Huge WoWS Q&A – 25th March 2017

META and related:

Question: He mentioned that the way Overwatch balances is by looking at three aspects, players, stats, and internal feedback but rarely these things are aligned so they have to make compromises. How does StPB balance ships? Have you ever had to make compromises regarding a line? It it purely following stats or is it more a feel thing? (In regards to a QnA given by the director of Overwatch)

Answer: Yes, we had such cases. The director of Overwatch (unsurprisingly, as Blizzard are almost gods of balance, I think) put it absolutely right. These three aspects are always involved, and they often contradict. We, however, have additional issue – our game is based on IRL naval warfare. And despite of numerous conventions and “gameplay first” principle, we cannot act however we wish in balancing. We cannot make BBs purely tanks, cruisers purely support and DDs purely damage dealers, for example. While that would probably make balancing the game much easier, at the same time, that would greatly harm the immersion and historical accuracy, which is quite important for our core audience.

Question: He later went on to mention that their PT isn’t accurate for data gathering because players only stick around for one or two matches, does the same thing happen with World of Warships or does the fact that you get live server rewards help people to test more?

Answer: Again, this is right (although, I wouldn’t say that our players do only 2 matches – there are different levels of involvement across the board). PT stats are helpful, but they are not good enough for fine-tuning. The best two things about PT are players feedback (perception of changes) and version polishing (in terms of quality). Rewarding players for PT participation is good practice, I think, but more for adequate player quantity. Engaged and interested players are hardly motivated by the rewards – they want to be ahead of things and care about the project, that’s why they participate.

Question: Maps. In World of Tanks, players have the option to select/deselect which battle modes they want to engage in – why can’t Warships implement this same system. Many players dislike the Epicenter and Bastion game modes you’ve experimented with and would prefer to just play Domination. When can we expect a similar option, such as in World of Tanks, to opt out of crappy game modes.

Answer: Such option is not planned for any future updates. We remove the stuff that is not enjoyable, like Bastion, but not going to split match making

CARRIER and rework:

Question: are tier V CV’s getting protected MM where they won’t see tier VI CV’s ?

Answer: No. In any case T-V CV can meet T-VI CV in battle, it will be accompanied by additional friendly T-VI CV and countered by additional T-V enemy CV. While this will indeed increase the difference between T-V and T-VI CVs, such situation will hardly make noticeable impact. But we are aware of this concern, so we will be paying much attention to it.

Follow-UP-Question: At the same time you assume that the now hamstrung CV players will not suffer greatly at the hands of those who set up their sealclubbing shop on T6 now?

Answer: Your argument is made from experienced player POV. Which I respect, but unfortunately, cannot agree with. Sorry, but novice progress in learning the game does not work like that. Yes, we strongly believe that 0.6.3 low tier CV state is better than 0.6.2 low tier CV state.

Question: It has been said by you and others, that this year will be the year of the CV rework. How do you think will the less of manual dropping impact the CV population? Especially if you think about new players that get little to no hint once they progress past T5, that they now have a new tool available (manual drop). Are there any tutorials planned in regards to manual dropping?

Answer 1: The 0.6.3 CV changes are absolutely not everything we want to do, and it may even not reflect the whole concept we are working on. These changes are done to improve current CV balance. However, we are working on several prototypes that have complete “rework” feel – in terms of AA mechanics, drop mechanics, etc. As any rework is quite stressful for players, we are taking our time to do these prototypes properly, and then they will be tested. So, right now, we don’t know for 100% how CVs will change in 2017 – we have several solid ideas that need to be polished and presented to you – the players – for trying. But we are definitly going to work on this class, as we promised.

Answer 2: Manual drop removal is done mainly to improve low-tier balance and reduce seal-clubbing.

Answer 3: Tutorials are planned, my team is working on quite an interesting project of tutorials via personal offers, that will even have some flexibility to match player skill level. Right now we’re onto some very basic stuff for T-I – III ships, but if we launch it, and it feels good, we will definitely go on with dedicated CV tutorial.

Question: On top of the previous question: I assume if a T5 and a T6 CV are in the same battle (so 2 CVs per team), then the T5 CV can’t use manual dropping, while the T6 CV can. Is this assumption correct?

Answer: Already answered.

Question: Considering the proposed changes to CVs (tier 4/5) and the removal of strafe and manual drops from these tiers, why don’t we just move to a +1/-1 matchmaking across the board, rather than a +1/-1 for tiers 1-4 and +2/-2 for tiers 5-10?

Answer: Because current MM settings work best.

Question: Is there a vision/strategy/grand design for CV balancing? My biggest gripes currently are imbalanced earnings (really hard to get to top XP even with a great game), and poor loadouts of USN CVs compared to IJN CVs.

Answer: I partly answered here. Loadouts can also be re-evaluated, including USN CVs. As for economy, due to players feedback and stats analysis, we concluded that their earnings were too averaged. We are fixing this in 0.6.3, so epic wins will be bringing larger numbers.

Question: Regarding the removal of alt-fire for CVs at T4/5. I can see why such a decision would be taken – the gap in performance between CV players able to utilise alt-fire and those who aren’t is enormous, and given the small amount of AA and lack of Defensive Fire makes manually-dropped torpedoes devastating. Still, learning manual drop is an essential mechanic for CV players, especially at higher tiers, and forcing new CV players to learn it at T6 where they might meet AA monstrosities such as the Cleveland and the Atlanta seems harsh. So, instead of removing such a mechanic from the game, have the devs considered implementing a proper tutorial (as it is right now, the only way players will even find out about alt-fire is through guides or asking on the forums) and increasing T4/5 AA, perhaps giving cruisers Defensive Fire, to make manual drops less devastating? It would teach players better teamplay early on, too.

Answer: We considered different options. The problem is that you are looking from experienced player perspective. For a novice, the choice between “learn manual drop at T6, when you already learned other CV aspects” or “learn everything at once, with kind CV seal-clubbers to help you around and to delete you” is much..less clear. And you are absolutely right about the need to introdcue much more tutorial aspects to the game. We are working on it.

CLANS and related:

Question: Clan system. When will we see an expansion of the clan system? Limiting clans to only 30 roster slots seems like a money grab, as we’ve seen several clans now implement successive clan tags. There has been literally zero progress made on the clan system in Warships.

Answer: I think I mentioned this, but it won’t hurt to repeat: clan system will be expanded for sure. Our plan was “socialization – causal clan gameplay – competitive clan gameplay – meta-clan gameplay”. The plan is still in action, and we are working on step 2 right now. As for limitation of 30, we are aware that this limit does not accommodate some big established clans, and we are working on solution as well. No money grab intended – that would be quite pointless even from pure business perspective.

Question: Clan battles. Currently, other clans are sponsoring, organizing and running clan competitions and clan battles, because the game does not yet support this feature. When will we see clan battles? Will clan battles follow a similar system as in World of Tanks (that is, tiers 6, 8, and 10) or will Warships have a different tier system?

Answer: I cannot go into details, but according to our plan I described in the first point, the stuff you are talking about is step 3 and partly 4.

0.6.3 – Stealthfiring:

Question: Do you agree that the suggested fix for stealth firing will disproportionately affects the ships, DDs specifically, that have long gun range and/or are specialized into increasing the range? The scenario I am describing is: Say you are in a DD and fighting another DD at close range. Your gun range is 15km because you took all the skills and modules for range. His support BBs are at 14km. With current mechanics, the BB at 14km will not be spotting you and relying on the DD you are fighting. With new mechanics, the BB will also be spotting you, so if the enemy DD was to smoke up or die… you are still spotted. If you didnt have AFT, you would no longer be spotted.

Answer: No. I fully understand the scenario you are talking about, but I find it very situational and overestimated. Your after-firing 20s penalty will be cut off if no enemies are in direct LOS – and on most maps, there’s lots of terrain around the caps. You also will have smokes available. We’ll be monitoring this scenario on PTS to be sure everything works as intended. If you want my personal opinion, as a player, I’m not going to change anything in my builds. My USN, KM and IJN DDs (but for Akizuki) are doing without AFT/range mod, and VMF leaders are built for provoking fire, so they are going with it and rudder shift. Not sure about VMF 2nd branch and whether I can free up 4 points by removing AFT from Akizuki, remembering about her big range buff..we’ll see. (Adendum) Sorry, I put it wrong: the penalty itself stays, but if no one sees you in LOS, you won’t be detected through terrain or smokes.

Question: Wargaming seems to have a long standing (unwritten) rule of not engaging in massive nerfs to premium vehicles (ships/tanks) – and yet the discussed changes to “stealth firing” will do exactly that to several premium ships in the game (Gremy/Blyskawica/Kutuzov, etc). How will Wargaming provide compensation for these drastic changes, as the ships will no longer be what was advertised when we purchased, in accordance with the EU Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices.

Answer: There will be no compensation upon 0.6.3 changes. All battle specs remain the same, it is the game mechanics that is changed, and making it influence only researchable ships would be absolutely unfair. Additionally, I don’t remember any premium shop description that involves stealth firing (although I am not checking them all on all regions). And finally, I don’t recomment going this way, because we always care for premiums so they are competitive and buff them directly when it is needed. Without sticking to this “you bought exactly what you bought” idea. If we revert all positive changes to all premium ships, I guess, many of them will become much less enjoyable, with formal “we did not change a thing” being true. Stealth firing is an option which is utilized with certain commander skills and modernizations. For this part, free respecs/demounts will be introduced in 0.6.3. P.S. If any ship, including premium, will become unplayable in 0.6.3, it will be tuned in 0.6.4. Having lots of good ships in game is the mutual interest of players and developers.

Question: If the stealth firing change goes through in its current form, are there any plans to introduce modules or skills that lower your gun range?

Answer: Sorry, I put it wrong: the penalty itself stays, but if no one sees you in LOS, you won’t be detected through terrain or smokes.

Question: In your opinion, doesn’t the decision to get rid of stealth firing contradict WG’s official we don’t nerf premiums stance? If the answer is no, then why? Stealthfiring was definitely a major selling point for some premium ships.

Answer: 

  1. We don’t have such official stance. Officially, we have EULA, but I’m not doing legal service, I’m more into game design and community interaction. And here, we always work so that all players spendings do not lose their value. This is why premium ships are buffed just like regular ones when needed, but on the other hand are not nerfed.
  2. Stealthfiring cannot be major selling point, because we never ever balanced any ship around it. That would be stupid to balance the ship around quite unfun and marginal tactics (sorry, stealth-firing-guys).
  3. 0.6.3 changes are not individual nerfs/buffs, but mechanics rework.
  4. The answer is no.
  5. If any ship will become unplayable because of changes (which is really, really low chance – there’s whole world of opportunities to play without open-water invisible firing), it will be tweaked and buffed ASAP. Because the idea of SF removal is to “buff” the whole game, not to ruin things and to bring down the sky

Question: Removal of stealth fire. It’s safe to say that this is a decision that has been very hotly contested, and I will try not to repeat any points that (to my knowledge) have already been answered. To my mind, stealth fire in general was troubling only in very specific situations and most ships had to make tradeoffs for this ability. IJN DDs (barring Akizuki) have awful DPM, not making their stealth firing too much of a problem. USN DDs have it slightly better, but at the ranges they can stealth fire at, their low shell velocity leads to enormous lead times, making hitting anything but the largest and slowest battleships consistently near-impossible. Russian destroyers had their post-fire detection bloom nerfed specifically to make stealth-firing more difficult (excepting Gremyashchy) and the German destroyers infamously had such a change made to them pre-emptively. So, that leaves the number of the worst abusers of stealth fire at 4, unless I missed some: Zao, Blyskawica, Gremyashchy, Akizuki. What was the thought behind removing stealth fire globally rather than nerfing these specific ships?

Answer: Because we were not going to nerf a specific ship, rather to exclude the mechanics, which in our opinion, is bad for the game in general. P.S. There were also some very hotly contested topics before, like RPF, bad skill tree, UK cruisers and German BBs being bad, etc. Sometimes, players concerns prove to be justified, sometimes – not. Not everything we say is always right. Not everything Redditors/hardcore players say is always right. However, the decision and, what’s important, the responsibility, will be ours.

Question: Regarding the “compensation” buffs we are getting in 0.6.3 in return for the removal of stealth fire, which near-exclusively seem to be firing range buffs. Have Wargaming considered that with the way the new system is projected to work (detection range after firing = maximum firing range), increasing a ship’s maximum firing range is actually something of a nerf, especially for the reliant-on-stealth IJN destroyers?

Answer: No, we don’t consider this to be a nerf. To call it a nerf is very close to fact-twisting.

Question: What’s the status of cruisers? Recently my random battles are finally 90% of the time with 5 BBs on each side, going as low as 1 cruiser per team. This is really bad for the game, and the recent removal of stealthfire mostly benefited BBs.

Answer: The removal of SF should benefit the whole game, not BBs. As for the actual effect, I don’t think you are time traveller (neither am I) so I guess we should not jump to such conclusions. BBs are popular, sometimes too much, and there are other things in class balance/popularity we are changing slowly, but there is no cruiser extinction.

Question: Specifically about Akizuki and Gremyashchy, who will be hit hard by the stealth fire nerfs. About Akizuki, have the devs considered that with no longer being able to stealth fire, her weaknesses will likely cause her performance to plummet like a rock? She is slow (she can be outpaced by some battleships in her matchmaking spread!), fat (leading to horrifyingly large penetrations from high-calibre guns) and turns like a brick (making her less able to dodge incoming fire, compounding the above problems). Has buffing her agility instead of “buffing” her firing range been considered in light of the stealth fire changes? As for Gremyashchy, with no longer being able to stealth fire and thus the removal of its most infamous strength, will it be made available for purchase again? I greatly enjoyed her sister, the Gnevny, when I was grinding her at T5 and would love having a Gremy in my port as a player who only fairly recently started playing.

Answer: If Akizuki, Gremy, or any other ships performance will “plummet like a rock” (which may also NOT happen, because, you know, we are not nerfing them to oblivion, as some players think), we will surely fix them ASAP. Again, the change of mechanics is designed to improve the gameplay overall, not to destroy particular ship. So, any bad side effect will be fixed. We love and play Akizuki, too:)

FRENCH and other cruisers:

Question: I am concerned about Henri IV, the TX French cruiser, because of the leaked stats. I know you can’t confirm or deny and don’t want to discuss leaks, but is there anything you can say so we are not worried so much?

Answer: Viva la France! (<–BEST ANSWER SO FAR)

Question: What was the reason for giving French cruisers faster reverse/deceleration? Even before this announcement, the forums were already ripe with bad jokes about the French retreating/reversing/hissing the white flag. I’m quite surprised that WG is now further fuelling this bad stereotype by making it part of the national flavour.

Answer: Uh-oh, I guess people often see what they want to see:( Sorry, but no jokes intended. French cruiser are going to be quite fast, but they won’t have fast rudder shift. Extra power to reverse will give them more chance to park off an unfortunate island or any other collision. This is it.

Question: Will high tier IJN CAs get some special consumable? Right now, they are pretty bland and don’t offer any thing to the team. RN has smoke+sonar, USN/VMF has radar, KM has uber sonar. Their lack of capability to push smoke effectively makes them to stay at the back and not utilise their stealth better and play the objective. I am not saying Zao needs a buff but it is nice to have comsumables to help you when you want to push an objective.

Answer: “Consumable flavour” is a nice and obviously efficient thing, but it is not the only way of influencing game process. IJN CAs are notorious for their uber-HE shells, and they have situational, but powerful torpedoes. And quite well-protected layout. They really don’t need to sit back and can be played with risk.

Right now we don’t see any argumented need to add IJN-cruiser-specific consumable.

Question: how did the latest USN CA ROF buffs turn out in your view? Was it enough to get them on par with the other nations? (I liked them, but they performed subpar in the past).

Answer: Quite enough. Nice to see the stats and positive attitude towards these ships growing. Maybe we will do more a bit later; now we keep looking at their performance.

DDs – state of IJN:

Question: What’s the status of IJN DDs? I know you’re looking into them, but I am also worried since you introduced a “well deserved buff” in 0.6.3 to Yugumo and Shima, which isn’t really a 100% buff considering the new concealment mechanics, so I am just hoping you’re not done with them.

Answer: The status is that we will keep researching them with 0.6.3 changes. I cannot confirm that range upgrade is not 100% buff. It stacks well with their low profile, good arcs and HEs, low comfort in CQC and long torpedoes. Whether further buffs are needed is to be determined.

Question: Why does Gearing get 16.5 km torps? Why are Fletcher and gearing torps so much better than Shimas-resulting in similar torp damage (because Gearing and Fletcher torps are so much more likely to hit) despite Shima having so much more torp capacity and dmg.

Answer: Gearing torps are really good, especially with torpedo acceleration skill, but I don’t support the opinion that IJN torpedoes are worse. We may stare at their specs and discuss them, but in the end, IJN DDs do more damage with their torps. Their alpha, speed and flooding chance compensate their higher detectability. And while Gearing shreds things in CQC with her RoF, high tier IJN DD who knows about her guns (which many IJN DD players forget, unfortunately), shreds things from range due to powerful HE and nice arcs. I’m not saying everything is perfect, and no buffs are considered after 0.6.3, but for now, we need to see how things change.

Question: Hi! Is there any news about IJN DDs? Few months ago you said they get overview but nothing new since then. They seriously need some fixing, a better turret turn speed or decrease their torpedo detection ranges. Fletcher and Gearing being a better torpedoboat then a torpedo focused line while they also having superior guns is seriously not right. Average players learnt how to dodge torps, especally IJN torps with terrible detection range, they also struggle to fight back with guns because even with skill and equipment their turrets turn too slow. If you dodge shells, can’t fire back because of slow turrets, if don’t dodge but fire back the enemy just wrecks you.

Answer:

  1. There was flooding damage buff, that increases their damage output against large ships.
  2. There is firing range buff for most of them coming in 0.6.3.
  3. Other tweaks may be introduced later.
  4. Sorry to ruin it, but Gearing and Fletcher are not better torpedo boats. They are definitely good, though.

IJN DDs have pros and cons. Right now, we see that if played to their pros, they are showing very good results – I don’t mean IMO here, I mean server stats. However, we would be happy to meet the community concerns and make these ships more enjoyable without over-buffing them. So we keep working.

Question: simply question IJN DDs sub branch, it continue or stop? if continue then how long?

Answer: We would definitely like it to continue, ideally, with the ships/projects similar to Akizuki. No ETA yet, unfortunately.

Question: will the Shinonome also get a firing range update like many other IJN? I didn’t see it in the 0.6.3 notes.

Answer: We are considering it.

MISCELLANEOUS (WG EU, standard battle, ranked progression,…):

Question: [… Foul language …] For example the christmas convoy missions which we wouldn’t have gotten, repeating missions where in EU you have to get 2 Krakens and a separate double strike to complete the final stage of a mission? If the community wouldn’t be actice we would get [edited]all compared to the NA server where WG staff seem to actually care about their community.

Answer: Hi. I suggest you don’t use that kind of language in Q&As. I am not trying to tell you what to do, but really, that won’t contribute to communication. Unfortunately, I cannot answer this question, as events & missions are completely out of my area of work. I will try to find someone who can talk about it, and summon here. Cheers!

Question: Is there anything in the works regarding changes to the way progression occurs in ranked battles to make ranking out less frustrating? Some of my thoughts include awarding stars to top 7 players of both teams and losing a star requires 2 consecutive losses. What are your thought on adding cyclones to ranked games? Will you be reintroducing the old rewards for future seasons of ranked?

Answer: We are planning big research upon current season end. So right now, I’m more interested in asking right questions and analyzing the data, then giving answers. It is too early to speak about RB in detail. If you receive the survey, be sure to complete it. Thanks!

Question: Is there any plan to either remove or modify how standard battles work, as at the moment, especially at high tiers, they promote base camping and very passive/selfish gameplay, whereas a domination game is much better, as it encourages and rewards teamwork and more aggressive gameplay. Also, the xp rewards for a standard battle are much lower on average than domination games, is this by design, has this been noticed?

Answer: I personally can agree with your point. I love Domination so much more than SB. However, LOTS of players have different opinion, and removing this mode would upset them significantly. I’m speaking with confidence, because the matter was researched specifically:( This is why we lowered the presense of this mode but did not remove it.

Question: Lastly, I believe Wargaming have stated that the battleship overpopulation (40% and rising) is a problem. Yet, why does seemingly every recent change, barring two minor ones (reduction of catapult fighter uptime, Bismarck hydro nerf – but only specifically Bismarck) seem to run counter to this goal? AA buffs, the new skill tree in general, Radio Location specifically, and now the removal of stealth fire… the dev team’s actions seem to run counter to their stated goal, and that may be why many people are upset.

Answer: Have you seen many BBs with RPF? Because we don’t see them at all. Why have you excluded flooding damage buff, which now causes BBs to melt with unrepaired leak? Sorry, but I don’t see any objective approach here, so the question itself is not correct. Thus, I am not sure I can answer it.

Question: Since you are lowering the citadel of Iowa, will Izumo going to get some love as well?

Answer: We are not lowering Iowa citadel. We’re lowering (most likely, if testing goes good) Alabama citadel in 0.6.2.2 and testing the same change for Iowa/Missouri/Montana for 0.6.4. There are no buff plans for Izumo currently. Sorry.

Source: Sub_Octavian on Reddit, compiled by Allied_Winter (EU)

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “Huge WoWS Q&A – 25th March 2017

  1. “Why not mention the BB nerf about flooding, which causes them to melt if they have irreparable flood?”

    Maybe because only the tier 9 and 10 were buffed, while all the other tiers take LESS flooding damage than before?

    “Gearing doesn’t have better torpedoes than the Shima”
    Hahahaha
    Wait, you serious?

    Like

    1. To further comment on my previous post (Cleverpotato is my phone’s account, because fuck using a wordpress API on my 3 year old phone), this reminds me of the maneuverability “nerf” BBs got a year back.

      Uber buffed in terms of both rudder shift and turn radius, then they slighty nerfed rudder shift time.
      “BBs were nerfed!”
      They really weren’t.
      You can buff everything except for one aspect of it, then point it out and say “SEE! A nerf! We care about balance!”

      Sub_Octavian is a fucking imbecile who thinks us all blind, unthinking morons incapable of putting 2 and 2 together, despite everyone cutting right through his bullshit like a hot knife in butter.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. Hate you WG. U made my Grem, Lo Yang and few other DDs useless, no matter what u say, it relied on stealth firing. I want compensation, it is clearly againts mentioned EU law

    Like

    1. If you can’t play gremy nor lo yang without “stealth fire” then i would suggest you try another ship. i would suggest that to everyone that seem to only be able to play the DD class with stealth fire trying another ship.

      Like

  3. “Answer: Viva la France! (<–BEST ANSWER SO FAR)"

    It's "Vive la France!" ;)

    I'm happy to see they are aware of the indirect concern about engine boost for French ships but still i would really like to see that consumable removed… Or at least put a skill to boost the manoeuvrability (turning radius/rudder shift time) for a certain time…

    I really hope they will tune them to make cruisers with good anti "prow-toward-enemy" AP shells but with low DPM.

    Like

  4. Those answers were garbage.
    I will definitely uninstall the game to show that I do not support that retarded way to balance stuff.

    Like

  5. For the ones asking why nerf Premium? in the Q&A; they’re goddamned idiots. It’s a GLOBAL wide one which means *all* ships would be affected by it if they have something it affects. This is always has been the case. Atlanta got hurt by the changes to 127mm/38 before it went to Open Beta and that was a global wide one because that was to *all* ships that used the same gun as their main gun.

    Like

  6. – “our game is based on IRL naval warfare”
    Aha. And yet we have stupid typhoons that limits your radio range so you have to be 8 km infront of a battleship to be able to target it :D :D :D And then we also have maps with 1000000000 islands :D :D :D

    Like

    1. 1)Radio range has nothing to do with detection range. If you’re not really sure about what it does, look it up.

      2)You can’t see much when the weather is bad.I would assume that it’s common knowledge. And WG is being rather cautious with this, we should also have fog which could limit visibility even more,realistically.

      3)All maps have open water areas as well. Also, islands do exist in real life as well, believe it or not. Many many islands…

      Like

    2. Nice job, both of you completely missed the point :D
      First of all, instead of pretending that you have no idea what I mean with radio range, maybe jump into a game with a typhoon? If you’ve noticed, in normal weather, you don’t have to see your own targets in order to see them. If an ally spot them, they will transmit the targets coordinates via RADIO, and that is why you can see them and target them even if you’re not close enough to spot them. However, this logic does no longer apply when there’s a typhoon, hence, the typhoon reduces radio range.
      Secondly, take a look where most WW2 naval battles took place. And I’m not talking about harbour battles, I’m talking about naval battles. For instance, Battle of the Philippine Sea, Battle of Leyte Gulf, Battle of Midway. Now I’m not saying that all of those battles took place in the middle of the Pacific, but what I’m saying is that you simply don’t navigate a dozen of massive battleships and carriers into an archipelago full of islands.

      Like

      1. Ok first, when they say based on “irl warfare”, it doesn’t mean it’s a simulation of actual naval warfare but a base, basic version of it. it’s an ARCADE game after all.

        I can say again have you ever seen a ww2 naval battle?
        Ofcourse during battle in a realistic situation not only do you transmit location to you’re allied ships of the enemy positions. to coordinate fire and assist eachother etc etc etc. which have it’s Representation ingame. but then you add in “bad weather” which realistically you can still radio the locations but the question is if the allied ships would be able to effectivly engage or not.
        if the bad weather happens to be a typhoon in a realistic situation, the navy’s of either side wouldn’t engage AT ALL, if you don’t like risking your ships that is. then go ahead. (radio and radar would be hampered aswell).

        SO that’s why when the typhoon hits ingame it’s just a gimmick to add flare to the game, spice it up, change the engagement rules etc. so what’s your point here really?

        to the second point, again here what is your point? it’s not a simulator game, it’s an arcade game. if it was real the engagement range would be 4 times to what it is now, the pacing would be extremly slow. lets be nice and say it would take maybe an hour before you would even be able to locate the enemy and then the question of engagement is another possible hour.
        The islands are there to like said above add a gameplay element, give ships of different classes an oportunity to even work. in real life a Destroyer wouldn’t really engage like they do ingame, none of the ships would.
        that’s why we have maps with islands to make the game work, and not too many maps with just ocean.

        soooooo yeah.

        Like

        1. My point is that these “flavours” makes no sense at all and actually makes the game worse. Neither are they realistic and neither does they improve gameplay. Park your ship behind a massive island or in a smoke cloud and you won’t be able to see anything, but the enemies spotted by your allies will still be visible for you, and you can target them. Now when the typhoon arrives, we suddenly get completely different rules where you’re forced to brawl with each other within 8 km.
          So what’s my point? Guess what happens when a paper cruiser has so get within 8 km of a battleship? Guess what happens when a destroyer with higher visibility than 8 km has to get within 8 km of a cruiser? You see the problem?
          And that’s only regarding typhoons. Now let’s take a look at the 1000000000 islands on each map except Ocean, the only good map in the game. What does these islands actually provide? 2 things:
          1. Cover.
          2. Possibility for destroyers to play shotgun with torps.
          So what’s my point? A naval game should be about tactics and manouvers, not about hiding behind an island that is taller than the ship, but smaller on the surface. Focus should be about manouvering your ship to avoid getting hit, not going in and out of cover, it’s not a tank game. Destroyers should focus on being hidden, not pop out from an island and oneshot someone. You see the problem yet?

          Like

          1. Yeah the only thing i can see when i read this is: I do not like the mechanic of this game i want something else. I would suggest you play something else to be honest. Arcade games are not for you.

            Why they are put there are exactly why it’s not realistic, its arcadish. this game is not suppose to be a simulator like i said. If you want realistic naval warfare i suggest you look elsewhere. why this setting is not simply for just “flavour” but to make the different classes DD,CL,BBs etc work. If we were to add in a more “realistic setting” Battleships would be a true powerhouse. and the rest would not even compare.

            And the point of the typhoon is not to be forced to brawl, it’s to create different type of opportunities, it can help a BB get away, it can let a cruiser get close to fire of torpedoes (which all except US pretty much have, they can now get closer to effectivly use them as the BB can only spot you withing 8km instead of 10+), you can get more time to cap a point etc etc. not just brawl.

            The thing with islands like i mention is to give different classes that can not take as much beating as the battleships can, a place to hide or create an ambush situation. Yes a destroyer can use it to shotgun you, but only if the cruiser/battleship or other Destroyer is completly oblivious and do not check his surrounding. Honestly that doesn’t happen as much as you make it out to be. destroyers go wherever they please and torp wherever they can they do not need islands for it.

            A naval game does not need to be about tactic’s and manouvers, it depends on what kind of genre you are aiming for. this game is not that type of naval experience. it’s an arcade and arcade are all about the quick adrenaline rush type experiences in very short term. you can be tactical and use manouvers but not in random. that’s why it’s called RANDOM. do not expect much of people, especially when it comes to free to play arcadish type games. they are there for their own type of fun.

            So in short this is not the type of game for you. it is not a tactical realistic type game that tries to push in historical accuracy. only the basic term of naval combat made for a short timed fun type of gameplay.

            Like i mentioned at the top, i would suggest you play something else, this game is clearly not for you. It is pointless to complain about something it never aimed to be and try to change something it did not strive for.

            Like

            1. And that’s exactly why I’m not playing WoWs anymore, since what 0.5-1 year or so now. I started playing when it was in Alpha, back when there was no typhoons, and the game was so much better. And please drop the arcade bullshit, there’s a linear line between being realistic and not realistic, it’s not like you remove 1 or 2 things and suddenly you have the next generation military training simulator. It’s not like WoWs would become a simulator just because you remove typhoons and just leave 1 or 2 islands on each map.
              WoWs is not an arcade game, you need to look up what the term “arcade game” actually means (hint: use google). WoWs, just like WoTs, is a tactical shooter.
              Also, for your information, I’ve never asked for turning this game into a simulator. But adopting realism to a game doesn’t turn it into a simulator. Take a look at the game called “Naval Action”. That’s also a tactical shooter based around ships from the age of sail. Do you see 1000000000 islands there or any typhoons?
              Then I can’t help to ignore the fact that it was me who started this conversation by pointing out that WoWs is not realistic, and in return I got 2 responses telling me that it in fact is realistic. Oh look how the roles have turned around…

              Like

              1. You are like the guy saying that the military are using World of tanks for actual tank training, there is no linear between realistic and and not realistic it’s kinda funny how you try to twist it like that.
                It is a type of arcade game, whether you like it or not. Try to study some game design is my suggestion. and don’t tell me to use google when you compare it to a tactical shooter.

                it would take more then just 1-2 things to make it even feasable to a military training simulator.
                yeah i’ve seen Naval action and tried it, that would be more in your area of naval action. because the game is aimed for that type of gameplay. it’s still in ways arcadish but aimed to work in a more realistic type of setting.

                Who knows they might add that, or islands. it depends on what the game developers want. i would actually want to see storms and such, but that is a type of game element that alot of people would not want.

                Im starting to think you simply skim through my text, i said over and over again that Wows is not a realistic game, and does not strive to become something like it. you on the other hand said it’s not realistic which i said yes, it’s not. its not trying to be (you on the other hand want it to be something it’s not). and compared how it would not work if you pushed it that way if you don’t have the audience for it.

                Just keep telling yourself that :P

                P.s i tested alpha and played Beta and in the grand scale… it haven’t really changed that much in terms on how the maps are nor the gameplay. mostly just better grafiks, changed UI and.. well more stuff.

                Like

                  1. Ugh typos and things i want changed….why u no have edit…. whatever ill just wait for the reply, if it comes and correct it later ;P

                    Like

                1. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcade_game
                  2. There was no typhoons during Alpha, nor Beta.
                  3. “Studying” game design is why you think there’s only “arcade” or “simulator”, and not a linear line between those two. You can’t “study” game design, common sense and experience is all you need.
                  4. No need to discuss this any further, it takes time and this discussion won’t lead anywhere anyway.

                  Like

                  1. 1. facepalm
                    2. It’s one of the few new things they added, that’s the point of my mention.
                    3. If you don’t study the terms and means, you will not get the points. all im gonna say is what is the definition of an arcade game, what defines it. (you don’t need to reply just think about it). Game design is a real study, it’s like ordinary design but focused on games instead. if you didn’t know this get out of dat rock.
                    4. i agree but that’s what a discusson is about. but alas fare thee well “hankerchief wave”

                    Like

                    1. Yeah whatever just facepalm you’ve had your game design studies so you know the best :) Battlefield 4 can also be an arcade game if you want :D :D :D

                      Like

                    1. Well if you think that WoT and WoWs are arcade games I see no reason why Battlefield couldn’t be…

                      Like

              2. This argument should have stopped right here :

                “And that’s exactly why I’m not playing WoWs anymore, since what 0.5-1 year or so now.”

                You know, its ok to dislike games. I don’t like League of Legends even though its a pretty popular game, but I’m not hopping into forums just to argue on how my vision of the game is what the game should be.

                But, I didn’t played LoL for a long time so maybe its not the best example. Let’s take Firefall :

                I loved the game, it was different from other shooters MMO, then the dev team decided that they would turn it into a simplier more traditional MMO. I stopped playing. Yes, I went into the forums telling I didn’t like the new model. But, not after 0.5-1 year! I know theres not much naval warfare games that look as good as WoWS so its a bit unsettling, but War Thunder upcoming extension might be closer to what you’re looking for. That one or Dangerous Waters (http://store.steampowered.com/app/1600/) wich is more of a strategy game sorry.

                My point is, reading both of you guys because there was no argument to had there. By the way, the “arcade” concept is more used over on racing games, where simulation games are really close to real driving while arcades ones are focusing on unrealistic gameplay. The best example I can state is GranTurismo versus TrackMania (Looking at them from a mechanical standpoint).

                Trackmania goes for easier handling where you have jumps, loops and “acceleration panels” while GranTurismo focus on simulating real cars with physics based driving. You get to custumize the weigth balance, the gears length, the tire pressure, etc.

                One of these two games is more fast paced then the other and appeal to a different group of gamers. Some players may still like boths, but the target audience is not the same.

                To conclude, lets be honest here, WG is not trying to please the audience you’re in. They chosed their battle and even though I get that it sucks for you, they do not seem to want to turn the type of gameplay around.

                Video game company take risks and sometime it results in player base drops, but not introducing new mechanics also get the players bored.

                Its a balance of the two and yes they lost you with their recent decision. But they hooked the attention of others. In the end you cannot please anyone.

                Hope you find a game that suits you,
                best regards

                Like

                1. […] You canno’t please * everyone *. […] (my bad :P)

                  […] reading both of you guys * was funny * because there was no argument to had there […] (again typing error)

                  Like

  7. I dont know why seb even answers half of these, he basically throws his hands up and says no without any good explanation anyways

    Some of these replys are just plain rude, especially to some of these questions

    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