WoWS: Sub_Octavian Q&A (3rd March 2017)

Q: Can you explain why camo application works like it currently does? How it must must be destroyed to change types, unlike other things like signals and consumables? I understand the realism factor. Once you apply paint, you can’t get it back. But from a gaming perspective, what does this add? I feel it only really adds some frustration. For example, maybe my ship is 5000 XP from being elite, and I want to use +100% XP camo to finish it off. If I leave the resupply on, then I run the risk of having a good game that elites the ship and then “wasting” the next camo because I don’t need the bonuses anymore. I can turn resupply off, but then before every battle until I elite it I need to manually reapply it. And then I risk accidentally forgetting and entering battle with no camo. I can’t see this adding player choices, it just makes a memory game of remembering when to turn on/off resupply or to put camo on before every battle.

A: Well, the original design was connected with IRL logic as you said – you cannot demount camo from the ship. However, when you think about it…this is not the matter where we should stick to IRL logic. Your idea is solid – this is the matter of comfort. We discussed your question with game designers and decided to improve camo application logic so it will be demountable like signal flags. I’m not promising 0.6.3 or 0.6.4, but I think we will manage to squeeze it into some of the foreseeable future updates. Thank you for your input!

Q: Impact of the Protected MM on Tier 5+6 How does WG feel about the protected MM many months on. Is the quantity of mid tier (5+6) games stabilized given any decrease in experienced players at these tiers compensated by the intended increase in new players having a more comfortable entry to mid tier. Was there an impact on tier 5+6 premium ship popularity due to the protected MM. I can only speak for myself that I rarely play my tier V premiums.

A: We feel that was the right decision. T V-VI are filled with quite powerful ships, including premiums. Now, they are not threatening new players at low tiers, while maintaining nice gameplay. And TVII-VIII became more popular, which is good. The quantity of mid tier games is not dramatically dropping, and I wouldn’t say this change has put some major disadvantage to these ships. For example, from last 2 weeks stats: T V ships were top tier in battle in 38,5% of cases. It does not look like they are always uptiered. Thus, we don’t see any need to change MM right now. But we’re definitely keep monitoring the stats and your feedback on it.

Q: Can we have commands for destroyers, something like “I’m going to lay smoke” or “About to launch torpedoes” This will help with communication to tell other people that anyone who wants to join in the smoke knows im going to do it or warn allies so they dont get in between you and the enemies when they know ur about to torpedo. p.s. When can we expect to get higher tier premium IJN BBs?

A: Well, as I said in some of the previous Q&As, we want to upgrade the quick commands system at some point, including new features. We’re not ready to share the details yet, but your suggestion about consumables and armament warnings is nice and logical. Thank you! P.S. I cannot disclose any ship release dates. Sorry.

Q: According to various leaks and a google-translated russian portal page, the RUDD are going to get their HE damage buffed. what was the balancing decision behind that, as currently the russian DDs dont seem to lack in the damage department according to third-party sites like, unlike a certain other nation.

A: We have to remember that HP absolute values are quite different between classes. VMF DDs are busy trying to make BBQ from BBs, so their absolute damage numbers look good. But when we studied their competitive aspect comparing to other light ships and relative damage, we realized they could use this buff. We don’t expect them to rocket up, but at least will be in better balance with other destroyers.

Q: Have you considered making hydro and radar ranges dependent on the ship classes you’re spotting? E.g. an Atlanta-type radar would spot a DD within 8.5km, a CL/CA within 9.5km and a BB within 10.5km. In my opinion this would be more realistic and it would discourage capital ships hiding in smoke for an extended period of time, possibly leading to a more dynamic gameplay experience.

A: Surely we considered similar idea when we were designing these consumables. However, we decided to reject it in favor of user-friendly and predictable mechanics, and honestly, we doubt it would be wise to change it now. Capital ships sitting in smoke is rare case, and without DD/UK CL speeding ability, they are easily countered by torpedo spamming.

Q: Take 2: My question is about the Clear Sky achievement. It got changed a long time ago as it was far too easy to achieve at high tiers. This was a necessary change. Whilst the change might have achieved the effect of reducing how often it was awarded, it has flipped too far the other way, particularly at high tier. For example see this screenshot: So my questions are: How many clear sky awards are achieved in an average week at tiers 8-10? How many people have achieved ‘Honorable Service with honors’? Then, if we have an answer to these questions, do the devs feel that this is what they wanted to happen with these changes? I mean, if that guy didn’t get it for 82 kills then what more is expected? And how are you supposed to achieve it at those tiers particularly with ships like the Minotaur and Des Moines having massive AA themselves. I am not asking for the achievement to become easy/meaningless but can the devs consider trying to make it so that it can be attained (with some similar level of difficulty) across all tiers?

A: We think it’s not necessary to dig in statistics to agree with your point:) Clear Sky achievement needs tweaking, and we will do it when it’s time for achievements update. Thank you for highlighting this!

Q: Not long ago the 250x signal flag supercontainers were removed from the game. Similarly, signal flag rewards in the current ranked season were cut way back (by as much as 75%, I believe), with none at all being given out from ranks 9 through 2. Is this an indication that you believe signal flags are providing too much of an advantage to some players, and you’re trying to cut back on their usage?

A: Not exactly. The problem is, these signals were initially designed as rare/medium items with remarkable bonuses and value. However, with more and more ways to get them, the situation started to get out of control. When such things become default, it is bad. It messes with balancing ships and reduces ship customization value. We want to reduce signals flow so that their usage is deliberate. We realize it may upset some of you folks, but it needs to be done. Otherwise, we may as well apply these bonuses by default to all ships and forget about signals.

Q: I guess not so many people will ask about maps so I will add more diversity to the question pool 😀 1)How do you think about these particular high tier maps: Tears of the Desert, Okinawa and Mountain Range. I think these maps give the majority of playerbase little choice of movement and strategy and encourage passive play. -For Tears of the Desert, in Domination mode the area inside B cap has completely no cover and the routes leading to it are fairly narrow which makes pushing into it at the start in non-smoke cruisers or battleships extremely dangerous. Therefore most people decide to split up and go to A and C cap first. But these two caps don’t have enough cover to support close-range engagement either and force both teams to exchange fire at long distance until one achieves assured HP advantage to push. -Okinawa also has very little cover at B and C cap. The A cap is too narrow for a big force to move in and maneuver inside, not to mention you cannot support B and C effectively due to the large island between A/B blocking your shells (except some special cases like t9/10 RN and US cruisers). Bow-on camping battleships at B and C seem to be the best choice on this map. -Mountain Range is almost the same as Okinawa, except that the problem is at A and B cap. In addition, the chain of islands in the middle of the map is designed vertically which forces cruisers/battleships to go undetected before they can move from A to B. It is not always possible to do so and if that is the case, they would have to risk showing broadside which is not a very good option. So again, camping BB at A and B cap. All these maps have worsened my t10 experience by a lot compared to lower tier maps which actually have some cover and provide many strategy alternatives. Do you have the same thought? I would appreciate if you can show us some internal analysis as well. 2)Will Warrior’s Path in Epicenter mode get released to random battles or is it exclusive in ranked? Do you have any plan to expand the use of Epicenter mode in other maps too? (New Dawn and Loop are pretty good maps to do so imo)

A: Alright, thank you for detailed question and the ability to talk to Maps team:D

  1. Okinawa, ToD and Mountain Range are intermediate maps according to our recent player survey. We will look into your feedback further on, but right now there are no plans to change these maps. 1a. Okinawa is a map based on IRL location and it is not to be changed.
  2. We will discuss that after Ranked-6 is over and we have full analysis.

Q: How does the analysis go after a season of ranked battle, what are the focal points for you to determine if it was a successful season, and what needs tweaking/scrapping/adding? Superleague: what did urge the nerfing of the container reward from all players to just the Top2? Was it people AFKing, or the people just playing really fast-paced and “silly”? (I could also write 251 paragraphs about the longstanding issues and disdain with/from WG-EU, but as a dev you can’t do much about that, so I’ll leave it as it is (but if you can provide me with the coordinates to whom I should adress these concerns, please send them to me))

A: Well, in terms of data, our main interest is numbers (relative to game audience and absolute) of participants, their involvement (how much do they play), their progress to R1 and feedback. Feedback is to be analyzed after season ends, mostly, when we have full picture. As for the numbers – they are great, and in this respect Season 6 looks better than very successful Season 5. Of course there are lots of aspects to consider, including controversial ship balance and current meta. Superleague had both AFK and “silly” cases, unfortunately. Our solution was forced, and of course we will do our best to avoid such “live” changes in the future. But we really had to act. The situation in Superleague was getting ridiculous. P.S. Please let me state this very clear. While I personally work in S-Pete DEV office, I represent my company here, and we, World of Warships staff in all offices, are one big team. If I can help you, I will, to my best knowledge. But I kindly ask you to stop making divisions. Otherwise, I don’t think I will be able to provide any meaningful communication. Thank you!

Q: Hi Octavian. I have quite a few things to ask, actually. -1s. Will we get permanent Camouflage for Tier 5 ships? There are quite a few popular ships both known for its history and in game performances, I am sure that people will want some special camo to go with them. 2.The new patch with the new special upgrades has been out for sometime, do you have statistics around what percentage of the people who got it have actually used it? As far as I can see the community is not happy with these upgrades and many simply sold it for credits. Do you think they need a rework? 3.I knew this question has been asked for a lot of times, but again. The IJN DD rework is out for quite sometime, do you still think they are competitive? How’s the statistics doing? I might be wrong here but on the main line they aren’t doing great are they? Is it really players who have to adapt to a newer playstyle? Or is it that they are not equipped good enough to do the job? Any words on potential buffs? 4.Could the Japanese techtree get some high tier trainers? They have one of the fewest amount of premiums for tier 5 and above despite having a full tech tree. Atago is the only good money maker/captain trainer out there. Mutsu is tier 6 but still not a very good trainer. 5.Haifuri collaboration details, if possible? I know this is handled mainly by the asia cluster but there is no way to directly connect with asia server Devs. 6.The long-awaited CV rework? Could you please give an approximation on how Long we will have to wait for? 7.With the gradual removal of open water stealth fighting, will there be buffs to ships very reliant on this feature? Notable examples like Akizuki and other gunboat DDs. I mean even in the Akizuki Amada video the concealment is advertised as one of its main advantages. Regards

A: Whoa, that’s the spirit. Let’s try to answer em all!

  1. It is possible, but our Art team has very tight schedule and lots of incoming tasks. I think they will make it to T V some day, but I cannot promise. In terms of player usefulness, top-tier permanent camos are better, as T V economy is very mild and is not going to profit as much from permanent camos.
  2. We will perform analysis approximately in a month. Now, it’s too early. Personal experience: I got speed boost and smoke screen upgrades. My Shira and Perth are very happy:)
  3. They are competitive, but, as I said many times, they have become more skill-dependent. Yes, many players adapted, and it’s nice to see even well-performing Akatsukis in Ranked. However, large number of players seem to play in old style, lowering ships avg. stats. Ah, let me show you:) I downloaded their 0.6.1 stats of winrate and damage, compared them to other researchable DDs.

Let’s look at avg WR ranking:

Minekaze 1/5 Mutsuki 3/5

Fubuki 5/5 Hatsuharu 2/5

Akatsuki 4/5 Shiratsuyu 1/5

Akizuki 1/5 Kagero 3/5

Yugumo 4/4

Shimakaze 4/4

Now, let’s take a look at damage, but not avg. values. We will check out the top 5%, median and lowest 5% to see how skill affects their performance.


As you can see with this example, they often occupy low positions in median stats, but as for top players, they tend to be very competitive. That’s exactly what we wanted, and thus, there is no need for any emergency changes (although, Shira may need some nerfing). Some additional tweaks may be applied in future, though. For example, we’re currently not very happy with Yugumo performance. But the fact won’t change: learn to play more aggressively and risky, and you will be scoring great results with IJN DDs. And while avg.winrate is not top most of the time, we see what these ships can do if played properly. Our team will be working with your feedback and try to keep all ships competitive and enjoyable.

  1. It will. I can only ask for your kind patience.
  2. We’re working on ships, sounds and commanders. We aim for 2017, and I cannot provide more information than that. Sorry.
  3. It will not be implemented as one big update that will change everything at once. We’re testing first improvement pack right now and aiming for 0.6.3. Stay tuned!
  4. No preliminary buffs will be made, because even with advantages, we did not design any ship in the game to rely only on SF. However, we will be observing the stats as thoroughly as we can after SF removal, and we will be ready to apply buffs, should any ships lose their value.

Q: Do you have any planned buffs for the Mikasa? The Mikasa is weaker than other tier 2 ships, and while it is a novelty vessel, it should also be competitive. Even simply allowing it to use Aiming Systems Mod 0 would be a significant improvement

A: Well, frankly speaking, she is not weaker than other tier 2 ships. She is somewhere in the middle in terms of damage, has unsurprisingly good survivability and has winrate of 52% (3rd place). We don’t want to promote sealclubbing and thus, it wouldn’t be wise to buff her. AS Mod 0…would probably make her ideal seal clubbing tool:(

Q: Greetings Sub With Montana and Iowa confirmed to get their citadel lowered (many thanks) Will the Missouri and Alabama also receive their historical citadel? Edit: We know from the game model from the ST version of the Alabama that she has the raised citadel. I am hoping that both the ST and regular version both have their citadel lowered.

A: Hello! Missouri should have same pattern as Iowa, so don’t worry about it. As for Alabama, she was on production test, and we don’t see any reason to buff her. She is absolutely fine in her current state. Please note that citadel spacing is not the question of realism, but more of balance. If we see any real need to do it, we can alter it to improve the gameplay.

Q: Hi there. 1. Is there a plan to balance MM so that 1 team doesn’t get 4 radars and the other team gets none? In ranked this happened 6 games in a row to me. Obviously ridiculously unfair. 2. More campaigns please!

A: 1. We will think about it and other improvements for the next Ranked Seasons. 2. Sure!:)

Q: Status on HaiFuri Collaboration? We have 0 news on it since it’s announcement.

A: (repeat) We’re working on ships, sounds and commanders. We aim for 2017, and I cannot provide more information than that. Sorry.

Q: Heyho Sub! While reading the latest news on the new RU DDs I noticed that one branch gets the Defensive Fire AA consumable. Here the quote from the portal article: The destroyers Ognevoi, Udaloi, and Grozovoi are equipped with dual-purpose artillery, and this advantage is further emphasised by the possibility to mount the “Defensive AA fire” consumable on these ships in place of an “Engine Boost”. Sauce: After reading this I somehow felt a little bit strange. Yes, I know that the Akizuki is currently performing very well and you said some time ago (if i remember correctly) that she already shoots down more planes than you guys actually have planed. Which makes me curious somehow. Why does it make me curious? Because there is the fact, that where ever you read about Akizuki, it states that she was actually an AA DD. In other words: It kinda let me think about it why a dedicated AA Ship, which the Akizuki was (even the japanese ack then thought about the 100mm guns as their best AA guns), doesn’t get a Defensife Fire AA consumable. And how can she as a AA platform even “shoot down too much planes”. Historicaly spoken: It was her job to do that. Do not even get me started on the fact that T8-T10 CVs have a ton of planes anyway… A small quote: The Akizuki-class ships were originally designed as anti-aircraft escorts for carrier battle groups, but were modified with torpedo tubes and depth charges to meet the need for more general-purpose destroyer. Sauce: Even in a certain game (you most probably know which one i mean with the following description) where ships are “personalized” as “shipgirls” Akizuki class DDs introduce themself as AA ships. And I honestly do not think that a japanese game would make this up when you can read this literally everywhere anyway. So in the end Akizuki is with her 100mm guns kinda a snowflake. We know that her guns behave really strange and that you need a special kind of skillset on the captain to get the maximum out of it. But on the other hand it kinda feels strange. Why does it feel strange? Because it kinda looks like that you do not tread ships with same characteristics the same way? RU AA DDs (they most probably were ones, afterall you wouldn’t make them to those kind of ships if they wouldn’t be ones wouldn’t you?) get the Def AA Skill meanwhile the Jap AA platform doesn’t. You already use the 100mm as dual purpose anyway… But in the end you didn’t gave a ship, where every gun is literally an AA gun, the Def AA ability… Why? Some more links:

A: Hello. We are quite happy that Akizuki is good in shooting down the planes, and we are aware of her IRL role. That’s why we gave her very strong base AA values (for her current tier). We will consider Def AA fire option instead of some other consumable, but I should say there is no rule that every ship with strong AA should have Def AA fire. For example, Minotaur is notorious for her AA, but she manages well without Def AA fire, and giving it to her actually would be pretty crazy. Many battleships in the game have large AA armament, not worse than AA cruiser’s, but again, we’re not giving them Def fire. This is where historical accuracy and gameplay collide. Thank you for interesting question:)

Q: Hello there Sub! Short one this time: Removal or change of stealth firing in the open water that was planned – will this enveloping change also affect premium ships capable of stealth fire?

A: Hi! Yes. As you probably know, we always do our best to preserve premium ships from nerfing. However, systematic changes to game mechanics should not skip premiums, as it is not fair and contradicts free-to-win model.

Q: 1. Could you provide the winrate difference when one team has 1 more DD than another in high tier game? 2. Could you provide the winrate difference when one team has more USN DD than another in high tier game? e.g. one team has 2 Gearing and another team has 2 Shima. 3. As you mentioned before that Iowa and Montana will get a citadel buff in 0.6.4, will Missouri get that buff as well? 4. Could the New Year 2017 camo get the -3% detect range and +4% dispersion bonus, like other exp boost camos? I got hunderds of them during the new year but I cannot even use them on my DDs and CAs because the loss of stealth. And I don’t think add these bonus will cause any imbalance.

A: 1. Yes. It is around 1%, in the favour of fewer OR more DDs, depending on overall DD quantity in battle. We studied this case specifically, based on community feedback, and as a result, know that the influence is utterly low.

  1. Uh-oh! If there are 2 Shimas and 2 Gearing in battle, they should be distributed evenly (if they are not in divisions). This is how MM should work. If you have evidence contrary to this, please PM me, and we will look into it.
  2. Yes. But let us not dive into abyss of exaggeration:) I said we will consider this change for 0.6.4. That is not = “will be done in 0.6.4”.
  3. No. The reason is very simple – it is a cost-effecient camo designed for great economical boost. If it had standard combat bonuses, it should have been priced higher. Tip: you can actually do well in DD and CA without -3% detect range and +4% dispersion, unless you are ultra-pro-elite-kind-of-guy. Sorry.

Q: This is more a technical question than a gameplay one: how optimized is WoWS for multiple core usage – i.e, how nicely does it play with the new Ryzen processors (which are 8 cores, 16 threads)? Or is it more IPC-dependent?

A: The game is optimized for multiple core, and utilizes its power, but there is certainly room to improve. Unfortunately, we haven’t tested it with Ryzen yet.

Q: Good morning Sub_Octavian! I hope the last few weeks went well. Now…. question time: Question 1: Will there be an option to turn off notifications in port (e.g. the notification after every battle that consumables have been resuplied)? Question 2: Please have a look in the (german) forum at the picture of an Amagi shooting a full HP Bismarck. The Amagi hits the Bismarck with three AP shells (according to the detailed ribbons two regular pens for 33% max AP dmg = 4158 DMG and one overpenetration for 10% max AP dmg = 1260 DMG. However the game displays 5418 DMG and 2239 DMG. Can you please explain why the numbers deviate? I assume the DMG calculator panel on the top right corner of the screen is correct. I know this calculation given by you Question 3: How about more tutorials (similar to iChase’s captain academy) for new(er) players (e.g. when to use HE vs. AP, how armour angeling works, what a CV manual drop is)? Question 4: Are you statswise satisfied with the distribution of ships in the current ranked season? Are there any “off” ships that performed better/worse than you expected? Thank you very much for this! Looking forward to the new RU DDs

A: Good evening here!:)

  1. I will discuss it with UI team. But this option is widely requested? I have to look through UI feedbacks to know…
  2. Looks like game logic bug with ribbons. I will pass it to QA dept. Thank you.
  3. Yes! We are working on it, trying to implement quick, yet effecient solution.
  4. More or less. Probably too much of Shira, too few Rangers and Kievs.

I look forward to them too. Thank you for your questions.

Q: 1. How do you feel about the perceived dominance of the Belfast, especially regarding the ranked season? A lot of players seem to be laughing at best about WG NA’s claim that Fiji was just as strong if played correctly, when the ranked reality seems that the team with more smokes+radars always has a sizeable advantage, with Belfast being the only ship to provide both.

  1. What do you think about the worries of the community that you are going overboard with radar? It seems that the first US and USSR radar ships had to pay hefty prices to get that tool, while new releases get powerful combinations of radar with good concealment and even smoke, while maintaining powerful weaponry.
  2. What do you think about the community’s concerns with the weakness of German DDs, and especially the complaints about their terrible concealment after firing their guns? I think most players accept that the USN DD situation (<10 km stealth firing) is very annoying, but are equally frustrated to be spotted from up to 15 km for firing a small calibre gun.


  1. Belfast is definitely very strong, that would be stupid to miss. But, at the same time, there are other very effecient ships at T VII, and there is nothing to laugh about. I think we should work hard to improve Ranked balance, but I don’t share the point that this season is bad.
  2. If “new releases” is Belfast, then yes, this is powerful combo, and I doubt that we will use it often.
  3. Their concealment after firing is likely be tweaked along with stealth firing removal, pretty soon. Then, we will see if additional buffs are needed, but as I said before, right now only Z-52 looks as she could use our love.