Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
renegadestatuz

EU livestream Q&A w/Octavian from yesterday

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

314
[STW]
Members
831 posts
7,007 battles

I would like to know at what point of the day I should play my T8's so that my MM is "comfortable."  Thanks in advance.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,476
[HINON]
Members
7,656 posts
8,168 battles
2 minutes ago, Deviathan said:

I would like to know at what point of the day I should play my T8's so that my MM is "comfortable."  Thanks in advance.

:Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,648
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,827 posts
4,361 battles

I found this set pretty interesting.

Quote

Is the Massachusetts, will it be released.
Well... if someone would’ve been more patient with Alabama... for now there is no real point for it. It’s a fine premium ship, but she won’t bring any diversity to the game. Maybe later, maybe in a new form. For now: no.

Thanks a lot NA, for threatening WG staff, STs, and CCs who got an ST Alabama. Your maturity does wonders sometimes. :cap_book:

 

Quote

There are a few Premiums that could use some buffs in sigma (Hood, Dunkerque), what do the statistics say? And Hipper/Eugen improvements?
Dunkerque is performing as it should, surpassed by Arizona, but still very good. Hood is perfectly average, with 50% winrate exactly. So no buffs needed. Hipper/Eugen & Shimakaze are in for buffs though. Shima can be done in multiple ways, as does Hipper/Eugen. WG is aware of the issue with those ships. Shima-statistics do not display it needs buffs, but when you compare performance of the ship compared to other ships when sailed by experienced DD-mains, the gap is very significant between the Shima and other ships. Right now they’re finalising the idea of the buffs, and it will happen soon (tm).

I do wonder what the buff for Hipper and Eugen will be. Like most, I'd assume a reload decrease and maybe a slightly armoring touch up for gameplay purposes, as well as adding a short-range Radar or separate AADF to Eugen, letting her serve as an early-warning ship similar to Belfast, but without the benefit of concealment and smoke.

Shimakaze's buffs will be more interesting to see. Personally, the F3s just need to be restored to 10km range, then make the 12km Mod 2s standard, and either change the 20km torps to DWs that only affect CAs, BBs, and CVs, or cut their range to 15km but buff the speed.

 

Quote

Are there any plans to change the graphics engine of WoWS?
Nein, nein, nein, nein, NEIN! The engine is fine! The engine does what it needs to do, and can cope well with the calculations, ballistics, it’s reasonably stable, un-cheatable. The graphics-part is tied to rendering, so they’re updating that step by step, including effects,... But the engine will remain what it is.

I thought this one funny simply because we have had others wanting to know if/when WG will update their WoWs engine. So the answer is "Nein", and instead they will continue to streamline and optimize the current engine.

 

Quote

New model for Kaiser, König & Bayern which will be more historical? (stock hull premiums for instance)
They could do that, but for these ships it’s not planned. They’ve done it on IJN ships, received mixed reviews from the community. You can always sail your stock hull of the techtree ships.

Now that they admitted that Stock hull Premiums were never popular, how long until we get T5 1942 Kirishima, mainly just more AA like Texas is to NY, T6 1944 Yamashiro, which is the same but pre-nerfed with her 3rd rear-facing turret, and uptiered T6 1944 Kongou and Haruna, with slight buffs to make them reasonably competitive, AA-heavy battlecruisers?

Edited by YamatoA150
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,748
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
6,103 posts
1,313 battles

"Any premium dreadnoughts planned?
Viable question, but such type of ships aren’t too viable in the game, but due to their design, they are very hard to balance. From business perspective, they’re low-tier ships, and not that desirable and desired by the community (outside collectors). The priority sits with high-tier ships."

 

Oh ffs WG.... wth... enough with the god damned high tier crap!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,748
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
6,103 posts
1,313 battles

" Port UI performance, any improvement?
They’re always working on it, but the more stuff gets added to the game, it adds a strain to the game. Optimisation isn’t always about increasing speed & performance, it often is maintaining the status-quo. As long as it’s not getting worse, it’s alright."

 

 

...

 

*sighs heavily*

 

miOJiI7.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,175
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts

Wow that's a lot to unpack, especially the stuff about DWT's, T8's MM % (a rare hard number glimpse into rates), and their justification for Hard coding DWT... no way that decision wasn't influenced by the fact that it's the Khab that has a Cruiser-depth draft.

Also, I've gone to the RU Forums; I have not seen people thinking 'John Doe' is funny. They think it's just as boring of a change as we do here, especially with so many famous Commanders, fact or fictional, to choose from.

Edited by _RC1138

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
[RCNW3]
Members
1,903 posts
17,891 battles

Would love to see the stats on tier 8 being top tier 55% of the time. Not even close to my experience. Almost 100% of the time, first match in tier 8 DD or Cruiser is a tier 10 match (random playing solo).  Guess I will have to test and report results.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,648
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,827 posts
4,361 battles
2 minutes ago, Kitsunelegend said:

" Port UI performance, any improvement?
They’re always working on it, but the more stuff gets added to the game, it adds a strain to the game. Optimisation isn’t always about increasing speed & performance, it often is maintaining the status-quo. As long as it’s not getting worse, it’s alright."

...

*sighs heavily*

I'm reminded of this ditty: "♪♫ 99 little bugs in the code, 99 little bugs, take one down, patch it around, 121 little bugs in the code! ♪♫"

 

8 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

their justification for Hard coding DWT... no way that decision wasn't influenced by the fact that it's the Khab that has a Cruiser-depth draft.

Also, I've gone to the RU Forums; I have not seen people thinking 'John Doe' is funny. They think it's just as boring of a change as we do here, especially with so many famous Commanders, fact or fictional, to choose from.

There's also the Moskva and maybe Dmitri that would likely get counted as BB level draft if DWTs were draft-based, not to mention Stalingrad and Kronstadt. Henri too, but she would not have factored as much as the fact that high-tier VMF ships would all likely be vulnerable if it was draft-based to a certain degree. If I'm not misremembering, one early DWT iteration that was intended for BB level draft did show that only Moskva, Dmitri, and Henri would be hit by draft-based DWTs while most of the other T9/T10 cruisers would not (I forget if Hindenburg could scrape past, but Minotaur, DM, and Zao were immune).

As for names and portraits, they could have replaced Seagal with the portrait of the fallen WoWs player who was immortalized as one of the newer USN commanders, and go with a better neutral name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,175
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
1 minute ago, YamatoA150 said:

There's also the Moskva and maybe Dmitri that would likely get counted as BB level draft if DWTs were draft-based, not to mention Stalingrad and Kronstadt. Henri too, but she would not have factored as much as the fact that high-tier VMF ships would all likely be vulnerable if it was draft-based to a certain degree. If I'm not misremembering, one early DWT iteration that was intended for BB level draft did show that only Moskva, Dmitri, and Henri would be hit by draft-based DWTs while most of the other T9/T10 cruisers would not (I forget if Hindenburg could scrape past, but Minotaur, DM, and Zao were immune).

As for names and portraits, they could have replaced Seagal with the portrait of the fallen WoWs player who was immortalized as one of the newer USN commanders, and go with a better neutral name.

Two things they coulda done: 1) Just allow them to be hit by torps since... DWT's can hit them now?! (also the Balt was among those that can be hit, due to it's abnormally deep draft for a regular CA) 2) Could use someone funny that's Famous: FDR as a Commander. Just get some Up-state New Yorker to voice him, and boom, you have no problems. There's now *downside* to an FDR Commander. Who can take offense? Of COURSE FDR would have commanded a ship if he felt like it, not if he could, cause he could, but just if he had felt like it. Plus he has a deep tie to the origins of the modern USN. And he makes about as much sense as Yamamoto does as a commander of a *ship* or the fictitious RN Jack Dunkirk and MN HonHonore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,648
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,827 posts
4,361 battles
1 minute ago, _RC1138 said:

Two things they coulda done: 1) Just allow them to be hit by torps since... DWT's can hit them now?! (also the Balt was among those that can be hit, due to it's abnormally deep draft for a regular CA) 2) Could use someone funny that's Famous: FDR as a Commander. Just get some Up-state New Yorker to voice him, and boom, you have no problems. There's now *downside* to an FDR Commander. Who can take offense? Of COURSE FDR would have commanded a ship if he felt like it, not if he could, cause he could, but just if he had felt like it. Plus he has a deep tie to the origins of the modern USN. And he makes about as much sense as Yamamoto does as a commander of a *ship* or the fictitious RN Jack Dunkirk and MN HonHonore.

Both options would be great. Having FDR helm a ship would be hilarious.

That aside, it'd be nice if Khab was affected by draft-based DWTs that only target cruiser-level draft and higher (if they exist). Surprise nuke a Khab that wasn't paying attention or sped right into a swarm of DWTs with little advance notice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
490
[YAN]
Members
1,700 posts
8,085 battles
58 minutes ago, YamatoA150 said:

AA-heavy battlecruisers?

Gross, no.

The game is already full of AA heavy ships, so lets just not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,648
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,827 posts
4,361 battles
4 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

Gross, no.

The game is already full of AA heavy ships, so lets just not.

Except it's historical and perfectly valid in this scenario, including WG's own prior restrictions, so we will have to disagree.

Both Kongou and Haruna mainly have T6 level AA, though it's concentrated into the short-range department. At best, it only saves them from DB drops, just like Texas' own AA really only stops DBs and only shreds TBs after they've dropped and are flying over it. As well, WG had, in the past, commented that they felt the 3 Kongou sisters were too effective to be top hull for T5, so Hiei is used instead, but it doesn't preclude them from being possible Premiums. And with Texas' existence, they can at least get Kirishima in at T5 as a similar IJN equivalent, more AA than Hiei, but less AA than Kongou or Haruna. Kongou and Haruna themselves are uniquely positioned to fit into T6 with a slight tightening of accuracy or an increase to secondary range (say Haruna the secondary battlecruiser and Kongou the sniper), among whatever other minor buffs are given for Tier HP and armoring if necessary.

They're pretty well-balanced already for T5 and T6, only needing minor tweaks or minor buffs to make them competitive enough but uniquely balanced by their battlecruiser-style of gameplay. Better than them being made superheavy cruisers at any rate (unlike a few certain VMF cruisers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,622
[--K--]
Members
5,332 posts
16,776 battles

One bright note from this is they are aware of how stupid the requirements for Clear Sky are. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,113
Alpha Tester
2,552 posts
Quote

For the French BB's, why use buffed dreadnoughts for T5-7 when there would be more modern ships for that era that actually existed (in blueprints).
When they can use real-world modernisation, they use it. In case of French ships, they check blueprints, if it fits gameplay. They weren’t too eager to add sisterships in this branch, so Strasbourgh-Dunkirk. And there are plans for premium-ships, so it’s entirely possible the modern ships will be premiums.

Great, so historical ships are locked behind a paywall while WG's fictionalized versions get to be tech tree ships.

Quote

Unhistorical mods: it’s not a bad thing to do, some ships had the chance to be modded IRL, but couldn’t due to circumstances, so it’s a nice “what if”-scenario. WW1-era should be modable to make it competitive in T5-6-7 battles.

It's bad if it's an iconic ship like Iron Duke, Jellicoe's flagship. I don't mind unhistorical mods, just don't call it Iron Duke. Give it a fictional name.

Quote

New model for Kaiser, König & Bayern which will be more historical? (stock hull premiums for instance)
They could do that, but for these ships it’s not planned. They’ve done it on IJN ships, received mixed reviews from the community. You can always sail your stock hull of the techtree ships.

Konig Albert is the historical version of Kaiser, but WG screwed it up and refuse to rebalance it. Now it's unsellable.

Quote

Any premium dreadnoughts planned?
Viable question, but such type of ships aren’t too viable in the game, but due to their design, they are very hard to balance. From business perspective, they’re low-tier ships, and not that desirable and desired by the community (outside collectors). The priority sits with high-tier ships.

So much for naming this game "World of Warships". Oh well, at least now I know the likes of Dreadnought or Agincourt will probably never appear.

Quote

Why is John Doe the name of the Seagull-replacement.
Russian people have a weird sense of humour. It wasn’t a conscious choice. They needed some name, so they decided to pick that name. Sub started monitoring it yesterday, and most of the people seem to like that name. It’s not exciting, but not offensive either.

They let the Russians name a USN captain instead of asking the NA community? :fish_palm:

Overall I'm disappointed with most of the answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,143
[ARGSY]
Members
10,326 posts
16,093 battles

in general,  non peak time is more consistent in terms of match play.    it means that if you are better than average,  you are more likely to do better.  but if you are below average, you may be better off at peak time  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,175
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
17 minutes ago, Wolcott said:

They let the Russians name a USN captain instead of asking the NA community? :fish_palm:

I don't even know that I believe this. I go on the RU forums time to time and have seen no threads really SUPPORTING this. This strikes me as a place-holder name that stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,748
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
6,103 posts
1,313 battles
4 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

That bad eh?

All those answers make me realize that WG has absolutely no idea what the hell they're doing... and are trying to hide that fact by coming with the most stupidest excuses they could think of...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,113
Alpha Tester
2,552 posts
6 minutes ago, Kitsunelegend said:

All those answers make me realize that WG has absolutely no idea what the hell they're doing... and are trying to hide that fact by coming with the most stupidest excuses they could think of...

I share your frustrations but let's face it, WG is just a business and most of Sub's answers are merely from a business perspective.

46 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

I don't even know that I believe this. I go on the RU forums time to time and have seen no threads really SUPPORTING this. This strikes me as a place-holder name that stuck.

Notice the OP doesn't mention the RU forum. Sub was probably just listening to gossip from the WG office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
92
[OO7]
Beta Testers
470 posts
10,841 battles

Hmm.. old game engine.... graphics can always be better... at least show torpedo hits in a ships hull....  Waves.. that thunderstorm in PVE is awesome.. but the waves are really needed! Moar Rain!!!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
910 posts
11,233 battles

"For the French BB's, why use buffed dreadnoughts for T5-7 when there would be more modern ships for that era that actually existed (in blueprints).
When they can use real-world modernisation, they use it. In case of French ships, they check blueprints, if it fits gameplay. They weren’t too eager to add sisterships in this branch, so Strasbourgh-Dunkirk. And there are plans for premium-ships, so it’s entirely possible the modern ships will be premiums.
Unhistorical mods: it’s not a bad thing to do, some ships had the chance to be modded IRL, but couldn’t due to circumstances, so it’s a nice “what if”-scenario. WW1-era should be modable to make it competitive in T5-6-7 battles."

And I don't have a problem with this.  I expect the Devs to do the best they with what they got, never thought of them as stupid.  So far the premiums with original design are working out.

"Will there be a uniform keybinding?
Also on the list, with medium-priority. They thought about a solution, but having a uniform key per consumable will not work due to different combinations for consumables on ships. They consider a design where you can somewhat tweak it to achieve a “semi-uniformity”"

An aside question to this is what is the update to giving the player the ability to move said consumable icons around?  I'm getting pretty tired of hitting the wrong button every time I switch ships!

"Credits & XP between assisted & solo?
Solo? Han Solo? Capping is connected to the percentage of the point you’ve successfully capped. The ribbons are not tied to the economy. What matters is your contribution to the cap, when you do 80%, the ribbon changes from assisted to solo, but the economy doesn’t change between those ribbons, it's always X times the percentage of the successful cap."

Now I never knew about  that 80%, that's useful information.

"Clear Sky rework?
It’s not dependant on the CV-rework. The achievement doesn’t work well (downright broken), they are aware of it. Sub apologises for that. It will probably come in the next few updates, it’s already in the “implementation-phase”."

THANK HEAVENS for the people who tirelessly kept bringing this point up even at the cost of downvotes!  You guys deserve the praise.  Very happy about them knowing, but sad it'll take a "few" (meaning 3+ updates) to fix it.  Seriously, just get rid of the float planes requirement and call it a day.

"Any chance for new techtree branches, like Battlecruisers?**
They’re not planning to add a new gameclasses right now, but it might be possible if that class adds a significant new gameplay value to it. But a new class means that other branches would need reworking as well because ships will migrate to that new class (Hood for example, or Kongo in case of the Battlecruiser)."

Look, if it's really really really REALLY that hard to implement a new class, then could you just add them alongside the BBs, mark them as BBs, but have the characteristics of a BC, if you know what I mean?

"Battletier XI & XII, so T10 ships will be downtiered as well?
They’ve emulated it already (not real testing, just modelling, and statistics). Modelling showed that T10 battles would be assembled very slowly, the matchmaker would need a longer cue, while T8 battles would be assembled very quickly. T8 ships currently are toptier in 55% of the battles, 13% in T9 battles, and 33% in T10 battles. T8 is in a comfortable spot now. If the distribution gets too skewed, they’ll modify it."

Can't say I understand the first half of this paragraph.  Sure it will assemble slowly in the beginning, but sooner or later they'll have enough T11-12's where T10 will assemble quickly.  Course something tells me we'll start this "T10 is 60% bottom tier!" thing all over again.

"What happened to the T-61?
Nothing bad happened, but sometimes they test stuff, and then put it on hold. Sometimes ships are made well in advance, and then used as a “reserve buffer” when a planned ship goes awry, so they have something to release."

Welp, now we know.

"Any premium dreadnoughts planned?
Viable question, but such type of ships aren’t too viable in the game, but due to their design, they are very hard to balance. From business perspective, they’re low-tier ships, and not that desirable and desired by the community (outside collectors). The priority sits with high-tier ships."

So what is the status on those Tenryu/Arkansas clones, aye Developers?  I'm not giving up! XD

"Cesare, will it be rebalanced, because it’s overperforming
She’s indeed performing very well, but Sub can’t confirm the GC is the most powerful ship in that range. The statistics say it’s borderline OP. If it crosses that line, it will suffer the same fate as Nikolai. Currently it’s “good, but not too good”."

PLEASE don't get rid of that battleship!!!  The look of that battleship, there's nothing like it in game, it's sooooo original!!!

"There are a few Premiums that could use some buffs in sigma (Hood, Dunkerque), what do the statistics say? And Hipper/Eugen improvements?
Dunkerque is performing as it should, surpassed by Arizona, but still very good. Hood is perfectly average, with 50% winrate exactly. So no buffs needed. Hipper/Eugen & Shimakaze are in for buffs though. Shima can be done in multiple ways, as does Hipper/Eugen. WG is aware of the issue with those ships. Shima-statistics do not display it needs buffs, but when you compare performance of the ship compared to other ships when sailed by experienced DD-mains, the gap is very significant between the Shima and other ships. Right now they’re finalising the idea of the buffs, and it will happen soon (tm)."

Really don't know how else your going to buff Hipper-class ships without making it A-historical.  I mean, probably give the Eugen 2 heals and the Hipper a ROF buff, idk.

"Are there any plans to change the graphics engine of WoWS?
Nein, nein, nein, nein, NEIN! The engine is fine! The engine does what it needs to do, and can cope well with the calculations, ballistics, it’s reasonably stable, un-cheatable. The graphics-part is tied to rendering, so they’re updating that step by step, including effects,... But the engine will remain what it is."

Yes, it will remain the equivalent of the PS3 (2012-2014) technology for the next 5 years.  By the time the next best thing comes out after 4k, or WOWS 1.0, it'll remain a the butt of a joke graphics wise in the gaming community.  And no, I don't not give a rat's smelly asss about supporting pisss poor computers when WOT/WT with 2016-2018 graphics successfully supports low end computers.

"WoWS on X-box (or console in general), when?
Sub will think about it. But Sub can’t announce such stuff. X-box version will be a total new game though."

Little confused, first he said Sub will think about it, but mentions it being a totally new game if then?  I think I'll take that as a *hint hint*, lol.

"Port UI performance, any improvement?
They’re always working on it, but the more stuff gets added to the game, it adds a strain to the game. Optimisation isn’t always about increasing speed & performance, it often is maintaining the status-quo. As long as it’s not getting worse, it’s alright."

First off, again, thank you for changing the camera in making it easier to view these ships.  This is no lie, I just love taking a closer look at every ship and see all the little details aboard them.  My only complaint is, when I'm in the Modules tab, the ship camera like the old camera resets itself to the front when I view old/potential ships.  I don't like that.  I wanna see differences (size, shape, etc.) from the old/new ships while they're holding "still" so to speak.

"Are you still working on bastion-mode?
It’s not performing in PvP. Some ideas work in PvP, some doesn’t, this was one that didn’t work."

Dude, the only complaint was the damage receive from the guns, that's it.  If WG would have just lowered the damage from the guns, this wouldn't have resulted in totally removing them from PVP.  But in retrospect they may have done this because originally it was meant for PVE, idk.

"What about a 2nd national flag, to display your own country.
There was a discussion about flags (PA-line). A customisation will come, but not for now. The main flag of the ship is part of the identity, but for now it will not be allowed to play a Alabama with a Soviet flag, or a Kransy Krim with a UK-flag. Some customisation can be added, but the choice will be limited. You can’t mount anything on everything."

Maybe add a placard near the front of the ship like the German BB premiums?

"Thinking a free-for-all battle royale mode.
They did that in Alpha, they had DD-deathmatch, 20 players and one against all. It was... weird. It can be a viable experiment, but only in fun-events, not for main gameplay."

I hear War Thunder is still having that issue to this day in RB.  That one plane that flies undetected the whole match, which may last the entire match.

"Is the Massachusetts, will it be released.
Well... if someone would’ve been more patient with Alabama... for now there is no real point for it. It’s a fine premium ship, but she won’t bring any diversity to the game. Maybe later, maybe in a new form. For now: no."

Sorry man, there's triple clone ships in this game, I can't accept that.

"Buff Mikasa, by giving a range accuracy mod like Yubari.
There are no plans to buff Mikasa, it was scheduled to be a collector-ship. It’s the evidence that not too many “early ships” shouldn’t be in the game. She’s too old to work in the current gameplay."

Dude, it's not rocket science man, crap.  Just buff it's secondary range to 1k more, that's it.  Don't even need to touch upon it's sec. acc.  

 

Wishful thinking, hopefully they'll talk about buffing the Myogi/Izumo (sorry LWM), buffing the Bow/Stern of the Omaha/Konigsberg, and coming out with the Iwaki/Beta clones.

 

Thank you renegadestatuz for the post, it was very enlightening.

Edited by Airglide2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
461
[AP]
Members
1,297 posts
16,277 battles

Changes for Shima.

Quote

They’re considering buffing it for everyone (noobs & unicums)

good

Quote

F3 and Mod2 are fine, but not happy with the 20km Long Lance torpedoes

took waaaaaay too long, but finally they see the problem of that [edited] stock torp

Quote

12kms might become stock ones

plz do this asap

Quote

Concealment, reducing it’s not surpassed by any other T10 DD

never made any sense to me how shima had identical concealment with gearing

 

Quote

WG is aware of the issue with those ships. Shima-statistics do not display it needs buffs, but when you compare performance of the ship compared to other ships when sailed by experienced DD-mains, the gap is very significant between the Shima and other ships.

and yes, they finally FINALLY started looking at discrepancy in ships performances under same players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×