Yeah, I dont mind having more options, for some these are probably wanted. But I like a minimal HUD for a reason and it should be super easy to just have this togglable in the settings. One of my BIGGEST gaming pet peaves is when devs dont make interfaces customisable. Mods are default for Fallout, Skyrim and now Starfield to just configure/disable parts of the HUD
1 Like
In essence, the Naval Progression update appears to have increased the grind for everyone with the introduction of Rank 6. This means you can no longer use Rank 4 ships to research Top Dogs, and surprisingly, this update didn’t even bring any new, fancy Rank 6 ships (excluding Texas). Hopefully, in 2024, the developers will reconsider and possibly revamp the naval progression system entirely. We can only hope for the best as its undeniably needed.
I’ve also observed another interesting aspect: while both Air and Ground forces saw premium vehicles move up in rank, Naval forces didn’t receive the same treatment. For instance, ships like the Helena or Mikuma are a full rank below their tech tree counterparts, even though those counterparts are no longer top rank. This discrepancy appears somewhat awkward and feels like Naval is once again the forgotten child.
That said, I do appreciate the new additions to Naval forces. They may not be the most thrilling, but they are undeniably aesthetically pleasing.
1 Like
It’s nice for weapons when it’s two different weapons of the same type (Su-25 with Kh-29ML and L are equipped in some loadouts, and it’s nice to know the difference). But I don’t think anyone needs to know about what isn’t selected. I agree with the idea of making it toggle-able with more than two options.
Yeah, and i think it use to do that with currently selected weapon.
But yeah an option like
Display weapon loadout:
- Yes
- Current selection only
- No
Would be a great addition
1 Like
For some reason the Hispano Mk II and Mk V belts were changed because the AP round was turned into an AP-T. It’s a really weird change since as far as I know, there was no AP-T round developed for the Hispano by Great Britain.
Even if there was, or it was just US Hispano ammo, why would the AP round be replaced instead of having both AP and AP-T?
Seems like a ahistorical change.
Hi, so I love flying the F8F-1 (BR 5.0) in Ground RB.
Prior to the update, the bomb sequence for the 3, 1000# bombs was: Middle bomb, then the 2 wing bombs, simultaneously for drop of 2,000#.
After the update, the sequence goes from left wing, to middle, to right wing, each individually.
As a result, after the 1st drop, the plane is lopsided, and likes to cartwheel on the right wing, and nose dive to the ground.
Q: Can you change the sequence to middle drop first so the plane does not get lopsided?
Thanks.
MaxAndBlue08880
Did the devs buff the TOW-2B I have been consistently getting kills with it when I used to not.
After the update, the PGZ09 is spawning with only 40 rounds. Please fix this
why are the MIG-29 (9-12/9-13) losing an insane amount of energy when doing basic 6-8G turns? being on full afterburner and doing a horizontal turn while doing a slight dive of -5 degrees causes me to go from like 1200kph to 700kph in like 20 seconds. it was never like this. now turning in the MIG-29 is a death sentence and F-16s dominate easily.
and if i dare to go into a dogfight i will lose as much energy as an MIG-21smt at 50% throttle… did yall nerf the MIG-29 (9-12/9-13) model?
1 Like
yea and it looses wayy more energy form simple turns
From my point of view, this update is a big disappointment. I appreciate adding the HU tech tree and the improvements in the characteristics of vehicles and the game overall. However, that’s all. I am very disappointed with the foldering of many vehicles…just why?! Foldering unrelated vehicles, crippling the lines, and forcing players to grind more?! I have already had some research and with this it became completely messed up and it’s absolutely nonsensical. Why did you do this? For new players to skip vehicles to get to the top more easily? For many years the trees were as they were and it was okay. Extra vehicle in the tree doesn’t hurt nobody. Same with crew voices. Previous voices were all fine, after this update they’re messed up and ugly. For example, why the loader sounds normally, but all other crew members sound over the radio?
My recommendation:
Scrap the entire idea
Revert back these changes as they were before the update.
The new AN-Mk 1 bomb for the F6F-5 seems a bit underpowered.
it’s an Armor Piercing Naval bomb, they’re all like this
3 Likes
Feedback regarding map changes.
I have a negative response to the map changes.
I did ask in another thread, what are the design principles when creating a map? Map preference is an entirely subjective thing that can be broadly split into those who like open maps and those who like close-quarter maps. Personally I like a bit of both.
The best maps are those that offer a combination of both styles of gameplay.
Normandy - A & C are too far apart, which is particularly tedious for early tanks with slow speeds. I observe that people would rather go back to the hangar than drive long distances. It’s still possible to result in a spawn camping situation where the attackers are behind cover.
Fields of Poland - A & C are too far apart
American Desert - My God, what a disaster! This has gone from a close-quarter map with some open areas to an entirely close-quarter map. Not to mention that visually these changes were made in a particularly clumsy way.
European Province - In the version where all capture points are in the town, the changes made to the south have actually made it easier to flank and spawn camp. The large hills have been flattened and effectively there are tunnels/channels, allowing travel without fear of being sniped. The larger version of this map was open and very suited for higher tier gameplay with long-distance shooting. The tone of this map has completely changed and is like a giant close-quarters map with prolific rough terrain eliminating views of any distance.
Test Site 2271 - Another close quarters map. This gives the impression of having open spaces, but the proliferation of small hills and heavy mud eliminates the open play style.
I appreciate that the changes were made due to complaints. But if you are going to listen only to those who like the close-quarters style of maps you will alienate the other part of the player base.
Many of us have been playing for years and enjoy variety and challenges within the maps. Dumbing down and removing any challenging aspects of maps creates a disincentive to play. I look at the changes and ask - who is the audience for this? This comes back to my question about the principles that Gaijin follows when designing maps. Recently there has been a relentless simplification of the maps.
I appreciate that you can’t please everyone, but lately you are only pleasing one particular play style.
Suggestions:
Retain the original versions of the maps as filterable options.
Conduct a survey before completely changing the nature of maps.
Categorise maps for close/wide play styles and include that as a filter option.
1 Like
I can’t see anywhere in patchnote, but did they change the SL multiplier for the Moffett?
funny how you’re heavily contradicting yourself in just a few lines. first you complain that foldering forces player to grind more (quite the opposite, it lessens the grind), then you say extra vehicles (=MORE GRIND) don’t hurt.
The trees were NOT as they were for many years, because hundreds of vehicles got added over the years, dozens per tree, and so they foldered some of them to make the grind to the top a bit less of a burden. Foldering vehicles away doesn’t hurt anybody, because it does not remove them, they are still there, and they also made foldered vehicles cheaper, so you can get them with even less grind.
You have a fair point with the crew voices but I can’t get behind being angry that you have to earn less RP to get through a techtree. People rage about how long the grind in WT is but when they lessen the grind people still get mad.
1 Like
Why are things like small hills bad for open maps? if you have no cover to get to objectives, you’ll just get people sitting behind the hill closest to their spawn not moving for the entire game because without cover, pushing out of your spawn is suicide, when up to 15 players stare you down from a hulldown position.
Even when you dislike close-quarters combat with tanks, you can’t really want hulldown tanks with nearly impenetrable turrets staring down kilometers of open fields without cover, right? There wouldn’t be any point in crossing the ridgeline, ever.
1 Like
A good update. Kudos.