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

Official Discord Dev QnA #2 [Part II]

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
497 posts
41 battles

Possibly Serious Article 2!

(for PSA QnA#2 [Part 1], follow this link)

Official Discord Dev QnA #2 [Part II]

 
Q&A

Q: Will WG add an option to make the guns stay in place? For example: Yamato front guns stay forward, and its back guns don't turn [...]

A: No plans for now. First of all, situations where a player is in need of having one turret stand still rarely happen. A player usually tries to aim as many guns as possible, or at least turn the turrets to the needed direction. Secondly, the technical realization and the UI support of the feature will require a lot of time and effort. It will also be quite difficult to implement this mechanics on ships with unusual turret configurations. Therefore, as there is a little need in such functionality, and as we are currently focused on other changes and improvements, we have no plans for the feature.


Q: The Puerto Rico dockyard event was said to be an early access mechanic for the ship herself, but we have yet to see her appear in the armory. Any ETA on that?

A: In World of Warships there are a lot of ships that are available to players only for a short time (for example, rewards for in-game events or special premium shop offers) or only for a certain resource (steel ships). Getting them at another time or in another way is not possible, which in some way makes this ship additional value for players. Puerto-Rico belongs to such ships, as it was the main reward of the New Year Dockyard. So, we have no plans to distribute Puerto-Rico in the near future. But who knows, maybe one day this ship will be available for obtaining again.


Q: Is there any progress on implementing helicopters as utility aircraft for ships equipped with a helipad?

A: At the moment we have no plans to add helicopters to the game. But World of Warships will exist for many more years and who knows what can happen in the future.


Q: Are there any plans to revisit how AA works? As it stands the nature of passive AA leads to little meaningful interaction between CV and their targets.

A: Currently the AA is in a fine state. We've done several changes to make the interaction with CVs more active, for example, we've updated the priority AA sector in 0.8.7, which made the efficiency of players AA depend more on his actions. There is also DAAF consumable activation and active maneuvering to counter CV attacks. Making interaction with CVs more active might excessively complicate the gameplay and make players concentrate more on it when fighting several other ships, which will not always be comfortable. However, we are having some thoughts about AA mechanics, but it's too early to tell any details.


Q: What is your stance on Akizuki and Kitakaze? Among the top players, they are almost universally perceived as outstandingly overpowered, yet they have managed to avoid nerfs ever since the IJN gunboat DD branch extension.

A: The main point here is that Akizuki and Kitakaze are perceived as OP ships by strong players. These players, of course, have more experience and are more skillful, they know the game better than average players, who make up a vast majority of our audience. However, in terms of balancing, we try to make changes which will be most suitable not only for the smaller group of our players, but also for a vast majority of players. Akizuki and Kitakaze may be perceived strong by skillful players, but are overall OK for a common player. Taking all this into account, and the fact that these ships are currently in a fine state both in terms of overall winrate and balance, we have no plans to change them for now. Nevertheless, we are keeping an eye on these ships and will make changes in deem necessary.


Q: Will the Epicenter game mode ever be addressed with regards to starting points and point gain rate? As it currently appears, the game mode tends to last significantly shorter than other game modes, which makes for an unpleasant game experience and players loathing the mode quite often.

A: In fact, according to statistics, the average duration of a battle in epicenter mode is only 1 minute shorter than in domination mode. The gameplay in this mode is really a little bit faster and more dynamic, but this is its peculiarity. That's why we don't plan to change its settings at the moment.


Q: Why do CVs get so much attention when they are only 1/12 players in about 50% of matches?

A: All this is because the other classes of ships in our game have established mechanics and gameplay, but aircraft carriers were completely redesigned last year. And of course, in order for the aircraft carriers to completely fit into our game, it took a lot of small additional edits and changes during several updates. Even now, despite the fact that we are happy with the сarriers' gameplay and their balance, we make changes from time to time, as it is always possible to improve something.


Q: Can you change the port UI so that we can see the effects of captain skills or equipment before we actually lock / pay for them?

A: Actually, we have some plans to change the UI and informativity of commander's skills when the updated skill system is released. However, we cannot give you any specific details for now. If by equipment you mean upgrades, we have no such plans towards them.


Q: If aircraft carriers are balanced now, how come it isn't allowed to bring more than one in a division?

A: The aircraft carriers are actually in the balance right now. However, this class of ships is also balanced taking into account the team lineups. At the moment in our game there can be no more than 1 and in some cases 2 aircraft carriers in a team. Therefore it makes no sense to change the current restrictions. In addition, the removal of such restriction would have created an unnecessary load on the matchmaker, and the players who decided to go into battle with two aircraft carriers would have to wait a long time for their battle.


Q: What is the reason behind most T8 and lower cruisers not having access to the Repair Party consumable? [...]

A: All ships in our game are balanced with taking into account their consumables, including the presence or absence of a repair party. The absence of a repair party for any ship is always due to other ship characteristics and features, such as speed, maneuverability, detectability or for example the presence of a smoke generator. For example, tier IX-X cruisers tend to have higher detectability range, size and often worse maneuverability than tier VIII ships. So they are equipped with a repair party. Also, for many ships, the very style of gameplay implies the need to play carefully without making such "mistakes" as getting caught in enemy fire.


Q: How about making it so that if you don't pick a CV in clan battles but two battleships, you will also face a team with two battleships rather than a CV? That way those who don't want CVs in Clan Battles can choose not to have them in their games!

A: No plans for now. The main point of Clan battles is to provide a Clan vs Clan combat, while supporting different team setups for participants. During Clan battles commanders of each clan choose the setup most suitable for his team, taking all the risks and possible outcomes into the account. Each Clan can use any setup which fits the restrictions, like, for example, only 7 cruisers or 7 DDs. Restricting particular setups, or creating a different queue for a particular setup (like 1CV+1BB) goes against the logic and the idea of Clan battles. Besides, it will excessively overload the Clan Battles matchmaking, which will result in players waiting significantly more time in the queue. Clans waiting for much longer may refuse to play, which, respectively, will result in even further increase in the matchmaking time.

 

source : Discord/Reddit

Spoiler

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,069
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
16,256 posts
Quote

A: Currently the AA is in a fine state.

:Smile_veryhappy:

Either they're entirely delusional, or they hold the playerbase in utter disdain if they think we'll believe this. 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter
clarity
  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
431
[FOXY]
Members
1,127 posts
5,385 battles
10 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

:Smile_veryhappy:

They're either entirely delusional, or hold the playerbase in utter disdain if they think we'll believe this.  

  

Between this Q/A and the last one, im glad im never touching randoms in this game.

Edited by Princess_Daystar
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
497 posts
41 battles
8 minutes ago, hateboat said:

A: The aircraft carriers are actually in the balance right now.

Note the irony that 75%+ of questions and replies in the dev Qn&As, concern CVs, which represent fewer than 1 in 10 random battles played, even, as we are reassured, "CVs are fine now."

 

  • Cool 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,110
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,740 battles
29 minutes ago, hateboat said:

Q: The Puerto Rico dockyard event was said to be an early access mechanic for the ship herself, but we have yet to see her appear in the armory. Any ETA on that?

A: In World of Warships there are a lot of ships that are available to players only for a short time (for example, rewards for in-game events or special premium shop offers) or only for a certain resource (steel ships). Getting them at another time or in another way is not possible, which in some way makes this ship additional value for players. Puerto-Rico belongs to such ships, as it was the main reward of the New Year Dockyard. So, we have no plans to distribute Puerto-Rico in the near future. But who knows, maybe one day this ship will be available for obtaining again.

:fish_palm:

:cap_haloween::cap_haloween::cap_haloween:

:cap_popcorn:

...and they wonder why the playerbase has so little trust...

:cap_yes:

Also...

AA is in a 'fine state'?

:cap_haloween::cap_haloween::cap_haloween:

Edited by Daniel_Allan_Clark
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,292
[A-I-M]
Members
3,502 posts
23,190 battles

The comments on AA  and surface ship/CV interaction caused my eyes to unfocus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,673
[POP]
Beta Testers
4,735 posts
7,019 battles

they are living in another dimension,holy crap.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,151
[SALVO]
Members
5,173 posts
4,474 battles
52 minutes ago, hateboat said:

A: Currently the AA is in a fine state.

:fish_palm:

So, Schrodinger's AA is staying as it is... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,480
[WOLF5]
Supertester
4,385 posts
4,193 battles
29 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

:fish_palm:

So, Schrodinger's AA is staying as it is... 

Yeah, that one made me do a double take. Of all the words I would use to describe AA, fine (or any of its synonyms) wouldn't be one of them. 

 

It's just....you know what I'm not going to bother, apparently we just need to accept that AA is fine right now.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,416
[META_]
Members
2,255 posts
7,485 battles

Q: If aircraft carriers are balanced now, how come it isn't allowed to bring more than one in a division?

A: The aircraft carriers are actually in the balance right now. However, this class of ships is also balanced taking into account the team lineups. At the moment in our game there can be no more than 1 and in some cases 2 aircraft carriers in a team. Therefore it makes no sense to change the current restrictions. In addition, the removal of such restriction would have created an unnecessary load on the matchmaker, and the players who decided to go into battle with two aircraft carriers would have to wait a long time for their battle.

Any parent knows that if you remove a child's favorite cereal, there's going to be a firestorm. Ditto if you add spinach to almost every dinner, even if it's good for the budget, and good for humans. Telling them the reasons, or just stating 'it's for the best' does not cut it.

I'm 67 years old, and in no way shape or form do i view WG as my parent, so NO, CVs are actually NOT in the balance right now. Take your T4 BB with 0 (zero) AA into a double CV battle, see how balanced it is.

spud

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,778
[WOLFG]
Members
10,477 posts
9,789 battles
3 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

:Smile_veryhappy:

Either they're entirely delusional, or they hold the playerbase in utter disdain if they think we'll believe this. 

 

Or they are using the word fine the way my wife uses it.

Which means NOT fine :Smile_hiding:

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,497 posts
5,943 battles

Just one more reason that F2P is really terrible for the players. 

It forces the dev team to become the Ministry of Propaganda in the late stages of the game.  Churn == cash money.  Churn != fun.

They can't really say, "Yeah CVs are causing enormous amounts of churn so that's good!  We got a huge raise this year!" 

So they say.  "CVs are fine. *cough*  Next question!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
571
[GRAVE]
Members
1,354 posts
19,459 battles
5 hours ago, hateboat said:

Currently the AA is in a fine state

 

5 hours ago, hateboat said:

The aircraft carriers are actually in the balance right now

I think I lost brain cells reading this. Does the dev who answered this either not play the game or if he does, only does it after drinking about 30gallons of cheap homemade Vodka?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
571
[GRAVE]
Members
1,354 posts
19,459 battles
5 hours ago, hateboat said:

The main point here is that Akizuki and Kitakaze are perceived as OP ships by strong players

because DDs that have top of the class gunpower and don't have to pay an arm and a lag for it while every other DD has to trade something to get that gunpower (FR have no smoke, Soviets sans Grozovoi poor stealth and meh at best torps, Khaba gets APf*cked, Friesland torps and speed boost, Daring/Jutland speed boost) are most definitely OP. They only appear balanced because of the potatoes who yolo into 3 radars and a Smolensk and die in the opening 2 minutes of the battle

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,110
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,740 battles
28 minutes ago, tfcas119 said:

 

I think I lost brain cells reading this. Does the dev who answered this either not play the game or if he does, only does it after drinking about 30gallons of cheap homemade Vodka?

Or...'balanced' to WG means something different than the playerbase definition...

Its only logical.

8 minutes ago, Frederick_The_Great said:

These QnAs are a joke. 

They are entertaining...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
497 posts
41 battles
23 minutes ago, Frederick_The_Great said:

These QnAs are a joke. 

They are important in that they help us to understand what developers/producers are really thinking.

The QnAs also help us understand what happens to our feedback.

13 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

They are entertaining...

This too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,389
[INTEL]
Members
13,459 posts
37,260 battles
Quote

""" A: Currently the AA is in a fine state. We've done several changes to make the interaction with CVs more active, for example, we've updated the priority AA sector in 0.8.7, which made the efficiency of players AA depend more on his actions. There is also DAAF consumable activation and active maneuvering to counter CV attacks. . """


Hahahaha. You can tell they don't play the game. So utterly out of touch with reality. Shameful.

You know, we used to be able to select a target squadron by clicking on it, and I can't recall even a SINGLE post in the forums or complaints in-game that such a system was too complicated.
 

Quote

A: The aircraft carriers are actually in the balance right now.

Haha. Why is this guy working as a dev when he could get a fantastic job as a comedian?
 

Quote

A: In fact, according to statistics, the average duration of a battle in epicenter mode is only 1 minute shorter than in domination mode. The gameplay in this mode is really a little bit faster and more dynamic, but this is its peculiarity. That's why we don't plan to change its settings at the moment.

A shorter battle is not MORE DYNAMIC. For the love all that is holy, shorter battles are LESS DYNAMIC!!! Fewer lead changes, fewer tactical options, lower damage, fewer targets to shoot at, you name it. SHORTER MATCHES SUCK.

I suppose it is too much to ask that the devs play the game, but does anyone at HQ even look at the game as it is being played?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3,497 posts
5,943 battles
30 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

SHORTER MATCHES SUCK.

Oh sure, short matches suck for the players but for WG it's pretty much awesome all the way around.  

Shorter matches inflate the numbers in a small way.  Shorter matches sell more flags.  That's just pure gravy right there.

And, after every match, you have that golden minute or two where a player might be frustrated enough to invest in one of the loot box strategies provided to them by WG.  So, the more matches you have, the more loot box "conversions" you get.  And when you add those up for an entire year, that's real cash money!   

The players are going play no matter what.  *shrugs*

Until they don't ofc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,371
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
8,270 posts
12,140 battles

these answers clearly show that WG suffers from the "Own head shoved up ones rectum" pandemic that seems to infect most gaming companys when they think theyre so big and bad that they can just do whatever they want and expect their customers to just accept it, examples include, EA, and Bethesda on Fallout 76

Edited by tcbaker777
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,389
[INTEL]
Members
13,459 posts
37,260 battles
24 minutes ago, CommodoreKang said:

Oh sure, short matches suck for the players but for WG it's pretty much awesome all the way around.  

 

Yup.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,093 posts
32,347 battles

“Currently the AA is in a fine state”

“The aircraft carriers are actually in the balance right now”

Source: GRU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
77
[NNG]
Members
126 posts
4,262 battles

We are balanced , no plan to change, you d better to accept it or get out. I learned almost  the same idea from every QA from WG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×