In my opinion, these changes are going in the wrong direction.
The problem is not simply that the old system had flaws. Of course it did. Queue times could be long, joining an ongoing battle could sometimes put you at a disadvantage, and the progression system was far from perfect.
However, instead of improving those mechanics, the solution seems to have been to remove most of what made Naval Enduring Confrontation unique.
And that is, in my opinion, the biggest problem.
- Yes
- No
Naval EC was supposed to be different
The entire point of Enduring Confrontation was that it was not a standard battle.
It was a long battle where your lineup evolved over time.
You started with smaller ships, earned Spawn Points through your actions, and gradually gained access to more powerful vessels. Destroyers, cruisers, battleships and aircraft could all have a role during the same battle.
That progression was not just a restriction. It was one of the core mechanics of the mode.
You had to make choices:
- Do I spawn a cheaper ship and save my Spawn Points?
- Do I risk bringing a more expensive vessel?
- Should I use a destroyer to capture or attack an objective?
- Should I bring an aircraft?
- Should I save points for a battleship later in the battle?
This created an actual sense of progression during a long-running battle.
Now, everyone can simply spawn their strongest ship immediately and respawn it without any Spawn Point cost.
What is the reason to use a destroyer or a lower-BR cruiser if you can immediately bring your best battleship?
There is very little reason anymore.
- Yes
- No
- I haven’t played the old Naval EC
The removal of Spawn Point costs removes an important layer of gameplay
The old Spawn Point system was not perfect, but removing it entirely does not solve the underlying problems.
It simply removes one of the mechanics that made Enduring Confrontation an Enduring Confrontation.
Before, losing your ship had consequences. Choosing when to spawn your strongest vessel mattered.
Now, a player can repeatedly spawn the same powerful ship without worrying about building up enough Spawn Points first.
This can create the opposite of strategic gameplay: repeatedly spawning the strongest available ship because there is no longer any reason not to.
A battleship becomes the obvious choice whenever it is available.
The progression between ship classes disappears.
- Yes
- No
- I’m not sure
The bot problem makes the situation even worse
Another major problem with the current system is the number of bots.
There is very little fun in playing an Enduring Confrontation battle that is mostly — or sometimes almost entirely — made up of AI ships.
A large part of the appeal of EC was fighting an actual opposing fleet controlled by players.
Bots can be useful to fill empty slots, especially during quiet hours.
But they should be a backup solution , not the main population of the game mode.
If I join an Enduring Confrontation battle and find myself fighting mostly AI ships, the experience becomes incredibly repetitive.
There is no real human strategy.
There is no unpredictable enemy fleet composition.
There is no real reaction to what the opposing team is doing.
And there is very little satisfaction in winning objectives against ships that are simply controlled by AI.
This creates a particularly strange situation:
EC is supposed to be a large-scale persistent multiplayer battle, but the current system can result in a large-scale battle against bots.
That does not make the mode more interesting.
It makes it feel like a PvE mode with a few players mixed in.
- Yes
- No
- It depends on the number of players
- Yes
- Yes, and they should be low BR to allow late spawns to get SP
- No
- I’m not sure
If there are not enough real players to sustain an EC battle, the answer should be to improve matchmaking and player retention — not simply fill the battlefield with bots and call it an Enduring Confrontation.
About the claimed increase in EC players
Gaijin states:
If this is the main argument for the new system, we would like to see the actual statistics and methodology behind this claim.
An increase in the number of players entering EC missions does not necessarily mean that the new system is providing a better experience.
There is an important difference between:
- the number of players who joined an EC mission;
- the number of players who stayed in the mission;
- the average number of real players in a mission;
- the average time spent in a mission;
- and the percentage of the battle actually played by real players rather than bots.
We already have evidence suggesting that player participation and match duration can be very short in the current system.
If players join an EC mission, play for a few minutes and then leave, while the mission remains active with bots, counting those players as part of a “fourfold increase” does not tell us whether the new system is actually more successful.
We would therefore like to see the statistics behind this claim.
For example:
- Average number of real players per EC mission.
- Average player lifetime in an EC mission.
- Average mission duration.
- Average time a player remains in a mission.
- Percentage of each mission populated by real players vs. AI.
- Number of players who join an EC mission but leave within the first 5, 10 or 15 minutes.
- Comparison of these statistics between the old and new systems.
The number of players who enter a mission is only one metric.
The more important question is:
Are players actually staying and enjoying the battles?
If the new system attracts four times as many players but those players leave quickly and the majority of the remaining battle is played against bots, then the raw player-count increase does not demonstrate that the new EC system is better.
We are not asking Gaijin to prove that the new system has attracted players.
We are asking Gaijin to show whether it has actually created better and more engaging EC battles .
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
At this point, EC is becoming nothing more than an advanced version of standard battles
This is probably my biggest concern.
Take the current system:
- You select your BR.
- You bring your strongest ship.
- You can respawn without Spawn Point limitations.
- You fight for objectives.
- The battle lasts longer.
- Bots fill the empty spaces.
What is fundamentally different from a standard Naval Battle?
The map is larger.
The timer is longer.
There are more objectives.
But the actual gameplay loop is becoming extremely similar.
It feels less like Enduring Confrontation and more like:
Standard Naval Battles, but bigger, longer, and with bots.
And if that is the goal, then there is a much simpler solution.
- Yes, it feels almost the same
- Somewhat
- No, it still feels very different
If players want this type of gameplay, just add it to standard battles
Gaijin could simply add these parameters to the existing standard Naval Battles:
- Increase the maximum battle duration to 1 hour .
- Allow unlimited respawns .
- Keep the existing BR matchmaking.
- Keep the existing objectives and maps.
- Add more AI ships if additional activity is desired.
Then players who want a long standard battle can play it.
There would be no need to fundamentally change Naval EC.
Because the reason people played EC was precisely because it wasn’t a standard battle.
EC should offer something that standard battles cannot provide.
Otherwise, why have a separate mode at all?
- Yes
- No
- I would prefer both options
The identity of Enduring Confrontation is being removed
Naval EC should be the place where players go for:
- long battles;
- persistent progression;
- large maps;
- multiple objectives;
- different ship classes working together;
- strategic respawn decisions;
- evolving fleets;
- a battle that changes over time;
- actual large-scale player-versus-player combat.
The current direction risks removing several of these elements.
Without Spawn Points, progression disappears.
With unlimited access to the strongest ships, ship-class variety becomes less meaningful.
With large numbers of bots, the multiplayer aspect becomes weaker.
And with standard BR matchmaking and unlimited respawns, the overall gameplay becomes increasingly similar to standard Naval Battles.
At that point, the name Enduring Confrontation starts to lose its meaning.
- Yes
- No
- I’m not sure
EC should not be made more accessible by removing its identity
Making EC permanent is a good idea.
Making it easier for players to enter is also a good idea.
Reducing unnecessary queue restrictions is reasonable.
But accessibility should not come at the cost of the mechanics that made the mode special.
The old system was not perfect.
But it had an identity.
It created a battle where your situation could evolve throughout the match.
You could start with a destroyer, earn Spawn Points, move into a cruiser, eventually bring out a battleship, lose it, adapt your strategy and fight your way back.
That is an Enduring battle.
The current system risks replacing that with:
Spawn your strongest ship → die → spawn it again → fight bots → capture objectives → repeat.
That is not the same experience.
- Yes
- No
- I’m not sure
What should be changed instead?
Rather than removing the old mechanics, I think Gaijin should improve them.
1. Rework the spawning system
The spawning system could be divided into two fleets:
- Forward Fleet: allows ships up to heavy cruisers.
- Rear Fleet: allows all ships, including battleships.
Ports would follow the same logic:
- Ports closer to the center of the map would provide lighter ships.
- Ports further behind the frontline would provide access to heavier ships.
Heavy cruisers and battleships would still require Spawn Points when spawning from ports.
Ships that normally require Spawn Points could otherwise be spawned for free, but only from their designated fleet.
Players should also be unable to spawn at ports currently under attack.
The respawn timer is a good addition when you want to respawn at the same place with the same vessel.
The scattered spawn points around the map should be removed to make the spawning system more consistent and strategic.
This would encourage players to fight for and defend ports , while preventing a player from instantly spawning a battleship directly in the middle of an enemy assault.
2. Rework Matchmaking
For years, not only in Naval EC, matchmaking has been poorly balanced. One team can have a large number of battleships while the other has none.
Reworking the matchmaking system could solve many of these issues and make battles more balanced and enjoyable.
3. Give the battle meaningful objectives
Naval EC should revolve around three main objectives:
Destroy enemy fleets
Enemy fleets would act as the main respawn points for each team.
Destroying the supporting ships within a fleet would weaken the enemy’s ability to reinforce that area.
Once destroyed, these fleets could not simply respawn.
Capture ports
Capturing ports would provide new spawning locations closer to the enemy fleet.
Ports would also contain support ships that can be destroyed.
Destroying these support ships would increase the spawn timer associated with that port.
When a port is captured, its support ships would be restored.
Destroy convoys
Convoys would progressively move toward ports.
If a convoy reaches a port uncontested, it would automatically capture that port.
Convoys could contain both naval and ground units, providing additional objectives and rewards.
This would force players to constantly make decisions:
Attack the enemy fleet, defend a port, or intercept a convoy?
Air targets around enemy fleets could also be marked when aircraft get within a reasonable distance, helping prevent players from simply ending the battle through uncontested CAS attacks.
4. Make lower-BR ships useful
Players should be able to participate with ships as low as 1.0 BR .
Ships below 4.0 BR could receive a scouting ability that:
- Provides Spawn Points.
- Marks enemy units on the map.
- Gives smaller ships a meaningful role in the battle.
This would turn lower-BR ships into useful support and reconnaissance vessels instead of simply being weaker versions of larger ships.
5. Make losing a ship less punishing
While playing EC, repair costs could be reduced by 50% .
Normal repair costs would still apply if the player voluntarily leaves their vessel.
This would make experimentation and playing weaker ships less punishing while still discouraging players from deliberately abandoning expensive ships.
6. Rework aircraft Spawn Point costs
Aircraft should have Spawn Point costs based on their actual capabilities.
For example:
- Fighters with rockets would have a relatively low cost.
- Strike aircraft equipped with torpedoes would cost more.
- Bombers would require even more Spawn Points.
This would make aircraft more valuable and prevent powerful aircraft from being acquired too easily.
7. Add more missions for destroyers and smaller ships
Destroyers need more meaningful ways to earn RP and Spawn Points.
Additional missions could include:
- Destroying enemy convoys.
- Escorting friendly convoys.
- Hunting enemy support ships.
- Capturing specific objectives.
- Destroying port facilities.
- Attacking factories and coastal installations.
- Reconnaissance missions.
- Protecting transports.
This would ensure that playing a destroyer is not simply a less effective version of playing a cruiser or battleship.
- Yes
- No
- I’m not sure
8. Add infrastructure and port destruction missions
Ports could contain additional strategic targets such as:
- Factories.
- Fuel depots.
- Warehouses.
- Coastal installations.
- Support vessels.
Destroying these targets would directly affect the enemy’s ability to use the port.
This would give players additional objectives instead of forcing everyone to fight in the same capture zone.
- Yes
- No
- I’m not sure
9. Improve AI balance
AI aircraft should be adjusted so that players are not constantly attacked by aircraft significantly above their own capabilities.
For example, the game could reduce the number of AI aircraft that are more than +1.0 BR above the player’s maximum aircraft BR .
Ground-based AI anti-aircraft weapons should also have their accuracy reduced, particularly against convoys and ground-attack objectives.
The goal should be to make these objectives dangerous, but not frustrating or impossible to complete.
10. Increase the player capacity
The maximum number of players could potentially be increased to around 100 players .
This would make the large EC maps feel much more alive and would better justify the scale of the mode.
There has also been interest in having players participate using aircraft in a more substantial way.
One possible idea would be to reserve around 10–20 additional player slots for aircraft-only players .
However, this should be considered hypothetical and would require significant testing and balancing to determine whether it actually improves Naval EC.
The same concept could potentially be explored for ground forces in the future, allowing players to participate in a broader combined-arms EC experience.
Again, this is only a possible future concept , not a requirement for Naval EC.
11. Allow ships to repair at friendly harbors
Players could be allowed to repair their ships at friendly harbors if:
- They are not currently under attack.
- The ship has remained in the harbor area for around 3 minutes .
This would give damaged ships another option besides simply abandoning the vessel and spawning another one.
It would also make controlling harbors strategically important throughout the battle.
12. Keep Naval EC permanent
Making Naval EC permanent is one of the changes that should stay.
It gives the mode visibility and makes it easier for players to find a game.
But permanent EC should remain Enduring Confrontation , rather than becoming a permanent copy of standard Naval Battles.
Conclusion
I don’t think Naval EC needed to be replaced.
It needed to be fixed .
The old system had problems, but those problems could have been addressed without removing the mechanics that made EC unique.
The Spawn Point system, progression, different ship classes and evolving battles were not problems to be removed. They were the foundation of the mode that needed balancing and refinement.
The current direction removes too much of that.
And when you combine:
unlimited respawns + immediate access to the strongest ships + standard BR matchmaking + large numbers of bots
you end up with something that is very difficult to distinguish from an extended standard Naval Battle.
If players want a one-hour battle with unlimited respawns, Gaijin can simply offer exactly that as an option in standard Naval Battles.
For example:
Standard Naval Battle — 1 hour — unlimited respawns
Problem solved.
There is no reason to sacrifice the identity of Naval EC to provide an experience that could simply be added as an option to the existing game mode.
Naval EC should offer something that standard Naval Battles and other gamemodes cannot.
It should be about progression, resource management, different ship classes, evolving objectives, strategic decisions and large-scale player battles.
The old system wasn’t perfect.
But it was Naval EC .
The new system risks being nothing more than Standard Naval Battles+ .
And if that is what EC becomes, then I honestly don’t see much reason to play Naval EC anymore.
