World of Warships

World of Warships Q&A with Lordofdroid & Sub_Octavian

Massive thanks to MrFingersEU for transcripting the EU Q&A with Lordofdroid, MrConway, Crysantos and Sub_Octavian.

Source: World of Warships Reddit


Why down tier US cruisers after all the recent buffs / what is the rationale of downgrading Baltimore to T8, and adding Buffalo?

The US-cruisers could use some love, and sometimes it’s easier & more logical to down tier a ship than to try to (artificially) buff the ship to make them work at the current tier. Buffalo seems logical, and is based on the Baltimore, and fits perfectly at T9.

Will the ships keep their gimmicks (Baltimore heal, N-O radar,…)?

Only the final testing can decide that with 100% probability. Very likely, the Baltimore will not keep it’s healing, N-O won’t keep it’s radar if it depends on Sub, but it will need testing. The recent buffs to the ships will be reverted to a degree, and their HP-pool will decrease to make them fit in their new down tiered position.

Keybinding, can there be a uniform keybinding?

They’re not sure there will be 5 consumables at T10, so not sure if the UI mechanics will be revamped for that reason. UI-guys have a lot to do, so it’s not high on the priority list. It’s way more difficult than opening an XML-file and add 2 lines of code, sometimes even requiring a substantial change of the architecture (like changing the consumable hotkeys).

How will the US cruiser split affect the Premium ships?

I don’t think they will affect the Premiums at all since they’re not waiting until a line-rework to rebalance premium ships if needed. Currently, they regard the US premium cruisers to work just fine. They’re treated as a separate entity, not interconnected with the techtree line.

Pensacola, will it get its torpedo-launchers (or any other cruisers)?

AFAIK, the launchers are added where they were historically used (only amiable, not the fixed hull-launched). Buffalo will very likely get them because they were planned. But torpedoes are not a focus of the US cruiser line and is considered a balancing factor, together with the ballistics.

US-cruiser split: WHEN?!?

Let’s not announce the exact update, but they want to release them in the first half of 2018, nothing more specific as of now. Plenty of time still to grind to the “optimal position” to get the most out of the split. For the time being, the split will be handled for the most part as the RU/JP DD split, so with plenty of free stuff for the players if they happen to have a lot of cruisers. Most of the ships will be downtiered, except the Cleveland which will move up. You won’t lose any progress, with camo’s being doubled, and ships being doubled if applicable. But the definite info will happen on the patch notes of the update where the split will happen.

How will the Pensacola be nerfed to fit in T6 without losing its flavour?

For sure the HP will go down, as it should scale with the tier. Probably the previous buffs will be addressed, so ROF and concealment, and then if it’s really needed some other stuff will be looked at.

And Cleveland to T8, what will it entail?

The Cleveland is in a wrong place currently, it’s ahead of the T6-“era”, so they will “un-nerf” it to fit it at T8, and it will do just fine.

US-CV carrier rework?

The change is community-driven, and by the distorted balance between US-JP Carriers, and the complaints of “sky-cancer”. They wanted to offer variety in the loadouts, but it did not work as it should. It took a bit longer to fix, and they’re sorry for that, but they still managed to still squeeze it in, and will very likely come in 2017 (next 1,2,3 updates or so. Really soon, without the TM).

CV Balance: IJN CV’s, will they be looked at, or will they stay as they are?

Sub likes looking at carriers, just looking at them. But they’re doing fine right now, so no tweaks needed. There are however the “General CV”-tweaks of fire-duration and damage control, which affects both lines. But for now, IJN will not be changed. If there are changes, they will be incremental, not going too brutal forward or backwards.

What happens to players that have spent (Free) XP on the loadouts?

Some compensation shall occur, but no details are given. Players should not be felt cheated, but Free XP shall not be given for everything and everyone.

Will the CV economy be buffed?

Blind buffs without knowing the impacts should not happen, but the rework of the loadout will have an impact on the economy and rewards due to the different gameplay/damage dealt… The first months after the changes go live will be closely monitored to see if the economy needs to change.

Are there more changes planned for CV’s?

Yes. They are polishing the existing concept. The “rework” is dangerous since there are 2 complete lines already, so it can go tits-up very fast if you overhaul everything. The plan is to rework the concept so it will appeal to all the players, and that the devs can say “it’s working as it should”. There are minor chanced the current concept can be tweaked to that level, so some game-designers are indeed working on a complete overhaul. The concept has already been written, so they are now working a functioning prototypes, which will then be sent to supertest, public test,… The polishing will stop after the US CV changes. Sub has already played some prototypes, which are promising, but it takes time since they don’t want to hasten in. The current concept has too many flaws and questions that need solving, which the rework will likely offer. But it won’t come soon.

Will the experienced CV players in the community in the CV rework, just like the Zeppelin?

The Zeppelin is crisis-management, the initial release was a huge mistake and a bad event, which they are now still fixing. If things go right, there is no need for such a special testing-group. They have supertesters and community-contributors for the early stage, and public testing later. But the CV-rework is a special thing, a bit specialized so it may be possible some knowledgable people will be invited in the supertest for this. WG is satisfied with how stuff is tested currently (with the supertest and stuff). If they fail, some extra measures and external testing groups can (and will) be used.

Any changes planned to CV indirectly, stuff like AA, spotting-distance?

It’s covered by the previous answer. In the reworked concept, everything will be looked at, which includes AA, spotting. But for now that’s all speculation, and Sub doesn’t like to speculate. When the time is there and the new concepts get the go-ahead, it all very well will be looked at. If the concept of CV’s remain as they are now, AA/spotting/… will not be changed.

AP-bombs, will there be an indicator where on the ship they are viable?

It’s not easy to aim AP bombs, but they should be compared to AP shells, and some experience is needed to aim them well. There is RNG, knowledge and “feeling” needed for it. The problem with CV is that you make the ammo-loadout choice at the beginning of the battle and then stick with it, but with the large presence of BB’s in the current meta, such aiming-help is not needed.

When the Ranger gets the 112 loadouts, won’t that make it being outclassed by Saipan?

I can make a controversial joke since it’s not too hard to be outclassed by Saipan. Saipan is the example of a gimmicky/colourful ship. But CV’s should not be tuned to a standard, it’s not a good option. The answer is yes, but no, but maybe.

Graf Zeppelin reworks project, and the feedback coming from the bigger community, was it a good thing?

There will be 1, maybe 2 test-versions to try, after which they will be summing everything up, and fixing the state of the ship and say “this is it, it’s final”. The feedback was important, facebook-feedback was ok, but the survey was a better source of feedback. Some changes were made in response to the feedback being given. They’re now working on the feedback given regarding its fighters. Experienced players are very good at pinpointing the problem, but not at fixing the problem. So developers should decide how to solve it. GZ is an example of a player-driven development, with the final call being left to the developers.

Why did it take so long for the 1-1-2 to arrive at Ranger/Lexington?

We apologize for that, that it took so long. It was long in the workings, but when there is a lot of stuff that needs to be done, and there is a long line of stuff that needs to be done, some stuff gets moved back a bit. It’s a compromise to be made in the development of a game, which means you can’t address everything at the same time. Some stuff is more important/urgent than others.

The speed of planes: can carriers be balanced by using different planes (tier and/or speed)?

It is indeed treated as a balancing-tool, but not used as a main balancing tool. With the proposed flight-control, with the current aircraft, the Midway would be vastly overpowered. So they can nerf the planes, which is logical from a historical perspective (because of different versions of the same plane). Or give it lower-tier planes. In this situation, the latter was chosen, since the flight-group is a balancing point. they don’t strive to make it completely historical, balancing comes first. And they want to have the plane-groups be logical throughout the tiers. In the case of the Midway, the lower-tiered planes were the best option. But it won’t happen to every carrier.

Are you happy with the “exit-strafe” on Saipan?

Honestly: Saipan is a powerful ship, but the exit-strafe is not the reason for it being so powerful. If the exit-strafe is included in the core Saipan-mechanics, the importance of air-superiority (+1 plane to the squad) will only grow and make it very player-dependant, instead of ship-dependant. Saipan will need to be looked at, but it won’t happen by modifying the exit-strafe.
(note from MrFingersEU: it’s very vaguely explained and this is what I could get out of it, listen here for yourself).

Can we have Captain Dasha?

Dasha is indeed a thing to distract ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°). It sounds like a cool idea, but they’re not psychologically ready to implement her yet. Let the ideas grow for a while, maybe after a while.

How are AP bombs (Enterprise-type) going to compete with 1000lbs HE bombs?

They’ll start from Enterprise-model bombs, and tweak accordingly for the higher tier carriers if needed. It’s not an issue.

Are you working on the bugging CV interface?

Some polishing will take place, but the top priority is the getting the new concept to work. See previous CV question: if the complete rework works, you’ll get a completely new UI.

Are the torpedo bomber reload timers being scheduled to be changed on US CV’s?

It depends on the plane model. The higher the plane tier, the higher the reload. Lower-tiered planes reload faster.

Why will DFAA be buffed on destroyers?

The choice of consumables within certain ships is the main reason. They want to make that build more viable than the “regular” build. There is some concern about IJN DD’s (Shimakaze) who don’t have the special perks. Shima with torp-reload-booster would be too toxic though. But CV’s have too much of an influence on DD’s because of spotting (of ships and torpedoes), but this will be resolved in the new prototype of CV-mechanics.

With the removal of stealth fire (AA/main guns), will stealth-radar be removed?

No: the only ships that have a considerable gap, will be top-tier Pan-Asian DD’s, which will need to sacrifice smoke, so in terms of balance, that’s fine. Other ships have too small of a gap to be exploitable.

How should Pan-Asian DD’s work in the higher tiers, with the radar and such?

Generally, there is a problem, and that is that some players don’t like gimmicky lines, others do. When they create a specific line/premium ship that is balanced purely by shell ballistics or other non-obvious stuff, they get the complaints that those ships are boring and “an insult to the player base”. When they balance a ship(line) with obvious stuff such as gimmicks/consumables, they get the complaint that it’s gimmicky and a power creep. They try to keep it balanced. The reason the PA-DD’s get this gimmick is because the line consists of ships from different backgrounds, and with ships that are already present in the game, so they need a unique feature that unifies those different designs and make them stand out from the “copies” in the other lines, and that’s the deep-water torpedoes. Torpedoes are an effective tool to counter capping DD’s in smoke, but since deep-water torpedoes can’t damage DD’s, another tool is needed to contest those capping DD’s, and that’s where radar comes in. The initial concept of smoke AND radar was flawed, so now you have to choose between A or B. Gimmicky stuff is important at times, both to satisfy players, and to achieve game balance. But it should not be overdone.

How far are the Pan-Asian DD’s in terms of balancing, when can we expect them?

Soon (TM). Probably next update or next 2 updates. Devs are currently very happy with how they work out, so they’re ripe for release.

Kirov buff in 0.6.13, isn’t reload and velocity being a bit too generous of a buff, and where does it leave the poor Molotov?

It is indeed too far, and that’s why the ballistics buff is not present in the update. Only the ROF-buff got live.

When are we getting the voice-over from Red-Blood (KIROV REPORTING)?


With the recent reworks of plane visibility, will the issue of spotting by planes without direct LOS be addressed, around islands and stuff?

They want to do it, but only if the CV-rework path goes live. But not in the current concept.

Will the maps be changed to let US high-tier cruisers benefit from their arc-shells?

They won’t need to do that for this line specific, but they’ve heard about high-tier maps being too open and too BB-oriented. They’ve worked on map sizes a bit, but the issue is not solved. But Sub needs to discuss it with the map-designers. Some of the maps will be readdressed, but not in favour of one particular line. One line is not a reason to rework a map.

A question about (shell?) velocity of Bougainville, and then of a correction of that to French DD Aigle.

The ship is not released, so he doesn’t want to talk about any historical issues. But T1 ships are not scalable with the rest of the techtree, they stand a bit on their own. Specs on T1 ships is not a reason to change them on other tiers.

Chance for detonation, the influence of flags?

With JC, the chance is 0, regardless of what other det-increasing flags you do fly. But the description of the flags is vague and will get fixed.

BB-AP fixing: when?!

They are aware of the issue and acknowledge the problem. It may happen sooner than mid-next year (as was previously stated), but it requires changing ballistics, and that’s the core of the game, and it requires ridiculous amounts of testing, since ballistics is the most complex thing in the game from a dev standpoint, and the easiest to FUBAR hard. It is being looked at, but caution is needed.

The only T10 without any additional consumable is the Shimakaze, will it get a different consumable to bring it into line with other DD?

No, the Shima has other points that may not be so obvious, but it has unique traits. It’s the most popular T10 ship, and since it’s so popular, the stats are not that good. It might get interesting torpedo-choices in the future, maybe some deep-water torpedo-esque stuff if it works great on the Pan-Asian DD’s. The reason the LongLance is so nerfed is that they are too brutal for DD’s and Cruisers. But if the deepwater torpedoes work, the LongLance might become the brutal weapon it actually was. Deepwater torpedoes are not scheduled to be a nation-specific trait. LongLance will not be the stock torpedo, since they are too situational, and it would make the grind to “normal” torpedoes too hard. The choice will be added, not removed.

Will there be a mask-option for non-historical camouflages like valentine, CCCP, restless fire?

It’s not top-priority, but it’s still relevant. There are filters for the really different content like ARP, Halloween,… already. Some camos are semi-historical though. Not totally historical, but based on historical camos. The question will have to be readdressed in the future since new camo’s get added to the game regularly, the filter-option would need to follow that as well to make it filter properly.

Will there be some more historical customisation come to WowS, stuff like pennants, stripes/marks, skins?

This is an idea they’ve been thinking about it for a long time. They are gathering ideas from the forums and real-life (photo’s of real ships), but they are working on another customisation feature that will come either this year or next year, but it will be different from this proposal. After that has been implemented, h-they will probably take a look at these customizations. They’ve already found some pretty interesting stuff since it adds a whole new layer to the game.

the radius between spotting plane and the catapult fighter, what are the official numbers?

Sub has it written down: circle radius of fighter plane is 3250meters, for the spotting plane 4230 meters.

With the adding of more scenarios for T7 and higher?

They want PvE to be diverse for tiers so it will come in the future for higher tiers.

Will there be a hard-mode for already existing scenarios?

Yes, just as there is a “hard-mode” designed for clans (not implemented yet). But it requires some testing and thinking about how it can be done. PvE is been taken seriously, so that feature needs to be included.

Matchmaking, and why clan members can end up on opposite teams?

For all on the same side, you can play clan battles. Clan divisions all on the same side (two divisions of the same clan, so 6 players) will create a HUGE imbalance when they end up on the same team since they can communicate over team-speak. On opposing teams that’s less of an issue since there is no need to exploit it, it’s “just” a random battle. PvP is very populous, so it’s a rare occurrence that clans end up on opposite side of a match. But manipulating games in order to farm achievements is prohibited though, how rare it may be. If you spot such behaviour, send the replay to support, and it will be dealt with. If you want to play with more than 3 friends: play PvE, or play clan wars. more than 3 members in a division in Random is too powerful.

Kriegsmarine flag, why is it not in the game?

OUCH!!!! The game is based on real life, and there are a lot of flags and symbols. And how fond they are about symbols, there are legal implications about such stuff. There are legal issues prohibiting display of such stuff. If it’s important for you, you can mod the game file so you can see it, without bothering other players.

Will there be an option for the Imperial German Navy Flag to include it?

Sub understands them, and sub is personally not a fan of censoring such stuff, but there are the legal issues, and excluding such flags is the easiest option, since it endangers the operation of the game in some countries, the ratings… So no, it won’t come. You can mod it, and there should be a historical-flag-mod on the forums.

What are your plans for the Musashi?

Let’s speculate: they don’t sell T9-10 premium ships for money, the reward ship for clan wars is already known, and there is no ranked battles planned, so… by deduction you can “guess” pretty accurate what the plan for Musashi is.