DEV QA ÜBER DAS SPIEL

Frage

HI Sub_Octavian!

Sie haben mein Interesse geweckt, als Sie sagten, Sie seien eine Analytikerin. Können Sie mehr über die Arten von Daten und Analysen sagen, die WG verwendet, um zu bestimmen, ob Gameplay-Änderungen erforderlich sind? Natürlich nichts Proprietäres. Zum Beispiel ist es eine sehr häufige Praxis unter Spielern, durchschnittliche Gewinnraten unter Schiffen zu vergleichen, um ihre relative Wirksamkeit zu beurteilen. Ich könnte mir jedoch vorstellen, dass man mit dem vollständigen Datensatz separate Effektivitätsvergleiche beim Spielen als niedrigstes Schiff oder in CV-vs. Nicht-CV-Spielen machen könnte. Verwenden Sie eine interne Regression irgendeiner Art, um die Spielerfertigkeit enkonton zu können, wenn Sie sich das Gleichgewicht ansehen? Kommen Drittanbieter-Bewertungen wie WTR nahe an die Art von Dingen heran, die WG berücksichtigt? Oder machen Sie hauptsächlich Analysen auf dem Kundenstamm und nicht auf den Schiffen?

Regarding gameplay mechanics, I am curious about the penetration mechanic for multiple layers of armor, e.g. turtleback, front bulkhead, citadel wall. I usually see armor described as Layer1(mm) + Layer2(mm) + Layer3(mm), sometimes with effective thicknesses given due to different angling of the layers (i.e. perpendicular to Layer1 will hit Layer2 at an angle). My question is regarding overmatched armor layers — if this occurs, will they still reduce further penetration, and if so, at what effective angle are they assessed? Is it zero (overmatched armor ignored)? Is it assessed at 28mm @ 60 degrees (autobounce angle)? Is it 28mm @ true angle (perhaps as steep is 80+ degrees)? This is of interest currently, because the proposed 28mm bow/aft armor changes to high-tier battleships mean that they could be taking a lot of shells in an overmatched section that subsequently challenges the (angled) citadel wall, and I am interested in understanding what kinds of angling will be viable on different ships (e.g. NC and Iowa have an extremely large bow section, and a very small, thin belt for battleships).

Antwort

Hallo. Es gibt tonnenweise Daten, und wir haben ein kleines Team, das ständig daran arbeitet, neue Typen von Serverprotokollen zu implementieren, sodass wir immer sehen können, was los ist. Neben unterschiedlichen absoluten Werten (wie avg.damage, Gewinnrate, Lebensdauer) und relativen Werten (% Schadensstruktur) haben wir “Hände Abhängigkeit” Diagramme, die es uns ermöglichen, die Effizienz des Schiffes unter Spielern unterschiedlicher Fähigkeiten zu überprüfen. Wir haben auch einige interessante Sachen wie Heatmaps für Karten-Balance-Zwecke. Wir können uns jedoch nicht ausschließlich auf Statistiken und Serverdaten verlassen, egal wie genau sie sind. Wir überwachen auch das Feedback der Community und versuchen, “Technische” und “Humane” Ansätze.

Die Overmatch-Mechanik hängt nicht von der Shell-Geschwindigkeit ab. Es ist nur Kaliber/14,3 = überragende Rüstungsstärke. Jedoch, Granaten verlieren Geschwindigkeit und Durchdringung mit Reichweite und wenn sie durch Rüstung gehen.

Wenn eine Granate durch ein Schiff geht, gibt es einen separaten Satz von Berechnungen, die für jede Rüstungsschicht erstellt werden. Zum Beispiel kann es Bogen-Rumpf-Beschichtung mit Overmatch durchdringen, dann gehen in Zitadelle quer (wo Overmatch-Check wird fehlschlagen), und, wenn es nicht durchdringen kann, wird es Bogen Schaden anrichten. Oder es kann hüpfen und sogar das Schiff durch Beschichtung verlassen (verursacht Overpen-Schäden).

0.5.12-Test geht jedenfalls noch weiter, und einige Dinge werden wahrscheinlich angepasst werden. Wir werden näher darauf eingehen, wenn 0.5.12 zur Freigabe freigegeben ist.

Frage

Is the US ever going to get a tier 8 premium ship? Will it be the USS Alabama? Will it be a battleship? Will it be a cruiser?

Thank you for answering questions. As you can see, there really is a gap between communication with players and the game. But almost all games are like this. Players want to know it all and devs have other things to do.

Antwort

There will be US T8 premium, and probably not one. But I don’t believe it’s a good idea to leak the details now. Premium ship announcements are a major PR case for the company (smaller than update release, but still..), so generally I will not be able to leak any information on premium ship plans here.

You are welcome, and sorry for not answering your question in more depth.

Frage

hi Sub_Octavian, I have some questions about gun shells.

1/ I noticed there is a shell value called Krupp. Can you give an explanation about this certain value and does it affect penetration?

2/ The armor viewer is very nice, so any chance you guys show us data about penetration of AP shells ingame, for example like what is shown in Armada video series?

edit: I don’t know if I should make another post but I have one more question regarding Bismarck and Tirpitz: Bismarck seems to be sitting lower in the water than Tirpitz (the citadel part of Tirpitz is slightly rising above water, as shown in screenshots below):

Armor viewer’s view (I’ve timed my screenshots so that both ships float in the lowest position possible, for comparison purpose)

Is this some sort of mistake, or a balancing decision?

Antwort

Hi!

1. Yes, I can, but without exact formula, as our ballistic model is under NDA. Krupp value in game is something that makes two shells of same caliber, weight and speed have different armor penetration value. It takes IRL shell specifications into account.

2. Yes, there’s huge chance, and we would like to have this information in game for you, too.

3. Ship draught has both historical and gameplay value. It is OK if it slightly differs between ships of the same type (like Molotov/Kirov) or from IRL sources for balance purposes. I will double-check that, but I am pretty sure there’s no need to increase Tirpitz draught. If any action will be planned on it, I will update my reply,

Frage

What is the krupp factor?

How to work?

Antwort

Please see the answer above. Cheers!

Frage

Do you have a plan that realize USS utah in WoWs?

Antwort

There are no plans for this ship currently.

Frage

Hi Sub_Octavian,

1 Armor

1a. We know that the real warships have complicated armor layout, but the armor layout in WoWs is relatively simple. How do the developers decide what (piece of armor) to keep and what to discard?

1b. If the thickness of an armor plate is distributed unevenly, how do the developers decide how thick the armor plate should be? e.g. take the maximum, median, or minimum.

1c. Some warships in history have adopted unique plating technique to make their armor tougher without increasing the thickness of the armor, how is that being displayed in WoWs?

1d. Why do developers model the watchtower on the mast but not model the mast itself. Shell hits the watchtower and do damage, but it flies through the mast.

2 Gameplay

2a. In a recent QA Daniil said he wants WoWs to be more complex than simpler. In that case, why do the developers unify the AP shell normalization, engine output and armor scheme on superstructure, bow and stern?

2b. Does the ultimate rank reward Flint compromise the game concept of less HE and smoke, more AP and intense gameplay?

2c. Why do developers introduce HE shells on Tier 1 instead of AP shells? When does an average player see the usefulness of AP shells? e.g. on what tiers?

2d. Fire (and flood) will do one more tick of damage after it is put out. Is it working as intended? It is not a friendly mechanism.

3 Tech Tree

3a. Do you agree that the stock hull of a higher tier ship is worse than the fully-upgraded preceding ship? If not, how would you convince player that higher tier ships are always better?

3b. What’s the philosophy behind “research aircraft carrier after the Tier 4 battleship”?

3c. What’s the philosophy behind the gun upgrades on New Orlean and Baltimore etc.? Why do they cost so much? Do developers plan to improve them?

3d. In the new IJN DD tech tree, why does Minekaze sit on the sub-branch while Mutsuki is on the main-branch? It is not logical as the number of torpedo tubes changes inconsistently through tiers.

Oops that is a lot of questions. If my questions trouble you too much, you can skip over some of them.

Antwort

Good day to you, TaKeYoUrWaY!

1.a. By evaluating its gameplay effect. It’s like turning tiny caliber aux guns off – we know they are there, but we also know they will do almost zero damage in game fundamentals.

1.b. By evaluating its gameplay effect. If it is adequate, then the plate will be divided into several parts with different thickness. If not, that will be one value determined by game designer as optimal.

1c. Not sure what you mean. We do not count for different armor types – it is a great complication for game mechanics without any positive effect. Sometimes we re-calculate outdated armor into Krupp values for more consistency. For example, Albany – she has 25 mm deck (instead of historical 32 mm) and 38 mm turtleback (instead of historical 57 mm) – her Harvey armor was calculated into Krupp.

1.d. Becauese such watchtower has enough volume and combat value to be included in damage model. Mast damaging is too complicated and unneccessary in our opinion.

2.a. Because Daniil meant player-controlled and sensible complexity. Something that really can be mastered. At the same time, there should be “easy to learn” part, too.

2.b. Flint features are balanced by her high vulnerability. And she will not be very common. But we definetely don’t want to overwhelm the game with HE/smoke, this is why RN cruisers are being reworked now.

2.c. On 2+ tier. Please mind that Tier one is normally completed in a couple of rounds. For a newbie, this time should be devoted to 2 things: hitting target and not forgetting about movement. More rewarding and more complex AP gameplay is introduced a bit later, and this is fine.

2.d. Yep, such cases are not very nice, but currently they cannot be removed redesign and increase of server load. Fire and flood are calculated each second (approx.) and if you push [R] in between, one more tick may occur. This issue would be nice to fix, but it is not high priority comparing to other improvements.

3.a. It depends on personal opinion and exact ship, but personally – yes, I agree.

3.b. “Introducing AC on lower tiers is a bad idea both in terms of learning curve and game balance – we tried and researched that, so we are quite certain”.

3.c. New Orleans gains faster turning speed, Baltimore gains increased firing rate and heavier, better AP shell. No, we do not have such plans, and overall ship research cost is not to be changed.

3.d. This change is being tested internally now, I suggest we get back to it at least when sub-branch is on production test.

Cheers!

Frage

Looking at the previous diagram of dispersion that was posted, is that how it appears in-game, or is it distorted to fit the image? ie: Is the ellipse really wider than it is long?

I’m only curious here because real guns tend to be off more long/shorter than they are side to side with both naval and land artillery (and modeled in WoT with the SPG’s dispersion circle), but since we cannot actually see the dispersion circle on the water in WoWS.

If our shells in-game disperse side to side more, then it’s only logical that we’d point our ships bow on towards the source of the fire to give a smaller profile, therefore causing shells to miss more to the side… in addition to the statement in the notes given for the recent 5.12 PT news where the curves/angles of the bow cause a natural ricochet angle to occur where you’re looking to minimize this.

Their previous armor thickness values allowed players to turn their bows towards the enemy, especially in high tier battles, and minimize or even fully negate any damage by AP shells. This resulted in players deviating from the intended role of the ship class.

Antwort

No, this is just my paint mad skills – I tried to pictire it in 3D perspective. In game parameters verical dispersion is longer.

Frage

Hi Sub_Octavian,

Thank you for the very informative thread. You are helping with our understanding of the game immensely. I have a follow up question to this answer about AA.

1) Does this aura principle also apply to 2 fighter squadrons in a dogfight? If so is Eb a simple sum of the DPS from multiple fighters squadrons when there are multiple fighter squadron engaged (i.e. 2 FS v 1 FS scenario)?

2) How does the formulas change when a strafe command is given to a fighter squadron?

Thanks for your answers!

Antwort

Hi. Thank all of you for mostly interesting questions!

1. Yes, kind of. When you lose your AA cannons under heavy fire, your aura effeciencey drops – the same thing happens when your squadron loses planes.

2. What is strafe command? If you mean squadron [Alt] attack, then there is “big amount of DPS” applied to all squadrons in affected area. The DPS increase is set by balance team.

You are welcome, I hope that helps.

Frage

Thank you for opening this up! Given the worries about premium consumables unbalancing the high-tier economy, will the damage-over-time systems be reviewed (fire, flooding)?

Antwort

Hi, there are certain things about the economy and cunsumables being discussed in the studio, and I believe some positive changes may be developed, but there are no plans to change flooding and fire – they work as intended.

Frage

This is awesome. Sub_Octavian, thanks for taking the (considerable) time to carefully answer all this. It means a lot to everyone who plays and especially to those who are most committed to the game (and therefore most curious about the finer points of game mechanics, balance, etc.). Huge thanks for being here and tending this thread.

A few questions:

1) Will there be options for farther-away render of land reflections? Some of the footage of early game versions showed a very glassy ocean that had reflections of even far-away landmasses, but the current game (even with settings maxed) only renders non-sky reflections starting at around 5km. Obviously not all PCs could handle it, but that goes for many of the graphics settings, so it would be nice as an option.

2) Will we get the “improved spotting” that WoT recently got? I.e. when an unspotted ship becomes spotted, it appears on the minimap immediately, but doesn’t visually render for a second or two, which has a huge affect on e.g. ambush scenarios.

3) Will the port ever use a dispersion measurement (such the accuracy measurement in WoT) that allows useful comparison of accuracy (precision, actually, but whatever) between ships? ‘Dispersion at max range’ is quite unhelpful as that range is a variable, and even differs on the same ship based on the modules/AFT that are in use. Could we get this metric changed to something like m/km (horizontal dispersion/range) so that the number would be a pure measurement of the guns’ precision, without a floating variable that needs to mentally accounted for?

Antwort

You are welcome, and I am happy to help. Such warm greetings on this forum mean a lot, too.

1. There’s one nice technology being integrated. If it is done, you will be able to get such effect on High and Very High presets. Cannot tell you the exact version yet.

2. With time, hopefully, we will tweak this mechanics. We are definetely would love it, too. Current possible tweaks have bad effects, so we look for better solution.

3. Maybe it is worth considering, but our current port stats goal is to implement AP values, when we’re done with that, if there are no other urgent tasks, we will look into this.

Frage

Hi Sub_Octavian,

Thanks for your efforts here, I have few additional question about the game mechanics .

1. How doe the inclined armor work in this game? Do you directly apply it into trigonometry function or there is a more complex calculation?

2. Does decapping mechanic exist in this game?

3. Since you are using the Krupp value in the game, I assume you are using either Demarre formula or Krupp Formula for penetration calculation, or there is something else involved?

4. Since many German BBs received unhistorical modification (most noticeable the Gneisenau), any chance for other historical ships to receive this kind of modification?

5. Any chance for Minotaur to retain her historical 20 rounds/m rate of fire? The 15 r/m is for the triple mount turret (Mark XXV).

Something off topic: We will have a new round of ST tester recruitment ever?

Antwort

Hallo

1. We “directly apply it into trigonometry function”, that’s right.

2. If I got it correctly, then no. Shell is being normalized each time it passes through armor.

3. Ballistics formula is not to be disсlosed. It is currently under NDA. Sorry.

4. Yes.

5. This will be determined after final line production test. Balance is more important than following the historical specs formally.

Offtopic: this is up to regional ST manager.

Cheers!

Frage

1) Has there been any consideration given to allowing players the ability to select their consumables after they see what the enemy side consists of? Right now it’s a bit of a gamble, as you can run defensive fire but never see a CV all day long for example, then run into two on the enemy side as soon as you change it out.

I’m /guessing/ that’s intentional to create a risk that you might not see any benefit from the consumable you decide to go with, but allowing it to be swapped at the screen that shows the team linups before you click into the match would be more tactical at least.

2) Have you evaluated the use of fighter-bombers on carriers? All nations with carriers had fighters capable of mounting bombs and rockets. Having the ability to hang bombs on your fighters if the enemy CV is running a low-fighter build or has been taken out could be interesting. Plus, a rocket attack from a fighter bomber could be an excellent anti-DD attack.

Antwort

1. Yes, there was such consideration. But it would be much better to polish the balance (so that all classes are represented properly on all tiers) rather than work on quite huge (in terms of developement and adequate testing) mechanics with low player attraction.

2. Yes, we evaluated this potential and even had some design ideas. But currently this is not something we want to do with CVs.

Please mind that these questions are more like suggestions. While I respect all ideas about the game developement and often find them interesting, this thread is meant to answer questions about the existing or officially announced game content. I am counting on your understanding here.

Frage

Hello Sub_Octavian,

1. Any chance to see the Kitakami return ? I liked this Destoyer in CBT, it had some flaws and it could use a balance pass, but as a concept for a premium IJN destroyer I loved it.

2. Any chance at a premium tier 6-7 IJN battleship? For example, my best BB performances yet was in the Nagato, I sure wouldn’t mind a premium one (or have premium camo to buy to make her into a real premium).

3. About PvE, I now prefer that mode over PvP because of (to me) glaring mechanics unbalance in player’s hands in PvP. Any chance of having development of new modes and perhaps a less harsh economy? (PvE earn les credit, but pay same repair costs).

4. About the Mikasa, (still never sold on NA by the way *hint* *hint*), any hopes of having her secondary armament buffed in range to something like the German T3 BBs ? Maybe via a special module (aka Yubari)? Mikasa relies on her secondaries far more than the König Albert or the Nassau, does not have the same amounts of turrets (being T2 and all) and she regularly meets these 2 behemoths. Personally I would fancy 5km base, but anything would help, really.

Thank you !

Antwort

1. There’s always hope…I am sure this ship would generate many rich impressions for its owners..its enemies…and temmates, too.

2. Yes.

3. Yes, PvE is one of our new priorities. You will see some early results quite soon, I hope.

4. it is not likely that we buff her in any way.

Frage

Hello Sub_Octavian. A couple quick questions I’m curious about.

1. Is there a possibility of USS West Virginia being a Premium ship at some point?

2. Are there permanent camos under development for New Mexico and/or Colorado, or other ships as well?

Thank you for your time.

Antwort

1. There is always some chance, but currently it is neither in developement, nor in plans.

2. With time, we will add permanent camos for the majority of ships or even for all ships. But top tier is more prioritized for that, as camo economical effects are more important there.

You are always welcome.

Frage

Hello Sub_ Octavian,

Can you give an explanation of the game mechanics of observation/concealment? There have been a number of times I’ve been baffled by:

1. Target lock on a ship (BB) above 15 km and the ship blinks off.

2. Target ship (dd) and myself are converging courses with an island between us. Ship is locked on target (but unable to fire due to island in between) at 8 km, blinks out then and not visible until 4 km away (when approaching edge of island).

Antwort

Helloes!
I need to see the situation to tell what happened. Visibility system was polished several times, and I do not know any severe bugs with it now.

Frage

Hi Sub_Octavian, and thank you for taking the time to do this. This may be a bit long, but please bear with me.

I know the developer team is aware that hightiers are not enjoyable, and that you guys have been trying to do something about this. From nerfing CV’s, to nerfing torpedoes, to reducing repair costs and now by nerfing BB bow armor. But I think the problem is that T10 gameplay is way too different from the gameplay of the very fun mid tiers (T5, 6, 7 and 8). Specifically, I think, the range increases at T10 is the main culprit behind the boring T10 gameplay. And here are my reasonings:

1) Ranges at T10 increase massively. Shooting at small dots 25 km away is not fun, even when the enemy is sitting still. Being set on fire by an invisible Zao 18km away is not fun either.

What is the purpose of having such massive ranges? They only encourage people to fight further away. I wouldn’t mind having the same max range of an Amagi with my Yamato, or the same range of an Atago in my Zao. I don’t need to completely outrange T8 ships: the superior armor, HP pool and firepower are more than enough of an advantage already.

2) Maps become too small for the increased ranges. Thanks to the increased range on ships, you suddenly become vulnerable to more ships from different angles if you try to push a base or a lane. On some maps, a T8 ship that was pushing, say, the east of the map was only vulnerable to the ships right in the same east flank. If you attempt to do that at T10, more often than not you may end up with your sides exposed to the enemy ships sitting in the center of the map, which was not the case at the previous tiers. So now you have to wait for a lot longer until one side is sufficiently weakened so you can push without risking getting shot from multiple angles. Now, I don’t think increasing map size would solve this, since battles would just take longer to finish and the sniping game would continue for even longer.

3) Speeds stay the same. Ships at T10 are overall an improvement over their previous tiers, except for speed, which overall stays the same. And this, combined with the increased ranges on BBs/CA’s, means that to push an objective and/or close into a more enjoyable range where my shots become decently accurate (around the sub-15km range), you have to spend more time under enemy fire, from more enemy ships than at previous tiers (as mentioned in point number 2). The increased health pool is not enough to account for this.

4) Maneuverability goes down. At mid tiers, where BB’s are most maneuverable even though sometimes very slow, I can afford to broadside a bit with my battleship, be it New York, New Mexico, Nagato, Gneisenau, Tirpitz, etc. Whenever I get shot at, I drop speed, turn the rudder and avoid most shells. I can do this even at sub-15km ranges.

At high tiers this is not the case, because ships have larger turn radii and very slow rudders. At the same time, ships like Yamato have very fast shells, so juking, feinting and avoiding shots is much harder to do. Which means that the most effective strategy, even when “brawling” at sub-15km ranges, oftentimes it’s to just point my bow at enemy ships.

You’re nerfing the bow armor of BB’s in 5.12 to prevent this, but I think this may be a solution aimed at a symptom, not the problem itself. On the other hand, the addition of a rudder upgrade for cruisers is a good step in the right direction, though I think it should be implemented as a straight up buff for the entire cruiser class, not as an optional upgrade.

I tried to keep it as short as possible, but I could further elaborate with more details and examples. Would you mind reviewing each point? do you agree with them? has something like this been brought up before at developers meetings? has this been considered as a way to make T10 enjoyable, or why was it discarded as a solution?

Thank you for your time, and I eagerly await for your reply.

Antwort

Hi. Wow, that was quite big.

So firstly, we do not think that T10 is not enjoyable. We see players there, and many of us regularly play these high-tier matches, too. However, we believe there are several issues with T10 that can be fixed to make it more enjoyable and more accessible. Additionaly, there’s desire to add more unique experience to top tiers and make them more valuable.

We believe specs increase to be both logical and rewarding. While Yamato may not be super effecient at maximum range, having the ability to outrange North Carolina or Amagi is generally good. However, you are obviously right about the connection between range and dynamics. Dynamics drops with tier increase – but is this necessarily bad? When I want more strategic gameplay, I take T8-10 When I want more casual experience, I take T4-7. Different tiers offer different game tempo, and experience. This adds to diversity.

But of course that doesn’t mean that T10 should be boring – no, it should be different, it should be epic and enjoyable.

As you already know, we cancelled the nerf and tweaked the economy instead, so now player spending won’t be affected by the amount of lost HP. This is one, but importante change. Surely there will be more. But maps, ranges and speeds are not likely to be changed globally. There IS high tier meta and we should improve it gently, not replace or kill.

I’d rather not start “why didn’t you do this and that” thread, if you excuse me. From my experience, it is not very effecient

Frage

Hello Sub_ Octavian, thank you for taking the time for this each day…it’s a great source of much needed information.

1) I wanted to ask if there were plans to offer Tier 10 premium camo. I’m sure I’m not the only one who loves buying them for keeper ships, but I’ve yet to see any for Tier 10.

2) Someone already asked about premium camo for the New Mexico…that’s another one I’m really hoping to get. How does WG decide which ships to make the camo for? Is there a way we can make requests or somehow help decide which ones to look at?

Thanks for your time as always.

Antwort

I hope so, you are welcome.

1. Yes there are such plans, surely. T10 camo pack is planned.

2. We mainly look at stats, but aim at more high tier ships – I already explained the reason above. As for any community voting/requests – you can freely do it. Community managers of all regions pay attention to popular trends and always pass them to developement team.

Bitte.

Frage

Great stuff! Thanks again 🙂

#6 autobounce & overmatch: can you explain why you chose this kind of mechanic and how you got to the 14 something factor? I am asking because the mechanic feels “artificial” and causes some questionable outcome (e.g. promotes bow-on reverse paddling and such)? Were these effects intended or by chance? Are you happy with those and what is your plan for the future?

#7 firing ellipse: the ellipse built when firing looks like it is shaped like a ship at broadside. This promotes bow-on further as it makes broadside hits more likely due to the shape of the ellipse compared to bow-on. In reality I would have expected more a circle when projected against the side of a ship which would a totally different impact. What was the reason to build the ellipse in this way and does it support the style you try to achieve?

#8 RNG – currently the game is limited in complexity with regards to FCS. The only real impact is (as question 6+7) positioning/angling and RNG. While it is convenient and fast to learn it feels like limiting you rather quickly as the learning curve is limited. Are you happy with the limited complexity and high RNG dependency? Are there plans to increase complexity and reduce the amount of luck involved?

#9 Angling – I noticed a high degree of armor angling in the game. While it adds a little piece of skill to the fights it feels again highly “artificial” and somehow out of place in a naval engagement. Together with autobounce it promotes a bow on game play whereas in reality one would expect that a shell from the bow would pass through the entire ship and wreck everything on its way. Are you happy with this mechanic, is it intended and why? Do you plan to change this kind of stuff?

#10 Damage model – another complexity topic. WoWS uses a very simple HP based damage model. In reality a ship can fight as long as its fighting equipment is not knocked out and will only sink once more water enters the ship than damage control can cope with. There are some game which model these things while WoWS sticks to the simple HP bag model. Is there any plan to change that and what was the reason to go the most simplified route?

#11 Power Progression – while I already indicated last time that the underrepresentation of the WW1 ships is a huge opportunity missed I have another question about the power progression: what was the reason to not use “split” tiers? Eg. Kongo BC 1915 at T4 and Kongo 1944 on T5? This would eliminate some paper and fantasy ships and add a little variety? The current tiering system is very “streamlined” further worsened by adding fantasy modifications to keep the ships even more similar? Are you happy with this or wouldn’t make more variety the game more interesting? What is the opinion of the developers after implementing different lines and whar is the learning for the future?

Thanks again for taking the time to answer our questions!

Antwort

My pleasure, captain.

6. It is artificial for the sake of outcome and balance purposes. We want some ships deal damage to some ships at some angles – so we calculate this value accordingly. Sure, overmatch is something “yes or no” in our game, but making it more complex would cause even more questions and make mechanics more random. We are currently satisfied with overmatch value.

7. If you are referring to my picture, I just wanted to make it “3D-ish”. Vertical dispersion is larger than horizontal dispersion, like it is IRL.

8. There is desire to slightly reduce so called RNG and increase the predictability of players actions. However, we do not think that RNG dependancy is high. We still have players with different win rates, we still have tons of important tactical decisions. In some fast paced FPS with railguns any RNG would be extremely bad, for example. In World of Warships, I would say, success is constantly making right tactical (and even strategic) decisions and dealing consistent damage over the course of battle. RNG can waste 1 salvo out of 10, complex damage model can lower the effect of another 2-3, but if you are constantly doing it right, you will have much better results than this guy who cannot shoot, cannot angle and cannot predict any combat events. And by the way, strictly speaking, there is no RNG in game. Yes, there is shell dispersion, but armor penetration and damage are 100% precise.

9. There is no “angling” for fire, flooding and torpedoes. We do not like bow-backing tactics and excessive sniping. We will deal with it (and already have taken several steps). But angling is one ot the things that allows a skilled player to win a bad scenario.

10. I bet for the majority of players it is not simple. We have ship divided into several parts, each with separate HP pool and value. We have all major armor layers carefully modeled. We have modules like rudder, engine, turrets and AA guns with separate HP and protection. We have detailed terminal ballistics. We have anti-torpedo layers… Maybe you are a hardcore player so it is over-simplified for you, but generally, WoWs damage model if far from simple “HP bag”.

11. Many WW1 ships will not feel very well in current game mechanics. And we have to stick to some thematic era for more consistency. As for line progression – we do not see anything wrong neither in paper ships (it is fun to see them “in action”), not in some presumed modification (what would change on this ship if it was active throughout the whole war?), honesly. On the other hand, making T5 and T6 Kongos doesn’t appeal us.

Ich glaube, ich war irgendwie “nah, we are happy with that” in some questions. Please don’t get me wrong – I am always interested to experience player insight, but we, as developement team, have our vision based on global audience needs. Sometimes it contradicts some hardcore player point of view, sometimes it may look way too casual (and sometimes vice versa). We would be happy to enhance this vision and improve the game in various aspects, but as for conceptual basis of the game, It will probably stay.

Frage

First of all thank you for answering our questions.

My is about torpedoes and specifically torpedo detection ranges but please tell me something I have missed. The core of my question is why are Japanese torpedoes the most visible torpedoes in the game? They used liquid oxygen propellant on the top end to be less visible. Yes they were larger, but why more visible? They are so easy to dodge that they are not very effective. I have played American destroyers to tier 8, Russian to tier 10, and Japanese to tier 10 and by far the American and Russian torpedoes are superior.

I noticed that most of tier 5 and up torpedoes seem to follow a formula of detection based on their speed.

at 45-49 knots torpedoes have a detection range of 900 meters

at 50-54 knots torpedoes have a detection range of 1000 meters

at 55 to 59 knots torpedoes have a detection range of 1100 meters

at 60 to 64 knots torpedoes have a detection range of 1200 meters

at 65 to 69 knots torpedos have a detection range of 1400 meters

When Japanese torpedoes reach a range of 10km or their speed exceeds 70 knots they get a .3km penalty to their detection range by the formula, also the Shimakaze actually suffers a .5km penalty to this formula instead. The result gives some interesting numbers, but you can note the penalty starts at the cruiser Furutaka and actually begins early for the poor Mutsuki at tier 6, her 6km range 63 knot torpedoes are spotted at 1.6km which is more visible than the American Gearing’s tier 10 torpedoes. In comparison Minekaze’s torpedoes have a 68 knot speed and are spotted by the formula at 1.4km

There are also other oddities such as Kagero’s F3 torpedoes are actually more visible and the target has more reaction time to dodge them than her type 93 mod 2’s, only by a tenth of a second but still it is interesting.

Russian torpedoes from Khabarovsk are spotted at 1.1km or 1.375km with vigilance, or 1.65km with detection module and vigilance

American torpedoes from Gearing are spotted at 1.4km 1.75km with vigilance, or 2.1km with the detection module and vigilance

Japanese torpedoes from Shimakaze are spotted at 1.9km 2.35km with vigilance, or 2.85km with detection module and vigilance

According to my math which may be slightly off, I assumed 1 knot is = to a speed of 2.7643 meters per second which I came up with using the torpedo lead timers in game and averaging the time listed between 15 different destroyers to the time it would take the tor the torpedo to hit, and then did a little math from there.

Long story short a target that is closing at a speed 30 knots and assuming the destroyer launching torps does not have torpedo acceleration, the low end of the time being without vigilance and detection module where the top end has both, the time to avoid the torpedo is as follows, I rounded for simplicity.

4.7 to 7 seconds to dodge a Russian Khaborovsk torpedo

5.2 to 7.9 seconds to dodge a American Gearing torpedo

7.1 to 10.6 seconds to dodge a Japanese Shimakaze torpedo

9.8 to 14.7 seconds to dodge a Japanese Shimakaze Long Lance torpedo

I’m using tier 10 as a colorful example, but I could also point to other torpedoes at other tiers and this trend is very present for the entire Japanese line, also at tiers 9 and 10, American torpedoes are flat out better than Japanese ones, they reload faster, out range them, and can even out speed and out range them at tier 10 if the American captain uses torpedo acceleration. I’m not including the long lance this part of my statement because they are so easy to see and avoid that they are basically unuseable.

If my speed is off on the meters per second per knot let me know, I would like to fix my spreadsheet of all the torpedo data in the game. However yes, if you could please, tell me why Japanese torpedoes have such a high visibility compared to those of other torpedoes of other nations? Also if you could tell me anything else about torpedoes I would appreciate it, thank you.

Feel free to crop this down when you delete it to make it more compressed if need be.

Antwort

Hi. In short, Japaneese torps have higher visibility because they have higher speed and higher damage. They also have higher flooding chance, whis is important on high tiers, where there are lots of ships with anti-torpedo protection.
Lange Lanzen waren generft, weil sie ziemlich schlecht für Meta waren und gefördert “DD "sniping"” or, better said, “DD faul spamming”.

I play DDs regularly, and I use torpedo speed perk for Gearing (spending precious 3 points), while freely skipping it for F3 Shimakaze (however, I have torp mod.3 installed).

My final specs look like this:

Gearing: 2×5, 13.2 range, 71kt speed, 17900 damage, 122,4 reload;

Simakaze: 3×5, 8 range, 76 kt speed, 21367 damage, 100,2 reload.

I will not add Khab torps here because for her, they are more of a last chance weapon.

I don’t think that less range is a problem, and you still have this “Unsichtbarkeit Lücke” to fire and retreat.

IMO the IJN version is much more interesting and rewarding. Gearing is more cross-functional, but the ultimate torpedo boat for devastating strike is Shimakaze

Frage

Wow, great responses from Sub_Octavian here. It’s good to know someone is taking the time to listen and respond to the community as much as he does.

Nice work!

Antwort

Thank you for your kind words!

Frage

@Sub_Octavian hier ist einige Fragen habe ich

1) Why does the Atlanta have a base range of 11kl and 13.5 with AFT at tier 7 when some DD’s have a longer range at that tier, as a CA don’t you think the range should be a little higher for it’s tier?

2)As to repair costs in general what would be the effect on the SPIEL, not the UNTERNEHMEN if repair costs were eliminated, once again not on the economics of the company?

Antwort

Hi.

1. Firing range is calculated using fire control system quality and height. Then it can be tweaked for balance purposes. Alanta’s range was calculated the same way. And honestly, thinking about her 127-mm ballistics…increased range wouldnt do much (but AFT perk wouldn’t work fully due to ballistics limitation). However, no tweaks for Atlanta are needed right now, it is doing good, and even better with radar.

2. I think in this case we could abandon the economy concept in general. There would be huge boost to ship research. And surely we would create better conditions for bots and AFK-ers of all kinds.

Frage

Hi, thanks for all this post, has been very useful!

Now, my question:

On high tiers the problem of the passive gameplay is the economy, wich in my experience is really punishing and I don’t play my T10 not even because I love them.

So, why not change that? For example, if you are one eof the top 3 on the winning team, if you have negative income as a top player you don’t lose credits neither win, a 0 income but not losing.

Antwort

Yep, we are going to change it in 0.5.12. See patch notes (should be published soon) for the detailed information.

Frage

Hi SubOct, I haven’t read through this entire thread, because, well, even for a one and change page thread, it’s packed with long, detailed posts. So if I’ve missed anything on my question, my bad.

In post #3 of this thread (yours), you talk about there being a dispersion ellipse, and from the diagram, it appears that the long axis of the ellipse is perpendicular to the line of fire. But historically speaking, shouldn’t the long axis of the dispersion ellipse be along the line of fire itself, because “Linie des Feuers” dispersion would be a part of how much powder was used and the elevation of the gun when fired, whereas horizontal dispersion seems to be more of a matter of wear and tear of the gun barrel, maybe some shell abnormalities, etc. It just seems to me that line of fire dispersion should have a greater impact on overall dispersion than horizontal dispersion. Hence, having a dispersion ellipse along the line of fire rather than perpendicular to it.

What would the (supposed) benefits to a line of fire dispersion ellipse? It would seem to be more historical (along with things that follow through from it). It would cause being broadside to the enemy to be somewhat less risky, since it would be more likely that shots would fall short or long, rather than left or right of the target. Also, historically, weren’t seeming as afraid to fight broadside to the enemy as players are in WoWS, and it seems to me that the difference in the dispersion ellipse is a significant reason for this.

Additionally, if the major dispersion axis was along the line of fire, it would also mean that ships fighting bow-on to the enemy would be more likely to take more hits from ships that were firing from anywhere close to the long axis of the target ship. Right now, when you fight bow-on, BB’s get all those annoying auto-bounce benefits, but they also benefit from presenting a narrow horizontal profile which when overlaid with a horizontal dispersion ellipse means that lots of incoming shells miss. Of course, even with more hits, there’s no guarantee of damage with the current (and annoying) autobounce mechanic, but that wouldn’t stop BB’s from peppering those bow-on’s with more HE.

Antwort

Ah, I curse myself for lame painting skills. I just tried to add 3D volume to the picture. Vertical dispersion is longer, everything’s fine

I am truly sorry for the confusion.

Frage

Can you please provide a breakdown of how XP is earned in the game, specifically the amounts earned for each XP-earning activity? Capping, damage, the final killing blow credit, defending, etc. It’s not clear and I can’t find a distinct answer anywhere. Many thanks!

Antwort

Currently I cannot provide the information about reward distribution. It is not a 5 minutes task. However, I think it is worth considering as a separate article. Will think about it, thank you!

Wie bei Belohnung Quellen – detailed info will be included in upcoming 0.5.12 patch notes.

Frage

Ich habe ein paar Fragen zu CV ’ s

1. Will you ever remove/rework strafe (the alt key command for fighters) which has really done naught more than as you guys like to say “die Schiffe weniger gemütlich machen” and increased aircraft loss rate, which is a problem?

2. Will you ever rework/remove manual drops (alt key command for attack planes), particularly on TB’s as again, this is more harm then good because anyone half decent at it and not getting distracted when doing is not going to miss and do massive damage to ships.

3. Why have fighters been balanced in a manner that USN fighters are pretty much guaranteed to win over IJN fighters – even out numbered at times 2-1, at the very least so tier 8 and below, when from not even just a historical standpoint (Generally the IJN fighters you have tier for tier were every bit as good , or potentially as good in the case of the A7M and the so little information on it I doubt it’s existence A8M, the exceptions being tier 4 and 5 IJN carrier fighters because as the tier difference shows they were in fact better in a fight as their USN counterpart, only pilots were the issue and that should not be a factor in game) nor a gameplay standpoint as pretty much any time USN brings fighters, they can go camp the IJN CV and butcher it’s planes as they take off and start to move out of AA range or better yet, exploit in particular recently using “Sperrfeuer” wie oben erwähnt, so ziemlich alle Flugzeuge zu löschen, wenn sie, wo landen auch die “Hurr Durr Dodge besser” argument is out the window. Which I guess 3.5 would be why is CV camping like this still able to be a thing?

4. Why were USN fighters given more ammo? At high tiers, maybe thats a thing but 8+ it was highly unnecessary and helps exacerbate things in questions 1 and 3. As well as doesn’t change the fact that most are running strike loadouts because they need to damage ships not even from an economy point of view but a trying to win one.

5. Are we ever going to get a simpler to understand version of how AA works so we can better judge attacks beyond “gut Schiff, das immer löscht meine Flugzeuge so es vermeiden”? With the sub-question of are we ever going to see a rework of planes/AA/both that lowers the attrition rate of aircraft some so that they can actually attack same and higher tier ships and NOT incur 50-100% losses of total attack force against ein einsamer Schiff?

6. Why is it that fighters were buffed on USN, when the issue everyone universally has with the line is ability to deal damage to ships because by comparison control of the skies has been utterly pointless when all you can do is scratch the paint of a BB, if that, instead of better group options that allow for a mix of plane types or another increase in bomb damage but for at least tier 7 and lower ships?

7. Why was the 2,1,1 set up removed from Lexington? Is it because everyone gravitated to it because it actually gave them the ability to damage ships and still control the skies? if so why not go to a 1,1,2 instead? (fighters,torpedo planes,dive bombers)

8. Will we get another nation of CV’s anytime soon? Much as I say CV’s need to be fixed before we add another line I do wonder if a third line of another nation may at least alleviate the problems a little short term with a third part in the mix. My guess would be it being the UK line as they have more than enough ships and planes that operated from their CV’s.

9. If at all answerable – will we see a proper German CV line? Even keeping to historical stats they easily have ships tiers 4-8. And without delving into any of the “Kampf-Träger” I hear about or some kind of say Bismarck class conversion, can get to tier 9 (basically changes considered to GZ that would be a massive redesign and rebuild so like UK’s Kühne class more or less became two separate classes, or sharing the “Aquila” with an Italian tree as she was technically part of the Kriegsmarine after Italy signed the armistice and they had a hand in her building and all [even given GZ’s sisters catapults to the ship]), with maybe tier 10 being an extrapolation for the second set of Plan Z carriers based on feedback they might have had from GZ had she launched, any info from Japan, intel on US and UK CV designs, and maybe a side of the late war penchant for bigger and badder machines (biggest CV in game unless you guys really put the “Eis-Träger” in). It would not be the first time a Wargaming product created something to finish out a line rather than have a stub of one or make it a bunch of premiums and it seems foolish to leave a country that had plenty of CV plans with just a line of premiums or just one or two.

10. Again, if you can answer – Why did we see the ice carrier in the video earlier this year? Was it just sort of an easter egg or some kind of size comparison deal? Much as I lobby for Doolitle raid Hornet as a premium (slightly bigger carrier in being an Essex class, but it turns out you can actually land a B-25 on a carrier and either way, it’s a game, this is one of those things I think we can overlook for sheer amusement), even I kinda have to say what amounts to a floating island that can carry 4 engined heavy bombers may be a bit much.

Antwort

Uh-oh. I see a lot of suggestions, cleverly disguised as questions. Please don’t abuse this ninja tactics, it was scientifically proved to be dangerous for developers’ health.

1-2. We want to rework CV UI in the first place. CV improvement seems to be possible only with some major conceptual changes of their handling. Balance tweaks will help, but not globally. When we do that, we pay attention to all existing CV mechanics.

3. IJN planes have more speed. “CV camping” is not viable if CV is moving actively and try to cover its planes with AA. And yes, we are not against more air superiority loadouts.

4. Because we wanted to make air superioiry loadouts stronger in their role.

5. No (because it depends on commander perks and ship loadout) and no (because losing planes is expected casualty for CV).

6-7. We don’t want USN CV loadouts to be universal. There should be difference between USN and IJN loadouts.

8. Not soon, but with time there will be at least one CV line.

9. Theoretically it is possible, but there will be mostly paper ships there. We see no problem with that, but would rather conenctrate on another CV line.

10. You saw the ice carrier, because we placed it in the video. As a joke. Harmless joke.

Frage

Italy is it’s own country and branch. No robbing Paul to pay Peter please.

Antwort

Sorry, I sincerely fail to find a question here

Frage

I was wondering what are the chances and considerations of making BB’s have a dual zone turret selection? Namely control the fronts seperate to the rears? I had put up a survey in this regard and looks like it may be almost neck and neck to players wanting it to leave it alone and those who want front/rear selection. I had survey selection also from 3-6 turrets as well but that may be too complex for players here as per my survey.

I had put the survey with the notion to make BB’s more flexible in battle insofar as their target selection could be instead of one aim only. BB’s so slow to turn turrets is a achilles heel to faster ships who can go behind the BB knowing their turret will only point at them at best 30 seconds. By that time its adios.

Antwort

BBs do not need to be more flexible. They are performing on the edge of their allowed (in terms of balance) combar effeciency, and sometimes beyond it.

Moreover, such feature won’t be logical – most BB’s have unified fire control system, and they cannot fire at different targets at the same time effeciently.

Yes, fast and agile ships may outmaneuver BBs. And it is fine, because BB, on the other hand, can sustain tons of damage and cripple any light ship in one salvo.

Frage

1. Could you please confirm what is supposed to happen to a shell that has not hit armour thick enough to fuse it but due to multiple thin plates and the sheer size of a ship has come to a stop inside the ship. Is this an overpen, a 1/3 AP pen, or even a citadel if it comes to a stop inside the citadel? Based on testing shell fusing values are probably not being respected but knowing this would confirm one way or the other.

2. How does normalisation work with Overmatch mechanics? Does the normalisation occur before or after the shell is determined to have overmatched, or does normalisation not happen on overmatches.

3. In the same vein does normalisation occur before determining if auto-bounce occurs, or does it Happen after, (if it occurs at all)?

Antwort

opefully I will make possible AP (only for AP shells) scenarios clear:

A: Shell easily penetrates all armor layers and flies away even without arming. Overpen damage.

B: Shell easily penetrates all armor layer but arms. However its speed is so high (or it arms so late) that it flies away and explodes outside the ship. Overpen damage.

C: Shell penetrates the first layer, but without arming. It penetrates the second layer and arms. Then it explodes inside part 2. Damage to part 2.

D: Shell penetrates the first layer and arms. Then it explodes inside part 1. Damage to part 1.

E: Shell penetrates the first layer and arms. It hits the second layer but does not penetrate it. Explosion inside part 1. Damage to part 1.

F: Shell hits the first layer, but does not penetrate it. It arms. Outside explosion. No damage.

G: Shell penetrates the first layer, bounces off second layer, arms, explodes inside part 3. Damage to part 3.

H: Shell hits the water, arms, penetrates the first layer underwater, explodes inside part 1. Damage to part 1.

AP shell arms when it hits armor more or equal than 1/6 of its caliber (effective armor counts).

2. Leaving unnecessary (in terms of game effect) details, normalization doesn’t matter in overmatch. When calculating overmatch, normal (not effective) armor is counted.

3. Normalization applies AFTER bounce calculation (which happens AFTER overmatch check). Well…here I go again.

And hey, USN heavy (203 mm) cruisers have better (lower) bounce rate – their angles are 90-30, 30-22,5 and 22,5-0 respectively.

3. Overmatch check -> Bounce Scheck-> Penetration-Check-> Scharfschaltung check

Cheers!

Frage

Dear Sub_Octavian,

1.The Admiral Graf Spee Has been confirmed. And comfirmed more german premiums on the way5.12 update #4

& Ich weiß, es war eine deutscher T6 crusier Premium kommen, sagte

2.Is it (“Soontm” but not talking about)?

Neue Infos von WoWs Q & A 9. 6. 2016

Schiffe und Nationen

What was the weirdest thing you encountered in ship design?
Emden’s fake smoke stack, initially everyone thought it was wooden, then they found it was more like cocertina top hat – folding, canvas on skeleton. Note: While at some time in the future we will see Admiral Graf Spee in game, she will most likely not have a fake turret – at least not initially. After all, unlike Emden, this disguise was rather short-lived.

Your Humble Player,

Volkswagenenthusiast63

Antwort

Sorry, I already stated a couple of times I’d rather not comment on unannounced (officially) premium ships. Haste makes waste (just saw it in idioms dictionary).

Frage

Dear Sub_Octavian,

Not long ago, WoWs Asia announced on their website that there would be a Zusammenarbeit zwischen WoWs und der Anime Gymnasium-Flotte. On the NA, EU, and RU websites however there doesn’t seem to be any official announcements, and things seem silent afaik.

I would like to ask if you could confirm whether or not this collaboration is just for Asia, or will all servers be able to participate at some point like with the Arpeggio events?

Thank you very much.

Antwort

Well, regional publishing teams have separate plans on shop, events, tournaments and other related activities. They have deep knowledge of their audiences, and decide accordingly. I will try to learn anything about it, If I’m successful, I will update this post. But I suspect, no promises are to be made before official announcement of any event.

You are welcome, sorry I didn’t help.

Frage

So, there is still 0 chance that PVE will have it’s earnings increased? It really is about time, players and devs lose the whole “PvP-Herrenrasse” idea and develop PVE as a comparable mode for their game. Its a rather popular mode, more so then people want to think. Making it pay like total crap, in hopes that it drives us to the “PvP-Herrenrasse”, is rather improper thinking, as those who want to play PVE, want to play PVE, not be driven into PVP.

Dachten so gefangen in der Zeile des “PVE-Spieler kommen in PVE ohne Erfahrung und schlecht”, fail to realize bad players always have been and always will be, bads have no connection to PVE. Then the whole “PVP wird Cuz sterben, die Menschen PVE für leicht verdientes Geld gehen”….maybe, but in the end, they still go back to PVP. Players will play what they like, no need to “Kraft” us to play one more or the other.

So, go ahead Wargaming, buff PVE earnings by like 50-75%. Make that 9v9 a nice, comparable, fun game mode.

Antwort

Hey, please don’t attribute us some ideas that we don’t have. There is no “PvP-Herrenrasse Idee” among developers at all.
You should understand, initially PvE was just an option to practice for a couple of rounds. Then it got popular (and we didn’t know what to do). That was strange to us, because PvE didn’t seem to offer any unique experience.
We’re developing more advanced PvE now, and surely, when it’s done it will be rewarding in some way.
But plain reward increase of current PvE is not planned. Not in its current condition.

Frage

As a pretty seasoned player, I very much so love this game. I spend a lot of time discussing the ups and downs of game play with my fellow coworkers the next day. I have a few questions for the dev’s of wargaming and hopefully I can gain some insight or give aspirations for future ships development.

1. Is it possible that in the future the CV line will be able to control aircraft after the cv’s death, meaning if i have bombers, torps, and fighters still in the air can i control them or just use them for scouting. since the rumor is that wargaming will be updating in 0.5.12 the use of scouting economy this too would be a great feature and promote cv game play hint hint.

2. I am a little bored with the 2 options for gaming its random computers or random crazy game play with fellow captains. I have played many multiplayer games in my life and this common trend seems to work well. Play the game play mode you like best and the game will be more fun. so time for the nitty gritty, I was wondering if instead of random game play the players may have the choice of what game mode to play, aka cap the flag, team death match, bastion, or new and interesting game modes like find the dd or hunt the cv to name a few. The point of this question is to spark ideas within the wargaming community that will allow players to play a specific way and build ship load outs for specific game play styles, if a player loves to play cap the flag and that option is given then the option to select only that game mode will increase the likelihood of other players in that game mode to cooperate and coordinate with each other. One of the biggest problems and complaints i see across all forums for warships is that the players always get spooked when another ship approaches, and team mates pushing the line get left behind, well I say no more lol. Please let me know about these options.

3. Another interesting topic of discussion is nerfing ships. I understand that most of the ships in the tier line up are based on the strengths of that ship and way to often do i see ships getting nerfed and players complaining about this, why not just re-adjust the positing of the ships teir if its a better ship (example new mexico = badass, Colorado = sucks, North caralina = ok) I think i speak for everyone here when i state we are tired of having great ships then having to loose it all for less health a bigger citadel, slower turrets, and less range or something along those lines after months of grinding, only to find out we have another 4 months to grind our minds out on a crappy ship. ( solution change the tiering of ships).

4. increasing the player level from 12, any idea when that might be coming or is 12 the max

5. This is a big one I understand the economy is important for game play and progression, finding the balance between making a player work for tier ten and giving the ships away is hard. I have just reached a teir 8 ship and am working twards other ships on different lines, I would love to diversify my port ships, however the cost is too great, I don’t understand the reasoning for post repair, regardless of ship destroyed or not I believe that if wargaming wants to encourage game play in the higher tiers that the cost of post battle repairs be removed or severely decreases, Wargaming is not providing any incentive currently for ships of higher tiers to play which is why the game play of that tier is so hard, no body wants to get their ships destroyed so the just as soon dont join the fight.

I have said a lot and will probably have more in the future please answer any question that you can, It would be greatly appreciated thanks again a concerned captain.

Antwort

Hello.

1. No plans for that. And that’s a suggestion rather than question.

2. Game mode selection is here – PvE, ranked, PvP. We are not planning to make sub-selection inside any of these modes, it will mess matchmaking and additionaly, PvP variations are not different enough to set them as a separate choice. And..again this is a suggestion, not a question.

3. What “oft” nerfs are you talking about? Could you give some examples?

4. No plans for that.

5. If we simply decrease the repait costs, than again, we will promote passive HP economy gameplay. Overall progression speed is fine from our point ot view. It is not to be changed on player request.

While I admire your interest for our game, I really ask you to concentrate more on questions rather than suggestions next time. That will make the communication and the topic itself much more interesting for all readers. Thank you!

Frage

Thank you for answering my AA question, yes for some reason I got the impression that the fight [Alt] command was called strafe.

Here’s another question for you. Are there any plans to improve the chat system so you can do things similar to what the chat system in blizzard games allow you to do?

1. Senden Sie Nachrichten an eine Person derzeit in einem Spiel
2. Benachrichtigungen für wann Freunde anmelden
3. Senden von Nachrichten an jemand spielt WoT/WoWP
4. Sehen Sie, wenn Ihre Freunde zu einem anderen WG-Produkt anmelden und zeigen Sie welche WG-Produkt sie spielen

Between those I really would like to see 1 &2 sooner rather than later. I often don’t realize my friends have logged on and were sending me division invites because I have a tendency to hit the “Schlacht auf” button at the end of the match. It could be a long time before I get back to port and see all those missed messages from 3-4 games ago. Conversely I see my friend in a battle from port view, but I can’t message him to find out if he had just started or if he’s close to finishing a battle.

Can provide additional chat color options? Turquoise on blue ocean background is very hard to read sometimes.

Antwort

No major chat improvements are planned for the nearest updates. UI team is quite busy with several new juicy features…Sie ’ ll siehe…

Frage

Hell Sub_Octavian,

Does WG staff in Russia reviews suggestions made on this forum or does it goes through NA team filter first or no one who can make a decision ever reads that forum? I read quite a lot of good ones here.

Я написал развернутое предложение по изменению ранговых боев, но так и не дошел до российского форума, и от нехватки времени и от природной лени прочитайте, может Вам понравится идея

Continue discussion on Ranked system (with poll)

Antwort

We have a team for each region, it gathers all community feedback, monitor all popular trends, and then pushes it to developement on weekly basis. Additionaly, some devs are watching regional forums personally.

Unfortunately, for the most part, the problem is not in finding a great idea (we have tons of them, generated both by devs and community), but in careful proper implementation (and choosing the right ones for that).

Frage

How does Rear gunners on bombers work?

They need to be engaged by enemy aircraft(fighters) or they have an effective radius so they fire to enemy planes that are within “X” km of them?

Also, rear gunners have the same aura and mechanics as AA mounts (as you explained before)?

Antwort

They need to be engaged.

Yes they do indeed!

Frage

Why shouldn’t T8+ BBs get access to the new rudder module?

If they had some modicum of agility, they might actually not go bow on all the time.

Antwort

Because that make them OP and hard to counter (even harder).

Frage

Dear Sub_Octavian,

Sorry if the question have been asked before:

a) Since you are adding reward for various supporting activities, are you guys planning to buff or rework reward for shooting down planes.

Currently it is very under rewarding compared to other activities such as damage or capping.

It would encourage players to play supporting ships such as USN CA or AS CV load out.

Or do you have different solutions in mind?

b) Is there any plans for anti ship rockets and missiles such as Fritz X? Not necessarily in near future but just a question about planning.

c) Will bastion mode be more polished? Personally I find the mode to have a huge potential and fun but needs more polishing. Maybe there could be more type of fortress(AA speciallized Fortress?) or auxiliary facilities(an airfield where friendly planes could have service or the airfield itself launches planes)

d) Are there any news about AP Bomb for Dive bombers?

e) Is the carrier UI rework coming this year?

f) when it comes to development of a brench what are maximum ration of really existed ships : fake&Papierplans Schiffe?

g) about the “es ’ s nur eine Fleischwunde” Leistung” sometimes even if you kill enemy right after your death, the system doesn’t recognize the fulfillment of condition. My speculation was that there seems to be a short timer after death and while the timer is running you won’t get the achievement. Is this true? or at least is this achievement currently working as intended?

A huge Thanks in advance!!

Antwort

Helloes!

a. For now, only for CVs.

b. Not even planned.

c. Yes, improvement pack is planned.

d. Nope.

e. Honestly, I don’t know. I’d love it (we all would), but there are already several major features coming, and they should be implemented with maximums quality first.

f. We don’t have such strict limitations.

g. There is no 2nd timer, and it is working as intended AFAIK. It would be great if you submit this bug (should you come across it) to tech support.

You are welcome, no problem.

Frage

Sub-Octavian, how does the WoWS team like the way the current pink system works?

Antwort

After several tweaks already done, we think it is fine for now.

Frage

A few more:

1. is there any chance we could have the dispersion size at minimal range, 9with that range listed in gam too obviously), listed in game, (or even on the wiki or even just a few examples direct from you), presumably using the same format Dive Bombers do. Having an idea what shape ellipses are, (let alone the specifics for each ship), would be huge helpful in seeing at a glance what a ships true accuracy is.

2. If the range of the main battery increases does the maximum rnage dispersion increase in line with the ellipses or does it stay the same with just the max range increasing, it’s not clear from in game garage numbers which applies.

3. You listed the tick rate of AAA up thread. Is it the same for all guns or does it vary, (i’d read previously that it varied, i’d like clarification).

4. Obviously there’s a limit on what you can talk about vis a vis he carrier UI overhaul, but could you perhaps be more specific about what core issues the overhaul will be trying to address. there’s a lot of area’s of issue perceived or actual by the playerbase and i’d love to hear which specific ones you want to address with the re-work.

Antwort

1. Not sure. We do not want to overwhelm the port UI with the stuff player has little impact upon. If we find a way to show accuracy simply and clearly – then we probably get back to it.

2. Dispersion increases with range, I posted a sort of chart several posts above.

3. Tick rate is the same, what differs is guns efficiency and range.

4. Okay, I will try. CVs are TOO hard to learn, and even when you master them, the overall handling, gameplay, feeling of this class seem to provide less engaging game experience. CVs are unique, they are powerful (when played skillfully), and they are not bad. But they need to see some love so that they correspond more to the rest of the game.

Frage

@ Sub_Octavian

(a.) Can you give any explanation as to why the level 5 manual secondary skill only takes 15% effect at every tier below 7? It’s the only skill that is treated like this in the game, and is paradoxically one of the most difficult to achieve through grinding captains, due to it being a 15 point minimum skill. Lower tier ships are already hampered by secondaries that only fire AP, fire slowly, are few in number, or extremely short ranged. Was cutting the skills effectiveness by 75% below tier 7 really necessary, especially in light of all of the other end-tier skills that go untouched and offer more useful bonuses across the board?

(b.) Are there any plans for buffing Colorado now that the German battleships are out? It really feels like the absolute weakest of the four tier 7 battleships, with no real redeeming qualities other than mid range AA.

(c.) Would it be at all possible to allow nations parity in the choice between the accuracy module OR range module? It feels somewhat silly to be lengthening the range of my ships that are inaccurate at long ranges, or increase the accuracy of my ships that can already hit a destroyer at 21 kilometers.

(d.) Any plans for a tier 7-8 Japanese battleship premium? I need something to stick my Nagato captain in every now and then for some REAL XP gain, not the paltry amount I get from the Zucchini or Mikasa.

(e.) Likewise, any plans for a tier 8 USN premium? It’s sorely lacking at the moment (maybe Alabama!)

Antwort

a. We want this skill to be mostly rewardng at high tier. And we don’t want experienced and powered-up players to go low tier and grind newbies.

b. No plans for that now.

c. No plans to change this now.

d. Yep, this niche should be filled some day.

e. The same – we see that there’s demand, so we plan accordingly.

Frage

There’s been some recent confusion about how AA works, and I would like it clarified if you have the time. My understanding of the mechanic is that each aura can only engage one target at a time, but another user has posted that multiple squadrons were being engaged by his AA while unfocused. Which is correct?

Antwort

Each aura (and aura includes all AA guns that fire at the same range) can engage ONE target. However, when an aura is affected by AA supperssive fire, debuffs ALL squadrons in range.

Frage

Fantastic feedback here. I think I’ve seen more of my curiosity quenched in this thread over the past week or so than in the entire forum since I joined up early in the year. Good work, Sub_Octavian.

Besonders schön zu sehen, etwas anders als “no” in regard to Kitakami.

Jetzt für eine Frage… Can you talk about what sort of role Tone is expected to fill? She’s been in the works for a long time, and as a personal favorite IJN ship, I’d love to have even a vague idea of what neat thing is keeping her tied up in the design/balance process.

Antwort

Thanks, I am happy to help.
There’s nothing clear with Tone now. She had very controversial feedback during internal tests and we do not have any specific plans for her. Such ships are interesting, but very dangerous to distribute in any way (sales or prizes). They can make some players extremely happy, and others extremely unsatisfied. Same for Kitakami, by the way.

Frage

I would like to know why almost ALL daily missions are for ships of level 4 or above? You have premium ships of lower levels but no daily missions for them. I like the U.S. dd level 3 but don’t play it as no missions for it. Playing the lower level ships is FUN and a challenge with a plus that it doesn’t cost anything to fix. You must think their fun or you wouldn’t make so many low premium ships.

Antwort

Uh, as sever-side events are designed separately by regional teams, you caught me here. I don’t know.
I will investigate this, and get back to this post, hopefully, with more information.

Frage

Hello again!

1.Are there plans to update visual effects for higher end computers? Such as AA gun effects (it would be rather entertaining to see the side of my ship explode with AA fire) as well as a longer lasting smoke effect plus flash from larger caliber guns? Right now it kinda feels “Meh ich feuerte meine Waffen wieder”

2. Kinda hand in hand with my previous question but sound in game (for guns, AA, and the like) falls flat for me. The bounce sound and such have such a great lasting tone, but i fire the guns on my battleship and after about a second im left sitting there going “ist, dass es”?

3. Recently Iowa Montana etc and others have received turret mounted AA guns, why has Yamato been left out on this? (Its not like the 25mms are very good anyway i think it looks cool)

Antwort

Hi!

1. Yes there are such plans.

2. I will send this feedback to our sound designer, but personally I am not sure what you mean. I have a solid 2.1 system at home, and gosh, when I play WoWs they usually are NOT happy.

3. Yamato doesn’t need any buffs right now.

Frage

Hiya Sub_Octavian! I’m a fan of the Imperial Russian Navy, I enjoy the Derzki and I eagerly await my beloved Imperatritsa Mariya battleship. Here are my questions.

1) The Novik was never used by the Soviet Navy. In spite of this, it has the USSR flag in the background, which I’ve grown very irritated of. The Nikolai was previously sold in the premium shop with the St Andrew’s flag in the background. Will it be possible for IRN ships like the Novik and Derzki to have their flag icons corrected?

2) Why were the US Navy blue hulls removed? Will they ever return?

Antwort

Hi! Derzky is a thing, I agree!

1. Unfortunately, premium shop and in-game backround utilize diffetent mechanics. In prem shop, it is just a picture. In game, this is some layers mixed. And it is not possible to have 2 backgrounds for the same nation in game. This impovement will probably be done, but as you suerly understand, there is much more to be done in terms of UI than background for a couple of ships. Still, this is a good remark. Thanks!

2. For the sake of system of basic colour and camo. They may return in some form.

Frage

1. What is your favorite battleship in the game

2. Why is it that on occasion, when I knock out a module on an enemy vessel, it does no damage. I thought each module accounted for a certain amount of damage. It was kind of annoying as it was important that I sank the Des Moines before he set me on fire again. I fire, knock out both of his forward turrets for zero damage.

3. Is there any plan for a high tier (VII-VIII) IJN premium. I like the Ishizuchi, it’s a fine battleship, but retraining 14 point captains on her is extraordinarily painful. Perhaps the Tosa oder auch die Kii-class. I know the No. 13 class is out of the question due to her main armament of eight 46 cm guns.

4. Will Japan see a second carrier line with Akagi, Kaga, und Shinano. Or light cruisers such asAgano oder Oyodo.

5. We’ve discussed the prospect of hybrid/aviation battleships. Would it be feasible for this to branch from the Fusou fahren Sie mit der ISE then other carrier conversions. A good way to balance aviation battleships is to passively control them, similar to manual control for secondaries. You select the target and that’s it.

6. I’ve noticed discrepancies with the Yamato‘s armament and I’ve discussed it with other on the forums, would it be feasible to have 2 hulls for the Yamato?

(A) hull – original 1941 design with reduced AA and wing 155 turrets (arguably the Musashi Da können wir ’ t haben Sie ihr…yet).

(B) hull – 1945 outfit with improved AA

Antwort

1. I cannot chose between Yamato and Montana. Sorry. I like Yamato more (in terms of looks and overall impressions), but my results seem to be better on Montana.

2. Modules have separate HP. If you hit the turret, you damage only the turret. If you hit internal module (e.g. engine), you also damage ship part it is placed in (e.g citadel).

3. Yes there is indeed.

4. The closest sub-branch we will see is announced IJN DDs. This is it for now. But there are definetely plans for more.

5. There’s potential in such ships, but we are not working on them now. They will require major changes to basic game mechanics, and this is something we’d rather not do right now.

6. Not planned.

Frage

Hey Sub, Sorry for the potential salt that asking this may generate but is there any news on some kind of change to the HE ammo and fire mechanics? Its gotten rather old to get into a game lately only to be on fire for most of it. That and the issues with HE doing damage despite where it hits and at what angle, ie you cant do anything about it, its being spammed by almost every ship in the game and is leading to rather boring, and sometime outright aggravating, gameplay. Is there any news on changes to these, or additions of new ammo types to bring a bit more variety to the game other then flinging fire like a flamethrower with a broken valve?

Sorry if this came out a bit salty. ^^’ I can be a bit to direct sometimes.

Antwort

Not a problem, man.

Nur…you see, fire in WoWs is not that severe, comparing to fire in, say, WoT (when you’re done in several seconds if you don’t extinguish).
HE spam may be effecient on some ships (that lack other offensieve options), but usually AP is more rewarding.

We researched this several times; RU players (especially BBs) tend to dislike fires too. But it is a counter for heavy armor, which should be in game – and if talking about BBs/top tier cruisers, fire damage is can be healed 100%.

It is not likely to change in the nearest future.

Frage

whist I sit upon my chair reading about all these ships, I must wonder; why was Amagi chosen instead of Tosa for the TVIII japanese BB

Antwort

We have other plans for Tosa (no, this is not a new premiums ship announcement yet)

Frage

Ich nehme an, meine Frage schon in einem anderen Q beantwortet wurde&A. Must’ve missed it.

Are there any plans to split Mogami into a CA and a CL? This would give me more incentive to play her as I preferred the 155s over the 203s. I never had AFT on her, but the 155s made her far more enjoyable in a knife fight. The current playstyle she has is unenjoyable. I have no intention of getting the higher tier CA as I have no reason to. But right now, she’s collecting dust in my port. Even if you release Mikuma as a premium with the 155s instead.

Any plans to fix Nagato’s missing armor?

Any other plans to fix ARP Kirishima’s voice?

~ Hunter

Antwort

No, we are not planning to split Mogami.
Nagato armor is fixed in 0.5.12.
Kirishima – I will need to investigate it. Will get back with answer later. UPD: no changes are planned for that,

Frage

SubOct, a big THANK YOU for all the time you devoted to these replies (and a thank you for the reply to my post in particular).

Antwort

Bitte!

Commanders, a little note, if you don’t mind:

DEV questions, suggestions and offtopic are different things.

Fragen sind wie “how this works?”, “Was ist die Mechanik dahinter”, “Warum Sie dieses Schiff so ausgleichen”, “Dieses Schiff zu maximaler Effizienz spielen”, etc.

Anregungen sind wie “are there any plans to add ship X?”, “are you going to up/nerf ship Y?”, “do you consider reworking mechanics Z?”, “Bitte meine Tirpitz buff... wieder”.

Offtopic is you chatting with each other, giving feedback, tech/rule/financial support questions and other stuff that have separate topics/places to happen.

This topic is primarily meant for Questions.

While I am absolutely:

• Amused by your interaction here (but there’s whole forum for that);
• Interested in your thoughts and suggestions (but there are special topics for that);
• Willing to help you with bugs and other problems (but there is support center with more qualified guys for the job);

I honestly think this topic will be much, much more interesting to read, if we all stick to its main purpose here.

Thank you for hearing me And have a nice day