Jump to content


  • Content Сount

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

80 Rising Star

About Sub_Octavian

  • Rank
    Lieutenant (junior grade)
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

3,048 profile views
  1. Dear players, Following your feedback and test results, we decided to stop live testing of Giulio Cesare at tier VI and abandon the initiative to individually re-balance premium ships, which were purchased in or directly marketed through our Premium store. Here is the reasoning: While many of you did support the idea of promoting more balance and fair play, most of you were not willing to support this if it means making changes to purchased premium ships. Many of you let us know that the perfect balance in each ship group is not as critical for you as we assumed; however, the confidence that the stats of purchased premium ships are not to be nerfed is much more important. It was not the only opinion voiced, but it was the most frequent in all discussions on all platforms. According to the majority of your opinions, having several over performing premium ships in the game is not an issue for you, given the fact that they are not sold directly and that they can be countered under the right circumstances; Testing Giulio Cesare on tier VI has shown that it can indeed be a balanced tier VI battleship, however, her gameplay experience changed dramatically. The same is true for alternative rebalance options (e.g. nerf on tier V). As the proposed initiative was based on community feedback, and achieving absolutely perfect balance in each ship group is not a purpose in itself (and it is not really possible anyway, because ships have vastly different play styles, pros and cons, and players have vastly different skill levels), we decided to cancel it. There are not many ships like Giulio Cesare in the game, and most of them are quite old; our balancing process has significantly improved since release, and there is no indication that we will have many such ships in the game. However, if they do appear, we will take appropriate action. For example, as we do now, stop direct sales and limit their distribution to very special occasions, so that their presence in battles is minimal. Despite the fact that we never had a rule which stated "premium ships are not nerfed individually", we indeed did not do it before and we understand why many of you assumed that there is such a rule. It should be noted that even the ships purchased in or marketed through Premium store are a part of a big game we all play. That means our decision does not isolate any ship from systematic changes applied to a group of ships on common basis or to the whole game. For example, a change to the Radar mechanics affects all ships equipped with Radar, a Smoke mechanics change affects all ships with smoke, etc. We sincerely thank you for your opinions and feedback. Good luck and fair seas!
  2. Sub_Octavian

    Unlimited planes needs to change

    Dear UltimaBasti, with all due respect, "unlimited planes" and "CV do not care about the losses" seems like a myth mostly supported by those who did not try CV after rework. From my personal CV experience and general observations, while technically the planes ARE unlimited, if you take heavy losses, you either start using sub-optimal squadrons, or fly out with incomplete number of planes, or both. And this really reduces your combat efficiency, like, a lot. I don't think I know a single CV player who does not care about plane losses. And we don't have any plans to change the current plane reserves mechanics, because it works like it should - as long as you live, you can fight, but if you take plane losses, your ability to fight suffers. That's fair IMO.
  3. Sub_Octavian

    New AA mechanics explained

    Hello everyone! Update 0.8.0 has been released recently, and of course there are a lot of questions, specifically about the new anti-air defense mechanic. In this article we're going to discuss all details about 0.8.0 AA - how it works, how it interacts with commander skills and upgrades, and everything else. Please note that the CV rework introduced in 0.8.0 will undergo a lot of tweaking and balancing, so the information here may get outdated at some point by subsequent changes. How it used to be pre-0.8.0 In brief, planes got shot down with a certain probability (dependent on AA potential), and the planes, in fact, did not have effective individual hit points. At the same time, AA mounts did not have minimal range, so AA generally grew a lot stronger closer to the ship. It caused two issues: Probability-based and erratic plane destruction used to create too much RNG - sometimes squadrons got wiped out in a moment, sometimes AA seemed to have zero effect; Lack of minimal firing range interrupted with creating proper AA support specs, so that the ships could cover their allies properly, but would not be invulnerable at closer range; How it works now 1.Each plane has individual hit points. If a planes 'dips' into AA range, it will be damaged according to the respective AA strength, and the damage will be recorded (so it will be easier to shoot down later) indicated by the green/yellow/red HP bars. 2.Each AA group has a minimum range now, so short, medium and long range AA on one ship do not overlap, which gives much more options for balancing the AA in general and gives a lot of potential for AA variety. For example, let's look at Baltimore AA. Close range is 0,1-1,5 km, medium is 1,5-3,5, long range covers 3,5-5,8 km. 3. Now there is "hit chance" parameter for AA. It allows for a better fine tuning of AA mounts per class and tier - usually it is higher for more modern ships, which represents more modern AA fire control systems. Hit chance affects flak bursts and constant DPS. 4. AA damage is dealt in two ways now: Constant DPS in the respective AA range. The damage dealt is DPS multiplied with Hit chance, so, if you have 100 DPS and 70% hit chance, you will deal 70 damage per second. This damage is being dealt to each squadron in the AA range (and it's not being spread - each squadron receives full DPS). It also worth noting that within the squadron it is being dealt to a randomly chosen plane, one at a time (basically AA quickly shoots at all planes in a squadron, plane by plane). This is why some of your planes are getting damaged a bit earlier, and some - a bit later in constant DPS area. Flak bursts (for medium and long range AA only). A flak burst is a specific volume in a three dimensional space, and if a plane physically gets inside it, the damage (usually very large) is applied to it (that exact plane). Actual average number of flak bursts is: base flak bursts parameter, multiplied by Hit chance. Flak bursts appear on the calculated squadron path, within the specified zones (see the picture). Mostly the bursts will be concentrated in narrow A zone directly on squadron path, and if it's full of bursts already, the rest will go to the side B zones (which makes maneuvering more challenging). More about these flak bursts Please note once again that the info here, especially balance values, is subject to change. Flak bursts appear each 2 seconds. The burst "physical" size depends on AA mount caliber - larger caliber guns give bigger bursts. Zone width (X) depends on squadron speed. It will be quite wide (X1) if current squadron speed is high, and it will be narrow (X2) if the planes are going at minimal speed. That means that using throttle is very important for dodging flak bursts. Effective flak burst amount, as mentioned before is base flak burst parameter multiplied with Hit chance. Normal (Gauss) distribution is applied, and the minimal burst size is symmetrical to the maximum. That means that with 10 base burst size and 70% hit chance, it will mostly be 7 bursts, 10 is maximum number and 4 is minimum. With a single ship AA, 80% of flak bursts (but not more than 6) is being placed in zone A. The rest goes to side B zones. Flak bursts do not overlap each other. Let's check Baltimore once again (the scaling on these pictures is simplified). Long range AA has spawned 5 bursts, so 5 go to A zone and 1 goes to B zone. Medium range AA has spawned 11 bursts, so A zone gets 6 bursts (of lesser size) and 5 bursts go to B. If there are several ships firing, the rules are slightly different: up to 8 bursts can be placed in A zone combined and up to 10 bursts - in A zones. The most powerful burst are being chosen in this case. This limit gives at least slight chance for attack even against a strong AA group. If a single AA group has multiple squadrons in range, flak bursts that would have been in B zone otherwise, are distributed into A zones so that AA covers all squadrons. That said, long and medium range AA still do not overlap, so if one enemy squadron is at medium range, and the other is at long range, that means each of them will interact with its respective AA group without any mixing and overlapping. AA reinforcement and visual hints AA can be reinforced two ways in battle. 1.Defensive AA consumable: constant DPS and flak bursts damage increases, and the bursts turn red. Regular bursts are orange, and defensive AA bursts are red. Usually the increase is x2 for cruisers and x3 for destroyers. 2. AA sector reinforcement (via special menu bound to "~" and "O" keys). Constant DPS in the chosen sector is increased by 25-60% (depends on class and shown in the Port) at the expense of the other sector. AA tracers in the prioritized sector turn red. AA sectors don't have any transition states, they are either reinforced, normal or weakened. Changing the state takes time, so you should do it in advance. If a squadron is at the border between two sectors, the sector it is in is determined by the amount of planes; if 7 planes are in the right sector, and 2 are in the left, the squadron is considered to be in the right. Skills and upgrades Upgrades AA mod.1 - slot 3 (available from tier 5). Gives +2 to flak burst base value for long and medium range AA. Especially useful for the ships with low amount of bursts. AA mod.2 - slot 6 (available from tier 9). Increases both constant DPS at all ranges and flak bursts damage by 15%. A very powerful AA buff, but at the cost of other efficient upgrades in the slot. Skills (I) Direction center for fighters - +1 Fighter when you use the respective consumable; (III) Basic firing training - Increases constant DPS at all ranges by 10% (and increases rate of fire of all secondaries and main guns of caliber up to and including 139mm by 10%); (IV) Advanced firing training - Increases flak burst damage by 15% (and increases range of fire of all secondaries and main guns of caliber up to and including 139mm by 20%); (IV) Manual Fire Control for AA Armament - increases the efficiency of sector reinforcing by 20% (which means 150% from 125%, for example) and reduces the time for switching by 20%. So how do I maximize my AA defense? First of all, AA reinforcement influences only constant DPS, so if you want to play around it, you better pick a ship with a lot of constant DPS. Additionally keep in mind that the switching time is different per class - 5 seconds for destroyers, 10 seconds for cruisers, 12 seconds for battleships and 15 seconds for carriers. Using this mechanic will require extra attention from you, but in return you will increase the type of damage that is constant and impossible to dodge. With Manual Fire Control your damage multiplier gets even more serious - x1,5 for cruisers and battleships, x1,8 for destroyers and x1,92 for carriers. What's even better, you can maximize this DPS with Basic Firing Training - and that skill is useful for most destroyers and secondary-specced battleships. Advanced firing training is especially useful for the ships with low constant DPS and high amount of flak bursts, and it combines well with AA mod.1. As with Basic Firing Training, this skill is beneficial for secondaries and small caliber main guns. Direction center for fighters can be very influential on low level, where the fighter squadron is small. Overall, we would recommend it only as the last priority, or when you have 1 extra point to spend. What are the best maneuvers when being attacked by different squadrons? Attack planes deal the least amount of damage, but they are very fast, agile and relatively easy to aim. Their rocket dispersion is different per game nation, so you should typically not expose broadside to the USN attack planes, and try to avoid going bow or aft against IJN and RN planes. Dive bombers are usually slower and it's hard for them to adjust their aim while in the attack run. That means quick maneuvering is the key, and, as their dispersion pattern is usually long, they deal the most damage with bow or aft attack runs. Torpedo bombers have different attack run patterns per nation, but they have one common thing - they always try to catch you broadside to maximize the number of hits. USN torpedo bombers usually carry more torpedoes per attack, but they have more challenging aiming, so evasive maneuvers in advance will make their life much more difficult. IJN torpedo bombers usually carry torpedoes with relatively long range, so beware of long drops and pay attention even if they do something on the edge of your visibility. Remember about other enemies while dodging CV attacks. Sometimes it's better to take some damage from a CV instead of exposing your broadside to its BB allies. And as a destroyer, don't forget about "P" button which turns AA off. You typically have great concealment, and being spotted late can be more advantageous than firing your AA immediately. If you appear close enough, the enemy squadron can easily fly overhead and miss the first attack run. We hope this article was useful and you now have a better and clearer understanding of AA mechanics now. Thank you!
  4. Dear players, It's been less than a week since update 0.8.0 release - a major, and probably the biggest change in the game yet, CV rework. We want to share the first list of fixes, changes and tweaks that are to be implemented to improve new CV and counter-CV gameplay. But first of all we sincerely thank you for your feedback and game activity, as well as apologize for any stress and inconvenience that you could experience due to massive game change Please note that all information in this post is preliminary. 1. Critical changes and fixes that we're working on right now (to be implemented within 0.8.0 in "hotfix" update ASAP). Reduce the excessive efficiency of IJN tier X CV Hakuryu; Reduce the excessive efficiency of IJN Torpedo Bombers (reduce flooding chance, introduce spread debuff when maneuvering); Resolve the "F-spam" issue, when a CV can just recall its squadron at any time without considerable penalties (increase the vulnerability time for the squadron after recall so that players can shoot down some planes before it completely disengages); Do overall AA balancing: shift a part of damage from flak bursts to constant DPS. Flak bursts proved to be an interesting aspect of AA. However, on the one hand, they deal disproportional amount of damage, and on the other hand, avoiding them often results in completely insufficient damage to the planes; Do overall Attack Planes vs. Destroyers balancing. While this is an important thing to do, we would like to indicate that most players seem to underestimate the power of manual AA activation ([P] by default). Due to great DD concealment, if often makes sense to turn AA off until spotted. A DD spotted at minimal range is a lot harder to hit with the first attack run even with rockets. Although, this trick does not remove the need for further balancing; Do additional Premium CV and UK CV (unreleased) balancing; Remove the inconsistency between Des Moines and Salem in close/mid-range AA; 2. Changes and improvements that we work on now in the timeframe of next updates (0.8.1 and beyond). Improve plane reserves UI (information should me better presented); Improve AA sector UI (better usability); Do additional balancing for individual ships, armament, skills and upgrades, as the statistical data is being accumulated; Clear the minimap for non-CV ships (remove the unnecessary info about returning planes, etc); Finish the development for CV bots (Cooperative Battles); 3. Open questions and concerns to be researched in more detail and addressed if needed (no specific update planned yet, but it may change). The amount and quality of CV spotting in the new meta; MM limits (our ideal limit is 1 CV per team, very few cases of 2 CV (and always 1 at tier X, but right now the limit is 3 across the board): we would like to change the limits where/when possible. As indicated before, these are the first plans after several days of release. We will keep monitoring your feedback and update you about any further changes. Thank you, good luck, and fair seas!
  5. Dear players, In update 0.8.0 we fixed a visibility system bug which has been around for several months, since 0.7.9. I would like to clarify all the details of this fix, why it needs to be done, and what changes we are going to implement to meet your feedback. How did it work before 0.7.9 / how will it work now in 0.8.0? After firing Main Guns, a ship gets 20 seconds of concealment penalty (sometimes referred as “gun bloom”). There could be two penalties – regular “after firing main guns”, which is equal to the ship’s main gun range and “after firing main guns from smoke”, which is always less. For the sake of explanation, let’s not consider any “x-ray” detection methods: Radar, HAS and Proximity. They are irrelevant to this subject. Let’s take an example with 2 ships – “Target” and “Observer”. Observer does not see Target, but it is in Target’s “after firing main guns” concealment range and beyond “after firing main guns from smoke”. Both ships are currently out in open water, without any line of sight (LoS) interruption. If Target fires it’s main guns, it will get 20 seconds of “after firing main guns” concealment debuff. Observer will detect it. Option A: If target moves behind an island afterwards, Observer stops detecting it (as LoS is interrupted), but the concealment debuff stays. Option B: if target moves behind or within smoke screen, Observer stops detecting it (as LoS is interrupted by smoke, and Observer is beyond Target’s “after firing main guns from smoke” concealment range). The concealment value now is “after firing main guns from smoke”. If a target, WITHIN these 20 seconds moves out of smoke/cover, Observer detects it again. Target concealment value is “after firing main guns” again (until 20 seconds expire). Clarification: concealment changes are well illustrated by minimap, if you turn the advanced option on. Clarification: 20 seconds timer starts ONLY if Target was detected when/as a result of firing main guns. What was different with this bug and what changed? Points 2-4 worked differently. To be precise, as soon as Target broke LoS with Observer, the timer was just canceled regardless of any further Target movement. From gameplay point of view this allowed players to disengage more aggressively sometimes. Although, if we sum up everything “before” and “after” 0.8.0, it can be worded in only two changes: If Target moves to/behind smoke screen after firing main guns, its concealment in 0.8.0 will be “after firing main guns from smoke” instead of “2 km aka X-Ray only” – for 20 seconds after firing. If Target moves breaks LoS (cover, smoke) but then LoS is restored, its concealment in 0.8.0 will be “after firing main guns” instead of base – for 20 seconds after firing. It should be noted that these cases may indeed be important sometimes, but overall, they are very minor and do not affect game balance in any way. Then, why do you “fix” something that works fine and does not break anything? To answer this, we should very clearly distinguish gameplay aspect and tech aspect. Technically, this is a bug in the visibility system code – and it must be fixed. Even if the result of this bug is fine (or even enjoyable), the way it is “implemented” is very dangerous for game stability overall. Such bugs cannot be controlled and we cannot be sure that they won’t create additional side effects with other game components in the future. Gameplay-wise, we have two points for fixing it. First, we believe that consistency in 20 seconds bloom time will make the visibility system more comprehensible – on an intuitive level. Secondly, and this is even more important, this bug may lead to a scenario when a huge ship can fire its main guns, and then immediately go undetected by breaking its LoS with a tiny island – and that plays, looks and feels weird. However, there are strong arguments FOR the “bugged” mechanics. Many of you expressed the opinion that this mechanic promotes active play and brings better risk/reward by allowing players to disengage faster in some cases. We take these arguments very seriously. What will happen now? Fixing this bug in 0.8.0 is still a thing. As explained before, the risks of leaving it are too high, and we believe it’s not worth it. However, we are not going to ignore the positive effects of this bug and your feedback on it. We are going to implement these effects as a proper feature of the game’s visibility system. It will take some time, as right now 0.8.1 is almost done and is being prepared for testing, with 0.8.2-0.8.3 in active development. But regardless of the tight schedule we are committed on delivering this change as soon as possible. We will keep you updated. In the meantime, thank you all for your input and desire to make the game better. Action stations!
  6. 2. If you agree, put your nickname in.       >>  I do not understand

    4. Reply with this text and artwork to this thread.  >>    and I do not understand  

  7. Sub_Octavian

    ASIA Q&A, round 2 answers

    Helloes again! After a short business trip and holidays, I'm proceeding with your questions Hello, and you are welcome. 1. Theoretically it is possible to add advanced torps to these ships. However, we don't want to do it gameplay-wise, as torps are not main armament for German cruisers. Let's see how recent and near-planned buffs play out and then we'll see whether it is an option. 2-3. Technically, there were not that many cases with 360 turn for big turrets. Sometimes we do it out of gameplay purposes even when we're not sure (like with Koenigsberg). But we'd rather not do it on every ship just because there's no visible obstacle for 360 turn. Anyways, the most important obstacle is turret internal structure and communications with the hull. 4. We'll check this out, thanks. 5. Hi. I checked this with the team, and the point is that there were many complaints about profanity from players, that's why the censorship is like this. However, we're considering both improving profanity filter AND implementing an option to turn it off. Thanks for bringing this up. 6. Out UI team has such task, hopefully, we'll get to it in some time. Sorry for inconvenience. 7. We're still researching the effect of the changes, but preliminary, they were good, and moved some CVs on higher tier (which is also good). Of course these changes were not everything we want to do - more tweaks and changes are being developed. I think it's safe to say that we'll try to do them one by one, without rushing everything into one big update. One of our closest goals is looking into USN vs. IJN balance and working on some new bomb mechanics. Improving CV experience was, and remains one of our important priorities. 8. Updating AA mechanics could be a thing, but only after some other CV issues are resolved. For now, it does its job, and we'd rather not change it. Yamato turret AA: we'll check this out. No need to buff Yamato, though. I'd reserve the judgement on WoT MM improvement applied to WoWs. We're very interested in their experiment, we're observing the effects, but for now it's too early to say whether it's needed in WoWs. Hey, you're welcome! 2. Honestly, it's not a big issue, so for now, the answer is no. 3. It is possible. Right now we're not working on such ships, but we don't have any strict objections against it...so we'll see. 4. Thanks! The next campaigns are already in development. They are not what you're saying, but still should be very interesting and should bring something new. You will see 1. It's one of the strongest ships. There are super strong researchable ships, too. As you probably know, we support the concept of not nerfing premium ships unless absolutely needed, so Kutuzov remains as it is. 2. It was tuned this way based on production test. We're looking into it, and it may be buffed in the near future. 3. This may change in the near future, if we successfully design and test updated loadouts. 4. This change is not planned. We tweak firing range more or less for balance purposes, but not that dramatically, especially when it's not really needed. 5. Not planned, sorry. 6. We're doing this already. I recommend reading patch notes. E.g., USN cruisers buff, IJN DD buff, Z-52 buff, USN top BB buff, upcoming KM cruisers buff, etc, etc. Cheers! No. Slow turret speed is one of the negative traits of IJN DDs, and it won't change. 1. This is avaliable in control settings right now. Check them out. 2. I think that will be around 0.6.8. It's not THAT hard, but with 3-week development cycle, each team also has LOTS of things to do, so often the problem is not with the difficulty of a task, but rather with finding a place for it in schedule. Cheers! Hi. So I have a question from Eurobeat. I'll be damned! Nation is already counted in current MM, but the logic is far from perfect. We implemented several tweaks in 0.6.5 (it should be better now), but we're not going to stop. Right now we're designing a set of MM tweaks (can't give you ETA, probably 0.6.8-6.9, but again, not yet sure), and these tweaks should take care of national MM balancing. We're being somewhat slow here, because with all the additional rules, it's too easy to make mistake and increase MM queue time (which is very bad for session game), but as I said, we're working on it, and understand the importance for national balance. Hello! 1-2. Not planned. 3. More or less, but AA issues is only a part of CV problems. I think we may tweak AA stats and mechanics in the future, when we resolve other issues with CVs. Definitely not planned for the near future. 4. Report the bugs, and we'll do our best to fix them. 5. Good. 6. Working on IJN - USN balance, studying the effect of recent changes, thinking about further CV improvements. 7. All developers that matter in this case *** 1. No direct nerf is currently planned. Counter-buffs, however, are planned, and being implemented gradually. Honestly, torpedo / secondaries looks like trolling 2. Not planned. 3. Not planned, no sense. 4. Smoke probably has too much "bad" use in competitive meta. By bad use I mean BBs hiding in smoke and passive play, mostly. We have several thoughts on that, probably will prototype some of them and then show to players on one of the PTS. Not the very near future, but still possible. No problem. Fair seas! 1. I think it is planned for 0.6.6, the same way we did with gun sounds. 2. Work in progress, not exact ETA, but I'd hope for one of the next several updates. Fingers crossed! 1. Overall, radius depends on ship hull proportions. Dynamically, you can get a tighter turn if you slow down to 1/2. 1/2 gives the best radius mostly. 2. There are several non-bug cases that may result in penetration without damage ribbon. E.g, hitting and penetrating a turret (in this case the damage goes to the turret) or penetration of anti-torpedo bulge without penetrating further armor. These cases are fine because this is what actually happens - non-damage pen. As for bugs, they are possible (although I think we fixed most of them). If you see something really bug-looking, report this to CSC please. 3. This is a bug, and it will be fixed prior to version release. Dear players, this Q&A is closed! Thank you for your questions, see you next time, and fair seas
  8. Sub_Octavian

    ASIA Q&A, round 2 answers

    Hi! Skill-based MM will not be introduced to Random battles. As you rightfully noticed, there are Ranked for that. Implementing it to Random is not a good idea, as well as creating a parallel game mode for that. P.S. Me too, they are magnificent. It's sad, their specs won't allow them to get to middle tiers, so they will remain low tier warriors. "Hey. Most of the line uses these shells, so making exception for Khaba would not be very nice - while buffing other RU DDs was necessary. And, what's most important, Khaba OP-ness is connected mainly with her high protection by dodging shells. Thus, we are nerfing her real strengths, and needed drop is already seen on server stats. Will it be enough? We don't know yet."This shows you won't buff IJN DDs because they do not need it, but you so simply increased Khaba's alpha from 1600-1900. Keep in mind that Khaba had the highest WR and damage as well as kill rate which nulled your answer of "Khaba targets BBs more often than other DDs, so of course its damage will be the highest". Not to mention, nerfing Khaba's rudder does not decrease its damage output. Another example is you wanting to nerf ships that only a small percentage of players do well in. Your magazine article says you wanted to nerf RNCL because they perform well and another more prime example is removing manual drops from T4-T5 CVs due to “sealclubbing” yet only 10%~ players sealclub with T5 CVs (Nikolai is also a huge sealclubber). 2) If you want to reduce BB population, why do you keep buffing BBs?This ties in with the first question. Since 0.6.0, you have allowed BBs to pick two previous T5 skills (Concealment expert + Secondaries accuracy), removed stealth fire (which benefits BBs the most) as well as removing all BB’s stock hulls. Last patch you reduced Warsprite's turret traverse by 38% for reasons of "In order to improve gameplay".If you really wanted to improve gameplay, why not remove any stock loadouts from cruisers or destroyers or carriers? Carriers suffer the most as they have to deal with stock planes which is far worse than some stock hulls, not to mention T10 carriers still require you to unlock everything. 3) The most important question - Why do you treat us (the players) as stupid?No offense but when players suggest a few high skill mechanics (setting individual turrets at different angles, saturation of high tier cruisers etc), you respond with “it is too complex for our playerbase”. Adding a mechanic which lets players of more skill perform better won’t make players of less skill feel stupid. If anything, I am more offended that you keep removing skill-related elements like stealth fire, giving everyone sixth sense, giving more fighter ammo universally, etc. It is one thing to make this game more easy by “buffing the less skilled playerbase” but why do you have to do this at the expense of the better players? These are genuine questions and I would appreciate it if you do not find them stupid (nor are they meant to be offensive). Thanks. 1. If you don't like our decisions, that doesn't mean they are inconsistent. I'm not sure what are you trying to prove - that you want Khaba nerfed? Well, that's not going to happen in the near future. There are very powerful ships, Khaba is one of them, not the best ship in the game. Also, we don't want to nerf RN CL. There are no plans for that. I even don't know what article are you talking about, but here I am, seeing absolutely no plans for RN CL nerf. Removing manual drop from T4-5 was very good both against sealclubbing and for new players. Nikolay I, if you haven't noticed, is not sold currently. 2. Please check out the last several patch notes and you will see what we're buffing (tip: it is not BB). SF was bad for the game as a whole, not for BBs. With 0.6.0 BBs were forced to specialize more, without the ability to take everything and be universal. It may be considered a nerf, not a buff. Warspite needed this, and the removed stock hulls were too bad. 3. We don't treat anyone as stupid. Get some sense please. The only thing we do is observe who, and how plays the game. We are NOT a hardcore simulator, and won't be. We're tactical shooter with much depth, but LOTS of over complicated mechanics have no place in World of Warships. Sorry, but if you're "offended" by SF removal, it is a problem of your attitude. With all due respect, these questions are offensive, because you make attacks to prove your point - even making a statement "you treat the players as stupid" is enough. I don't feel it's right to support such communication. Questions with such attitude will not be answered in the future. The rationale of selling anything is to earn money. The rationale of making staggered release is to earn more money by creating more value. As we work within free-to-play AND free-to-win model, we have to leverage on time and visuals. Staggered release is leveraging on time (faster access, quicker campaign progression) and visuals (flag and alternative camo), while giving approx. 30% discount on additional content. Now, I don't think it's appropriate to tell us we shouldn't earn money. Surely we need it to keep developing and expanding World of Warships, making new content and features on monthly basis. On the other hand, if a business practice is both inefficient and badly perceived, why do it? So, if you like staggered release, buy the bundle and tell us "thanks, it's cool". If you don't want it, then, don't buy it, and tell us "hey, I don't like it". Simple as that. The outcome is analyzed, and then we either go on - because the considerable amount of players like it this way, or stop it - because it's not popular and only upsets people. No need to make it over complicated, run pseudo-analysis ("you're putting off fans" - that's a strong assumption based on almost no data), no need to play "punish" thing - come on, guys, this is an option in premium shop. If it is not used, and everyone hates it, we're absolutely taking it into account. I hope I was able to explain the reasoning and sorry for any possible misunderstanding. 1. It is an option, but there are other, more interesting as well. We will see. 2. Unlikely. For now, we plan to add new stuff without repeating. 3. That's too early for this question. We'll see how Scenario mode performs first
  9. Sub_Octavian

    ASIA Q&A, round 2 answers

    We'd be fine with it. Sure. The height of this point is always = the top height of 3d model (e.g. a tip of the highest mast). Other coordinates are exact center of the ship. Let me demonstrate my mad paint skillz: I don't really see any need to do it. Torpedo splash works very similar to HE splash, but its explosion power is sufficient to damage ship parts, not only modules. The splash radius is average, so when hitting the center, you probably won't reach anything like aft and bow. The damage dealt this way is VERY small. Actually, we may consider removing it completely for the sake of damage mechanics clarity. Cheers! It is simple, and does the job. But it is to be improved. We're working on Radio Commands update, with more features and radial menu. Hold on! No, it's not true. If it's happening, it is a bug, and should be reported. I never saw that, and not aware of such bug.
  10. Sub_Octavian

    ASIA Q&A, round 2 answers

    Hi. There are quite many special requests regarding port filters, and they are often very individual. Instead of adding numerous options, we added "favourite ship" tag, which can be used for many purposes. In your case, you can simply mark your non-elite ships. Unfortunately, we are not planning to add more, as our UI team is busy with other improvements. CV balancing is going fine. We're analyzing the results of previous changes and planning next steps. The closest steps may include new type of strike plane armament and loadout re-balancing. Some of these may be tested with the help of USS Enterprise - and if they are successful, they may be implemented on her, and on other CVs shortly. No MM changes are planned though. 1. I am not sure about this statement, but anyways, yes, we're going to add the opportunity to expand clan limit. I won't speculate on ETA, though. 2. We'd love it, and we will work on it when we have the opportunity - unfortunately, not right now. Hi. Thanks for the welcome! 1a. No. 1b. Because she has less planes in squadrons, in reserve, and she is balanced by air combat perk (her planes of tier IX get debuffed when fighting regular tier VII). 2. Because Black is super rare reward ship, and Kidd is still WIP. Kidd deck will probably be tuned to 13 mm before release. UPD: Actually, we may rethink it and make it 19 mm everywhere. We'll think about it. Thanks for the question! UPD2: Yes, you know, we did some math, and decided to give Benson, Fletcher, Kagero, Yugumo and Shimakaze and other high-tier DDs 19 mm / 16 mm decks. Will probably squeeze it into 0.6.6. This way, deck thickness will be more clear and systematic across DDs.
  11. Sub_Octavian

    ASIA Q&A, round 2

    Hi again! Thank you for your questions! I'm locking this thread now. I will be picking and answering the most interesting questions in the following days. Answers will be published here.
  12. Sub_Octavian

    ASIA Q&A, round 2 answers

    Hi again! I will publish answers from 2nd round here in this topic. Let's do it
  13. Sub_Octavian

    ASIA Q&A, round 2

    Hello everyone!My name is Phil, nickname Sub_Octavian, and I am contuniuing official Q&A session for ASIAShort introduction: I am Game Analytics Team Lead in WG Saint-Petersburg, responsible for many interesting activities, including developers-players communication on gameplay topics.Please ask any game-related questions, I will pick the best ones (and as many as I can) - but no leaks on unreleased ships! This topic will be open until May 23, then I will close it to work with your questions. The answers will be published as a separate topic withing a week. Please upvote the questions you really like, so I know they are important to you!Action stations! Previous Q&A Round 1
  14. Sub_Octavian

    Engine boost Modification 1

    Ha, looks like you found a bug in description. In-game is correct. Will pass it to the team. Thank you!