It’s war thunder business model.
1 Like
Yes, there are a lot of problems with Naval, it’s obviously not just the simplified aiming. The funny thing is that 4-5 years ago most of these issues didn’t exist. We had a single damage model for all vessels, and every ship could actually fight each other. Sure, maybe it wasn’t perfect, but you always felt like you could do something no matter what you played. You could use any shell type and still be effective. And we didn’t have the almost unkillable ships back then. It’s surprising how much the devs have broken since then. Naval used to be my favorite mode, but now I don’t even play it anymore.
I don’t really understand this question. France already has both tech trees in the game:
Spoiler
BTW, please ignore Kweedko. He always tries to derail proper discussions.
3 Likes
and that’s bad!
1 Like
Make a suggestion.
Do you know that it was players who asked HE and SAP to be nerfed?
already done, as you can see the developers clearly care a lot
Don’t expect that every proposals will be implemented, especially those which was closed by poster himself and been done out of rush and disappointment.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Try to play them yourself, to figure out that they not so biased as you think, germs is way better.
Battle Ratings are still as YOU would say DOGSHITE! What IS the point of hoping for a cruiser versus cruiser game when BATTLECRUISERS can enter at 5.7!!! Capital ships BR should start at EIGHT! For those that wish to spend 20 minutes for NOTHING, be my guest. POINTLESS!!!
1 Like
The battlecruisers that are that low are so for a reason, firepower is all they have, protection wise they have almost nothing
1 Like
Naval is still slightly larger, but not by much. Two quick-to-check stats:
Statshark playerbase last month (based on leaderboard stats, tends to be an overcount):
Helo: 101,140
Naval AB: 154,864
Naval RB: 100,137
Remembering there’s overlap between modes, it’s likely the helo player base is currently around half of both naval modes combined.
This is potentially confirmable by saved replays in both modes (taken from the replay site, from 1700-1730 UTC today):
Helo PvE: 19
Naval (both modes): 34
Any other recent replay sample I’ve seen generates similar proportions. So yeah, the two player bases are quite close, possibly within a factor of 2 or so of each other in at least some measures of size currently.
Both of which were added, along with Rank VI bluewater, in the two years before Leviathans. Worth remembering when people say there were no changes to naval in for two years before this spring, which is more about them not paying attention than anything actual. Fighting the bots off combined with significant damage model changes led to significant naval game play changes, and dozens of new ships and several maps were added in those two years as well.
4 Likes
Does the helo numbers also count the random helo’s you can spawn in ground arcade? And did you account for the smaller match sizes in Helo PvE. Also note that not every match is recorded as a server replay. I’ve had plenty of situations where I just could not find my own replays back as a server replay
2 Likes
Those stats are just PvE Helo matches, doesn’t count use of Helos in ground RB (ground arcade helos and aircraft are counted in stats against the ground vehicle you spawned them from). Factor that in and the “helo playerbase” would approach naval even more closely.
Replays could be an undercount, but there’s no reason to believe they are in naval significantly more than other modes at present. There was a problem in the past with some low-tier bluewater RB matches being misfiled in the “newbie mode” section, but we’re not talking a large amount there compared to the total number of naval replays.
I don’t think until Statshark came along this year that people realized that the two naval modes combined were, at best, about 1%-1.5% of this game, a little better than Helo PvE, but worse than PvE Air Assault or PvE Ground Assault, even taken together.
EDIT: Note the troll, who lied about the 50% increase in players post-Leviathans, who lied about no changes to naval in the last two years, is also lying in the post below, as he does continuously when it comes to defending his bizarre Naval AB fixation in this thread and others. The correct number to compare there is spawns, because you can spawn over and over in helo PvE in the same vehicle, unlike naval. The top helo, with 67,000 PvE spawns last month, isn’t that far off the top AB ship (Litchfield), with 224,571 spawns in the same month. Saying the two are “nowhere close” in terms of popularity is, in fact, an overstatement… especially when you consider how long you have to invest to get into helos vs how fast you can play your first naval game. In February, it was even closer, with 84k Ka-50 spawns vs 155k Litchfields.
3 Likes
That Mr. Cerrypicker for you. He could not understand that single ship in one mode in the game have more games than all Helis per month.
this may be a very unpopular opinion, but I do not trust Statshark completely, I do not know how they gather their data and until I do I will take it with a grain of salt.
But that is not to say that I don’t recognise how small naval is. but I would be quite surprised to hear it’s that close to helo’s
and it is not the player size per se that I found to be a pessimistic viewpoint. It was the one that thought naval PvP could dissapear as a game mode. (just to clarify)
2 Likes
Statshark has always been quite open about how it collects data, and responsive to questions on their Discord. I see really no reason to doubt its data here. What surprises me is how it was apparently all publicly available all this time and it just took someone who knows APIs to pull all our service records down once a month. (And again, that’s why I crosschecked above with the replay site data.)
2 Likes
So players multiply with respawns, sure.
I’m not the one who clamed that naval playerbase dropped April to February in the first place, you was. So why you don’t compare July to February?
ps. I’m not the guy who count 19 Naval battles to compare 448 GRB
pps. If you can’t handle some critic it’s your problem. You theories actually look like “first year” student ones, who just figure out what “average” and “median” is, who hides his unprofessionalism behind walls of text .
New vehicles or rank is not the “changes” for the naval modes, just content. There were no new maps in last three years as far as i remember(or maybe one for small fleet 3.3-, when most of players play big ships). Hull compartments were in game for decade, just with slightly different mechanic of unsinkability lost and what was before it. Most of the changes were just little tweaks or attributes numbers change.
Heck, new multi vehicle AA trucks and their interface and mechanics have more changes in one patch that whole naval stuff in last three years from nowdays.
This are the changes what needed for naval.
ps. I told about two years before Aiming update.
I wish Gaijin would store/provide more extensive data themselves. Interesting factoids like number of assists, caps or destroyed bases aren’t listed, and even something as basic as Battleship play time is nowhere to be found.
In contrast, already more than a decade ago WoT shared enough data with third-party websites and apps for them to be able to tell you exactly how many of a specific tank were destroyed by which one of yours and vice versa.
The accuracy of Gaijin’s official data, or at least the way it gets used to create the official leaderboards and the statistics derived from them, is also somewhat iffy. For example, my displayed Air Arcade leaderboard stats and the associated Battle-Hardended and Favourite Mode profile sections omit
nearly 2/3s of my battles and their results, despite them being correctly listed in the general Arcade LB and my Statistics tab.
2 Likes