Sub_Octavian is also doing a Q&A in World of Warships Asia Forums, amazing how he can manage so many different Q&A’s and provide so much information. World of Tanks need someone like him to get more information in English, not just the usual translations from Russian Forums and sources.
Please note some of these questions look like the player used Google Translate to communicate in English, so don’t notice some of strange the grammar.
Q: When is the balance of CVs going to change? I believe IJN CVs have more advantages than USN CVs at least in 0.6.4.
A: Working on CVs is a challenging task. On the one hand, many things seem to be needing complete rework. On the other hand, the community tend to hate any global changes, and rough changes are not desirable. Balancing CVs are a part of the bigger task – of making CV class better and more friendly to players as a whole. I cannot tell you any ETA, but surely I can tell we are working on it and plan to improve CV experience.
Q: How has the fighter ammo buff from patch 0.6.0 affected the performance and success rates of fighters against targets of all kinds (clicking, strafing, spotting, etc) and air superiority loadouts? It has been 4 patches already, surely there should be data available on whether the buff has achieved its intended purpose (“buffing USN CVs, especially the less skillful part of playerbase”). If possible, can you disclose how each server (ASIA, EU, NA, RU) is affected by this buff?
A: It affected the balance in a positive way, but we don’t consider impact to be too big. Seems like a comfortability buff, mostly.
Q: How has the “exit strafe” addition affected the game? Personally, the Saipan has become extremely (read: overly) powerful in contesting the air, perhaps a nerf of some sort should be introduced? Maybe consuming more ammo per exit strafe (say, 1.5x-2x the normal strafe ammo cost) JUST for the Saipan so it cannot just spam strafes left and right? I know that for other CVs, you can also pull off some really excellent strafes, but at a higher cost.
A: It added a new trick to master, and we currently don’t see any problems with Saipan. No changes are planned.
Q: Did WG consider on lowering the bloom time for DDs? Currently its like 20secs iirc. This is same with the BBs and CAs. Sometimes after engaging DD in a knife fight. Due to good range of guns means it will get detected at max range. And in 20secs. Chance of detonating or getting devastate is 50-50. So i was wondering when removing the invisifire. Did the dev came across this matter?
A: Yes we did, as this was quite popular suggestion. Eventually, we are not going to reduce the bloom time – the timer is here for a reason. It prevents ships from constantly “blinking” in and out, which may be quite frustrating. However, we may increase this timer for battleships – still thinking it over.
Q: Wargaming mentioned they were having Player retention issues a while back for Warships, and these days you hear a lot of complaining about various issues from people, from matchmaking, to balancing and certain ship lines or general game enjoyment. Is War gaming actively working on looking into this issue?
A: We’re working on “Player retention” both by researching and solving (if it is acknowledged) problems that are bothering players and creating new content/features to play with. We’re also trying to improve our services to create good experience wherever we can.
Q: Will Akizuki be given Defensive Fire AA in the near future? Since on paper, she was designed as an AA Destroyer escort, and rightfully deserves it.
A: No. Her design is reflected in her base AA damage – it is very high, and if built properly, she shows outstanding AA efficiency for a TVIII DD. Adding Defencive Fire would force us to cut her base AA damage, as it would simply be too much and imbalanced. Aside from that, she is a very strong ship even after latest changes, which we like, but don’t want to make her more powerful.
Q: Will IJN DD ever get back its old HE alpha? This is because dev buffed the RU HE on DD from 1600 back to its 1900 original alpha.
A: No. This change is not needed from balancing point of view.
Q: Will there be any future similar events (currently, the clash of elements), but with another premium ship as the ultimate reward? Do you like the event on its current state?
A: There will be more events in 2017, but the details are not to be disclosed. IMO, the event is more or less fine, problem is, everyone wants free premiums ships and ignores smaller rewards, which are very useful. I’d reserve the verdict for now – the event is not over, and to make solid conclusions, we will be doing big analysis on feedback and stats.
Q: Why is the torpedo damage listed in port not the same as the torp’s “alpha damage” value? Or why not use “alpha damage/3” and leave out “base damage”? Is there any purpose to the “base damage” other than for the calculation of the damage value we see in port? (Sorry for using a screenshot from GM3D, but this would help in referencing to what I’m talking about)
A: I am not going to comment on any external sources and data mining However, I will gladly comment on what you see in the game.
Torpedo damage shown in port is base damage. To achieve it you need to hit any part of the ship, but there are several factors that prevent you from seeing this exact numbers in combat:
- There is “damage saturation” – so, if the part hit is already damage, it simply may lack hit points to “execute” full torpedo damage. Hence the cases when you catch the full torpedo volley with aft / bow only and still survive.
- There is anti-torpedo protection on many ships providing some damage reduction, in case the torpedo hits the protected part of the ship.
- There is torpedo splash damage. Unlike HE shells, torpedo splash does some damage if it affects neighbouring part.
Q: Recently, in WoT, they’ve introduced an improvement to the matchmaker. This would definitely improve the gameplay of lower tier ships (because being the only tier 8 in a tier 10 game is very sad) Could we see this in future WoWS MM?
A: We are interested in their experiment, but the potential use for World of Warships is yet to be seen. So for now, we are watching them closely and wish them all the best
Q: I’m just wondering why German destroyers are easily penetrated by battleship guns 38 cm and up+ even if my sides are exposed, one shell managed to land for 7k dmg or feels like they eat more damage than usual.
A: German DDs tend to have more bulky structure, so, they sometimes get less over-penetrations and more normal penetrations. We are fully aware of this and designed the line with this weakness in mind. Overall, after all changes and tweaks, we consider them to be viable, competitive, and performing greatly.
Q: Hi, Sorry my English is not good. I want ask AA on ijn yamato turret 2 and 3 lost ?
A: Hi. First, I am not sure these were present on turrets. And even if they were at some point, Yamato is definitely not the ship that needs buffing.
Q: This is about KM DDs, they are suffer by BBs AP too much, unlike others DDs. Any change for KM DDs?
A: Right, as I answered above, they tend to have slightly more impact from AP shells. That was accounted for when we designed the line, and right now, in their current state, KM DDs look very good. No buffs or nerfs seem to be needed.
Q: I got question regarding Anti Aircraft special effect, are there any Plan for it to be “enhanched” to be more visually appealing (especialy with future planned changes into Carrier play). Even with Maximum Graphic setting, the visual were only borderline (*ehem) passable. It looks good only when DFAA were active which quite the shame since, not all ships have DFAA. even Battleship with hunderds AA gun dont look desperate enough avoiding Bombers Attack – it look like half assed effort to shoot aircraft down.
I read, it because WoW focused on Ships to Ships battle. But Aircraft has been Integral part of Naval war, especialy in Last stages of the war and personally, that kind of thinking is the one that makes CV gameplay – and implementation of Aircraft were particularly underdeveloped the Whole AAA system which bassed on Aura is quite ridiculus too in my oppinion, since it bassed a lot on RNG will we expect, improvement in future ? like Dual Purpose gun able to fire at aircraft – even if its just visual cosmetic.
Q: We’re working on major visual improvements right now, however, AA effects are not something that seems like top priority. We’ll see what can be done, but now it looks like “Explosions & main caliber shooting -> Water FX -> the rest”.
We don’t think AA mechanics is perfect, and maybe we will address it along with CV improvements at some point.
Dual purpose guns are already firing at aircraft (in terms of dealing damage). For example, take Montana:
Visually, all guns but dual purpose track their targets if you enable this option:
Dual purpose guns do not track planes visually because that would conflict with their ship-to-ship shooting animation.
Q: My question is how many of your developers actively play the game and on average, the time that those developers play the game? I ask because I have seen your answers on how you believe the game balance is somewhat balanced yet since OBT, there has not been many good balance changes in my opinion and seemingly, many other players who have recently starting expressing their concerns on balance.
A: All developers who participate in game design play the game actively. Most developers who participate in tech and near-game design, play the game too. I am sorry you are not satisfied with our balance decisions, but, you know, linking it to personal stats is a bit irrelevant. Also, there are thousands of players who are happy with what we do.
Q: Hey Sub_Octavian, i would like to ask about the logic behind the RuDD HE buff to improve their damage done to other nations DDs (when they damage done to other classes was perfectly fine) and then later on you nerf the rudder shift of the Khab because it was far too strong against DDs at close range?
Why not just roll back the HE buff? The Khab is considered one of the more broken ships in game, and to nerf if you didn’t touch any of its real strengths.
A: Most of the line uses these shells, so making exception for Khaba would not be very nice – while buffing other RU DDs was necessary. And, what’s most important, Khaba OP-ness is connected mainly with her high protection by dodging shells. Thus, we are nerfing her real strengths, and needed drop is already seen on server stats. Will it be enough? We don’t know yet.
Q: Will you consider implementing separate Random Battles; Solo Queue a.k.a Random Battles without divisions and Div Queue a.k.a. Random Battles with divisions only?
Newcomers will not face sealclubbing divisions so they will find their gameplay more comfortable. Players in division will likely find their gameplay more exciting, strategic and tactical because these players tend to be more cooperative and coordinated. So, essentially a Team Battle but a 12v12 variant of it.
A: No. The audience should be much, much larger for this to work properly, without long queues in Match Maker.
Q: Are there plans from the devs to enhance other perimeters, say the penetration of the AP shells and the bounce angle/normalization, or the general utility of the German cruisers, considering that the line heavily relies on AP? 2. Or at the very least, are there plans to further adjust the parameter of German cruisers, particularly but not limiting to high tier ones?
A: Right now, we are considering different improvements for German cruisers starting from Nurnberg. I cannot hint what will it be and to what degree, but we are on it, so chances for further improvements are pretty high. Thank you for providing additional information.
Q: If it’s possible of the devs to add more camera angles and allow the player to zoom close, such that a player could virtually “stand”, “walk” in the port interface.
A: We were thinking about additional cameras for more immersion, and even did some prototypes, but right now, other UI improvements seem to have higher priority. So..not now, sorry.
Q: Do the developers have plans for a future patch to implement some method of teaching new and inexperienced players how to play aircraft carriers? Currently, the lack of information provided by the game is acting as a barrier against players wishing to progress through the aircraft carrier lines.
A: We’re working on adaptive tutorial through personal offers system. The first stage covers the basics, and hopefully, is about to launch. Then, we plan to expand it, including CV tutorial.
Q: Any future plans for server roaming?
A: No new info on sever roaming, sorry.
Q: When will more clan related features being newly implemented in game? Also, any plans on clan wars?
A. We take it as a priority stuff, quite high. However, current development is quite challenging, so lots of important work is done internally. I really hope players will see the results as well, and they won’t have to wait long.
Q: It’s been like 5 month since German DD line released, I don’t see much player playing this line on certain tier as you only encounter them 1 out of 10 matches (??). In other words, German DD line is least played among the 4 nations. Is there something Analyst Team would suggest to encourage players to play them?
A: I think your personal impression is a bit off with server statistics. Of course you cannot expect German DDs to have the same count as older lines like IJN or USN, especially on high tiers. However, they have considerable player base, which is moving up tier gradually. From the gameplay point of view, they are fine in their current state.
Q: Is CV rework still due to release this year? (As according to Dev Diary 2017 roadmap)
A: Hopefully, but that may be not a big rework at once, but rather several updates with changes.
Q: CV Saipan: Any possible move for change (excluding the cosmetic part) on this ship?
Q: Related to above. If there will be such change to any of premium ship (e.g. performance, armor, etc.), is the management willing to follow the “WoT move” for full refund the premium? (Players opted for full refund of their SuperPershing)
A: We are very loyal in this aspect – we buff premium ships when they have problems with performance, and avoid nerfing them at all costs. I don’t see any point in discussing this now, as there is no precedent of specific ship nerf.
Q: We have seen a lot of contents coming in for the game but I want to know the technical aspect of the game: Fair Gameplay Security. You guess it…. Cheat mods. How can the development team assure the gaming community on having fair play? On random battles, team battle, or future clan war & competition-based game mode. You can send the private message for the answer if very confidential.
A: We have dedicated people who work with banned modifications to ensure client security. They have been quite successful in fixing many major threats over last years. If you have any information that you think can help, feel free to submit it to Support. But the main “anti-cheat” protection is that all core mechanics are calculated on server and cannot be “hacked”. You cannot “cheat” damage, dispersion, ship visibility or hit point. The only thing that “cheater” can hope for is some “assist” (which any good player will be better at probably)…and eventual account ban for using illegal mods. It simply does not worth the risk.
Q: Any plan to expand radio commands?
A: Radio commands will be expanded this year, hopefully, in the near future.
Q: I want to ask about the number of bb players，now its too many ，I often play each side have 5-6 bbs ，so I want to know you how to deal with.
A: We are buffing mostly cruisers and DDs, improving their quality of life, working on CVs and some other tweaks are planned as well.
Q: And the main gun accuracy of ships seem have bug especially bb so when you can fix it.
A: Not sure what do you mean, but any bugs should be reported to Customer Support.
Q: I hear some mews about British bbs it said they will carry 457mm gun and in6.6 join the game its real?
A: No comment on unreleased ships from me. Sorry…they’re watching me.
Q: How is the progress of the soviet cold war themed destroyers (Smelyi, Neustrashimyy and Project56)?
A: It is…going…slowly. No comment on that.
Q: Do we have the chance to see official wiki of WoWS other than English or Russian? it is hard to share the knowledge and its gimmick to the others when we discuss.
A: I am absolutely sure that lack of languages is simply due to tremendous amount of information to be translated. It’s tough, but I’d not expect any quick localization.
Q: Can we hear the 1st feed back of the French cruiser and the any plans tweak them (if necessary)?
A: First impressions – so far, so good. Henri IV AA and Emile speed will be tweaked soon. As for fine-tuning, well, it can be done mostly when we have massiva statistics, and this is a question of months, not days or weeks. In other words, we need to wait until lost of players play these ships and generate decent amount of battles. If we see any issues earlier, well, we will react earlier.
Q: People in our community concern the latest cheat tool and worry how it would ruin the fair play policy of WoWS. Can we hear how your team finds and plans to prevent?
A: We plan to do exactly what we did before with such mods. I mean, what else can we do with those who don’t want to play fair? The policy remains. Those who ignore it, will have their accounts banned, even if not immediately, we will get to it. There is no point in risking your account for very questionable profit.
Q: Gameplay wise, the problem for IJNDD is not about the weak torpedoes. The recent torpedo buffs is not helping anything. Do developers even considered removing IJNDD lines?
A: The problem is with lack of consistency. The lack of consistency is caused by not reliable torpedo hits and not comfortable guns. We’re buffing both torps and guns to make it better. Shimakaze is already showing better results, including median, in 0.6.4 compared to 0.6.3. And this is good. Sorry, but I cannot agree with your claim, seeing the data. No, we never considered removing IJN DD lines, and won’t consider it.
Q: When will Citadel of Iowa and Montana change?
A: 0.6.6+, which means that we aim for 0.6.6, but I cannot 100% guarantee it.
Q: Is there a possibility that USS Battleship will be equipped with ‘Defensive AA fire’?
A: Such possibility is almost none, and gameplay-wise, I don’t see any reasons for it to change.
Q: Montana’s secondary gun range is shorter than other Tier10 battleships. What is the reason why the range of excellent guns with ranges over 20 km has been shortened?
A. Because we did not plan USN BBs to be strong in secondaries. There are KM and IJN for that, gameplay-wise.
Q: How do you see the statement of “Asia server, the worst server”?
A: Same as I see Manual Secondaries skill on Kiev – it is funny, but makes no actual sense.
Q: Based on your recent Q&A where you talked about the Yuugumo being underpowered and need to be looked into, what does the dev team plan to do with her to keep her competitive with the other tier 9 destroyers in the game?
A: No promises, but we’re thinking about giving her newly-buffed Type 93. mod.3 torps as an option.
Q: Will there be another premium camouflage for the IJN ships? The current one doesn’t look as nice compared to the other nations. Actually, they look pretty disgusting.
A: We don’t plan to double premium camo except for some special cases. Sorry, but we don’t consider IJN premium camo to be “disgusting”, and neither the majority of players.
Q: Will there be changes to the tier 9 premium camouflage? As it is right now, there is no point getting them, and playing tier 9 at all when the tier 10 camouflage is a lot better than the tier 9s.
A: No. It provides nice bonus both if you plan to have a particular T9 ship in your collection and if you plan to grind through it.
Q: After 0.6.4 released, Kamikaze, Fujin and other DDs in main line get buff. But why Shinonome get none? (This ship is the most useless T6 DD)
A: Because it is the best pefrormer among T6 DDs, and does not need any buffs. Of course we take into account the fact that she is obtainable through campaign with some requirements. And still, she rocks. Why buff her?