I’m confused as to what the problem is. Naval Battles are a simple, passive competition for groups to help people earn extra oil for their clans to build up the clan base.
And you’re suggesting this is some sort of WG scam?
I’m 13,000 battles into my Warships career and I’m not buying this argument for one second.
It’s not a secret and I have no qualms saying this again:
Random battles is the primary game mode.
Naval Battles are centered around Random battles.
I respect the PvE community, but this argument about Naval Battles somehow being a sign of WG disrespect is consistently missing the mark.
Naval Battles are the most basic form of clan vs clan functionality the game has. It’s passive and the only requirement is to the play the primary game mode. It’s a super simple measure of a clan organizing to achieve an objective, and part of that is you cannot simply play coop and expect to out-compete another clan. It’s that simple.
If anyone has a legitimate argument to suggest that Naval Battles should be staggered around Coop metrics and not Randoms, I’m all ears. If they have a solution to the fundamental problem therein which is: “this will 100% lopsided the results towards clans with 50 members”, I’d be happy to hear it.
Yeah, man! I think I can give a few examples to highlight the issue.
So, the main issue here is that Naval Battles are a simple competition between two clans, regardless of how the clans define themselves (A KOTS-champion clan of only 20 highly-skilled PvP people can be matched against a PvE clan of 50, for example). The simple reality is that most clans are made up of PvP users because, as I’ve said before, that is the primary game mode. There is no disrespect in saying that and, as an American (so there’s no cultural misunderstanding), I think it’s a mistake to suggest that there is.
I saw somebody earlier in this thread point out - Coop simply has a higher WR for players. Nearly 90-100% of human players win coop battles. 50% of human players win Random battles. Think about that. Base XP is heavily affected by whether you win or not, but not prohibitively. The best BXP comes from playing well. With bars set for BXP, it is intended to allow random-battle players to secure a NB threshold even if they lose by playing well, making the entire thing more dynamic. Ribbons, as a metric, do not necessarily promote good play and winning, but rather just “farming ribbons” that may be irrelevant.
WG as a company wants to avoid creating fun competitions that do not actively promote winning the match you’re in.
So, it’s a better choice to make NB thresholds BXP than it is to have ribbons, because I could farm 1000 Smolensk hits on a Kremlin and do almost no damage and get a NB ribbon for being basically useless, while 8 torpedoes that nearly sink the Krem net me… 8 ribbons. BXP better reflects “contribution to the battle” than ribbons do.
I hope that makes it a bit more clear as to why the modes that favor coop like ribbons are less common than BXP.
As to the folks suggesting that it’s bad customer service to not include NB modes the PvE crowd will excel at, I gotta say once again that the primary game-mode once again is randoms. It’s just reality and I’d be lying to you if I told you otherwise.
Ah, I must have misunderstood your exact question.
Sorry, man - I’m in Prague for KOTS Internationals and have been doing forum discussions from my mobile phone. Seems like I got your question blended up with some of the more common grievances about Naval Battles.
devtrackers.gg