Agree, Gaijin using the new system while they still keep some old setting from old system, like the radar lock system and search/lock system. it is totally a mess.
1 Like
unfortunately GJ seems not to notice any of the about 10 threads on the naval changes. Until now not any comment was given from GJ. So even if the whole forum takes part on the poll its irrelevant to them.
5 Likes
I thought the number of votes was pretty high for a naval poll given the player base and the fact that this is the English forum. It had only gotten 3 new votes in 8 hours or so. It also matched the outcome of the other poll on the Russian forums.
You are still welcome to make your opinion known. However, given that 2/3 of the players voted against it before and after it happened, and many in the forums seem to not like it, I’m not going to hold my breath they change anything.
2 Likes
I have made a new multiple option poll:
2 Likes
Polls don’t matter to GJ. I have been through this several times and several years ago. They will come back and say your poll is not representative, they’ve done there own polling, you’re in an echo chamber, give it a try, most Russian players like it, your evidence is not supported nor verifiable, etc. I have seen it all. As I said, I quit for two tears over this and I bought several premium vehicles including ones naval. Only after the player base collapses will they consider making a change or reverting. I personally hate big changes. Small incremental fixes are they way to go.
2 Likes
I think some bad reviews are the only thing that is going to change their minds. It worked last time on Steam, but we don’t have enough naval players to make them care.
2 Likes
Boycott naval AB… only way, then they will have to have more bots.
No idea how it is with computing power for each bot but when they will have 4/15 human players… maybe something will click.
Till then back to tanks.
2 Likes
I have been. I wish I liked the other modes better.
1 Like
Just dropping a negative review on Steam… lets see if it helps to change their mind
3 Likes
And there is a big part of the problem. If 121 votes seems high then I can see why Gaijin doesnt care so much about Naval.
You wouldn’t create a game for 121 players and certainly wouldnt be inclined to put good money after bad in trying to develop it.
I’m not trying to have a dig at you but for Gaijin to take notice you would need 10x, maybe 100x the number of players complaining
I’m not even sure how many people actively play naval, a what the split between arcade and realistic is. Both modes have their fair share of bots to fill in the gaps
1 Like
thats no reason for GJ to deny any communication of the issues in the forum. Which they do in other topics. Maybe we should “conquer” the turret basket thread - joking -
1 Like
Give me an option to turn it off and revert it to the previous system. The new aiming system is an abomination, at least in a game that wants to sell itself as a simulation.
Everything about this system feels inherently wrong.
If you want to give navy players who want to zoom in at long ranges a better overview, split the screen once zoom reaches a certain magnification. Both horizontally or vertically seem plausible, with both having advantages and disadvantages.
If no target is selected the split screen would be disabled, once a target is selected, one screen would focus on the center of that target, while the other would show where you are currently aiming at. Both views would naturally originate from your ship, with stuff like map objects or smoke screens obstructing your view. Put in a smooth transition from one screen to split screen view that does not disorient players too much, and let players test it out during next testing rounds.
Those are, of course, just my thoughts on this.
5 Likes
It’s a bad proposal. To old system with compensation of your own speed way better.
3 Likes
agree…splitting screen would even more confuse players…
I even disabled the shell view camera as for me holding the fire button means FIREEEEEEEE!!!
is enough to see the result on the corner where You got a report whether it was short or over or hits, even this is a bit tooo much when the ships are behind the line of sight.
How a gunman can see if the hits were short when the ship is hidden.
And they claim is a simulator game.
Maybe they should enable multiscreen option… one for main gameplay other for aiming??? dunno what do you guys and gals think??
But to be honest i would stay with old one… keep it simple and working
3 Likes
Many people just straight up quit rather than complain.
Not only queue times have doubled with barely few waiting but player numbers have halved from what I seen. They don’t need to look at complaints.
Numbers don’t lie.
4 Likes
Not my experience - queue times are much the same at ~1-3 minutes, numbers of players in games are much the same at 25-67%, occasionally higher, never lower than 25%.
This is at BR’s of 3.3, 5.0, 6.0 and 7.0 - 7.0 would be where most of the longer wait times are.
No - it is people who lie, often by passing off numbers they have no actual verifiable evidence for.
1 Like
Our experiences are not the same, clearly.
Correct, numbers do not lie!
Some people are habitual liars - Or have the compulsive disorder to have the last say no matter the context. Thankfully I am neither.
As for numbers without evidence:
1 Like
One last time, I am posting this here to spread awareness- go to the community update and demand answers:
Just to add to this conversation, the recent community update in no way acknowledged our protests. I posted asking why, was ignored, and instead someone else asking about naval events got a reply. I’ve since replied at the moderator again requesting acknowledgement from gaijin, and others here should as well. Continue the discontent, continue to not play NAB, continue to reject this change.
2 Likes
My numbers have evidence - my own testimony.
I expressly said they are my experience, and you have no right to call me a liar.
If you had expressed your own experience as numbers I would have noted that mine was different.
But you purported to be talking about player population figures - figures that you do not actually have any evidence to support.
You owe me an apology - but I won’t see it because "b"ankers like you go to the ignore forever pile.
1 Like