WoWS Q&A – 7th October 2016

Reddit-Q&A with Sub_Octavian

About the PvE and Carrier economics

Hi, you’re welcome. Co-op players: we applied heavy maintenance reduction for PvE this week. It should be fine now. CVs: we do not expect CV players to go and tank damage. Actually, new income structure was developed upon real server stats per ship individually. For example, all CVs are not very good in tanking or capping – that’s obvious, and we did not set valuable share of these activities for them. But some ships inside a class may differ too. Pensacola and Myoko have different “tanking” stats, so they were adjusted accordingly. That said, we notice all negative CV feedback on the changes. And currently we are researching this matter to see whether any tweaks are needed. CV AS: AS gameplay is different, and we do not expect all players to love it. But we encourage it, because it was completely unbalanced against Strike gameplay economically while being quite contributive. The goal of new economy is to make the game better, and to encourage active and engaging gameplay. If we find any problems with that, we will fix it. There was no intention to nerf CV. At most, some CV may have started to earn as much as other ships of the same tier (which is fair). Economy changes are designed for better connection between active team play and reward. This change may cause some players to earn less in some cases, and we’re analyzing the data we receive to see whether action is needed. We are planning to publish “debriefing” article on economy changes with some thoughts and information. So, stay tuned.

About the inclusion of the “fresh water storage” and “cold storage” in the citadel hitbox of the Warspite

The part you are talking about is included in the citadel because it was valuable initially (torpedo armament storage) and it is protected accordingly:

25 mm citadel deck you mentioned; 32 mm deck you cannot see in port viewer currently (it is bow internal deck); 152 mm belt (you can see a part of it behind anti-torpedo bulge; 102 mm transverse (in game 102 mm layer is a sum of several IRL bulkheads); It is located underwater and extremely hard to hit.

Most part of damage to Warspite is bow/aft/casemate/superstructure, so this part does not play a vital role in ship in-game performance. On the other hand it is logical to be included in the citadel, remembering its initial function and armor (these are two main criteria).

About the reintroduction of CBT-AA graphics & sound effects (if needed in a toggle on/off setting).

We checked, double-checked and even triple-checked AA effects change log. We didn’t change anything. Either I did not get your question or there’s some misinterpreting. AA effects density depends on ship AA specs, number of mounts, etc. If you can display what you mean in any way, PM me. But for now it seems to be in the same condition it was before. As for sound effects, overall sound design has been improved greatly, and our sound team always paid maxiumum attention to players’ perception. However, there are some things in AA sounds we would like to change and improve. It is planned for one of upcoming updates. We sincerely hope you will like it.

About visual damage to ships due to shells & torpedo’s (not decals as currently is the case, but torn masts, shredded funnels,…)

Hi. I did not manage to find a source for that statement, but anyways, this is quite expensive in terms of performance and production efforts. Currently we are not working on such visual effects. We are focusing on enhancing what we already have. For example, the solution for small objects (wires, lines, cables) anti-aliasing is currently in being implemented.

About night-battles

It’s good to hear you like Saint-Petersburg port! However, its lighting scheme is basically a workaround. Our game engine currently does not allow normal multi-source lighting, which is needed for proper night battles. When it is updated eventually, we will be able to implement such feature (and many others).

About why ballistics are under NDA, but anti-air aura and detonation chances aren’t.

Yes, there’s reason – currently in-game ballistics formula is considered a valuable asset in terms of game developement. However, this is more about corporate projects and should not worry players. I assume, players need not the formula itself, but penetration values for each shell to be more informed and effecient in the game. We are absolutely fine with it. We are going to add penetration values to game wiki in some form, and later, when we develop a smart way to show it, we wil surely add it to game client. So, when we talk about NDA, we refer to our method to implement IRL ballistics into the game, not to in-game shell specs. There is no use in hinding them.

About the workings of outer/middle/inner AA aura’s.

Each aura works independently. So, when a squadron enters additional aura (it may be the same ship or another ship), it gets additional “destruction timer” and starts losing planes from this aura accordingly. When aura efficiency changes for some reason (e.g., some AA guns are destroyed, suppressive fire is activated or manual control is used), the “destruction timer” of this aura adjusts. If an aura stops targeting a squadron for some reason (e.g. player selects another target or the squadron flies away), the “destruction timer” ends. Squadrons do not “remember” any interaction from passed engagements, their HP is actually number of planes left.

About T5-T6 matchmaking since 0.5.9.

The overall life on T5-6 got more complicated, this is true. However, this made things better for beginners on T3-4 and reinforced T7-8. Which is not a bad thing for overall game experience. On the other hand, we understand your concern and currently are trying to find a way to soften the impact of this change (which, again, we consider to be good globally).

About the unbuffed Montana deckarmour in 0.5.12.

Hi, thanks. Yes, this is the exact case. We will fix it ASAP and give Montana the buff we promised. Sorry for the inconvenience.

About making the Lexington more competitive with the new 0.5.12 economics.

There is no plan to change loadouts now and to buff strike loadouts. We buffed USN fighters recently for more AS value, and for now are not going to change CV specs more. As for economical aspect, please see the two replies on that above.

About the ability to testdrive Premium ships before the purchase.

It’s a nice idea, and we may implement it in future. We also can organize premium ship TD during public tests from time to time. So, yes, you can expect some positive changes about it, but unfortunately, I am not ready to make any promises or name any dates. And let’s consider that premium test drive should be organized in such way that player can really understand and master the ship at least partially. Otherwise, one unlucky battle on Tirtpiz for a newbie may create a false impression and hurt both player and game.

About how will clans be implemented in WoWS.

Hello! We aim for stand-alone implementation for players convenience.

About the non-unification of the Premium stuff, and the reasoning behind it.

Hello! The problem is not with premium shop prices, but with the databases. Long story short, we cannot unify gold the way we initially planned without massive DB rework (or without constant technical issues with syncing WoT, WoWp and WoWs). We are trying to find a workaround for that, and surely we will announce the change when we’re ready.

About a reevaluation of the “Torpedo Acceleration Skill”, and the flat percentage that gimps high-tier Japanese DD’s

Type F3 may be used with TA skill. This is extremely dangerous, but hey, you will get 81-kt missiles. I know some players who are happy about it and like such play style.

Type 93 mod.3 with TA seems very good, but this way you need to spend 3 skill points. What are they good for? For example, Basic Firing Trainig + Expert Marksman. Don’t underestimate Shimakaze artillery, especially with this buff. And F3 offer you 8 km range, freeing these 3 points for you. With the best concealment – 5.9 km – this is more than viable. After introducing TA skill and tweaking some of the torpedoes, we are quite satisfied with the variety we have. This is not likely to be changed.

About the 19-point captain, and if it will be reachable, since 18 points don’t allow for an interesting build as a 19 pointer will (the ability to get one more T4 skill)

Hello! This cap is an intended temporary limitation. Captain skills improvement pack is currently in developement with several nice changes, including the cap solution. Overall goal is to add new layers of captain “upgrades”, add more variety and possible builds, adjust some skills in terms of costs and/or effeciency. I really hope you will be happy with the changes, and find more opportunities both for 18-points captains and for juniors. Stay tuned!

I’ve just finished full 6-days-before and 6-days-after analysis, and now preparing an article on new economy with much insight. I hope I will get it published next week in RU and EN.
Overall, there’s slight XP drop registered here and there (of course z1ooo data is not complete and not accurate), but also very promising and visible CR buff on absolute majority of ships. I am going to include full percentage data in the article, so stay tuned for the detailed comment and information on the changes. Income structure (what is the value of different actions in battle) will be included there, too, as players asked.

Regardless, of the upcoming article, XP drop will surely be researched more, when meta is established and we have stats for a longer period. There is no intention to slow down player’s progress in the new economy, so if there are any unintended slow-downs registered by that time, we will fix them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s