Naval mode is finally dead

[Lauri_Heino]

So start playing.

[Kweedko]

Discussion that you played 3 battles to post on forums?

[FuegoTigre]

There’s nothing to learn, brah. I’m playing. There’s no game. Players PLAYING the game are ACTIVELY saying that there is no game AS they’re Playing the game.

…you’re just saying words.

Here, I’ll do it too. @Kweedko , how about you play a few matches before you start trying to have an opinion here. All these players are telling you you’re wrong. All you do is play Air Arcade. Try playing some Naval matches and you’ll understand what we’re talking about.

The overwhelming majority of players think the aim system blows. Revert the Hornet Aim Changes.

[Lauri_Heino]

He never played Naval until the day after Hornet’s Sting, when the aiming mode got lobotomized.
My man never once got to experience the original aiming mode at all!

[pooqich]

it all suddenly makes sense now x)

[Daffan]

@Bruce_R1

they have managed to get naval up to… 1.5% of random games played and <5% of players.

The gameplay is absolutely horrid. Straight up zero skill zero effort zero strategy zero anything. Torps useless. Planes useless. Auto aim. No movement gameplay. Horrific spawns. Bad maps. What is even going on at development side I have no idea. Complete RNG dmg model where the worst players in the game can 1 shot you from 10km away (At least in air/ground you can out-maneuver, flank, hide, strategize and use teamwork etc)

Skill ceiling is non-existent, which is caused by zero depth. The only people who like it are people who like boat-history and people who abuse OP ships against cardboard enemies. This is both NAB and NRB.

[SilentTracker]

@Lattrell_Spencer Heya fren! Are you still around/active? Since your thread has become the de-facto “main thread” about the current issues/complaints players have with Naval Battles, I wanted to see if you are still able to modify the tags for your post because this one only shows up in the Arcade section of the Naval threads:

@SilentTracker

@Rikers_Beard

The problem is that that thread is in the Arcade subforum. Naval also exists in RB. That thread needs to be non-specific for higher visibility. I never check the Arcade tag.

I will see if the OP can edit the tag, or might require a mod to edit it. I just know that every new thread like this gets closed in ~1 day lol. Will see what I can do 👍

If you are not around, or are no longer able to edit the tags, please let me know. Might ask a mod to edit the tags if possible so that both the Naval Arcade and Naval Realistic forum sections can see it.

And/or if anyone has a better suggestion/idea for the tags on this thread, please let me know. I am not an expert on the best way to tag threads for best visibility, especially within the Naval sections.

Thanks!

[Kweedko]

@magazine2

In the future (follow the news!) we’re planning some changes to how spawn points work for aircraft in Ground Realistic and Naval Arcade / Realistic Battles.

How does it work currently? To give you a refresher: if you spawn the same class of aircraft twice, the SP cost for the second spawn increases (so if you spawn an AD-2 and then an AM-1, for example). But it does not increase if you spawn again in a different class of aircraft — which effectively means you can spawn a fighter, attacker/bomber aircraft one after the other at the default cost.

How will it work instead? The spawn cost of the second and subsequent planes you spawn in Ground Realistic and Naval Realistic / Arcade Battles will be determined by the ordinance you used with the previously spawned aircraft, and won’t be impacted by aircraft class. As an example, if you spawn an aircraft with bombs, the cost to spawn another aircraft equipped with bombs increases, even if the class is not the same.

There will be effectively two types of aircraft spawns in regards to SP, fighters (aircraft of any class equipped with air-to-air missiles or no additional weaponry at all) and aircraft equipped with “Strike weapons” (bombs, rockets, AGMs, torpedoes, mines, AP piercing belts).

Two more specific examples include:

• If you spawn a P-47 with bombs (strike weapons) for 600 SP and get shot down, the cost to spawn it again with a backup with no strike weapons will be at the default cost (540 SP).
• If you take a fighter with one bomb (like a Spitfire), the next aircraft you spawn with strike weaponry will increase, and not for fighter aircraft with no strike weapons.

Overall, this changes the SP cost of additional aircraft spawns from a class-based system to a weapon-based system, which is much more streamlined and works more effectively with the intentions of the mechanic. The actual class of an aircraft is almost arbitrary, when it’s the weaponry that actually has an impact. In addition to this being an overall fairer way to distribute spawn cost, this will also result in less strike-capable planes in ground battles, as now it will be more difficult to spawn these aircraft multiple times.

You gonna get nerf for Aircrafts in Naval if you don’t say anything against it.

[Rupert64]

additional nerfs for aircraft in naval arcade is totally silly. But as it seems that the only voice that GJ is listening to is yours, @Kweedko there is no need to invest effort from others

[SilentTracker]

@Rupert64

additional nerfs for aircraft in naval arcade is totally silly.

I do not see it as a nerf. They are removing the separation of Strike/Bomber/Fighter classes, and making it solely dependent on load-outs. This makes more sense overall imo.

For GRB and Naval, there are some BR ranges where there are not enough different classes of CAS to use, thus severely nerfing your ability to spawn CAS more than once. With this new concept you could use a CAS load-out with ATGM’s, die to other fighters, and then still be able to come back in with that same CAS vehicle but with just AA missiles, since the spawn cost should be much lower than the first spawn in. Whereas before the Spawn Point cost goes up by 2x or something? I think this new system will be better overall.

The only question is precisely how many spawn points will be required, for exactly which load-outs, and if it calculates based on previous or current spawn. Regardless, those specifics can and will be tweaked I am sure, but I still like the sound of this new system rather than the simple and “dumb” system now that only looks at the differing classes for multiple spawn ins.

Further info/opinions:

Changes to the SP cost of CAS in GRB

It’s only really a change to repeatedly spawning aircraft with bombs. The first spawn will still cost the same as it does now

@Morvran coming in as always with some excellent info, insight and opinions, cheers brother 🍻

Changes to the SP cost of CAS in GRB

Only things that have been nerfed is that the US can’t spawn in an F15E and F16C with A2G fits and the USSR cant spawn in with Su30s and then Su34 with A2G fits. Most nations won’t notice a difference. It’s a good way to balance multiroles

Changes to the SP cost of CAS in GRB

No it didn’t. It buffed them imo. Before If I spawned in say a typhoon, and then died. I could either spawn in a tornado Gr4 or nothing at all because I couldnt respawn in a fighter. Now I could spawn in the Gripen or Typhoon with A2G and then respawn in the other with A2A. It’s also been a massive buff for the SHar FRS1s as they were erroneously classed as a strike aircraft meaning Britains only fighter at 10.3 couldn’t be spawned in after bringing a much better CAS like the Jaguar. Now the…

Changes to the SP cost of CAS in GRB

It’s become better balanced. This is a good thing. For 80% of nations, they did not have a powerful multirole CAS aircraft classed as a strike aircraft. This have those 2 nations a massive and overwhelming advantage

Changes to the SP cost of CAS in GRB

They might, they might not. THere is no guarantee that something like the Gripen D would A) be added to the game or B) be classed as a strike aircraft. Sweden is going to perticuarly benefit from this change because the highest BR Strike aircraft they have at the moment is an 11.0. They can now spawn in the Gripen A or C and respawn in the other with just pure CAP. This basically makes the Gripen A worthy to bring to a top tier line up. Its a huge buff for CAP and balances CAS

Changes to the SP cost of CAS in GRB

Not really. Im personally looking forward to this change at 10.3 because Britians ONLY CAP aircraft was classed errenously as a strike aircraft and now I would be able to spawn in a CAP after spawining in CAS At 9.0, It will change nothing for me, as I would use the Hunter F1 and Buc S1 as my CAS and CAP. Going lower like say 3.0. I can now bring a Typhoon Mk Ia with bombs and then respawn in a Spitfire MkIIA or Sea Hurricane. All of which are classed as fighters. Before I would have only be…

Changes to the SP cost of CAS in GRB

I thoroughly enjoy CAS in GRB but this is a good change. You should not be able to jump in an Su-30SM (a fighter) with a full loadout of KH-38s, get a stupid amount of easy kills from a very OP missile, and jump into say an Su-33 (a bomber) with more Kh-38s and not see an increase in SP cost. This is a really good change.

[Kweedko]

Community Update No.7: Talking About What’s Coming Soon!

How about No for the Naval modes, we need more planes in naval gameplay not less(we need Air wing respawns with bots following you like in “scenario maps”, not less respawns with bigger costs). It will kill fighters in naval. Increased reload in air for fighters already more than enough disadvantage, i bet you didn’t though to increase reload for fighters to bomber level with that change, which no one asked for naval modes, where Air almost not exist in RB and have disadvantage in AB for fighte…

You can reply my message

[FuegoTigre]

Agreed. Before, you just make sure you have a fighter with CAS capabilities. Now, you’re really forcing roles by focusing armament.

The problem is, there’s not much opportunity for an “Air” game in naval with all the AA and infrequent spawns. So, no real need for a “Fighter”.

Put Big Boats on an EC map… make it so players can drop into the match with different focuses, as in, Air players can run into ship matches, or ground matches, and we’ve got something interesting.

But with how fahked up Arcade Aiming is, and how ridiculous AI AA is, planes are a distant consideration for players

I love CAS tho. It’s why I play

[Morvran]

I also didnt entirely read it properly either initially. So I was thinking that it would just allow 2 of the same type of designation to used back to back, so long as one didnt have A2G.

But its actually better than that, because if you have a backup, you can actually spawn in the same aircraft twice in a row, so long as you dont have A2G in one of those spawns. Massive boost for a nation like Sweden

[SilentTracker]

Quote

@Morvran_

I also didnt entirely read it properly either initially. So I was thinking that it would just allow 2 of the same type of designation to used back to back, so long as one didnt have A2G.

But its actually better than that, because if you have a backup, you can actually spawn in the same aircraft twice in a row, so long as you dont have A2G in one of those spawns. Massive boost for a nation like Sweden

Ah, yeah I am still trying to fully understand the implications of the change to better argue for or against the specifics. I just refuse to be “one of those players” who jumps fully to “ZOMG IT’S END OF THE WORLD” lol. I have always felt held back by being forced to chose between Fighter/Strike/Bomber for my CAS/CAP slots in my lineups. Even when I am (was) playing US Naval, and its plethora of aircraft types, I still always felt a bit restricted. This opens up many more possibilities. I like the concept, just going to do my best to keep reading the constructive and informative posts, like yours. Cheers!

[Morvran]

Yep. Im really interested to see how they tune it and it will 100% need post-introduction refinement, but yeah. lots of doom and gloom about this when it really isnt warranted

[侍KAMIKAZE侍]

Somehow ammoracked all 3 of those tiny mini ammoracks on that “tottaly unbiased” Soyuz. Now its sinking and guess what (If it was gaijins buggy yamato it would explode by bein touched badly).

Bloody convoy bot that cant even pen soyuz steals it !

Like wtf man thats like 5th time this happend to me in few days. Why do bots even get kills?? Just give it to the player that put the moust damage into the target.

Gaijin is like “Why dont people like naval, so wierd man”

[Kweedko]

Don’t tell after that i didn’t warn ya.

[xPorkulusx]

This dude genuinely wants to be thought of as the god of Naval who makes all of the decisions. It’s pathetic and hilarious, doubly so because apparently Gaijin agrees.

[wolftale]

This is pretty much always the case with ammo rack kills. Usually, flood kills are accredited to the person that caused the flooding, but if he was below min crew threshold to repair, then the bot must have gotten the last hit and it didn’t count. It’s worst on ammo rack kills, though. The game doesn’t seem to associate the person who started the fire with the kill itself. So, if you get a kill from barbette fire, it will almost always go to a bot… which obviously can’t use the rewards and don’t normally have their kills recorded.

[Kweedko]

You could not listen to my preachment, but you will face that would become.