Sub_Octavian Q&A on Asia Forum round two is out and here’s all the questions he answered to.
Source: World of Warships Asia Forum
Q: Can Wargaming Gave us a new Filter Option? Right now you have a filter to Show:
- Elite Ship
- Premium Ship
- First Win Bonus
- With Commander
- Without Commander
- Scenario Only
I always hope you will add 1 more fillter: Non Elite Ship. This way I can track down all my ship that I need to grind and combining with the First win, I can tell what ship I should play next.
A: Hi. There are quite many special requests regarding port filters, and they are often very individual. Instead of adding numerous options, we added “favourite ship” tag, which can be used for many purposes. In your case, you can simply mark your non-elite ships. Unfortunately, we are not planning to add more, as our UI team is busy with other improvements.
Q: How is the CV balancing going on ? Any chance of help/buff/reform/rework to USN CVs prior to USS Enterprise is released?
Q: Plus any chance of MM fix?I was playing Ranger which is already a horrible ship but the I got in a battle against Saipan, and Langley. On my side was my 111 Ranger which already is unable to fight a Saipan 1 on 1, enter a Langley on both sides, the enemy Langley at least has AS thanks to Saipan but not the Langley on my team, I couldn’t get air supremacy from a numerically and Qualitatively better enemy.
Q: Do you guys plane on giving USN tec tree CVs a load out change or a reduction in rearm time ( IJN get 60 seconds rearm if they lose a squad of 4, add 2 more planes for USN and it becomes 2 minutes)? In it’s current state they are all horrible against anything against except each other and 111 doesn’t really work too well at tier 7 (cause Saipan) onwards.
Q: Also why does a line of CV which put “Air supremacy first” have no fighters in damage emphasis loadout but a line that does not prioritise Air supremacy but rather the opposite have 2 Fighter squads in their “Damage emphasis” load out? This looks rather messed up it should be the opposite.
A: CV balancing is going fine. We’re analyzing the results of previous changes and planning next steps. The closest steps may include new type of strike plane armament and loadout re-balancing. Some of these may be tested with the help of USS Enterprise – and if they are successful, they may be implemented on her, and on other CVs shortly. No MM changes are planned though.
Q: There is information say: “Limit clan member up to 100 in this spring” and now is May (Spring in Asia starts from March to May), Clan update will be available in this month ?
A: I am not sure about this statement, but anyways, yes, we’re going to add the opportunity to expand clan limit. I won’t speculate on ETA, though.
Q: Training room will appear on live server ?
A: We’d love it, and we will work on it when we have the opportunity – unfortunately, not right now.
Q: About Saipan. FTs can disengage with no less of a plane. It’s definitely broken and overpowered. Do you have any plans on it?(I hope it to be removed ALT disengage from Saipan…) Torp Bombers and Dive Bombers are faster than Es***(censored) ones, Why?(Hiryu and Ranger FTs cannot catch them)
A: No. Because she has less planes in squadrons, in reserve, and she is balanced by air combat perk (her planes of tier IX get debuffed when fighting regular tier VII)
Q: Fletcher has 13mm deck (that can be overmatched by 8in AP), while USS Black has 19mm (can ricochet 8in), and USS Kidd also gets 19mm deck! (I saw them with tech tree mod in Official mod pack) They are all Fletcher class, but Why should be the original Fletcher exceptional?
A: Because Black is super rare reward ship, and Kidd is still WIP. Kidd deck will probably be tuned to 13 mm before release.
UPD: Actually, we may rethink it and make it 19 mm everywhere. We’ll think about it. Thanks for the question!
UPD2: Yes, you know, we did some math, and decided to give Benson, Fletcher, Kagero, Yugumo and Shimakaze and other high-tier DDs 19 mm / 16 mm decks. Will probably squeeze it into 0.6.6. This way, deck thickness will be more clear and systematic across DDs.
Q: If someone finds a way to make a crosshair mod that shows penetration and AoF for a given distance, would such a mod be deemed illegal?
A: We’d be fine with it.
Q: If I’m not mistaken there is only one vision checkpoint on a ship (in which checks are made between ships to determine whether it is within detection range and has unobstructed LoS), and it’s located at the top of the ship? Can you explain its exact location i.e. is it at the highest point of the ship’s geometry or is it at an arbitrary point on the superstructure/mast such as where the highest observer would normally be on a real ship
A: Sure. The height of this point is always = the top height of 3d model (e.g. a tip of the highest mast). Other coordinates are exact center of the ship. Let me demonstrate my mad paint skillz:
Q: Any chance of explaining how torpedo splash damage is calculated and distributed in more detail? E.g.: For shells we know that 1/6 shell damage goes to the section it hit + 1/6 damage goes to the hull/body or whatever it is the devs refer to it internally (both subject to saturation).
- Full damage only for citadel pen.
- 1/10 damage for AP overpen.
So is torp damage = 1/2* to section it hit, 1/2* to hull/body and x amount to neighbouring section? And if so, how is x calculated?
*Lets assume the torp damage values are using the ones shown in port instead of using datamined values for the sake of avoiding topics that you can’t comment on.
If you can’t give specifics, can you give an approximate on the proportion of damage that goes to the neighbouring section? Also, how close to the neighbouring section would the torpedo have to hit in order to inflict splash damage?
A: I don’t really see any need to do it. Torpedo splash works very similar to HE splash, but its explosion power is sufficient to damage ship parts, not only modules. The splash radius is average, so when hitting the center, you probably won’t reach anything like aft and bow. The damage dealt this way is VERY small. Actually, we may consider removing it completely for the sake of damage mechanics clarity.
Q: What was the reasoning behind the current in game command system (F keys)? Yes it is simple to use, but F9,10,11 are absolutely useless tactically. Is there any reason why the game cant use a radial menus such as the custom WOT radial menu?
A: It is simple, and does the job. But it is to be improved. We’re working on Radio Commands update, with more features and radial menu. Hold on!
Q: Is it true that Dev teams are listening opinion from Ru and NA region more carefully than Asian region because of the market share and population difference?
A: No, it’s not true.
Q: One of my friend saw that the ship, with Juliet Charlie (-100% Detonation chance), was detonated. Is it possibly happening?
A: If it’s happening, it is a bug, and should be reported. I never saw that, and not aware of such bug.
Q: Is there a chance that WG can introduce a experienced MM, so that the better players can have battles with each other, instead of having each team full of lemmings & potatos? Like when we play ranked, we actually have good, challenging games, the players understand how to play together, & not go lemming train as much… have another mode, like advanced battles, so like only players that have 2500 battles or more can join, that way we will know that they should have some idea how to play.
A: Skill-based MM will not be introduced to Random battles. As you rightfully noticed, there are Ranked for that. Implementing it to Random is not a good idea, as well as creating a parallel game mode for that.
Q: I’m a big fan of warships in general and have been thoroughly enjoying this game so far. However, there is one issue that’s always befuddled me and that is the staggered release of certain premium ship bundles, like the recent Hood releases. If it’s appropriate, I’d like to know the rationale behind such staggered releases and why players do not get the option of purchasing the ship as is without the additional doodads like flags, premium account and whatnot during the moment of release. Frankly, I was looking forward to the Hood but found the initial bundle too pricey because I simply had enough flags and premium time and did not need any more. In fact, I am quite puzzled as to why a certain package is called the “I Want It Now” bundle despite said bundle ONLY being available on in June.
Already, I know of friends and acquaintences who feel this practice is exploiting those who do not wish to wait and have held off from buying the ship entirely simply because they do not agree with what they feel are questionable practices. While I understand that WG is ultimately running a business, would turning off such fans not run counter to WG’s overall goal of keeping a solid and stable userbase?
I understand such packaged bundles exist because they can be value for money to some, but for those that already have loads of flags, premium time etc. and do not wish to buy the additional items, why are they being “punished” and forced to wait for a cheaper package?
A: The rationale of selling anything is to earn money. The rationale of making staggered release is to earn more money by creating more value. As we work within free-to-play AND free-to-win model, we have to leverage on time and visuals. Staggered release is leveraging on time (faster access, quicker campaign progression) and visuals (flag and alternative camo), while giving approx. 30% discount on additional content.
Now, I don’t think it’s appropriate to tell us we shouldn’t earn money. Surely we need it to keep developing and expanding World of Warships, making new content and features on monthly basis. On the other hand, if a business practice is both inefficient and badly perceived, why do it?
So, if you like staggered release, buy the bundle and tell us “thanks, it’s cool”. If you don’t want it, then, don’t buy it, and tell us “hey, I don’t like it”. Simple as that. The outcome is analyzed, and then we either go on – because the considerable amount of players like it this way, or stop it – because it’s not popular and only upsets people.
No need to make it over complicated, run pseudo-analysis (“you’re putting off fans” – that’s a strong assumption based on almost no data), no need to play “punish” thing – come on, guys, this is an option in premium shop. If it is not used, and everyone hates it, we’re absolutely taking it into account. I hope I was able to explain the reasoning and sorry for any possible misunderstanding.
Q: Collections is a good idea and quite good rewards, Do U gonna release historical camos through campaigns/collections?
A: It is an option, but there are other, more interesting as well. We will see.
Q: Do the old Campaigns return again(Hunt for Graf Spee, Christmas convoy)?
A: Unlikely. For now, we plan to add new stuff without repeating.
Q: Bismarck Campaigns quite fair for all players, quanity of tasks and deadline to complete. Any chance campaigns (not daily missions) execute for Scenario mode up coming?
A: That’s too early for this question. We’ll see how Scenario mode performs first.
Q: Torpedos Armament Upgrades on German Cruisers – Starting from the Tier V Konigsberg, all German Cruisers bear the same G7E torpedo and there were no Torpedo upgrades toward the very end of the line. Seeing that the Tier X Zaou may mount the proposed/experimental (or as some would say, fictional) F3 Torpedo that is available on the Tier X Shimakaze, would it make sense if the Tier IX Roon or Tier X Hindenburg could access the G7 Wolfsbarch or G7 Steinwal as an Torpedo upgrade, albeit requiring extra xp?
A: Theoretically it is possible to add advanced torps to these ships. However, we don’t want to do it gameplay-wise, as torps are not main armament for German cruisers. Let’s see how recent and near-planned buffs play out and then we’ll see whether it is an option.
Q: Possibility of 360-degree Turrets on Hindenburg – While viewing the model of various ships in the port, I’ve noticed that there seems to exist enough space between the turret and the Bridge of the Hindenburg (Tier X) to turn 360 degrees. Would the devs consider giving this ability to the ship?
Q: The Third Turret of La Galissoniere – Is it entirely impossible of the third turret of the La Galissoniere to turn all 360-degree? It seems that the turret can turn above that box on the deck with enough elevation.
A: Technically, there were not that many cases with 360 turn for big turrets. Sometimes we do it out of gameplay purposes even when we’re not sure (like with Koenigsberg). But we’d rather not do it on every ship just because there’s no visible obstacle for 360 turn. Anyways, the most important obstacle is turret internal structure and communications with the hull.
Q: La Galissoniere’s missing catapult – Historically, there exists a catapult launcher on the third turret of the La Galissonniere-class Cruiser and that the Cruiser historically carried a GL-832 HY catapult fighter. However, neither the catapult nor the plane was present in the game. While I understand that the development team may exclude float planes on the La Galissonniere out of game design & balance decisions, it’s very disappointing that the ship has missing components. Would Wargaming consider adding the catapult back onto the ship?
A: We’ll check this out, thanks.
Q: CV changes and population – One of the highlighted objectives of Wows in 2017 is the reworked CV control. Three patches ago, the game saw a new mouse clicking control added and removed manual drops for the low tier CVs. Has all the planed changes regarding CVs been implemented, or are there still changes yet to come,; and has the CV population changed as anticipated by the devs?
A: We’re still researching the effect of the changes, but preliminary, they were good, and moved some CVs on higher tier (which is also good). Of course these changes were not everything we want to do – more tweaks and changes are being developed. I think it’s safe to say that we’ll try to do them one by one, without rushing everything into one big update. One of our closest goals is looking into USN vs. IJN balance and working on some new bomb mechanics. Improving CV experience was, and remains one of our important priorities.
Q: Skill oriented AA – Are there plans to make Anti-Air more skill-dependent of the player’s input instead of “Ctrl-Clicking the enemy plons and press T”, or does Wargaming consider this is good enough.
A: Updating AA mechanics could be a thing, but only after some other CV issues are resolved. For now, it does its job, and we’d rather not change it.
Q: My question is whether we will get the new MM changes that WoT received. Currently in WoWs if you play a Tier 8 ship you will end up mostly in T10 games. And you almost always will be the minority tier. This is very frustrating to play and just ruins the motivation for most people when they get into a T10 game as a T8.
A: I’d reserve the judgement on WoT MM improvement applied to WoWs. We’re very interested in their experiment, we’re observing the effects, but for now it’s too early to say whether it’s needed in WoWs.
Q: Can we just got 1 vs 1 CV game? Because T5 CV could meet T6 CV, and T6s could use alt-action. Its worrying.
A: Honestly, it’s not a big issue, so for now, the answer is no.
Q: Will there be more ships that can be obtain with Free EXP? I really liked the idea, I hope we can get it for lower and mid tier. Maybe?
A: It is possible. Right now we’re not working on such ships, but we don’t have any strict objections against it…so we’ll see.
Q: Good job on the new campaign, I hope we can get Pacific-based campaign next? Or Mediterranean.
A: Thanks! The next campaigns are already in development. They are not what you’re saying, but still should be very interesting and should bring something new. You will see.
Q: What do you think about the ridiculously high performing Kutuzov?
A: It’s one of the strongest ships. There are super strong researchable ships, too. As you probably know, we support the concept of not nerfing premium ships unless absolutely needed, so Kutuzov remains as it is.
Q: Why the T6 French cruiser have a 12s reload? When there’s ship like Budyonny which has a similiar armament(better actually) with better range, and ballistics, but only has around 8s reload time. Is it to make De Grasse “unique”?
A: It was tuned this way based on production test. We’re looking into it, and it may be buffed in the near future.
Q: USN CV doesnt have the versatility of IJN CV and Saipan. When will that change?
A: This may change in the near future, if we successfully design and test updated loadouts.
Q: When will you cut down Kongo’s and Fuso’s range to a more logical 16-17km? Their insane range teaches average player to camp at spawn. which isn’t good for everyone.
A: This change is not planned. We tweak firing range more or less for balance purposes, but not that dramatically, especially when it’s not really needed.
Q: Buff stock configuration for CVs? Especially on USN CV. Their stock hangar capacity is pretty painful.
A: Not planned, sorry.
Q: There are a lot of tech tree ship that needs help right now. Can you pause the premium ship buffs and help them?
A: We’re doing this already. I recommend reading patch notes. E.g., USN cruisers buff, IJN DD buff, Z-52 buff, USN top BB buff, upcoming KM cruisers buff, etc, etc.
Q: Will there be more plans to buff the IJN DDs turret traverse? Currently when you meet any enemy DD at your minimum detection range, basically 9 times out of 10 you will lose the trade, while trying to brawl due to the really slow turret traverse. Will there be any buffs towards this?
A: No. Slow turret speed is one of the negative traits of IJN DDs, and it won’t change.
Q: Will we be able to see the “marker” settings in WoWS just like in WoT so that we can see the warships name, tier, modal, (HP left/ HP total), etc, Without pressing the Alt button just to see it and same goes to the minimap if we want to see the ships’ name in the minimap?
A: This is avaliable in control settings right now. Check them out.
Q: So, in what patch do you think the option to switch between the new and old audio soundtrack system will arrive? I mean it’s not that hard to do it right? Why the long time? I’m both impatient and excited just to hear the news.
A: I think that will be around 0.6.8. It’s not THAT hard, but with 3-week development cycle, each team also has LOTS of things to do, so often the problem is not with the difficulty of a task, but rather with finding a place for it in schedule.
Q: When will the manual aa skill(4-6) change? Abusing 60% drop rate at the first contact + 100% drop rate after 2.5seconds is problematic, especially when it is an invisible target. And this only happens in asia server, not happening in other region EVEN competitive included.(recently only one team on KoTs hosted by eu used akizuki, while majority of the teams in Grand Japan Cup 2nd used akizuki)
Q: Exit strafing on saipan too powerful and shown a 60% win rate(short term) in asia, maybe u should increase the ammo requirement for strafing on saipan?
A: Not planned.
Q: Is the aa specific ships are balanced enough considering what they can do on other ships except cv? ( ahhh but yes not every one got a 19skill captain and aa spec) (e.g. texas cleverland gnei akizuki neptune minotaur/DM)
A: More or less, but AA issues is only a part of CV problems. I think we may tweak AA stats and mechanics in the future, when we resolve other issues with CVs. Definitely not planned for the near future.
Q: The CV UI keep bugging in recent patches, when will it be fixed?
A: Report the bugs, and we’ll do our best to fix them.
Q: How is the feeling about removing t4-5 cv manual control?
Q: I know even if i mention about MM you won’t touch on it, so is there anything that can leak about cv rework?
A: Working on IJN – USN balance, studying the effect of recent changes, thinking about further CV improvements.
Q: Last one on cv, how many developers are playing cv class constantly (seriously)?
A: All developers that matter in this case
Q: When will the BB nerf come in? it seems secondaries are more reliable than torpedos, or devs think it is ok 😀
A: No direct nerf is currently planned. Counter-buffs, however, are planned, and being implemented gradually. Honestly, torpedo / secondaries looks like trolling.
Q: Will north be removed/reworked after more maps coming out?
A: Not planned.
Q: Will you think of disable premiums for rank?(payfast)
A: Not planned, no sense.
Q: Smoke is too strong if played properly, any thoughts on lower the smoke usage(make smoke less powerful)?
A: Smoke probably has too much “bad” use in competitive meta. By bad use I mean BBs hiding in smoke and passive play, mostly. We have several thoughts on that, probably will prototype some of them and then show to players on one of the PTS. Not the very near future, but still possible.
Q: Can we possibly have mod-able commander voices in the future? Like custom music type not just using an actual mod. I want my Russian commander to say ANUUU CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE. Also, I hope no one asked this already but… NEW FIRING ANIMATION WHEN?
A: I think it is planned for 0.6.6, the same way we did with gun sounds. Work in progress, not exact ETA, but I’d hope for one of the next several updates. Fingers crossed!
Q: Is there any specific equation between turning radius and ship velocity? First I though that two variable has linear relationships, but when I did experiment about it with Ryujo, the result wasn’t same as I thought and even got larger turning radius at 1/4 speed.
I just want to know tendency about turning radius.
A: Overall, radius depends on ship hull proportions. Dynamically, you can get a tighter turn if you slow down to 1/2. 1/2 gives the best radius mostly.
Q: Ribbon bug(maybe?) still exist? Few weeks ago I shoot yamato with Iowa AP and did 2 non-penetrating hits and 3 ricochet hits but did 1 penetrating damage.
Is this Ribbon bug? or unknown AP mechanisms?
A: There are several non-bug cases that may result in penetration without damage ribbon. E.g, hitting and penetrating a turret (in this case the damage goes to the turret) or penetration of anti-torpedo bulge without penetrating further armor. These cases are fine because this is what actually happens – non-damage pen. As for bugs, they are possible (although I think we fixed most of them). If you see something really bug-looking, report this to CSC please.
Q: I played 0.6.6 Technical Test today and then I saw… Montana deck armor 29mm?
A: This is a bug, and it will be fixed prior to version release.