None of the naval treaties use the term Heavy Cruiser" or “Light Cruiser” at all - so whether anyone signed a treaty or not is irrelevant to using the terms.
The Washington Treaty defined a capital ship as anything over 10,000 tons or with guns larger than 8" (203mm).
The London treaty set different limits for ships with guns over 6.1" (155mmm) and 6.1" and smaller - but never called them heavy or light cruisers - that became unofficial parlance afterwards, and eventually adopted as the norm.
Welp, I’ve clearly read/watch something wrong, I backtrack my claim, but the prefixes are still an issue.
The 6.5" part me clearly screwing up the London naval treaty withits 6.1" armament.
On the requirements to understand better since what I remember is incorrect, what wiuld be a good starting point website, book or video watch on this subject?
The wiki articles are pretty good - lots of references including to the original texts :)
I’ve been told the community managers are always collecting feedback to send to the developers. Despite every significant feedback every single 60, 70, and $80 premium pack devblog being filled with comments saying Gaijin is charging too much, the price never changes . So…what do we think is happening? Devs don’t care or community managers aren’t doing what they said they are? I guess it could be both?
Like we don’t even get a post explaining anything either. No “we have heard your feedback and wanted to take a moment to explain why the price has remained or here’s what we intend to do with it.” If you aren’t going to drop the price, then at least drop the “two updates and older” aspect of major sales.
doesn’t mean the dev’s and marketing people have to follow the feedback.
Revert the awful arcade changes, and I’ll start playing naval and spending money again. Until then, good luck selling things to what’s left of the player base whose trust and good will you have squandered.
Enough people buy them that there is no reason to change? Its not rocket science, welcome to hell.
For one commenter, one can reasonably assume that there are more than 110 purchases.
You don’t matter enough - queues in NAB are shorter now, more ppl in each team (fewer bots), which likely there’s more ppl playing NAB now than before changes.
So all the protestations of ppl like yo about leaving and never coming back are completely irrelevant - the changes worked for Gaijin’s purposes.
the only feedback that matters is if people still buy the packs or not.
Sure thing Kweedko
I play quite a lot of naval, up to max BR, but I won’t be getting these, at least not for 80€…
I have pretty much nothing left to research.
These 380mm guns aren’t that much better than 283mm guns, but there are less guns, with slower reload, which directly translates to diminished income. I wonder what multipliers these ships will get and if it could beat Prinz Eugen on rewards…
I know you have limited capacity for understanding this, but I’m going to say it again jsut in case it gets through - there are more people than just Kweedo who have no problem with the naval changes.
Proportions - percentages - are not numbers of pple
As I say in the article, absolute numbers can’t be used for comparison due to the effects of annualized trends. Fewer people play the game on May than Feb, it would actually be an unfair comparison that would make NAB numbers look even worse.
The undeniable fact is that NAB player numbers dropped in the months since the March update relative to NRB and all other modes. If the aim was to attract new players to NAB with simpler mechanics, it has objectively failed. Statsharks’s apparent full access to core data doesn’t allow us to lie to ourselves about this now.
(In fact, it’s even worse though. The same data shows the players who stuck around in NAB are more strongly oriented toward top-tier play. The players who have more invested. All the erosion has come at the lower tiers, the BRs for people who are on average newer to naval.)
lol - absolute numbers can’t be used as a comparison, but proportions can because using absolute numbers would make it look worse?
What is the problem with making it look worse ffs??
And then you go on to say numbers have dropped but you aren’t using numbers to measure that?? WTF
That is MAGA ludicrous!!
People complaining about the price but the thing is, it will sell, it will sell a LOT!
Scharnhorst has been an absolute menace for years and by far the strongest ship in the game. Gne has 15" guns that resolve scharnhorst only weakness though she has at fastest 50-60 seconds reload.
She will sell like hotcakes and top tier will be a plague of Gne for a while and that will just embolden Gaijin further.
Only way a change will ever occur is if no one and I mean no one, buys Gne
They keep on going with this mantras 2+ month now denying and ignoring the arguments.
No, it’s called statistical rigour. There’s another chart in the article that shows the relative drop by BR quite well by the way.
You want the absolute numbers, fine. In the month before the update there were 2,107,859 naval AB players in games. In the last month there have been 1,882,414, an 11% net reduction.
Before anyone asks, in NRB the stats were 1,008,539 in Feb and 1,039,964 in April, a 3% increase. (However there was a 13% overall increase in games played overall for WT over the same period, so in relative terms that’s still a reduction as well.)
Take the L my dude. So long as Statshark exists there’s a lot of stuff we just KNOW now that we didn’t before. Your original statement there’s more playing NAB now is objectively untrue.
