WoWS Q&A – 5th March 2016

Our Russian contact says:

-New premiums are USS Arizona and HMS Campbeltown.
-On April 1 will be fun event with “very pocket battleships”: Botishkaf USSR, Pokeboat IGN, Das Boot KM and Bottlesheep USN.
And the usual stuff from Carnotzet:
[Here’s a funny one]Q. I have an idea. Why don’t you give CV’s and BB’s a new consumable “fire team”? It would work like this: when activated, during let’s say 2min, chance of being set on fire is reduced by half and only one fire at most could be started on your ship. In my opinion, it would make the game easier for BB’s and CV’s and would make them equal to other classes. Because at the moment, if your CV is set on fire, you’re a sitting duck. When they meet cruisers, BB’s have to play on their (cruisers) terms.
A. Thank you for the offer but I’m afraid we will not implement it.
CV’s are supposed to be helpless when under fire since they can attack and spot with planes while being safely hidden.
Regarding BB-CA/CL…I wouldn’t say that cruisers play on their terms. If they want to “play on their terms” and turn broadside to fire a full salvo, they can be heavily damaged if not oneshot. Of course they can maneuver, stay at range and pepper BB’s with shells, and maybe break some modules or start a fire, but let’s not forget that BB’s can repair high amount of damage and are quite sturdy in general.
[The following question doesn’t make much sense without any context but I found the answer rather interesting, that’s why I included it]
Q. In another topic, you showed us some stats.
Where do you get these numbers from?
A. I gave some approximate numbers, it was a long time ago and I don’t recall exactly all the numbers. However, back then we could assess the situation by studying players’ economic behaviours: how many ships do they keep, how quickly do they change ships, etc.
We came to the following conclusions: most players “pass” through ships to get to some ship they actually keep and they do not own a lot of ships. Therefore, their main problem was the “dead weight” attached to the modules they did not need anymore after selling a ship. It was possible to quickly fix this problem, and so we did. Players received a lot of silvers as compensation to the upgrades (hull, engine, etc.) bought before selling ships. To be exact, they were fully reimbursed.
Now, we’re looking into particular cases and intend to improve minor things. For instance, we’re thinking about allowing players to sell upgrades independently from ships.
Q. 1. When will you implement Admiral Hipper’s atlantic hull?
A. Hull will be implemented. Let’s just wait and not ask this question anymore.
2. Will there ever be flooding caused by shells hitting under the waterline?
A. Unlikely. Flooding caused by BB shells hitting under the waterline was already implemented in the game, in the alpha. After the damage model optimisation and the distinction between each type of shells (each his own; AP does great damage, HE starts fires, torps cause flooding), we scrapped this particularity of AP shells.We don’t want to put it back since we think the game would not benefit from it.
Q. Please explain the interaction between Acquisition mod.1 and HAS.
A. I already answered this question before but I’ll repeat myself:

  • Acquisition mod. doesn’t affect HAS.
  • Vigilance skill affects HAS.

This topic isn’t simple. I’m writing a news on detection and its various aspects. Hopefully, you’ll wait for it.
Q. Why isn’t this Kuma hull implemented in the game?
[Image link is broken but it seems to be Kuma’s 1944 hull, it may be this one]

A. Because of technical reasons (haven’t found the time yet). However, we’re considering adding this hull to the game.