WoWS Q&A – 3rd December 2016

Answered by Sub_Octavian, compiled by Sonic_157

– Hello, do you have any data on whether or not teams with more DDs per side are more likely to win in domination mode games? Similarly, does the number of RU/USN DDs influence said win rate?

Hello! At this moment we haven’t got actual date of this case, however we analyzed that effect (different nations, +1/+2 DD/CV/BB per side) in the early versions, where was battles 13 to 15 battleships and we didn’t see any influence on winrate. In 0.5.8 permississible difference of destroyers between the teams was limited by 1 and we lost interest for this case. About second question: matchmaker swaps ships to achieve closest nation-class balance possible. Probably after entering more branches we will repeat that research.

– You are going to do a whats coming in 2017 video in january or february as you did in february 2016?

I got invitation for filming a couple of days ago. So yes, probably, we’re going to do that:)

– Serious question:

More a personal question, where are you from? From your dasha interview translation, your accent puzzles me and I’m really curious where it’s from.

Joke question:

…so I was watching Star Trek TNG, and they mentioned the starship Akagi

Why doesn’t Warships have Akagi, as well?

I’m from Russia, Leningrad (currently – Saint Petersburg). Did I sound THAT horrible? Damn..:(((

Dude, you should really quit Star Trek and start Firefly or Stargate. These series look much safer in terms of World of Warships for me:D

– I posted last time but didn’t get an answer. I think it was after you had stopped answering. So apologies for the dupe question(s).

  • Not game specific but… In the absence of unified gold across accounts can we have all WG websites (WoT, WoP, WoWs) allow activation of premium time for gold?

Background for the question. I have 10k gold in WoT, I don’t intend to ever play again. I uninstalled the client. I want to activate premium time on WoWs while ARP grinding. To do that I have to install the WoT client, log in, mouseclick a few times, log out and then deinstall again.

  • In lieu of a unified gold across the games what about a simple gold transfer?

I get the whole retooling the DBs thing preventing unification. But WG clearly already has functions to add gold to each game’s accounts and remove gold from each game’s accounts. So a move would be “remove from X, add to Y” of functions that already exist.

  • Why is premium time included in the average XP calculation, even at the API level?

Base XP is used as a metric on how well or poorly someone has done in a round, but that is not what is reported.



I will pass your suggestion about prem activation. It seems logical. But I don’t know if web team would accept it and what would be estimated cost/time.

Manual premium currency transfer is currently not an option. Sorry. That would create massive amount of individual operations with human factor involved.

XP is firstly part of economy. We don’t advertise it as ultimate way of determining player performance. We believe it is logical to include premium time as a very consistent factor that influence players earnings here. And when we thing about any “combat effeciency rating” for WoWs, we normally consider many combat stats, not XP.

Manual premium currency transfer is currently not an option. Sorry. That would create massive amount of individual operations with human factor involved.

Thanks for the answers. On clarification on the above. I didn’t mean human involvement on your side. Right now the website can do those operations. If I purchase gold or doubloons it has to add it to the account. When I purchase time (in the case of WoWs at least) it removes doubloons. So I was asking to put the two together, one that removes from one account (WoT) and adds to another (WoWs). The only human interaction would be from the user. :)

Oh I got it now. We like this concept, it is probably one of the technical options for unification. But anyways, I cannot announce any details at the moment.

– I heard the requirements for being a supertester in the past were minimum 60% winrate, 1500 wtr, 4000 battles, and at least 10 T10s Is it still the same or are the requirements different now?

Sorry, this is the question for regional ST management (or at least for regional community manager). I don’t know anything about regional ST requirments.

I only used to be RU ST manager..but then got an arrow to the knee

– On the topic of CV (nation) balance, is there any consideration to giving USN CVs (at least tier 7 and up) some balanced loadouts? It would at least mitigate some of the imbalance right now.

2/1/2 Essex pls. pls. is balanced. is basically stock loadout +1 DB. Same number of squads as the other options. And is the historically accurate Essex air wing composition ratio (36/18/36).

(Lexington 1/1/2 would also be nice.)

There are no plans to implement any major balance changes to CV BEFORE we have full re-work concept (it is in DEV plan for 2017, the problem is recognized and accepted).

– Since quite a few people were somewhat miffed with how the Royal Navy cruisers turned out in the game, I am curious how well they are performing across the servers? May be a kind of resumee since they’ve been out for a few weeks now?

Personally, I have to say that if played according to their strengths, they can be quite powerful, although T2, 3 and 4 could need some love from the Devs, but may be that’s just me. Also, despite everybody bashing Wargaming for giving HE only to Perth and Belfast, I have to say that I am somehow performing better in their regular counterparts (Leander and Fiji) for some reason. Can you shed some light on the respective performance of those ships in particular?


I am glad to say that initial stats RN cruisers achieved after release remain good and competitive across the servers. The line is effecient AND at the same time, situational/skill-dependent. Which contributes to game diversity. You are absolutely right saying that they should be carefully played to their strengths.

Lower tiers currently are not underperforming despite big amount of players. Their stats are still above average. Probably they will need some love, but not now when they show such performance.

As for Belfast and Perth – interesting questions. I checked their last-week stats, too.

Perth currently performs on the level of its rivals, close to Budenny. Belfast is among best T7 cruisers, but Fiji still outperforms her by ~2k avg.dmg and ~1.1% avg.WR. However, we should realize that Fiji audience is more skilled/hardcore at the moment.

– Background: as a US person living in Europe with military connections, I established my Wargaming accounts on the EU servers. I’ve played both Warships and WoT, with thousands of battles, premium time, premium vehicles, etc.

Question: Why can’t Wargaming implement a fee based charge for players to move their accounts to a different server?

Thryotoxic, the potential demand for this functionality is insignificant, but it requires a shipload of work. I would rather focus on some other valuable feature such as economy unification… :) Meanwhile we pool such individual requests in CS and process them all together manually from time to time.

– Question regarding Perth:

Can’t help but notice that the duration of the premium spotter plane is 100 seconds as opposed to 180 seconds on the regular spotter plane. Is this a mistake or is it intentional? It’d be the first premium consumable where the duration is intentionally shorter than on the regular one, although the latter has still the longer cooldown time, so I am really puzzled here…

Hello! This is a mistake. The correct duration is 180 seconds for both consumables, we’ll fix it in the near future versions

– Hi Phil, thanks for doing this, as always. It is great to see how engaged the community and Developers are.

Question:  When viewing the net credits gained at the end of each match, would it be possible to have a detailed report based on Spotting, Potential Damage received, and any other statistics that apply towards Credits rewarded?

Personally, I am curious how much my Battleships gain from “tanking” damage, and how much my cruisers gain from distracting the Enemy BBs vs going into a knife fight against DDs. I feel this would give me more information about what is more lucrative on which ships, dependent on play style.

Hello. Mazgazine1 has it right here in comments – this information is not to be disclosed. Sorry.

– Hi SubOctavian, I follow your QA regulery and today I finally subbed to reddit. I appreciate work you put into this as for PR WoWs has simple one of better community management than I have experienced.

QUESTION: I know that captain skill rework is still rumored but, what cause the most uproar is the “Keen Intuition” skill. Today I published my possible proposal to this skill, which in my point of view would lead to more dynamic and fung gameply and would change current smoke meta.

Basicaly it would grant 25-50% target acquisition similary to TA mod. What do you think about it?

See for detailed analysis:

Hi. Okay, here’s some leak:

We did test new skills (and current skills rework). We were not satisfied whith it partially, including Keen Intuition. We designed a new solution, made some fixed and tweaks, and now are quite happy with the result. We will test it in the nearest future, and if everything works as we intended, you will see it in one of the first 2017 updates. Right now we are not going to make additional changes – we already improved the design and need some testing.

Your analysis is great. I could agree with you on some points, and so do game designers – that’s why we did our changes.

Let’s see how it turns out a bit later.

Neighbours Map Southern Spawn

How often do teams who spawn south/right side win?

It is my impression they are disadvantaged sue to the bbs spawning at bottom which drives them to cap A and be out of the match for long time if not clever wheras from C, you can project into B with lots of cover when coming from left.

Hello, this map is perfectly balanced. Odds of winning each sides about 50% +/- 0.2%.

– Question regarding Shiratsuyu: From what we know, this particular snowflake will have 2×4 Torp launcher and a consumable which reduces the reload timer of those torps to 5 seconds. This means that this ship will be able to throw out 16 torpedoes in about 5 seconds at several points in any battle. Is this really intentional and how does that fit into Wargaming’s efforts to reduce the “Torpedoe soup”?

This is even more puzzling because prior to this IJN DD revamp, these ships have to trade their smoke in for having a torpedo reload consumable that reduces their reload to 30 seconds, not 5 seconds, while the new ships get it on top of their smoke.

Last but not least, I was under the impression that Shiratsuyu was part of the line that was supposed to be more of a gunboat, so why does she (and Akizuki) get that consumable?


– – Torpedo soup here means firing 20km torps that miss your intended target, yet go far enough for long enough to hit something else. WG didn’t like that. By comparison, creating a shorter-ranged torpedo wall of skill is completely fine.

That’s right!)

– Two questions:

  • What is the best way to report bugs, glitches, etc.?
  • Are you guys aware of the invisible plane bug where enemy aircraft are invisible sometimes during the cyclone condition? I have primarily noticed it when I am playing carrier myself and cannot see planes even through they’re on the map

    1. The best way to report bugs and glitches is to submit a screenshot or a replay here: Our CS reps are hardcore gamers themselves, each has 1000+ battles, so they take these reports seriously and have power to wake up developers in the middle of the night if something makes the game unplayable. Less critical stuff is regularly collected, filtered and reported to Dev QA.

2. Yes, this is a known issue.

– In the previous Q&A there was a question about making the tactical map pop in without animation, this one’s a bit of an opposite.

When playing carriers, it’s very annoying to have a step above maximum zoom-out being the tactical map, as the jump in zoom level is quite jarring. Is there any indication of a greater zoom range, perhaps without switching to tactical or making a gradual shift to it a-la Supreme Commander, being a part of the upcoming-at-some-point carrier rework?

Hello. I see what you’re suggesting. Currently the design is far from complete, so I will just take your idea to UI team. Thank you!

– Quick question, is a CV revamp in the works? From the economic portion to gameplay anything would be appreciated


– –  Soon or SoonTm ?

In developement plan. Problem is recognized and accepted as a problem. The only factor that slows us down that the problem is complex and cannot be solved by a couple of tweaks. We are working on it. I wish I could give you the exact date, but I cannot. Don’t expect it to be solved until Spring at least.

– The new IJN DD line makes no sense to me. The Akatsuki (torpedo boat) has better gunpower than the Shiratsuyu (gun boat). The Shiratsuyu however has insanely good torpedo volleys, beating the torpedo line. The Akizuki is literally the only gunboat in the entire “gunboat line”. The “gunboat” also has better stealth than the “torpedo boat”. I use quotation marks because neither of those are fulfilling their expected role.

Is this intended or did someone simply not test these ships at all before releasing em?


 I believe that “gunboat” – “torpedo” opposition is actually not the case here. These ships have different playstyle beacuse they have less tubes, but have access to rapid reload.

That does not that mean one line has direct advantage in one stat over other line.

All current stats are intended and tested.

– With discussions of WoWS becoming an e-sports, isn’t it time to remove Detonations from game?

No, it isn’t.

– Are we going to see premiums in the PTS ever again? The fact that you cannot return a ship after 1 battle played is a slap in the face when supertesters and people with press accounts get full access. Our only option is to have faith in their reviews and I think that’s hugely backhanded to such a well-invested community.

We might do this, but there several cons for doing it on PTS. Slap in the face is a strange term. We are considering another “trial” solution, but I cannot share the information on it yet. As for now:

1. You can apply to ST.

2. You can wait for user reviews after sales start.

– Hello Octavian. First I’d like to mention that you guys did a great job and the game is awesome! Also, I must say that I think WoWs has some of the best players/dev communication that I’ve seen in games, with a lot of Q&A like this one regularly on all the servers, devs being present on the forums, etc. Keep up the good work!

As for questions, I have two. First, I’d like to know about the different meta for each region. Can you elaborate on what the difference are for each region? For example, are BBs or DDs more prevalent on one server? Is one server spamming AP on all ships. More brawling/sniping? Etc.

Second, how do you balance the game with the meta being different on different servers? How does it affect the development of the game? For example, was the RN line an attempt to counter a meta aspect on one server, or do you introduce new premiums to better fit (or counter) meta on some servers? (Those are just examples and not something I’m accusing WG of.)

Thank you for your time and have a nice day!

One fun fact about regional differences. Here is the breakdown of win rates for Halloween mode by servers: EU: 10.8% NA: 11% RU: 6.7% SEA: 22.9%

Make your own conclusions.

– – SEA = teamplayers? RU = solo warriors?

Interesting nonimportant fact nontheless :)

Do you have any idea why there is such a big difference in the numbers?

Seems like there is a negative correlation with server size. The more people play on server, the larger is the % of newbies, who play less cooperatively.

– What’s with the relatively high amount of event-based spending and the ads, even local physical ads like billboards on the sides of buses in my area while? Why do we feel the grip of penny pinching on one side for actual in-game aspects but see so much external spending? It’s great that there is a push to grow popularity and keep the populations up, but wouldn’t that be an easier feat with more enriched in-game experience? Please stimulate my dopamine release

That’s a great question.

I totally agree with you that the needs of existing veterans is top priority. However, in development there is quite a long lead time between getting feedback, deciding how to address it, and actual implementation of the solution. You can’t just spend money and get the solution overnight for most of these issues. The bandwidth of the team is limited.

You could hire more developers and grow your dev studio, which we actually do, however hiring, training and integrating new team members also has a long lead time. And these talents don’t come from nowhere. The amount of talented developers is also limited. You can’t just hire some game designer, who developed virtual farms and match-3 games all his previous career and expect him to build new ships from day one… The set of competences needed for our game is quite unique in the industry.

That’s why once we see there is nothing we can improve on development side we can focus more on marketing to get more fresh blood. It’s good that you notice the increased volume of ads from our game, we didn’t have chance to do so much of acquisition activities last year.

Have the issues with the Royal Navy smoke been accepted as an issue that needs to be resolved or is it still a non issue in the dev’s eyes? Here is the issue I have with RN smoke. The first smoke gives two puffs and seems to be a normal operation. The second time there is no second puff, or no way to understand why there isn’t a second puff, or how or why it would end up on top of the first.

Also, with the Perth, are they going to change up the wording that is spoken when the smoke is finished so that it easier to understand that its not been set, but smoke screen is completed, or some other better wording?

Hello. Judging from your video it works as intended. The issue is not with the number of “puffs”, but with the speed. According to game mechanics, your speed should be less than 15 kts in order to be concealed by your smokes on the move. This is clearly visible in your video. I thought the issue was with something else (e.g. no second puff with speed under 15 kts), but if I got you right, there is no bug here. Just be sure to slow down before deploying smokes (true for all ships, not just RN).

Hi Sub_Octavian, would you happen to know anything about the National Characteristics of the German dds?

Hi. Sure. 1. Good torp. armament. And its specs grows with tier in very consistent way. 2. Good AP rounds. 3. Tiers II-IV have bow torpedo tubes with very tricky angles. 4. VI+ tiers have 128-mm artillery with good ballistics. 5. VI+ tiers have sonar. 6. VI+ tiers have a choice between 128 mm and 150 mm. 7. IX-X tiers have decent AA (dual purpose turrets). 8. Broad hulls = vulnerable to AP fire, fewer overpens.

That information is about branch in TESTING, so it is NOT final and subject to change after production test.

Just like German battleships, those look like way too many strengths and way too few weaknesses.

We will see:) You shouldn’t underestimate the power of broad hull that eats AP shells.

Since the introduction of Steven Seagal as an exclusive and improved captain for US line, can we expect others captains for the others nations as well? Like, Dasha for the Russian line and Jingles for the British.

Yes, there are more hero commanders coming down the road both historical and fictional.

Hi u/Sub_Octavian!

I have read through the comments/leaks/etc and do know there is a rework of the captain skills. However, my question is about captain management.

I don’t really like the screen (and with my laptop, the screen is transparent and impossible to see the skills that I have selected). I don’t know if this is intentional or if it is a bug.

Are there any plans to make a separate screen to display all the captains from all the nations? There were some posts on Reddit and WG Forums of what users had and they are much better than what’s in the game right now. I’d like to see a separate screen similar to how the tech tree is shown.

Hi, try to turn the contrast GUI on. This should help. If not, please report this to Customer Support. Concerning the commander design: we are planning some changes, but they will not be global.

Is WG actually aware of the RN-Smoke issue? I mean i dont call it a “BUG” since many pointed out the math behind it, but my question is: Are changes for that planed, so people can consistently put out 2 smoke puffs or do you guys consider this a “skill” you need to learn when playing RN?

Hi! Check this out.

In WoT, a player can personalize a tank with emblems and inscriptions. Is there a chance of this feature being brought over to WoWS?

Yes, there is huge potential for visual customization based on naval history facts. We’re planning on some stuff, it is in concept/design stage. Not sure we will do it in 2017, as the next year is already full of new features, but anyways, it will be implemented eventually.

For the permanent flags (i.e. Jolly Roger, Hawaii, Ship-specific ones), currently, all these flags with the exception of the Military Veteran flag provide no bonus. I have many of these flags and I’m sure many other players have dozens of flags. I find that the only flag I put on all my ships is the Military Veteran for the sweet 5% bonus to Credits, XP, and Commander XP. Is there any plans to do either of the following?

  • Allow 2 or more flags to be mounted
  • Add unique bonuses to the flags that do not have one (i.e. + concealment, + rudder shift, + only credits)
    • The question of multiple flags is being reviewed. As for bonuses, I should say, not all flags MUST have bonuses. They can be just a sign, a way of showing something visually.

Question: With the latest ARP Missions, we have several duplicate ARP captains, in case of Hiei even more. While these captains get rewarded with a own reserve slot by now and the ‘older’ ones did get reserve slots retroactively (thanks for that!), I would like the possibility to dismiss a few of them. I don’t see a need for twice (or more) as many captains as available ships. Sure, someone could argue you could do different captain builds, but I assume it’s rather unlikely that someone will level them all to that extend. It would be totally fine with me if the reseve slot is lost as well if a duplicate captain is dismissed.

Do you see the possibility for something like that in the future? I’m aware that is is a pure convenience thing, however, I find it confusing to select the right ARP captain right away, because of that many duplicates.


Hi! You are welcome.

Yes, I see what you’re asking. Actually, inability to dismiss them is a little, but anyways, flaw. “Fix” is not currently in developement, but we will get to it eventually and design a solution so that special commanders can be dismissed normally. As for now – sorry for this inconvenience.




I’m not normally a DD player, so this is the background for this question.

When you have Missions and Challenges that require torpedo hits, why are they always ship torpedo hits? Would you be able to instead change the requirements to have 2 ways to finish it (a higher number for CVs and a lower one for DDs)? I find it quite annoying that my CV torps do not count toward the mission requirements, especially since I don’t play DDs.


Hello. I believe it should be possible technically. Will pass your suggestion to events team.




Recently, the ocean map was added to the map rotation (EU). Some classes and ships are seriously handicapped there.

While the map is realistic, it is not very popular. Any plans to skip it again?


Indeed, some classes and ships have difficulties on the ocean, but this difficulties are not very large. But the ocean is quite rare maps per session player, and this classes and ships have an advantage on maps with islands and shelters.




Was the SuperContainer chance nerfed? I noticed that i don’t get SuperContainers as often as before…


/u/Pigeon_of_War keeps telling me that torpedo polisher improves the odds!




On the 0.5.15 Public Test, I had problem with custom_ports mod (the mod you guys create to enable mod-er to create custom port) that it won’t work no matter what.

I posted it under Public Test general bugs (because it doesn’t fit others category) and got the reply “…. We don’t support mods. Please remove any mods while using the Public test as your data will be invalid for any bug reports.” Isn’t it a bug????

So, supposedly, this mod is discontinued at 0.5.15 and after?, it never happened before even on PT client, I kinda surprise about that reply too.

So, modding isn’t support anymore?

Forward more question that QueNA doesn’t answer yet:

  • Could ships have a bigger and longer ship wake, currently it isn’t so visible on low sea rendering setting.
  • Could torpedoes leave only wake behind them, not a water fountain?
  • Can we have a list of supported particles (xml files name) so mod-er can expand their fantasy a bit.


Hello. I cannot answer for NA support, but I will pass this question to my NA colleagues to handle. As for other questions:

  1. Wakes are likely to be improved along with other FX.
  2. Torpedo FX are not realistic, but they should be as visible as possible.
  3. There is no such list, we’re moving to other direction – Mod API. If you are a modder, PM me, I will link you with our studio mod curator. He will help you.





Ah, hey again! I was wondering, since some ships are getting their models revamped (Shimakaze, Shinonome) would it be possible for the Iowa to undergo the same model improvements that Missouri has?

I’m talking about the extra polygons and windows the newer modelled ships have. Missouri is gonna be an entirely new model, while the Iowa model will be the one we’ve had since before beta. Would Iowa receive a model update, and if so, would other ships receive such updates as well? (Like the current Fubuki model we have.)




We seek to achive the same (best possible at the moment) level of detail. So it is safe to say all models are constantly (but slowly) improved.

Next ships to be improved visually are Atago, Kutuzov, Tirpitz, Eugen and Lo Yang.




Hey, Phil. Hope you had a good time in NYC! I just wanted to float some possible candidates for IJN premiums for various tiers (because there aren’t really any):

-T6 IJN Hyuga in her 1942 refit: After a magazine explosion while testing a new propellant, Hyuga lost her #5 turret (aft, superfiring). Instead of replacing the turret, a circular plate was fitted over the magazine and 4xTriple 25mm AA guns were placed instead. In addition to giving her a historical AA armament, slightly better rudder shift/turning circle (the Ise-class was noted to have better handling after their BBV refit), maybe a slight sigma increase, I think she’d be a strong candidate for T6.

-T6 C44 CL project (aka Kai Agano): Derived from the Agano-class, she’s basically an IJN Leander, with 4×2 152mm guns. She would have mounted 2×4 610mm torpedo tubes on the centerline and had a respectable amount of AA, being a late war design. I think she’d fit well in T6.

-T8 Fujimoto’s “Fuso Replacement”: Carried 3×3 410mm guns with 2 forward, superfiring, and 1 aft. She would have carried 6×2 152mm guns, 4 completely aft in two columns, and 2 on the bow. Plane catapult located on Turret #3. Propulsion was planned for 26.5 knts. I can’t find anything for a proposed armor scheme, but I imagine ~305mm for the main belt, since she was a treaty ship at 35k normal displacement. She would have sported a (very) tall tower bridge like Izumo’s. There was also a mention of submerged torp tubes, but whatever. She’d be pretty similar to NoCal in arrangement but wouldn’t be viable for a stealth build. She’d be the slowest T8 BB, but that’s fine.

You can make whole lines based entirely on refits, proposals, and incomplete contructions for cruisers and BBs, but I think these would fit into the game pretty well, since they’re not over-the-top or too unconventional to balance.

I’m just not pleased with the selection of IJN premiums currently in the game and I’ve got the only ones that are desirable through events (Kamikaze R, Takao). There is only one BB trainer but she just doesn’t seem that strong and I don’t like low-tier play.

TL;DR: I just hope we get a couple IJN premium BBs in 2017.


Hey, thank you. I don’t remember the whole 2017 prems list, but I will check your suggestion with it! Thank you.

I am not pleased with the selection either, and we do realize there are some conceptual “gaps” in premium ships family. We will fill them.




In WoT they’re changing the overmatch mechanics to make thin but heavily slopped armor be able to ricochet large caliber shells. Have you guys considered doing something similar in WoWs? I think that could help with some of the perceived unfairness at being lolpenned while well angled in cruisers.


This is an idea to consider, but hey, that will greatly increase “nose-to-nose” meta. Which is not very good and not contributing to the lore. We are carefully discussing several systematic adjustments that should improve class balance, but our players are generally not happy with big balance changes, and our damage model is much more complex than in WoT.




Great to see you return here again! I don’t know if the company is paying you and other people like Quemapueblos for answering questions but I’m sure those Q&A have done an excellent job acting as a bridge between players and developers.

My question: Why did you give Akizuki the Torpedo Reload Booster consumable instead of Defensive AA (and was it considered an option during the testing phase)? Many people were expecting a unique, more dedicated AA destroyer considering the escort role of Akizuki-class in real life. In terms of gameplay, I also think DF is a reasonable option as Akizuki’s stat look quite sluggish for a destroyer.


My presense here (and I believe that stands for Q too) is mostly because you are fantastic community. And we believe this interaction is very fruitful.

We believe that “AA DDs” option should remain for USN currently. It is gameplay decision. And Akizuki is pretty unique even without AA




Mr /u/Sub_Octavian,

An idea occurred to me, that Takao, in the Arpeggio anime, has two hull colors. Would there ever be consideration that players could swap between the Blue we have now, and the Red/Black Hull as well? Just a thought~


As our contract with ARP creators is expiring, we’re not likely to change anything in ARP content and won’t add anything new.




If the torpedoes currently used by the Minekaze and its premium derivatives (Fujin and Kamikaze R) are nerfed in the IJN DD rework, would these premium ships be re-armed with the nerfed torpedoes as well?


No, they stay the same.




  • Can we have dynamic versions of all reticle types? (7,8 etc).
  • Are any of them optimize for a specific resolution?
  • Why are some resolutions missing? (1920×1080 for OS X)


Hello, new versions of dynamic scopes are not planned in the near future. Most likely, at the time of the addition of new scopes will and their optimization.




Is GUI scaling still far on the back burner? I know that at least a mod would definitely be popular for testing.


Yep. We do realize this is a must for the future, but right now there are too few users playing with resolution above Full HD. It is in the list, but not the top priority.




Detonation nuke explosion visuals when?


Do you mean some special FX for gameplay discussion? Or improving the detonation FX? If you mean second, we’re considering it along with other FX improvements for 2017.




Hello /u/Sub_Octavian!


Just a silly question this time! How likely do you think that I-401 is going to get a model? She is in the game, albeit with weird stats. And since subs are not in the game (no I’m not asking to play them), I just thought it’d be nice to have I-401’s model to appear in port, and as an earnable ‘ship’, but you simply can’t take her out to any sort of battles at all. Kind of like a port queen. You can assign captains to it, but obviously it isn’t going to do anything. A legit ship in all respects, but you simply can’t take it out to battle. Is this technically possible? I ask this because some other servers received ARP captains with specialization in the I-401, which I thought was interesting.


Our contract wtith ARP expires. We won’t be adding any new content.




How is it I can do 251,000 damage, shoot down a significant number of planes, and only gross 330k (and net 90k) while playing a tier 10 carrier?

Base exp is only 1222? Not even in the top 3. First place has 1700 base exp with 117k damage; no caps. How is this so broken?


Damage is relative. Currently CVs perform equally with other classes in terms of economy. We will conduct additional review in December, though.




When can I buy the Flint or the Black?


Flint is not intended for sale. It can be only earned in Ranked Battles.




Why is the Pensacola such a pain to play/level? Do you as a company enjoy torturing people?


No, we enjoy when players are happy (and we feel making players happy is our mission, because happy players generate more online, more reputation and more revenue so it’s mutual benefit – you have fun, and we can do our lovely job – develop games).

Pensacola may have some issues (and they will be solved), but her main problem is that she’s the first heavy cruiser in game, and if VERY different from Cleveland. It’s like Furutaka, It’s like Aoba (when there was no Furutaka).




Hi there Mr. Sub_Octavian
I hope you can answer some of my questions:

  1. Have the devs considered something like a “Depot” in the port interface, where we can sell just the modules without selling the ship? I’ve had times where I need the credits and wondered if I could sell my stock hulls or GFCS to skip credit farming.
  2. I am very interested about the Akizuki coming to WoWS, but according to the stats that came out, I was a bit disappointed. My biggest concern is that it doesn’t have DFAA, being a DD dedicated as an anti-air ship. What would be your opinion if, say, we could choose either torpedo reload boost (the one which Aki has now) or DFAA?
  3. Related to my previous question, but have the devs also considered having Torpedo Reload Boost on Yuugumo? Shiratsuyu has it with the same number of torpedoes which is not as fast but not by much (except when you consider the F3s), and she’s in tier 7. Having less torpedoes per minute and main battery DPM than the Fletcher is quite concerning, tho the RoF buff is a highly-welcomed buff from the old Kagero.



Hello there, too:) 1. Yes, it is in developement plan. 2. I answered it a little above – here gameplay matters more. AA DD is an option reserved for USN currently. 3. Akizuki is quite original even in her current state. 3. Nope, TRB is destined only for alternative branch now.

New ships are released, they were tested, and any need for tweks, buff or nerf will be much data-influenced. So, we need some time and data for these ships.




Question regarding a thread on modelling of freighters / armed freighters on the RU Forum:

Are those “just” something for your trainees to work on or will those ships make it into the game as a) decoration object or b) actual moving object (convoy mission anybody?)


They surely can be used if there’s need for it. No special rules here.




Hello Phil,

In EU forum “Skycat79” posted his idea about “Enable the Radar/Hydro Range on the Minimap”.

Would something like that be possible?


Yep, I always had this suggestion here on Reddit a coulple of weeks ago and we passed it to UI team. This idea is now in UI wishlist for 2017:)




As Octavian mentions that: “All current stats are intended and tested.”

Let me ask here. It is very intended to high tier IJN DDs to have inferior to USN destroyer in every aspects? I do not see how WG advertised IJN DDs as torpedo specialists before, however as USN DDs got superior loading time, superior torpedo detection range, and superior range – I do not see ANY effectiveness of previous IJN 15km and 20km torpedo, but WG you know what? you are FORCING IJN DDs to use 8 or 10km torpedoes, still inferior to more stealthy and ranged USN one -.

Now I only see USN DDs are the actual torpedo specialists except the T10 Shimakaze can shoot carpet of torpedoes, which is the only thing that IJN has but still inferior to USN torpedo. Your fancy torpedo accelerator is available only for the new branch, as current branch TA replaces the smoke is just utterly useless.

Tell me. Are they intended and working as WG planned?


Yes. We do not share the perception that IJN DDs are inferior to USN DDs. USN are more unversal – this is true. But that does not mean IJN are worse.

As for long torpedoes..we don’t want 20km torps to be very effecient. It is bad for gameplay. Playing with 8-10 km torps is great, as it is both rewarding (if you do it right, they deal real damage) and dangerous (it can be countered because of shorter engagement range).




Damn missed the start of this. Hopefully someone is still here to answer?

So I’m curious about the Yubari. She’s currently in her final form, with increased AA, but less gun firepower, only having four 140mm guns. That’s the same as the Tier 3 Tenryu.

What is the possibility of seeing Yubari in her original state, with six 140mm guns, but decreased AA, as either a separate ship, or an alternative hull for the existing one?


Almost zero. She is a peculiar premium ship, but she is fine. We don’t see any need to change her now.

9 thoughts on “WoWS Q&A – 3rd December 2016

  1. Dude, Penscola\’s issue is not that she\’s the FIRST heavy cruiser, its that she has paper thin armor AND a HUGE ass detection range. Damnit Sub_Octavian, have you not seen many posts on it?!

  2. “nose-to-nose” meta. Which is not very good and not contributing to the lore.

    THIS. I hate that in real life crossing a T was totally opposite : player who can fire full broadside should have upper hand over the player who can shoot only bow guns….

    1. THIS. I hate that in real life crossing a T was totally opposite : player who can fire full broadside should have upper hand over the player who can shoot only bow guns….

      Sure, except we\’re not in the 17th Century firing 40 guns and raking wooden hulled ships to kill the crew due to a lack of armour. It\’s an outdated tactic that had no place in modern naval combat since you\’d just have your central areas completely wrecked, i.e. what WoWs represents as the \’citadel\’ of a ship containing various essential elements.

      It can be argued that bow armour shouldn\’t be nearly as effective as it is, but presenting belt armour to another ship at the ranges in WoWs is suicidal and due to how the penetration mechanics work, again suicidal. As I said, it\’s an outdated tactic for a different age and completely irrelevant to how the game mechanics work and how modern naval combat was.

      1. \” It’s an outdated tactic that had no place in modern naval combat \”
        Wows is not about moddern naval combat, but WW1 and WW2 combat.
        Educate yourself –
        \”Crossing the T or capping the T is a classic naval warfare tactic used from the late 19th to mid 20th centuries\”

        Or just watch the maps :

        in ww2 – you cross the T – you almost for sure win.

        1. in ww2 – you cross the T – you almost for sure win.

          So using examples where one side had overwhelming firepower and equipment advantages justifies an arguably redundant tactic? Especially when said combatants were either surprised or outclassed? Even in the WW1 cases listed in that wikipedia page the only \’success\’ can be attributed to generally faulty tactics and response on the part of the person being crossed, even the much lauded Royal Navy is listed there as having being beaten at their own game in regards to this (never-mind their casualties that were self-inflicted).

          In any case, in WoWs – you cross the T – you almost for sure lose.

          1. You do realise that IRL many battleships (even WW2 era ones) weren\’t even designed to shoot directly forwards, right? Doing so could even cause damage to their own ship.

            One of the key differences between real life and world of warships is hit probability. This is even more pronounced for the WW1 era battleships, eg. Jutland was around 2-3% per side. Hence doubling your guns on target is FAR more important IRL.

            It\’s a real shame real world navies never had you around to tell them what was redundant and what armchair tactic they should be using. You\’ve played a arcade game on it after all, so you clearly know better than they did.

          2. Ships were built to take hits not on their lightly armoured decks, but their heavily armoured sides! As a broadside: A. let you fire more guns, and B. Provided a smaller profile against incoming fire.

            Each ship fired seven salvos (56 shells) with the results shown.
            As you can see in the image above, there\’s a lot of shells landing uprange or downrange (port/starboard) but in comparison hardly any landing left or right (bow/stern). And if one took the broadsided ships and positioned them bow on, they\’d have taken more fire. And the shells would very likely be more damaging as well due to impacting unarmoured decks.
            Like in a game of horseshoes, if you drew a line between you and the horseshoe pit and treated it as an X&Y axis you usually miss by overshooting or not going far enough but are relatively on target. (Too much/little Y, but X tends to be stable/accurate)

            WoWS with its Nose to the enemy and angle, with broadsides=bad gameplay is truly following a more tanks on water setup, versus actual naval combat.

            Which I believe is part of why German BB\’s have done so well and can plausibly cliim \”Best BB line\” so far. Highest average damage, and most other stats at every tier. Previously you had two nations that obeyed tank-like mechanics and couldnt use all their guns without risk of being slaughtered (US and Japan) and they were relatively balanced against each other.

            Then a line of BB\’s came along that didnt have to strictly follow the rules the others did (You can choose to show broadsides without being neutered by citadel hits) and could play more like ships and less like tanks, that also had counters to one of the usual BB counters (great long range secondaries to make a DD think twice about engaging). And give them mighty nice AA and mix it all together and you\’ve got the dominate/Apex predators as far as BB\’s go.

            Thanks in part to them being able to more closely follow actual naval tactics, \”Crossing the T\” and survive doing so.

            TL;DR crossing the T is definitely valid in a WW1 and WW2 environment. Broadsides should have the advantage in Naval combat but WoWS mechanics are more like a Tanks than a boats, which makes sense as they made a Tank game. German BB\’s play more like ships which puts them at an advantage vs their \’Tank\’ counterparts.

      2. And more, Naval IRL are very, very far compare compare to what we see in WoWS. So IRL, crossing the T might work, but in WoWS, it\’s the fastest way to send you back to port. 😀

Comments are closed.