Yeah, the lack of Lock-Player-View-To-12 O’Clock was something I had to get used to with the damage indicator (as opposed to tanks) so it’s odd to hear they did this for FCS too…
Absolutely yes. It’s a great addition in concept, but it needs “up” to be relative, not locked to north.
1 Like
Going by the other threads, this update was controversial for Naval. It looks like HE damage that have been the primary point of contention have been silently fixed according to the datamine. And according to today’s changelog, the repair bug appears to be fixed.
Does this mean that we are back to pre-update situation? Or are reasonable caliber HE still viable?
I got double strike for killing 2 destroyers with my HE destroyer shells couple of minutes ago, so these are still very potent. Yes, the endless repair looks to be fixed, but the sinking simulator is still going on.
What did you use? Destroyers HE being effective against destroyers does seem a lot more reasonable than when we started out where destroyer can take out battleships in like three volleys, no?
I was with my 5.0 US destroyers. HE shell also does a lot of damage to light cruisers today. I tried a US destroyer with HE against a battleship in a test drive a day or two ago, but nothing major, just fires. Well, it was definitely better than using SAP against them (1/3 of the HE filler).
Ah, US destroyers tend to be fairly strong anyhow. From the sound of it, HE is better than it uselessly splashing on target as it was doing before the update but weaker than how it was at launch. Would you say the HE function is largely resolved?
I am a poor judge of it since my 6.0 lineup facing 7.0 battleships during the initial release and I just die just as quickly as before…
Too often I still get my ship all red and black just when hit by a shell or two. I get hit let’s say in the front, but almost all my ship is suddenly red/black. I still hate the “sinking simulator.” It’s too overwhelming, especially for arcade. You can’t see you are sinking and there is no warning at the center of the screen. It’s especially bad when you are in a gunner view.
US shells were nerfed for a very long time until now. Very often I was making a sieve out of the enemy using SAP, but there was very little damage for some reason. Often I would not even get an assist for it. In replays I would see my shells going through ships, but not exploding (replays are unreliable, so who know how these shells were really hitting there). Before the recent fiasco update I would just use AP shells with my US cruisers and was doing well with that. Didn’t play cruisers (except some Japanese with RP boosters) last couple of days. Didn’t take out Atlanta to make people in especially destroyers suffer. People had plenty of suffering with the botched update already.
Huh, I see. Yeah, I guess there are still ways to go in tweaking this.
Ahhh that’s what you meant. Yeah, there really need to be more cues for when you are taking in water. While being tunnel-visioned is up to the player to overcome, there’s there is a lot to micromanage, especially when you are in the heat of the moment. There was a suggestion somewhere that said that dewatering should be done passively and all the player need to do is to notice and slow down to reduce the water intake during the repair period.
That’s certainly interesting to hear. I know that back in the days of Moffett bots, players in Moffetts were usually quite deadly with their SAP going around sending my turrets into repair cycles and setting fire to things.
My minimum-change suggestion for WTNF, if I’m allowed one, would be to separate the counting of three " vessel " guaranteed spawns into 3 " Coastal " and 3 " Bluewater " guaranteed spawns each, to allow a total of six ( 6 ) vessels spawnable by each player. I believe this would improve the dynamism in matches by allowing players to create deeper lineups to handle a greater number of situations.
Instead of the current implementation which imo is overly punishing to players of specialized vehicles for high-risk plays, which in turn leads to the greater use of generalist vehicles and predictable( non-dynamic ) match outcomes.
If I may propose more significant changes, one might be to introduce objective structures on the open-circle [Conquest] maps which are more similar to their Air mode versions. For example, compare NF Midway to it 's ARB variant:
Here in Naval, the only ticket condition is to have more own-team vessels in the specified area to remove the enemy ticket count over time. But in Air, that same objective is reinforced by several additional ones: AI-controlled vessels of various sizes entering the capture zone, fixed emplacements on land to bombard, periodic attacks by AI aircraft on both sides, and convoys of larger vessels further back whose destruction independently counts towards the win.
It 's many of the improved objectives of NFEC, but played in the same 25 to 30min as regular random battles.
Having these objectives ported into Naval would go a long way into improving these kinds of map, especially by providing a greater range of gameplay available when playing them and by improving the viability of playing more kinds of vessels on them.
The AAB Wake Island is one of my favourite demonstrations of what could be, in microcosm:
While the main objective ( occupy the capture zone ) remains the same as normal, the addition of the AI target ships provides a greater range of gameplay interactions w/in that. And the various sizes of the targets would further elevate that effect - small AI boats are difficult to hit at range, nd larger ones are not trivialized by peashooters.
1 Like