To properly compare this Summer’s performance, you should use Year over Year change, so put Jun-26 up against Jun-25 and Jun-24.
1 Like
Yep, if that data existed I would. As I said, absolute numbers are not particularly relevant here due to seasonality, the proportional data is the point, and it’s very consistent.
1 Like
Naval will always be more niche than the other modes, but recent figures are likely made worse by Gaijins unwillingness to listen to the playerbase.
Arcade aiming remains bugged, BR rebalance suggestions were universally ignored, still waiting on the promised Coastal rebalance…etc etc
It’s dying not by lack of interest but company neglect.
5 Likes
Its generally quite questionable why theyre so scared of doing something about the Battleship BR brackets…
Picked month with two air events and dullest patch for the naval, stating that’s a trend, “Bruce level” of analytics, as always. Comparing by flat numbers ignoring that average naval match lasts 15 mins vs average ARB 5 mins, GRB 10- mins, GAB 5-7 mins, AAB 10 mins, keep on counting mate .
So the question is, whether picking a different set of months would lead to a different percentage of naval vehicles being driven out and games played compared to the stats I posted above. Here’s a three-month series showing that’s not true, along with the last figures from Statshark on this (June) again for comparison. As I said, the popularity of the different modes continues to be very consistent through seasonal swings.
| November | December | January | June | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Games | % | Games | % | Games | % | Games | % | |
| AAB | 57,898,818 | 10.4% | 58,046,516 | 10.4% | 58,526,884 | 10.0% | 27,276,582 | 8.5% |
| GAB | 100,687,468 | 18.1% | 100,665,133 | 18.0% | 102,570,589 | 17.5% | 49,816,238 | 15.5% |
| NAB | 7,009,004 | 1.3% | 7,252,152 | 1.3% | 7,347,786 | 1.3% | 3,820,699 | 1.2% |
| ARB | 87,088,123 | 15.7% | 93,920,766 | 16.8% | 100,927,942 | 17.2% | 59,248,942 | 18.4% |
| GRB | 299,689,109 | 54.0% | 297,708,795 | 53.1% | 313,531,694 | 53.5% | 180,420,798 | 56.0% |
| NRB | 2,950,036 | 0.5% | 3,102,370 | 0.6% | 3,144,782 | 0.5% | 1,406,488 | 0.4% |
| 555,322,558 | 560,695,732 | 586,049,677 | 321,989,747 |
Events count for roughly a 2-5% “swing” in games played over the seasonal trend, not actually that significant for monthly totals, as it turns out. We proved this here: Data Analysis #3: The arrival of Statshark answers some old questions - #153 by Bruce_R1. If there was any doubt about that, I’ll just mention that September from my first chart had a naval event (the Mackesen), as did December in the series above (AK-225 as well as IJN Tosa during the winter event); neither made any detectable difference in naval games played.
The values for match length by mode given in the post immediately above are guesses, and mostly wrong guesses. You can find the best estimate on average game length that’s been done recently here: Data Analysis #5: What is the hardest mode (ground/air/naval) to get score in?. However note that, as this is the sum of all Statshark-recorded “games played” (ie, driveouts, not counting backups) in the month, it has a fuzzier relationship to actual matches. So match length actually isn’t relevant here. The correct multiplier here would be average vehicle life by mode, but we don’t have that data.
2 Likes
Considering your “data” naval grow in popularity from “less than 1%” to almost 2%.
Besides that numbers of average battle length per mode could changed over last year, due to trends in gameplay and map changes.
On top of that even your own graphs pretty close to what i said(and i needed for my estimations just brief look over couple of pages in replays service)
Here is your 5 min ARB and 10 min AAB
Here is your 6-7 GAB and 10 min GRB
And 15 mins naval, which now probably even longer now, cause of enlarged maps and matchmaker changes(do you even know that now 4.3+ ships playing on 20km maps? and small maps almost vanished from MM?) during this year which influence player behavior.
Collect new data mate, your “data” probably already outdated.
The question is asked, has naval ever fallen below 1% of games? Yes, in May 2025 it did, with NAB falling to 0.9% of all games just before the Leviathans expansion, its low in the recent years when these numbers have been available. It rose after that update, peaking at 1.7% that summer… as the stats show above, it’s been decaying slowly as a portion of all games since (with NRB doing about 40% of what NAB does consistently).
Is naval dead? No, not any deader than it’s always been anyway, but the fact remains Gaijin could have spent exactly zero dollars ever on the naval mode and 98% of their current games would still be running, day after day.
2 Likes
With the Wilkinson, If you look closely, you can see that my shells are veering sharply to the left.
1 Like
No one ask you that, you were asked to bring actual info on current games length per mode, not outdated one.
So all your point of this numbers juggling just to prove that onе of the most underdeveloped and unfinished mode, should not be developed - for sure it will lead to growth in its popularity(not)?
The naval matchmaker is absolutely horrendous… 3x 6.7 battleships on the enemy team and my team pulls up with a max 6.3 one. What is even the point of playing this?
5 Likes
Yeah its really really bad at times now
I have gotten games against 4+ soyuz while my team has only 8.0 ships
3 Likes
Indeed, it’s very annoying that Gaijin hasn’t really communicated its plans to fix this bug. Nothing. Not even one acknowledgment from them.
1 Like
there is more or less totally silence reg. naval issues since the aimbot update…
How neglectful does one have to be to see this, to see the data and be like…yeah thats fine. 2x OTO-Melara 76mm modern automatic cannons, vs wooden speedboat
Still waiting for that coastal decompression that Smin talked about being soon…in 2025 August
4 Likes
complete other thing, a few months ago there were green circles indicating target areas for waterbombs and missiles - at a sudden there are gone. I couldn’t find any information about them?
And there is still the hull repair bug that is basically being treated as a suggestion.
1 Like
yea, they were really very useful.
Pretty sure that wasn’t meant to be shown off & later removed, unfortunately the devs didn’t remove the AI’s depth charging from that update looking at you Restigouche class Destroyer & Buckley class Destroyer Escort.
The highlighted areas were there yet for Italian & Japanese cruisers it was bugged within the ships hulls.
Examples:
Isuzu class Destroyer Escort, note the far one indicates the RUR-4, also side K gun depth charges
Type 12 ASW Frigate, Limbo mortars
Ayanami class Destroyer, Hedgehogs forwards
FNFL Flower class Corvette
Tacoma class Frigate, outlines with depth charges about to land,
Condottieri series cruiser, note the glitched indicator astern of the cruiser,
Also, I believe it was the December update for 2025 & was there until the next update, I did originally mention this to some CC’s in Tyrael’s discord & Rowan did show this all off in his update video, that’s if you want to track down certain ships UI’s.
Ohh forgot some others:
Type 7 motor torpedo boat, mousetrap mortars,
Chidori class torpedo boat, note the size difference between grouped amounts of launchers, also pretty sure that’s a stetn rail highlight iirc (may need to recheck),
Interestingly, it wasn’t just depth charge mortars but also infantry mortars, unfortunately didn’t get one of the Mk. 7 Barrage mortar on the JMSDF Yuri class LSSL.
Fairmile H LCS(L)(2), 4.2" mortar,
Project 161 early, 82 mm mortar,
2 Likes