Jump to content
Radar_X

Developer Q&A May 8th

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,036
[WGA]
Administrator
1,026 posts
439 battles

We’ve gathered a few of the most interesting questions from our players, we feel they are very important to try and answer! It is a long list of questions, so we have divided them into separate publications. Today we present to you the first part of Q&A with the development team..

Please understand that if we mention any plans, those have a possibility to change. When it comes to new ships and big features – our portal is the primary tool for these announcements. As for the less “visible” features – sometimes they require a huge effort and are very difficult to implement.


When will we see the missile destroyers in the game? (Refers to an alternative branch of Soviet Destroyers modeled in early 2017)

For now, we have decided not to add those ships to the game, as we believe there are tasks with a higher priority like the redesign of aircraft carriers. After we’ve dealt with what’s at hand we could come back to the to the rocket weaponry question.

Will there be any destroyers available for Free XP?

We definitely want to add premium destroyers that would be purchasable with Free XP, and all of the other classes eventually.

What are your plans for nerfing aircraft carriers? There is no information whatsoever, so we don't know what to expect.

There are no plans for nerfing, but rather a complete overhaul of the carrier class. Basically, we are rebuilding the CVs from scratch. It is a difficult task, and currently we are at the prototyping stage so it’s still too early to show what we’re doing. Once we have a more specific and stable prototype on our hands we’ll be sure to share it with the community and subject it to rigorous testing with your help.

Any plans for a spectator mode? (An option to watch other players’ battles)

We understand the necessity of this mode and we want to create it, as well as a fully functional replay recording system (which is technically similar to the spectator mode). However, at the moment we don’t have the necessary resources to allocate to this challenging task.

When do you plan to implement cross-server matchmaking to solve the time zones issue?

It is currently in development. There are, however, quite a few technical and organizational difficulties and risks. In any case, once we have the solution we’ll launch an extensive test. Realistically, the feature should go live together with the 4th season of Clan Battles.

There are lot of mechanics and equipment in the game with no explanation or description.  One has to act randomly, or look for information in other places. That is not very convenient. Any plans to change that?

Yes! It is a high priority issue and we plan to gradually deal with it. As you may remember, we have recently added color indication to the stat modifiers and marked the improved commander skills.

Will some kind of Tactical tablet/Team awareness app make an appearance in Clan battles? It could contain information about ships, spotting, an option to draw arrows on minimap, etc.

This is a curious feature for clan battles but we are still evaluating its use.

Any plans to implement angle meter, traffic lights, smart minimap, fog and glare, commander camera, command panels etc. in the vanilla client (without any mods)?
We do plan to add the aiming indicator and movement vector of currently focused ship to the minimap display. A combination of those data points will allow players to judge about ships’ angles.

“Traffic lights” in its current form is not coming to the vanilla client, as it would overload the UI. We’d like to add something that would provide the same info but in more elegant and lightweight implementation.

There are no current plans for commander camera.

Command panels that can be tuned are something that we’d like to do eventually but it’s not a high-priority development.

Any plans for different icons of spotting by Sonar and Radar?

Different icons for Hydro and Radar can be a bit ambiguous. It would be akin to “show which ship is spotting me”. Separate icon for guaranteed detection might be a good idea, especially since that parameter can be changed with upgrades.

Any plans for option to sell several items at a time from the inventory?

Most of the players use their items as they receive them, and not many actually use the inventory tab, therefore further development of this is a low-priority.

Any plans for an option to sort achievements, flags, signals and camos in a better way?

Signal flags are already sorted by their purpose – battle, economic and special. Camos and achievements may need some changes as well, but it’s a little early to tell when we’re going to touch them.

Is there going to be an option to disable the camera defaulting its position in port?

We haven’t really thought about that, but thank you for the suggestion, we’ll discuss it with the team.

Any plans for “Skip Container animation” option in settings?

We’re thinking about ways to do that and most likely, for technical reasons, it’s going to be something different that just animation skipping. But we completely understand why players want it.

Any plans for UI transparency settings?

If we’re talking about the port UI – there’s an option to increase GUI contrast in the settings menu. You can also adjust the minimap in the battle U but nothing additional is in the roadmap currently.

It is inconvenient that combat missions are located in several places at once: Missions, Sea Trials, Campaign missions and Personal missions. Can you put all active missions in one list?

That is a fair observation. For now,  this part of the interface is far from ideal and will need some additional resources. We will work on it when we have a few resources.

Why is there no option to preview equipment on ships that are not researched yet? Why can’t I preview what is going to be available on ships down the line, when I plan commander skills?

We actually agree on this one, but we haven’t had a chance to do it yet. This functionality is in the works.

Can you make the “Battle” button to change color depending on mode?

That is a good idea! We will be sure to discuss this with the team!

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,770
[RKLES]
Members
8,720 posts
10,828 battles

I am still waiting for Wargaming to announce they fixing those crash bugs or upgrading their server. When Weekend server population went over 10k things got really bad.

Tears of the Dersert Map has bugs imbedded in it that cause a 99.9% incident rate and its mainly just that map. Other maps cause crashes  far less often.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
1,166 posts
13,758 battles

"It would overload the UI...."  


ROFL.. if it doesn't overload the UI via mods, it wouldn't overload it with implementing into the client itself.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,192
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,956 posts
9,240 battles
43 minutes ago, Radar_X said:

What are your plans for nerfing aircraft carriers? There is no information whatsoever, so we don't know what to expect.

There are no plans for nerfing, but rather a complete overhaul of the carrier class. Basically, we are rebuilding the CVs from scratch. It is a difficult task, and currently we are at the prototyping stage so it’s still too early to show what we’re doing. Once we have a more specific and stable prototype on our hands we’ll be sure to share it with the community and subject it to rigorous testing with your help.

Rumors I've heard aside of making it more like WoWp where we control the planes, (What we have now is fine, you just need to fix the balance issues and broken mechanics/setups/etc) We got this same answer year+ ago. Y'know before the rework we were told we were getting last year? And why rebuild from scratch anyway? The more RTS playstyle is befitting of a CV especially given your the guy in charge. Conceptually the routes with IJN and USN and their "flavours" works - just executed poorly. Lack of new players is partially because people have been told "wait for the rework", the screwed up balance and broken mechanics like strafe and manual drop, that last one being non-CV players biggest ripe with CV's attacking them.

Far as we know, aircraft DPS seems to be listed DPS(bonuses)xnumber of planes - seriously correct us if were wrong - which gives USN the actual advantage. Just buff IJN's DPS and tweak ammo a bit on both so IJN has the slightly higher chance at downing a USN plane, but runs out of ammo faster and has a higher DPS drop off due to smaller squadron sizes, and USN has the lower chance but doesn't have as high a DPS drop off and has more ammo. Then make fighters 1-1 in setups (IE:Midway AS is 3,0,3, strike is 2,1,3, 6 planes per group, Hak is 3,2,3 AS and 2,3,3 strike 4 planes per group) - that's fighters and setups mostly fixed. Make strafing an accuracy debuff to bombers and DPS debuff to fighters for a short fixed time instead of the auto delete it is now, maybe takes out a couple planes of 30, not 20/30. That's strafing fix and closes the skill gap. Drop the alpha damage significantly of CV's with IJN having higher torp damage, USN having higher bomb damage - then increase the accuracy and HP of USN DB's, and maybe HP of TB's, or nerf IJN's HP seeing as they have speed and numbers, and seeing as CV's now do less damage directly - nerf AA. The alpha nerf pretty much fixes manual drop because you can't one shot a BB anymore, maybe not even DD's depending on how far it's taken and tier, you fix the "USN DB's aren't effective" issue because dialed in accuracy means they can actually score hits consistently on cruisers/BB's and several of them, still a bit sketchy on DD's but better than IJN. Plus between AA nerfs and HP buffs, fixes the issue that UN DB's never received buffs to cancel out the AA buffs meant to try and keep manual drop in check which was more an issue with IJN TB's and their numbers and now Midway because for some insane reason you brought back the 2,2,2 setup. And it goes a long way towards fixing the attrition issues CV's have especially in longer matches. Y'know that thing that was an issue on Hak so instead of adding about 20 planes to Hak you wanted to remove 40 then reduced it to 20 planes from Midway?

CV's need what amounts to an overhaul, yes, not so much a full from the ground rebuild and while I can't remember if that's all the changes, you do those things I listed even if it's not all of them it's a long way towards fixing them. Sure, the BB/CA/CL/DD community will likely balk at nerfed AA at first as well as increased accuracy on DB's (and if we do the damage nerf I'd say add a TB group in IJN strike setups instead of bombers so Hak would look more like 3,3,2 AS and 2,4,2 strike which would set them off), most CV players would likely balk that they can't auto delete enemy planes now and actually have to pick the right time to use strafe for best effect and that they can't auto delete ships with an alpha strike, they have to be smart and stagger the attacks to get the enemy to burn DCP and use the fire and flooding really to get the big numbers. But long term, likely way healthier for gameplay.

45 minutes ago, Radar_X said:

Any plans for different icons of spotting by Sonar and Radar?

Different icons for Hydro and Radar can be a bit ambiguous. It would be akin to “show which ship is spotting me”. Separate icon for guaranteed detection might be a good idea, especially since that parameter can be changed with upgrades.

If there is only 1 radar ship? yeah, maybe it's a little more "show who's spotting me". Except the part that 9/10 times when that spotted thing that's generic shows up - it's radar anyway because most ships hydro isn't far enough out to spot you anyway. How is it any different than having that icon light up if only one ship has hydro? Of having a spotted icon when a look at the minimap makes it clear the 1 DD in the match is the ship spotting you? If there's 2 radar ships - how do you know which is spotting you. Okay, y'know Atlanta is spotting you because it's the only radar ship and a radar icon pops up - what good does it do if it's behind an island that no one can spot it and shoot it anyway? If it's 1/6 cruisers, and they all have radar, but the other 5 are spotted - you get the same info of who's spotting you. There's likely more I can add to this list but I'd think by now you'd get my point - it's not going to make that big a difference on telling people who has them spotted, nor impact gameplay really. Other than you know it's radar, meaning you likely just have to sit and evade for several seconds, as opposed to Hydro, that you might be able to get out of range of, while dodging. Hell, it's about time radar had SOME kind of downside anyway.

 

And I say these things as a CV player and someone that has at least 1 Radar boat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,619
[TASH]
Members
5,050 posts
8,709 battles

Any news on maybe trying to help operations?  They seem way too hard for most people right now, and not very rewarding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,134
[HINON]
Members
10,336 posts
1 hour ago, SkywhaleExpress said:

"It would overload the UI...."  


ROFL.. if it doesn't overload the UI via mods, it wouldn't overload it with implementing into the client itself.

Based on their past statements it's more a reference to not having too much going on with the UI on screen and overwhelming the player. They like things to not be too obtrusive while also looking good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
618 posts
7,664 battles
1 hour ago, WanderingGhost said:

CV's need what amounts to an overhaul, yes, not so much a full from the ground rebuild and while I can't remember if that's all the changes, you do those things I listed even if it's not all of them it's a long way towards fixing them. Sure, the BB/CA/CL/DD community will likely balk at nerfed AA at first as well as increased accuracy on DB's (and if we do the damage nerf I'd say add a TB group in IJN strike setups instead of bombers so Hak would look more like 3,3,2 AS and 2,4,2 strike which would set them off), most CV players would likely balk that they can't auto delete enemy planes now and actually have to pick the right time to use strafe for best effect and that they can't auto delete ships with an alpha strike, they have to be smart and stagger the attacks to get the enemy to burn DCP and use the fire and flooding really to get the big numbers. But long term, likely way healthier for gameplay.

1

That's not a rework nor an overhaul. Even if WG does go everything of what you said, CV's are not going to be fun! 

At the current state, CV's are never fun! No amount of balance will ever make CV's fun for everyone and for everyone to appreciate. Why do you think the CV population is low? The RTS gameplay is terrible, the balance is terrible, the reception of CV's to other ships is terrible, and the UI is terrible. Who wants to play a terrible ship class? 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
275 posts
10,609 battles

It's very frustrating that so many questions are about basic UI, quality of life, or information that have been missing from the game forever that still have not been fixed or added. The answers are all "It's a low priority"" or "we don't have resources right now." I understand they have to add new features to the game, but these are just basic things that would help everyone. 

Why can't they commit to added one basic improvement per patch? Especially now that we're on a four-week dev cycle? 

With everything that has been added to the game in the past two-plus years, it's a shame WG has made little effort to make it user-friendly, especially to new players who don't read all the patch notes and watch the YouTube videos. If they really want to improve the game, they should add these things that make the game easier to play. It is a game, after all,  and you should not need to go research how basic things work, what things in the UI mean, how to find settings, etc. 

I think the most recent patch was great to add active bots, the potential and spotting damage counter, info about how flags and camos affect stats, etc, but more needs to be done and soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
653
[POP]
Members
1,318 posts
16,558 battles

Why in gods name are people asking for those dam missile destroyers from 2017, I don't want any of that crap in this game and i would think just about everyone else does not want them either.

As for that tiny group that do go play a modern naval warfare game somewhere else made by some other gaming company please.

regards   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,232
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
6,302 posts
8,194 battles
21 hours ago, Radar_X said:

We’ve gathered a few of the most interesting questions from our players,

obviously, 

questions concerning female captains, and captains with cv applicable skills,  greater visual variety of typology and diversity of special skills, are without interest to WG devs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
467
[ODIN]
Members
977 posts
15,496 battles
20 hours ago, saintsfan1622000 said:

It's very frustrating that so many questions are about basic UI, quality of life, or information that have been missing from the game forever that still have not been fixed or added. The answers are all "It's a low priority"" or "we don't have resources right now." I understand they have to add new features to the game, but these are just basic things that would help everyone. 

Why can't they commit to added one basic improvement per patch? Especially now that we're on a four-week dev cycle? 

With everything that has been added to the game in the past two-plus years, it's a shame WG has made little effort to make it user-friendly, especially to new players who don't read all the patch notes and watch the YouTube videos. If they really want to improve the game, they should add these things that make the game easier to play. It is a game, after all,  and you should not need to go research how basic things work, what things in the UI mean, how to find settings, etc. 

I think the most recent patch was great to add active bots, the potential and spotting damage counter, info about how flags and camos affect stats, etc, but more needs to be done and soon. 

I agree with you to a large degree, it seems they need some more UI work to appease a portion of players and committing to one small improvement per patch might be a good idea.
 

The other thing that bugs me about this is the opposite, Im so sick of these Q&A's just being the same redundant questions or  just simple stuff. I want to read about the "hardcore" mechanics changes or the future of development and not just if someone could please add this little feature to the UI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[SOB]
Members
64 posts
4,405 battles
On 5/8/2018 at 12:22 PM, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

I am still waiting for Wargaming to announce they fixing those crash bugs or upgrading their server. When Weekend server population went over 10k things got really bad.

Tears of the Dersert Map has bugs imbedded in it that cause a 99.9% incident rate and its mainly just that map. Other maps cause crashes  far less often.

 

My friend IF you thing Wows is bad I can point you to others that are much much worse. PM me for names :Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
275 posts
10,609 battles
17 minutes ago, Spieges said:

I agree with you to a large degree, it seems they need some more UI work to appease a portion of players and committing to one small improvement per patch might be a good idea.
 

The other thing that bugs me about this is the opposite, Im so sick of these Q&A's just being the same redundant questions or  just simple stuff. I want to read about the "hardcore" mechanics changes or the future of development and not just if someone could please add this little feature to the UI.

I'm glad you got what I was saying. It's many of the same things being asked for and WG just saying they'll work on it later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,644 posts
3,820 battles

@Radar_Xyou said this was the first part is the second part releasing next week? It would be nice to get some teasers on what is in store after the USN Split would be curious to see that part 2 for this reason alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1 post
236 battles
On 5/8/2018 at 10:46 AM, Radar_X said:

What are your plans for nerfing aircraft carriers? There is no information whatsoever, so we don't know what to expect.

There are no plans for nerfing, but rather a complete overhaul of the carrier class. Basically, we are rebuilding the CVs from scratch. It is a difficult task, and currently we are at the prototyping stage so it’s still too early to show what we’re doing. Once we have a more specific and stable prototype on our hands we’ll be sure to share it with the community and subject it to rigorous testing with your help.

So....why a complete overhaul? No real need the controls are fine a little cumbersome being that you are taking on the role of 3 commanders of a CV.   Squaron leader, Flight Controller, and Ships Captain.  Vs that of any of the other 3 classes you currently have where you really only take control of 2 positions.  Captain,and Gunner.   Once you get a feel for the controls its pretty quick and easy besides the game is setup as a "TEAM" game where you have to work together a CV is a perfect position of any Strat caller.

If you are so head strong about changing things leave the controls alone and fix the balance, might want to get into the "Historical Accuracy" of what ships you actually have in the game as help.  Please for the love of God learn the difference between a CV, CVE, CVL, CVB and CVA.  NOT ALL ARE THE SAME AND HAVE DIFFERENT MISSIONS.  For example the on the US side you go from a CV, to a CVE, then to a CVL, then back to a CV.  What is really amusing is that you have the CVs out of god damned order! except the Langley and the Midway.  Seriously you went CV-1, CVE-9, CVL-22, CV-4, CV-2, CV-9, CV-41.  For the love of mike talk about a headach.  Straighten that crap out first off, advice stay with just CVs don't get into the other carrier classes.  Keep it stupid simple just follow the ship classes and use the lead ship.  CV-1 (Langley), CV-2 (Lexington), CV-4 (Ranger), CV-5 (Yorktown), CV-7 (Wasp), CV-9 (Essex), CV-41 (Midway) Though technically CV-41 was a CVB/CVA (Battle Carrier)  it would have been CV-44 as a midway class which was never built or you could skip way ahead and go with CV-59 (Forrestal).  This way if you want to put in other named ships like ohh....The Enterprise (Essex Class) you can, as a "Premium Ship".

As for the japanese side, what ever your guy was smoking when he randomly picked those....that is some crazy good crap let me tell ya.  Again read up on what the ships actually did, as well as year built and you will be fine.  Either way tell that guy or team to puff puff pass that crap around.

In regards to aircraft, and aircraft load out.   Advice Separate Tech Tree, with size, and launch restrictions for aircraft carriers.  For example if aircraft was built and used on class of aircraft carrier in real life, it should be able to use it in game.  Most of these old carriers have declassified specs so you can look up how many aircraft fit in its belly and how fast it could launch them etc.  Being that almost if not all these aircraft carriers are going to have a huge jump in aircraft allotment like for example CV-9 Essex at one point carried 90-100 aircraft.   Allow the player to dictate squadron setup.  Meaning allow them based on tier/modules a max number of squadrons they can put in the air and a max number of aircraft they can put into the squadron.   So for example CV-1 Langley could only carry a maximum of 36 aircraft, allow the player to decide what those 36 aircraft are based on his or her Aircraft Tech Tree.  If they want to run all torpedo planes, or all dive bombers, or heck all fighters.   If their modules allow for say a maximum of 3 squadrons to be launched at a time and a maximum of 8 planes per squadron then that is what they can launch.  That way something that is top tier like say the CV-9 Essex which at one point could carry between 90 and 100 aircraft.  It could potentially put 9 squadrons of say 10 aircraft each, all of which could be fighters, for complete and total air superiority.

By the way there were other nations that had aircraft carriers during the time frame you have the ships in world of warships like the royal navy.  Just a thought.......

Edited by Drunken_Duckie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×