That’s a question for which the devs didn’t have a confident answer as they said. Water gameplay was not seen a lot in their statistics but their council offered them a great reaffirmation as they called it, that naval has to be there.
What I want to ask is if naval is really a must for most people, no matter the cost.
Because of course that’s all resources, money and time that were spent to design a whole separate field of warfare inside the game that could otherwise have gone into other aspects of it.
Sometimes it may be better to focus on one only kind of warfare and make it great rather than having two separate ones that are mediocre or even bad.
We heard Adam Isgreen saying that they will keep improving the naval aspect to look good on release, and if it doesn’t he said, then they will keep improving it. Indirectly admitting that it doesn’t look good right now, they know it and they know it may not be on point even on release.
I am very curious to know how the forum feels about naval:
Would you rather have naval gameplay even if it means that less attention will be paid to the rest of the game and some things will have to be sacrificed?
Would you have preferred it if naval gameplay was removed completely and all the resources, money, time and energy that was put to it, to have been distributed into the rest the game, to make it better, deeper, more interesting and well polished?
- Naval gameplay is a MUST, I want it there no matter what it takes
- Naval gameplay is NOT a MUST and I’d be OK without it but only if the rest of the game offered great compensation
- I don’t care about naval / I dislike it