You caught my interest when you said you were an analytics person. Can you say more about the kinds of data and analyses that WG uses to determine whether gameplay changes are needed? Nothing proprietary, of course. For example, it is a very common practice among players to compare average winrates among ships in order to judge their relative effectiveness. However, I would imagine that with the full data set, you could do separate comparisons of effectiveness when, e.g. playing as the lowest-tier ship, or in CV vs. non-CV games. Do you use an internal regression of some sort to account for player skill when looking at balance? Do third-party ratings like WTR come close to approximating the kinds of things WG takes into account? Or do you do mostly analytics on the customer base, rather than the ships?
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).
Helloes. There are tons of data avaliable, and we have a small team that is constantly working to implement new types of server logs, so we always can see what’s up. In addition to different absolute (like avg.damage, win rate, life time) and relative (% damage structure) values, we also have “hands dependance” graphs which allow us to check ship effeciency among players of different skill. We also have some interesting stuff like heat maps for maps balancing purposes. However, we cannot rely solely on statistics and server data, no matter how accurate it is. We also monitor community feedback and try to combine “technical” and “humane” approaches.
Overmatch mechanics does not depend on shell velocity. It is just caliber/14,3 = overmatched armor thickness. However, shells lose velocity and penetration with range and when going through armor.
When a shell goes though a ship, there’s a separate set of calculations made for each armor layer. For example, it can penetrate bow hull plating with overmatch, then go into citadel transverse (where overmatch check will fail), and, if it cannot penetrate it, it will do bow damage. Or it can bounce and even leave the ship through plating (causing overpen damage).
Anyways, 0.5.12 test still goes on, and some things are likely to be adjusted. We will elaborate more on that when 0.5.12 is approved for release.
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.
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.
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. Is this some sort of mistake, or a balancing decision?
- 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.
- Yes, there’s huge chance, and we would like to have this information in game for you, too.
- 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,
What is the krupp factor?
How to work?
Please see the answer above. Cheers!
Do you have a plan to realize USS utah in WoWs?
There are no plans for this ship currently.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No, this is just my paint mad skills – I tried to pictire it in 3D perspective. In game parameters verical dispersion is longer.
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!
Hi. Thank all of you for mostly interesting questions!
- 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.
- 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.
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)?
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.
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?
You are welcome, and I am happy to help. Such warm greetings on this forum mean a lot, too.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Thanks for your efforts here, I have few additional question about the game mechanics .
- How doe the inclined armor work in this game? Do you directly apply it into trigonometry function or there is a more complex calculation?
- Does decapping mechanic exist in this game?
- 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?
- Since many German BBs received unhistorical modification (most noticeable the Gneisenau), any chance for other historical ships to receive this kind of modification?
- 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?
- We “directly apply it into trigonometry function”, that’s right.
- If I got it correctly, then no. Shell is being normalized each time it passes through armor.
- Ballistics formula is not to be disсlosed. It is currently under NDA. Sorry.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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).
- 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 !
- There’s always hope…I am sure this ship would generate many rich impressions for its owners..its enemies…and temmates, too.
- Yes, PvE is one of our new priorities. You will see some early results quite soon, I hope.
- it is not likely that we buff her in any way.
Hello Sub_Octavian. A couple quick questions I’m curious about.
- Is there a possibility of USS West Virginia being a Premium ship at some point?
- Are there permanent camos under development for New Mexico and/or Colorado, or other ships as well?
Thank you for your time.
- There is always some chance, but currently it is neither in developement, nor in plans.
- 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.
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:
- Target lock on a ship (BB) above 15 km and the ship blinks off.
- 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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
I hope so, you are welcome.
- Yes there are such plans, surely. T10 camo pack is planned.
- 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.
You are welcome.
Great stuff! Thanks again 🙂
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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!
My pleasure, captain.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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”.
- 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.
I feel I was kind of “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.
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.
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. Long Lances were nerfed because they were quite bad for meta and promoted “DD sniping” or, better said, “DD lazy 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 him, they are mor of a last chance weapon.
I don’t think that less range is a problem, and you still have this “invisibility gap” 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
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.
Thank you for your kind words!