WoWS Q&A – 30th May 2017

Thanks to KoontzGenadinik for translating.

Participating developers: Sub_Octavian, kindly (CM), BadPreacher (game analytics), s_bogatov (historical consultant), Tarki_Tau (CM).

  1. Developers don’t like the disbalance between IJN and USN CVs – one of the possible solutions is to rebalance all setups and add AP bombs an an alternative for USN, which will ravage straight-sailing BBs and overpenetrate anything without an armored deck.
  2. There was a complaint about the balancer not balancing sub-classes equally – e.g. one side can have 2 Grozovois, balanced by the other side having 2 Khabarovsks (instead of both having one of each); since they are different sub-classes (DD and DL), this is imperfect, and the balancer should account for sub-class as well. The devs answer that this is too complicated and it’s not good to overload the balancer.
  3. No premium ships higher than T8 are currently in development.
  4. The first versions of the tech trees aren’t perfect, shit happens. Replacing/reshuffling ships inside the branches, as happened with VMF and IJN DDs, is a lot of work that few people need – those who finished them already don’t tend to replay it, and there aren’t many new players – so the only planned change to existing branches is the USN cruiser fix.
  5. La Galissonnière will be buffed, probably in the same patch when De Grasse is released.
  6. New Orleans is doing fine thanks to its concealment, Baltimore will be looked at, but overall these aren’t AA cruisers anymore, since there are many new branches and the old roles don’t work. Play them as support.
  7. Epicenter as a mode is fine, Epicenter on “Tears of the Desert” is not fine, the devs want to do something about it.
  8. There aren’t many CVs on high tier battles – after the changes to credit calculation, the dispersion of the credit gain became smaller (i.e. noobs lose less but unicums earn less, too), the unicums noticed it and started whining – but now the devs changed it again, they’re still observing and want to do something about it.
  9. Something that would allow clans to play together is being developed – NOT team battles.
  10. There were too many signals from containers, they don’t want to balance ships for them and to inflate signals’ worth, so they had to cut the amount of signals that you get from containers.
  11. Cool flags in various regions are thanks to the regions’ event departments.
  12. The UI department is overloaded with work, so they can’t do everything on time.
  13. The devs don’t like the smoke timer, it’ll be replaced.
  14. Premium ships are meant to be historically accurate regarding the ship’s looks in a certain period of time; tech tree ships can be a mishmash of different sisterships and it’s ok.
  15. A new training mode was made, it’s displayed as a special offer to 50% of the newbies. Later, the devs will check its statistics and decide whether to expand it or cancel it.

Also, the devs don’t like the current CV attack/alt-attack situation, they want to do something based on a single principle, but skill-dependant.


15 thoughts on “WoWS Q&A – 30th May 2017

  1. You mean we would have to give each team one shima and one khaba instead of having two shimas vs two khabas? too much work comrade


  2. Work your shit together WoWs
    You messed up the VMF DDs like the IJN DDs, give them buff or reworks
    2nd, Alt attacks need to be removed, since f*cking Saipan is overused
    3rd, AP bombs are NEEDED since Alpha and you listened it for DECADES AGO.
    4th, you really need add falling bombs to torpedo bombers, Ex. TBF Avenger carries 500kg Bombs on its Arsenal.


  3. Can we stop to look at the most important tidbit of information?

    ” those who finished them already don’t tend to replay it, and there aren’t many new players – ”

    Not many new players.
    WG themselves admitting that the is stagnating.
    That explains the overpriced bundles and the complete disregard towards balance, as they’re trying to milk the current playerbase as hard a possible before the game tanks.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. from the source of this post aka reddit:
      “Too bad that it was a misunderstanding of my original post (or my bad wording). It was supposed to mean that there are far less new players playing the rewamped tech tree branch than the new ones – so there is a lot of effort being put into something not used by a lot of people. It has nothing to do with a sheer amount of new players.”


      1. There’s a distinct possibility that it’s damage control.

        We can see from compiled statistics that the amount of battles played is quasi-stagnant.


        1. And they would be right to do so. It’s not as bad as WoT but it feels like they’ve given up on it. Development is extremely SLOW,
          They keep pumping out premiums just to cash in
          Balance is slowly drifting into oblivion
          Illegal mods remain unchecked
          No visual updates
          No gameplay updates,
          And of course the introduction of full on PvE which will be the death of PvP and the entire game of course.

          It feels like the same thing that was going on with Armored Warfare. I hope i’m right, but when they say this: “those who finished them already don’t tend to replay it, and there aren’t many new players”… get the idea.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s