WoWS Q&A – 24th October 2016

Source: Sub_Octavian

Planned stats for T10 camos are full combat bonus + 50% discount on repair +20% credits +100% XP and the price should be around 5k.

Kin-Luu

Hi, again thank you for those Q&As. I played a lot of games, and community interaction of this kind and quality is quite rare. Keep up the good work. My question would be: What is WGs general idea of the role of the carrier? Should it be a support ship, providing sight for the team? Should it provide burst dps, assassinating enemy ships with great alpha strikes? Or should it be a DoT class, slowly burnind down enemy ships with fire/flooding dots?

Hello, and you are welcome. Our vision: versatile ship that can play support or damage dealer role. For extremely team-oriented and conscious players. Quite different (obviously) experience for more strategic gameplay.

G3nesis_Prime

Thanks again for another Q&A. My question is: Could we eventually get a C hull for the Pensacola cruiser. Her sister ship got a redesigned radar and reduced mast height which would significantly reduce her detection range due to in game detection working of the highest point of the ship. She also received some more AA mounts in the refit. This wouldn’t make the Pensacola OP, it would however prevent it from being spotted before the rest of the team.

Hi, thank you for reading it! Currently there’s no immediate plan to buff Pensacola directly. Even if we were working on it right now, re-modeling the hull would not be cost-efficient way of doing it. Yes, she’s not the easiest ship, she is more skill-dependent than others. But it is OK to have such ships in game. Her main problem is the same as Furutaka – she is the first 203 mm gun cruiser in line. She offers gameplay quite different from Cleveland, and requires different approach.

Precursor2552

For CVs You noted raising points on the forum, however given the extreme lack of information on what you have in mind for CVs could you clarify what your timeline is on the overhaul you’ve been talking about for ages? What their ideal role is for you? And what level of player activity you want them to have?

I elaborated on our overall CV vision above a bit. As for timeline – I do realize this is an important topic, but I cannot provide you with any dates or promises. We’re on it, it won’t happen fast – this is it for now.

Takeda92

Question: what is the dev team’s stance on the 155mm Mogami? we have heard before that you think it was a mistake including it, and that players should use the 203mm option instead because that is the progression of this ship. Many players think the 155mm makes Mogami unique in the IJN cruiser line because of the different playstyle, and many believe that with the 203mm guns, Mogami is just a worse Atago in every single way (I know, it is subjective view and all). When I read that devs like a logical progression of gun caliber across the tiers, I am afraid that one day I might see these guns removed from Mogami. Which guns does the majority of players use? Do you have separate statistics for both guns to determine how each is balanced to the game? In your opinion, what is the defining feature, the strength of Mogami that makes her stand out among tier 8 cruisers? (for example, it’s the long range and radar for Chapayev, the strong AP, range and Strong hydro for Hipper).

We’re not going to remove it – there are no such plans. The majority (but not overwhelming) uses 155 mm. Yes, we gather separate stats in this case. The strength is very good protection and also what you defined – two calibers to chose from.

beachedwhale1945

Some time ago Q stated the German destroyers were in the works and you were trying to get them out by the end of the year. If this happens, that will make five new lines this year (Soviet cruisers, German battleships, Royal Navy cruisers, second IJN DD branch, and German destroyers). How many lines are being considered for next year? Are any new nations (i.e. no regular ships, just premiums if anything) are planned for next year? As a side note, while I know you can’t give us a name, are you more excited by a upcoming premium or regular ship for next year?

I am truly sorry, but I cannot tell you the number of ship lines or premium ships planned. I can say “yes” for new nations appearing in the game. As for my personal expectations – I make no difference between regular and premiums as a player. There are a couple of ships upcoming I am extremely hyped about. My collection will grow both in 2016 and in 2017 – that’s for sure.

Racound

Sorry for my community-team related question last time. Something that comes up quite regularly, Carriers – I enjoy playing them until tier 6 after that it just gets really ugly with all the AA around. But the biggest problem I have is the matchmaking related to carriers. With the ryujo I can “easily” deal over 100k dmg when I am in a T6 match, even up to 180k if I am in a t5 to t6 match but if I am in a t7 to t8 match this drops down to 30-50k dmg. All this with a somewhat terrible enemy carrier. So my question would be: Are there any plans for a tighter carrier MM? so max 1 tier difference? I think this would even make it easier to balance them around this, as currently, CVs need to be somewhat able to perform (in case of the Ryujo) even at T8 making them ridiculous at t5. Another Question for general Matchmaking: have you ever considered to enforce a “meta”? A few month ago cruisers were in a terrible spot so they got some buffs making them really strong and battleship players were complaining – now cruisers are once again in a terrible spot because of the abundance of battleships. Wouldn’t it be easier to just say “each match should have 1 Carrier, 3 Battleships, 5 Cruisers and 3 Destroyers per team”? I especially hate to play against 2 carriers or 5 destroyers… it’s no fun😉

No need to be sorry – I just want to be helpful, so I thought it’s a good idea to define my area of knowledge. Your suggestion about CV MM is definitely worth considering – and it’s being considered while discussing possible CV changes. As for “enforced meta” the answer is no, and I don’t see why it can change, unfortunately. There are several major problems in balancing the game meta with matchmaker, including absolute mess in competitive play and lots of problems with MM queue. So this will not happen.

WerefoxNZ

Has there been any thought about allowing dive bombers who have dropped their bombs to engage other aircraft like fighters (sans the ability to strafe)?

Yes, and there’s not plan to introduce such feature. We would like to keep the squadrons specialized.

Exkuroi

Hi there!. Wondering what does WG think of flooding having multiple locations similar to fires. For example, halving flooding damage but doubling the flooding areas. This can complement IJN DDs torpedoes having a greater flooding probability which can potentially lead to better overall performance for them since they are currently suffering against their peers.

We think this is not necessary and this will not contribute to the game in good way. IJN torps flooding chance is already profitable when there’s anti torpedo protection on the ship.

KniteWulf

What is the likelyhood of WG reconsidering a buff for Mikasa? I have suggested elsewhere that simply giving her Aiming Systems Mod 0 would be enough to make her competitive.

It would make her OP. -40% to dispersion is a tremendous buff for any BB. We are not planning to buff her anyways. She’s unique and cannot be compared to other BBs for obvious reasons, but among other tier II ships she looks absolutely fine in terms of stats. As for her gameplay – it is quite specific, and will remain such.

JackStorm787

With the IJN DD split happening soon, would this open up the ability to add more line splits in the future making the tech tree more like the one in WoT?

Sure, this is absolutely possible. However, new lines are also coming, and I cannot tell you when we will do next split.

KuroPyon

Heya, is it possible that something like Harekaze (Kagero DD with american Mk. 16 guns mounted) or similarly and with actual historical significance Yukikaze could become a premium ship or do you have some sort of policy in place that forbids ships with funky armaments.

We don’t have any kind of policy prohibiting such premium ships. So, theoretically we can see such ships in the future.

Adder007USA

Something that I brought up last year on the CV forums, had a decent discussion about it. With the recent CV changes, and your observation on the lack of a CV “Middle class”, has the team ever considered a re-supply mechanic for aircraft? Carriers would be easier to learn and more fun to play if there was a way to replenish aircraft. The way it stands, especially in the lower tiers (where people are just learning to play and love/hate CVs), all it takes is one mistake, getting hit by one strafing run or AA defense skill, to turn the rest of the battle into a disaster as more than half of your aircraft are gone, permanently. No matter how careful you are, the best players will usually lose at least some aircraft on an attack run (Especially if their opposing CV is using AA loadout), and by the middle of the battle, one side usually has almost complete air superiority while the only course of action for the other carrier is “Ramming speed”. No other ship has this limitation (save several unlucky “turret destroyed” hits), where they can be made a floating paperweight due to a split second decision. Even if you make the wrong choice and get torped to the bottom, you can at least then move onto the next battle in a different ship. With a CV, empty on aircraft means just sitting, watching. Yes, you have secondaries….but lets be honest, who lets a CV get that close to them? Thoughts?

Yes, we did consider such mechanics in the very beginning. Currently, there is no plans to implement it. That doesn’t mean we’re absolutely against it, though.

Note: as CV changes are mostly in design / internal discussion, I will skip such questions in the future. I don’t like evading questions or giving vague answers, but in this situation it’s impossible to inform you folks better. As soon as we have some solid concept, we will implement it. As soon as we’re ready, you will see it during PT. You are very welcome with your suggestions, though. I always gather ideas and send them to the team. But answering “we are working on it” each time is not very helpful, while this answer is true.

Numbah18

Will we see the return of Jet Fighters and other special planes like that? Would be a nice change from the repeats of planes some CV currently have as well as being something awesome to use and watch.

We may see them again, theoretically. But they were removed for balance purposes, please bear that in mind. We could re-work their stats, making them very close to piston-engined aircraft, but felt it was not the right thing to do.

iku_19

So I started watching Star Trek TNG recently, and Captain Picard et al has a gold model of the WW2 carrier USS Enterprise hanging on a wall. How can a 30 year old show have Enterprise but World of Warships not?!

So I played wonderful Mass Effect game some time ago, and I clearly remember Commander Shepard keeping the Space Hamster in his quarters (let alone the beautiful women and colourful bowl fish). How can an award-winning game have Space Hamster, but your post not?

Eh..I don’t know why I’m saying this, but this is the only resposne I could create without breaking NDA. Sorry.

Talon_Haribon

As always, thank you for your time in answering our questions!! I would like to ask if it is possible to add another consumable spot for Cruisers in general to increase their flexibility in battles especially at support roles since at the moment you can only pick between Defensive AA and Hydro-acoustic in one slot and having them in different consumable spots I believe would help Cruisers greatly..

You are always welcome. It may be possible, we considered such option. And we did not leave it. But I hope you will understand if I don’t promise anything on that. It is not in the plan for next few updates, and I’d rather not speak about something that is not determined enough.

15 thoughts on “WoWS Q&A – 24th October 2016

  1. About the Mogami, compared to her tier8:

    “the strength is very good protection”

    FUCKING WHAT?
    Mogami is specialized in armor protection?

    That must be some good shit WG is smoking.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Ah…HA….AHAHAHAH

        Mogami, amazing protection…right.

        Let’s compare it to the Hipper.
        Hipper has thinner belt, sure, but it’s 80mm belt + 30mm of turtleback. Citpenning a Hipper is MUCH harder than a Mogami,anyone can attest to that.

        New Orleans? A smaller citadel completely below the waterline say high. I’m almost certain the roof citadel armor is also think enough to prevent overmatching from 356-380mm guns
        So much for being less armored than the Mogami

        Chapayev? Same armor, but Chapayev is thinner, and citadel overpens are more common.
        I’d say the Mogami is similar in terms of protection, but the Chapa has the advantage when it comes to BBs shooting at it.

        So what’s left?
        British cruisers?
        Their increased squichiness compared to others at tier8-10 comes from one spot, and one spot alone : a 19mm roof citadel spot just above the waterline, Aside from that spot, they’re actually better armored than IJN ships.

        So unless you’re willing to tell me than a giant 100mm citadel plating that’s a good 15% above water is better than a 80mm armor belt with turtle back, a small 100mm citadel plating completely underwater with better roof armor, a similar 100mm citadel plating but on a much thinner ship, you’re wrong.
        Numerically, logically, and imperically.

        Hell, even high tier Brit cruisers are only more squichy if subjected to plunging fire. If not, they’re better armored, with a thicker armor plating and better citadel placement.

        Like

        1. I definitely think Mogami is squishy, first comment was sarcastic. Without looking at armor models my guess would be that British cruisers are the only competitor for weakest armor among tier 8 cruisers. But that’s not really giving either ship much of a compliment.

          Like

  2. On the one hand, good that he answers any questions at all. On the other.. How little substance is here? Hardly ever a firm yes or no, he won’t take questions on CV in the future, not even a hint of a timeline, nothing. So what do you end up with? Hardly anything useful. The only answer that was maybe a bit telling was the one about USS Enterprise. Would it violate the NDA to say USS Enterprise was not in the works, or would never even be considered? It would implicate that there is something to disclose. On the other hand, they’ve stated they want basically every ship that ever existed to make it into the game, and why not, as long as we are paying.. I’ve asked a question repeatedly about their need for secrecy, but that question so far has never been picked up. I wonder if they will ever realize how much that secrecy hurts them..

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I honestly don’t know what’s the big deal about pixelated ships that WG is so secretive about. It’s not like this game has a story and they’re worried about players finding out about the ending. If it’s a fanstasy ship they made up for balance or tech tree filler, fine, be secret about it because idc about it. But if it’s an iconic ship like the Yorktown-class carrier, why hide it?

      Like

  3. Wait does this guy seriously think that the switch to 8-inch guns is really the problem with the Pensacola? Sure it takes some getting used to, but it’s nothing compared to the disgustingly huge detection radius which severely limits your flexibility. Has he ever even played the ship?

    Like

    1. Katsyusha, right! He didn’t get that the issue for everyone in ‘Cola is the battleship concealment stat!

      Like

  4. Q:With the IJN DD split happening soon, would this open up the ability to add more line splits in the future making the tech tree more like the one in WoT?

    A:Sure, this is absolutely possible. However, new lines are also coming, and I cannot tell you when we will do next split.

    Meanwhile in Q&A 23th

    Q: Do you plan splitting the cruisers into several branches?
    A: Not at the moment, since we do not see the necessity of doing so from a game play viewpoint.

    Can anyone make any sense of this? One is clearly stating that there will be splits for sure, and the other says that there will be no more splits because dumb reasons.
    Now, This is what happens when there’s no communication and coordination within a development team, each one gives his own answer and creates a whole F$#% mess…

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I agree wit you about communication and coordination … but… those 2 statements are not conflicting each other:
      Will there be split of cruisers? – Not at the moment.
      Is the split possible – yes, absolutely possible.
      Will there be more splits? possible, but we wont tell you when or what we gonna split, as we don’t see the need of split now.

      Like

      1. Sorry but they do,it’s quite obvious if you read.

        The one basically says that there are plans for more splits but he just can’t say WHEN will the next one happen, and the other one says that they don’t plan any splits because it’s not necessary. I didn’t include the complete answer but he’s not talking only about cruisers but generally that splitting lines based on the ship class and gun caliber isn’t going to happen.

        To make it even more simple to understand. The one not only says that it’s perfectly possible but hints that another split is coming but he’s not telling when, and the other one says NO.

        Oh well, we’ll see.

        Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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