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

Gamescom Q&A (and yes also subs and CV rework)

102 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,123
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,107 posts
18,628 battles

What is the Preliminary Feedback from Clanbattles last season.
The devs are quite happy with what they saw in terms of activity, given the weather was so nice, everyone was outside BBQing and stuff, but that people still found the time to play, so for this season they are very happy in terms of participation, given the circumstances.

What about the issue of getting your clanteam assembled for Clanwars, is that a reason to go international and make a global Clanwar?
The background/reason is twofold.

  • 1: every server has its own primetime, but there are players who can't fit in those primetime (geographical, strange working hours). By allowing to play on other servers, they open the mode up to them.
  • 2: they really want to see how the global competitive meta would evolve, cool to see intercontinental clashes. Like KoTS, but on a regular basis. They're looking forward who'll dominate the general clanwars. They're ironing out the creases regarding pings and the likes, but the tests look promising. Ping will not be perfect for everyone, but it will be workable.

What did the devs think about the USS Helena camouflage competition?
There were a lot of very high quality of submissions, and a lot of submissions in general as well. The devs were amazed by it, since creative contests generally does not attract too much of an audience, but this really surpassed their expectations, and they wish to thank everyone that participated, and there will be more of those contests in the future (for making in-game content like camouflages). The USS Helena mission will very likely come as a chain of daily missions the same as the missions in July & August.

What about the Kitakami?
It's "single facepalm"-time. There is a very low probability, but there are deepwater torpedoes now, so that opens a door. Still a very low probability of it ever coming back in the game, but... higher than before there were DW torpedoes.

What is the current state of CV rework?
It's becoming a living meme of a topic, but they are approaching the time that they can show some gameplay and explain the principle. It was planned for unveiling at Gamescom, but they didn't make that deadline (they did not want to risk a Zeppeling-debacle again). But it's now ready for "external testing" by ST, staff, unicum-clans,... and then it's ready for general public testing. But more information about that, as well as some footage & explanation of concept will be coming soon, maybe next week.

What server clashes are there planned for next KOTS-tournament?
They are talking to the organisers for this autumn, but it's not yet decided if there will be a clash with another server. But if so: it will be very likely the EU versus the Russians, since it was fun last time, and the Russians are eager for vengeance. Sub was happy to participate in the previous season. Even the Russians were entertained and surprised, and while there was some drama, but there were no hard feelings about the absolute pandering.

What about the testing of improvements of render speed (spotting-delay). Current status? It's an annoying and stupid bug that annoyed everyone for a long time. It's also quite complicated, and intertwined with data-reception of the client from the server, with multiple data being needed before the ship would render in the first place. They tried multiple solutions, and they fixed it. It will very very very likely come in 0.7.9, they just need to polish it and see it doesn't make more bugs.

The Stalingrad, and the state of that ship. Are the devs happy or not? Isn't it too Strong?
No-one can be fully objective, nor testers or devs. Therefore it needs live gameplay to gather data. There is reason for concern with it having the railguns and being tough to kill, but it has distinct weaknesses. The tricky situation with this ship was that it is a reward for an enormous effort, so it should be decent and worthwhile. But it's going to be played by the most hardcore players, so it shouldn't be too good so that they don't piss on every other player. For now they assume it's fine, but they are following it up daily, and will see how it work competitively.

About the Royal Navy Heavy cruisers, are there any plans?
Noooo, don't ask such questions. WG considers every ship that fits in the era. Plans: maybe.

Will Betatesters get an ingame patche like alpha-testers?
Phil is very enthusiastic about it, and they are indeed coming for CBT/Weekend/... It will very likely be based on the Iwaki & Arkansas. It will be sorted out soon.

Will WoWS-team come to Paris game week?
Not from the EU-office as far as they know, but if they are invited, the devs might come. But the EU team will look into it if they can join as well. They will be coming to the Vienna gameshow though.

What about HMS Vanguard?
Idem as for British heavy cruisers.

Did the devs consider a reliability-factor for torpedoes?
Not really, the only random factor is a small deviation (the gaps) in the spreads, and even that is controversial. So they don't want to add more randomness to torpedoes, it's already hard enough to land them successfully.

Can there be a captain's office, with a visual representation of everything you earned so far, like collections, patches, medals,...
They're not working on that, but it has potential. The idea is cool though. But it's not core gameplay, so they're not devoting a lot of resources to such extravaganza's. The player should not be too distracted from stuff in port/client.

What's the Update on BB-AP vs DD's.
They've tried a couple of solutions, which solved the issue, but they created some whole new issues and that wrecked game balance. The idea of arming/not arming of the shells was an option, but that wrecked the cruisers in some way. So they've found a third solution, which they are now working on, and will then try it if it works satisfactory.

+/-1 matchmaker: is it being considering for testing? They are not yet ready to seriously test/try that matchmaking, for obvious reasons which were already discussed. They don't think their current matchmaker is perfect, but they are not ready to go +/-1 yet. They will to implement better balance per nation first, stuff like consumables,... They are all in for improving, but not that drastic.

Will CV's be kept out of clanbattles until rework, and then be allowed?
The problem with CV's in clanbattles is the very reason for the CV-rework. So once the rework is completed, and the balance is found, there should be no issue in having CV's in clanbattles, if they do not wreck the balance.

Why is it technically possible to create faildivisions? Why not disable it entirely.
It's a two-sided question, it's better for game-perspective indeed, but it will greatly hamper the social aspect of divisioning. They don't want to interrupt the social aspect from it, even if they know it sees some abuse (faildivisioning and anchoring) in some way or another, but that does not outweigh the social benefits.

Can we have a chat-notificiation of usage of consumables by team-members?
They really consider it. They are planning on upgrading & overhauling the ingame communications anyway, so it might be implemented that way.

What is it about BB dispersion, especially in T4/6. On top they are sitting ducks from torpedobombers.
If they buff the dispersion, there will be nothing else than BB's in those games, so no. If you don't hit anything, you're too far away from the battle. Same for torpedobombers: use your team to protect you from those.

Will there be balancing of radar in matchmaker?
They don't want to introduce new factors for the matchmaker, since it would mean it would take too long to assemble a team (there are already enough requirements for it), the waiting time would really be too long. Some players don't mind the longer waittime, but most are annoyed by it. Additionally they think if a consumable is too influential in winning, they will rebalance said consumable in general. They did research from statistics on the EU regarding radar & winning, and it's not THAT influential as such as a consumable, but some ships that have radar are influential on their own, with or without radar. One of those ships is Missouri. That ship has too much influence, and is strong (but not truly OP). They are looking into changing radar, including a LOS-method. But nothing that can be shared yet. But they are aware of the issue of radar, and the "nuke"-factor it has because of focus-fire. But it's all still very early, with no final solution yet known.

Are there potential changes to next season of clanbattles?
It's still way too early to confirm any changes. The devs are still running analysis of the data. They do A LOT of analysis on data, and that takes time. There is a balance between data & subjective feelings. Like Conqueror, the data says its fine, the feeling says it's horrendously unfun.

Why will there be a Pan European nation?
It's there for the same reason there is one for the PanAsian. Various countries that have some (popular) ships, but can't make a full line on their own, so they need to be combined in order to be implemented in the game. For the EU: don't expect full lines, like Polish CV's, the Swiss Mountain Navy. But they now have a "container-nation" that allows them to introduce (premium) ships of minor nations like Poland, The Netherlands & Austro-Hungary (for the time being, other nations can/will follow). If such a minor nation gets a techtree of their own later on, those ships from the Pan-European nation will merge to their nation techtree.

Will there be an historic German captain like Halsey/Yamamoto, but for Germany
There are always issues with getting permissions from the estates of said persons, or the government,... But they plan to have such a captain for every major nation, so that includes Germany.

With the rework of the spotting mechanic bug, will that have balance implications?
Maybe. But they will address it when it turns out to be a real issue. Spotting delay will not be used as a balancing mechanic.

Will there be a possibility for submarines (note from me: really? REALLY???)
When Octavian joined the team, the first thing he learned was: no, there will never be submarines in the game. New classes are a huge deal, and that is not a priority at all. It would mean a total redesign of all the maps.

Any news on WOWS-legends (console) They are now in Alpha-test, for more info, visit the legends website. There will no PC-accounts for the console-version. Even Xbox and PS4 won't be merged.

Will ARP-ships make a return?
Devs have nothing against it, but it's not owned by WG, so it depends on an agreement with the licenseholders.

Are you concerned about DD's in the current meta, with Worcester taking the spot of DD's They are concerned, like Worcester, the AP pens, the radar-investation. When these problems are solved first, then they might look at DD's themselves. But the devs think the DD's as such are fine.

Will the Enterprise be unavailable for purchase until the CV rework, isn't that fair for the later adopters who don't have the chance to play that ship?
Exactly. There will be no premium CV's until the rework is completely rolled out. They are aware of the malcontent it creates, and they know people want to play with premium CV's, but with the CV-issues, they are not taking any risks, also with the new rework around the bend. Idem for the Graf Zeppelin, Saipain & Kaga.

<there is still a some sort of Q&A going on, but the sound is less than optimal, with a lot of distractions, so I'll transcribe those when the stream has ended, and I can pause the stream>

Also, Sub_Octavian got stung by a wasp in the tongue when drinking some German beer. It was more painful as being a T8 in a battle with 22 T10's.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers
383 posts
5,421 battles
1 hour ago, Erebthoron said:

Did the devs consider a reliability-factor for torpedoes?
Not really, the only random factor is a small deviation (the gaps) in the spreads, and even that is controversial. So they don't want to add more randomness to torpedoes, it's already hard enough to land them successfully.

Random spreads on torpedoes has been the dumbest thing ever. As if BBs needed more help with the game throwing them a bone with a perfectly BB sized gap every time.

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,210
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,190 posts
3,867 battles
2 hours ago, Erebthoron said:

Also, Sub_Octavian got stung by a wasp in the tongue when drinking some German beer. It was more painful as being a T8 in a battle with 22 T10's.

Still not as painful as playing a Shimakaze or Gearing in a match with 6 enemy radar cruisers.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,093 posts
5,599 battles
5 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Still not as painful as playing a Shimakaze or Gearing in a match with 6 enemy radar cruisers.

At least those 2 ships can torpedo beyond radar. Kagero or Z-23 blow when those games pop up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
469
[QNA]
[QNA]
Members
1,838 posts
5,879 battles
7 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Still not as painful as playing a Shimakaze or Gearing in a match with 6 enemy radar cruisers.

 

Just now, Ajax_the_Great1 said:

At least those 2 ships can torpedo beyond radar. Kagero or Z-23 blow when those games pop up.

I move slower or just make myself a decoy and run back to my allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
830
[SBS]
Members
2,419 posts
2,253 battles
2 hours ago, Erebthoron said:

Will there be balancing of radar in matchmaker?
They don't want to introduce new factors for the matchmaker, since it would mean it would take too long to assemble a team (there are already enough requirements for it), the waiting time would really be too long. Some players don't mind the longer waittime, but most are annoyed by it. Additionally they think if a consumable is too influential in winning, they will rebalance said consumable in general. They did research from statistics on the EU regarding radar & winning, and it's not THAT influential as such as a consumable, but some ships that have radar are influential on their own, with or without radar. One of those ships is Missouri. That ship has too much influence, and is strong (but not truly OP). They are looking into changing radar, including a LOS-method. But nothing that can be shared yet. But they are aware of the issue of radar, and the "nuke"-factor it has because of focus-fire. But it's all still very early, with no final solution yet known.

I'm glad to hear WG is looking into making some balancing changes to radar.  Let's hope their solution isn't an anti-radar consumable for DDs, but rather changing radar itself.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,210
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,190 posts
3,867 battles
2 hours ago, Erebthoron said:

Will there be balancing of radar in matchmaker?
They don't want to introduce new factors for the matchmaker, since it would mean it would take too long to assemble a team (there are already enough requirements for it), the waiting time would really be too long. Some players don't mind the longer waittime, but most are annoyed by it. Additionally they think if a consumable is too influential in winning, they will rebalance said consumable in general. They did research from statistics on the EU regarding radar & winning, and it's not THAT influential as such as a consumable, but some ships that have radar are influential on their own, with or without radar. One of those ships is Missouri. That ship has too much influence, and is strong (but not truly OP). They are looking into changing radar, including a LOS-method. But nothing that can be shared yet. But they are aware of the issue of radar, and the "nuke"-factor it has because of focus-fire. But it's all still very early, with no final solution yet known.

Wait, I missed this.

 

So what does this mean for all the people defending the status quo with "But it can't be changed due to the engine!" when WG is actively investigating changing it in this supposedly impossible fashion?

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,701
[ARGSY]
Members
5,779 posts
3,925 battles
14 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

So what does this mean for all the people defending the status quo with "But it can't be changed due to the engine!"

It means they mis-spoke without necessarily lying or knowingly saying the wrong thing. But there's a big difference between "here is a fix" and "we are exploring possible fixes". 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,576 posts
3,901 battles
3 hours ago, Erebthoron said:
Can there be a captain's office, with a visual representation of everything you earned so far, like collections, patches, medals,...

They're not working on that, but it has potential. The idea is cool though. But it's not core gameplay, so they're not devoting a lot of resources to such extravaganza's. The player should not be too distracted from stuff in port/client.

[Looks at: Coal, Steel, Arsenal, Collections, Emblems/Patches, Copper, Molybdenum, scads of non-historical camos]

What was that you were saying about core gameplay and developer resources, again?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,210
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,190 posts
3,867 battles
46 minutes ago, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

It means they mis-spoke without necessarily lying or knowingly saying the wrong thing. But there's a big difference between "here is a fix" and "we are exploring possible fixes". 

Odd, because I've been hearing very adamant "This is impossible, what you are saying literally cannot be done" statements.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
427
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,576 posts
3,901 battles
Just now, KiyoSenkan said:

Odd, because I've been hearing very adamant "This is impossible, what you are saying literally cannot be done" statements.

Despite the fact that line of sight is quite clearly coded for normal vision...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,701
[ARGSY]
Members
5,779 posts
3,925 battles
3 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Odd, because I've been hearing very adamant "This is impossible, what you are saying literally cannot be done" statements.

The trick isn't doing it; the trick is doing it without horrific unforeseen consequences (such as everything being transparent to everyone).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,210
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,190 posts
3,867 battles
Just now, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

The trick isn't doing it; the trick is doing it without horrific unforeseen consequences (such as everything being transparent to everyone).

Good thing that's already been solved, then.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,478
[AHOY_]
Beta Testers
6,418 posts
3,410 battles
Just now, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

The trick isn't doing it; the trick is doing it without horrific unforeseen consequences (such as everything being transparent to everyone).

And during a theoretical Radar change, it went horribly wrong and everyone instead remained permanently lit, while triggering Radar instead made them area cloaking devices. Lasted until the next patch. Feedback was then used to global nerf CSM and enhance TASM. :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,817 posts
3,977 battles
3 hours ago, Erebthoron said:

 

What is the current state of CV rework?
It's becoming a living meme of a topic, but they are approaching the time that they can show some gameplay and explain the principle. It was planned for unveiling at Gamescom, but they didn't make that deadline (they did not want to risk a Zeppeling-debacle again). But it's now ready for "external testing" by ST, staff, unicum-clans,... and then it's ready for general public testing. But more information about that, as well as some footage & explanation of concept will be coming soon, maybe next week.

 

Will Betatesters get an ingame patche like alpha-testers?
Phil is very enthusiastic about it, and they are indeed coming for CBT/Weekend/... It will very likely be based on the Iwaki & Arkansas. It will be sorted out soon.

 

 

Why will there be a Pan European nation?
It's there for the same reason there is one for the PanAsian. Various countries that have some (popular) ships, but can't make a full line on their own, so they need to be combined in order to be implemented in the game. For the EU: don't expect full lines, like Polish CV's, the Swiss Mountain Navy. But they now have a "container-nation" that allows them to introduce (premium) ships of minor nations like Poland, The Netherlands & Austro-Hungary (for the time being, other nations can/will follow). If such a minor nation gets a techtree of their own later on, those ships from the Pan-European nation will merge to their nation techtree.

 

 

the CV rework is coming and they will tell us soon about it.

finally the beta testers will get something.

@Lert must be happy now with the pan eu tech tree,that don't remove the chance of netherlands getting a techtree of their own.

Edited by Cruxdei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
252
[REVY]
Members
936 posts
7,288 battles
3 hours ago, Erebthoron said:

Will there be a possibility for submarines (note from me: really? REALLY???)

2oDMSK7.gif

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,817 posts
3,977 battles

actually what bugs me is that phrase "It will very likely be based on the Iwaki & Arkansas",does that mean we will get some kind of ship or a patche?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,865
[CNO]
[CNO]
Members
3,773 posts
12,881 battles
3 hours ago, Erebthoron said:

What is it about BB dispersion, especially in T4/6. On top they are sitting ducks from torpedobombers.
Same for torpedobombers: use your team to protect you from those.

My oh my.  Sitting duck.  More like duck HUNTING!  Me and my QE vs CV.  Any CV.  Any tier.  Any map.  Any time.  Uno on uno.  Bring it.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
507
[WOLFD]
[WOLFD]
Beta Testers
4,950 posts
1,487 battles
6 minutes ago, Soshi_Sone said:

My oh my.  Sitting duck.  More like duck HUNTING!  Me and my QE vs CV.  Any CV.  Any tier.  Any map.  Any time.  Uno on uno.  Bring it.

 

 

Indeed kekekeke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,452
[HINON]
Supertester
18,916 posts
12,446 battles
46 minutes ago, Cruxdei said:

@Lert  must be happy now with the pan eu tech tree,that don't remove the chance of netherlands getting a techtree of their own.

Cautiously optimistic. At best this confirms that the devs have looked at including Dutch ships. Ofcourse, this doesn't give us a deadline for inclusion of Dutch ships or any clue about which ones, just that the devs have looked at their inclusion and are planning for it. Eventually.

My crusade isn't over just yet.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
409
[WAIFU]
Beta Testers
1,867 posts
3,530 battles
4 hours ago, Erebthoron said:

They are concerned, like Worcester, the AP pens, the radar-investation. When these problems are solved first, then they might look at DD's themselves. But the devs think the DD's as such are fine.

worcester nerf when?

ship deserves it anyway. probably rudder shift should be looked at first.

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,210
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,190 posts
3,867 battles
8 minutes ago, Hanger_18 said:

worcester nerf when?

ship deserves it anyway. probably rudder shift should be looked at first.

I say we nerf its turret traverse to 45s 180. Let it live for a year like Mogami had to.

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×