Jump to content

Let me know what you think!  

111 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think this suggestion is a good idea?

    • Yes.
      91
    • No. (Please explain)
      20
  2. 2. Would you play Naval Forces more if the techtrees were setup like this?

    • Yes.
      90
    • No.
      21
  3. 3. Would you like to see Submarines ingame?

    • Yes.
      84
    • No.
      27
  4. 4. Would you like to see Minelayers and Minesweepers ingame?

    • Yes.
      100
    • No.
      11


  • Suggestion Moderator

Hello everyone, today I want to have a chat about the current Naval Forces Techtrees, and a suggestion on how we can change them in the future.

 

Introduction

Spoiler

The Naval Forces techtrees we have ingame differ from the other vehicles techtrees. The main difference being that they are set up in a horizontal way.

You still progress by going down through the ranks, but you will need to branch of to the sides in order to get more vehicles for each rank.

 

I believe Gaijin has done this because this allows them to make a 'full' techtree with only a few vehicles. And I fully understand that, the naval vessels models are among the best looking models ingame and have an insane amount of detail in them, so they take a very long time to develop.

 

But the horizontal techtree setup has one major flaw. It get's very messy as soon as you start to add more and more vehicles.

I found this to be very annoying while I was making the fan-made BeNeLux Naval Forces techtree. We had to many vehicles to add into this very cramped techtree.

 

And that is where this suggestion comes from. Instead of working with the ingame setup, I decided to make my own wich was going to be more suitable for large techtrees.

 

Comparing the ingame setup with my new setup

Spoiler
Spoiler

HKj6oFo.png

 

In the spoiler above you will find a simple photo of what the current ingame setup is, and what it might become in the future with rank VI and VII.

The one thing people seem to dislike a lot is the Modern Attack Craft in Rank II. They require more RP then a Cruiser to unlock, yet they are at a low Rank wich prevents you from using your high ranking ships to grind it out.

 

Spoiler

ufSZsZk.png

 

And here we get to see my idea. My setup does not just focus on what we have ingame, it also shows what can be added later. Minelayers and Submarines have been tested ingame already, so it's only fair to assume we might get them one day.

And as you can see I've made it so that each one of the lines has a certain class of vehicle attatched to it. Just like how with aircraft you have a bomber line, heavy fighter line, etc...

 

An in-depth look 

Spoiler

So let's talk about each of the lines you can go down shall we?

 

Line 1 (Submarines)

Spoiler

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor war thunder submarines

 

After the April fools event, Silent Thunder, submarines were a hot topic for quite some time. The event was quite fun and people seemed to be really excited for submarines.

Now ofcourse we only got a taste of the big modern submarines, but during WW2 submarines only had torpedoes and deck armaments to use against their enemies.

 

In my techtree proposal you can see that the submarines start at Rank II. The reason for this is balance. In my opinion, you don't want to come across submarines while your just beginning with your 1.0 reserve boat. Also most submarines tend to have weapons that are already up to Rank II standards. 

 

Line 2 (PT-Boats, Destroyers and Modern Frigates)

Spoiler

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor war thunder naval

 

The one thing this line has in common is torpedoes. The PT-Boats, Torpedo Boats, Destroyers and Modern Frigates all kinda fill the same role.

This line is one of the major lines that go from Rank I to Rank VII. 

 

I did add one new thing, modern Destroyers. Not every single navy has these, but modern destroyers are simply just destroyers with modern high firerate guns. Think of the HMS Tiger, but then in destroyer form.

 

Also something to note about the Modern Frigates. As you can see I gave it a note saying that the Frigates in this line are the smaller onces. 

So these frigates you will get in this line tend to be more focussed around partols or air devense frigates.

 

Line 3 (Minelayers and Minesweepers)

Spoiler

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor war thunder vs8

 

Here we have another new class of vehicles, wich just like the submarines, have been tested before. 

One of the changes I've made was to add Minesweepers aswell. If you add vessels that can lay down mines, why not have vessels that can clear them to!

 

One single minelayer has been tested before in War Thunder. It was the VS-8 Schnell I, wich was available to everyone in a limited time test drive in random battles.

The minelaying itself was quite fun but did need more work in order to be really usefull ingame. But again this shows an interest into these type of vehicles.

 

I must also point out that certain nations have Minelayer/Minesweepers of rather big size aswell. So these vessels can work up to Rank III and some even up to Rank IV.

 

In the end I chose to end the line at Rank IV because most minelayers lose they usefullness at this rank. And also high ranking battles are player with larger ships and guns, and close range mines no longer work as good as they used to.

 

Line 4 (Gunboats, Sloops, Cruisers and Modern Frigates)

Spoiler

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor war thunder naval

 

This is another line of vessels that go all the way from Rank I to Rank VIII. In order for something to be a gunboat it mainly needs larger guns then it's Torpedoboat counterparts and also usualy not have any torpedoes. Sometimes you do have some gunboats that have two or more torpedoes, but for the most part you won't have any and just rely on your armour and guns.

 

I've added a new class of ship that we don't have many of ingame, sloops. Sloops can aso be described as heavy gunboats or river sloops. The Kanonenboot K-2 is actualy a Dutch sloop captured by the Germans, so we do have one sloop ingame. I think that sloops are the perfect bridge between gunboats and cruisers. 

 

Futhermore at the higher ranks I've added heavycruisers and modern cruisers. The heavy cruisers are a logical next step up from the light cruisers, but the modern cruisers are a new type of ship I've added.

We already have a modern cruisers ingame, the HMS Tiger. Modern cruisers tend to have fewer guns then your normal cruiser, but these guns are very modern and tend to have an insane firerate.

To top things of, some modern cruisers also recieved guided anti ship/ air missiles, making them even more powerfull.

 

At the last rank you get modern frigates. But unlike the onces you can find after the Destroyers, these frigates are the really large and powerfull onces. Think of the current frigates navy's use as their flagships.

 

Line 5 (Dreanoughts and Battleships)

Spoiler

bismarck.jpg

 

Now this final line of vessels might make some people mad, but it is only a matter of time before we get bigger and bigger ships ingame. 

But, to start things of, I've decided to start this line with older dreadnoughts. This might have some people shake their heads, but I do believe these ships can work ingame.

These early dreadnought have very thick armour and also very large guns. But even though they have guns up to 300mm, they only have one or two of them. Dreadnought would play like large derp guns in naval battles.

 

Then we get into battleships. These are very hard to balance to be honest. They will fight against modern cruisers aswell, so they will have to deal with guided missiles and jet aircraft. Altough they might have a hard time, they do have their very large guns that are more them capable of taking out a frigate with a single well placed shell.

If Gaijin really wants to they can also add the super-sized battleships like the Iowa, Yamato or H-39 in Rank VII, but at this point it becomes even harder to balance these vessels.

 

German Naval techtree reworked into this new setup

Spoiler

NeLx1it.png

 

I've taken some time to rework the German Naval techtree, and here you can see what it could look like ingame. 

I've also re-done the BR's of many of the high ranking ships. Ingame these BR's are way to compressed and make no sense to me. To show how much certain battleratings have changed, look no futher then the Graf Spee. Ingame it is a BR of 5.7, but in my rework it has a BR of 8.0!

 

There is one small problem however. It's ships like the Project 206. They have modern high firerate autocannons that would shread anything at low BR's, yet they don't have any sort of guided missiles.

I personaly don't see a good spot for these ingame. Maybe just before the Destroyers, but even then it's a bit odd. To solve this I've decided to make it a premium. That way it can still be ingame, have a fair BR and not be to common on the battlefield.

 

For the new vehicles I've added in, don't take them to serious. This photo is just an example to explain this suggestion, it is not in any way what I want the German tree to be!

If you want to look up the vehicles I've added you can find them in these lists:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Imperial_German_Navy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kriegsmarine_ships

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_U-boats

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_German_Navy_ships

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_German_Navy_ships

 

If you want to see another example that uses this techtree setup then be sure to take a look at the BeNeLux Naval Forces Techtree!

This techtree is massive and has many interesting vehicles in it!

 

 

In the end, a techtree setup like this works the best when you have many vehicles to add in. So if Gaijin want to use this ingame they will have to get their hands on some more models to properly fill in the techtree.

That being said, I do believe Gaijin has to change the Naval Techtree setup at some point. What we have right now is not good for progression and in some areas just makes no sense at all.

 

 

Be sure to check out @EuropeanCanadian his video on this suggestion!

 

Be sure to let me know what you think of this suggestion! 

Anyways, have a nice day, and I'll see you on the battlefield! :salute:

Edited by super_cacti
Added the link to the youtube video.
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO the main issue about the current system is the Efficient research rank

 

It is already really annoying with the classic trees but with ships it limits your options. You got to create a certain BR lineup to be competitive but some of the lower class ships can not be used effectively to progress

This is a bigger problem than the "latest patrol boats cost more than early cruisers"

 

 

PS : no submarines please

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Suggestion Moderator
1 hour ago, ALIEN109 said:

IMO the main issue about the current system is the Efficient research rank

 

It is already really annoying with the classic trees but with ships it limits your options. You got to create a certain BR lineup to be competitive but some of the lower class ships can not be used effectively to progress

This is a bigger problem than the "latest patrol boats cost more than early cruisers"

 

 

PS : no submarines please

 

Yeah I completely understand what your talking about. Changing the techtree setup would improve it a bit, but it still needs more work to actualy be more fun to play through.

Also the submarines are just in there because Gaijin tested them. They don't have to come ingame :good:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

There are two main problems on your Version:

Two many BRs, so it will be pretty hard to find a match, I´ll wait now sometimes 5 Minutes for a 5.7 battle and ony 4 players in every Team and the rest AI.

Then think of BR 1-10 so it´s be a problem.

And the other is the commpression of Destroyer.

 

I´ll made a version of all tech trees how they could be more balancing and a way better.

The max. Br here is 4.3 when new ships coming to War Thuder, they can also go up higher.

Also another 5th line can be the submarines, but now i only have four lines.

The maps can also improved that the destroyer spawn is a way further away from the boat spawn and the cruiser spawn is more away from the destroyer spawn, than Gajins map idea would work.

 

USA.PNG.97c9a5760c99eacb09a0ff01415acf92Germany.PNG.85800dedd7576639995646d8f141USSR.PNG.c19c18b764398ee8072302e519818cbBritain.PNG.dcca44bbd3aba192ef9a22dc0f83Japan.PNG.1958d0ce3186997f74fbb88cbb9ede

 

Sorry for my bad english

 

Thanks for answers and suggestion

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Suggestion Moderator
1 hour ago, Malekith3 said:

There are two main problems on your Version:

Two many BRs, so it will be pretty hard to find a match, I´ll wait now sometimes 5 Minutes for a 5.7 battle and ony 4 players in every Team and the rest AI.

Then think of BR 1-10 so it´s be a problem.

And the other is the commpression of Destroyer.

 

I´ll made a version of all tech trees how they could be more balancing and a way better.

The max. Br here is 4.3 when new ships coming to War Thuder, they can also go up higher.

Also another 5th line can be the submarines, but now i only have four lines.

The maps can also improved that the destroyer spawn is a way further away from the boat spawn and the cruiser spawn is more away from the destroyer spawn, than Gajins map idea would work.

 

USA.PNG.97c9a5760c99eacb09a0ff01415acf92Germany.PNG.85800dedd7576639995646d8f141USSR.PNG.c19c18b764398ee8072302e519818cbBritain.PNG.dcca44bbd3aba192ef9a22dc0f83Japan.PNG.1958d0ce3186997f74fbb88cbb9ede

 

Sorry for my bad english

 

Thanks for answers and suggestion

 

Keep in mind that the BR's I made are just simple guesswork. This suggestion is about the general idea, not the fine little details.

Edited by super_cacti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/02/2020 at 14:10, ItssLuBu said:

Approved and open for discussion. :salute:

 

I've played the boats a fair amount, and have no problem with the horizontal progression.  It's straight forward and easy to understand unless you pound your head with a hammer for entertainment. 

 

It's also faster to progress to higher tiers if that is your motive.  I see no issue with some high RP boats at the end of lower tiers.

 

I will say decompression is needed badly...  The differences in ship strength for every 1.0br increase is too massive. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Submarines would even be the only reason to play Naval Forces again. Submarines have to come into the game.At April Fools' event. Submarines were a lot of fun. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, _GER_Mupf said:

I voted for no and you want an explanation. Here it comes.

 

I am not really against the idea but also do not support it. In my opinion the alignment doesn't matter. We are only got used to the other way.

 

Would be a shame to waste developer resources on that.

It does matter tho? It means using smaller torpedo boats, future minelayers, gunboats and such at higher tiers (Where the maps are still all about capturing points), is worthless in terms of income and reward, even though their impact on the match is crucial.This is ONLY because of the boats and bigger ships being separated by rank.

 

As for my opinion on the suggestion; absolutely yes! The horizontal TT was a poor idea, poorly executed. The only credit I can give it, is the offshooting branches, which would be a nice addition in the tank and aircraft trees.

  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks good, but I would like to see World War II stuff and Cold War stuff split up into their own tech trees. I'm sure anti ship missiles are coming someday, as well as all kind of other advanced tech, so shooting a Clemson with an Exocet from 10km away is just terrible.

Edited by Antiquarian
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I like this idea, I wanted to share something that I put forth and that while it was passed onto the devs it was also crapped on by TEC.

 

 

A similar idea in terms of wanting to help make the Tech Tree for the US (which you could then carry over to the other nations), but a slightly different method.

 

Disheartening that TEC is singing praise for what you've done but threw the idea above down the garbage disposal. Both ideas add value to the game but are in a similar vain in terms of the sought goal. This is why I don't put a lot of value in TEC but I did try in the past.

 

I like the idea you've put forth though. Can count my hat of approval in your approach to improving naval. :)

Edited by CaptDaragoth
Adjustment to Link
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Suggestion Moderator
14 hours ago, CaptDaragoth said:

While I like this idea, I wanted to share something that I put forth and that while it was passed onto the devs it was also crapped on by TEC.

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/profile/695864-captdaragoth/content/page/4/&type=forums_topic_post

 

A similar idea in terms of wanting to help make the Tech Tree for the US (which you could then carry over to the other nations), but a slightly different method.

 

Disheartening that TEC is singing praise for what you've done but threw the idea above down the garbage disposal. Both ideas add value to the game but are in a similar vain in terms of the sought goal. This is why I don't put a lot of value in TEC but I did try in the past.

 

I like the idea you've put forth though. Can count my hat of approval in your approach to improving naval. :)

 

The link you gave us is just a link to your profile

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don´t agree and I will give my explanaation why.

Your main agrument against horizontal layout is: 

Quote

But the horizontal techtree setup has one major flaw. It get's very messy as soon as you start to add more and more vehicles.

I found this to be very annoying while I was making the fan-made BeNeLux Naval Forces techtree. We had to many vehicles to add into this very cramped techtree.

I just can´t see it I feel it in completly opposite way I reworked your proposed TT (the German and Benelux - just researchable part) into better horizontal setup because I agree that current Gaijin layout is bad and I made side by side comparison. You solved the messy part by heavy foldering but I don´t think it is good solution for example the german DDs are extreme mess and also there is A LOT more possible DDs to be added which will fit very weirdly also the whole layout PT boats>FAC>DDs doesn´t make sence. In CBT I was trying to figure the vertical TT layout but I have to admit that horizontal layout make more sence because you can do more comple and sence making lines (your proposed lines doesn´t make much sence) I think these lines would make more sence:

Quote

Rank I - "coastal forces"

Quote

PT>FAC

>>Missile boats

Small gun boats/barges/small subchacers

Rank II - "convoy warfare"

Quote

Mine warfare ships (with possible split when there is too many of them - it doesn´t make sence to have line where you have Minelayers>Minesweepers>Minelayers) + some escorts

Escorts (Frigates/Corvettes/Gun boats) + weak DEs (WWI refits) 

>> Missile frigates

Submarines

>> Missile subs

Rank III - DDs

Quote

There are possible splits (light DDs / heavy DD /escort DDs ect.)

>> DDG 

Rank IV

Quote

inter-war/WWI CLs>WW2 CLs>Modern CLs

>> "Light" missile cruisers 

Rank V

Quote

inter-war/WWI CAs>WW2 CAs>Modern CAs + cruiser killer BCs (Alaska and even pr.323 or Scharnhorst)

Rank VI - "capital ships"

Quote

inter-war/WWI BBs>WW2 BBs

inter-war CVs>WWII CVs>Modern CVs (there is possible split into light CVs / fleet CV /escort CVs)

Rank VII - "missile warfare"

Quote

Missile boats/frigates/DDs ect.

 

I imagine that it would be possible to create system where when you research for example Jaguar you also unlock Tiger(Albatros) on rank VII. (I represented this with blue text in the TTs)

Comparisons:

German

Spoiler

MYcqTgv.png

BeNeLux

Spoiler

sEPkI33.png

 

I think that layout presented by me is actually clearer and easier to understand.

 

Your second point:

Quote

They require more RP then a Cruiser to unlock, yet they are at a low Rank wich prevents you from using your high ranking ships to grind it out.

And as well as @igeticsu point:

It does matter tho? It means using smaller torpedo boats, future minelayers, gunboats and such at higher tiers (Where the maps are still all about capturing points), is worthless in terms of income and reward, even though their impact on the match is crucial.

Can be simply solved by removing rank research modifiers and at least for ships making them to dependent on BR (while overlapping BRs of modern/powerful boats and DDs ect.)

 

If you ask why I didn´t include torpedoboats and the coast defence ships + german pre-dreadnoughts is simple I don´t see their point. The torpedo boats are very slow for their size (and use) while being squishy and the coastal defense ships + pre-dreadnoughts while they might have beed used during inter-war era and even during WWII they have weak armament and strong armor and are painfully slow which would create Maus V2 situation. 

I think that dreagnouts and WW1 BBs are quite ok to implement but pre-dreagnouts are off the table (as are WW1 torpedo boats)

Edited by Shadow__CZ
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shadow__CZ said:

I don´t agree and I will give my explanaation why.

Your main agrument against horizontal layout is: 

I just can´t see it I feel it in completly opposite way I reworked your proposed TT (the German and Benelux - just researchable part) into better horizontal setup because I agree that current Gaijin layout is bad and I made side by side comparison. You solved the messy part by heavy foldering but I don´t think it is good solution for example the german DDs are extreme mess and also there is A LOT more possible DDs to be added which will fit very weirdly also the whole layout PT boats>FAC>DDs doesn´t make sence. In CBT I was trying to figure the vertical TT layout but I have to admit that horizontal layout make more sence because you can do more comple and sence making lines (your proposed lines doesn´t make much sence) I think these lines would make more sence:

Comparisons:

German

  Reveal hidden contents

MYcqTgv.png

BeNeLux

  Hide contents

sEPkI33.png

 

I think that layout presented by me is actually clearer and easier to understand.

 

Your second point:

Can be simply solved by removing rank research modifiers and at least for ships making them to dependent on BR (while overlapping BRs of modern/powerful boats and DDs ect.)

 

If you ask why I didn´t include torpedoboats and the coast defence ships + german pre-dreadnoughts is simple I don´t see their point. The torpedo boats are very slow for their size (and use) while being squishy and the coastal defense ships + pre-dreadnoughts while they might have beed used during inter-war era and even during WWII they have weak armament and strong armor and are painfully slow which would create Maus V2 situation. 

I think that dreagnouts and WW1 BBs are quite ok to implement but pre-dreagnouts are off the table (as are WW1 torpedo boats)

 

 

I think the bulk of the problem is two things working against Naval.

1: Is the tech tree, both in how it's organized visually (especially for new players) but also how it's just all over the place.

 

2: Naval Econ is a mess. I've heard both sides of this, but something I almost always hear when people try to push back against improving Naval in WT (often how to make the TT better and less of a mess) is the cost of things. RP and SL. It's always the reason people give not to change the TT, yet it's those same people who I've seen also claiming there is nothing wrong with Naval Econ. Which comes across more as contrarian rather then genuineness. Not to say that's your angle here but I did want to put what I've seen and experienced (TEC is a major perponent that there's nothing wrong with naval, Econ and the TT are fine and it's only failing because people don't like Naval and there is less interest, which is baseless) within very small parts of the community.

Naval Econ is a failing system because the cost of smaller ships seems to rival the cost of the much larger ships. For example the Asheville costs more RP and SL then the USS Brooklyn. Let that sink in for a minute. A ship not even half the size of the Brooklyn, doesn't even have half the crew (Asheville has 28 crew where as the Brooklyn has just under 900) and one has a single turret and a single AA Gun where the other one has 5 main gun turrets. That's not even touching on the fact that one of the ships costs half the other just to repair and it doesn't even have half the guns the other one has.

 

So yes, Naval Econ is a massive contributing factor to why the mode is sadly suffering and anyone saying otherwise is seriously delusional because when you barely make enough to cover repair costs let along buying the next ship without massive amounts of time grinding out the mode then there are serious problems with a games core game-play loop. You shouldn't have to go play another mode (which is disheartening to be told which I have been) just to make SL to then go afford another mode entirely in the game. I can make money in Planes and continue to progress and I am not even very good with planes, I can make money in Tanks and I am moderate in player skill, but I kick butt in Naval and I CANNOT make a sustainable income in SL and RP in Naval. How is that NOT backwards? Being good in Naval doesn't amount to much due to Naval Econ and the mode isn't even at Rank 6 yet and yet somehow I can make a good income in tanks at the same BR and Rank but I can't do so in Naval.

 

So yes, I am in agreement with this TT change. Because right now we Naval players have some of the most backwards game-play loop and style in WT. We have the worst Econ in the game, the most confusing and hap-haphazardly thrown together TT, UI/HUD in the game and it's really hard to justify playing Naval right now because of how much is just not...working. Aiming is a chore and a mess, meaningful progression and positive feedback loops for the players is non-existent and generally the mode is dying. When you have to add bots in to supplement the lack of players due to poor game design you know that the mode is failing. It's not due to a lack of interest, not one bit and those who claim that are full of it. It's due to a lack of solid and stable game play design and I wish more players in the WT would stop trying to beat around the bush in fear of angering Gaijin, or trying to appease them and just be straight and honest. Naval needs help, serious help. I've been playing since the first CBT and it's definitely been going downhill at a stead pace. It's a shame but it's the facts of the matter.

Edited by CaptDaragoth
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, CaptDaragoth said:

-snip-

Well there are several problems with NF I will try my best to cover most of them:

  1. Problem between playerbase communacitation, meaning AB and RB playerbase these gamemodes apart from the core problems have extremly different gameplay experience eg. Aircraft balance
  2. General lack of interest in boats from the outside playerbase (me included) > them being roadblock
  3. Lack of interest from YTrs to dive into suggestion and community interaction on forums (I am looking at you @Napalmratte and @EuropeanCanadian) Is it that hard to interact at very least with players inside suggestion section when you Soo care about the game and this gamemode? And from TEC it is sadly also general lack knowledge of large ship gameplay.
  4. Core problems of NF gameplay (Maps, DM, balance, general objectives)
    • Maps and objectives and balance - the ballance is mess because with current maps/objectives you can´t really have PT boats BR overlaping with DDs and DDs overlaping with CLs ect. that is reason for current crazy "balance" and econ. To solve this change maps and objective would be needed - just rough idea:
      Quote

      First map should be bigger and capture points should be omited. Spawns between each team should be 4-5-10(15)-15(20)-20(25)-30(35)-40(50) (in order small boats-frigates/corvettes-DDs-CLs-CAs-BCs-BBs) the number in (means higher range of spawn distance) the spans should be formed into V or U pattern where in center are logically boat spawns and on the ends are BB spawns. This patters should insure that in most cases the corresponding ship type is closer and therefor prefered target to players then weaker ship.

      Then there would be several objectives (convoys/landings/bombardments/escortinge ect.) which would be primarly centered around one ship type but whould also cross between + would be interconected between eachother so outcomes would influence differen objectives. (for example DDs and FF/K+boats have to escort convoy - DDs have to guard it from attacking AI fleet and FF/K+boats have to guard it from planes and boats - enemy has it  inverted) this way you can have spawn layout where DDs wont be griefing small boats while still being interconnected in one battle.

      Of course this will require carefull map and objective design and some changes to reward system to encourage players to do objectives and not tu punish them when they did their job but team lost anyways but I believe it is possible.

       

    • DM - it was crazy before and after 1.97 it even worse - there needs to be big rework to how it works becuse currently it is too inconsistent and too hard to read (I still have noidea how fires work?!)
  5. Economy - IDK how to feel about it. I will admit it I am bad in planes and tanks but for me the NF is quite a money maker (I rarely go into - even in quite trash battles). Maybe the advance boats have bad econ but I simply don´t play them (+ I only have Omaha). I believe that ships like Jaguar, pr.206M ect should in perfect TT and gameplay be something like 7.0 (or even more) ships and should fight in battles with DDs, CLs, BC, BBs, CVs and with removing RP and SL rank limiters they would be perfectly fine with their cost 
  6. UI - I have no problems with it but if we get more complex DM or FCS the UI should give more info too. The lack of understanding could be soleved by better tutorials and F1 help menu. 
  7. I alread stated my opinion on the TTs - the idea is good execution and everything around is bad.
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Suggestion Moderator
7 minutes ago, Shadow__CZ said:

3. Lack of interest from YTrs to dive into suggestion and community interaction on forums (I am looking at you @Napalmratte and @EuropeanCanadian) Is it that hard to interact at very least with players inside suggestion section when you Soo care about the game and this gamemode? And from TEC it is sadly also general lack knowledge of large ship gameplay.

 

While I do prefer not to take part in large discussions like this, I must however devend TEC. I am very active on his Discord and talk with him on a regular basis.

While in his videos things might look different, he does interact with many people of the community on his Discord. And while he is not a fan of large naval vessels gameplay, he does talk with people that do play that and listens to their opinions.

 

So when it comes to YouTubers, keep in mind that they are not all knowing gods. We are all human, and share different views on different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, super_cacti said:

While I do prefer not to take part in large discussions like this, I must however devend TEC. I am very active on his Discord and talk with him on a regular basis.

While in his videos things might look different, he does interact with many people of the community on his Discord. And while he is not a fan of large naval vessels gameplay, he does talk with people that do play that and listens to their opinions.

 

So when it comes to YouTubers, keep in mind that they are not all knowing gods. We are all human, and share different views on different things.

But why should players come to him? Why he can´t just look onto for example NF general section to see what other players think and then look into NF related discussion and especially Napalm is guilty here. 

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Suggestion Moderator
2 minutes ago, Shadow__CZ said:

But why should players come to him? Why he can´t just look onto for example NF general section to see what other players think and then look into NF related discussion and especially Napalm is guilty here. 

 

 

Because YouTubers have a life to. In TEC's case, he still has a job, a wife, YouTube videos to make, sleep.....

They can't be everywhere at the same time. If you want to be heard, you will have to come to them. And trust me TEC is easy to get in touch with. Some other YouTuber will straight up ignore you or never sit in open channels talking with people on Discord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...