Titanic WoWS Q&A – 9th February 2016

Source: Russian forums, translated by Carnotzet (mostly) and Takeda92 from EU forums.
Also from now on, hopefully we will have WoWS Q&As (without our questions) more often. Our TAP Q&A (TAP questions from readers forwarded to the russian developers) will also come soon (yes it comes but you have to wait for it, sorry ^^)
WARNING: VERY LONG, so make a little hype please :mrgreen: also you can bring some snacks and a drink. And a gamer friend. ūüôā Do not forget to share.
Inside: H41 Confirmed as German T10 BB
Note: you can help me delete the stuff already answered in the previous Q&As featured on TAP by pointing it out in a comment.
So… Let’s begin:
 
“We don’t plan to implement soviet carriers, at least not in the following year, simply because it will require quite a lot of work. Regarding premium carriers… it is a tricky subject. We plan to do some experiments on the matter this year but we haven’t decided yet how it will be implemented. Carriers are a particularly complex class, and it is quite troublesome, from a moral standpoint, to give new players a premium ship with which they will lead the team. More importantly, the experience will be unpleasant for the player who just started and bought a premium ship, doesn’t know anything about the game, goes into battle, starts to lose, and complain that his premium ship isn’t good and cannot compete with the other ships.”
Q. (Do you work on) balancing each ship or balancing ships within a battle ?
A. Often, when people speak about balancing, they get matchmaking (a software which compiles the games, the battles) and ship characteristics mixed up. I work on ship characteristics, the combat system, the selection of ships in each tree, etc.
Q. On the forum, it has been said that in the new patch 0.5.3, the Lexington will lose a fighter squadron. Why ? The Lexington is already quite hard to play and I think that this decision is illogical.
A. The Lexington will lose one fighter squadron, but only for the stock setup. The Lexington has several aircraft setups and the stock on will lose one fighter squadron. In exchange, but we’ll see after the public test how much it affects¬†her performance, we’ll give her stronger DB¬†bombs. The reason behind this decision is that, at the moment, there isn’t much alternative for the stock setup so we wanted the players to have a choice.
Q. Why none¬†of the US carriers have one of the most famous and efficient carrier fighter, the F6F Hellcat ? Is it because it doesn’t fit in the global balance or will you add¬†a carrier that will have it¬†?
A. In fact, in our first version, we didn’t want to introduce¬†Hellcats in the game, despite¬†them being famous aircrafts, Now, we will go back over the CV tree in the next versions [I suppose he means updates but I’ll stay cautious with that word]. Currently, CV’s are a legacy of the alpha and beta tests, when we wanted to test different planes and thus some strange variants remain. In the next versions we want to get rid of anachronic setups: in the current game, there are regularly battles where the aircrafts fighting each other were only used in the experimental stage. We want more historical setups [aircraft battles]. This may reduce visual diversity. Put another way, there won’t be jets, or strange triplanes anymore. Some biplanes will disappear, some will stay. We will work towards greater aircraft¬†historicity. Mainly, in the selection of airplanes so that there won’t be as much stretching [I suppose he means that there won’t be as many different planes across the tiers, as seen on the PT].

Q. Since we are talking about how changes to ship characteristics are done, can you explain what do you base yourself on to make such changes ?
A. The main goal for balancing ships is to give players more or less the same chances of winning, regardless of the tactics used, because a game is¬†a game first of all, and it’s unfair that a player wins because he chose the right ship. The game then is less seen as a competition and it often¬†leads to a situation where, after a certain time, the “right” [overpowered]¬†ships reign supreme and all the other ships are in fact useless.
 
Q. In fact, that means that, as with tanks, when a particular ship has a better win rate ratio than the global statistics, you decide to nerf it a bit ?
A. In a nutshell, yes.
 
Q. Do you only take the win rate ratio into consideration, or are there other parameters ?
A. Mainly the win rate ratio. Secondly, what were the actions undergone¬†to win, and the average number of ships destroyed per battle. Strangely, a ship doesn’t win if he “eats” [I suppose he means killsteals]¬†all that is around.
 
Q. Victory doesn’t depend on a single¬†ship only.
A. It seems so, but when taking in consideration a very large number of battles, the personal¬†achievements of the players are not so much visible in the statistics. A good player can win with every ship and keep an incredible win rate ratio. Moreover, he is but one player, and he’s not the only player sailing that particular ship. Many other players sailing that ship will lose, particularly¬†if the ship is difficult to sail. In principle, this is how we¬†understand skill dependence¬†: there are some ships that are difficult to sail but if¬†you adapt your playstyle, if you know what you can expect of those ships, how to use them effectively, then your win rate ratio can be much higher than that of an average player.
 
Q. How must we react to forums posts that say: “I just got the Kraken Unleashed ribbon¬†for the 20th time in a row¬†on the Cleveland”, and people start to tell him : “Hush, what are you doing, the devs are reading this you know, they’re going to nerf it”.
A. First of all, the devs are playing the game themselves. One of our task in the balancing department is to anticipate as much as we can possible exploits, events that give an unfair, or fair advantage in specific situations…
 
Q. Can you give an example, hypothetically ?
A. Hypothetically : people complain very often about high tier destroyers, in particular, the Shimakaze, who is stealthy and has a lot of deadly torpedoes. If one of these destroyers goes on his own, it is naturally very difficult for the enemies. And it may be that currently¬†the only counter to these destroyers are CV’s, that aren’t present at all in every battle and don’t want to spot destroyers every time. That means that when there is no one who wants to¬†spot, these DD’s can dominate,¬†and naturally, we don’t like that story.
 
Q. And what are you doing [regarding the aforementioned issue] ?
A. For now, nothing, because we cannot do anything. However, in the near future, not in the next versions [updates], but soon enough, it will be possible, for the cruisers at first, to fight those destroyers. We’re working on new equipment¬†for cruisers.
 
Q. Thus, Vladimir answered the following question: what does he intend to scrap in order to introduce the ideal form [I’m not sure what he’s talking about, if this question is linked to the previous one or if it stands on its own. If it is linked, I suppose he’s talking about the introduction of the new equipment and what he would¬†get rid of ideally to implement it]
A. Please note, nothing is going to be scrapped. It introduces new means to counter the enemy. In fact, the game will be more diverse.
Q. Dear Vladimir, a lot of players desire a premium carrier, even a Soviet one. When will we see one, even a low-tier one ?
A.¬†We don’t plan to implement soviet carriers, at least not in the following year, simply because it will require quite a lot of work. Regarding premium carriers… it is a tricky subject. We plan to do some experiments on the matter this year but we haven’t decided yet how it will be implemented. Carriers are a particularly complex class, and it is quite troublesome, from a moral standpoint, to give new players a premium ship with which they will lead the team. More importantly, the experience will be unpleasant for the player who just started and bought a premium ship, doesn’t know anything about the game, goes into battle, starts to lose, and complain that his premium ship isn’t good and cannot compete with the other ships.
Q. Does it mean that there are currently more drawbacks in introducing such ships ?
A. So far, it seems more likely we will offer such ships to experienced players.
Q. How will this be checked ?
A. So far, it is only one option we considered.
Q. The Kitakami appeared in game not so long ago. Was it removed for balancing reasons, and will we see it again soon ?
A. Far from it. Actually, we ran some tests, that were foremost viewed by our publishers. As far as I know, according to the battles I’ve seen, nobody speaks about it because it’s once again a very difficult ship to sail that doesn’t sell very well since it kept¬†a high percentage of teamkills through the whole history of the¬†game. A lot of torpedoes end in the wrong direction. For now, it is unlikely that it will be available as a reward or as a premium. However, we did rebalance¬†it.
Q. Vladimir, who decides where will a ship be located, in other words, will it be researchable in the normal ship tree, will it be given as a reward or sold for real money?
A. Usually, we receive orders from the publishing department, from different people who run the game, because often a ship is needed to be given as some reward, or for some event. When we will introduce the global map, there will certainly be high-tier ships as rewards for events on the global map.
Q. Does it mean that you execute the orders sent by the publishing department ?
A. In particular regarding premium ships, it is most likely, yes. Another thing is that we usually receive orders such as¬†“we need something like that”, and we find different variants to it.
Q. Why do low-tier (5-6) Japanese carriers not have a pure strike setup (without fighters) ? Is it that replacing the fighter squadron with a bomber one will create imbalance ?
A. Actually, it would create a serious imbalance, and not in favour of the Japanese. The Japanese [carriers] have strong strike options, players often chose the full strike setup, but a problem arose: they couldn’t face carriers with fighters at all. If there is at least one fighter squadron, it is possible to trick the opponent, or¬†break the defense, lock the fighters in a dogfight. So, this decision aimed to increase tactical possibilities, because adding more TB’s is sickening [for the enemy getting torped] and enables too strong attacks, and adding bombers does more harm than good.
Q. When will you nerf the Midway ? How strongly will it be affected by the AA rebalance ? Or is it only a matter of individualism prevailing over teamplay in random battles ?
A. As well as introducing changes to the CV tree and AA in the coming update, we are changing aircraft setups not only for the Lexington but for the Midway and Essex too. In the coming update.
Q. How do you plan to fix imbalances between Japanese and US CV’s? Will changes be global or will they affect only some “lucky” ships ?
A. I see that CV’s are a hot topic. As for the imbalance, it is a very tricky subject¬†because the opinions on this topic are very decided. Looking at statistics, we notice, for instance, that at low tiers and up to tier 8, Japanese CV’s are dominating US CV’s. If you hear people’s opinions, it is often Japanese CV players complaining they are helpless against US CV’s. On the whole, yes, it is evident that there¬†are different people, those who play well don’t complain much, but, in fact, the question here lies not only in the mechanics, but in the fact that it is a different playstyle and the skill requirements are different, because the Japanese CV’s are difficult to play: Japanese CV’s have more squadrons the player has under his control. The player must pay attention to more things, and that is difficult.
Q. When balancing CV’s, do you take into consideration that Japanese CV’s are harder to play because of their higher number of squadrons ?
A. Yes, of course. We didn’t want to make CV’s identical across all nations. There is a particular problem regarding CV’s¬†because even if the ships themselves differ from one another, the ships are of lesser importance. Usually, they hide behind an island and that’s it. Then there are slight differences between aircrafts, some are a little bit faster, others a little bit more powerful but these differences are not that much noticeable. In order to make them distinct, to build an interesting tree for those who wants a laid-back but more strategic gameplay, as well as for those who like¬†to micromanage, we decided that what sets them apart will be the number of planes in a squadron and the number of squadrons. Basically, the number of planes active at a given time is approximately the same between them.
Q. Will CV’s have any consumables in the near future ? If so, Which one ? Currently, it’s the only class without consumables.
A. There are no plans to give CV’s consumables in the near future, but we’re thinking about it.
Q. Will the Arkansas remain AA-less ? Are there any plans to buff that ship ?
A. Yes, it will remain AA-less. Regarding the buffs, there are no reasons to do it – according to statistics, it remains well above the rest. This is mainly because the beta testers still playing have a certain skill and in low-tier battles, they can destroy half of the enemy team.
Q. According to statistics, what ship is better ? Arkansas or Wyoming ?
A. Arkansas fares better.
Q. Vladimir, do you have your own “file” ?
A. Of course. People say on the forum that I have a grinder. There was even a photo of me with a grinder at my workplace.
Q. Some of the players aren’t interested in the Soviet line, nor in the US one, or in the Polish or Chinese ones. They aren’t interested in CV’s for some reason. The Japanese and German trees are nearly depleted [there aren’t many more ships they can add to them], except for the IJN CV’s. There’s not much to do in game, there are only two or three maps at higher tiers, it’s boring and there’s not much incentive to play. How will be developed the next German line, what ship classes are planned, will the German premium ships be sold in the shop or given as reward in events or for completing missions, quests ?
A. Well, it is certain that Germany will have destroyers, it’s likely they will have battleships but very unlikely¬†they will have carriers, because developing a reasonable CV line will be very difficult.
Q. And regarding premium ships ?
A. Regarding premium carriers ? The question remains: whom should we give premium carriers to ? It is very hard to answer.
Q. When ?
A. As soon as they are done, I can’t give a date yet. It won’t be in the near future, but they will be one of the next lines to be introduced in the game.
Q. Are there any plans to buff the Karlsruhe ?
A. We already buffed it, some patches ago. It is a tricky ship, and the problem is that, as our historians said, it’s an example¬†of the¬†“unique school of German shipbuilding” and all that. Even now, it differs greatly from its historical counterpart, and we don’t want to widen the historical rift between the two versions. It’s hard to be at ease with the ship but it’s quite effective. In other words, it’s a rather complex ship to sail and we won’t directly buff it, at least not in the near future. Currently, it’s not that far behind compared to where it was before.
Q. Battles at tier 9-10 are very difficult and uninteresting due to the number of planes in the sky and torpedoes in the water. The presence of a Midway ruins the balance between CV’s at tier 10. The Hakuruyu cannot do anything to counter the Midway, thus the Hakuruyu’s team loses a lot on damage dealt. When do you plan on fixing tier 10 ?
A. Once again, we are rebalancing CV’s in the next update. The Hakuruyu is a difficult ship to sail even if she has a lot of options at her disposal. This week, I tested¬†the Midway in the studio¬†against, in my opinion, a less skilled player sailing the Hakuruyu. Frankly speaking, I¬†had a hard time the whole game even though you could say I was in the “Cheatway”. Once again, we’re changing CV’s in the next update.
Q. Can you answer questions about matchmaking ?
A. No, but I can pass them on.
Q. The matchmaking at tier 9-10 is batshit crazy, the teams aren’t mirrored, in fact they are far from being mirrored. Will it be fixed or should we¬†wait until everyone has a tier 9-10 ship for matchmaking to work ?
A. As for most problems, this question contains at least¬†part of the answer. Indeed, there are regularly problems with matchmaking at high tiers, but most often they are caused by the low number of players playing at these tiers at a given time. For instance, it is obvious during the night. During seasons [of ranked battles], a lot of players with high tier ships play ranked battles, which is seen in the statistics – there isn’t many players at tier¬†9-10 and suddenly, when the season ends, the number of players at those tiers increases even more than it was in the first place, probably because players are getting excited in ranked battles. It’s tightly linked with the number of players. As for the small number of maps, we are working on it. As far as I remember, a new high tier map will be introduced in the near future. In general, we are aware of a lot of problems and are trying to fix them.
Q. Will you add the voice command “B – for balance” ?
A. I do not know what it will be.
Q. I think that it’s a joke that’s¬†supposed to convey the annoyance on the state of balance. One more question, when will you introduce clans ?
A. This year. I cannot say more on the matter.
Q. How are the ship models drawn? What pushes developers to make a model this long or that wide ? For instance, let’s take¬†the New Mexico and the Cleveland that are in the game. In reality, the New Mexico is 190,2 meters long and the Cleveland, 186. Then why is the Cleveland model longer than the New Mexico? Why don’t you introduce, let’s say, a standard meter? I’m sure that a lot of ships are as strangely modeled as those two.
A. Actually, this is a very common misconception that is, for some reason, widely spread. All the ships in the game are modeled with the same scale in mind and ships that are longer in reality, are longer in the game.
Q. So the standard meter used in the game is the same for every ship ?
A. Yes, of course. It can be easily proven¬†if you open a ship model in a 3D editor. This can even be seen¬†in game, but the problem is that when people try to prove in game that “your ships are not modeled correctly”, they use the ship¬†camera, which has a wide-angle distortion: ships which are closer seems significantly bigger. If you approach¬†a battleship with a destroyer, you will notice that “the destroyer is very¬†big and the battleship very¬†small”. On the other hand, from the opposite point of view, from the battleship, you will notice that the destroyer is smaller. You can more or less compare the size of different ships from a¬†carrier point of view, the distortion from¬†their top down view being nearly non-existent.
Q. Does the standard meter also work when calculating ship and torpedoes speed ? A ship sailing at 30 knots cannot outrun a torpedo¬†going at 68 knots¬†that was launched after it, but it does within 5 km. [I don’t quite understand the second part of the question. I apologize for that.]
A. In the question, yes, it does so.¬†I don’t know how this happens because, once again, the speed of ships and torpedoes are on the same scale, and a torpedo going twice as fast as a ship, will hit that ship. At least, for me it will. In short, we have a standard meter and it works. Another thing is that our standard meter used for sizes is not the same as the one used for speeds. The standard meter for speed is higher.
Q. In any cases, ships and torpedoes have the same speed scale ?
A. Indeed, just like planes too.
Q. Why do the Tachibana not have its historical fire rate (12rnd/min instead of a minimum of 15rnd/min)? And why is the additional detection range when firing the same as the Umikaze, while their gun caliber is different (120mm for Umikaze, 76mm for Tachibana)?
A. Regarding the detection range, it’s a bug. We will fix it, thank you for your information. As for the historical¬†rate of fire, it could vary quite a bit, especially, when there was no loading mechanism and reloading depended fully on the crew. That’s why the values between¬†real fire rate,¬†intended fire rate, and training fire rate may vary.
Q. Just tired sailors ?
A. The matter here isn’t about tired sailors but is that theoretical fire rate is more often than not different from what is seen in practice. Sometimes, data includes it, sometimes not. In the large majority of cases –¬†with the exception of the Karlsruhe, for which the real fire rate was overestimated – and¬†in accordance with the game mechanics, we choose¬†fire rates within historical values.
Q. Why are Tachibana’s torpedoes¬†so weak, even though the ship had [historically] a lot of different variants? Torpedoes on the Smith can nearly be fire continuously (~10s CD) even though they have the same stats as the upgraded torpedoes from¬†the Sampson, and the Tachibana doesn’t have the upgraded torps from the Umikaze.
A. There was an outcry for the Tachibana but it quickly died down because the Smith can only launch two torpedoes broadside, whereas the Tachibana can fire four. That means that while the reload rate is twice as long, the number of torpedoes is also doubled. Across one minute, both ships can fire more or less the same number of torpedoes.
Q. In these cases, we can ask ourselves : what matters more, historical accuracy or gameplay ?
A. It depends, both are important. Firstly, one point where historical accuracy is given up is that torpedoes can be reloaded.
Q. That’s¬†right, [a ship] loaded torpedoes, went to sea, launched torpedoes, returned to base to reload.
A. In a nutshell, that is correct. Some ships had a stock of torpedoes but that is more the exception than the rule. This is already neglecting historical accuracy. Secondly, we cannot introduce every type of torpedoes used historically because of gameplay constraints. For instance, in the game, Japanese cruisers aren’t equipped with Long Lance torpedoes, even though they had them in reality: gameplaywise, they’d do terrible things. Here we’re already touching on balance, we choose the torpedoes which stats suit the gameplay. Of course, 533 mm tubes will never be loaded with 600 mm or 610 mm torpedoes, simply because they don’t fit, it would be nonsense. But if the characteristics of a torpedo fit in the torpedo tube, we can chose to implement it if its other characteristics¬†suit¬†the gameplay better. In the case of the Tachibana, we chose the torpedoes that could fit in the tubes and which stats¬†fitted the gameplay.
Q. I know the answer is no but can I to exchange my Tachibana for a Smith?
A. It’s the same author, is it not ? Usually, it’s not possible but you can ask the Customer Center Service.
Q. When will you change the range of the Albany ? The crow’s nest is higher than those of the Smith and Storozhevo.
A. In the following updates. This change is already done.
Q. Why does a tier 3 “training cruiser” have a longer range on his main guns than a tier 4 “cruiser with better AA” ? Why does the “training cruiser” have a smaller citadel and better combat capabilities¬†than the “AA cruiser” ?
A. I believe that you’re talking about the Katori and the Yubari. Regarding firing range, it depends very little on the¬†main gun caliber because our ships have more of practical range than a theoretical one, and the firing range is determined first of all by the rangefinders and the height at which they are positioned. If we compare the Katori and the Yubary, the rangefinder on the Yubari is placed higher but is smaller – 3m compared to 4m¬†for the Katori. The difference in the firing range¬†isn’t as significant as would the difference in the rangefinding¬†equipment imply. The Katori has better optics and thus can fire a little bit farther.
Regarding citadels, they are rigorously modeled. They are positioned where they were positioned in real life. We can’t do anything about it, we can maybe play with the draft a little bit, but not much. The difference in combat capabilities is due to the fact that the Katori has only a third of the displacement of the Yubari.
Q. Why do the secondary armaments of the “training cruiser” [Katori] have a range of 3.5km, in addition of being better guns, whereas the “AA cruiser”‘s [Yubari] only have a range of 2km ? By the way, the Katori has the best AA of tier 3 (AA rating¬†of 18 compared to the second best, the Kawachi with a rating of 10) and the Yubari has the best AA of tier 4 (rating of 25 compared to the second best, the Myogi with 24). Moreover, the Katori does not normally encounter planes at its tier.
A. The secondary armaments fire farther and have a greater caliber because they were built later. At least, the Katori according of which we modeled our ship is a later version than our Yubari. I cannot say anything about the AA ratings as I can’t remember precisely the ratings on these ships.
Q. When will you fix the wrong armor values on the “best tier 4 AA cruiser” [Yubari]? Because of the 20mm deck armor, the cruiser gets citadeled or critically damaged from any shell hitting the deck, even though the historical armor was 25,4mm. Moreover, the angled armor offered better protection than the oversimplified 57mm shown in game (in reality, it offered better protection than the 65mm Kuma armor).
A. I believe that “the best tier 4 AA cruiser” comes from the advertisement, because when it was sold, it really had the best AA rating of tier 4. About the angled armor, it has about the same angle as on the Smith or the Tachibana: take into consideration one parameter and leave¬†the others out. If we don’t take into consideration the¬†the number of torpedoes, somebody looked at the plans, and took the maximum armor thickness. The armor values¬†weren’t consistent across the whole deck, some parts had 15mm, others 25mm, or ¬†22mm.¬†¬†And since we didn’t need to model all the different parts (they would make the model too complicated without actually making much of difference), we took the average value of 20mm.
Q. After the nerf to BFT and AFT to 130mm, several (surprisingly all of the premium) cruisers would like to give you a “burning” greeting. Have you anything to say to that ?
A. I will gladly accept their greeting. About the Albany, I already said that we’ll buff it. We won’t forget the Kutuzov neither. The rest of the cruisers, the situation isn’t that critical.
Q.What did you decide regarding the Cleveland? Will you change it or not ?
A. The Cleveland will be changed. We will certainly buff it, we will return its historical rate of fire, as well as its historical AA defense setup, which will be much stronger that it is currently and thus it will be moved to tier 8. However, it won’t be soon since we have to find a replacement for it. This is a perfect example of a dilemma we encounter in the development of the game. We need to release new ship lines that are waiting to be introduced, and to some extend, we need to expand or, in some cases, fix the old lines. So unfortunately, or for some fortunately, the Cleveland will stay at¬†tier 6 and won’t be changed for now. Nevertheless, one day, we will buff it and move it to tier 8.
Q. What’s happening with Aim Assist mods? Are you still fighting them¬†or is the topic “on hold” ?
A. No, it isn’t on hold. As far as I remember, we’re working on it since we consider theses mods harmful to us as well as to the players. Let me explain myself a bit.
The problem lies in that the game seems complex enough for us, that it has a great number of aspects to it : strategic as well as¬†tactical, there’s the aspect¬†about positioning as well, and the very active side of distance tactics [everything related¬†to distances, from firing ranges to ramming], there’s timing, but there’s a significant problem. All these aspects of the game are for¬†highly skilled players, it is quite complex, but for most players, it’s some witchcraft that very few players are playing, and for most players, it’s only a shooting game. It is only later that they learn to maneuver and start to think about where they go and what to do, where and when they have to show themselves, but all of that comes later. But in the first stages of a player’s career, an Aim mod restricts him¬†to only one aspect of the game. It means that the player quickly loses interest: everything is easy, everything else is not yet clear enough and already done. What is there to the game then ? It results with the player leaving the game. At the same time, for high skilled players, for those who like to play and like to play well, for those who has learnt how to shoot, an Aim mod will be disrupting because the mod doesn’t take into account the maneuvers of the opponent, and thus these players become less skilled because all they can do is mindlessly shoot. As far as I know, all the high skilled players with a high win rate ratio that I know who tried to play with an Aim mod started to play worse, their shots were less accurate. The brain then shuts down, especially at higher tiers, where you need to think about how the opponent will maneuver – this is simply not taken into account.
Q. What¬†do you think about high tier battleship gameplay (tier 8+) ? What’s the point: currently North Carolina’s and Izumo’s sail to the middle of the map or to a point, stop and reverse. Cruisers are destroyed before they could set fire to the battleships. Could you put a penalty for reversing for too long, like the penalty for border strafing ?
A. No, there won’t be any penalty for reversing. Firstly, battleships doing this are vulnerable to torpedoes and planes, who will easily hit them, and to attacks from enemy battleships. Regarding cruises, indeed, they have a hard time but attacking BB’s like that isn’t the first task of a cruiser. Most often, this kind of behaviour cannot be foreseen from a technical standpoint, but from how maps are made. Naturally, we’re still working on this aspect of the game.
Q. What do you think about¬†higher ranked battles where in almost every battle, there are about four destroyers on each side, six of which are Benson’s? Do you yourselves play ranked battles at that level? When will it be fixed? Or better still, you put on sale a pair¬†of premium destroyers?
A. In fact, ranked battles fall¬†often victim to trends: someone reckons that this or that ship is the most powerful, advertise it as such and a lot of people start to use it. There aren’t a lot of players in higher ranked battles so the situation is much more noticeable. The most used tier 8 destroyer used in ranked battles is the Fubuki, not the Benson. Another thing is that Benson’s often find themselves in gold or diamond league [whatever that may be] simply because it’s more versatile and fits the ranked battles gameplay better.
Q. When you look at global statistics, on what basis do you decide what ship to buff or nerf? Do you take ranked battles into account? Because the gameplay between ranked battles and random battles is considerably different.
A. Of course we look at ranked battles. Another thing is that there are a lot more players playing in random battles, therefore it prevails over ranked battles.
Q. Ranked battles certainly differ significantly from random battles. Moreover, in ranked battles, ships are used differently and the balance of power differ slightly.
A. Yes, indeed. For instance, [in ranked battles] the Tirpitz is stronger than in random battles. It is because in ranked battles, battles are fought over smaller distances since maps are smaller.
Q. What defining features will British cruisers have that will distinguish them from other nations?
A. I will not reveal anything. But I can tell you that they’ll be beautiful.
Q. Do you plan on limiting tier difference between ships in a division, as not to have fail platoons?
A. We have no plans to do that yet. The question is relevant but it has its pros and cons. We may put a warning for the players, telling them that it is not the most sensible thing to do. However, it is not our goal to interfere in players social activities.
Q. Will battlecruisers be on a separate line[tree] than battleships?
A. If it is, it won’t be soon. Most of the battleship tech trees couldn’t be made without battlecruisers.
Q. Will you buff the Atlanta and Tirpitz guns?
A. Tirpitz guns ? No. The Atlanta, maybe but not in the next updates.
Q. Will the Belfast be a premium ship? What premium ships will the British have?
A. I won’t reveal any information regarding British ships.
Q. Don’t you plan on¬†putting¬†the Imperial German navy flag in the game?
A. No, we haven’t modeled¬†it. We thought about it once¬†but the idea was quickly dropped since the flag is¬†banned in some countries.
Q. When will we be able to purchase in game premium ships sold in the online shop?
A. This question was passed to the publishing department.
Q. When will you buff the AA of the St. Louis?
A. No plans for that. It’s not really a critical issue.
Q. Will you release ships comparable in power with the Yamato?
A. Ships with similar gun caliber? No, because we want¬†Yamato’s guns to remain the biggest gun caliber in the game. Comparable in relative power? Yes, we will.
Q. What premium tier 8 BB’s will the Japanese and the US have?
A. We don’t plan to put US or ¬†IJN¬†tier 8 premium BB’s in the game in the near future.
Q. Will the cruisers be divided into light and heavy cruisers?
A. As separate classes, no. As separate lines, yes.
Q. What about the “convoy” game mode?
A. It isn’t certain that¬†it will be introduced.
Q. Do you plan on releasing more classes?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you like to add anything?
A. I’m¬†glad I could speak with the players and I would like to thank you for playing the game. Thank you for being who you are. You are really kind and it is a pleasure to play with you.
 
The following questions were answered on the forum after the stream.
Q. Do you plan on changing the visibility and stealth system on a ship-to-ship basis? It is very strange and lacks sense that a Yamato and a little destroyer that is as high as Yamato’s deck can see another destroyer from the same distance.
A. The system will remain in the current simplified form, we don’t want to make it more complex. Unfortunately, a highly complex system, as a whole, seems random, confusing and chaotic. And from a destroyer standpoint, it would be impossible to control its detection.
Q. At first, what did you want Soviet DD’s to be (their role in battle)? What was the balancing department afraid of by nerfing their detection range just before their release?
Why did you nerf the entire Soviet line instead of only nerfing¬†the Kiev? Some ships have become floating buckets. Don’t you think that the Kiev wasn’t overpowered but simply fit well in the meta of the game, that it¬†found a¬†tactical niche by being a nimble sniper.¬†And that players didn’t know how to counter it at first? In other words, there isn’t much choice of tactics now with its current detection range and chances of being critically hit [high chance of having turrets destroyed].
What will be the distinctive features of British DD’s? What can the players expect in terms of gameplay? Will they share the same fate as Soviet DD’s?
A. Soviet DD’s (as well as other Soviet and Russian ships) rely on gunnery. Barrel pressure and, respectively, shell velocity are one of the highest among ships of that era. That’s why they favor gunnery. We nerfed the detection range as to¬†decrease¬†the possibility of firing from stealth¬†as much as possible: it’s quite bad for the gameplay, and countering such enemy becomes nearly impossible. So, that’s why Soviet DD’s have a greater detection range. The probability of turrets being destroyed on Soviet DD’s¬†is the same as the other DD’s. And, to be fair, I’m quite surprised by such statements, especially on the Ognevoy, which I sail regularly, and on which I had my turrets destroyed¬†in only two battles, one of which was 5 seconds before dying – I had five ships firing at me. I have never had both of my turrets destroyed. Nevertheless, I switched happily from the Ognevoy to the Kiev, on which I deal more damage than on my other destroyers of the same tier. All in all, the transition went pretty smoothly.
British destroyers will be more versatile, kind of similar to US DD’s (they are really similar in terms of their tasks and layout). The precise characteristics of the British DD line will be revealed in due time.
Q.When will the Königsberg receive his fighter plane?
On the Murmansk, will it be possible to swap the spotter plane for a fighter plane or give the possibility to call back the spotter plane?
A. We will add a fighter plane to the last hull of the Königsberg, basing ourselves on plans showing almost the same version of the ship.
There’s little chance that it will be possible to call back the spotter plane but we’ll think about giving the Murmansk a fighter plane.
Q. Do you know when will the next pack of Arpeggio ships be released? If so, what ships will it include?
A. Unfortunately, we don’t know.
Q. What will happen to the Murmansk after the nerf to AFT? After all, we gave real money when he had specific stats. And the stats suited me.
A. The commander wasn’t included in the sale, and changes made to him don’t change the ship base stats, just as we don’t need to compensate any¬†changes to flags, modules, consumables or cammos by modifying any ship stats. Base stats of the ship itself¬†won’t change.
Q. Why do ships made of metal burn like wooden ones?
A. There are a lot of flammable materials on the ship and in reality, not only wooden ships suffered from terrible fires.
Q. Good day. What do you think about ships like the New Orleans or Baltimore, that are inferior in every way to tier 5 Omaha-like ships, relatively speaking. Will these ships be rebalanced? What do you think about fighters alt-attack?
A. We are looking into giving these ships new opportunities soon.
The alt-attack is a very efficient method of attack for experienced players, not only for fighters but for bombers too.
Q. I recently came from WoT and noticed huge differences regarding the following questions:
1) Who dictates in what direction development of the game must go? Lesta Studio or Wargamin.net?
2) Who sets the priorities, put another way, who decides what needs to be done first, what needs to be developped: ships, premium ships or maps, etc?
3) How much does the project [game] depends upon WG headquarters’ decisions?
4) If one day WoT is moved to Havok, will ships stay on BigWorld?
O. 1) Currently, Lesta Studio is a part of Wargaming.net, so the question is not entirely correct. But, in essence, it is clear. It is the Project Director and producers who sets the main direction of the game.
2) Depending on the matter, different people. Maps, ships and technical matters are decided upon and worked on by different people simultaneously.
3) We are a single firm so naturally decisions made by the firm Director apply also to the project.
4) Havok and BigWorld have different functions. The servers will surely¬†be handled by BigWorld, as currently it is one of the best options¬†we can find in the world. The client, even if Havok is included in it, will still partly be handled by BigWorld. But truthfully speaking, I don’t know all the details concerning the reworking [of the game engine], so I don’t want to give any misinformation. You’d¬†better ask the project technical director.
[There is a large explanation from ArdRaess about the technical details of Havok and BigWorld. I won’t translate it because it doesn’t¬†really concern the gameplay. However, if anyone is interested, I can do it at a later date]
Q. I sail US Battleships. I noticed that Japanese BB line is better. Will you improve US BB line?
A. The two lines are different and thus play differently. US BB line has its pros. But we may improve some characteristics.
Q. When will the developers in charge of the matchmaking be invited to the next “Hour with the developers”?
A. I have absolutely no idea =)
Q. What do you think about the customers who were fooled with by buying¬†the Sims? After the ballistics changes, it didn’t play the same as when it was released. Will you change its ballistics model?
A. Ballistics haven’t¬†changed. The Sims remains a good ship, it even shone in ranked battles. But the world around it changes, new opponents appeared. Currently, it is a good ship, even though not outstanding. I,for myself, regret not having bought it =(
Q. Germans had only one carrier, the Graf Zeppelin, but no carrier planes were developed for it. Will this carrier be a premium ship?
When will the Cleveland be moved to tier 8, what will happen to the commander?
A. Indeed, even the carrier wasn’t completed. I can’t guarantee you that it will be introduced in the game and I can tell you even less what form you will find it under.
The Cleveland won’t be moved anytime soon. I can’t tell you the details but there won’t be any prejudice to the players.
Q. When will we see anti-BB bombs on planes?
Will the gameplay of aircraft carrying cruisers (like the Tone) be radically different from other classes? Will we be able to control the planes?
A. Regarding the bombs, if everything goes according to plan, you will see them this year, but don’t take my word for granted.
Aircraft carrying cruisers and similar hybrids are still under development. We may give you limited control over the planes.
Q. Will you introduce a quick chat commands wheel like in WoT? If so, will we be able to input our own text commands (I fully understand that it may cause toxicity but we can have some filters or some other tools)?
A. it isn’t planed. Through Mods, maybe ? Depending on my¬†mood, I can copy-paste some messages beforehand. For instance, in the heat of battle, I can type something like that : Dear allies, I consider this maneuver inappropriate, please relocate to the opposite flank where there aren’t any of our ships. And swearing would be prohibited.
Q. What about torpedo boats at low tiers? Myth or planned?
A. Not planned.
Q. Why do developers try to create a game on their own? Wouldn’t it be easier to give it to players discretion ? I mean, people who are playing constantly see better what the game needs. Why do the countless players have to face directly the changes introduced in the game, why don’t you make polls or surveys? Give the players the power to create the game they play.
A. 1. Developers play the game as well, and see everything.
2. Ochlocracy [mob rule]  is a myth. There would be only anarchy and chaos.
3. People are all different, just look at the forums, when discussing one ship, people have completely opposite opinions.
Q. What ship line will you release next and what other nation do you plan on introducing?
A. I heard that there will be some new ships. =) I can guarantee that there will be at least¬†another line for existing nations (don’t forget that the game currently has USA, Japan, Russian Empire/Soviet Union, Poland, Great Britain, and we’re testing Pan-Asian ships).
Q. Can you change the sinking animation so that we can see how it slowly goes under water and rests on the bottom of the sea?
A. New ship destruction animations are currently under development. I cannot guarantee you that we will ad an underwater camera but ship deaths will be more diverse and more awesome, that is for sure. =)
Q. Some of the German BB’s, for instance the Scharnhorst, were equipped with torpedo tubes. Will you leave them on or will it only be Tirpitz’s trademark?
A. It’s up for debate. There is chance¬†we will leave them on.
 
Q. Why is there such a long cooldown (6min) on BB’s spotter planes? And the spotter plane runs for 2min, yet I don’t recall having ever¬†been able to use more than two.
One more thing, with the introduction of the new commander skills in 0.5.3, do you plan to expand the maximum number of skill points available (18 currently)?
A. The ability (spotter plane) is situational but we don’t want to promote long distance shots. Players have a hard time hitting their targets, the battle is slowed down and becomes boring. That’s why spotter planes will remain¬†more or less as they are now.
No, we don’t plan to [increase the number of skill points]. We want players to have an interesting selection¬†of skills to chose¬†from¬†and not be able to train into every skill available.
 
Q. Today, I had the opportunity to play for a long time and I had a lot of issues with the autolocking system, in particular when fighting several enemies.
You expect the autolock to work, but nothing happens, then you expect it to be off so you press “x” but it turns off because it locked the target half a second before that. There’s also times where you have to look directly at you target to be able to lock with “x”.
Please explain, what does the autolocking speed rely on and do you plan on giving players the option to turn if off in the settings?
A. Autolock doesn’t always work perfectly but we’ll try to fix it. However, if there are several targets in the line of sight, the game may decide for the player what targets it wants to shoot at. Anyway, we will improve the locking algorithm so that players don’t have to think about it as much.
Now here’s why the autolock system is needed and why¬†we won’t let players turn it off.
Locking on a target allows the camera to follow the target and reduces dispersion (but you knew that, didn’t you?), but it also allows for a better “vertical aiming point sensitivity”. I don’t know how¬†to explain this with words so here’s some pictures.
 
 
NeVkYC8d4lE.jpg
So we aim.
First scenario. I want to hit precisely at the waterline, I take aim, adjusting it horizontally by leading my shot. If I did everything correctly, the centre of the scattering ellipsis will be at the point of impact.
Second scenario. I want to hit a bit higher or anticipate my opponent’s maneuvers (in this case, we will chose the first case scenario). I raise my aim reticle….and it seems that I’m aiming¬†somewhere at the base of the mountain. But as I’m locked on the target, the system knows that I’m not shooting at the mountain in the distance but at the opponent, so it makes the necessary corrections and the shells hit the part of the ship I wanted to hit, provided it doesn’t change direction.
 
How it looks from the side:
VXWzWYwfi5g.jpg
 
Green line: our view (I’m¬†aiming at the mountain, but in reality, I’m leading)
Black lines: shells trajectory with locking on
Red lines: shells trajectory without locking on
 
Conclusion:
Target locking is your helper and friend. If you want to shoot at a target next to the ship you’re locked onto, wait for the automatic lock on to switch or, even better, switch it manually with “x”.
When shooting at a¬†target that is not locked onto, your shots won’t be as accurate, even less so if you’re trying to shoot at a target while having another target locked onto.
Good luck!
 
Q. Does the speed at which the ship is sailing affect shell damage? [Long explanation with examples, but since the answer is so short, I thought it needn’t be included]
A. No, it doesn’t.
 
Q. Please explain to me how to calculate AP shells penetration at maximum firing range.
This is what I know:
Guaranteed armor penetration: 1/14,3 of the caliber
Overpenetration : 1/14,3 of the caliber
Penetration of HE shells : 1/6 of the caliber
A. Guaranteed armor penetration : correct
Overpen: wrong, it’s 1/6 of the caliber
HE shells: correct
AP shells¬†penetration chances decreases with distance. Our formulas are close to real values but I can’t disclose them, it’s classified information.
Q. Why didn’t you set a fixed number of HP on aircraft squadrons that is decreased by accumulated damage ? I did read the topic on “AA defense”, and it is written in the initial patch notes that developers want to “reinforce the role of formations”. Currently, there isn’t any difference between a single ship with weak AA fighting a plane squadron or 5 ships doing the same, since each ship is fighting the planes on its own. According to the topic on AA, airplane squadrons don’t have HP’s (HP doesn’t go down and AA fire from several ships in a formation doesn’t add up), so a plane has a high chance of being destroyed when a certain damage threshold is reached. But the threshold is linked to each ship and not the ship formation as a whole. Wouldn’t it be more logical and fair if the accumulated damage was only reset when the planes returned to the carrier? Thus, a formation of several ships with weak AA can defend themselves against planes much more efficiently.
A. Current AA mechanics take into account efficiency as well as output (this is particularly important). In patch 0.5.3, we will fix long range AA and the role of ship formations but we don’t plan on changing AA basic mechanics.
 
Q. Why have you decided to implement a system in which main turrets can be completely destroyed during a battle? Evidently, a critically damaged turret needs to be out of order for a certain time but you could have introduced a system where you lose¬†your turret for 1 or 2 minutes for instance without being able to repair it¬†and after that delay, you’d have to repair it with damage control¬†(which again would add up to the time the turret is unusable)¬†for it to be usable. The question is relevant because on some ships, it happens that you end up without any turrets left. You thus become useless for your team (I don’t see the point in trying to run away from you opponents).
A. Because in the vast majority of cases, losing a turret doesn’t happen because of a stray shell but because the player made an ill considered move. This adds to the complexity of the game.
 
Q. Why have you decided not to add torpedo tubes on battleships (except for the Tirptz, there isn’t any battleship equipped with torpedoes even though they were¬†in reality)? After all, it would give players¬†some interesting gameplay options (you could balance them by reducing their range or cooldown).
A. As far as I know, on all the BB’s that haven’t torpedo tubes installed, it is because the tubes couldn’t in reality be turned. We won’t implement these kinds of tubes because they aren’t practical for players to use. When we will release BBs that historically had swiveling torpedo tubes installed,they should also have them in game. Like the Tirpitz.
 
Q.In the video tutorial about secondary guns, they said that they only shoot HE shells since it only fire at close range. Currently, high caliber secondary guns (AFAIR, 140mm and upwards) fire AP shells. As seen in the after battle stats, in addition to the poor accuracy of secondary guns, AP shells also do no damage at all in sine particular cases (bounce or no penetration). Could you make secondary guns fire HE shells again so they could be of a little more help?
A. The shell type of secondary guns is predetermined on each ship and doesn’t depend on caliber, but it’s true that higher caliber secondary guns tend to fire AP shells. We won’t change this but in patch 0.5.3, there will be a skill that¬†significantly¬†increases the efficiency of secondary guns.
 
Q. Could you add more ship classes to the game? For instance, split cruisers into light and heavy cruisers, introduce a pre-dreadnought battleships line from the cruiser line (The Mikasa is a [pre-]dreadnought battleship and not a BB  and it was heavily nerfed because you put it at tier 2, even though you could balance it and put it at tier 3-4). After all, it would help the game to have even more diversity. You could give different bonuses to each class. For instance, [pre-]dreadnought battleships could have a special consumable for their secondary guns that would increase their range and accuracy and give the player control over them for a limited time (30s duration, 2-3min CD). Light cruisers could have a speed boost and better AA but worse main gun and armor. Heavy cruisers would have repair party, better main gun and armor but with shorter range, maneuverability (Light cruisers would have lower caliber guns and less HP). This is just an example of how ship diversity could be done and that it would help balance ship classes more easily.
A. We may introduce new alternative lines, that would include similar ships, for instance light cruisers and heavy cruisers can be on two separate lines. However, the number of base classes – battleships,¬†cruisers, destroyers, carriers – won’t change any time soon.
 
Q. A few times, I saw shells doing more damage than intended. In one salvo, I hit a N√ľrnberg with only one shell that hit the citadel. But it did more than half of its HP in damage (I received a Devastating Strike ribbon). In my ship stats, I see that AP shells maximum damage is 13,1k. The N√ľrnberg having a total of 27k HP, my shell did more damage than intended. Is it a bug or is there some mechanic behind it?
A. Yes, we encountered this very unpleasant bug (at least for the enemy at the receiving end) some rare times. It’s a problem with the game logic, the shell hits both the citadel and turret. We know about it and we’re fixing it. Soon.
 
Q. With the upcoming AA rebalance, I would like to ask you something. In my opinion, the German cruisers lack logic when it comes to AA composition – to some degree the Yorck, and to a large degree the Roon and the Hindenburg. It is unclear to me why you had to equip them with 40mm Bofors when the beautiful twin 37mm Flakswilling exists? I know it isn’t very important but it hurts my eyes when I’m looking at it.
A. 40mm Bofors were also widely used, for instance, on the Prince Eugen or N√ľrnberg. Having them on the cruisers you mentioned doesn’t seem so wrong.
 
Q. Last time I heard, premium ships were supposed to be on par with researchable ships. But when I look at some premium “clones”, I ask myself if they’re not buffed versions of their counterparts (i.e. Murmansk vs Omaha, Gremyashchy vs Gnevny). Is it a conscious decision of you part that premiums are a little bit better or were these ships overlooked by the “nerf bat department”?
A. Regarding the case of the Murmansk and Gremyashchy, it played in their favor that we made an effort to not change their stats. They dodged a couple of balances so now they seem stronger and more efficient than their counterpart. The whole deal is whether we should create ships that are all equal, common and uninteresting or with a specific but interesting game process. Too good premiums harm the game (“give us money”), too weak, the same (“I gave them¬†money for that?”). We try to balance these two aspects.
 
Q. Why do tier 8 CV’s (Shokaku, Lexington) not have a bigger hangar than the previous tier (Hiryiu, Ranger)? After all, at every tier, except at tier 8, CV’s get a bigger hangar than at the previous tier. Moreover, historically, the Lexington and Shokaku could carry more than 72 planes. I read that the Shokaku could carry 81-84 planes and the Lexington 80.
So I¬†don’t understand why they have only 72 planes in game. After all, it wouldn’t harm the game to follow historicity in this situation.
A. I can’t answer you as I don’t know. And my colleagues near me couldn’t answer either, we promise to check the archives.
 
Q. Taiho, Hakuruyu and Midway are the only carriers with armored decks in the game. Is this advantage implemented in the game?
A. Yes, they receive less damage from HE shells.
 
Q. Seeing your answers regarding armament¬†documents you base yourselves on, I decided to compare the penetration of Yamato’s 460mm guns and the 410mm guns of the other IJN BB’s. The values for firing at 20km shows a penetration of 566mm for Yamato’s guns and 269mm for 410mm guns.
My question thus is: does the Yamato also have this huge advantage in penetration in game?
A. At long range, heavier shells have better penetration since they better their penetration. The file seems to show 494mm of penetration. It’s about the same in game.
 
Q. I have questions regarding the new captain skills.
1) The new captain skill Manual AA Fire Control, could you explain how it will work with cruisers AA defense boost? If we don’t target a plane, then it won’t shoot at all? Or only the long range AA won’t fire? Please explain with the following example: on a cruiser, the long range AA damage is 60. What will the damage be : with the captain skill, AA defense boost enabled and a plane targeted?
2) AFT and Manual AA. Won’t they interfere with each other at tier 4? Given AFT is getting nerfed (it was about time), there’s two defense skills at the same tier. It’s a bit strange.
3) Torpedo acceleration. Will it affect torpedoes arming distance?
4) Survivability expert. In this form, it will only be useful to DD’s. Was it the intend? DD’s already have a large choice of skills.
A. 1) AA defense will work as usual, but its efficiency will be increased when manual targeting.
2) Sometimes, they will, but it’s a good thing. However, the player who wants to focus on secondary guns can take the tier 5¬†skill instead of taking both of these skills.
3) Torpedoes arming distance is set on a timer. Therefore, air dropped torpedoes will have to drop further away, it’s a little disadvantage for CV’s in this case.
4) Not really. The thing is this skill will increase the HP of the ship’s “whole body”, that is where the damage from fires and floods is inflicted. So BB’s will be able to repair 100% of this damage. For cruisers, 400hp per tier isn’t to be scoffed at. Time will tell.
 
Q. I have a question regarding the commander xp flag.
Let’s say I received in a fight X points of experience.
With premium, it will be Y xp.
With premium and the +50% xp flag, it will  be Z xp.
With premium, xp flag and type 1 camouflage  (100% xp increase) it will be D xp.
 
So, what XP will be multiplied by the commander flag ?
A. All values, except premium, are normalized, and then added (not multiplied).
So.
1. Xp with premium is Y.
2. With xp flag +50%
3. With cammo +100%
4. With commander xp flag, also +50%
5. That’s a 200% increase
6. The commander will thus receive Y*(100%+200%)=3*Y
 
So each of these bonuses will give a useful increase.
 
Q. Why do you hate the Pensacola so much? Why do you make her so unplayable?
A. No, she’s like the other US heavy cruisers and should be competitive with Japanese, German and, later, Soviet opponents. Not so long ago, we gave US tier 8-10 ships a better chance to bounce shells. We still plan to add something new that should impact positively ships like the Pensacola and New Orleans. Stay tuned.
 
Q. In the developers’ diaries, there was some information about German BB’s. Could you tell me what project H ship do you intend to release as the tier 10¬†Grossdeutschland German BB? A lot of players expect the H-44, Germans are not the only ones who like Wunderwaffen [Superweapons].
A. It’ll be the H-41, if I recall correctly. In any case, it won’t be the H-44, it’s a little too much. More exactly, A LITTLE TOO MUCH.
 
Q. When will be able to view armor thickness on ships in port and will it be possible to check guns and ammo penetration values in port?
A. It’s our next big task to make the game more user-friendly.
 
Q. BB’s in this game can tank damage pretty well : great firepower, five possible repairs, thick armor. On the other hand, BB’s have the longest firing range in the game, which leads to many BB players not wanting to tank and camping in the back, firing from max range. Please explain how developers see BB’s role in a battle? Moreover, there are big disparities between the main features of each ship¬†of this class¬†(in particular in terms of gameplay). Is it a tribute to realism or is it a little bit more complex than that?
A. Piercing the defense and bringing firepower for greater goals. BB’s who stay at maximum range are useless to their team. The same can be said of the ones who charge in and fall under focused fire. BB’s features are based on reality but in game realities are always more important to us.
 
Q. Why isn’t total damage shown in team results [at the end of a battle]?
Why isn’t total damage shown in detailed statistics ?
A. Because it’s missing. It will ¬†be added alongside other improvements to the after battle stats.
 
Q. Why does the spotter plane only increase range, and not accuracy?
A. What do you mean by accuracy? If you mean salvo accuracy [dispersion], the spotter plane cannot in any way affect it. If you mean shooting accuracy, it all depends on the player, how he will lead and aim.
The spotter plane simply allows to fire farther, “highlighting” targets at a distance where ship instruments cannot. This is logical from a gameplay standpoint, as well as a historical standpoint
 
– No plans to return Mogami to tier 7
– There are plans to add 600 m to the range on Mogami (yay!) and to take 500 m from the range of Myoko (nay!) but it is not confirmed and will not happen right after 0.5.3. No stats for Mogami will change before 0.5.3.

– Before the release of 0.5.3, they will release a FAQ for all the questions being asked regarding the changes in this patch
Q. Did you think about moving the Mogami to tier 7?
A. No.
 
Q. Give the Mogami (203mm) one more km of range and all the whining will cease. It’s the obvious solution.
It’s a fact that the Myoko shoots faster and farther than the Mogami (203mm) which is placed one tier higher. I wonder, isn’t it a bit strange?
A. Currently, we’re thinking about adding 600m to the Mogami and removing 500m from the Myoko.but it’s not final and it won’t happen soon after patch 0.5.3.
Gentlemen, I also have the Mogami in my port and I too played with it. I will only be able to buy the Ibuki after the new updates come out, so I know how you feel. However we won’t rush buffing the ship because it is unclear if it needs it. If it will perform badly, we will change it. I am sorry that you point of view is¬†contrary to¬†our decision, and that the changes upset you, but it won’t change anything. In the grand scheme of the game, these changes were needed.
 
Q. AFT skill isn’t as important on the Murmansk as it is on the Mogami. So I ask you when you change something, why don’t you start with¬†5% balances, after all we’re talking about ships players bought with real money. Such large-scale changes undermine players confidence and thus their desire to spend money on the game. I understand that AFT needed to be changed so battles could be shorter. But why nerf Aiming expert, which will kill the gameplay of some ships. It’s your game and you decide what you do with it, but without players it will die, and players who invest in the game want to have some enjoyment and not relearn how to play old ships after every update.
I hope you will understand that all the people on this forum are trying to tell you that the time of large scale changes is gone, you should change things little by little, and not 20% here, 20% there.
A. I understand your arguments concerning fundamental changes. Unfortunately, they’re currently necessary but I¬†regret we didn’t implement them earlier. But I have hope that soon there will only be small changes.
Also this pic:
http://cs622222.vk.me/v622222869/42196/IWv1SEL60f8.jpg
Translation:
-A month ago, we decided to buff all ships instead of nerfing the Minekaze?
-You bet! A wonderful decision, players were pleased!
——-
-And then we buffed all combat capabilities [weapons?], as not to¬†nerf IJN HE shells damage…
-Yep. That was done. What do you mean with all this?
——
-After that, we massively buffed AP shells, armor, cruiser AA, CV’s, modules life, flooding damage, secondary guns…
-Yes, because the community prefer buffs over nerfs.
——
-Now the values are not shown on the interface, and with all the damage shown on screen [when hitting a ship], we can’t see the opponent. People have already started to create mods that change parameters values. The community is asking us to nerf¬†everything!
-Yeah, they don’t know what they want. We’ll have to go the the guardhouse and release Vlegris ūüôĀ