Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Dev Q&A: Most Popular Questions

  • You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.

12 posts in this topic

Hello everyone!:izmena:

So I promised you a new, better way of doing Q&A after I happily replied to dozens of your questions in the previous thread. The new goal is to get the questions that are most significant to all of you, and answer them the most detailed way I (and my team) can.

We will try to do it weekly, and here's the plan:

1. Each Friday we will post a topic for a new round on WoWs subreddit. Why Reddit? Because it has this perfect feature - upvoting.  

2. There, you can ask anything that is important for you about the game. And be sure to upvote the questions you like.

3. One post - one question (on one subject). If there are many questions in one post, only the first one will be answered.

3. Each Wednesday we will check the Reddit post for top-15 upvoted questions. We will read them carefully and start preparing answers.

4. Each Friday we will post these top-15 questions with answers to WoWs subreddit and to this thread.


Please bear in mind:

  • We may answer more than top-15 if we have time.
  • The cycle may change depending on situation (holidays, tight releases, events, etc). But we will try to stick with it as much as we can, of course.
  • If we have repeated questions, we will either answer them again (with or without updates) or skip them for new ones. It will depend on the situation, but be sure to check this thread on weekly basis to prevent yourself from repeating.


What is the exact advntage?

  • You will get answers for the most important questions, and you - not us - decide what it will be.
  • We will get better understanding of what thrills you most.


What are possible cons?

  • Not every signle question will be ansered - but we are limited in time, unfortunately and can't do 100 questions per week. With voting, we can be sure that weekly publications will be the best experience for all readers.
  • Answeres will have weekly "lag" - but on the other hand, we will have time to investigate each question better and prepare more detailed answer.

I really hope you will enjoy it. Let's start!




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Round 1 answers

Hey again Sub! Thanks for making this a constant thing.
With 0.5.12 having been implemented around two days ago, there is already much dissent to be heard in the playerbase - some have had success with the new system, and others the opposite. Adjustments of playstyles aside, it seems that two main groups of players have been hit negatively by the economy overhaul; Co-Op players, and CV Players. As Damage is no longer as valuable or viable to depend on to do good, and tanking is arguably suicidal for a CV player, many have been reporting difficulties in making profits now. Many people are also not satisfied with what seems to be an intended shift to Air Superiority load-outs for the USN CVs with the increased rewards for downing planes, as some find it limiting, sub-optimal, or simply boring.
Co-Op players, with the overhaul, are consistently earning less too, due to the nature of Co-Op resulting in less rewards as a whole. I have heard that it is not intended for Co-Op to remain a mainstay of the game after players have learned the game, but I have also heard that a sizable amount of people exclusively play Co-Op. Many players may find the game unappealing if their preferred PvE gamemode is no longer financially viable.
What do you think of any possible changes to this new economy if the results after a lengthier period of time continue to reflect these two sentiments? I understand that, as the overhaul was days ago, you guys are probably watching the stats for anything to be concerned about. If there will be a change, what time-frame can we expect it to be implemented 

Hi, you're welcome.
Co-op players: we applied heavy maintenance reduction for PvE this week. It should be fine now.
CVs: we do not expect CV players to go and tank damage. Actually, new income structure was developed upon real server stats per ship individually. For example, all CVs are not very good in tanking or capping - that's obvious, and we did not set valuable share of these activities for them. But some ships inside a class may differ too. Pensacola and Myoko have different "tanking" stats, so they were adjusted accordingly. That said, we notice all negative CV feedback on the changes. And currently we are researching this matter to see whether any tweaks are needed. 
CV AS: AS gameplay is different, and we do not expect all players to love it. But we encourage it, because it was completely unbalanced against Strike gameplay economically while being quite contributive.
The goal of new economy is to make the game better, and to encourage active and engaging gameplay. If we find any problems with that, we will fix it.

The Warspite's Citadel seems bugged when looking in the armor viewer both front and back, the Citadel extends beyond the magazine, it's especially obvious on the frontal extension where the roof of the citadel is only covered by 25mm of armor. (as part of the citadel, the deck armor brings the total up to about 50mm, still thin enough to punch 8" shells through) as far as i can tell, those rooms are cold storage and fresh-water tanks on the front, have you perhaps implemented some sort of "Earl grey dependency" penalty by accident ? ;) /

The part you are talking about is included in the citadel because it was valuable initially (torpedo armament storage) and it is protected accordingly:

  • 25 mm citadel deck you mentioned;
  • 32 mm deck you cannot see in port viewer currently (it is bow internal deck); 
  • 152 mm belt (you can see a part of it behind anti-torpedo bulge;
  • 102 mm transverse (in game 102 mm layer is a sum of several IRL bulkheads);
  • It is located underwater and extremely hard to hit.

Most part of damage to Warspite is bow/aft/casemate/superstructure, so this part does not play a vital role in ship in-game performance. On the other hand it is logical to be included in the citadel, remembering its initial function and armor (these are two main criteria).

Great! Just when I wanted to ask you which mode you'll go with these Q&As in the future! Much appreaciated. QUESTION: When can we expect to see the old (from CBT) Anti Air graphics [1] back in action (esp. sound effects)? Probably as a toggle on/off switch to compensate for low performing PCs.

We checked, double-checked and even triple-checked AA effects change log. We didn't change anything. Either I did not get your question or there's some misinterpreting. AA effects density depends on ship AA specs, number of mounts, etc. If you can display what you mean in any way, PM me. But for now it seems to be in the same condition it was before.
As for sound effects, overall sound design has been improved greatly, and our sound team always paid maxiumum attention to players' perception. However, there are some things in AA sounds we would like to change and improve. It is planned for one of upcoming updates. We sincerely hope you will like it.

Hi Phil! My question, back a year ago (something like it, cant really remember) there was a devblog that mentioned that ships would maybe have some visual damage deformation from torps/shells. Is this something that is still on the table ? :)

Hi. I did not manage to find a source for that statement, but anyways, this is quite expensive in terms of performance and production efforts. Currently we are not working on such visual effects. We are focusing on enhancing what we already have. For example, the solution for small objects (wires, lines, cables)  anti-aliasing is currently in being implemented.

When we can play "NIGHT BATTLE" using search lights effect & flare effect with new consumables equipments ? Likes S.P.B dock port in game .........

It's good to hear you like Saint-Petersburg port!
However, its lighting scheme is basically a workaround. Our game engine currently does not allow normal multi-source lighting, which is needed for proper night battles. When it is updated eventually, we will be able to implement such feature (and many others).

I'll ask a question about CV economy after 0.5.12. I believe high tier BB economy is great now thanks to the economy change and WG can have credit for that one. It promotes more engaging gameplay. However CV is hurt a lot. I made a comment in other post I usually do whatever WG has asked me to do as CV to earn high number of credits in terms of teamplay. I used to earn 300~400 K on games like this before (while shooting down planes and spotting) but now after a really decent game I only earn a sad 200 K credit. I feel very punished for no reason. I had a great game with Scharnhorst but here I earned the usual amount of credits compared to pre-0.5.12 economy change. So I assume the WG wasn't planning to nerf the CV credit earning or was that the intention ?

There is a reply regarding CV above, which partially answers your question. However, I am happy to elaborate on that more.
There was no intention to nerf CV. At most, some CV may have started to earn as much as other ships of the same tier (which is fair). Economy changes are designed for better connection between active team play and reward. This change may cause some players to earn less in some cases, and we're analyzing the data we receive to see whether action is needed.
We are planning to publish "debriefing" article on economy changes with some thoughts and information. So, stay tuned.

Recently, you've answered questions relating to ballistics penetration by answering that the details of the model are under NDA. However, WG have been pretty detailed and honest about obscure mechanics such as magazine detonation chance and Anti-air auras. Is there a reason that ballistics mechanics are under NDA? Is the reason they're under NDA itself under NDA? :V

Yes, there's reason - currently in-game ballistics formula is considered a valuable asset in terms of game developement. However, this is more about corporate projects and should not worry players. I assume, players need not the formula itself, but penetration values for each shell to be more  informed and effecient in the game. We are absolutely fine with it. We are going to add penetration values to game wiki in some form, and later, when we develop a smart way to show it, we wil surely add it to game client. So, when we talk about NDA, we refer to our method to implement IRL ballistics into the game, not to in-game shell specs. There is no use in hinding them.

Will there be some kind of armor penetration/time-to-target chart implemented into the game? It's kind of hard to have to rely on the community-made chart, especially when the chart list isn't that complete (it does miss a few ships, and doesn't have time-to-target).

You may want to check the answer above - it refers to the same question. Problem is that we want this chart to be easy-to-use and informative, and this is the main criteria for implementing it in game. At the same time, we're working on penetration table for our wiki as a temporary solution.

Earlier, you have posted some information about how AA actually works. What I am wondering is what happens to the calculation, that you mention, when the amount of DPS being applied to a squadron changes due to entering 2nd, 3rd, aura and so forth or if a mount were to be destroyed, for example. I suspect it would try to remember old ticks but that it would dynamically update certain parts of it? But that's purely an assumption, hence my wanting to clarify.

Each aura works independently. So, when a squadron enters additional aura (it may be the same ship or another ship), it gets additional "destruction timer" and starts losing planes from this aura accordingly.

When aura efficiency changes for some reason (e.g., some AA guns are destroyed, suppressive fire is activated or manual control is used), the "destruction timer" of this aura adjusts.
If an aura stops targeting a squadron for some reason (e.g. player selects another target or the squadron flies away), the "destruction timer" ends. Squadrons do not "remember" any interaction from passed engagements, their HP is actually number of planes left.

Will you be addressing the skewed matchmaking for tiers 5 and 6, now that they cannot see tiers 3 and 4 respectively? They are uptiered much more often now, which is rather painful.

The overall life on T5-6 got more complicated, this is true. However, this made things better for beginners on T3-4 and reinforced T7-8. Which is not a bad thing for overall game experience. 

On the other hand, we understand your concern and currently are trying to find a way to soften the impact of this change (which, again, we consider to be good globally). 




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heya Phil, glad to see ya around these parts this time.The deck armor on the Montana doesn't seem to have changed with 0.5.12, the armor viewer is still showing it at 29mm. When the armor change on BBs on the test server was reset, is it possible that the armor increase on Montana was scaled back as well? And that it slipped under the radar into the game unchanged?

Hi, thanks. Yes, this is the exact case. We will fix it ASAP and give Montana the buff we promised. Sorry for the inconvenience.

When will you guys be looking at re doing the USN CV's loadout's to be more competitive with the new economy changes since the last patch. specifically the strike loadouts on ranger and Lexington

There is no plan to change loadouts now and to buff strike loadouts. We buffed USN fighters recently for more AS value, and for now are not going to change CV specs more. As for economical aspect, please see the two replies on that above. 

Can we expect something like a test drive feature for premium ships so we don't have to rely exclusively on youtuber/streamer opinions?

It's a nice idea, and we may implement it in future. We also can organize premium ship TD during public tests from time to time. So, yes, you can expect some positive changes about it, but unfortunately, I am not ready to make any promises or name any dates. And let's consider that premium test drive should be organized in such way that player can really understand and master the ship at least partially. Otherwise, one unlucky battle on Tirtpiz for a newbie may create a false impression and hurt both player and game.

Background - I run a clan with 50+ players on Warships, most of whom I recruited from the official forums. I set up a website and TeamSpeak3 server, and we run regular training sessions and have players online nearly every night. A few of my members also play World of Tanks - and some are hesitant to leave an established clan in WoT. Question: What is the implementation plan for clans in World or Warships to either compliment or stand-alone compared to World of Tanks clans?

Hello! We aim for stand-alone implementation for players convenience.

Hello, I have question about unified account, with more detail. Devs said it is unable due to technical issues, but never mentioned what those issues are. I can understand about the free experience because of different experience income of WOT and WOWS, but can you explain reason for gold and dubloons? I checked the premium shop and found that price tags for gold and dubloon are exactly the same. For WOT and WOWP they are fully unified (even free experience) so for me it`s hard to see the reason why not for WOWS. Thanks!

Hello! The problem is not with premium shop prices, but with the databases. Long story short, we cannot unify gold the way we initially planned without massive DB rework (or without constant technical issues with syncing WoT, WoWp and WoWs). We are trying to find a workaround for that, and surely we will announce the change when we're ready.

As usual, cheers for the Q&A. Is the Torpedo Acceleration skill subject to reevaluation? The flat increase in exchange for a %-based number really punishes the high risk IJN torpedo's. In the Shimakaze, no one would take the F3's over the medium ranged torpedo's since one can be used with TA, and the other can't. So basically, the medium ranged torpedo's end up having +-2KM more range at the cost of 2 knots or so.


Type F3 may be used with TA skill. This is extremely dangerous, but hey, you will get 81-kt missiles. I know some players who are happy about it and like such play style.

Type 93 mod.3 with TA seems very good, but this way you need to spend 3 skill points. What are they good for? For example, Basic Firing Trainig + Expert Marksman. Don't underestimate Shimakaze artillery, especially with this buff. And F3 offer you 8 km range, freeing these 3 points for you. With the best concealment - 5.9 km - this is more than viable.
After introducing TA skill and tweaking some of the torpedoes, we are quite satisfied with the variety we have. This is not likely to be changed.

Welcome back! Are there any plans to raise the captain point cap to realistically get 19 points? I have several 18 point captains, and most of them finished their main build with 1 or 2 or 3 left over points that weren't really that useful. I've done theory crafting and have seen that having 19 points would open up new build opportunities that 18 does not. Thanks for you time!


This cap is an intended temporary limitation. Captain skills improvement pack is currently in developement with several nice changes, including the cap solution. Overall goal is to add new layers of captain "upgrades", add more variety and possible builds, adjust some skills in terms of costs and/or effeciency. I really hope you will be happy with the changes, and find more opportunities both for 18-points captains and for juniors. Stay tuned!




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Round 2 answers


 Привет комрад. Greetings from RU. I have 2 questions.1.Any chance of account transfer between servers becoming a reality? 2. Will there ever be a buff USN cruisers? Ships like the New orleans and Pensacola seem to have been eclipsed by power creep.


  1. Very low chance. I would say "no chance", but you know, never say never.
  2. New Orleans will be buffed in 0.5.13 by re-visiting her armor and damage model. There are no immediate plans for other USN cruiser currently, but there may be other tweaks and re-works in the future.

 Thanks for doing these!

In the past, you have buffed premium ships that were already performing well for the sake of historical accuracy (most notably Tirpitz). My question is, will you do the same with the Dunkerque? There are two areas worthy of attention:

  • The lack of turret compartmentalization. On a ship with only two turrets, losing even one means losing half of your firepower. The French designers identified this problem and came up with a solution to reduce the chances of the entire turret being taken out of action, and it proved to be effective during the attack at Mers el Kebir. This is one of Dunkerque's (and Richelieu's) strength, yet it is not represented in game in any way.
  • The torpedo defense system. According to a friend, naval historian John Jordan names Dunkerque's TDS as being second only to Richelieu and Yamato. In game however, forget about even being second best (as Richelieu isn't in yet): It's not even the best at its own tier. In fact, only Warspite and Bayern have a worse TDS at T6.

There's also another point, albeit less important: Firing range. I know that it's kind of an arbitrary value in game, but IRL the Dunkerque could fire at up to ~41km while Fusou topped at ~35km, yet in game Dunkerque has a 18.2km firing range and Fusou 21.8km. While I usually wouldn't mind this too much, given the inherent fragility of Dunkerque and how often it meets ships that can overmatch its armor, wouldn't it be a good idea to give it a range more representative of the advantage it had in real life? I understand you might be averse to this as you don't want more sniping BBs (I don't either, I like midrange fights a lot more), but when you are facing teams filled with only T8, T7, Warspites and Bayerns (which happens far too often when playing Dunkerque), then you become a bit limited.
Again, the range is not the biggest deal, but I'd really like to have an answer regarding the turrets and the TDS. Thanks again for doing this!

We would not buff Tirpitz if this caused her to overperform, as we do not support pay-to-win.

Turret compartmentalization is a new potential game mechanics, which we currently don't consider viable. Dunkerque is not the only ship that has some kind of internal turret protection. However, its peculiarity was considered when determining turret HP value.

TDS in World of Warships is calculated by unified formula with using IRL specs. There's no reason to change it on individual ships without very strong argument. Its nature makes any assessment quite difficult.

Maximum firing range in game is initially calculated as range where you can reliably see the target (and adjust your aim). Fire-control system position and quality is taken into account. But then balance tweaks may be applied, if needed. Very important thing to understand is that effective ingame range will be shorter than maximum firing range IRL. E.g. Yamato technically has 42 km firing range, but in game it is 26,6 km. Because this is the range we calculate as "confident aquisition and tracking of average target". This method is both logical and good for gameplay. Fuso has higher FCS position, so, it has greater distance of decent target acquisition and tracking. Your wording "could fire at up to" is correct, and it does mean "could reliably hit other ship at up to".

Anyways, I feel your post was more about Dunkerque buff, so, I assure you we will pay extra attention to her perforamce, and will take action if needed.

 Do you have any plans to tune down the current AA power creep? Right now, I would rather strike a USN Cruiser than a German Battleship and I feel as if the German BBs getting insane AA DPS [looking at you Gnei], kinda detracts from the USN's supposed strength of AA.
With RN CLs on the way with supposed high AA without DF, this is seriously becoming a huge problem for CV players since the economy change has been a negative for them so far, TAE's bug in where instead of TBs getting a reload buff, it's the DBs instead, and of course, the fact that the UI is very buggy are all contributing to the quick decline of players playing CVs.

There are no plans for AA nerf in the nearest future.

Economy change has not been negative according to our data, but it had more focus on air superiority and support, which may have lead to problems with some players. On the other hand, CV's got massive cost reduction for lost planes.

TAE bug was fixed in

Known UI bugs are being fixed in the normal pipeline.

We do realize that there are some problems with CV, but they will not be solved fast, this is something we should address thoroughly, maybe even on overhaul level. One of the main problems is that it is very difficult to be average player - most people have either godlike superiority or almost nothing on CV. There is lack of "CV middle class", if I may say so.

Greetings /u/Sub_Octavian These are just as much suggestions as they are questions, but here we go:

  • Battle information: Do you plan giving players more information on the fly, instead of getting most information in the summary? Imagine the effect on teamplay when a BB see right away their XP gained on their 2 overpens on a DD, or the DDs XP from spotting damage or capping. Take a look at Battlefield for example. You instantly see your reward when you hit someone. Showing players what works and not, will benefit every team.
  • Team information: Do you have any plans to further develop team communication? It would be great if we could state our intentions; I tag C as my destination and its shown on my icon, and everyone will know what. Using just chat makes it cluttered. Keep a marked target, targeted for longer, and other vessels in close range can't be marked. You could even have a bonus for doing damage to marked targets.
  • Ranked: Here is my definition on ranked; An induvidual rank, based on a random teams performance in a team-based game. Im all in for an induvidual rank, but the dependency on your team is too high for an induvidual rank. If you do good, you should progress, and not take a step back. There is no difference between ranked and team battles besides that you know your team and have voicecom in teambattles. Again look at a game like Battlefield; If your team is good you'll do better than with a bad team. But you can still progress with an induvidual effort. What are your thoughts on ranked for the future?


  1. Battle: in this respect we stick with WoT approach, and for a good reason. If we go completely open with that, this may harm gameplay in unpredictable way. Apparently most players will immediately switch to economical approach from teamplay, fun or any other personal preferences. Battlefield is an amasing game, but there, economy is not as important as in World of Warships. So the comparison is not viable. History WoT RU example: introduction of unofficial ratings (based on defence points, and then, WN8) caused thousands of players to adjust their playstyle, often in abusive way. And this was just an unofficial rating. So, while your suggestion is interesting, I should say we already considered and put off such feature.
  2. Team: yes, we plan. Your suggestion is very interesting, by the way. Thank you! We are aiming to have improvement pack for team communication somehere in 2017, but no details yet. We're curretnly building the design for it, and it's hard to tell whether we do slight improvements or major overhaul with new features.
  3. Ranked: we are not against personal ratings, but we believe Ranked mode is better off with current system. We do not plan to make it more hardcore. However, it is a nice idea to have some events with hardcore personal ratings. We will think about it.

"The part you are talking about is included in the citadel because it was valuable initially (torpedo armament storage) and it is protected accordingly: 25 mm citadel deck you mentioned; 32 mm deck you cannot see in port viewer currently (it is bow internal deck); 152 mm belt (you can see a part of it behind anti-torpedo bulge; 102 mm transverse (in game 102 mm layer is a sum of several IRL bulkheads); It is located underwater and extremely hard to hit."

is the intent to add this to the armor viewer ? if it gives us a picture this misleading then it's not a terribly useful feature, that this area is hard to hit is not something i contest, it's the fact it's listed as part of the citadel in the first place, it's a significant portion of the ship's length that this addition to the citadel represent, and it's adversely affecting the survivability of the vessel, even if it's hard to hit it's still possible.

"Most part of damage to Warspite is bow/aft/casemate/superstructure, so this part does not play a vital role in ship in-game performance. On the other hand it is logical to be included in the citadel, remembering its initial function and armor (these are two main criteria)."

why is it logical to include this ? it's not containing anything critical for the ship's ability to fight unless you consider earl grey tea a critical component of the fighting strength of the warship, there is a armored bulkhead towards the actual magazines (as far as i recall) of equal thickness to what is seen above these rooms so all in all it seems like it's more or less a case of "here, have a citadel that is 10-15% larger than it should because there used to be something potentially dangerous in this area!" it doesn't seem reasonable, it doesn't seem logical, are you going to add similar "features" to other former-torpedo carrying warships such as the Bayern class ?

Yes there is intent, of course. It was stated in version 0.5.11 patchnotes, here's the quote:

"For some ships, selected armor types may include additional internal armor. While it won't display in this update for technical reasons, rest assured it is there in the armor model:

  • Internal citadel armor. Example: magazine armor for Kawachi and Wyoming
  • Internal ends armor. Example: Iowa steering engine armor, internal decks; bulkheads on Tirpitz, Bismarck, Iowa, North Carolina
  • Internal decks of casemates, hangars (for aircraft carriers) and auxiliary locations like part of the armored deck on Amagi.
  • We plan to display these separate details in future updates."

As for logic, as I said, we detemine citadel both by armor and function. This is systematic approach with very few exceptions. You metioned Bayern, for example, its torpedo compartments are not armored. So, this feature does not apply to her.

Anyways, we see that this question is important to the community, so we will perform additional detailed research of Warspite current state and effeciency. If we find out it is somehow underpeforming unfairly, we will act. For now we don't have such data, but perhaps we will find out something new when going deeper into subject.

Sub_Octavian, thanks for the effort you want to put in those Q&A's. Coming from the EU, it's really nice to have a somewhat direct line with the dev's (they are absent on the official EU forums). A question: What do the statistics say about the Warspite's performance since 0.5.9 (when her draft got lowered a bit, but she now is more often the lowest tier BB in matches) compared to her pre-0.5.9 performance. Are adjustments needed to her to make her more competitive in especially Tier VIII matches (she is quite slow and doesn't have the range to succesfully engage targets without being burned to a crisp by high-tier Cruisers that outrange her)

Thank you for your kind words.

Your question was partially addressed above. Quick stats overview does not give me any indication that there's problem with Warspite.

  • She has decent popularity for T VI premium;
  • She has 3rd place in winrate among T VI BBs (There are 6 of them: Arizona, Bayern, Dunkerque, Fuso, New Mexico and Warspite);
  • She has 4th place in avg. damage dealt among other T VI BBs.

She may have shown slightly better results in old meta and MM, but she doesn't look underperforming.

However, as I said above, this should be researched in more detail. We will try to do it in a couple of weeks, and if there is any need for tweaks, we will put them into nearest version possible. We are 100% for consistent experience when possible, especially with premium ships.

Thanks for the detailed response, Sub! I really appreciate you doing this and being so actively engaged with the community. Regarding the release of ARP Takao, we have heard that she, like the Atago, has been rewarded with heal on the RU servers. Some of us were surprised to hear this, as we initially expected Takao to, essentially, be a non-premium version of Atago right down to the lack of heal, seeing as the unofficial but common factor revolving most premiums is that they have some sort of "Quirk' that distinguishes themselves from tech tree options. The Atago is regarded by many, and I think rightfully so, to be the Queen of T8 Cruisers, beating out even the Mikhail Kutuzov in terms of sheer versatility and power. The fact that she has a heal has contributed greatly to her rise, and now that Takao is fielded with heal and will likely be the second-best option for T8 Cruisers, it seems that other options will be regarded even less. With Takao's release, is it possible that T8 Cruisers will see an array of changes in the near future, if the data for Takao suggests there is a need? I have heard players complain about the general status of T8 Cruisers and how they may need heal to be able to compete within their own tier - will heal ever come to all T8 Cruisers, even in a reduced state? TL;DR - Takao was released, apparently with heal. Atago is regarded as the best T8 CA. Takao will likely be second best as an Atago clone. Will this possibly cause a series of re-balancing tweaks for T8 CAs, which is widely regarded as dominated by the Atago?

Hello, and you're welcome.

Actually, Atago is very good, but currently it is not the best T8 cruiser, if we look at average damage, frag and win rate. However, average server stats often differ from personal experience (obviously).

So, yes, we released ARP Takao, she is a very good ship (which is easy to obtain), but, judging by current meta and overall background, we don't have any global re-balancing plan. We buffed cruisers with rudder mod slighly. We are also buffing New Orleans and Mogami in 0.5.13. We will keep an eye for underperforming ships, so more local changes may be done in future. But as for global changes, we would like to avoid them for now: they are quite stressful for players and are not needed currently.

I feel like the communication between WG EU, Asia/Sea and NA is severely lacking and community efforts are mostly on the side of WG NA. Are there any plans to uniform this? During the launch of WoWS I saw huge improvements or at least the drive to change this but we are back to "everyone does their own thing" and it is rather... annoying to say the least. Two examples: 1. Some time ago there was a WoWS Stream from WG NA where they said "give me your username and we get you something nice" - as I am playing on the EU server... I never heard back from them 2. The ARP Missions, SEA and NA have more diversified missions while EU... "get 1 Mio dmg, then get 2k shell hits, then get 2 mio dmg and after that another 3k shell hits" In general it seems that WG EU keeps making events that are catered to the more hardcore players...

Hi. There's special local team for each region that determines regional strategy and priorities, having the best knowledge about respective playerbase. A this moment I can only communicate your feedback to relevant teams.

I am sorry for not being helpful here, but I focus on game developement rather than service, please keep that in mind while you going through my Q&A.

Thanks again for taking the time for the Q&As. My question would be:

  • Would WG give us details about the WoWs replay format?

This post by Aerroon made me think that it would be great to have a community made replay player that can show the match without loading the game. I am thinking about a map-like view display with ship positions as a start but basically step by step include all data of the replay. I know I'd try my luck with making an opensource replay viewer. Having data about each game tick with the position and data of all objects would be awesome. The match setup header in XML is already somewhat readable, but the actual replay data is (I guess) compressed and/or encrypted. Wouldn't this be a win-win for WG and the players? edit: pros/cons of a community made replay viewer: cons:

  • no shiny ingame graphics/sounds


  • open source, most likely github project
  • it's no mod and beside the file format in no way connected to WoWs
  • downward compatibility could be possible, you could watch old replays
  • possible to add in lots of additional info about each ship's status
  • maybe possible to recreate end stat screen from match data
  • once the replay format is known, it is like a goldmine for statistics (how often have I sunk <user xyz>? for example). You could track your own stuff better than any current 3rd party stat site currently can do.

You are welcome!

Your idea is very appealing. However, we currently do not have API solution capable of what you're talking about. And we do not thing it's reasonable to develop it. There are two reasons:

  1. We are working on replay player already, and we believe it should be in vanilla client. Roughly speaking, most features you want are already planned for it (although, I cannot share details yet).
  2. We have very intense workload now, and if we plan what you're asking, that would be done after we develop vanilla player (which won't make much sense).

Because of that two reasons, we are going to stick with our current plan and develop our own player.

Thank you for your input!


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  1. Can you please introduce some mid-to-high-tier Japanese premiums? I know that Atago is a great ship, but I have my reasons for not wanting to buy it. I have been waiting for a Japanese premium at T6 or T7 for more than a year now and there still isn't any. And the only T8 to choose from is Atago. The only destroyer premiums we have are Minekaze clones which aren't sold and poison the lower tiers and the only battleship premium is the T4 Ishizuchi. I don't understand why the range of Japanese premiums is so incredibly poor.
  2. Can you explain how you choose which shells to use? You chose WW2 coastal artillery shells for Kaiser/König (the L4,9 shells) and for Yorck's HE, so their ballistics are really amazing. But you didn't give (for example!) South Carolina its upgraded shells, so it uses those old 4crh pre-WW1 shells with horrible ballistics.
  3. Can you explain why Yamato has so much better drag on its shells compared to other Type 91 shells? It's possible that you used the Type 1 as a reference instead which had a longer ballistic cap, but the difference shouldn't be as large as it is in the game.
  4. What happened when you developed the Type 92 torpedo? As far as I can tell, someone looked up the wrong torpedo and used stats from the Type 95 oxygen torpedo instead. There is no other way to reach that 68kn speed setting (I have accounted for how the game converts historical speeds).
  5. Why does the Type 93 mod. 3 have such "low" damage? I know it has the highest damage of any torpedo in the game, but the warhead is enormously huge. The damage should be even higher to be consistent with other Type 93 torpedoes.
  1. We can, and we will do it. Obviously, there's a gap that needs to be filled, so it will be filled in the future. There's no specific reason for that gap, it was more the matter of finding the right ships for the role and finding enough reference to create them in game.
  2. Initially we find as much matching shells as we can. Then, we choose the exact model according to balance needs. In most cases, that would be the newest model.
  3. Because this is YAMATOOO for Poseidon sake..ok, sorry, I make terrible jokes. The reason is shell weight. 460 mm shell weighs approx. 1460 kg, and 410 mm - approx. 1020 kg. Roughly speaking, the difference is around 40%. Then, we need to account for gun barrel specs - it influences angular rotation, which impacts air resistance (larger angular rotation -> larger projectile surface ->larger air resistance ->worse ballistics).
  4. You're right with this question. This inconsistency is quite old (from Beta), and was caused by balance needs. In one of the future updates Type 92 model will be removed from DD branch.
  5. Torpedo damage is calculated by our own formula, where main parameter is IRL amount of explosive. When all torpedoes are determined by that unified formula, we have better balanced stats and more systematic approach, but can have some deviations from IRL logic (which is OK for a game).

Ooo, thought of another question. Why is premium time included in the average XP calculation, even at the API level? Base XP is used as a metric on how well or poorly someone has done in a round, but that is not what is reported.

Our API utilizes the same approach as in WoT. We believe that real metrics you are looking for are average player tier, average damage and win rate. AFAIK, established user ratings in WoT do not use XP at all.

Is there any particular reason why the Mark 15 torpedoes used on Benson have a detection range of just 1.1 km? It doesn't seem to make sense from either a game balance or a historical perspective. The Mark 15 torpedo was not like the Type 93 (which used Oxygen). Also, the Benson gets an excellent torpedo density with the 5x2 launcher system, meaning that with the 1.1 km detection, the torpedoes are incredibly hard to spot. Benson already does everything better than its IJN same-tier counterpart, so I do not know why it needs to have better torpedo capabilities.

 Yes, the main reason is 55 kt spped (and the speed skill can tweak it, but you also need Superintendent on Benson). Overall, if we compare them with Fubuki Type 93 mod.2, Mark 15 DR won't seem that important:

  • Range: 9.2 km (6.4 km ship DR) - 8 km (5.5 km DR). I'd call it a draw;
  • Damage: 16663 - 20967;
  • RL: 109,8 s (with torp skill, whis is not so popular on this ship) - 81 s (and here, this skill is widespread);
  • Loadout: 2x5 vs 3x3 - IMO, 3x3 is more versatile.

So the decision on DR was made so that Benson torps would not look too pale.

You should realize that the main Benson feature is  flexibility, but it loses in particular profiles. We believe each of T VIII DD has its pros and cons, and thay are decently balanced agains each other.

This is just a question of curiosity but why does the Leningrad have a single piece of German AA in the form of a double 37mm on the stern of the ship?

Ah, the history part!

So the initial armament was 5-130/50-mm B-13, 2-76/550-mm 34K, 2-45-mm 21K.

In 1941-42 she received 76/55-mm twin 81K from Marat battleship.

In 1944 45-mm 21K were removed, and she received 4-37-mm 70K and 1x2-37-mm C-30 (German SKC/30 on Dopp LC-30 mount).

So, it is historically accurate. Magic!

Thanks for this Q&A. When I use my CV I would really like to see the ship names on the tactical map, not the names of the player. Do you plan to add this option to the game? Or maybe I´m just a noob and to blind to find this setting?

 You are welcome! Your vision is fine - there's no such feature now. But it will be added in one of the future updates.

 I have a question regarding rank season The Current Tiering for this reason is fantastic, it has very good balanced ships in both Tiers 6-8, my question is for those players who get left behind at rank 15 and unable to progress due to not having a tier 8 ship, How easy would be to implement a bracket system for Tier 6 players to progress past rank 15 and onwards to Rank 1 but with lower rewards, for example Once a player reaches rank 15, Players can choose to split off either into the Tier 6 bracket or Tier 8 bracket, once they rank up to 14 they are unable to go back and choose T8, and must continue onwards

It's a good idea! Unfortunately, we cannot implement it technically right now - we would have to reduce the number of seasons per year in this case. However, we are planning experimental unscheduled season, which, I hope, you will like. Of course, I cannot tell you the details right now. Again, your idea is really interesting, and we will keep it just in case. Thank you!

Thanks for answering my CV questions. How can a player get involved with the devs in terms of balancing out the CV ?

 You are welcome. I believe it's good to raise such questions here and/or on your regional forums. Popular and discussed ideas naturally come to greater attention.

Since before last ranked season you guys worked out and implemented a new reward system that takes into account the performance of multiple seasons (jolly roger token+flint). Good job on that by the way. My question is if you can give some information on the future of this feature; not necessarily revealing any specifics. Like, will there be a new ship reward for season 6? If yes, will it replace flint or will they run simultaneously (the new ship only being available to those who already have flint+new JRs?). Any answer in any capacity you are allowed to share is appreciated


We are not going to replace Flint now, we like the system and are not against introducing more rewards in the future. But this is all I can say for now.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello guys! I hope you are pleased with 0.5.13 version, and I hope you will have fun on week-end. Let's see the  top Q&A for this week!


Round 3 answers


Hi, again thank you for those Q&As. I played a lot of games, and community interaction of this kind and quality is quite rare. Keep up the good work. My question would be: What is WGs general idea of the role of the carrier? Should it be a support ship, providing sight for the team? Should it provide burst dps, assassinating enemy ships with great alpha strikes? Or should it be a DoT class, slowly burnind down enemy ships with fire/flooding dots?

Hello, and you are welcome. Our vision: versatile ship that can play support or damage dealer role. For extremely team-oriented and conscious players. Quite different (obviously) experience for more strategic gameplay.

Thanks again for another Q&A. My question is: Could we eventually get a C hull for the Pensacola cruiser. Her sister ship got a redesigned radar and reduced mast height which would significantly reduce her detection range due to in game detection working of the highest point of the ship. She also received some more AA mounts in the refit. This wouldn't make the Pensacola OP, it would however prevent it from being spotted before the rest of the team.

Hi, thank you for reading it! Currently there's no immediate plan to buff Pensacola directly. Even if we were working on it right now, re-modeling the hull would not be cost-efficient way of doing it. Yes, she's not the easiest ship, she is more skill-dependent than others. But it is OK to have such ships in game. Her main problem is the same as Furutaka - she is the first 203 mm gun cruiser in line. She offers gameplay quite different from Cleveland, and requires different approach.

For CVs You noted raising points on the forum, however given the extreme lack of information on what you have in mind for CVs could you clarify what your timeline is on the overhaul you've been talking about for ages? What their ideal role is for you? And what level of player activity you want them to have?

I elaborated on our overall CV vision above a bit. As for timeline - I do realize this is an important topic, but I cannot provide you with any dates or promises. We're on it, it won't happen fast - this is it for now.

Question: what is the dev team's stance on the 155mm Mogami? we have heard before that you think it was a mistake including it, and that players should use the 203mm option instead because that is the progression of this ship. Many players think the 155mm makes Mogami unique in the IJN cruiser line because of the different playstyle, and many believe that with the 203mm guns, Mogami is just a worse Atago in every single way (I know, it is subjective view and all). When I read that devs like a logical progression of gun caliber across the tiers, I am afraid that one day I might see these guns removed from Mogami. Which guns does the majority of players use? Do you have separate statistics for both guns to determine how each is balanced to the game? In your opinion, what is the defining feature, the strength of Mogami that makes her stand out among tier 8 cruisers? (for example, it's the long range and radar for Chapayev, the strong AP, range and Strong hydro for Hipper).

We're not going to remove it - there are no such plans. The majority (but not overwhelming) uses 155 mm. Yes, we gather separate stats in this case. The strength is very good protection and also what you defined - two calibers to chose from.

Some time ago Q stated the German destroyers were in the works and you were trying to get them out by the end of the year. If this happens, that will make five new lines this year (Soviet cruisers, German battleships, Royal Navy cruisers, second IJN DD branch, and German destroyers). How many lines are being considered for next year? Are any new nations (i.e. no regular ships, just premiums if anything) are planned for next year? As a side note, while I know you can't give us a name, are you more excited by a upcoming premium or regular ship for next year?

I am truly sorry, but I cannot tell you the number of ship lines or premium ships planned. I can say "yes" for new nations appearing in the game. As for my personal expectations - I make no difference between regular and premiums as a player. There are a couple of ships upcoming I am extremely hyped about. My collection will grow both in 2016 and in 2017 - that's for sure.

Sorry for my community-team related question last time. Something that comes up quite regularly, Carriers - I enjoy playing them until tier 6 after that it just gets really ugly with all the AA around. But the biggest problem I have is the matchmaking related to carriers. With the ryujo I can "easily" deal over 100k dmg when I am in a T6 match, even up to 180k if I am in a t5 to t6 match but if I am in a t7 to t8 match this drops down to 30-50k dmg. All this with a somewhat terrible enemy carrier. So my question would be: Are there any plans for a tighter carrier MM? so max 1 tier difference? I think this would even make it easier to balance them around this, as currently, CVs need to be somewhat able to perform (in case of the Ryujo) even at T8 making them ridiculous at t5. Another Question for general Matchmaking: have you ever considered to enforce a "meta"? A few month ago cruisers were in a terrible spot so they got some buffs making them really strong and battleship players were complaining - now cruisers are once again in a terrible spot because of the abundance of battleships. Wouldn't it be easier to just say "each match should have 1 Carrier, 3 Battleships, 5 Cruisers and 3 Destroyers per team"? I especially hate to play against 2 carriers or 5 destroyers... it's no fun ;-)

No need to be sorry - I just want to be helpful, so I thought it's a good idea to define my area of knowledge. Your suggestion about CV MM is definitely worth considering - and it's being considered while discussing possible CV changes. As for "enforced meta" the answer is no, and I don't see why it can change, unfortunately. There are several major problems in balancing the game meta with matchmaker, including absolute mess in competitive play and lots of problems with MM queue. So this will not happen.

Has there been any thought about allowing dive bombers who have dropped their bombs to engage other aircraft like fighters (sans the ability to strafe)?

 Yes, and there's not plan to introduce such feature. We would like to keep the squadrons specialized.

Hi there!. Wondering what does WG think of flooding having multiple locations similar to fires. For example, halving flooding damage but doubling the flooding areas. This can complement IJN DDs torpedoes having a greater flooding probability which can potentially lead to better overall performance for them since they are currently suffering against their peers.

We think this is not necessary and this will not contribute to the game in good way. IJN torps flooding chance is already profitable when there's anti torpedo protection on the ship.

What is the likelyhood of WG reconsidering a buff for Mikasa? I have suggested elsewhere that simply giving her Aiming Systems Mod 0 would be enough to make her competitive.

It would make her OP. -40% to dispersion is a tremendous buff for any BB. We are not planning to buff her anyways. She's unique and cannot be compared to other BBs for obvious reasons, but among other tier II ships she looks absolutely fine in terms of stats. As for her gameplay - it is quite specific, and will remain such.

With the IJN DD split happening soon, would this open up the ability to add more line splits in the future making the tech tree more like the one in WoT?

Sure, this is absolutely possible. However, new lines are also coming, and I cannot tell you when we will do next split.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heya, is it possible that something like Harekaze (Kagero DD with american Mk. 16 guns mounted) or similarly and with actual historical significance Yukikaze could become a premium ship or do you have some sort of policy in place that forbids ships with funky armaments.

We don't have any kind of policy prohibiting such premium ships. So, theoretically we can see such ships in the future.

Something that I brought up last year on the CV forums, had a decent discussion about it. With the recent CV changes, and your observation on the lack of a CV "Middle class", has the team ever considered a re-supply mechanic for aircraft? Carriers would be easier to learn and more fun to play if there was a way to replenish aircraft. The way it stands, especially in the lower tiers (where people are just learning to play and love/hate CVs), all it takes is one mistake, getting hit by one strafing run or AA defense skill, to turn the rest of the battle into a disaster as more than half of your aircraft are gone, permanently. No matter how careful you are, the best players will usually lose at least some aircraft on an attack run (Especially if their opposing CV is using AA loadout), and by the middle of the battle, one side usually has almost complete air superiority while the only course of action for the other carrier is "Ramming speed". No other ship has this limitation (save several unlucky "turret destroyed" hits), where they can be made a floating paperweight due to a split second decision. Even if you make the wrong choice and get torped to the bottom, you can at least then move onto the next battle in a different ship. With a CV, empty on aircraft means just sitting, watching. Yes, you have secondaries....but lets be honest, who lets a CV get that close to them? Thoughts?

Yes, we did consider such mechanics in the very beginning. Currently, there is no plans to implement it. That doesn't mean we're absolutely against it, though.

Noteas CV changes are mostly in design / internal discussion, I will skip such questions in the future. I don't like evading questions or giving vague answers, but in this situation it's impossible to inform you folks better. As soon as we have some solid concept, we will implement it. As soon as we're ready, you will see it during PT. You are very welcome with your suggestions, though. I always gather ideas and send them to the team. But answering "we are working on it" each time is not very helpful, while this answer is true.

Will we see the return of Jet Fighters and other special planes like that? Would be a nice change from the repeats of planes some CV currently have as well as being something awesome to use and watch.

We may see them again, theoretically. But they were removed for balance purposes, please bear that in mind. We could re-work their stats, making them very close to piston-engined aircraft, but felt it was not the right thing to do.

So I started watching Star Trek TNG recently, and Captain Picard et al has a gold model of the WW2 carrier USS Enterprise hanging on a wall. How can a 30 year old show have Enterprise but World of Warships not?!

So I played wonderful Mass Effect game some time ago, and I clearly remember Commander Shepard keeping the Space Hamster in his quarters (let alone the beautiful women and colourful bowl fish). How can an award-winning game have Space Hamster, but your post not?

Eh..I don't know why I'm saying this, but this is the only resposne I could create without breaking NDA. Sorry.

As always, thank you for your time in answering our questions!! I would like to ask if it is possible to add another consumable spot for Cruisers in general to increase their flexibility in battles especially at support roles since at the moment you can only pick between Defensive AA and Hydro-acoustic in one slot and having them in different consumable spots I believe would help Cruisers greatly..

You are always welcome. It may be possible, we considered such option. And we did not leave it. But I hope you will understand if I don't promise anything on that. It is not in the plan for next few updates, and I'd rather not speak about something that is not determined enough.

Thank you for reading, and have a nice day! :izmena:


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Round 4 answers


Thanks for doing your usual Q&A. Question for you:


HE was removed from RN CLs because apparently devs and feedback was they didn't like invisible flamethrowers. Historically RN CLs carried both HE and CPBC. If fire was the issue, then why wasn't HE implemented with a 0% fire chance or even 1-2% fire chance. This could have still made them viable against angled targets which make the "special" AP useless but still make the AP much better to use when the enemy ship moved back into a suitable angle. At this time a RN cruiser has no means to force a ship to turn broadside and thus the gimmick of the special AP is rendered pretty useless. Torpedoes on RN CL are neither long enough range or viable due to the fact getting to a suitable range for them to be effective is basically sucide. Is this going to be addressed, as if the enemy has more BBs left over mid to late game and your team has less BBs but more RN CLs its effectively a auto win for the enemy team since the enemy BBs can just angle and delete the RN CLs one after another. I and others are not asking for RN cruisers to be overpowered, just viable, which means conforming to the current meta and actually having HE on a cruiser, even if its a 0% chance to set a fire HE round put on RN CLs.

Hello. You are welcome!

With RN CLs we would like to introduce gameplay different from other CLs. No line could be released without later adjustments, but for now, we consider the new ships viable. They don't need fully broadside target; if main armor penetration is not possible, they can deal decent damage to superstructure. We also don't think their torpedoes are obsolete. On the contrary, it is safe to say they have important place in RN CLs offensive capabilities. According to last week stats, RN CL deal significantly more torpedo damage than other cruisers with torpedoes, while having one of the best average total damage stats.

They also have good maneuvrability and, of course, smoke screen - fighting BB solo is not a good idea, but they can evade it. So, answering your suggestion - no, we are not going to make global changes to these ships right now, and not going to add HE shells for them. We will monitor their performance carefully, especially when the audience is stable (right now, low tiers are overpopulated, and high level British cruisers are mostly hardcore players or free xp users). If there are problems with these ships, we will solve them.


Why have you made the first line of one of the most important, effective and anticipated navies in the world into a gimmicky, ineffective and difficult to play group of vessels, with the lower tier (2-6) ships especially being downright awful, and completely outclassed by same or even lower tier ships of other nations? Do you plan to do anything to correct this?


Furthermore, how can you justify making a premium ship, Belfast, clearly so much superior to her tech tree counterparts? Finally, why do the Russian cruiser guns of the same 152mm calibre so vastly outperform those you have given the British, especially in terms of shell travel time? (not even to mention the fire chance they can use)


Thank you.

They may be difficult to play, but with all respect to your game experience, I cannot agree with "ineffective" or "awful". For now they look quite good. Probably RN battleships would make more easy-to-play line, but we wanted to refresh cruiser class and at the same time, cruisers are less expensive in terms of production (I mean both development and IRL reference available) - we would not be able to introduce RN BBs that soon, for example. However, other RN lines are being developed gradually, so they are coming, too.

As I said above, we're planning to do exactly what we do with other lines - to monitor their performance closely and tweak the ships that turn out to be too weak (or nerf the ships that turn out to be OP). Right now, there is no such indication.

Belfast has no torpedoes and no heal. But she has HE shells. Thus, she offers more habitual cruiser experience, which is not bad.

In terms of shell travel time Russian cruiser guns preformed better IRL, according to our sources. If that would have negative effect on game balance, we would give up historical accuracy (gameplay is more important, for sure). But this is not the case.

You are welcome, and I really hope you will have positive experience with the line when you get accustomed to it.



I'll probably go ahead and address the elephant in the current room... Royal Navy Cruisers. What is your (personal) opinion on them, and what do the (preliminary) numbers say about their competitiveness compared to the others ships, divided across the tiers (Tier 1-3, Tier 4-6, Tier 7-10)? I got as far as them being "highly situational ships that can absolutely wreck in the right situations, and can be absolutely wrecked in the wrong ones, and they have a quite steep learning curve combined with them not being "fit for the masses" by having a very peculiar playstyle"


Oh, and thanks again for your time and effort you invest in this Q&A. Stuff like this should not be taken for granted by everybody, it's very generous of you!

Okay, my personal opinion is actually similar to yours. I had both extremely rewarding and extremely unlucky battles during production tests. After release, I advanced to Edinburgh, using free XP I stored in advance. In current ranked season, I was more stable with Atago and Bismarck so far. On the other hand, two my colleagues set their personal records on Endinburgh and Minotaur. And I enjoy the gameplay, which really forces to be super aware of the situation around. These ships are fun to play, in my opinion.

Current stats for all tiers look quite good. However, we should remember that it is too early to make solid judgments on server stats because they are not established yet - it will require more time.

You are welcome. It is also very pleasant experience for me. Have good time!


I have two questions I would like to pose to you today. This post will be for question 1.


Question 1: A hidden stat that is found on roughly 75% of all the ships currently available in the game is the chance of causing flooding on a successful torpedo impact. For some ships flooding is seen as an added bonus to the damage done (think RU cruisers who will only really use torpedoes in an emergency situation), while for others the flooding caused contributes a significant portion of the average damage done during battle (some destroyers, all carriers). Is there maybe a consideration to show the chance of causing flooding on torpedo hit in the client, similarly to the way the fire chance is currently displayed for the HE ammunition for all surface-combat ships (except the RN CLs)?


Thanks for the time and effort you put into answering these questions.

Thank you for minding the rules. Very nice of you.

It's not like we are hiding this stat. Problem is, we don't want to add information which is not usable to general audience. As you know, anti-torpedo protection can reduce flooding chance greatly (if torpedo hits it). So having "100% flooding chance" in port will not necessarily mean 100% chance in battle. I think even with fire chance, the situation is not perfect, as each ships has fire protection value, which multiplies with fire protection bonuses (from modernizations and skills). And this value then multiplies with shell fire chance each time it hits the ship. I believe we have to find smart way of showing such aspects in client first. Otherwise, we will cause confusion for people who just played by instinct and were fine with it.

Thank you too, for reading and for good question.


I will feel ready bad about pressing the issue about this ship, but let me say thank you for listening to the feedback on this very Q&A which resulted in a buff for 3 of some of the oldest cruisers in the game, and it came very fast as well. I can already say that I did enjoy playing Mogami again with the 203mm and I had some very fun games with it after the buff.


Since you mentioned that no plans to split the 2 guns Mogami, will the issue regarding the penalty after firing the guns be addressed? As it stands right now, the penalty is tied to the hulls, not the guns. So if you use 155mm on C hull, you will get the same penalty as 203mm guns. Are there plans to address this issue?

You did absolutely right thing when pushed the issue to my attention. Balancing huge pool of ships may be very complex, as there are numerous stats and aspects to consider. You and players like you help us to make the game better for everyone. So you should be feeling good about it.

I am afraid to disappoint you on your current question, though. We of course know about this issue (Bogatyr also has it, as she has 2 calibers). But it cannot be changed quickly (technical reasons). And, as it is not a serious issue (from general point of view), we cannot allocate resources to it now. So, penalty will remain the same on Mogami and Bogatyr - based on the highest caliber available. When we have time for major mechanics rework or more reasons, we will address it.


"Her main problem is the same as Furutaka - she is the first 203 mm gun cruiser in line."


I respectfully and vehemently disagree. It's not the guns or the playstyle but the utterly ridiculous detection range. She'll always be the first spotted and therefore the first fired upon. In addition, she'll continue to be spotted as her allies cease firing and become undetected. This means she'll face the anger of every ship in sight far longer than the rest of her team.


For a ship as fragile as the Pensacola, this is unacceptable. Why is it that you can buff the detection range of British cruisers for the exact same reasons you ignore in the Pensacola? When British cruisers had massive detection ranges they were reportedly getting swatted left, right and center, because their citadels were so weakly protected. Why is the Pensacola not given the same regard and consideration? Apparently, it's doing so poorly it isn't even on the first page of stats . . .

I got your point. I will see what we can do, but I doubt we will be able to change anything before 2017. P.S. English is not my native language, but I doubt you can disagree both respectfully and vehemently. But I may be mistaken, of course:)


Hey there! Thank you for implementing so many great mods into the game like smoke screen boundaries or the transparent minimap.


Can we expect you guys to add shipnames on the minimap like in one famous mod? It's incredibly usefull.

Helloes! You are welcome.

Unfortunately, we were not able to add ship names to minimap smoothly yet. The mod is useful, but in terms of UI consistency and visuals we cannot accept this solution. Too many overlaying information, too messy for vanilla client. Although, it is probably very good for hardcore players.

On a brighter note, we will add ship names to tactical map ([M] by default), hopefully, in 0.5.14.



For me and I can imagine a few other players, the RN cruiser grind is utter hell at the moment. Tier's III, IV and V are basically all obsolete compared to their counterparts.


For example, Leander (Tier VI) is the contemporary of all other Tier V ships such as Kirov, Konigsberg and Furutaka. Only Omaha, a ship left behind by the meta is comparable and even she has a much better armament than Emerald with it's laughable single mounts strewn around the ship.


My question is, could Leander be bumped down into Tier V, Emerald removed entirely and something like the Dido class cruiser take Leander's place at Tier VI?

No, she could not, and will not be moved. There is no solid arguments for such change currently.

Dido class may have some appearance in World of Warships later, though.


Do you think a lot of mid-high tier maps are too...empty or was it the design rule of WG? I mean, there are a large portion of the map that has completely nothing - no island, no cap and therefore provides no strategic value to the match except acting as the space for long range snipers to camp. For example, I think you can completely remove the nearest 2 horizontal lines from the northern and southern border on North, Hotspot, Shatter, Two Brothers, etc...then move the spawn to right at the borders and the gameplay would stay largely the same as it is now. Imo a good map should be like Trident (minus the close spawn in ranked) or New Dawn, where you have islands cover across the whole map and have room for both teamwork and 1vs1 plays. A further compliment to you guys on the work of Trident: the map feels really close to the 36x36km maps at tier 4-6, despite its much bigger true size of 48x48 - I always see and enjoy a lot more of close distance fight on this single map than any other 48x48 maps.

We always seek to create maps which would be exciting for all ship types. At the moment we only use "square type" maps. So, speaking about your example with North: if we remove some area you are talking about, we will also need to remove something from left and right side of the map. This is not a viable idea, since we have Domination game mode with 4 capture points, and we definately need some space around control points.

We also have completely different classes in our game, and some of them have very good visibility (like CVs and BBs). CVs always need some space, because if they got spotted by the enemy, they can retreat and hide again. By the way, Okinawa map has less space than North map (42 square km) but feels almost the same in terms of gameplay area. We tried to use diagonal control points arrangement there, and we really like this idea since players better use map corners and don't have much chance to go far from active gameplay area. For the maps like Trident we added some islands to the top and bottom bacasue the map itself is quite open in the middle and these islands can be used to survive / hide, depending on situation. Going back to the North map, it has more territory in the middle. No need to add more islands there in our opinion.

Cheers, and thanks for interesting question.


This is not meant as snark, I am genuinely curious about the decision making process - why is it ok for premium cruisers to have the smoke and HE combination but not regular tech tree ships, and why was it decided to have the RN tech ships with more 'quirky' gameplay than the premiums, when generally premiums are the ships that deviate more from core gameplay?

There is no rule for premiums to "deviate". There is no rule for line ships to be "average". They can offer unique experience, or they can be simple workhorses. With the huge pool of both researchable and premium ships, we are working to achieve diversity. There is nothing bad in having a line with unique gameplay, if this line can be viable with right tactics.


Hi there WG,


What's the deal with the RN cruisers? The Royal navy throughout history had always above all else, been known for their versatility, however the absence of HE completely ignores this fact.


I do barely ANY damage to ships once they angle, yeah I can aim for superstructure with my AP but for what? 500-700 damage... per salvo? Battleships... Laugh at me, nothing more then XP fodder to them. Destroyers... This line of ships were supposed to be the ultimate DD hunters, nope. The idea of implementing AP only light cruisers in a BB/DD heavy is not good. However I do say you have done a great job with the Belfast, very good ship, playing it felt like this is what RN cruisers were meant to be, although that does present a problem of it's own in the fact that the only way to get a good British cruiser at this time is to spend money, enforcing the "Pay to win" argument a little bit more.


Thank you for taking the time to read my question. I appreciate that I may appear annoyed But I know you are a good developer and that you listen to your players.


I elaborated both on Belfast and British cruisers in several replies above. Frankly speaking, there is nothing I can add at the moment, so let's summarize:

  1. For now, the line looks good in terms of stats (all tiers), however, we will keep monitoring it, because right now it is too early to make solid judgments.

  2. The new line offers unique gameplay, which requires new approach, and we don't consider it bad decision. On the contrary, we wanted to introduce something new to cruiser class.

  3. We don't think Belfast is pay to win. She has no torpedoes and no heal, which balances her merits. Of course she has potential to wreak havoc, but she does not seem to be OP.

  4. Even if you strongly believe that Belfast is p2w and line British CLs are bad, you can choose among many other lines, which you think are better. There is nothing wrong in playing for free in f2p/f2w game. There is nothing wrong in finding the right ship line for you, when there is vast choice.



Like many players I have a very beefy pc I play on and would love support for more ultra graphics settings without having to use nvidia inspector to override the games native settings. Common adjustments are these kind of SGSAA settings Which make the ships look miles better, render the ropes/wires better and I can look at my pretty new belfast in port without seeing jagged lines everywhere. It does have a couple of issues on some maps with shaders but otherwise works great. It does shift my gpu to 60c when running all this in battle but copes with it fine.

Hello. We do realize that the game can use technical buff for better visuals. We plan to enable MSAA (2/4/8) in 0.5.14 update. Wires and ropes will require additional model rework to be neat, though. Hopefully, we will start this rework in 0.5.14 too and will re-export all ships models gradually. As for 2017, we are working on DX11 support (which will allow us to improve visuals further on) and major FX update. So, I believe there will be some useful load for your PC and you will enjoy better looks in World of Warships in the near future.


As always thank you for answering! :) My question is: Now Moskva has the largest caliber(220mm) in 'world of cruisers', Can we see bigger main gun in future?(Like Deutschland's 11" guns or 10" guns of Ansaldo large cruiser design for Soviet navy)


Is it under NDA? :(

You are welcome!

Yes, we can, and most likely, we will. It is under NDA, so don't tell anyone;)


at the moment torpedoes are kind of in a bad spot and it seems to happen often that even something like a BB is capable of completely avoiding torpedoes after it spots them (with no previous indication there where fishes in the water) this is due to the incredibly large detection range on esp japanese destroyers, are there any chance we might get a commander skill or module that decreases the range at which torpedoes are spotted to make torpedoes a bit more likely to hit? (and kind of as a counter to the vigilance and other torp detection bonuses).

There is very little, almost zero chance. Talking about IJN destroyers and especially Shimakaze, I don't recommend using long lance torpedoes, as they are too specific after the nerf. And other available models are more then viable and efficient.


Dear Sub_Octavian. I have a suggestion. Would you buff the American Cruises’ secondary armament so that they can get an improved close combat ability? Only few American Cruises have torpedoes and their naval guns are not enough as well. I think improving their secondary armament will successfully fill the gap. What if your team reduce 127 mm/38’s reload time to 3.3~4 seconds and increase its maximum firing range by 6~7km? How does that sound?

Hello, dear zkuzku. That does not sound like immediate plan either to me or to Game Design Balance team. However, we will consider it. Thank you for the idea.

Round 5 starts!

Thank you for reading and have a nice week-end :honoring:



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.