Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Kami

Summary of Sub_Octavian's Q&A

67 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,888
-Members-
1,642 posts
1,277 battles

Hey Captains,

This is going to be a summary of the Q&A that Sub_Octavian did on Reddit on 5/15. 

Question 1: Could we get a % damage dealt stat in the post battle screen? Or maybe in-match as well? And the API as well of course ;)

Sub_Octavian's answer: This item is currently in the backlog and thanks for the reminder. I will refresh this discussion within the team.

Question 2: Given the feedback from the testing, what is your opinion of the concept of the Pobeda/Slava? A lot of people don't seem to like a ship that promotes a very passive, sniping play style.

Sub_Octavian's answer: The ship is still a work in progress ship (WIP). The initial testing period is coming to a close and then data will be collected on the Pobeda/Slava. This data will then be analyzed by GD and they will decide on what changes will be made for the next testing phase. The most obvious option will be: Same concept overall but make it better/more balanced, but if that fails might try a new concept. 

Sub's personal opinion: He hasn't spent enough time play testing the Slava but he does have some thoughts on the "passive play" topic.

  • Campers are going to continue to camp and pushers will push.
  • 100% agrees with the evaluation of players this time and feels the Slava is a glass cannon sniper.
  • Yamato and Montana can be accurate at long range but are also effective with a push, while the Slava is less able to do this.
  • Good concept, but maybe needs more distinct weaknesses.

Question 3: What is the status on the gun fire bloom change?

Sub_Octavian's answer: We apologize but this is still in the developer's queue. This is in the same queue as priority sector rework and the new CV autopilot improvements. We have not forgotten about this and we apologize for taking so long. This will be done as promised. 

Question 4: Are there any plans to adjust German battleships? They are fun ships but do not work in the current meta.

Sub Octavian's answer: Looking at the stats, the German battleships are in the middle of the pack in each tier for winrate. From the data we can see that their damage might be just average but they are contributing to the team's overall success enough. The popularity of German BBs is also very high. There are a couple of additional factors to keep in mind: Meta changes will have an impact on how certain ships feel and their playing experience. There are also strong choices of premium/coal/free XP BB at almost every tier with skilled players. These ships can sometimes make other ships feel weaker.

We are not opposed to improving the German BB experience but with the Soviet BBs being introduced, let us first see how they perform in the meta. The Soviet BBs occupy the same slot in the CQC BB slot so let us see how that plays out first. After the dust settles we can address this question one more time. I personally am a fan of secondary builds so I will vouch for that! 

Questions 5: German BBs are good supporting and tanking BB but that does not generate many credits or free xp. Why is the reward (free xp/credits) for tanking so low?

Sub_Octavian's answer: It is comparable enough to other support activities and damage/capping will always be the main source. This question is a good question and I will ask the economy team to check KMS BB recent stats. Maybe there is room for tweaks and thanks you!

Question 6: Will WoWs ever get the same treatment WoT did in regards to graphics, performance, and optimization?

Sub_Octavian's answer: I believe I have commented on this topic a few times. We do not plan to make any big changes or total tech overhauls at one time. We like to do these changes in increments. There is currently no plan to change this approach. We will update visual, tech and under the hood parts from time to time. I want to clarify that WoWs and WoT are different teams, the engine is very different. There is almost nothing connecting the games from this point of view.

Question 7: Is WG happy with the effect that CVs have on tier VIII MM? 

Sub_Octavian's answer: Tier VIII vs Tier X experience is roughly the same regardless of class. Some globacl MM improvements are being worked on but no CV specific changes are currently planned. We want to improve the experience for Tier VIII in general for all classes!

Question 8: What happened to Viribus Unitis, Yahagi and Leone?

Sub_Octavian's answer: Some ships are set aside until there is a good moment to release them. It is fine because not all WIP content is scheduled to be released immediately after testing. We have not forgot about these ships.

Question 9: When can we expect more details about the alleged IFHE/HE and cruiser plating re-balance, can you share any details now?

Sub_Octavian's answer: No ETA and no details to share as of right now. 

Question 10: Could we ever get a soft-cap for only 1 CV per team like tier X at other tiers? 

Sub_Octavian's answer: We are not against a soft cap for 1 tier VIII CV just like the tier X cap. The current tier VIII population is very high right now. We update the data and when it becomes viable we will strongly consider doing this cap. Right now it is not going to work and I went into more details with this post: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/b62cx7/just_a_small_clarification_on_mm_cv_limits/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=WorldOfWarships&utm_content=t1_enmq15j

 

Question 11: Are there any plans to update the Gearing model?

Sub_Octavian's answer: We will update older models from time to time just like the recent Yamato update. 

Question 12: Do you think the AP bomb mechanic in general needs to be changed and explained better as well?

Sub_Octavian's answer: We are quite happy with how AP bombs work, they have a good skill to reward ratio. We are concerned about the AP alpha strike potential of some CVs while the general playerbase progresses in terms of skill. The base concept works well but there might be minor tweaks in the future.

Question 13: Any plans to add a German coal or steel ship to the armory in the future?

Sub_Octavian's answer: There are always plans to add ships of all nations and all tiers to the game for all currencies. We do not make such announcements in Q&As. There are some cool German ships planned for the future but that is true for other nations as well.

Question 14: Is WG happy with the amount of spotting and the reduced value of concealment in the game?

Sub_Octavian's answer: 

  • CV related part: Not entirely.
    • With the planned changes in 0.8.4. of the squadron speed will influence spotting. We made these changes so they will target spotting and DPM equally. 
    • This is a new meta and there is more spotting overall. We do not consider this a bad thing.
    • We will continue to work on this mechanic with further tweaks and not a rework of the mechanic. Options like "CV spots for itself" and "CV spotting delay like radar" are not options at the moment. We will only consider if we exhaust all other options first. 
  • Overall Spotting: Not entirely.
    • With everything combined we are concerned about spotting in the game. We are fine with the meta changing but we would like to keep the change subtle when possible.
    • We are currently concentrated on the CV part and obviously the CV rework has had a big effect. 
    • When we are fully happy with it, we will look at everything else.

Question 15: 20 second clip of Atlanta with DFAA vs tier 6 torpedo bombers. Would future planned changes to AA change this interaction in a meaningful way?

Sub_Octavian's answer: We are currently happy with the state of the Atlanta. If you are looking at average plane kills of non-CVs the Atlanta is only surpassed by the Minotaur, Worcester and couple of USN BBs. We are not entirely happy with the CV-AA interaction globally. We want the combination of AA ship/build + skillful use of priority sector usage to have a greater impact on a ship's AA defense. We are currently working on this right now!

Question 16: Any plans for further AA/CV balance that you can share at the moment?

Sub_Octavian's answer: Everything that we can share at the moment is on the Developer's Blog.

Question 17: Any plans on completely re-balancing the Graf Zeppelin, now that its biggest weapon (speed) has been nerfed 40 knots?

Sub_Octavian's answer: No, the speed boost is being changed globally. This is not a GZ nerf but a global mechanic change that is affecting all CVs in the game. In the meantime, GZ retains her individual quality - high speed, with DB and TB planes having 181kt of base speed while other CV at this tier have it in 130ish range. What's more, her DB are being buffed. Better accuracy, more comfortable attack and, what's IMO even more important, higher bomb speed and penetration. The numbers do not seem huge, but in game it can be a difference between penetrating or not penetrating armor deck, especially against higher tier ships. And we all know that citadel hit is very desirable when you use AP bombs. If GZ will be weak after the changes for some reason, she will be improved in some other way - that's a standard workflow. It is not a specific nerf, and will not be considered a specific nerf, because we are changing boost mechanic globally. GZ has "The Engine Cooling consumable lasts twice as long (10 seconds) and has an additional charge" in Prem shop description, and that remains absolutely true. Boost mechanic and Engine Cooling consumable are different things. If, for some reason, GZ will fall behind the group despite of quite strong (in our prediction) buff, she will be additionally buffed later.

Question 18: Are there any plans on making secondaries more viable as a build?

Sub_Octavian's answer: Yes. But it is not simple. I doubt we will make significant changes with current settings, and new secondary mechanics obviously will be a long term project, given other things being worked on. I can say this: we want to do something cool with secondaries, but there is no final decision what and when yet. At the moment we do not treat " secondaries being a fun alternative for just a couple of ship lines " an emergency. It is an area of the game we will eventually revisit, along with many others.

Question 19: Any chance for a setting to disable the in-game chat (apart from system messages like consumable use and the wheel messages)?

Sub_Octavian's answer: It's being discussed right now actually, as there are quite a few requests to do it from the players. We will let you know when the decision is made, of course.

Question 20: Is WG happy with the current efficiency of the Catapult Fighter consumable?

Sub_Octavian's answer: Yes, we're happy with the efficiency of this consumable. It does what it was meant to - inflicts losses on enemy squadron or, in some cases, creates area denial. It's more efficient when launched with good timing, it's less efficient when launched late. It's more efficient if CV plays aggressively, it's less efficient if CV plays carefully. TBH, we're fine with its state right now, and our nearest efforts to improve AA protection will be targeted at priority sector mechanic, not at fighters.

Question 21: Is there a possibility of another captain skill rework?

Sub_Octavian's answer: Some updates are more than possible in foreseeable future. Complete rework - highly unlikely this year or even beyond.

Question 22: Are there any plans to introduce a game mode without carriers anytime soon?

Sub_Octavian's answer: No. Certain events can be no "CV" or no "BB" and no "Whatever class" because it is an event.

Question 23: When will the Midway and Hakuryu get their Legendary Module back?

Sub_Octavian's answer: I'm not 100% sure they will, actually. Because in our plans, we want to readdress the Legendary Mod thing overall. Maybe there will be some other system instead. Or maybe there will be changes. There is no exact decision right now; it may turn out that these mods will appear in some time as a part of current system, or they may be replaced (for all ships) with something completely new. Or these systems will co-exist. Sorry, in all fairness, we don't know ourselves right now :-).

Question 24: In about another 6-8 months, when it is finally admitted that the CV rework has failed, how will WG attempt to repair the damage done?

Sub_Octavian's answer: 

While "never say never" is true (looks at Halloween subs), we don't have any indication that CV rework is a failure. It has some issues, part of which are still to be resolved, it has some negative constructive feedback, and, sorry to say that, I mean no disrespect, it also has some echo-chamber hatred sentiment, which is not really constructive, too.

As you can guess, no developer is interested in making the game worse, less popular, less enjoyable, etc. WoWS is the result for our effort, it's main career project for most of us, and it's huge part of our lives. From all main audience metrics, overall results of CV rework are good. From balance metrics, CV rework is good. Some players being unhappy or salty is of course NOT good, but:

  1. We're addressing the players concerns, and working on feedback points.
  2. We had the gut to rework the class from scratch, and none of us had pink dreams that CV rework would suit absolutely everyone.

Question 25: Your statistics should also show you that DD play has dropped quite substantially?

Sub_Octavian's answer: 

It shows that a lot of DD players started playing CV, because it's a very dynamic gameplay, though :-)

Fun is extremely important and not to be ignored of course (we play to have fun in the first place), but considering rework a failure because some players say it's not fun is a mistake, too. "It's not fun" is a valid feedback, and, if supplied with additional information, can be an action point.

"CV rework is a failure" is simply untrue statement, because, despite of some negative feedback, we see the big picture, in which audience metrics and activity overall is really good, and the class balance got better, too.

"CV rework is less fun for me" and "CV rework is not a failure for the game globally" can co-exist and do not cancel each other.

DD play undoubtedly got harder. Still, DD popularity is on acceptable level, DD performance is on acceptable level, DD battle influence is still high. And DD traditionally is a hard class to play.

Meta changes. We had torpedo soup dominance a couple of years ago, we had BB dominance and cruiser extinction approx. a year ago - in big scale, class popularity and meta shifts and changes. And you know what? It's because the game is alive and kicking, and we work and will keep working on it. And I am absolutely sure there will be no moment when 100,00% of the playerbase will be 100,00% happy. As well as there will be no big change that will be liked by everyone.

I will always accept constructive feedback, but I cannot argue with "it's a failure" statement. If we evaluate something as a general success with some room for improvements, and someone thinks it is fundamentally a failure, well, it means that we cannot satisfy this person with our work, unfortunately.

With all due respect.

  • Cool 32
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,785
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,340 posts
19,563 battles

Appreciate the consolidation @Kami! It was a pain trying to keep up with the ongoing thread.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,362
[TWFT]
Members
1,346 posts
37,419 battles

Thank you Sub_Octavian for taking the time to answer some really good questions. 

I was wondering if you have seen a drop in revenue from some of us players that feel the CV RW has been a failure?  I know for me I stopped spending money on the game 2 months ago and just now play for free.  If you wanted to fix CV's all you had to do was change the MM so a unicum CV player meets another CV player with the same skill, that was pretty much the biggest problem with CV's, although there were other issues that needed looking at, the MM was the biggest factor in why a lot of us detested CV's.  The RW you chose to do just added CV players that now influence the match in a way that makes it more of a World of Warplanes then it dose a ship vs ship duel.  

CV's really don't fit the game, the proof is you have had 4+ years to "Balance" CV's and even at this point they are no where near being "Balanced", and by the way, why do they need to be balanced at all?  Why is it so important that they do the same amount of damage as other big gun ships in the game?  I just don't get why they are so needed in a big gun game with maps that are so small.  CV's out spot DD's, they can damage with out taking damage and they influence the behavior of the enemy team (if they are good and the other CV sucks) to a point of why do I even que up for this game in a gun boat?  And don't get me started on the 2 CV's a side, that just plane sucks too.  I mean really, 2 CV's a side?  I don't know of very many players that were begging for that!

OK, I get it, CV's are here to stay and there is nothing I or any player can do other then take our cash elsewhere,  and that is sad because I really want you to make a crap load of cash!  Hell I want you to have so much money you can buy a small country! 

But it seems you have decided to go in another direction.

CV's do not fit the game.

I'm playing but not paying.

 

 

  • Cool 11
  • Boring 11
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,917
[WOLF9]
Privateers
13,782 posts
4,631 battles
1 hour ago, Kami said:

Will WoWs ever get the same treatment WoW WoT did

Typo, I believe.

 

Thanks for the consolidation, Kami!

 

Edited by iDuckman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
639
Members
1,170 posts
11,397 battles
2 hours ago, Kami said:

DD performance is on acceptable level

ROFL!

Only half the average damage compared to CV's, lowest XP, lowest survivability, lowest frags, lowest KD, least planes killed... and oh, also way less spotting damage than CV's.  DD's aren't even the best spotters anymore.  They do just about nothing well.

What exactly does WG consider acceptable?  Ridiculous for Sub to say that.  What stats are they looking at?

Edited by n00bot
  • Cool 8
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 2
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[PLPTR]
Beta Testers
74 posts
4,489 battles
2 hours ago, Kami said:

Question 24: In about another 6-8 months, when it is finally admitted that the CV rework has failed, how will WG attempt to repair the damage done?

Sub_Octavian's answer: 

While "never say never" is true (looks at Halloween subs), we don't have any indication that CV rework is a failure. It has some issues, part of which are still to be resolved, it has some negative constructive feedback, and, sorry to say that, I mean no disrespect, it also has some echo-chamber hatred sentiment, which is not really constructive, too.

so true it hurts, the amount of hate cv's get is disproportionate to there effectiveness. some time you wonder if people think cv players go around sinking ships like it's ace combat. 

  • Cool 4
  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,184
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
7,914 posts
11,593 battles
2 hours ago, Kami said:

Question 25: Your statistics should also show you that DD play has dropped quite substantially?

Sub_Octavian's answer: 

It shows that a lot of DD players started playing CV, because it's a very dynamic gameplay, though :-)

Fun is extremely important and not to be ignored of course (we play to have fun in the first place), but considering rework a failure because some players say it's not fun is a mistake, too. "It's not fun" is a valid feedback, and, if supplied with additional information, can be an action point.

"CV rework is a failure" is simply untrue statement, because, despite of some negative feedback, we see the big picture, in which audience metrics and activity overall is really good, and the class balance got better, too.

"CV rework is less fun for me" and "CV rework is not a failure for the game globally" can co-exist and do not cancel each other.

DD play undoubtedly got harder. Still, DD popularity is on acceptable level, DD performance is on acceptable level, DD battle influence is still high. And DD traditionally is a hard class to play.

Meta changes. We had torpedo soup dominance a couple of years ago, we had BB dominance and cruiser extinction approx. a year ago - in big scale, class popularity and meta shifts and changes. And you know what? It's because the game is alive and kicking, and we work and will keep working on it. And I am absolutely sure there will be no moment when 100,00% of the playerbase will be 100,00% happy. As well as there will be no big change that will be liked by everyone.

I will always accept constructive feedback, but I cannot argue with "it's a failure" statement. If we evaluate something as a general success with some room for improvements, and someone thinks it is fundamentally a failure, well, it means that we cannot satisfy this person with our work, unfortunately.

With all due respect.

i fully expect the DD Mafia to have a field day with this response

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
639
Members
1,170 posts
11,397 battles
6 minutes ago, tcbaker777 said:

i fully expect the DD Mafia to have a field day with this response

Quote

It shows that a lot of DD players started playing CV, because it's a very dynamic gameplay, though :-)

DD Comrades are not starving because of food shortage!  It's because their health is so good, DD food is not necessary.  DD Comrades simply love great glory of CV play.

 

Yep, that's as close to a "duck you" as Sub can get without saying it.  I uninstalled a while ago but have been checking the forums just in case WG got their head out of their a$$.  I guess I can stop checking the forums now, too.

Edited by n00bot
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 4
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
639
Members
1,170 posts
11,397 battles
2 hours ago, Kami said:

While "never say never" is true (looks at Halloween subs)

Didn't WG say the Yamato's guns would always be top dog?  (Looks at completely fake Pobeda)

 

2 hours ago, Kami said:

Yamato and Montana can be accurate at long range but are also effective with a push

Sub Octavian thinks a Yamato can be effective in a push???  Am I the only person who went "HUH?"  Yamato secondary build is soooo 2015.

Edited by n00bot
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,562
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
12,502 posts

#26. Is adding the CTRL + LMB click on the minimap to designate way points for autorun (or whatever you call it these days) even in the queue, on the map at all? If it isn't, could you, would you PLEASE ask them to do this? 

I know of no carrier player who likes going to the stupid "M"ap map to designate way points then "M"ap back to the battle screen. 

(Wish someone had asked that as #26)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,562
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
12,502 posts
5 minutes ago, n00bot said:

Didn't WG say the Yamato's guns would always be top dog?  (Looks at completely fake Pobeda)

Sub Octavian thinks a Yamato can be effective in a push???  Am I the only person who went "HUH?"  Yamato secondary build is soooo 2015.

Yea... my gawd the grind, the grind... and now she can't hit a RUBB for crap at 8 to 10 km... 

The RUBBs actually do rub me the wrong way... maintains some legitimacy to honor the crews, the designers, the people behind the ships. I know that'll be unpopular but honestly, I don't care. 

If IF IF IF IF... paper, planned... enough with adding ships of the same type over and over. More focus on the GAME itself please. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,763 posts
93 battles
1 hour ago, n00bot said:

ROFL!

Only half the average damage compared to CV's, lowest XP, lowest survivability, lowest frags, lowest KD, least planes killed... and oh, also way less spotting damage than CV's.  DD's aren't even the best spotters anymore.  They do just about nothing well.

What exactly does WG consider acceptable?  Ridiculous for Sub to say that.  What stats are they looking at?

Sub, and in extension the devs,has access to a whole host of data points that 3rd party sites can never access.

So if you're thinking that 3rd party sites can tell the complete picture of game statistics, then you are dead wrong.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,917
[WOLF9]
Privateers
13,782 posts
4,631 battles
1 hour ago, tcbaker777 said:

i fully expect the DD Mafia to have a field day with this response

They will certainly try, but like the boy who cried "Wolf!", we have heard it before.  Ad nauseum.

 

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,654
[CALM]
Beta Testers
6,831 posts
4,613 battles

I do like the fact that Sub basically ignored any questions pertaining to the Collaboration, IJN, Italians, and rebalancing Premiums affected by AA in general. And basically said "We're prioritizing CVs to the exclusion of most everything else".

Just because CVs are now mostly balanced (except Midway), doesn't mean that they're fun to play against. They're not fun at all, and it would be all the better had they been removed, or just all made into the "Support" role that they are considering for the alternate CV lines.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
5 hours ago, Kami said:

Question 17: Any plans on completely re-balancing the Graf Zeppelin, now that its biggest weapon (speed) has been nerfed 40 knots?

Sub_Octavian's answer: No, the speed boost is being changed globally. This is not a GZ nerf but a global mechanic change that is affecting all CVs in the game. In the meantime, GZ retains her individual quality - high speed, with DB and TB planes having 181kt of base speed while other CV at this tier have it in 130ish range. What's more, her DB are being buffed. Better accuracy, more comfortable attack and, what's IMO even more important, higher bomb speed and penetration. The numbers do not seem huge, but in game it can be a difference between penetrating or not penetrating armor deck, especially against higher tier ships. And we all know that citadel hit is very desirable when you use AP bombs. If GZ will be weak after the changes for some reason, she will be improved in some other way - that's a standard workflow. It is not a specific nerf, and will not be considered a specific nerf, because we are changing boost mechanic globally. GZ has "The Engine Cooling consumable lasts twice as long (10 seconds) and has an additional charge" in Prem shop description, and that remains absolutely true. Boost mechanic and Engine Cooling consumable are different things. If, for some reason, GZ will fall behind the group despite of quite strong (in our prediction) buff, she will be additionally buffed later.

I am not ordinarily blunt, but there is so much bull in this reply/

It is too early to say her DB are being buffed, the proposed increase to her AP pen may in fact do the opposite causing more over pens versus lightly armed targets, narrowing the range of enemy warships that can be effectively targeted, ruling out any last ditch usage versus dds. For a CV that already has the most limited anti dd suite of her tier (no HE, anti cruiser rockets, slow and easily dodged torps, further reducing her flexibility may in fact, further reduce her ability to influence battle outcomes, and so nerf her WR. It will also nerf the fun factor of nuking light cruisers with AP (most unforgiveable.)

We enjoy playing the game, but we don't enjoy being played by the game designers.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,414
[CYNIC]
Members
2,638 posts
6,217 battles

Glad to see the move away from unrealistic concealment tactics is for the most part, working as intended.  I know, the "I want to camp an island and not be seen" crowd hates it, but the replies in regards to spotting not being a bad thing is great. I welcome the new spotting mechanics -- breaks the stale game, helps move it along by not wasting time playing cat and mouse.

  • Cool 5
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
864 posts
6 hours ago, Kami said:

Fun is extremely important and not to be ignored of course (we play to have fun in the first place), but considering rework a failure because some players say it's not fun is a mistake, too. "It's not fun" is a valid feedback, and, if supplied with additional information, can be an action point.

WG , you have been provided with the "additional information " over and over again beginning well before the rework when you chose not to listen to the PT's and you're still not listening . What a joke !

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,528
[TARK]
Members
6,604 posts
2,522 battles
6 hours ago, Kami said:

TBH, we're fine with its state right now, and our nearest efforts to improve AA protection will be targeted at priority sector mechanic, not at fighters

Or, in other words...

WG remain clueless as to how aircraft defense actually works.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
553
[_SMS_]
Members
936 posts
4,341 battles

Never say never indeed...

Yamato will always have top guns

Submarines will never be in game

Nerfing premiums...technically true but only just and pulled back from the brink after public outcry in one case and covered under the guise of global mechanics weeks after a very shady re-introduction to the market in another. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,552
[RKLES]
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,994 posts
20,694 battles

First, thank you for this post.

Second, I'm very impressed with the answers. They seem well thought out.

After playing 33k WOT battles and having the meta change to a point it felt unplayable, fun wise, I switched to this game.

Since day 1 I have sincerely enjoyed the development teams handling of the game.

If anyone doubts how much they listen to the player base, please think back to 2 key events.

MURMANSKGATE and ALABAMA.

The developers intentions were reversed based upon solid community feedback. 

I have also had good responses to comcerns/complaints when worded intelligently. Not all responses I received I liked, but they did respond with solid reasons.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,025
[NDA]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
5,644 posts
4,351 battles

Was there any mention of the Kitakami?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
817 posts
9,071 battles

Could we have a same Q & A here, on the main forums ?? I would really like to hear the reasoning on the "stupid" +/- 2 tier system, besides the usual "to limit waiting times " . And why they don`t even try to do a limited test run with only +/-  1tier ships....    CV planes damage  vs AA would be a lot easier to balance, if CVs are always in mid tier,with ships only 1 tier above and under . All CVs moved to odd numbered tiers..

Edited by VonSmallHausenn
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×