Abandon targets that too smart if it not treating you.
You can do the same in naval amoo storages hit leads to oneshot, turrrets hit disarm the target.
Are you playing NRB? Try Arcade, aiming is simpler there. ps You must select the target in both modes to aim properly.
You can do the same in naval amoo storages hit leads to oneshot, turrrets hit disarm the target.
I could, if my shell would go where I aim. In my original argument I said that it is too undeterministic, which is realistic, but not good for the gameplay.
Try Arcade, aiming is simpler there.
I did try it and it was way better and I liked it more, BUT the rewards were even shittier. I get more rewards in RB by doing less, so I stick to RB. (but even this way, becouse I cant achive anyiting, the overall rewars are just too little, that is why I’m complaining)
RP rewards are the same
sarcasm at its best!
It did not feel like that, Is it really true?
in RB there are much more research points for the same action like in AB
Huh, thanks, seems I get more rewards in rb becouse of the play time multiplier
Yep, but feel the difference, in AB way easy to find targets and battles are fast paced.
*See another report on base bombing.
*SB RP is capped at a maximum reward per minute, similar to SL.SB rewards are tallied every 15 minutes or the time from spawn to death. Deaths add 80% to the reward, and landing adds another 20%. The formula is "maximum reward per minute x number of minutes x activity.”
And don’t forget that arrow research is 1.3 multiplier in NAB and 1.1 in NRB on all gains. So choose wisely
This is why people don’t want to play RB. It’s slow. Time consuming. And so when a game is bad, it’s bad for more precious time of your life than an Arcade match would be.
Ruining Arcade, then telling people the same experience is available in RB is disingenuous. Which is why we’re here, having discussions on what is needed.
At this point, I’m willing to see what Gaijin can provide if they desperately want this aimbot system to work. Just make it so whatever I point the cursor at, the rounds go. Right now, when you lose target, your rounds go wild as the gunners target the water at your bow.
Hud of gun position would be good too.
The current aim system is too inconsistent between targeted and non-targeted, ignoring that it robs most play of autonomy and agency.
Well… just dropped a NAB 7.3 for the funskies, in my 0 module ground Kirishima. Big Empty Circle, moving at like 25kph (a crawl) and uh, just… keeping the cursor on the enemy. No… correcting shots. No satisfaction from getting hits with the first volley… no real thinking-about-how-to-land-shots-more-efficiently. Just… pointing and clicking my big slow boat at their big slow boat.
The only REAL tactic is: 1) Waiting for the initial drop timer to auto drop you so you’re last to spawn. 2) Convincing your team to focus fire.
Everything else is Bot Gunners and luck.
It’s boring.
While I was spacing out holding down the left mouse button, I thought, “Maybe we could have the original aim for Coastals, and leave this boring no-effort aim for capital ships?”
We still need to figure out how to avoid bluewaters just popping coastals from 10kms. I suggested we go back to making coastals invisible to the naked eye at 2km - 3km. Make people have to use scopes to see them.
No it’s not. The key factor for SL is the individual SL multipliers on the stat card, which are always higher in RB.
Before when bots were rated as only partial score, and there were more bots in RB, RB could have lower average score and earnings. Now with bots on both sides and bot earnings increased to be the same as player ships, RB has a much higher SL payout per game and per hour, not to mention the score advantage (2.2 vs 1.9).
RP it’s closer, but RB is still the higher payout for most ships, as proven by last month’s Statshark data, again:
This is because of the “playtime” multiplier. There’s no value in the other commenter saying above “all the numbers on this chart I found are basically the same except one” when that one is the multiplier on ALL the others.
Which is exactly why I am not playing it. It’s just boring, it’s not engaging, it’s not a learning process, it’s not thinking, it’s just clicking and getting a dopamine spike like a mobile ‘smash touch screen’ game.
What sucks is that they are releasing all these lovely, top tier battleships, capping off the BB line and meaning everything will now be filling in the tree, and I have utterly no will or reason to actually play or obtain them. I just…don’t care anymore. One can only hope they eventually listen to the vast majority of the community, see the player numbers continue to drop, see premiums not sell as well, and revert the NAB changes. Then I’ll gladly return to Naval, hell, I’ll even BUY the new premiums if they do that.
Me too. I love the SLs premium botes give 🤑
Let me fix that for you: Its rage inducing.
One random shot can explode your ammo, and it is so frequent that a real navy would never use ships because of how often they just exploded.
@Kweedko - If it was a bug, they would have fixed it in one of the ~12 patches they’ve released since they introduced the “bug”. I remember them acknowledging the uber aim on bots exists, but that’s not the same as acknowledging its a bug. I can acknowledge that my name is Tim without acknowledging its a fake name.
This bugged me enough that I had to look up some figures for it. Turns out very few ships have ever had a magazine detonation due to a shell exploding their ammo:
Queen Mary
Indefatigable
Invincible
Defense
Bretagne
Hood
Hayate
More have had their ammo detonate due to being struck by a torpedo:
Pathfinder
Pallada
Recruit
M28
Pommern
Suffren
Armando Diaz
Reuben James
Juneau
New Orleans
Liscome Bay (aircraft carrier)
Boadicea
Unryu (aircraft carrier)
Taiyō (aircraft carrier)
A few had their magazine detonate due to a fire (most likely due to shellfire):
Raglan
Leonardo da Vinci
Tsukuba
Kawachi
Mutsu
Barham
One due to mines:
Halligan
And finally bombs:
Marat
Arizona
Shaw
Roma (guided bomb)
Janus (guided bomb)
IJN Yamato (possibly torpedoes though…it took a lot of hits before capsizing)
Aikoku Maru (cargo ship)
Nachi (possibly torpedoes though…it took a lot of hits before breaking into 3 parts)
Kashii (possibly torpedoes though…it took a bunch of hits of both types)
And a there’s a bunch of ships that just exploded in port due to mishaps:
Bulwark
Natal
Imperatrista Mariya
Vanguard
Etruria
Glatton
Kawachi
Capitan Prat
Maillé Brézé (cargo ship)
USS Serpens (cargo ship)
Mutsu
Ukishima Maru
This isn’t a complete list, but as you can see the chances of blowing up due to being hit by a SINGLE SHELL are frankly impossible. Yet this happens on a regular basis in War Thunder. Even if this list is only half of the ships that exploded due to an ammo explosion, ~80 out of the hundreds (thousands?) of warships built between the start of World War I and the end of World War 2 is good odds (let’s generously call it a 1% chance). Yet in War Thunder, I suspect the reality is 30% chance because at least one of my ships will die to an ammo explosion every battle.
Here here.
So what you propose?(Despite that is the game, not real life) But remember that some ships in game is barley killable from crew died out. And “hull structural integrity” was nerfed by community whine, caused by some bloggers and bugtracker moderators thought that will make ships too killable, but never tested it properly on dev server in match like environment and devs nefred it too much on feedback, so now it almost non factor. In game most of the ships die out on heat attack due to crew loss which is maximally unrealistic, but community itself killed devs attempt to change that.
I got idea how to change it but will post it after we look at patch changes at devserver.
Change for the crew loss mechanics. Currently, automatic flooding is triggered when 60% of the crew of a large ship is lost. At the same time, all repair options are disabled except for those already in progress (P.S. I am referring to the overall crew, not the percentage displayed in the interface for the opponent’s ship, as the survivability model is based on that).
This can be reworked as follows: when there is 40% remaining crew, disable all survivability options except for ongoing “repairs”(new one will not start) and propose the player to open the seacocks and accept defeat, but not automatically sink the ship. Then, when only 20-25% of the crew remains, forcibly flood the ship (there will be a chance for fires to cause an explosion, cook the crew, hull breaches to sink it, or continue fighting and firing from remaining guns depending on damage).
This would create in-game situations where “ship keep being a treat for long even it could not fight for survival anymore” adding more dramatic moments. Currently, 90% of deaths happen because the ship “died of a heart attack” due to crew exhaustion change will bring death from fires from flooding or ammo explosions over simple crew loss, and get some longer survivability for all big ships.
They should introduce a visibilty mechanic as in tanks, even a basic based on tonnage could do a big difference.
A small PT is not delectable at the same distances as a Destroyer and the latter is not as a BB.
