Longer if the game wasn’t infested with one death leavers with no line-ups, surely.
Would be interesting to see how Air Sim compares to Air RB
As it stands right now Air AB event rewards should probably see a 5-7% score multiplier increase to still be competitive, same as Ground AB got late last year. At the current reward values, every air vehicle event they run is acting as a positive DISincentive for people to continue playing AAB, rather than switching to ARB or ASB sooner than they otherwise might like.
Bonus Round! From replays, what is more popular, the Assault (PvE) modes, or the naval modes?
I’ve run a few samples on this and here’s a good example, in the terms of new games started per minute:
In total, in this one 26 minute sample, taken in European weekday afternoon hours, you had 124 Ground Assault, 46 Air Assault and 20 Naval Games (AB and RB combined)started. On average the Assault games in samples lasted around 10 minutes and had about 10 players each, comparable to other modes.
So yes, it is true that despite a lot of work, Gaijin has not yet managed to bring the naval game as a whole up to the level of popularity of either of its ground or air PvE modes. Along with helicopter PvE and ground sim, it remains very much a niche product that most of the player base doesn’t have any engagement with. As a naval player myself, one who hasn’t played Assault PvE after the first couple years I played this game, I’m glad naval exists… however it’s still true that you could do something to radically improve the PvE “Assault” modes today (like, a Battlepass task that could only be done in assault, the same way some can only be done in naval, as one example) and it would likely make more of your playerbase happier than anything you could do on the naval side, too. (The difference there of course is, Assault PvE doesn’t cost much to keep going, but it doesn’t make Gaijin any money either, whereas ships do.)
1 Like
Maybe you pick more than just 9 Naval battles for your theorycrafting?
This isn’t funny anymore, it’s just sad.
Want me to play naval? (because I do have the time to play it and I am interested in naval ships/history)
Fix the maps. Fix the spawns. I simply have no interest in spawning in full sight of the enemy fleet. Silly 20th century line battles in ships that were not designed to be used in such a way. That’s why I just play coastal battles whenever there is a naval event on.
I spent a lot of time in Navyfield and WOWS.
2 Likes
Do you even check the NRB battles absents - 9 battles per day doesn’t seems odd to you?
Most of that you not even picked novice battles, there are plenty of them.
ps .Do Statshark even parse them for their statistics? Doesn’t seems like they do to me.
cmon man you can do it, i’m waiting for your wall of text
So the argument put forward in the post above is that there are actually a lot more naval battles that aren’t being captured by the replay system, or its search results. This would be very easy for someone to test, just compare the number of naval battles they fought in their game record in a period with the number findable on the replay site with the “with my participation” tag. Maybe next naval event someone should try that and better characterize what the bug is and send it in, if it concerns them.
Naval Realistic as I’ve mentioned previously a few times, does appear to be more of an undercount, relative to Naval Arcade in general replay search results currently. (In previous checks I tried , the NAB total appeared to be missing 10-50% of games played, while NRB general results could be missing as much as 80%). But in the test above, even assuming the missing portion were to increase the result by 150% on that basis, it would have led in the sample above to there being at most 50 naval battles across both modes, vs 46 air assault or 124 ground assault, still leaving both naval modes combined as easily the inferior mode(s) in terms of battles started. So it wouldn’t change the material fact that there’s currently far more PvE assault games than naval games started per unit of time, except in degree.
(As I’ve said elsewhere, this needs to be factored into any discussion of the “success” of naval as a mode… assault PvE costs nothing to run or build and still retains a comparable player base (as does Heli PvE, as discussed elsewhere). There’s a good argument there to be made, honestly, for doing one seasonal task per battlepass in a PvE assault mode rather than naval… you’d likely engage more players.)
The argument newb battles should count against naval totals is less convincing. We have seen in the past people exploiting the “starter PvE” environment in AB naval to drive up their stats for one. And even if we didn’t know of that exploit, to count the battles of humans vs entire bot sides in arcade, we’d also have to count in all the “newb tank” and “newb air” PvE “battles” as well, increasing the advantage of those modes in terms of battles fought over naval still further and leading to skewed ideas in general statistical samples about what the “real battles” are. You’re not supposed to play new battles against all-bot sides after you finish research on a level II vehicle… the fact some people like to dodge that in all of the modes to get silly stats is not relevant to questions of average score or battle length for “real players” or “real games,” which as explained in the OP used larger samples to measure.
Where there was a bug in the past where 3.3-4.3 regular naval battles were being mis-filed in the newb battles section of the replays, that doesn’t appear to be the case anymore (indeed, those could be the battles that are missing from general search results now… maybe instead of actually fixing the misfiling of the starter-level destroyer fights, they just exclude them now from the general search results, that would be my first hypothesis… I suspect they’re still on system to find if you look for your or a specific player’s battles, just the non-specific search result is bugged, which isn’t going to be really that big a deal to anyone… except to this specific discussion). If you take the time to open the player list of any of those newb battles in the screenshots above, you’ll find they’re all legit newb PvE now, not “real battles.”
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
The post above states that somehow 9 results were used for something here, for the second time. As the first chart in the OP clearly shows, the set used for calculating for match time and score (n) was 361 for naval AB and 393 for naval RB, very close to the +/- 5% 19-out-of-20 data threshold you would use for a random sample of a data set of this size.
The point of the 08-Aug column in that chart, which has been clearly misunderstood here, is to show the vast variance in replays per unit of time by mode, which is why I couldn’t rely on just one regular 1,000-replay, or even 4,000-game pull on one day. Given the delta in the replay amounts, you would need 40-80,000 replays to get a consecutive data set including enough naval games with statistical usability. A hostile interpretation of this phony “argument” would be that it’s just another lie, from another person who seems to like to lie here on the forums a lot.
But I’m going to be charitable here, and assume people, despite their constant abuse of other players and devs and moderators, honestly like naval and want to keep it around. My point is that doing things like putting up fake facts to challenge dedicated volunteer researchers like @HK_Reporter when they tell you your idea has been tried and didn’t work, or challenging checkable statistical claims with such nonsense arguments to inflate naval beyond its actual objectively provable importance to the game, or calling the moderators and devs like @Smin1080p_WT and @Scarper_CM “lazy and unimaginative” just because they don’t agree with you, don’t actually help anyone.
It helps us all to be honest and clear-eyed here about the state the game and the mode are in. “They would have made the models for the mobile app so naval hasn’t cost them anything to build out” or saying “but are you counting newb battles?” are such obviously dumb, see-through arguments. How does it help anything and anyone to make them and look stupid by doing so? Naval is currently, despite massive investment over nearly a decade by the company, still only about 1-2% of this game’s activity. There can be no real question about that. That is investment that could have been spent on improving other modes. That was their choice. While as a fan of naval games I’m personally glad they did it, we should all be cognizant of the downsides.
(Same goes with people who say, “submarines will fix it,” just like “battleships will fix it” btw.)
The interesting issue in these stats for me was that NAB and NRB are still, after two updates with major naval changes, basically the same game length, at all BRs. There were two plausible arguments why the company changed naval aiming drastically in March. One was that they were trying to really start to differentiate two very similar modes to see if there were other player bases. (The other, less charitable explanation is they wanted people who bought store premiums for a lot of money not to get frustrated by having to learn how to aim.) The fact it turns out that naval aiming changes haven’t actually done that, and in this as in most other metrics (game length, score per hour, KpS, KpD, survivability, BR balance, etc.) the modes are still very close to each other in their characteristics should be concerning… either because you want naval to play a bigger role in this game, in which case they really need to start making even more drastic changes to pull them apart (AB and RB in ground and air have VERY different metrics from each other by comparison), or because you want naval to stay the way it is, in which case you’ll probably hate those more drastic changes if and when they come.
I think a very good case is building here now, given the failure of Leviathans or the March changes to really change anything about the mode’s core problems, to collapse the two modes into each other so you at least get up to about 2% of players and activity for ONE naval mode, and maybe make the other one purely PvE/Assault. Gaijin has made similar decisions in the past with similar poor popularity modes… Heli PvP, WWM, etc. Investing a third of your dev activity and marketing into two half-full modes that combined would still only make up 2% of player sessions at peak seems on its face unsustainable for any company and naval fans here should probably keep that in mind. The changes people disliked in March may seem drastic, but really if something doesn’t change something much more dramatic will have to happen here.
Anyway, there is a really good naval-is-dying thread that this all probably better belongs in, but I’m always happy when people making bad easily refutable arguments only bump my stuff up to the top of the forum again for more people to read, so I’m not one to complain.
3 Likes
Going forward let’s keep discussion polite, and constructive.
It was constructive, you deleted feedback on his assumptions. What in it was wrong?
What naval costs? If all of the models already were done for WTMobile. You again picking up facts that suit you theory ignoring those which doesn’t fit, for me it seems like biased not independent overlook. Do you trying to convince us that Naval is dead mode, but you not even playing it constantly, how do you know. You by yourself choose one unpopular mode - NRB and sticked there with boat fights, which even less popular, and now projecting you theories on whole Naval on all of BRs
Next time take one battle, why bother.
You imagining things, that never happened.
Again imagining, you do not know costs, you even do not know their financial results, that could be acquired from the open sources, do you ever try to find them?
Why should they, if money were acquired from the naval modes, and were not reinvested in it for two years, what is basically what you talking about, investing to the other modes with the profits from Naval.
I’d like to say mediocre changes, which could be done by single dev in couple of weeks or maybe month. Stat tweaks cost you almost nothing, as is for change something in damage model like hull compartments, which already have their core done years ago.
What for, to revive NRB? To disappoint NAB players? I bet you will not be statisfied if merge will be on the terms of NAB rules.
Again imagining that it’s third not 10% or even 5%, changelogs shows that naval changes is far from “third” in terms of amount.
It was never good.
Sure i am.
Success or not success it’s you own argument. I’m just pointing at the issues in that theory that you have.
You started from 'What is the hardest mode (ground/air/naval) to get score in?" and you took 9 battles, measured it with 400+.
it’s a big mistake in statistic, did you do that on purpose?
I see the above poster continues to be confused about basic math, graphs, and the English language (again that’s the charitable explanation). Not worth discussing further when someone simply can’t understand simple concepts and/or doesn’t want to try.
I will again maintain that spreading lies about how naval is somehow secretly popular or good could have worked in 2024 but ended with Statshark showing up in 2025, for better or worse. My position is always that we need to be honest about what the new statistical clarity is telling us and not live in a cloud of lies, if we really want this mode to survive and improve.
For the record, here’s a post where someone made up an entirely fake primary source, tying secondary source info to a fake non-relevant attribution, because they didn’t like that a Technical Mod, @HK_Reporter saying their idea was bad and wouldn’t work: New battleships in a nutshell - #564 by Kweedko. It’s still up, even though it’s been pointed out by several people it’s clearly a forgery.
Here’s a post where someone called @Smin1080p_WT and @Scarper_CM “lazy and unimaginative” in response to my quoting their 2016 comments on naval. It’s still up, too: I thought insulting the moderators was against ToS, but I guess the mods are being lenient here. Naval should be reworked - #80 by Kweedko
Possibly worth considering when someone says “that never happened” about something so easily checkable and linkable here, and what that should tell us about all their other comments about people and this game.
(Go on, bub: push me to the top of the forum again. I want you to.)
1 Like
So you trying to hound mods on me with false accusations, instead of answering on stated questions?
Simple concepts of theorycrafting on cherrypicked data from unfull sources with false conclusions.
Naval costs dont include just making the mode, maintaining it and keeping it bug free by work of people that need to be paid.
Most stuff, including but not limited to military equipment is often protected by copyright, industrial design laws, and trademark. You need to get license to use them, for example in media like videogames, unless the protections have expired.
WT Mobile has, for whatever reason, a devblog out for type 45 destroyer, guided-missile destroyer which were built between 2003 and 2012.
If they wanted to put that ship into game, they need to get a license for it.
Specifics might wary but just because Gaijin has license to use type 45 destroyer in WT Mobile does not neccesarily mean that they can also use it in Warthunder, as they are clearly two disctinct products handled by two distinct teams.
We talked about “making the mode”, he stated that devs spending third of their time on the naval.
Which is simply not true, even if we just count number of vehicles in different modes. Or number of maps. Or changes in changelogs. Or any other things related to naval comparing to other modes, it’s never gonna be “one-third”.
ps. If Statshak counted the “newbie” battles we could see how many new players come to mode but he stated that it’s irrelevant for his theories shenanigans.
So naval EC is irrelevant, newbie battles irrelevant, nothing relevant what didn’t suit his theories.