WoWS Q&A – 6th June 2017

Answered by Sub_Octavian, gathered by Vectoranalysis

(Updated with more answers on 8th June)

RN BBs and Radar:

Question: Why will the Royal Navy BBs have radar? It completely removes the teamplay aspect of countering DDs, and renders cruisers obselete.
Answer: I cannot answer your question, because at the moment there is absolutely no confirmation, even inside dev team, that RN BB will have radar. Testing any kind of loadouts on internal / ST stage does not promise anything. Honestly, I don’t think this loadout will make to production. But we will see how balancing of this line goes.

Question:Can you explain us the reason behind giving the RN High Tier BBs radar? [shortened] Exactly, a T10 Soviet BB with Smoke. That was a [edited]JOKE!!!! We never thought that it could become reality but at the moment it is more possible than ever. Why every line needs a consumable which was originally designed for another class? Why can’t you just make a line different just by their stats? A new line doesn’t even has to be very special, if you try to do everythig special it will end in a deasaster. Just change some small nuances, it would be enough.
Answer: No, because this is unconfirmed leaked information. I will gladly talk about RN BB Radar, but only if and when I know there are chances this loadout makes to release. For now, it’s internal testing and internal business…not even on ST.

Question: Saw those “hints” (Talking about the leak to the RN BBs with radar!) on the article about scenario mode. Can we talk about the fact that the new line AKA RN BBs get radar. You give radar to an all line (or actually the t8 to 10) and it’s a battleship line. Didn’t you say back in the days that there was too much Batteships in the game ? Because with that kind of tool the population sure won’t lower.
Answer: If Radar will be needed on these ships gameplay-wise, it will be there. Balanced with other factors/specs. BB population will be countered more by other stuff. But these ships are not even on production test yet. So…nothing to discuss, really.

Upcoming Ranked

Question: It has been pretty much confirmed on RU forums already, but can you do us a solid and confirm it in English for us? Is the next ranked season Tier 6 ?
Answer: Official solid confirmation is official announcement – this sounds formal, but it is the way it works. On RU forum, we talked about the highest probability of T6 ranked – and I can safely repeat it here. It is the strongest option right now. I am pretty sure it will remain. Unfortunately I cannot say “T6, it’s official” before the announcement, I hope you understand

Hunt for the Bismarck & other campaigns

Question: Who came up with the “Clash of the Elements”-event, and who with the “Hunt of Bismarck” event? Were those things decided by one regional office, and than sent to the others, or how do such global stuff come to life? EDIT: and will more content like “Bismarck-hunt” come in the future? As it seems to be generally liked by the entire audience.
Answer: Both events were, as you know, global (all-server). They were not just regular weekend events, and required development and some new features. Typically, such events are designed, developed and implemented by the whole team. Developers in S-Pete work on such events together with regional teams. Someone comes with the idea, then it is thought out and approved by everyone who matters in this case, and then it is implemented. CoE and Bismarck are no exception.
EDIT I: We see Bismarck event positive sentiment too, so we will probably work on more events like this.
EDIT II: (Boyarsky-WG provided an extended answer to that question) There is a proverb “success has many parents, failure is an orphan”. Reality is that for every global event we work together and spend sleepless nights/early mornings (depending on region) to agree on the best approach for all players and not making some of us “the worst server”. After the event is over, we get together again and discuss what went well, and what we would do differently. Next time we run something similar to Clash of the Elements, it will be much better! Bismarck event was tricky. To make it economically sustainable for the company we made some monetization choices that were unpopular at first, but over time we see more positive feedback and healthier in-game engagement stats. We still don’t want to make anyone upset, so we are in constant search for better, more flexible solutions. Next big thing is the Scenarios mode, which you will check out in 0.6.6 and keep an eye on the future updates related to Dunkirk Evacuation (aka Operation Dynamo) and the movie! Season 7 of Ranked Battles is another global initiative, which we also coordinate between servers. Will try to capitalize on the success that we had on NA Server in Season 6, when we doubled the number of Rank 1 players from previous season. We highlighted that fact here: https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/world-of-ranks/

Question: WG, can you extend the Bismarck campaign? Some of us have been busy at work and have had less time for warbotes
Answer: Unfortunately, such kind of event should be time limited, and is not subject to change in the process (unless absolutely necessary) In every case there will be those who were not able to complete it in time..sorry.

Question: Is there any way for people who missed the Arppegio collaboration to get ARP ships in the future….. If not, then when is the HSF ships coming? Any plans for a kancolle collaboration in the far future?
Answer: ARP is closed for now due to contract end. We legally cannot distribute them now. HSF is in development. Thank you for your patience

(Premium-)Shipstats and stuff

Question: Last QnA I asked about the Indianapolis and how it needs some love in the concealment and rate of fire department. You said you would look into her and see if she needs a buff. This is after taking Lo Yang into account, which I mentioned previously which you have since buffed on the PTS. Please could you enlighten me as to what you have found regarding the Indianapolis if you have looked into her performance. She is currently extremely weak, still lacking in the rate of fire and is seen from the moon. Unlike Pensacola which has got buffed. I urge you to look into the Indianapolis and buff its rate of fire by at least 0.5 seconds and reduce its concealment like you did with Pensacola.
Answer: Lo Yang needed some love as detailed research has shown. For Indianapolis, for now, I don’t see any strong argument for a buff. Sorry. Will re-address this in a couple of updates, see if there are any changes in her performance. At the moment she has normal stats among t7 cruisers.
EDIT I: (In regards to Indianapolis’ performance) I will look into her performance and player sentiment more, I promise. Just give me some time. If there’s room for improvements, we’ll find them.

Question: How is Belfast Balanced? Are you going to remove the useless “special” modules anytime soon? like Spotter,Def AA mod for example.
Answer: She is very strong in the right scenarios and with the right application. We’re fine with it. No. Some tweaks for some of the special upgrades are possible in the future. And new upgrades may be implemented as well. Changes in method of upgrades distribution are possible, too.

Question: Is it an intended Feature of Kaga to be able to delete any equal Tier BB with it’s 12 TBDs? It has the same alphastrike as Taiho, but faces ships two entire tiers lower.
Answer: No, because there’s no such feature. Her squishy planes are her balancing factor.

Question: Regarding the Hood, why does her shells have less Krupp (therefore, less AP penetration) than the Warspite? [2190 vs 2330]
Answer: These are different shells. Hood has better angles and special fuse setup. So the answer is: for better balance.

Question: Hi, when can we expect a complete new line of ships? Ty for Bismarck campaign, it was very fun and rewarding to play, so more of that please
Answer: In the following several updates, hopefully. You are welcome. I think there will be more. In the meantime, be sure to check out new PvE once it is released. It should be fun. EDIT: (Since a similar question poped up; this was before the RN BBs were teased) You will see LOTS of hints pretty soon – please be patient. SOURCE

Question: Is there a chance in the (far-off) future for a pan-South American and/or pan-European researchable tech tree? I’m not asking if something like that is in the works, but rather if it’s a solution that WG considers to be an acceptable in WoWS in regards to the minor nation ships. Because in WoT when asked about it (many years ago, before the Czechoslovakian and Swedish trees were a thing) they said that wouldn’t ever be a thing. Now WoWS is of course not WoT and there is already the pan-Asian and Commonwealth “tree” – however both of them only has premiums as of now.
Answer: There is always a chance. Even for Vatican nuclear-space-laser sumbarines. Theoretically. Sorry, but I really cannot comment on such questions.

Question: Any possibility to buff Atlanta? Comparing it to Flint the atlanta is just hugely inferior. I get that Flint has smoke and Atlanta has radar but why does the flint also get 9.2km torps while Atlanta has pitiful 4.5km?
Answer: Not planned, no reason to do that. If you think the Flint is THAT good, well, it is there to be earned in Ranked. Buffing Atlanta torps would mostly harm less skilled players, who would broad-side more often in the end.

Question: So…….Will the Dev Group fix the 3″ AA’s firing range problem on Minotaur? There’re 2 reasons. 1st: Comparing to Neptune, I couldn’t see there’s a tier’s buff on AA, especially when we compare the AA DPS within 5.1km; 2nd: Comparing to the data from navweaps http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-50_mk27-33-34.php http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNBR_3-70_mk6.php the RN’s 3″AA can achieve a obviously longer range at 45 degree’s elevation. If the 3″ AA on Des Moines can achieve an 7.2KM range while AA on Minotaur is actually weaker than Neptune, I couldn’t see there’s any doubt on buffing a little bit on Minotaur’s 3″ AA.
Answer: While your observation seems logical from IRL perspective (although I’m not sure about comparing their Fire Control), Minotaur AA does not need buffing from gameplay perspective at all. So, It will remain as it is for now.

Question: In some ancient patches, Zao got nerfed several times for its powerful invisibile fire ability. Since invisibile fire has been removed, do you think Zao need some love now?
Answer: No, she’s fine. Tro-lo-lo armor layout and god-tier HE do their jobs.

Question: If Montana remove all the 40mm and 20mm and install a few 76mm with the same dps, it will resemble the development of US AA gun and do not harm the balance. And it will be a ship worth to keep.
Answer: Maybe you’re right, but at the moment this is not a big problem, and there are much more serious issues to address. Sorry.

Question: Server stats think the Flint is that good. Frankly, she was, is and always will be a mistake. Sadly one WG obviously didn’t learn from at all, as proven by the existence of the atrocity known as Black. Seriously, what have you been thinking? Stop giving out OP ships to players who obviously don’t need any help. Giving them rewarding (probably as in income modifiers) but challenging ships would make so much more sense.
Answer: (by Tuccy) Just for illustration, server stats in last RB also thought that there was quite a difference between ARP Nachi and the lowest ARP ship (not sure now which one – not really important). Of course that was because Nachi was available in quite hardcore mission (speaking of EU server here). Conversely, with high WR, she also had by far the fewest battles played. With Black and Flint you see an even more extreme version of this. Small amount of rather good players will have highly above average win rate (heck, another example are win rates of ships in live test).

Question: WG – USS Atlanta, why haven’t you given her the Flint’s or just better ranged torpedoes as a option yet, as the range of the Atlanta’s 4,5km torps is a cruel joke. Also Atlanta is claimed to be an AA ships, but once the Def.AA is off then the mid-range AA guns is useless, please give here the Bofor’s guns she would/should have gotten.
Answer: (by Tuccy) Atlanta is in her historical state – so with 1.1″ quads. While her mid range AA is not that strong, it does not really have to be. If someone attacks you, he will regret it for sure anyway. Another thing is also tiering. One of reasons Cleveland does not bristle with AA guns as they did on the top of their careers – heck, not even as she had while launched.

Question: After removing the stealth firing, you buffed the range and the traverse time of several IJN DDs – but not of the Shinome. She was never really considered being a “reward” as reward ship implies, any plans to buff her? Sonar would be nice.
Answer: Right now, she has the best T6 DD performance, while being quite accessible (not Black/Flint level) by everyone. Sorry, but we see no argument for buffing her.

Gameplaymechanics, MM and Meta

Question: Would WG considered bring New WoT MM to WoWs ?
Answer: Not yet, but we’re interested in WoT team experience. When we fully see the results of their new MM, we’ll decide whether it is good for WoWs.

Question: When will WOWS implement a counter to fail divisions? I.e. allowing members of a division to only enter battle with the same tier ships?
Answer: It will remain +-1 for now.

Question: I wanted to say “thanks” for the talk you gave on mechanics on the Warship podcast and ask if you can go into some more detail of how sigma actually works. EDIT: Yes, that is my thinking. We really went off into fantasy land (with great confidence) before on Sigma, and a few folks seem to be going down that path again (again with great confidence). So you may as well come clean and save Mouse the hours and hours and hours it will take to crack the real answer herself.
Answer: I will consider your idea, it may be a good thing to do to clarify everything and be done with these sigma questions. EDIT: Your argument is good. I will try to do it withing next weeks. Sorry for not taking this immediately, but such article takes time, and I have tasks to do. But I really like your idea

Question: When will the other tier 8-10 modules get the “5% increase to enemy dispersion” like the concealment module has?
Answer: No plans to do it.

Question: I asked this question in the last QueNA and I think this may have been too technical a question for that so I’m turning to you for this. First question Why does the entire line of US DD’s from Farragut onwards (and every other ship with the 5″/38 like Atlanta and Lo Yang) get a .03 second AP fuse while every other line of DD’s and cruisers with small caliber guns get a .01 second fuse? Link With these fuses you’ll overpen the Khab in a knifefight, overpen BB bows and while its a situation you’ll never encounter in a real battle its even possible to overpen the citadels on cruisers with 76mm belts at extremely close range. None of the other DD’s with their higher velocity guns and .01 second fuses have this issue. Given their lower velocity shells the US DD’s perform best in gunfights at close range so why do they get held back with these overly long fuses?
Second question Semi-related question. Every single main battery gun from 150-152MM has a .01 second HE fuse instead of the .001 fuse everything else has but this does not apply to 150MM secondaries firing HE. Likewise every 15″ gun in-game with the exception of Bayern has a .03 second HE fuse. Are these intentional? Do these longer HE fuses do anything?
Answer: Because legacy settings. You are very nice in bringing this to my attention. Thank you. We will re-address these settings and fix them. There is no reason in current balance for these longer fuse settings.
Fuse time for HE is a legacy setting. Don’t bother, it does not affect anything.

Question: I have some questions regarding game mechanics. First one is about the mechanic behind the main armament on every ship except CVs. There are three diffrent firemodes on a ship. One click (shoot one Mian Battery), double click (shoot alll reloaded Main Batteries) and the so called sequentional fire where you hold the mouse button and it shoots one main battery after another. I wanna ask about the sequentional firemode. How is the timeing defined between 2 main batterie shots? Is it for example 10% from the reload time of my ship or is there a global timer behind it so that every ship got the same timing?
My second question is about the incoming fire alert: I always thought that it gets only triggered when someone focused me (as a priority target => best dispersion possible) and then the incoming fire alert gets triggered when he starts shooting at me. Not for example when I stay in smoke, beeing undetected and then getting fired at blindly. And one more kinda game mechanic question: How does the MM think about “fail” divisions? Are all ships considered to be the highest tier? (for example: div with one T7 and 2 T6 => MM thinks the ships are 3 T7) Or does it take every own tier into account? And now some general questions: Is there a tutorial for CVs on the way? I already have 2 T6 CVs and I still learn quite a lot about the UI functionality. It’s just not everything clear from the first moment on. And a tutorial which explain the complete UI would make it easier for new guys how CVs work.
In an Asian Q&A you mentioned that we will see some changes in the communication buttons (F3 [defend the base, priority target, attack the base, help this dude in our team] etc.) I already have the feeling that some captains might not get the update for it since we have the radio voices as well. What is going to happen with those ARP and Haifuri Captains when the cooperation runs out and you guys change the communication tools and add maybe more options and due to this voice lines that needs a recording again? Are you guys going to delete those captian voices altogether then or are we going to see them updated as well?
Answer: The delay is fixed global. 0.3 secs.
It is tied to target lock. When you enter smoke screen and then immediately it triggers, that may be caused by very close proximity of game events, and it’s fine. But if you get fire alert out of nowhere, without being detected…well, I would be interested in replay/vide (or better both), because this sounds like a bug.
A tricky question. I will have to investigate it a bit to reply. I’ll update this post when I have information. UPD: MM tries to add the same tier-class ships in the opposite team.
I hope we’ll do it when we’re done with basic tutorial through personal offers – if we see it’s efficient.
I think in most cases adding new messages would not be possible, so that’ll be silent commands or mix of special and regular commands. But we’ll see in each individual case.

Question: How do you plan on reducing the Battleship population in the game? As I see it either cruisers tier 7 and up need some serious help surviving, a battleship limit per team is in order or battleships need some serious nerfs to either survivability or firepower to give cruisers a chance at surviving and making gameplay more dynamic. I personally feel cruisers are being made obsolete by the latest additions to battleships like Hydroacoustic Search, Defensive Fire and Radar, giving battleships cruiser utility in addition to the best survivability and firepower in the game? Is there any plan to address this? I would be strongly in favor of removing all consumables from battleships that aren’t Damage Control, Repair Party and Catapult Fighters/Spotting Aircraft to give cruisers their utility back as I personally do not believe that a ship that can survive the best, deal the most damage and support it’s team with utlity skills like radar can even remotely be considered balanced. What are your plans to make cruisers relevant again? Giving them more firepower (especially against large targets) to push them into a glass cannon role where they do more dmg than battleships but die faster? Increase their survivability through either Repair Party or maneuverability? Come up with additional utility for cruisers or reduce BB utility like AA/Hydro/Radar? Is any of this considered? If not can you give us some information why and what you plan to do instead if anything?
Answer: Direct and global BB nerf is an option, but not desirable, due to obvious outrage and many other issues (like nerfing/not nerfing premium BBs). Buffing underperforming cruisers and destroyers and improving carriers seems like a better option for now. As you know, we’ve done a lot for cruisers recently (IFHE, USN buff, KM upcoming buff), but CVs tweaks were missing. Fortunately, we’re getting to them now. We plan to test new type of bombs – armor piercing – for mid-high tier USN carriers. Such weapon would pose more threat to BBs, especially to camping ones (easy to hit and no deck inclination / dodging), and pose little threat to other classes due to lots of overpens. Cruisers that are mostly known to have decent AA capabilities are getting more value with this. This is a concept in internal testing, but we’re determined to test in on production as well and do our best to push this change, if we see it works as intended. There are other interesting concepts in development, but they are a bit more distant, so I won’t talk about them for now. That said, monitoring underperforming cruisers/DDs is still a thing, and we’ll keep doing this. The tricky thing is many possible cruisers buff affect their in-class balance as well, while the goal is to tune inter-class balance more.

Question: Since the introduction of the “Strafe-out” mechanic, i want to confirm a feature/bug.When an opposition fighter disengages from the dogfight/lock, your fighters are still frozen for a fixed amount of time before being able to be controlled by the user again. Is this a bug or feature? With enough reaction time, i believe the player should be able to dodge a strafe followed by a strafe-out. Currently, it is impossible to dodge such actions because of what i mentioned above. Comments?
Answer: This is a feature for high skill players.

Question: dont you feel hypocritical, spouting stuff like we are concerned about the battleship population and are trying to reduce it and then only bring out lines taht are geared towards hunting DDs, give battleships all cruiser tools and make events like hunt for bismarck which basically delletred all classes and replaced tehm with more battleships? when will you own up to your word and actually reduce the number of battleships in queue instead of increasing it every single patch.
Answer: No, I don’t, because clearly our perspectives differ. You have all rights for your opinion, but it is a player opinion, and you of course naturally care for those game elements that you interact with. We, on the other hand, should think about the whole game, and the whole playerbase. This is why community-proposed solutions to some balance issues are not always good (however, we do adapt those that are workable and are very grateful for that). Sorry you are disappointed, but again, no, I don’t feel hypocritical and I am very fond of my job. Cheers.

Question: What was the reason behind making ranked battles a seasonal mode rather than a permanent mode? Apparently the rewards might need to be changed but I think a lot of people want it available at all times so they can choose to play somewhat higher quality games besides entertaining in random mode.
Answer: Because Ranked is one of activities in WoWs, and we would like it to be scheduled with other fun stuff, like campaigns and PvE “seasons”

Question: Have you recieved any feedback (so far) on the tutorials you wanted to offer via personal offers?
Answer:We actually saw some boost in new players engagement, and it may be connected to personal tutorial campaign. However, we’re starting full analysis only this week – we wanted to grab more data to be more precise. So, we’ll see soon. The research will be quite detailed, as we showed this campaign to only half of new players, so we’ll compare their results and performance.

Question: There was recently a post in regards to heat maps for World of Tanks (where is the action accumulated over a few 10k battels). Now I know this may compromise your statistics to release something like that, but could we maybe get that for old maps? e.g. old ‘Islands of Ice’ (btw bring this map back!).
Answer: We have heat map tool, but honestly, I don’t see any reason to share the data, even old. I’ll ask our level designers what they think about it though.

Question: Are you satisfied with current mid/high tier cruiser meta and have you any plans on optimizing that
Answer: More or less. In terms of balancing, right now, we give all our resources to 3 things: CV balancing (I mentioned that), BB countering and a couple of high tier underperforming/controversial ships. If everything goes well, you will see the results of our work on this problems soon. Then, we will gladly address other concerns.

CV rework + related

Question: Does the dev team know about the existence of the following severe CV bugs and have any plan to fix it: when you try to adjust the fighter strafing direction repeatedly within a very short time, it will create a 360 degree “damage radius” rather than dealing damage in a straight line. This bug affects CV gameplay greatly and causes a lot of annoyance even for veteran CV players.
Answer: Should be fixed in 0.6.7.

Question: What’s your favorite type of pizza? Also any time frame that we can expect to see/here about the CV rework you have been teasing?
Answer: Thank you very much. I want some pizza now, but I’m stuck here at work with a glass of water and a handful of hardtacks :-| Some changes are about to be ST and PT-tested. We’re not forgetting CVs, don’t worry! A little bit more on that here

Question: How’s the CV rework going? Is Kaga some sort of herald about how new CVs could work (more diversivied load outs / faster torpedos)?
Answer: The data on previous CV changes has been processed and analyzed. We’ll have internal discussion on the next steps pretty soon. As for CV balancing, we’re testing new concept for USN loadouts, which actually should be LESS focused and MORE universal – what most players requested – and AP bombs for high-tier USN CVs. It’s internal test for now, so no confirmation, no promises, but as a concept, it looks interesting for now. More balanced against IJN and more threat to BBs

Question: What was the motive against carrier planes in this change? Can there please be an update without a cv nerf? I am genuinely sadden of how WG studio actually hates a sub-group of players.
Answer: The change is designed to exclude some cases like 1 plane spotting you (in a ship with good concealment) in the open water without being spotted in return. This change is not intended to nerf CV performance, and we don’t expect it do do so. In case of problems, counter-buffs will be applied.

Clan

Question: About clan Functionality we currently don’t have a “days Since Played” with only 30 players allowed in our clan at the moment we have to be more stringent on who is & isn’t staying in the Clan. And having a counter that shows “30 Days since last played WOWS” would be exceptionally handy.
Answer: Hi. The feature is planned, and will be implemented in one of the future updates.

Question: Any estimate when clan wars or other clan vs clan (or just larger than 3-player division PVP) will be coming to WOWS? Community run leagues are cool, but true in game support would help fill the gap between 2 seasons/year of Supremacy League on NA. Answer: Not yet. For now 7-players divisions are only for new PvE mode. Then, clan casual (not clan versus clan) gameplay is in queue. Then, there will be time for clan versus clan mode. This is the current plan.

Suggestions

Question: Will you please oh please consider including the norwegian destroyer HNoMS Stord to the game as a premium? It’s an S-class british destroyer that got transferred to norway in 1943. At the time as we know Norway was occupied by the germans, with the government exiled in England. The Stord took part in the sinking of the Scharnhorst, and the Normandy landings. [shortened] I would just love to have a norwegian navy ship in the game, especially since much of the naval action in the atlantic was influenced by the german fortification of Norway.
Answer: Thank you for the insight in history. I will send your suggestion the the guys who plan premium ships.

Question: Hey SubOctavian, thanks for all the hard work you put into the community both here on reddit and in your regular work. I know we on reddit can be a bit reactive sometimes so thanks for sticking with us! Q’s: 1.) Which Royal Navy BB are you most excited to play?? 2.) I made a post about this on the subreddit but I wanted to pose it to you directly. Is there any way you guys at Wargaming could look at implementing a more “final hull” for Colorado. Either West Virginia or Maryland. I know the past you have said the AA on WeeVee would be too strong for tier 7, but with the Gneisenau and potential for a very strong AA suite on KGV might you guys and gals reevaluate that? West Virginia’s hull would be a great way for you to get rid of the odd extra heal given to Colorado to compensate for its low HP pool. It would also look sexy as hell and be an amazing way to end the USN standard BB line. Answer: Hi. No problem. We all need to learn by mistakes, my communication is not perfect at all, too:)
Honestly, Tier X. With time, I found myself enjoying TX games more and more. Right now, if we’re talking about Randoms, I am mostly interested in playing top vehicles.
That’s probably more argument to nerf Gneisenau, than to work on Colorado buff :(

Question: Are there plans to add more “weather effect” on the ships? What i mean is that when raining, small puddles form on the ships, could it happen when snowing too? Could you change some “cyclone” event with “snow storm” on colder maps?
Answer: No such plans for now – we’re upgrading other effects. Maybe later, when we’re done with that.

Question: Any plans to change the special upgrades( i. e. put a separate slot for them on ships or make them winnable from a lucky “more consumables” crate, not a SC)?
Answer: There are some ideas about their distribution methods and about their performance. We’re on it, no exact decisions yet, but we’re on it. Definitely not a separate slot though.

Miscellaneous

Question: How are new maps coming along?
Answer: We’re finalizing one right now. If it passes all final checks, you’ll see it soon.

Question: Premium ship balance: Where do you think is the tricky part in balancing premiums? New consumables or other special gameplay features?
Answer: The tricky thing is that we support free to win concept, but players who invest money have very high expectations for their ships performance. To balance this is a challenge. And no, I am not blaming players for having these expectations. What you mentioned is a part of the issue; people tend to like very powerful or very gimmicky ships better, and treat normally balanced premiums badly. We do our best. Premium ships should be balanced more or less like regular ships. Premium ships do generate revenue, but so does big audience, premium account, etc. So healthy balance is more important. I personally think some premiums turned out to be more powerful than needed, but so did many regular ships. It is impossible to reach 100% accurate equality. Player skill is also an issue (again, it counts for regular ships too). I guess you understand the difference between skillful and not skillful Atlanta.

Question: You mentioned in a recent comment that the UI team is rather overloaded atm. Any plans to change that with new colleagues? Or will it simply ‘work out’ over time?
Answer: With this development cycle (3 weeks, quite constant stream of new features) I don’t think the guys will have time to relax no matter what. But don’t worry, we feed them more borsch for moar dev power!

Question: Will you stop the staggered releases for new premium ships? I can fully understand why they are done, to make yourselves more money, you are a business, profit has to come first, I fully appreciate that, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I think what happened with the HMS Hood release was very poor from WG, a very famous and much requested ship finally gets released, but only to rich people for the first few weeks. In the short term, I feel that this is a good money making move, but in the long term, if this keeps happening, people are just going to get angry and leave, therefore less money in the long term, and a pissed off, smaller fanbase. Answer: I don’t know. That will be decided by each region depending on this type of release sentiment and revenue. I won’t dwell upon this question much, not because I don’t want to talk, but because I think I already gave as much comment as I could. Here and here – 1,2,3.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “WoWS Q&A – 6th June 2017

  1. “More or less. In terms of balancing, right now, we give all our resources to 3 things: CV balancing (I mentioned that), BB countering and a couple of high tier underperforming/controversial ships. If everything goes well, you will see the results of our work on this problems soon. Then, we will gladly address other concerns.”

    in other words: fuck cruisers in the short to medium term future

    Liked by 1 person

  2. You know….they could just had given the Atlanta OPTIONS for torpedoes like a certain US DD have. 4.5km range fast torps and 9.2km moderate/slow torps.

    Like

  3. Those AP bombs are not going to go over well, if they don’t have some sort of limiter to inhibit completely melting a cruiser from 100 to 0 (to say nothing about BB players) from a group of AP DBs in one or two passes, and are more likely to end up getting the USN CVs nerfed even harder after the changes. I would have liked WG giving the USN HVAR rockets as an alternative to dive bombs, and basically make ’em the USN equivalent of a torpedo-style drop, just from the skies instead off in the water. Make up for the lack of HE damage with high chance of fires and a shorter turnaround time. That would make ’em a fairly spammy and damage dealing off incessant fires, but would be easier to balance than AP bombers.

    Like

  4. There was a source saying that while AP bomb could do regular penetration on BBs, they can OPen cruisers and DDs.

    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