lol. Just ignore him. It’s hard but I think I’m finally managing. He’s a troll.
3 Likes
I’m glad you like it. 1) I’d be interested in how long it holds your interest in it’s current state.
I mean… if you’re driving Battleships…sure. You have to wait a long time. When not abused, the grind mechanic can be a great way to ensure players spend enough time learning the fundamentals of gameplay. Coastals and low tier Bluewaters is where you would build those foundations.
Old aiming gave you the lead. You had to calculate range. Gave you something to get good at. If it was hard for you, so be it.
For me, I got good enough to do it intrinsically. I could guess shots before the lead sometimes. I could even beat the lead’s accuracy. Putting rounds where the player was going to be, not where the computer thought.
Now, you don’t have that option.
I’d just be surprised if people are happy to sit there in their big slow moving, slow firing boats and do nothing but point a cursor at another boat. I can’t imagine that’s going to hold a player base.
The novelty of easy pay will wear out. The novelty of the new boats will wear out. Players will move on. Folx who need something to do while they drink beer and half watch a show will dominate end tier.
3 Likes
Well not really, I tried it and found, that the rewards are soo much lower, that the better aiming does not offset that.
My goal is more like getting the my favourite ships, not as much as playing, and for that, the more important thing is RP rewards
It takes about 6 hours of grinding to get a rank 6 ship atm with premium in a talismaned/premium ship. Thats 18 hours without those things. If they dont address the grind people are gonna give up trying to get to the new ships if they didn’t grind out the TT before.
Coastal grind is even more vile.
Been grinding a lot recently with talisman on sharn and premium time, the upper limit is about 1k RP a minute if you get good matches, ships are like 300k at rank 6 so you could technically do it in 5 hours, but more likely 6-7, and if you suck at naval its gonna be more like 8-9.
4 Likes
I think we sometimes think the game IS the grind. But what’s the point of the grind if the game isn’t fun? Not really directed at you but inspired by your comments.
A lot of ppl excited about big shinny Boom Boats. But will they be any fun if the mechanics are minimalistically influenced by players.
Theoretically, if they stopped putting out ANY vehicles, people should still love to play the game. No grind incentives needed. It should be an aspect that augments gameplay, not dominates it
5 Likes
So why you didn’t said a word about that here?
And we don’t care if you care or not ;-)
xaxaxaxaxaxaxaxa, so they this post is the black hole of their 5 woes?
Fuego we are in extreme time dilation that is why the grid is infinite xaxaxaxa
I think he already told you why, everybody told you
You are the self proclaimed Messiah!!!
4 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Sure
Going forward please take all personal arguments to PM.
6 Likes
I would take the statshark numbers with a grain of salt. Low tier ships require fewer battles to spade. For example, I finished the Grecale in just 3 fights. I will not go back and play it again. Of course, the stats about the number of naval battles dropping overall are probably correct, but don’t automatically assume that fewer low tier battles means fewer new players.
2 Likes
Well, if new players joined Naval, they had to start from rank 1, so we would see an increase especially in the player count stats at lower ranks.
There is one exception, if new players bought premium vessels without playing lower ranks at all. This is something we can’t easily check in stats (technically you could analyze all premium vessels data, but this would require a lot of time). In theory it’s of course possible that all new players bought premium vessels at higher ranks and never played ranks 1-3. This would mean that even more old players left Naval and they were replaced by new players. But even if that’s possible, this is very unlikely. We should always follow the scenario that makes the most sense, not the scenario that is only possible.
If you think about this, considering Naval lost about 200000 players at BRs between March and May, but there was an increase in the number of players in top ranks, which scenario is more likely (I’m showing extreme examples):
- 200000 new players joined Naval and they all bought rank 5 premium vessels and only played there, never touched lower ranks. At the same time, 400000 old players had to leave Naval.
- 200000 old players left, which created more empty battles, and many remaining players moved to higher ranks.
Both these scenarios would cause what we see in the data. And everyone is free to interpret this data as they wish. The real scenario could be the mix of both. But if the first scenario is correct then the devs gained a lot of money from this change.
Personally, I don’t think that all new players just bought premium ships at top ranks to try Naval with the new aiming. Do you think how many players who have never played Naval before would buy something like IJN Yamashiro for 70€ just to grind through lower ranks? I don’t think there will be many of such players, especially they wouldn’t even know before buying this ship if they like Naval or not. And if they had tried something from the reserve vessels first, we would have seen it in the player count at BRs stats.
But I agree that interpreting stats for us always involves making assumptions. Only the devs can see the whole picture (e.g. how many premium vessels they sold in these months). In theory it is possible that they gained more money in these months, we just don’t know this. But there is no reason to assume a scenario that is much less likely to occur.
6 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Agreed. Why there is some of that, as I understand it, the MAJORITY of players in F2P monetization are NOT paying. Anything. And then if they are, they’re usually doing little things. Lower tier/Cheaper Premiums. Maybe premium time.
Again, agree, only the devs know for sure but… you SHOULD be seeing lowest tiers bumped up as players funnel into the game mode. That’s the only entrance for the majority of Free to Players. The tiny percentage buying in likely isn’t significant.
This is also true. It doesn’t take long to get into rank III. I think a few days to get solid into the Rank IIs. But we should still see a ton of players in Rank II and III.
And those Rank I numbers should still show up as they’re monthly counts.
4 Likes
GJ needs to rename this Battle Pass to the “Battles of the French fleet vs the sniper bots”
Also has anyone else noticed that the bots A/A do not take pause to reload, I noticed that on the German Flakvierling. They continusly shootinhg like they are gattling guns
To best way to check this is to look at the Player Count stats, which is basically number of unique players that played at specific BRs.
Even if someone played 100 battles at 2.0 BR in specific nation, you will see +1 Player Count from this player at 2.0 BR for this nation. Of course in this example I assume that all these battles were exactly at 2.0 BR, which is pretty much impossible (more on this later).
You can also do something interesting and just look at the number of unique players that played Naval Arcade in the last month (select Ship Arcade, Win Rate, Monthly Statistics). This way you will see there were 158617 unique players in total (sum of all values) that played at least one Naval Arcade battle in this period. Just keep in mind that this stat is updated every week, so it’s best to note it with the release of monthly stats.
From monthly stats, we know that in May Naval Arcade had 549307 unique players in BRs. So the average Naval Arcade player played in 3.5 different BRs during the month. Which is not much, considering we have 20 possible BR lineups (from 1.0 to 7.3) and 7 nations. This low number of 3.5 suggests that many of 158617 players had to play just 1 battle. That’s because if you play many battles with the same lineup (let’s say 2.0 BR), some of your battles will be 2.0, some will be 2.3, some will be 2.7 and some will be 3.0, so you have 4 options with just one lineup (StatShark counts battle BR for every player). Because the number of possible BR placements with one lineup is 4, and we know the average player played in 3.5 different BRs, many Naval Arcade players had to play just 1 or maybe 2 battles in total last month, so this stat could be that low. Because there were surely players, who played at more BRs.
If that’s still not clear, a simpler example of just 2 players. If one player played just 1 battle in last month, he would be counted as just +1 player at specific BR in Player Count, and +1 player for win rate stats. If another player played at 6 different BRs last month, he would be counted as +6 players at specific BRs in Player Count, but still only +1 player for win rate stats. Both these players at average played in 3.5 different BRs (7 unique players at BRs divided by 2 unique players).
All this suggests that most players in Naval Arcade don’t like switching nations too often, and also prefer to play with just one specific lineup whole the time.
BTW: If anyone is wondering, 306402 unique players played Naval Arcade from February to May.
4 Likes
Me in a nutshell.
1 Like
I have grinded out nearly all coastal trees, actually only the german “Schütze” is missing
Just wanted to say I haven’t seen many people come to the changes defense, and I’ve gotta say I’m having a lot of fun in Naval Arcade at the moment.
1 Like
Tbh i cant defend them because my dislike of them is genuine
1 Like