Naval mode is finally dead

[dragloon]

lots are not playing
because the troll had some silly ideas

[FuegoTigre]

Dog. I’m here post screens of players, IN GAME, talking trash about Arcade Naval Aiming. Get real. Please. Your Propaganda is WEAK, brah. Tell The Ministry of Truth you need more backup.

Naval mode is finally dead

Thought I’d do a couple more. No one is confused about what the problem is. …ok… well… one guy. [image]

[Kweedko]

Try harder. If you can’t out-argue me, why devs should even bother listen to you?

[FuegoTigre]

There’s no argument brother. Just your subterfuge and topic derailment. We’re all having a discussion and you keep interrupting it.

[FuegoTigre]

From the latest War Thunder FB post:

The players are making their voices heard… and Kweed over here trying to muffle all of them.

[Lauri_Heino]

You can’t out-argue an argument that was never there.

When people play AB, they expect it to work (at least approximately) the same way across modes.
When people play RB, they expect it to work (at least approximately) the same way across modes. (The single-plane lineups in RB are another topic altogether.)
When people play SB, they expect it to work (at least approximately) the same way across modes.

Someone who is used to Air or Ground AB is going to be sorely dissatisfied when they try out Naval and realize that all the skill and fun has been taken out of the mode by snipe-bots / kill-steal bots and full-auto-aiming. I know I was certainly wanting to start out on naval, expecting at least similar mechanics to other modes, or at least to when I last saw Naval in 2019.

Why would I want to play a mode that has all the fun automated away?

[Kweedko]

When new people come to game they didn’t expect anything except what was in advertising, they they come try and learn.

@Lauri Heino

know I was certainly wanting to start out on naval, expecting at least similar mechanics to other modes, or at least to when I last saw Naval in 2019.

Wanting to start since 2019, keep on starting man.

btw. Your expectations it’s your problem.

[wolftale]

Let me put it this way:

When aiming in AB, you are the fire director:

• You are provided: range
• You calculate: target point (the end result)
• The firing computer calculates: relative speed in both axes, relative heading, lateral lead, vertical lead

When aiming in RB, you are the fire control room:

• You are provided: range, then periodic target speed and relative heading
• You calculate: lateral and vertical lead

In this case, AB is technically closer to life than RB in your role as CO.

The problem in my mind is not necessarily the automation of this process. In fact, I think it’s stupid that the so-called “firing computer” doesn’t give you rate of close in RB. Instead you have to guess on experience and crank the mouse wheel to provide the right vertical lead, which can lead to wild variation between shots.

The old AB system did all of this. The problem in the current AB system is that it relays the firing solution instantly to the guns with no ability to correct it, removing any sort of agency in where your shells go. This ironically makes them less accurate between two highly skilled opponents, while uplifting noobs that don’t need to learn how to lead and therefore get overwhelmed when they try RB.

[Lauri_Heino]

@Kweedko

When new people come to game they didn’t expect anything except what was in advertising, they they come try and learn.

And what’s in the advertising? Realism, accuracy, and tough-love skill attainment that would make Miyazaki blush. Y’all had all the handholding you could have ever needed with the old system, and you cry and you moan until Gaijin gives you a paci to shut you up.

@Kweedko

Your expectations it’s your problem.

My expectations are that people would actually want to learn how to play the game. If you want gameplay you don’t have to think to get good at, go play WoW and leave us to the game we were promised.

[Kweedko]

@Lauri Heino

people would actually want to learn how to play the game

People who want to learn the game start playing and learning not arguing on the forums.

[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.