970 [CRAYN] godzilla5549 Beta Testers 2,085 posts 4,678 battles Report post #1 Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) Original Source here: http://shipcomrade.com/news/169/gamescom-qa-with-jacek-pudlik.html Published By: Aetam on ShipComrade.com Edited August 23, 2016 by godzilla5549 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
39,448 [HINON] Lert Alpha Tester 27,824 posts 26,939 battles Report post #2 Posted August 23, 2016 Wargaming will not invent new ships. This is a bit of a nebulous statement. - 'Will not invent new ships' - for the tech tree? Or just premiums? - What constitutes 'inventing' a new ship? Is adding a ship based on never-built blueprints 'inventing' a ship? Or based on a napkin drawing? Or based on 'some dusty designs that were found in this Russian archive'? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
17,599 [WOLF5] HazeGrayUnderway Members 38,650 posts 31,272 battles Report post #3 Posted August 23, 2016 LOL for USN Cruisers! The 2nd worst line in the game will continue to languish! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,852 Madwolf05 ∞ Alpha Tester 7,170 posts 4,070 battles Report post #4 Posted August 23, 2016 Kind of find it odd they said USN cruisers are fine when they've specifically stated they're looking into the Baltimore, New Orleans, and Des Moines now. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
854 TheStarSlayer Members, Beta Testers 1,591 posts 2,659 battles Report post #5 Posted August 23, 2016 I would have thought the Regina Marina had one of the more robust catalogs of ships to draw from. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
972 [-K--] Killjoy1941 Members 3,075 posts 6,658 battles Report post #6 Posted August 23, 2016 This is a bit of a nebulous statement. - 'Will not invent new ships' - for the tech tree? Or just premiums? - What constitutes 'inventing' a new ship? Is adding a ship based on never-built blueprints 'inventing' a ship? Or based on a napkin drawing? Or based on 'some dusty designs that were found in this Russian archive'? Total fantasy would be my interpretation, as even conceptual designs often had everything from gifted naval officers to entire boards created to vet the concept, and the written material can provide the necessary specifications. So we won't ever see a 4x3 10" Alaska, for example. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
760 [WOLF5] Patton5150 Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers 3,084 posts 61,367 battles Report post #7 Posted August 23, 2016 US Navy Cruisers are doing fine according to Wargaming's statistical data. They do not see the need for an immediate change. wth? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
52,203 [MAUS] LittleWhiteMouse Members 13,705 posts Report post #8 Posted August 23, 2016 In the future, could you just link directly to the page instead of poaching the entire article off a Community Contributor's website? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,852 Madwolf05 ∞ Alpha Tester 7,170 posts 4,070 battles Report post #9 Posted August 23, 2016 The only reason he did it was to stick it to the USN cruiser captains anyways. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
970 [CRAYN] godzilla5549 Beta Testers 2,085 posts 4,678 battles Report post #10 Posted August 23, 2016 In the future, could you just link directly to the page instead of poaching the entire article off a Community Contributor's website? I gave proper citation (linking directly to the article), and credited the publisher as well. I also did not find this directly off of Ship Comrade. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
970 [CRAYN] godzilla5549 Beta Testers 2,085 posts 4,678 battles Report post #11 Posted August 23, 2016 The only reason he did it was to stick it to the USN cruiser captains anyways. Oh please. It should be known by now that I regularly link content from other sources here regardless of the content. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,852 Madwolf05 ∞ Alpha Tester 7,170 posts 4,070 battles Report post #12 Posted August 23, 2016 So why highlight the part about USN cruisers then. He's also wrong judging by the data we have. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
39,448 [HINON] Lert Alpha Tester 27,824 posts 26,939 battles Report post #13 Posted August 23, 2016 Oh please. It should be known by now that I regularly link content from other sources here regardless of the content. It's not about credit for the article, but about traffic that the ShipComrade blog is missing out on. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
35 Viscount Members 248 posts 13,354 battles Report post #14 Posted August 23, 2016 Yeaaa...I'm fairly sure the USN heavy cruisers could use some help. I think the CL's lower in the line are doing ok enough. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
52,203 [MAUS] LittleWhiteMouse Members 13,705 posts Report post #15 Posted August 23, 2016 It's not about credit for the article, but about traffic that the ShipComrade blog is missing out on. The credit for the article is nice (thank you for that, btw). It does make growing the site more difficult when content gets lifted wholesale. It's one thing to quote relevant passages. It's another to grab the whole thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
5,644 [O7] 1nv4d3rZ1m Alpha Tester, Alpha Tester 12,147 posts 9,111 battles Report post #16 Posted August 23, 2016 I gave proper citation (linking directly to the article), and credited the publisher as well. I also did not find this directly off of Ship Comrade. From the reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/4z87nr/gamescom_qa_with_jacek_pudlik/ In the future, can you just provide a direct link or short quotes rather than poaching the entire article off of our site? You're actively damaging community websites (that have to pay for their bandwidth) when you steal off their pages. Traffic to the site is the only way we can recoup our costs. If you continue to do this, it hurts our ability to continue providing content. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
970 [CRAYN] godzilla5549 Beta Testers 2,085 posts 4,678 battles Report post #17 Posted August 23, 2016 The credit for the article is nice (thank you for that, btw). It does make growing the site more difficult when content gets lifted wholesale. It's one thing to quote relevant passages. It's another to grab the whole thing. Understood. I will no longer transcribe posts from ShipComrade. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,414 yUPPatriots Members 3,929 posts 21,553 battles Report post #18 Posted August 23, 2016 geez what an awful poorly written article. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
642 [-K--] iHaveNoIntelligence Members 1,817 posts 9,035 battles Report post #19 Posted August 23, 2016 (edited) Overall, they are pretty happy with everything except carriers. There are no concrete plans for a carrier overhaul yet but they want to change something. One idea may be giving carriers more direct control of planes in some way, but this is just speculative at this stage. As if there aren't already enough complaints that TB is insta torping. Do they want us to play WoWP in WoWS? It's well known there won't be any big fix on carrier except for UI and Spotting Reward(I really hope they mean shooting down planes as well in personal performance). Afaik they aren't introducing any carriers except Graf Zeppelin next year. It could mean either they will fix Carriers next year before they any new tree OR they won't give any fix to carriers next year also until somehow magically a genius idea pops up. Edited August 23, 2016 by Treediagram Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1,788 [WOLF2] HazardDrake Beta Testers 6,750 posts 15,858 battles Report post #20 Posted August 23, 2016 They also say the Khabarovsk is balanced... /Just got mine this last weekend. I've already "rebalanced" a couple of Khabs who thought firing from smoke as a plan A was a good idea. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
17,599 [WOLF5] HazeGrayUnderway Members 38,650 posts 31,272 battles Report post #21 Posted August 23, 2016 They also say the Khabarovsk is balanced... /Just got mine this last weekend. I've already "rebalanced" a couple of Khabs who thought firing from smoke as a plan A was a good idea. It is balanced, Comrade. If you do not think so, we have spot in Siberia for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
205 Captain_Doll Members 522 posts 15,991 battles Report post #22 Posted August 23, 2016 So what statistical data is WG looking at to conclude USN cruisers don't require any adjustment? Seems strange given the statistics we have access to show most of the USN cruisers dead last (statistically speaking). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4,728 [ABDA] crzyhawk Beta Testers 17,538 posts 12,810 battles Report post #23 Posted August 23, 2016 They say a lot of things and contradict each other often. They've said in other Q&As that they aren't happy with US cruisers. While I wont believe in any changes until I see them, I also see no reason to believe that they aren't looking at changes either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,750 [FOXEH] Kitsunelegend Beta Testers 6,103 posts 1,313 battles Report post #24 Posted August 23, 2016 For example, they want to use supply boxes to announce awards. Few players check their notifications and as a result, many player do not even realize when they receive rewards. The idea here would be to have a supply ship visibly deliver the award to your port to bring special attention to gains. So the next time you unlock something, such as by leveling your account, you'll have immediate feedback that you were awarded for that achievement. That sounds AWESOME! =D The rest of the Q&A was kind meh to really....didn't see anything we didn't already know and didn't see anything other than quoted that really seemed to interest me, and a lot of seemed vague. I'm still bummed about the Nikolai though... But it was either her, or the Grand Old Lady. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
2,399 USMC2145 Members 1,933 posts 7,191 battles Report post #25 Posted August 23, 2016 They want to reward personal performance, such as providing spots for your team or tanking damage. What exactly we will get is uncertain while they collect data. Awesome, about time they looked into giving better rewards to players who want to excel at the game and doing the job their ship was designed for. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
