WoWS Q&A – 19th February 2017

Thanks to Babykim, EU

Q&A from RU dated Friday, 17 February

Q: Do you plan adding the option of selling inventories to the ship tab?
A: Not at the moment; perhaps in the future.

Q: Do you plan improving the display of clan tags? The problem with displaying long nicknames has been compounded by the introduction of clan tags. Can you enlarge the window at least by a factor of two?

A: Yes. You already see the full nickname by hovering the cursor. This only works on the loading screen and in battle, as the same principle applies to other elements of the interface, hover the cursor for more information.

Q: Do you plan introducing premium commanders, who would not need retraining? If you plan commanders similar to Steven Seagal for other nations, what would be their speciality?

A: We do not plan adding premium commanders, and see no reason for doing so given that you can use elite commander experience for retraining. You can now retrain commanders for regular ships without the need to pay doubloons, and the premium ships do not need retraining anyway.

Q: Earlier, you mentioned adding “Sorry” as a quick command. Can you add “Spotted at XY” instead? It would also be nice to be able to tell your allies which equipment you are planning to use, reload times, etc. (see Dota 2).
A: The development of new functions is not a matter of one or two patches. We are collecting user feedback and proceeding accordingly. This year will see changes to quick commands.

Q: Do you plan introducing the carriers Kaga and Akagi as premium ships, and the hybrid ships such as Hyuga and Ise?
A: We cannot announce ships in this format. We consider adding the hybrid ship to the game, but only after having conceptualized their gameplay. These ships are currently subject to internal discussions.

Q: Why ignore user feedback on the position of the Inventory button below the user nickname rather than in line with Port, Modules, Exterior… under the Battle! button? It would be nice to have an option of selling several items (check boxes).
A: We are listening to feedback and are trying to take it into account. Although the Inventory is an important functionality, the majority of players will be using it less often than other options under the Battle! button. We know from the experience of our colleagues in Minsk that the majority of World of Tanks players do not use the inventory, and those who do visit the inventory about once per month. The main menu will include only the most frequently used options to unclutter the interface and reduce the load.

The option of multiple sales was excluded in the first version of this functionality to minimize the number of unwanted random sales. The risk is particularly high at the beginning, with all the excitement and many items to sell. We will include such an option in the future.

Q: Currently you cannot see the possible upgrades before buying the ship. Can you make them visible similarly as for the ships in port?
A: We do not plan this feature, but it is possible that we implement once more pressing issues are resolved.

Q: Please bind same consumables to identical keys.
A: We already answered similar questions in the past. We plan introducing customizable key bindings this year.

Q: You added rare upgrades, which are difficult to obtain, but which occupy the slot of the essential regular upgrades. Can you make a separate slot for rare upgrades?
A: The rare upgrades were not planned for a separate slot in the first version. Their aim is to add further variability in the customization of ships to fit a player’s game style.

Q: Do you plan adding a means of determining the speed of a target?
A: No.

Q: When will you add a compensation for team damage? There is a fine but no compensation.
A: Version 5.12 introduced fixed cost than does not depend on the damage taken. A compensation might lead players to jump on friendly torpedoes, resulting in a large number of unfair bans for team killing. Fines are designed to punish and prevent team damage.

Q: Is this possible to add team statistics after the battle?
A: We plan allowing to view any players statistics after the battle, but I cannot name an implementation date.

Q: Do you plan introducing sea tenders as a class of ships?
A: We had them during the alpha stage, but they did not properly fit the game back then. I cannot exclude their reappearance in the future.

Wiki on sea tenders: https://en.wikipedia…Seaplane_tender

Q: Do you plan adding sailing ships and the armored ships prior to 1906?
A: Sailing ships will definitely not be added. We already have some ships of the second era, and certainly plan adding more.

Q: The Ocean map is now available at tier 10 only, with the probability of occurrence being halved. Many players want this map on all tiers. We are sick and tired of the “city” maps. Please make it as before.
A:  We reduce the chance of occurrence of this map and made it available to tiers 8-10 based on a careful evaluation of statistics and user feedback. This map is unique in that it open tactical possibilities that preclude a high chance of occurrence and the availability at lower tiers.

We balance the maps for all classes of ships. The game includes open maps such as Okinawa and The Atlantic. The criticism of the prevalence of “city” maps is incorrect.

Advertisements

21 thoughts on “WoWS Q&A – 19th February 2017

  1. Seaplanes could perfectly fit as lower Tier (T3) carriers.
    Give them very limited anti-ship capabilities to prevent sealclubbing to happen one Tier lower and give them strong fighter squadrons to give the T4 carriers some challenge while farming poor Tier 3 ships with no AA.

    I wish I knew how to propose it to the devs.

    Like

    1. Oh I don’t know, most tier3 don’t have any actual AA other than a machinegun or terribad 1900’s secondary that can be aimed high enough to serve as an improvised AA gun, judging from the AA value.

      Giving them any anti-ship would be cruel to tier 2s and 3s, and giving them mostly fighters would just make them frustrating to play and play against, seeing as if the enemy carrier dies or runs out of planes, there is literally nothing to do but permaspot a sneaky DD.

      I would be interesting to have seaplane tenders seeing as they’re a charming precursor to CVs, but with the current AA mechanics, I don’t see how it could be possible.

      Like

      1. Example: the IJN Kamikawa Maru (http://www.combinedfleet.com/Kamikawa_c.htm)
        As seen in the link, it could be equipped with two squadrons of 4 Nakajima E8N as fighters and one squadron of 4 Kawanishi E7K as dive bombers. (could be rebalanced in 6-6 if needed)

        I don’t say they should be able to faceroll T4 CVs in air superiority, but at least threaten their squadrons enough to force them to play smart instead of the current situation: wrecking everything in a near-immunity.
        As for the anti-ship abilities, the Kawanishi E7K only carried 2X60kg bombs. In gameplay terms, it is absolute lame (as a reference: the Langley’s squadrons carry 227kg bombs). Even if Tier 2-3 ships have no AA, the impact of such bombs would only cause minor damages. It would hardly change the tide of a game while still allowing to participate and get some xp. No devastating strikes, which is a good thing for everybody, especially new players.
        Everything is a matter of balance to make it enjoyable AND balanced.

        Impossible to statpad like mad with such a ship, the player should focus on:
        -scouting DDs (indirect effect: reduce their impact, as they are currently spammed)
        -choose soft targets, unless he wants to cause fires to the ennemies who used Repair (again, hunting DDs? BBs are too heavily armoured)
        -duelling other CVs to learn the basics of air combat+aircraft management the easy way. More experience acquired before to reach higher Tier CVs.

        I think their presence would be highly beneficial for the whole low Tier gameplay. :)

        Like

        1. Those are good points, and I hope WG can make them work.

          But I respectfully disagree that they can be made both fun and balanced for tier3.
          I think they would be simply too weak in terms of damage and simply too frustrating for sneaky ships like DDs who simply could not shake off any planes with their AA in the single digits, all while being unrewarding for the player to see such puny numbers pop up from their bombs.
          It might even put off some players from grinding CVs.

          Though maybe….with (some) boosted stats as alternate tier4? Giving them a unique ability linked to seaplanes, like being able to recover and send multiple squads at once?

          Like

          1. The best way to figure this out would be internal testing with balance tweaks.
            But only WG can do this and they will never hear about that proposal. :/

            Like

      1. Aiming doesn’t change. You look at the target, you look at the map (or your mod if you use one) and you shoot. The map makes no difference, aiming is always the same.

        Range doesn’t change either. Simply because island maps have more obstacles doesn’t mean that you can’t fight at long range. Most don’t do it because they prefer to use cover to get as close as possible. That’s the only difference.
        I do it because i like to maximize my damage output. I shoot as soon as i get in range. Not to mention that a lucky long range shot can cause detonation.

        Getting hit from many different angles,again,happens no matter the map. But what does “many different angles” mean anyway? You can get hit from the front or one of the sides.
        Even on ocean map the team usually splits in two groups. One goes east, one goes west. It’s impossible to get hit from all 3 sides (front,left,right) unless you charge right in the middle like an idiot.

        Like

      1. My thought was that this guy who was bitching has had enough of cruisers hugging islands and spamming HE at him. But with the current map design cruisers aren’t exactly having an easy time against the ever-popular BBs

        Like

  2. “We had them during the alpha stage, but they did not properly fit the game back then. I cannot exclude their reappearance in the future”

    more and more I think 10 tiers are just not enough if you consider the variy in naval constuction since the early 20th century, I’ve never thought of seaplane tenders since they were support ships but they might work somehow
    for me the main issue is the game leaving out Crvettes and Frigates that plyed a massive role in both WWI and WWII, the problem is that they cannot compete evn with the lower tier ships
    one solution would be more WWI ships (there’s a lack of WWI ships in the game, most are interwar and WWII ships) which would allow:
    Corvettes
    Frigates
    Coastal defense ships (also refered to as coastal battleships)
    PT-boats
    maybe even:
    larger river defense boats
    gunboats (like the german battle barge or the american tank landing ship with several 5in, 3in, 40mm bofors and 20mm oerlikon)

    but even if we think only of the usual classes (the ones in the game) there is still many ships that would only fit low tiers, the USN alone has 7 or 8 classes of battleships that would be either equal to (1 or 2 maybe even inferior) Mikasa (only tier 2 BB), a few maybe equal to South Carolina and a few that would fit in between tier 2 and 3
    of course it’s not only the US and BBs, all nations have WWI DDs inferior to the ones currently at tier 2 and 3

    I really think that there would be enough material for 15, 16, 17 or 18 tiers, too bad WoWs is part of the “World of ….” and its 10 tier format, maybe if WoT expanded, as some have been requesting almost since release

    Like

        1. don’t even start about WT naval battles, they decided the players wouldn’t like to play with bigger ships, if anyone still honestly believe that was the real reason it’s because they haven’t noticed the shit gaijin has been doing (steam summer sale for example)

          the main issue is that the soviets were the only ones active enough developing the kinds of ships selected for WT, just do a quick search and you will probably be able to count with your thingers the classes of gunboats or river patrol ships designed and built in the US (that BB built in a lake is also too big for it), UK and even Germany

          the situation is even more difficult for Japan, it is a island nation, why spend resources on such vessels that wouldn’t have enough power to deflect enemy attacks?

          the result will probably be a complete domination of soviet ships that would mostly face “torpedo-armed fast attack craft” armed with torpedos but otherwise mostly AA guns (many of them being machineguns)

          but why would they do that? name a russian/soviet BB that can go against a Iowa, Yamato, Bismarck, Richelieu, Littorio, King George V, North Carolina or Queen Elizabeth with honest chances to win the battle?
          and what about cruisers?

          of course they can’t have that, the russian playerbase would simply not play naval battles (because they would get wreacked when bottom BR) and whine about it

          WT naval battles are a completely different matter and have nothing to do with the fact that Corvettes, Frigates and coastal deffense ships would be balanced against slightly older DDs, CAs and BBs than the ones currently ar low tiers in WoWs, and even much more effective/fun to play than seaplane tenders

          if you think about it PT-boats could be added in a way similar to aircraft, having a timer on those seaplane tenders (or other support ship) allowing you to “launch” a PT-boat you could directly control but could only launch as many torps it carries (uually 2 or 4), then you would need to go back to the “mainship” or lose it if destroyed (like aircraft on CVs)

          P.S: I would even say that anyone who thinks that nothing was used from the designs presented by italian and american companies in the design of the Sovetsky Soyuz is obviously deluded, they would even be dumb if they did not take the chance to do it

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I don’t know about you but I found the german Armored Barge quite a beast and able to dominate the russian river boat one on one in the latest pre beta test rounds.

            Like

            1. I know, I tought I had mentioned it BUT I didn’t, it’s a beast and there are 2 or 3 more variants (I think there’s even a italian variant), 1 with 75mm instead of the 88s and the others with AA weapons, it was afterall built based on a tank landing barge, or something
              even the USN had something similar, a tank landing ship with 76.2mm guns, 40mm bofors and 20mm oerlikons (probably some .50cal as well), but being over 100 meters long will probably mean it won’t be added, but that is beside the point

              it’s the exception to the and I was thinking more about the “big picture”, you will a nicely fleshed out soviet tree, the US mostly with torpedo-armed fast attack crafts, the british and german trees will probably sit in between (some gunboats and some torpedoboats), but what about Japan? they also designed a few fast-attack crafts but as we can see on the pre-beta all it takes is 1 good shot and they are done before even launching torps

              but even with the few crafts and the post war patrol I don’t see the tree become filled with enough ships for each BR, they neither had the resources, time or need for gunboats, they needed powerfull ships to defend the home islands from enemy assaults

              even the US and british trees might end a bit empty

              Like

    1. The main problem with 10 tiers format is inability to show how revolutionary HMS Dreadnought was… It should be tier 2 [and OP as fuck] but they will probably balance it into mediocre tier 3… Also sooo many pre-dreadnoughts will never made it into game…. :(

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Sooo no word on the Black being OP?
    Okaay then.
    On another hand, can’t wait for the CV rework. But WG/Lesta has to be clear about how they want games to be played. Did they want the carriers to be support ships? just spotting, carrying out the occasional dive/torpedo attack, and let the battleships be the main dealer of damage?
    Because as far as I understand, Carriers were capital ships too. If WG/Lesta wants a game where you reenact Tsushima or Jutland in every single battle, then they should discard the Carriers altogether.

    Like

    1. You don’t get it – WG wants a game that will show obvious superiority of BBs over puny CVs…
      So little balance tweak, little history change, few paper projects and there you have – a game that will prove it :)

      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