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

Official Discord Dev QnA #2 [Part 1]

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
485 posts
41 battles

PSA (possibly serious article) 1

(for PSA QnA#2 [Part 2], follow this link)

Official Discord Dev QnA #2 [part 1]

renderTimingPixel.png
Q1. Can we permaban players/clans caught cheating/RMTing/account sharing in CW instead of doing a three strike policy. the current punishments are far from enough to deter people trying to cheat the system

A1. We are constantly thinking about how to improve our policy to counteract violators and perhaps our rules will change in the future.

However, it should be understood that our goal is not to ban users, but to make sure that people do not violate the rules in the future. We always hope that all our players are really good people and can understand their mistakes. 

As for the violations in clan battles, it makes no sense to punish one player, and sanctions should be applied to the clan itself, which we do at the end of each season of clan battles.

Q2. Now that Clan Battles have started, it is apparent even after only 2 days that Petropavlovsk continues to be an extremely popular pick in organized competitive play despite being not that good in random battles. Are there any plans to rebalance her in a way that will reduce her competitiveness to a reasonable level without making her underpowered in Random battles, and will you consider consulting the top level competitive players to help you with balancing? (the results of recent balance decisions imply you need help, and the top players are the most qualified players for that as they have the best perception of game balance)

A2. Overall, the question of balancing based on top-level players and/or competitive scene is raised quite often and in many games, but more often than it seems, this approach, also called "trickle-down" doesn't really work quite well in most games with more or less complicated mechanics, and ours is not an exception. Players of different engagement, experience and skill level usually have very different knowledge and perception of mechanics and the game itself. Though technically mechanics are universal for all players, due to these differences players have different interactions with mechanics and different experience. Thus solving balancing questions based only on stats or opinion of a small group of players with roughly the same involvement level won't be the best way to achieve the result, useful for all players.

Thus, when we check ship's performance, we don't look only at values of some limited group. We break down all stats (relative and absolute damage, WR and many others) by players WR, and that helps us understand, for example, whether the ship is too strong in hands of an experienced player, or that the concept is too difficult to grasp, etc. There was a stream last year, where we described this in detail in 2019, you could watch it here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/461485651?filter=archives&sort=time

So, overall, we do consider highly involved players in our process (both their stats and feedback), but we have to look wider and don't forget about other players and that the result of our work should be valid for them as well.

Q3. what happened to this map? (Bering Sea)

A3. Originally this map was added to the game to test the concept of the “Breakthrough” game mode. Now the location of islands on the map has been adapted so it can be played in regular game modes. At the moment the map is being reworked and tested.

Q4. Do you have any plan on adding a "1 CV per team" cap on tier 4 games ? Having 2 CV in both team happen almost 100% of the time. It's one of the major ragequiting factor for new players. 

A4. Currently we have no such plans. In low tier battles there are usually many players, a lot of them playing on CVs, trying out new mechanics. It has always been like that. We cannot reduce the interest of new players in this class, neither can we restrict the presence of these players in battles. However, there were several improvements made to bring low-tier battles to balance, improve the game experience there and make the amount of CVs in these battles not excessive. First of all, there were matchmaker changes in 0.9.3, which reduced the number of battles with 2 CVs per team and fully eliminated battles with 3 CVs. Secondly, there were bots added in the low-tier matchmaking in 0.9.6, aimed to make game experience for new players less frustrating and their transition to higher tier battles more smooth and consecutive. Besides, we've significantly decreased the research cost of tier VI aircraft carriers in 0.9.7, thus making new players progress to higher tier CVs faster and not linger in low-tier battles for long.

Q5. What is the reasoning behind IJN torpedoes having significantly longer reaction times compared to other nations' torpedoes? They already pay for their high alpha damage with very long reload times which adds to their hit-or-miss nature being more pronounced than with other DDs, why is it also necessary to have additional inconsistency through long reaction times?

A5. The major reason is the one you've already mentioned - extremely high damage. Yes, they may hit the target less often than torpedoes of other nations and their reaction time is higher, but if they do hit the target, it looses a great deal of HP. Besides, they have decent range. IJN torpedoes initial design implied that with such alpha damage and range these torpedoes were not supposed to hit the target so often, that is why it resulted in having longer reload and reaction time. However, in spite of that IJN torpedoes are still one of the most efficient in the game.

Q6. Can we have karma improve our chance for getting supercontainers?

A6. Do you really want other players to decide the fate of your supercontainer drop chances? Just think it trough.

Q7. In the previous Q&A you stated that T10 special ships aren’t immune to individual nerfs, yet we haven’t seen one targeted at blatantly imbalanced ships such as Thunderer, Ohio, Bourgogne or Småland. Do you still stand by this statement and do you plan to act upon it outside of the context of global nerfs?

A7. Yes, we did make such a statement, and if it is necessary to make changes to the ships mentioned by you, we will do it. However, it should be understood that problems with the perception of the ship may lie not only in the sphere of balance, but also for example, the popularity as it was with Smolensk. At the moment, the listed ships are in good balance, so we do not plan to make any balance changes. But we will continue to monitor these ships and will take certain actions if necessary.

Q8. In the Battlefield series and other shooters, XP and the action that earned it show up in real-time on the player's HUD. This allows players to instantly recognize and understand how their play is rewarded. In contrast, in WoWs the XP earned is only revealed to the player at the end of the battle and there is no detailed information as to how it was earned. What is the reason for obscuring this vital information?

A8. From our point of view, the currently available metrics in battle such damage and ribbons are quite sufficient to assess their own effectiveness. In addition, displaying the XP only after the battle allows player to focus on victory and team play, rather than pursuing only the indicators of personal effectiveness.

Q9. Akin to how German DDs and BBs were buffed without making them imbalanced, could such a buff happen to Zao? (specifically targeted at her distinct lack of durability compared to other T10 cruisers with not enough qualities to make up for it) 

A9. For now we have no such plans. Zao is currently a well-balanced ship. She might have a low HP in comparison to the majority of tier X cruisers, but she has many advantages - a powerful and accurate artillery, decent maneuverability and concealment, good armor and one of the strongest torpedoes among other Tier X cruisers.

Q10. Considering CVs can somewhat recover from plane losses by means of plane regeneration, could a case be made for surface combat ships to repair some of their AA mounts over the course of the battle, either passively or through Repair Party usage?

A10. As for now, we now don’t have plans on AA regeneration. CVs are a unique class with absolutely different gameplay. Mostly, their main and the only weapon are planes. Without them they would be totally inefficient that’s why they have such feature as planes regeneration. So, if a CV loses all his planes, the game provides an opportunity to be al least somewhat useful by planes restoration, even if it will take much time.

Moreover, if you feel like your AA is being destroyed fast, there is a modification that may increase AA survivability.

Q11. will wargaming ever actively support the competitive scene in this game? it's a multiplayer game which is centered around winning a match so its competitive scene has developed naturally but without official support it can't grow quickly or to a great size. Seeing how successful and popular the competitive scenes of many other multiplayer games have become, why has wg been shying away from this for such a long time? Note that giving out in game prizes for kots and other small tournaments isn't adequate support

A11. Actually, we have some thoughts about the development and support of the competitive aspect in our game. Surely, conducting KOTS is not the only direction we are planning to move in. 

We are constantly working on different concepts of competitive events, and, when they are finalized, we'll definitely inform you about them. However, we can give you no specific details for now.

Q12. Can we have it show the damage everyone did in battle on the scorecard at the end, like in WoT?

A12. We thought about this idea, and there are no major concerns not to implement it, however, the feature isn’t the priority for us at the moment, maybe we’ll roll it out someday, but, frankly, there are no certain details to share. Please, stay tuned and read our DevBlog all the newest info will appear there.

Q13. Considering the ranked battles rework is a massive missed opportunity that you could have used to get rid of the toxic star saving mechanic, may I ask why that wasn't addressed? And what is your stance on making ranked battles actually ranked (as in, having a "skill rating" or ELO), or at the very least making them more similar to WoT's ranked battles chevron system?

A13. During the ranked system rework, we simultaneously wanted to change the whole system to improve it and remove many of the old shortcomings. At the same time we want the new system to be the successor of the old one and to give the players a good competitive gameplay without complicating and overburdening the rules of ranked battles. The star system is familiar and understandable to our players, so we decided to keep it. Also we want to keep some form of reward for the best players in the losing team. Considering all the above, leaving the old star saving mechanics was the most optimal solution available to us.

Q14. Can we expect a (T10) CB season without CVs again?

A14. Sure, you can expect some seasons on T10 ships with no CVs. Each season’s parameters adjusted individually. As for now we did a big work on improving players' experience in CBs with CVs and we’re carefully watching and analyzing the results and after that, we’ll decide how next season will be set up. We’ll announce the details a bit later.

Q15. Any news on updating the old ship models? How's the USN DD line and IJN BB line model updates going?

A15. Our 3D team continues to work on a big update to US DD models and, moreover, a nice chunk of the models is already updated. Once we finish the update and have any news, we'll certainly share them with you. Regarding IJN BBs we don’t have such plans in the nearest future, but the game is developing and sooner or later we will take care of IJN BBs models as well.

Q16. Do you plan on addressing the issue with the fact that German CVs' (and a few other CVs') fighter patrol planes are very stealthy?

As it currently stands, these fighters can only be spotted from around 5km, making long-range AA pointless as means of taking them down. And even if a ship approaches the fighters to around 5km distance, the nature of plane rendering and AA firing delays makes the process of taking these fighters down extremely tedious and very unfun to interact with. 

A16. Currently we have no plans to nerf the detectability range of German CV's patrol fighters. CVs of all other nations are effective against all classes. German CVs are not effective against destroyers. Thus, in order to balance it, we added this low fighter's detectability, to be more effective against other CVs and to have a better scouting abilities. Thus, like when playing against, for example, radar ships, the player has to take these low detectability ranges into the account when interacting with German fighters.

Q17. The Nomogram crosshair is vastly better than both the standard and the so-called 'dynamic' crosshair offered by default. Are there any plans to include such a crosshair in the game? 

A17. The default crosshair provides all the necessary information, has all the required functionalities and is comfortable for a vast majority of our players. Of course, in case the basic one isn't comfortable enough for you, there are various crosshair mods at your service. However, mods provide additional functionalities which may be best suitable for some of the players, but not that useful or comfortable for all of them. Sometimes they may even be overloaded or confusing, especially for new players. Therefore we are not planning to implement any modified crosshairs for now.

Q18. Many players are speculating that R-10 is a replacement for Khabarovsk, based off how Moskva was replaced by Nevsky. Others are speculating she's a test bed for buffs to Khabarovsk. Could you shed some light on the purpose of the R-10?

A18. We don’t disclosure the info about what type of ship she will be till it announced. But we can say, it’s not a test bed for Khabarovsk’s buff. However, she is still a test ship, and her destiny will be clear later.

Q19. Would it be possible to buff the firing angles of the high-tier German Battleships, such as the Friedrich der Grosse and the Grosser Kurfurst. Also, when will we see a Tier X German Battlecruiser?

A19. No plans for now. The model of these ships will not allow further extension of the firing angles without removing the catapult. Besides, current firing angles of Friedrich der Grosse and the Grosser Kurfurst are in a fine state. The only thing we can possibly do about it is to buff the 4th turret, but different firing angles within the same group of armament would be inconsistent and thus confusing.

Q20. Have you considered such features for sorting camos? Such as by filters like:

-highest to lowest XP

---Captain XP

---Free XP

---Credit earnings

-Checks for all three bonuses, two bonuses, or only one bonus

-Amount of camos available

A20. There are some plans for updating exterior tab. But we can't share the details of what exactly will be changed and when. Stay tuned!

Q21. Asking the real question here. Why not just buff DFAA back to when it used to decrease drop accuracy/scatter drops? This could/should be the one thing that does counter CV's and currently it is a completely useless consumable.

A21. For now we have no such plans. However, now the DFAA actually indirectly affects the accuracy of the squadron attack. For example, if a player attacks a ship with DFAA activated and maneuvers - the attack will become less effective due to the aiming reticle expansion while moving. And if he doesn't maneuver, a greater deal of his planes would be destroyed.

Q22. Helloes!  It's been quite long time, and I'm happy to see all of you. My team is very greedy to answer all the questions themselves, but they asked me to address one:

A22. What is WG's vision for WoWs over the next few years?

Well, first of all, thanks to each of you, the game is alive and kicking! I say this not just to sincerely appreciate you all for the incredible support over the years, but also to make it clear that unlike a lot of games of such respectable age, WoWS is not anywhere "maintenance" stage. That's pretty amazing, because that means, that over next years we will NOT limit ourselves with just adding new content like ships and maps to grow the game in "width".  What's most exciting, we have all drive, resources and plans to keep exploring the "depth" of the game. And it is absolutely not only a pun about submarines (and then, hybrids) classes that are being tested. We will be trying a lot of new features, game modes and generally will keep evolving the game as a whole while also staying true to its core nature. Some of these will be in "experimental" form - I hope you will enjoy the upcoming Halloween event. Some of them will appear in the core game. Some of them will make a progress in terms of how the game looks, rather than how it plays. And some of them will probably be shelved or canceled, which is a normal part of any consistent development. Bottom line is, there is a long and most interesting journey ahead!

Of course that's the "strategic" take, and maybe you expect some precise roadmap leaks for 2021 Unfortunately I can't give you that - but please follow our Devblog and streams. As soon as we're ready, we present our ideas for the future there.

 

Spoiler

 

Edited by hateboat
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
485 posts
41 battles
15 minutes ago, ArmoredFrostX said:

🤣

there are some even funnier jokes :

 

35 minutes ago, hateboat said:

"

Q4. Do you have any plan on adding a "1 CV per team" cap on tier 4 games ? Having 2 CV in both team happen almost 100% of the time. It's one of the major ragequiting factor for new players. 

A4. Currently we have no such plans. In low tier battles there are usually many players, a lot of them playing on CVs, trying out new mechanics. It has always been like that. We cannot reduce the interest of new players in this class, neither can we restrict the presence of these players in battles. However, there were several improvements made to bring low-tier battles to balance, improve the game experience there and make the amount of CVs in these battles not excessive. First of all, there were matchmaker changes in 0.9.3, which reduced the number of battles with 2 CVs per team and fully eliminated battles with 3 CVs. Secondly, there were bots added in the low-tier matchmaking in 0.9.6, aimed to make game experience for new players less frustrating and their transition to higher tier battles more smooth and consecutive we've significantly decreased the research cost of tier VI aircraft carriers in 0.9.7, thus making new players progress to higher tier CVs faster and not linger in low-tier battles for long."

Edited by hateboat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,096
[POP]
Members
4,622 posts
12,223 battles
22 minutes ago, hateboat said:

there are some even funnier jokes :

 

This one too:

Spoiler

 

 

Edited by MidnightPhoenix07
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,309
[0456]
Members
3,822 posts
10,091 battles
1 hour ago, hateboat said:

Q4. Do you have any plan on adding a "1 CV per team" cap on tier 4 games ? Having 2 CV in both team happen almost 100% of the time. It's one of the major ragequiting factor for new players. 

A4. Currently we have no such plans. In low tier battles there are usually many players, a lot of them playing on CVs, trying out new mechanics. It has always been like that. We cannot reduce the interest of new players in this class, neither can we restrict the presence of these players in battles. However, there were several improvements made to bring low-tier battles to balance, improve the game experience there and make the amount of CVs in these battles not excessive. First of all, there were matchmaker changes in 0.9.3, which reduced the number of battles with 2 CVs per team and fully eliminated battles with 3 CVs. Secondly, there were bots added in the low-tier matchmaking in 0.9.6, aimed to make game experience for new players less frustrating and their transition to higher tier battles more smooth and consecutive. Besides, we've significantly decreased the research cost of tier VI aircraft carriers in 0.9.7, thus making new players progress to higher tier CVs faster and not linger in low-tier battles for long.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

This is the kind of answer that makes me want to throw my keyboard through the earth:

"In low tier battles there are usually many players, a lot of them playing on CVs, trying out new mechanics. It has always been like that. We cannot reduce the interest of new players in this class, neither can we restrict the presence of these players in battles"

Yeah, there are MANY players in the THREE OTHER SHIP TYPES who are ALSO trying out new mechanics... who are COMPLETELY new to the game- which is why they're in low tiers.  No captain skills, no money for equipment upgrades... blundering around in a new environment and surrounded by dozens of ship types from a dozen nations using 3 different shell types with a variety of different gimmicks from specialized smoke to deep water torpedoes (that people in tier 8 still fire at destroyers) worked in and you're dumping them into game against an opponent (or 2) they can literally do nothing about.

So experienced players don't want to go down to low tiers, and inexperienced players get a false impression of what it's like in high tiers and they quit.

I get it- they want to attract people to CVs at that tier because you're basically untouchable. I wish they'd just say it: "We can't get anyone to play CVs unless we make the first ones really easy and the higher tiers just as easy." And then follow up with "Just wait until you see how easy subs are gonna be!" 

 

Edited by _ENO_
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[FOXY]
Members
1,094 posts
5,330 battles
Just now, MidnightPhoenix07 said:

This one too:

  Hide contents

 

 

Its so confusing, help my brain is imploding!

 

Also dont ships already have different firing angles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,096
[POP]
Members
4,622 posts
12,223 battles
4 minutes ago, Princess_Daystar said:

Its so confusing, help my brain is imploding!

 

Also dont ships already have different firing angles?

Yep. There are currently plenty of ships in the game where turrets in the same 'group' have different firing angles. There's a partial list in the comments on that post - Abruzzi, Shchors, OR, Cossack, Mogami, Izumo, Montana, Leander, Icarus, Bismarck, Bourgogne...and that isn't even all of the ships listed or even all of the ones in game where different guns in the same AB/XY/etc group have different angles.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
417
[FOXY]
Members
1,094 posts
5,330 battles
Just now, MidnightPhoenix07 said:

Yep. There are currently plenty of ships in the game where turrets in the same 'group' have different firing angles. There's a partial list in the comments on that post - Abruzzi, Shchors, OR, Cossack, Mogami, Izumo, Montana, Leander, Icarus, Bismarck, Bourgogne...and that isn't even all of the ships listed or even all of the ones in game where different guns in the same AB/XY/etc group have different angles.

I thought so. The Roon, Bismarck, and Tirpitz where the three i could think of off the top of my head, but truth be told most of the German BBs and Cruisers fall under that category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[BNICE]
Members
2,237 posts
9,838 battles

This was painful to read.

They don't know their own game or its playerbase at all.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
485 posts
41 battles
5 minutes ago, Akeno017 said:

This was painful to read.

They don't know their own game or its playerbase at all.

everyone complains about excessive CV spotting, so : 

2 hours ago, hateboat said:

"A16. Currently we have no plans to nerf the detectability range of German CV's patrol fighters. CVs of all other nations are effective against all classes. German CVs are not effective against destroyers. Thus, in order to balance it, we added this low fighter's detectability, to be more effective against other CVs and to have a better scouting abilities. Thus, like when playing against, for example, radar ships, the player has to take these low detectability ranges into the account when interacting with German fighters."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,352 posts
32,360 battles

TY so much for posting a transcript.  I just don't have time to sit through videos, sound tracks, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,290
[A-I-M]
Members
3,494 posts
23,162 battles
On 10/18/2020 at 3:55 PM, _ENO_ said:

This is the kind of answer that makes me want to throw my keyboard through the earth:

"In low tier battles there are usually many players, a lot of them playing on CVs, trying out new mechanics. It has always been like that. We cannot reduce the interest of new players in this class, neither can we restrict the presence of these players in battles"

Yeah, there are MANY players in the THREE OTHER SHIP TYPES who are ALSO trying out new mechanics... who are COMPLETELY new to the game- which is why they're in low tiers.  No captain skills, no money for equipment upgrades... blundering around in a new environment and surrounded by dozens of ship types from a dozen nations using 3 different shell types with a variety of different gimmicks from specialized smoke to deep water torpedoes (that people in tier 8 still fire at destroyers) worked in and you're dumping them into game against an opponent (or 2) they can literally do nothing about.

So experienced players don't want to go down to low tiers, and inexperienced players get a false impression of what it's like in high tiers and they quit.

I get it- they want to attract people to CVs at that tier because you're basically untouchable. I wish they'd just say it: "We can't get anyone to play CVs unless we make the first ones really easy and the higher tiers just as easy." And then follow up with "Just wait until you see how easy subs are gonna be!" 

 

Its going to take a notable dropoff in players who progress past tier IV in surface ship lines to get them to take notice. Im sure that they are getting plenty of questionnaire responses at these tiers complaining about being fodder for CVs, but the spreadsheet, comrade. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,290
[A-I-M]
Members
3,494 posts
23,162 battles

This is like Guderian in Panzer Leader describing the echo chamber cloud-cuckoo land of OKH conferences he attended. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×