WoWS Q&A – 29th August 2017

A german port is coming to the game, probably Hamburg, more unique camos with unique commanders, premium german DD coming.

Source: WG EU stream: https://www.twitch.tv/wgeu

Q&A from this (German) stream

gathered by Horin728, EU

1) (08:37) Italians scheduled for end of next year

2) (08:45) It’s unlikely that there’ll be a crew / crew management like the one in WoT, but Ev1n would like to expand the captain system with a second crew member that represents the whole crew of a ship. Thus you’d have a commander and a crew, the latter would be bound to the ship. That’s what it could (!) look like, but we’ll have to see.

3) (09:39) Q about GZ which is no news here, will probably get TBs with deep water torps if they proof suitable.

4) (10:05) IFHE and smoke nerf will probably come at the same time.

5) (10:11) Roma’s model is being worked on.

6) (10:45) On the question whether they will rework the captain skill system or if they’re satisfied, Ev1n says they’re never satisfied with anything. They’re always looking into ways to improve the game.

7) (11:28) RPF is still a controversial topic but it doesn’t have too much influence on the game. Competitive might be an exception since it may be a must have skill there for DDs. But we’ll see. If it prooves too detrimental for the game it’ll be removed or changed like IFHE.

8) (12:02) Kitakami might come back for events for example. Regarding PvP: “Erm….. I’d rather not.”

9) (12:47) MM +/-1 is heavily dependent on number of players, so if WoWs does have the number of players WoT has today then maybe one day in the distant future.

10) (13:54) Submarines. We don’t see a feasible way to include them into the game, since they’re very very slow. But we are thinking about different possibilites. One of the many ideas was to have submarines players spawn behind the enemy spawn instead of their own team’s spawn. That way you’d have a similar effect as in PUBG where you have that blue border pushing you in. That might be a similar effect. Whether or not that’ll work… your guess is as good as mine. That’s pre-design / concept, so don’t expect anything anytime soon.

11) (15:40) Convoys are still alive. The concept still lives on, it’s just not really neccessary for the game as it is right now. It’s still on our minds and maybe we’ll find some other application for them.

12) (17:28) It doesn’t seem to be very appealing if you had to fight a Yamato with one of those scenario torpedoboats / Schnellboote. Those ships were initially the class we considered an additional class for the game, together with submarines. But you’d have controlled them in a similar way as you control CV squadrons, so you’d have a group of them and control all of them as one squadron. However, since we still have issues with CVs as it is, there’s no point in trying to adapt that concept for those torpedoboats.

13) (18:43) Half the dev team are navyfield veterans. Initially the CVs had a kind of artillery view so they played relatively similar to the other ships and there, the CV concept worked out because of this. Balance was fairly ok back then, but we had no really good idea how to rework the CV concept for the new top down view. We maybe have an idea where you could control your planes the same way you follow your shells, but here you could actually control the panes, which would enable a sort of skill shot. Well, it’s but one idea.

14) (20:39) Wargaming has it’s own event in Russia and thus doesn’t attend Igromir anymore.

15) (21:08) He thinks that there’ll be a BB tech tree each year. Ev1n makes it clear that for him there should be an European tech tree release each gamescom. German lines are in the game already, strong “nein nein nein” for German CV line.

16) (21:43) There’ll be alternate trees for Germans, Americans, Japan and the British, at some point, in the distant future.

17) (22:37) New weapon type we tested were missiles. They were really really great, but not for this game. You’d have followed a single shot missile and steered it into the target. It was super fun, but it was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too strong. It’s just not a feature that is suitable for this game. We also tried an unguided variant, but that was just boring, it was just like normal shooting but slower with more damage.

18) (25:00) Next CV tech tree will be British, but no comment on when they’ll come. We still need to rework the CV gameplay before that anyway. IJN Tone is also tied to this rework, as are other hybrid vessels, meaning they’ll certainly not come before the CV rework is done.

19) (26:27) We tested mines in Operation Dynamo and they worked pretty well. Question now is how we could include them into PvP games, if we were to include them at all.

20) (29:45) New map every two-three updates. [Seb: they WoT devs should learn from those guys]

21) (29:56) Yes, there’ll be a German premium DD.

Source: WG

ST, new skin for Oktyabrskaya Revolutsiya

21083017_1924787264514278_349258730146001697_o.jpg

ST, Italian battleship Giulio Cesare, tier V.

Hit points – 45 500, plating – 19 mm, belt – 130-250 mm. Main battery – 2х2 and 2х3 320 mm. Firing range – 16,4 km. HE damage – 4800, AP damage – 9700. Reload time 30 s, 180 degree turn time – 36 s, maximum dispersion – 138 m. Sigma – 1.5. HE and AP initial velocity – 830 m/s. Maximum speed – 27 kt. Turning circle radius – 640 m, rudder shift time – 13 s. Surface detectability – 13,3 km, air detectability – 9,4 km.
All stats are listed without crew and upgrade modifiers. They are subject to change throughout the development and balancing process.

21199690_1925164537809884_8207053287450119679_o.jpg

Older Q&A – dated 8-10 August, answered by Tuccy and Kandly:

Q:

Hello,

although I greatly appreciate the counter to BB overpopulation that is the Yamamoto campaign, which incentivises the usage of Cruisers thus making them abundant in numbers, I am thinking of a more permanent measure that disincentivises the usage of battleships themselves, since the campaign although will run indefinitely, will be completed by some of the people at some point, thus bringing us back to square one.

I am thinking not a direct nerf (e.g. increase dispersion 20%) but something less direct, but that will stay, can be easily reverted down the road, will cause people to play a bit better, and maybe prevent them of running to their battleships all the time.

So how about making the economy for battlships unforgiving for all but the good performers? I am not talking super-unicum performers, but rather average to good.

Just as an example, if one causes damage to enemy ships that is less or equal to one’s own ship’s HP, then one should lose credits, badly. The player will thus turn to other classes to make money. Almost like what the intention with T10 ships was before the introduction of the premium camos.

Q2:

I was thinking that what is needed is to make doing well require movement and tactics on the part of BB players.

1)All know that there are 3 ranges of importance, view range (+ LOS), detection range, and weapon range(s). Fact: BBs weapon range is longer than the view range, so anything they are firing over that view range is due to someone else spotting for them. RL is that ships used Artillery target devices to adjust their fire aim, elevation needed etc. These could only used within view range. The communication with other ships planes etc spotting is much less effective. My suggestion is that all shells shot beyond vision range have a dispersion multiplier! This would work for all classes.

I was thinking that requiring them to do a set amount of damage (adjusted by tier) before damage started earning credits and rep.

I was also thinking if you reduce the number of repair parties to 2 with a level 2 bring 3 while at the same time give cruisers 1 with a level 2 giving them a 2 starting Tier 5.

The other change needs to be made to catching fire as BBs do enough damage with HP damage and 49% chance of causing a fire is too much.  I would suggest that only HE penetrating shots would have a low chance of fire and a slow rate of eating hit points! No-penetrating HE rounds act only Modules/ low damage to hitpoints as explosives!   The BB player would then have to chose what ammo for what ship type.

A:

@FireRM

Unfortunately the result of harsher economy tends to be more conservative play – “playing it safe”. If anything, we tried to rather take the damage taken out of the equation (by changing from Repair to Servicing cost) and it helped a bit, but to be honest while in battle, players do not tend to care about economy (as already a battleship that is pushing actively often gets far better reward than long distance sniper).

@Iron_Walls

Do not forget that such mechanics would have to apply over the board – such limit would hurt mostly cruisers and destroyers trying to set fire to battleships. The high chance of fire for battleship main guns is balanced by their low rate of fire and overall firing AP is more effective (and encouraged).

As for limiting the amount of heals available, that would punish more battleships that tend to play risky and as a result take more damage.

Q:

Will there be more ships for Commonwealth? HMCS Haida? HMAS Vampire? HMS Malaya, even though Malaya operated by Royal Navy but the sponsor is Federation of Malaya so it can fit somehow.

Well, my Perth is lonely.

A:

Yes, we would like to add more Commonwealth ships to keep Perth company (and there is a lot to select, though most of them would be rather similar to the Brits). However, as usual, no comment yet on which ship or when. 

(I mean there were also WWI battlecruisers, there would be plenty of interesting DDs in post-war commonwealth… Though I guess we will never see HMIS Bengal ;))

Q:

Any chance of there being a Commonwealth Tree of regular ships? I have in the past put forward a Cruiser branch for tiers 1-8. Also I have been working on a DD branch based on the Anthony an “A” class at tier 5 and Gallant a “G” class at tier 6. The RCN for example had a modified special build for the RCN “A” class with a reinforced hull to protect against ice as well as a slightly longer ranger and a modified forecastle. Also all the “C” class DD went to the RCN and the last two built tribal class built in Canada (Micmac and Cayuga) had completely different armament along with improved fire control etc. so in effect a sub-class.

A:

There is always a chance :) Though again, definitely not in the short run.

Q:

Can we get a British premium CV now we have Graf Zep, HMS Ark Royal would be amazing or a reskinned Bogue/Ruler escort carrier.

A:

USS Robin? 

In any case we do not generally reveal new ship bfore it is time to do so, so… no comment, follow the forums and facebook page and wait for when such a thing appears :)

TBH Brits would have a potential or “carrier fighters” and “carrier fighter-bombers” rather than a “torpedo / dive bomber” split, but that would require new mechanics etc. – we are not there yet. Give it some more time :)

Q:

Right now, the gameplay is a mix of historical and realistic feature and pure fantasy settings to induce a good and interesting gameplay.

But we can see that new ships lines don’t offer new varieties of gameplay (french cruisers, possible RN BB line and Pan Asia DD line…), that’s fine in a historical pov but not in a gameplay focused on “team deathmatch”.

Do you consider adding more “fantasy” features to the game to improve teamplay or individual play ?

A:

The British battleships will offer plenty of new flavour – esp. for players willing to tank (the repair consumable). While we try to make each branch somehow interesting, often it is subtle (cue in French cruisers – speed consumable and biggest guns on cruiser (well on real cruiser, not on Panzerschiffe), in other lines it is more visible (UK cruisers).

On the other hand we do not want to go completely off the board here – so we are trying to keep craziness in check.

Q:

Is there any way we could sell these? I keep getting them in containers and currently am sitting at 72 empty spaces…

A:

No way to sell them is planned – they are basically improving your capacity and do not despair, they may come in handy in the future perhaps. Maybe switch the container type? I usually go for flags anyway.

Q:

Is a rework or tweaks of Heavy cruisers planned or even in developpers mind ?

ATM Light cruisers deals more HE DPM thanks to IFHE, and deals more Fires per minutes even with IFHE than heavy cruisers.

From a BB point of view, both Light cruisers and heavy cruisers are fragile ships and their AP can penetrate them with ease.

From a DD point of view, light cruisers concealment and rapid fire is much more feared than heavy hitting HE but with longer reload (the DD has more time to disappear)

From a CV pow, light cruisers have equal or sometimes more AA defense.

From a Light cruisers pow, heavy cruisers can citadels them but even light cruisers can citadel them, and light cruiser can dish out a lot of AP dmg and cits too on heavy cruisers.

A:

Do not underestimate CAs, they can citadel CLs far better than CLs them :)

That being said, one thing is that while we would like cruisers to be used a bit more, especially at higher tiers… Better cruisers may well result not in less battleships, but less destroyers (as they are kinda the prey for cruisers).

Q:

shot-17_08.10_13.18_08-0627.thumb.jpg.ffc560d533644510bcf05754f4508a8e.jpg

So.

Considering all the money i gave you. Can i ask WHY you considered a 1st hull this crap ?

you the 1st QE hull is this:

598c44ee3989a_QE1918.thumb.png.e07c5493e16382b4f0eb905e8e3d55dc.png

FOR THE FIRST TIME I FEEL REALLY DISAPPOINTED.

 

A:

The answer is simple: Despite few people on forum swearing by WWI hulls as stock, they are extremely annoying for the players and end up being used no longer than they have to be or directly skipped for free XP, mostly because of very bad survivability and AAA. Contrary to popular belief we do not like our players to suffer unnecessarily. At the same time what is the point of having a historical configuration in game if it is, from gameplay point of view, useless?  Like it or not, for vast majority of players – including those with historical interest – gameplay comes first.

This is also reason why stock hulls of some Japanese and American battleships were removed – so yes, we have numbers and player surveys to support the decision. Somehow that removal was not disputed (probably because players had the chance to witness it firsthand), though it gets brought up with every new battleship tree.

(And no, using WWI model with the current stock hull AA armament would not be better – for one, it is extremely disturbing to see empty deck shooting at planes or when trying to view your armament in port – and the WWI hulls with WWI secondaries and AA are really not viable at high tiers)

The stock ships can appear as premiums/special ships sometimes, but then overall require the Mutsu treatment – ie different tier – or being osn a tier air is less of a concern (Arkansas vs. Wyoming).

Q:

I’ve already asked about it in the past but I didn’t get a reply in the end. So let’s try this time :)

In the client we’ve got the artwork for two achievements: Brothers in Arms and Crucial Contribution. Any chance to see them implemented soon?

For anyone curious, this is how they look.

Brothers in Arms:

icon_achievement_BROTHERS_IN_ARMS.png

Crucial Contribution:

icon_achievement_DECISIVE_CONTRIBUTION.p

A:

There is a lot of things int he client that are not currently used :) For now we do not plan to introduce such achievements, maybe in the more distant future – right now we have other priorities.

Q:

There were news of WG thinking in changing the smoke mechanics and apply a penalty to smoke duration if there were ships firing from inside or near it (specially battleships) and Kandly brought us an update on that that let us now the the implementation of that would be later since there was still work to do with said changes, some time has past now. Is there any news about that?

A:

Hi SHDRKN4792!

When it comes to the planned smoke changes we are still testing different options and setups. We still want to limit smoke blobbing but we are trying to find the best way to do it in a way that doesn’t inconvenience captains sailing “smoke ships”.

Q:

Any plan for IJN cruisers buffs? Like Mogami armour buff, Ibuki rof?

A:

Looking at stats from the last month, they do not seem to need it. Though Ibuki is lagging a bit behind, it is not really significant difference… and Mogami is pretty well established on tier VIII.

Just to give an example, Ibuki’s difference in win rate to the best Tier IX cruiser is less than between best and worst of ARP Myokos (which exceeds 5% WR) ;)

that being said we do keep an eye on individual ship performance all the time, though balance changes are a long track run and step in where needed, but it generally takes a really significant over / underperformance to make it worth it :)

Q:

I just saw the announcement for the Pan Asia tech tree and I’m confused.

Don’t get me wrong, I like every addition of ships, simply because there’s more content to play with.

But I’m confused because apparently Nelson is gunwise too weird to fit into the UK BB tech tree (exact words used by Sub Octavian), but apparently it’s not too weird to mix DDs from around the world from different nations with different playstyles fit into one line? Can somebody explain this to me? I really don’t understand why Nelson’s misfit is a gamebreaker but the misfit of an entire line is not.

A:

How do you know all the DDs have different playstyle? 

From looking at them (actually they will just be joining ST so cannot even comment on their ingame behavior, but this is rather extrapolating from what can be found about ships historically and ferom the description we provided)

Tier II: German boat, so rather gunboat.

Tier III: Brits so far seem to be kinda balanced gun/torp boats, then again only examples are Anthony and Gallant and Anthony cannot be really counted. Blyskawica is however a British design – and an excellent gunboat. Tier III is Brit.

Tier IV: While originally Japanese torpedo boat, she was captured armed with only one gun and no torpedo launchers, as she was used as Kaiten carrier. Among proposals (not fulfilled) for her modification was using US 5″/51 guns and torpedoes – which we have here. So… Kinda like the 5″/51 conversion of some late Clemsons. Ergo… More likely to be a gunboat.

Tier V: Destroyer flotilla leader project. While never built, these ships were overall supposed to lend a hand to normal destroyers with heavier gun armament.

Tier VI: Project 7. Need to add more?

Tier VII: This is the big unknown. However… N class were large destroyers banking on gun armament. Again, history draws parallel to Blyskawica.

Tiers VIII – X: US destroyers. ’nuff said.

So… While the ships are from a host of backgrounds, it does not seem to be too outlandish to me to think that they will have similar enough playstyles and increasing gun / torpedo power and survivability along the tiers :)

Q:

I’ve watched the Dunkirk movie last saturday and when I read that 12 actual “little ships of dunkirk” participated in the recording of this movie i thought and wanted to know if we actually have real “little ships of dunkirk” in Operation Dynamo and if they were created via blueprints or if they were made via images. And if we have real little ships of dunkirk it would be awesome if we could get a list of them.

A:

Ships used:

  • Goliath
  • Caboteur
  • Lorina
  • Aronia
  • Medway Queen
  • Canterbury
  • John Cattling
  On 08.08.2017 at 8:47 PM, MasaruKondera said:

if they were created via blueprints or if they were made via images.

The process depends on the ship. Some of them were created via blueprints, others from images, depending on their fate. 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “WoWS Q&A – 29th August 2017

  1. 19) (26:27) We tested mines in Operation Dynamo and they worked pretty well. Question now is how we could include them into PvP games, if we were to include them at all.
    – They could add Minesweepers to the game. Something like 3-4 km detection range, bad artillery and then mines. Goal is to put mines into the water where you suspect that an enemy will sail, thus colliding into the mine, resulting in damage.

    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