fake primary source, tying secondary source info to a fake non-relevant attribution, because they didn’t like that a Technical Mod, @HK_Reporter saying their idea was bad and wouldn’t work: New battleships in a nutshell - #564 by Kweedko. It’s still up, even though it’s been pointed out by several people it’s clearly a forgery.
Here’s a post where someone called @Smin1080p_WT and @Scarper_CM “lazy and unimaginative” in response to my quoting their 2016 comments on naval. It’s still up, too: I thought insulting the moderators was against ToS, but I guess the mods are being lenient here. Naval should be reworked - #80 by Kweedko
Possibly worth considering when someone says “that never happened” about something so easily checkable and linkable here, and what that should tell us about all their other comments about people and this game.
(Go on, bub: push me to the top of the forum again. I want you to.)
1 Like
So you trying to hound mods on me with false accusations, instead of answering on stated questions?
Simple concepts of theorycrafting on cherrypicked data from unfull sources with false conclusions.
Naval costs dont include just making the mode, maintaining it and keeping it bug free by work of people that need to be paid.
Most stuff, including but not limited to military equipment is often protected by copyright, industrial design laws, and trademark. You need to get license to use them, for example in media like videogames, unless the protections have expired.
WT Mobile has, for whatever reason, a devblog out for type 45 destroyer, guided-missile destroyer which were built between 2003 and 2012.
If they wanted to put that ship into game, they need to get a license for it.
Specifics might wary but just because Gaijin has license to use type 45 destroyer in WT Mobile does not neccesarily mean that they can also use it in Warthunder, as they are clearly two disctinct products handled by two distinct teams.
We talked about “making the mode”, he stated that devs spending third of their time on the naval.
Which is simply not true, even if we just count number of vehicles in different modes. Or number of maps. Or changes in changelogs. Or any other things related to naval comparing to other modes, it’s never gonna be “one-third”.
ps. If Statshak counted the “newbie” battles we could see how many new players come to mode but he stated that it’s irrelevant for his theories shenanigans.
So naval EC is irrelevant, newbie battles irrelevant, nothing relevant what didn’t suit his theories.