Q&A by Sub_Octavian on Reddit:
Q: Can we learn final results for clan battle test? Please give us some spoiler about ship limitations or other things? What do you think about it?
A: We’re finalizing it now. I think it’s safe to say we will tell you much more on Monday in a separate article:)
DDs vs. BB AP
Q1/3: How is work going on the new ballistic model (the one that will fix double pen damage and stop DDs from getting obliterated bu BB AP)?
A1/3: Prototyped and now being tested. The results we see are..pretty good for DDs, and there are even some effects on BB-BB combat (more in-class damage) but we need to make sure the same change won’t be a nerf to cruisers – which is absolutely NOT the thing we need.
Q2/3: Any word on the release of the Pan-Asia DDs? (just a rough timeline estimate)
A2/3: Well, right now, we need to production test two concepts of DW torpedoes (realistic draught-based and simplified, but more reliable and user-friendly class-based). I’d say, we need 2 major updates at minimum (including 0.6.11).
Q3/3: When is the next ranked season going to start?
A3/3: Probably later, not this year, because we’re launching Clan Battles soon, and don’t want such events to overlap, at least from the start.
Q: For playing in a clan, wouldnt it be a good addition to motivate players to actually play with their clan mates now? I see more and more clans being created just for grinding the unlocks of the base (which is to be expected) but those players never play the game together, they only join and then play alone or in divisions, so the oil gets contributed to the clan but nothing else is going on. Maybe a bonus % on the oil being earned when you actually play with a clanmate? Something like a permament mission that is “win a battle with atleast one clanmate in your team = 1 oil”.
A: Thank you for your suggestion. It’s quite interesting, and while I’m not sure our competitive designers hadn’t thought about it already, I will discuss this. But yes, Clan Battles should be quite motivating.
Q: Is it intented that purchased containers (right now, Anniversary containers on the webshops) reward 10 oil each? Doesnt that in a way enable people to pay real money to build up their clan base faster than others? Or is that a bug that might be fixed with the next bunch of paid containers coming? If it is intended, i can hear people crying “pay to win” again and such (sure, not win but advance much faster, the usual pitchforks) and i have seen comments about this already here.
A: It is intended, however, only for unified approach – if you win or get a container in any in-game event, it will work the same. We absolutely don’t expect anyone to buy the containers because of 10 oil only. On the other hand, if the oil was missing from premium shop containers exclusively, that would be quite weird, in our opinion.
Deep Water torps and Water depth
Q: Does the game model sea level depth to what extent? Meaning here that would the DW torps hit the sea bottom in certain shallow places where normal torps could still pass?
A: No shallows for torpedoes are planned, it’s about pure torpedo-target interaction.
AP Bombs and CV div
Q1/2: Given how we have exposure to AP dive bombs now (from both GZ and enterprise), how is their performance with regards to automatic, manual, and panicked drops? As it is now, the autodrops are far too effective in relation
A1/2: I am not ready to share the stats. However, I think we will report the state of GZ test in a dedicated FB groupr when we’re done with the first stage.
Q2/2: What is your/WG’s perception of CV divisions? Specifically divisions where a CV brings 2 (unicum or not) AA ships, thereby guaranteeing the presence of excellent AA on at least 1 flank with no such guarantee for the opposite team. This is very unfun to face as an opposing solo CV, as you surrender control of the air on 1 flank immediately regardless of skill level. Starting at T6, every tier can have such divisions. This is particularly annoying when the AA range (damage likely compounded with MAA) exceeds the air detection range. I think forcing CV divs to always meet CV divs would be good start.
A2/2: Divisions (as well as other forms of coordinated teamplay) are very strong in our game overall, not only CV/AA. We would “nerf” them a bit actually, but point is, it’s hard to nerf them without severely hurting in-game socialization.
USN CL line
Q: Just one question from me and that’s about the infamous U.S Cruiser tree split. Is it next in line after the recent RN BB launch or is it pushed further down in favor of another line? (not asking to reveal more)
A: No, it’s not next. The next are PA DDs, and then, I believe, there will be at least one more new line. But the split is in the plans, and being worked on.
Compliments to Sub_Octavian!
Q: No questions but just want to compliment you on the very nice anniversary special we got! It was very well designed and really drew me back in the game. In-game campaigns and proper specials (viz. Bismarck campaign, Dunkirk special, anniversary special) are the highlights for me in this game! Hope you can keep this stuff up and throw a special/campaign like those every 2 months!
A: Hello. My part was the collection design, and I am happy to know you enjoyed it. I will pass your feedback to the whole B-Day group, because yes, I feel we did it right.
Ranked Reward Ship
Q: are you allowed to give hints about the next ranked reward ship?
A: I would hint it, but I don’t know yet :D
Q: Will Stealth AA ever be given the same treatment as Stealth Firing? Having your planes chewed up by ships you can’t see is extremely frustrating.
A: Yes. We know, and sorry for the bad experience. I cannot promise you the exact time, but it should be done around 0.6.13-0.6.14.
PA DDs downsides
Q: What is supposed to be the downside of the panasian Sumner? As it is currently it combines the strongpoints of both gearing(six fast-firing guns in zippy turrets, fast, stealthy, hard-hitting torps, extremely long smoke duration) with the strongpoints of yugumo, which is IMO currently the strongest IJN DD (stealth and supremely low freeboard making it hard to hit), while having none of the weaknesses these two have(largw target for gearing, iffy gunpower for yugumo), is more agile than both of them and if i am not mistaken also faster and it gets radar to top it all off. While i understand that in the end you are here to take our money, but with lines like the RNBBs alrwady out tat disrupt t10 balance for both cruisers and battleships and the panasian DDs that are atm shaping up to invalidate all t10 DDs except kebab(which is hardly a DD) and z-52(which only stays relevant because of its hydro) i and i am sure many othe rlong-term players and customers are rapidly losing motivation to pay for or even play the game.
A: Right now it cannot hit DDs with torps. PA DDs, as other lines, shouldn’t be OP, we realize it hurts the game, especially in the long run. However, you should remember that the production test of PA DDs has just started. We’ll see what needs (or doesn’t need to) be tweaked.
Q: Right now we see a lot of complaints about underwater citadels in battleships. While I can see that you are looking to enable more aggressive battleship play to change the passivity that was much complained about, don’t you think that it creates a risk-reward issue? Battleships’ main armour belt used to be a target with high risk (difficult to penetrate) for high reward (citadel damage), but now they are high risk for no reward as you won’t get anything better than penetrations.
A: If we’re talking about RN BBs, then, we will get back to them when the data size is enough, and player distribution is similar to older lines. If we’re talking about the recent Montana/Iowa debate, then..eh..sorry to say that, but the community insisted (heavily) we lower their citadels, and the reasons were decent. You can still deal significant damage to them, and sailing broadside is still a huge risk. I don’t see any problem with it – but there are other, more class-specific problems, like excessive AP damage to DDs or issues with some cruisers’ survival ability.
Q: Wanna throw us a bone what kind of goals you have for the planned CV balance? I am not asking about “what stats you would change”, but where you see CVs after the rebalance. (Some examples in link)
A: Hello. I know that 2017 was not fruitful for CV improvements – many things went slower than we expected. Right now, what we’re doing is preparing a couple of bug fixes, and still working on USN overspecialization and USN/IJN balance. I hope we’ll issue some tweaks this year. However, I’m often asked about some global CV rework (along with related AA). What I can say is that we actually want to try something completely new – not just tweaks, but some major overhaul. And finally, we’re able to allocate resources to this task. You should realize that any major overhaul requires a lot of planning, prototyping, internal tests, external tests and support on release to be successful. It’s safe to say that we’re on prototyping stage now, and we’re excited to go on in 2018. For now, I cannot tell you more.
Q: When are we finally getting the option to mute other players from voice commands? (F-commands)
A: Hello. Frankly speaking, I don’t recall this question either, and was unaware this is a big issue. However, what you’re saying makes sense. I’ve just passed this to UI team, and they have put it in their “possible improvements” queue – which does not guarantee changes are coming soon, but it will be properly discussed. Thank you!
Q: The “paintings” (like this one ) on the portal for the weekly missions, calendar, specials,… Who makes them, and how are they being made? And will there be, somewhere in the future, a dedicated corner where we can enjoy those artworks in high(er) sizes & resolution, without text in front of it?
A: Our 2D Art team makes them. Mostly, they are based on 3D source models with lots of after editing. As for the corner, I will pass your idea to my colleagues. Apparently the media section of the website is not detailed enough. Thanks you!
Q1/7: There was quite a bit of discussion in the last weeks about mid/high tier cruisers. Are you currently satisfied with them and it’s only a few single ships that maybe need a buff, or is there something general amiss here.
A1/7: T9-10 cruisers are fine (especially if BBs efficiency is controlled a bit, and that we’re going to do). Mid cruisers could use some love. But the most tricky part that there may be CL vs CA issues within.
Q2/7: How satsified are you with the statistics from the USN BBs with regards to survivabilty (lowered citadel) and how does it work with the problem of ‘too many BBs’ being around.
A2/7: USN BB experience has improved. Of course it contributed to BB class problem a bit (like, now we have a couple of more comfortable BBs – it naturally makes BB class better to some extent as a whole), however, it mostly revolves about BB vs BB balance. The change was implemented long time ago, and was widely welcomed. I think bringing it up and trying to pose it as an issue is a bit like witch hunting – yes, there are BB class balance problems, but it doesn’t mean any BB improvement is bad.
Q3/7: Ev1n spoke about, that in his opinion the Conquerer is probably in need of a nerf. What was the reasoning behind giving the RN BBs so over the top fire chance and HE Alpha DMG and how/why do you (WG statistics/game balance) think it’ll break any ‘Bow on’ meta
A3/7: I don’t know whether we will have to nerf Conqueror, or other newly introduced ships at this early stage, when the playerbase is not settled. When we have solid data, we may apply some tweaks. The reasoning was that a ship should have a few strengths – and for UK BBs, HE shell is one of them, also fitting to the lore.
Q4/7: More and more people say (and I agree) that HE playing BBs remove the skill about aiming and ammo choice? How does WG incentivize players to work more for skill and ammo choice if plain HE spam works well enough for RN BBs?
A4/7: Maximum efficiency can be reached only when using appropriate ammo. And that’s cool. Sometimes this rule does not work correctly – e.g., overall, BBs are too good with their APs against DDs – and that will hopefully be fixed. If someone wants to play AP or HE only, it’s the choice that will work, but such player will do worse than the player who switches ammo depending on situation.
Q5/7: What was the reasoning behind banning T5 ships from the PvE operations?
A5/7: This was a popular request, and overall, it was reasonable – one tier operations allows better balance.
Q6/7: Any ideas on what/how to expand the naval base? Both optical (moving cars, other visual stuff) and economical (small boosts or maybe a clan bank)?
A6/7: It’s just been released. I think it’s a bit early to elaborate on future plans.
Q7/7: Any chance Zao get’s a small reload OR turret angle OR torp angle buff? Given that she has the lowest base reload of all T10s…
A7/7: I don’t think so, because Zao is doing good.
Q1/8: Might the Campbeltown receive the single torp launch option to be on par with the other RN ships?
A1/8: Well, she looks fine as she is.
Q2/8: So far, what does your official data say about the balance of the RN BBs?
A2/8: That it’s too early to draw solid conclusions for high-mid tiers. For low tiers, only Orion is showing some excessive WR, and in terms of damage, yes, they can score good absolute damage numbers with HE, but other low-mid tier BBs can actually do the similar stuff. So, we’re ready to react, but right now there are no nerfs incoming.
Q3/8: Might optionnal hulls come for the premiums? (like a zero AA Yubari with 6x140mm) Any candidates?
A3/8: Not planned to do it widely, but there are no severe restrictions either – e.g. Harekaze.
Q4/8: Any plans to allow RAN ships to train RN captains? Unless you have plans for a RAN tree (do you?), the Aussie ships -Vampire included- are useless as captain trainers, which discourage players to get one. :/
A4/8: No such plans.
Q5/8: Could you tell me which are the ships you are currently considering as “in need of some love” (premiums included)?
A5/8: Mahan can use some direct buff. DDs can use BB AP damage reduction (and I hope they will). USN CVs can use some balancing. CVs in general can use some attention to their overall gameplay.
Q6/8: Any plans to change the way Manual Secondaries skills for Tier 5-6 ships? Going from a poor bonus (15%) to a huge one (65%) by simply going up from Tier 6 to 7 seems somewhat unbalanced and wastes the potential for mid-Tier secondaries builds.
A6/8: We don’t want to increase secondaries efficiency on low tiers, partly because we don’t want to promote seal-clubbing.
Q7/8: Currently, ships equipped with radars at Tier 7 are locked behind a paywall. Are you satisfied with this situation of do you plan to introduce regular Tier 7 with radars ? (No that I really want to see those spammed, just asking ;) )
A7/8: That’s not an intentional effect, and there is no real business profit from this situation. T7 researchable radars may or may not appear – it will depend on the ships introduced.
Q8/8: When stealth fire was removed, what made criterias made you decide to give a compensation to a few ships/give nothing?
A8/8: AFAIK, there were no compensations – just the ability to respec for free, correct me if I’m wrong. The change was systematic, and applied to the whole game, hence no specific compensation. Sorry for the bad experience with Blyskawica, but the game balance is not, and never will be set in stone. It will constantly change. We do work to keep all ships viable, including premiums. If Blyska really suffered, the help would be already on the way. We’re happy if premium ship owners are happy of course, but balancing is a must.
Spotting Ribbons and UI scaling
Q1/2: Are there any plans to introduce ribbons for initial spotting and spotting damage? I think it would encourage DDs and CVs to engage in the scout role more regularly.
A1/2: Spotting ribbons are planned (would be nice to add tanking ribbons as well), but we’re not ready with design yet, so exact update is still to be determined.
Q2/2: And I know you probably get asked this every Q&A but is there any update on UI scaling? a simple “no” is fine :P
A2/2: No UI scaling updates, though.
Q: When do you plan on fixing extra damage from AP ricochets?
A: The issue is documented, and should be resolved eventually. We need time for it, because it’s quite rare and not always reproducable, but we consider it important. Sorry for the possible inconvenience caused by it, but at least we know about this one.
Q1/5: I know it’s a little early to ask this, but in the future, would it be possible that several small clans can join together and become an alliance? Since there are some clans that even cannot have enough players at the same time because of real life stuffs.
A1/5: It would be possible, if the clan meta gameplay will require it. For now, clan gameplay is going to be developing the naval base and participating in clan battles (7vs7). Such activities do not require any alliances. However, future activities may logically lead to creating bigger communities.
Q2/5: The IFHE change. I know that the first edition was abandoned because it would infect too many ships. However, the main problem is more on the specific statics rather than the concept. The concept, that to force players to choose one from fire-setting and alpha damage, is excellent. So have the devs totally abandoned this concept? (I’m sure the Devs will rethink this a few months later)
A2/5: Well, the cruisers overall are in difficult position, so while we’re not entirely happy with CL/CA balance, we don’t think it’s the right time to nerf IFHE heavily. We’re not abandoning the issue, though – it’s just that more global challenges are more important now.
Q3/5: The CV rework. You said that you won’t let the CV players down this year at the beginning of the year. And I know you met a lot of problems, which is unavoidable. I heard the WOT have solved the problem of the SPG a few months ago, which is similar to the CV problems here. So can you tell us a rough order of the changes(just like what to change first,etc)
A3/5: I’m afraid no global changes will happen this year (however, I don’t think it was promised). A few bug fixes and improvements (some are still to come in 2017), and some balancing – that’s all for now. However, we of course know we must to more and do better. At this point I cannot promise or even leak anything, but I can say we allocated some serious resources to build new CV concept (while the existing one will be polished and fixed from time to time). I will gladly tell you more when I have some solid information. Sorry for being slow with this.
Q4/5: A question about QA. There are many players who are not so good at English. Of course it’s a little difficult for them to come here and ask. So do you have any plans to do the QAs in different language parts in forums like in Japanese community or Spanish community?
A4/5: For now Developer Q&A are limited in this aspect, as me and my team know only Russian and English. Involving additional staff to translate back and forth is not currently possible, and it will inevitably slow down the process of Q&A. It’s tough, but for now, I don’t see any way to do any Dev Q&As outside of EN and RU languages:(
Q5/5: Is that Mr.SerB in the end of the anniversary video? I’m happy and surprised to see him :D
A5/5: Nope, that’s Danny Volkov, our Dev Director. Or did I miss something?
KM Premium DD
Q: Was wondering if you have any plans to release a premium KM DD.
A: Yes, we do:-)
Q: Just wondering how WG can say that all T10 ships are balanced and have a niche when A) Conquerer exists and B) You ban CV and limit BB to 1 in clan balance. Those things contradict each other pretty cleanly, no?
A: No. Conqueror is a new ship, and every new ship settles in current meta for some time after the release. Yes, it can be proved OP..or not. We will see. In any case, if it will be proven OP (with the general audience, not just the current quite skilled playerbase), it will be tweaked. Yes, I know many players have told that she is OP from the very start – they can be right. Also, they can be wrong. Our bet is that she will be fine, hence the decision to release it. Class limitations in CW are different, and the reasons are given in the announcement.
Devs listening to good players
Q: Why is the dev team so reluctant when it comes to listening to the skilled part of the playerbase, the community contributors, and the supertesters? I don’t know about other players, but personally I would be more than satisfied if you guys took more time to listen to what testers have to say and release quality content that isn’t game-breaking like the RN BBs, or has powercreep implications like the upcoming PA DDs. I understand there are quality assurance rules and a content release schedule that you have to adhere to, but for the sake of the game’s long-term health I urge you to take your time and listen to the skilled players when it comes to game balance issues (I think they have a bit better perception of game balance than the lower skilled part of the playerbase, right?). And please improve the in-game tutorials so the less skilled playerbase has a better perception of the game.
A: All players matter. Sorry, I know about the conceptual conflict here, and mean no offense, but please, let’s stop being so elitist. There are thousands and thousands players out there. Not all of them are unicums, naturally. Yes, there are players with deeply profound knowledge about the game. Many of them play much better than developers – I know it. They often have great perspective and interesting ideas – and we try to interact with such players. However, we are responsible for the whole audience – and that of course influences our decisions a lot.
Feedback on Clan Battles
Q1/3: What was the feedback wargaming received to make the decision behind 0 CVs and 1 BB for clan battles? For me personally, I stared playing WoWS these past 8 months because I liked the concept of CVs and playing them. I really don’t see myself participating in clan battles as I am rather mediocre in the other ship classes. As for the 1 BB- what threshold is crossed when there are two BBs per team? I understand you want to encourage more cruiser play, however wont that also have an adverse affect on DD populations in this game mode?
A1/3: The feedback was diverse – some testers liked the rules, some did not. What’s important that removing CVs will enable better DD play, and that will affect more players in a positive way. There are downsides as well, and the whole situation highlighted the issues with balance we need to solved. Two BBs would also do in 7vs7, however, 2 BBs are often able to cross-fire, and this way, cruiser play becomes more passive.
Q2/3: As for the rental system, why are you banning camouflages for rented ships? Is this a supposed reward for players who have already unlocked these ships- while indirectly punishing newer players who may not have had the time to grind up to their tier ten of choice? (I also want to point out I didn’t have my first tier 10 ship until LAST Month! And that was playing this game almost daily to unlock it)
A2/3: I won’t say camo bonuses are not important, however, players who have researched regular T10 ships should have some advantage. Camo is the softest way from all options we discussed. On the other hand, the ability to play 9 T10 ships during season is quite nice, and far from “punishing”, moreover, this is the first precedent of rental in WoWs.
Q3/3: Finally, with the removal of CVs from this mode, what will wargaming offer for players who AA spec’ed their captains for their ships? You can’t necessarily expect all the players to respec and outspec their captains to adjust to this mode.
A3/3: We’re aware of this issue, and discussing whether we can do something to help such players. No news for now, but it’s possible we address this.
Subs favorite ship and how to encourage team play
Q: Hey Sub, What’s your favorite ship in the game? Have the staff ever thought about different ways to encourage players to play objectives and win games onstead of chasing kills and forcing losses on their other 11 teammates? What do the Devs think of this sort of “Rugged Individialism?”
A: Right now – Henri IV. Oh, dear, we thought about a thousands of things, however, there is core gameplay, and within it, most people like to blow things up first, play as good teammates second. Surely we need to develop teamplay, but in absolutely any game with random matchmaking, there will be those who cooperate, and those who not. We can help this (and we must), but we cannot change it dramatically.
Hindenburg AA survivability
Q: Is there a chance to see a buff to the survivability of Hindenburg Gerät 55 mm ? These guns are your main source of dps but you just need to have someone in front of you (especially since now, thanks to the introduction of RN BBs, you see HE spamming BBs even more than before….) who decides to shoot HE and boom, half your 55 mm are gone. So isn’t it possible to give them the same HP as for example Des Moines’s 76.2 mm ?
A: This AA unit us comparable to other similar units in terms of HP and protection, and honestly, I don’t see it’s specifically suffering. It’s a bit bigger, perhaps, but that’s it.
Graf Spee heal
Q: Hi sub, we have just discovered that Graf Spee’s repair party only heals 10% of the citadel damage as opposed to other cruisers which heal 33%. I wonder if that is intended?
A: Yes. And thanks for the good question:)
MM change for T6/T8
Q: Will there be any Future Changes on The matchmaking? Especially T6 and T8? I mean The Power gap between t6 to t8 ships are Just to High if you compare a fuso f.e. with a Bismarck. Same is for t8 to t10. If you compare a NC and a Yamato. For me there is no Point playing T8 without a Division because in 7 Out if 10 games you get uptierd. Same is for t6.
A: “Never say never”, but now, no strategic changes on MM are planned. MM in Random battles serves two main purposes: creating the diversity of ships/situations and creating the advantage for the ships of higher tiers. Of course it’s not comfortable to engage Bismarck in Fuso, and Yamato in Bismarck, and we realize that – however, this is one of the upsides of playing higher tier ships. In each battle there should be the best and the worst enemies for you. The only negative case is when the lower tier is too underrepresented, but we’re watching tier distribution, and don’t see anything we should react to immediately. However, that doesn’t mean there’s no room for improvements here. I will talk to the team when I have a chance. Thanks!
Penalties for blue riding
Q: Do you know if there are any plans to impose harsher penalties on line riding? Currently, the speed reduction isn’t doing much to stop people from exploiting the line to escape taking damage. Just yesterday I was chasing an Izumo in my Bismarck, and as soon as he hit the line my secondaries become completely useless. They seem incapable of figuring out how to lead a target when the enemy is sliding along horizontally, effectively cutting off a large portion of your damage potential. The Izumo kept at it for a solid two minutes before finally turning, during which time he was able to fire on me while remaining angled and completely negating my secondaries.
A: I know, and there are no plans for that. Speed reduction did its job very well, the tactics is rarely viable, and we’re fine with it as it is.
Q: Can you add a credit sink please? Maybe a special flag that costs a billion credits?
A: 1. Buy Yamato. 2. Sell Yamato. 3. Repeat. Seriously though, it’s not a problem for most players – there are lots of ships to research and upgrade. For now, there is no need for silver sink:)
Q: Are you planning on removing or reworking detonations? Because they suck big time
A: No, and we don’t think they suck. As this topic was widely raised, we conducted several inquiries, even monitoring “rage quits” (and session time) connection with detonations. And…there is nothing to back up the theory it hurts the players. From the game design PoV, they are also needed. Plus, we added more visual candy for this epic win (or fail) event. Sorry, but they will stay :(
Q: I’m kinda curious why we have to buy the most expensive bundle in order to gain access to the exclusive flag for any ship…?
A: Because our f2p business model implies selling cool stuff and vanity items in big bundles. Especially if we want the game to stay free-to-win (and we want it).
Q: Regarding 3) How many strengths does Conqueror really need? Right now it has: (High pen HE, High fire chance, Extreme concealment, Very powerful super heal, Powerful AA, Very well protected citadel, Great rudder shift and radius) What are its weaknesses, if any?
A: Bad anti torpedo protection. LOTS of regular damage to receive. Low base HP.
Sub_Octavian on CW 1st Season Rules:
We’d like to comment on a few of the major points we believe haven’t been addressed in enough detail. We hope this will better explain the background of our decision.
Accessibility and casual players at high tiers
An understated point so far has been what this mode is supposed to be and who it should cater to, with the assumption being that it should cater to the highly skilled top player bracket, based just on the naming alone. Of course we do want to cater to these players and yes, this mode is meant to be competitive, but we do not want it to be hermetic or exclusive for those top contenders.
In that sense, it is not meant to mirror the current community tournaments and offer the exact same experience. That said, having a rating-based match-maker and ladder brackets is likely to create a similar environment at the top, but lower brackets should still allow more players to participate, compete, farm oil and reap certain rewards. It simply makes more sense for us to make any new feature attractive for the broadest amount of audience we can, which in this case means catering both to the very top, as well as the mid-to-high skill population. We believe that being inclusive will allow us to both grow the competitive community and make it more vibrant and alive. Having more players participate means that all brackets are also likely to be more interesting and diverse, with more room for experimentation and innovation, before the peer pressure of the best clans pushes you towards using only the most effective of setups. It also reduces the risk of running into operational issues like insufficient match-making population.
For those reasons we chose to offer a rotating selection of 3 tier 10 rental ships, to allow more players access to the mode. We do not believe allowing this is somehow disrespectful to our community, as it’s hard to see these ships as a reward due to their temporary nature. They don’t give you any bonuses nor are they exactly as good as the ships that you normally unlock – they cannot equip camouflages and can only participate in Clan Battles. Essentially they give you just a taste of the ship, but to really master them you’ll need to unlock them yourself. In this case they are meant to be a tool for us to ensure access to the mode for the majority of the current audience.
Carrier gameplay and influence on a battle
As we’ve already stated, the decision to not include aircraft carriers into the first season is based on observations from tournaments and preliminary tests with Clans. We know that the current role carriers currently have is a function of players actually playing the current mechanics as effectively as they can and that it’s up to us to change those mechanics if we believe that’s necessary. However, such changes reach further than just competitive play and we are not ready to do that yet. This, along with the comparatively small (even though quite elite) population of carrier players has also contributed to this decision. We will continue working on and improving the CV class both through balance changes within the existing mechanics, as well as prototyping bigger changes in the background.
We do believe that the incoming changes to the smoke mechanics which were tested on the 0.6.11 PT server, coupled with the absence of carrier spotting will make battles in this season more dynamic and will contribute to a bigger variety in terms of team line-ups (though we know that this is a contested point of view). Especially the lower brackets should see people willing to try out “4fun setups”, simply because in the beginning it will be hard to accurately predict behavior patterns with these new mechanics. The main point here though, is that this is only the beginning and that this setup is not forever. During and after the first season we will look at the numbers and evaluate the feedback from the community, based on their experiences in this mode. We ask you to try the new meta and tell us what you think – this feedback, both positive and negative, will help inform the direction we will take the CV class as well as Clan Battles going forward.
The influence of feedback
We appreciate the effort the clan community is putting into helping us shape Clan vs Clan gameplay. While we know that some clans didn’t and don’t agree with the direction we are taking, there were also those who did. The fact that these opinions were mixed gave us the confidence to move forward with this setup and the fact we are also seeing positive reactions (not exclusively of course) from all the regional communities now validates this to an extent. However, we’ve noticed some disgruntled comments aimed at shaming or singling out the feedback of players who support the announced meta. This kind of behavior is not acceptable. At no point in time does feedback you (or we) don’t agree with become less valid and this does not justify any attacks on such players or groups. We value the feedback of all players and player groups greatly and we ask for it with the faith that it will be provided without any hidden agenda, as it helps us stay on course and improve in all aspects of our work. We firmly believe we could not do it without the community.
In the time until the start of the season we will do our best to address any other major points we see surfacing in the community.
We’re testing a new game effect – The Taint – for the upcoming special Operation. It slowly spreads across the map.
Player-controlled ships inside the Taint receive damage over time comparable with fire effect. The amount of damage depends on ship class. Players cannot prevent it with Damage Control Party, it can be avoided only by leaving the Taint area.
The Taint affects view range and visibility of all ships and aircraft in the battle.