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

Interesting stuff from the RU forums

4,441 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

95 posts


Ladies, gentlemen, salty sea dogs,


the EU Community is lucky to have Carnotzet, he's doing the translating for us and to an extend to the whole non-russian speaking community out there. You can find his translations, which are regularily reposted on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/new/), various blogs (i.e. himmelsdorf.com) and various Facebook groups, in this thread: http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/31444-some-interesting-info-from-ru/


Hop to the last page to find his latest translations. He also offered to have a look at threads that picked your interest, our best chance to find such threads is shipcomrade's redtracker (http://shipcomrade.com/redtracker.html).


If you don't want to open an account in the EU, pop me a PM here with threads you would want Carnotzet to have a look at and I'll forward it to him on the EU forums.



  • Cool 4

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
95 posts

Several interesting discussions were held on the RU forums.

Here are some of the most interesting answers from the devs. 



Speaking about the possibility of adding ships to be purchased in game via doubloons, Jluca explains that "we always have said we don't want and don't plan to sell ships in game [for sales limited in time]. In order to do that, we would need to lay off some development and add a client update when the sale begins and add another one when it ends. It would mean that for every sale, you'd need to update your client and wait for maintenance".


Another topic where a player compares WoWs to WoWp and thinks the game is in decline (population wise). Source

To this, mal_h (general manager) explains that:

"1. there are 130'000 concurrent players (all regions included).

2. The population decrease WoWs has suffered is due to players going back to WoT. For the first time in a long time, we released a successful update (9.14). So the number of players passing from one game to another is quite significant. It already happened a couple of times before. After some time, players start to come back to WoWs.

3. WoWs yields about twice the profit of all of the games available on mail.ru.

4. Globally, the number of concurrent players is rising.

5. In April, WoWs Russian playerbase will stabilise."


"The production cycle of a tank, from the beginning of the development to the release is about a year. For ships, it's about half a year. Because of that, it's nearly impossible to  react quickly to what is happening at a specific moment. When it comes to cycle of an update, the amount of interconnected data that needs to be modified and tested is enormous. During those six months, there's a lot of stress put on some key people, who barely see their family and spend their nights working. I'm not complaining, just explaining how it works. By virtue of its complexity and internal design, a MMO game is about as complex as a space shuttle. Because of that, when I read on the forums about proposals on how to fix everything easily, I cannot help myself but smile. A lot of players have taken part in the game development with different responsibilities. And all of them were staggered when they started to understand how complex a MMO game is. What is our governing principle when making decisions? It's you, the players. We listen, analyse, test - and according to that, we develop the game."

About the people working for WG : "The former Head of Blizzard Europe is our Publishing Director, Frederic. Our US department is lead by Jay, who is from DICE and created Ubisoft America, Thain helps with tanks at the moment, he was the head of the FPS department at Activision, head of human resources at Riot games, he formed the team working on League of Legends. And so on. Viktor Kisly works hard so that WG is a respectable and competent firm."


"The problem with balancing elements of the game is that no amount of testing by testers, supertesters or during public testing will give us a good representation of what will happen when it's eventually released to all players. Often, all of our predictions are swept away by public statistics".


About matchmaking, PPK explains: "At the moment, our algorithm works as follows: If a players is bottom tier with a given ship 4 times in a row, the next battle, he's assured to be top tier. The counter is calculated for each ship, in addition to a general counter for the account. I have recently done some statistics regarding matchmaking, it seems the chance for getting into +0, +1, +2 battles is 40%, 30%, 30% respectively."

"Counters don't work on T10 ships since they're always top tier.

Ideal balance: fully mirrored teams.

Ideal gameplay: diverse, unpredictable, with prodigious victories (winning against all odds, with less ships) and humiliating defeats. Those two points contradict each other.

The ideal matchmaker puts a player into battle as soon as he click "To Battle".

The ideal matchmaker carefully chooses for each player the ideal team composition and opposing team composition.

Here again, these two points contradict each other.

> not rigidly tied to other elements of the system.

However, this is unfortunately not the case. Formerly, the matchmaker could create teams equal in strength but not in number of players in each teams, and it created interesting gameplay.

Then, the notion of "Superiority" was introduced in the game and the number of players in each team became a very important factor. It was necessary to have the same number of players on each team.

It's similar to the problem with DD's.

Of course, we could easily put a filter in the game that says "no more than 3 DD's on each team" and adapt everything else to that rule. But I would be happier if the players themselves would step on DD's toes, with beefed-up cruisers. It'd make me much happier."


mal_h on DD's overrepresentation : "The option of limiting the number of DD's in a battle is quick and simple. However it could have a snowball effect on the DD's that are not chosen by the matchmaker. Let's say 10 DD's enter the queue, 6 of them are chosen in a battle, 4 remain in the queue. 10 more DD's enter the queue, the matchmaker let only 6 of them enter a battle. Now, 8 are still waiting in the queue. So in the end, after a critical amount of time (if all of them have the patience to stay in the queue), will the matchmaker throw them all at once in a battle (pure DD battle)? Or will it throw them back to the port?"




  • Cool 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
95 posts

Some information coming from mal_h (general manager)



The thread is about the lack of communication from WG developers. In the thread, a player compares WG with a bortsch (kind of soup) company. "It'd be as if all your customers told you every day you need to put less carrots or more onions in your soup. Would you react after every comment? Well it's the same for WG".


This is mal_h's answer:

"The analogy is rather good, but at the same time, we don't want to offend anyone. Players make suggestions out of interest for the game. I instantly discard some of the suggestions I read....I'd like to explain in details why the suggestion cannot be accepted, and could even be more harmful than helpful to the game. I start to write, but then I realize that the person I'm writing to will not understand what I'm talking about and will only get irritated thinking that I'm showing off. Let me make an analogy with the "Orange revolution". It happens when problems inherent to a society are artificially inflated and instead of trying to solve them, the society plunges into self-destruction. In those situations, there are always opposing groups. In this case, there are two groups, one from Ukraine, one from Russia.

They are incurable. They don't need anything or report to anyone, they just need destruction. They don't know what it is to work to earn money. It is even more frequent on forums as people are hidden behind a nickname.

It is important to see this and understand it. They destroy game communities, not on their own, but by manipulating sensitive persons. That is why we have a hard time discerning who is who. Whom is it worth speaking to, who isn't. That's why it's hard (sometimes even useless) to speak to people who are overwhelmed with negative emotions. When the forum finally reaches the point where any dialogue turns into a slaughter, who will be the victims? The constructive part of the community will be the first victim. And no Community manager or developer can do anything about it, no matter how hard they try. Only those who really like the game, those who understand what is happening and can make the difference between the terminators and the victims, will be able to bring the forums back from the point of no return.

I'd like to change your Bortsch analogy into an airplane analogy. The game is at least as complex as an airplane. And experienced passengers' advice is valuable but not always implemented. We gladly listen, think, speak and explain. But without your help, we can't make the difference between passengers and terrorists ready to blow themselves up. You're the only ones able to do that. 

By the way, here's a video showing the evolution of WoWs over the course of its many versions. [it's in Russian but it shows some nice screenshots for those who don't know how it looked like before]. VIDEO"


A player's answer to that : "It's a good analogy (with the plane) but to know how passengers can be more comfortably seated, you need to ask them and not decide for them. For instance, nothing was done or is planned for the interface (I'm not talking about TB, RB functionalities). And the old one doesn't work that well."


mal_h: "I will likely trigger a new wave of angry mob but I'll try to explain. Be patient and try to hear me out. Let's keep the plane analogy that works rather well.

You pretend it's obvious "passengers know best how they can be more comfortably seated". Well let me take the role of the passengers (we all were once in their shoes), how can we be seated more comfortably?

This will be a perfect analogy for the suggestions found on the forums, I will be the passengers and you, the aircraft developer.

1. There should be enough room for tall, small and corpulent passengers.

2. There should be enough room for passengers to stretch their legs and adjust their chair in a lying position.

3. Air conditioning and light switches needs to be easily and comfortably reached by tall, small, corpulent and thin passengers.

4. Every seat should be near a window and the window should be centered so the passenger can easily look out of it.

5. Seats must have armrests and an adjustable headrest, and preferably be equipped with heating/air conditioning and massage. As usual they should fit tall, small, corpulent or thin passengers.

6. Seats must be next to an aisle so passengers can get up or sit down without disturbing others.

7. The heating and air conditioning system need to provide specific air humidity, temperature and pressure.

8. Spaces between rows must be large enough so passengers can easily pass each other (including corpulent passengers).

9. Luggage compartments must be large enough to contain all types of luggage.

10. Cumbersome luggage should be loaded and unloaded quickly and should not have any damage, be placed on top of each other or be dirtied.

11. Windows should be large enough and preferably square for passengers to see outside easily. Preferably, it should have a sliding panel to have some ventilation.

12. Seats for children should be separated from the others with soundproof partition.

13. Passengers should have the option to choose their neighbour - man or woman, nationality, religion.

14. Meals on board should take into account each passenger's health, tastes, traditions, including religion. Meals of every kind should be provided, kosher, halal, gluten free, vegetarian, even human meat for cannibals.

15. Obese people should be able to expand their seat to a size which they're comfortable with.

16. Flight cost should be appropriate for all passengers, preferably free.

17. Purchase of a premium flight should provide a flight twice as fast and its price should be affordable for all social classes.

Well, with all the suggestions I got from the passengers, there should be 78 points in total but I think that 17 is enough.


Now tell me, as an airplane developer, how you will fulfill all of those wishes and if you can do it by tomorrow?

And tomorrow, I'll start to complain about your laziness, your stupidity and your greed.


I'd like to mention two areas in which, according to my long experience, everybody seem to be an expert: 1. Interface. 2. Game design.

A few words about the interface.

The interface is how the game interacts with you, in other words, it's the game itself. In order to change it, we usually have to change the game. Let's take the plane analogy once again and talk about windows. They are the plane interface with passengers. And they are also part of the plane. See point 11 (above), why aren't windows centered with each seat? I have to tilt my head to see something? This interface is crap! And the form is strange and not to my liking. It should be square, centered with my seat, with a sliding panel in case my neighbour farts.

Everything evolves and some of the points I listed above are without no doubt already implemented in airplane services in one form or another. 

And we're making sure the game is evolving. Once again, go watch the video I linked to see how the game evolved.

Moreover, I'm very grateful for all the players who post their suggestions and don't get angry if we don't respond to every one of you, we are several thousands less than you are and we have to develop a game on top of that. We make the game according to our capabilities and your advice.The more emotional conversations become, the harder it is for us to develop the game and answer to your suggestions.

It's possible that I'm becoming a Buddhist but I think together we can improve the communication between us, both in form and content. At least, on our side, we will try."




  • Cool 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
95 posts

This is the next part of the thread with mal_h (Malik).


A player writes: "it seems that developers-programmers seem to be much more active since Malik lately spoke on the forums"


Answer from Iwao (game designer):

"I just want to remind you that there aren't only programmers working in our firm.

Let's then go back to the topic at hand.

I cannot speak for everyone, but many developers regularly visit the forums on their own and not only when there are serious problems. And when a serious problem arises, we search for a way to get rid of it. The bothersome thing about it is that when we solve a problem, it usually leads to the discontentment of those who the problem helped.

Take, for instance, invis firing. For some, it was and still is a blast, but the implementation of hydroaccoustic search nerfed the ships that were used to fire from smoke one way or another. We all remember that, before their release, several Soviet DD's had a significant invis firing window, which impacted negatively on the gameplay. It's the same with launching torpedoes from stealth at high tiers, which leads to the so-called "torpedo soup" (or torp walls) since the range of torpedoes if far greater than detection range. The safety windows is tremendous, which leads to the belief that DD's wreak havoc and stay clear of what could destroy them. In fact, several DD's get obliterated when facing an advancing cruiser, but in order to do that, cruisers need to advance to the front line which isn't safe for them since they get obliterated by BB's there. As for BB's, without cruisers, they fall prey to CV's, against which they aren't as efficient as cruisers.

All of this is only a hypothesis and it requires thorough research, however, there is a little drawback. There aren't a lot of players at high tiers compared to mid or lower tiers, thus the statistics regarding high-tier ships we need to draw conclusions is collected very slowly.


Please excuse me for my digression but I wanted to explain that. Do we read the forums? Yes! We read them and try to do it regularly but by the time we examine the consequences of the problems raised there and find their causes, seas have already risen and fallen several times. Do we act upon your feedback? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Feedback is an open account of its author's experiences, who shows in written form that something is wrong with the statistics, for instance.


Finally, not all problems are solved painlessly, those who need to have a tooth removed will prove it to you, but we'll be as gentle as possible. 


PS. Regarding the excuse saying that we don't want to change, online projects need to change radically quite regularly otherwise they stagnate. Too frequent changes (particularly drastic changes) will often cause a negative response from the playerbase since people prefer stability and comfort."





  • Cool 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
95 posts

More on the same topic.

This time by Turing_Bombe (GD Analyst):

He responds to a player saying that developers often give contradictory answers to one question.

"Well, if the developers have different positions, they will give different answers; if there isn't a specific guideline established by the company (diverting from this guideline will lead to the boss kicking your butt). Fortunately, I haven't heard of any team meetings teaching us "how to respond on the forums".


A game is a complex world and none of the developers knows everything about it. Generally nobody. We are all human after all and each of us has his own opinion on certain things. Let's take a specific case: what causes battles to be drawn out until the end of the timer (20min)? If you ask the people who are in charge of game modes and maps, their expertise will focus on what was the map, in what mode and where did the ships sail. If you ask the people in charge of ship trees, they will see look at it from their own point of view (battleships are a bit too large, guns are slightly weak, players are firing at each other for too long without destroying each other). In order to draw precise conclusions, we need to spend a lot of time on analysing our data. And again, in order to perform an analysis, we need to understand what we need to look at; is it a map problem or a balance problem, for instance. We have a list of hypotheses."


"Not every question is worth exploring. Examining it and finding its place in a larger mosaic requires resources in the form of man-hours. And there's not always the guarantee it will give positive results. We can ask ourselves a huge amount of different questions.

"What percentage of the player base uses mods?"

"Does the age of the players taking part in team battles differ from the age of the player base in general?"

"After how many consecutive defeats do players quit the game?"

We can ask ourselves dozens of questions like this. Analysts are necessary to answer these questions, the director needs to understand which questions need an answer for him to make decisions."


A player asks : "Why is it so problematic to tell us where the game is heading for the next six months? For instance, you can just say that "we will add weather effects" and everyone is instantly happy."


Turing_Bombe: "Is it better for developers to say something that could eventually not be implemented? Regarding weather effects, it's been in development for a long time. Now, it's clear we can release it to the public. Incidentally, in all the surveys where we ask players what  they want to improve maps, the most requested feature is "adding weather effects". Well, the developers know that what will improve map immersion the most is adding weather effects. Rather than, let's say, a flock of flying seagulls screeching in your ear. But I, for instance, want to hear seagulls. There isn't enough seagulls. Developers, you're reading this topic, add seagulls. I want to look in my binoculars and see a giant seagull and hear how its screeches.


For a lot of features that are being developed, we generally need to see if they can be shown to the public first. Or, for whatever reasons (for instance, it uses too much resources) a feature is released but not at its full extent, players won't be so pleased because the reality doesn't meet their expectations. And in the end, developers will be hated because they "didn't keep their promises".

Naturally, it's an active work which should tell us rather early if we can meet our deadlines. Which in turn will allow us to make an early announcement to the public."


  • Cool 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 posts
4,705 battles

Thanks Takru, that is all excellent reading.


Please pass on my thanks and appreciation to the developers for this awesome game. My heart is warmed by the soup analogy.

Its nice to know they wont let the game be altered by a few overly vocal forum voices and consider the overall trends.

Most players are prob like me, average gaming ability, average to high spec PC and play at random times when not doing other things, eg mountain biking, motorbike riding, working, hiking...

Very few people are 'expert' gamers and even fewer could prob even code/program to the level that is being done.

Keep that soup simmering just the way it is, this trucker likes it :)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
95 posts

Thanks Takru, that is all excellent reading.


Please pass on my thanks and appreciation to the developers for this awesome game


If I ever get the chance, I certainly will. I plan to visit the Gamescom 2016 in Cologne, Germany, may be I'll get a chance there. Until then, I'd assume the best people to adress those thanks through is your Wargaming staff members on these forums, Spotter, Scharfschuetzen and Ladygrey_JP. (Sorry if I don't know all of you people).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
95 posts

New Q&A. Source 

[Next Q&A is on the way, be patient]


Q. 1. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), I wasn't playing at the time when Furutaka was really crappy. Now it's an enjoyable ship, which needs some time to adapt to and a little bit of skill. After playing a few dozen battles with her and Omaha, and reaching a comfortable skill level, I'm quite enjoying both of them. But I wonder: after quite a lot of battles fought on both of these ships, my average stats are lower in my Furutaka than in my Omaha (including average damage). At first, I though I just needed more practice but then I saw some unofficial stats (I know you don't like them) and noticed that Furutaka's average damage, kills and win ratio are considerably lower than Omaha's or other tier 5 ships.

It lead me to ask two questions: could you please provide official stats concerning Furutaka, and compare them with Omaha's? If Furutaka's stats are lower, do you plan to do anything with her?

I like Furutaka a lot and I think it's a very interesting ship at tier 5 but I find it hard to be in the top 3 at the end of a battle.

A. At the moment, Furutaka's average damage is 1170 less than Omaha's. Win ration is practically the same (0.4% less than Omaha). The reason for these disparities is in fact not because of both ships characteristics but because of the gameplay. Furutaka is the first heavy cruiser in the line, and thus she requires different tactics and a change in habits. US cruisers have the same problem when going from Cleveland to Pensacola. The gameplay changes, players have to relearn the way they play, and thus their performance decreases a bit.


2. Most of the ship lines are well thought progression wise and allow new players to learn the ropes of the game and the role of their ships from about tier 1-4. Except BB's. They really start to shine at tier 5 and new players have a really hard time crawling through tier 3-4. Could you please look at the statistics of players who started the BB line and stopped before tier 5? Are you happy with this situation?

A. We're keeping an eye on that kind of stats and we're fine with it. There's two points I need to raise. First: BB's are the ships that benefited the most from gunnery research and development in the first half of the 20th century. Their gun performance improved a lot. Secondly: tier 3-4 BB's were created specially to make them harder to sail than CL's and DD's. Bigger ship, bigger responsibility. In fact, not every player can play BB's efficiently and enjoy their gameplay. We prefer most players choose  the cruiser line (and DD's, but they're slightly harder to play).


3. I come from WoT and there's a very interesting premium light tank - AMX Chaffee. I'd like to know if there's a similar ship in WoWs.

A. There's a ship that plays a bit like that (Atlanta). However, at the moment, we want to release balanced [as in opposed to niche] ships which every player can enjoy. "Singularity" is difficult to explain to players and, most often than not, leads to negative feedback and misunderstanding.


Q. Have you changed something with the detonation chance from air dropped torpedoes on BB's? It seems I get detonated much more often (about once in ten battles).

A. We haven't done anything regarding this matter. I will still check though.


Q. When will you release the next part of the Arpeggio event?

A. Not this month, but there will certainly be another one.

We first need to analyse how it was perceived by players. In general, players on the RU server gave neutral or positive feedback. Since new content is ready to be released, we decided to start working on the next stage of this event.


Q.  Do you plan to add a second airplane on ships with two catapults? Do you plan to add visual effects to AA guns when they fire (or at least to some of them)? Current tracers rounds are not really impressive and don't give the impression of working properly.

A. No. Currently, only one takes off. And no. At the moment, we need to be very careful with performance issues. Maybe later.


Q.  Don't you think that, after the buff to torp focused DD's, the game is broken in random mode? It's not unusual to see 5 or 6 DD's on each team and the number of BB's is steadily decreasing. Now, it's a rare sight to see more than 2 BB's on each team. BB's are "food" for all the classes and the less BB's there is, the worse it gets for everybody. CV's and DD's torp them, CA/CL's burn them, other BB's citadel them. So, here's my question:

What is your ideal class representation?

For me, it's something like this:

1 CV, 4 BB's, 5 CA/CL's, 2 DD's (3 DD's if there's no CV)

If everyone has a favorite target, they are all happy.

And another question, how will you balance the number of DD's in random and will you do anything about it?

A. We're considering limiting the number of DD's on each team. We're also considering changing high tier IJN DD's stats.


Q. How did Kawanishi N1K turn up on Shokaku? It's quite obvious that Kyofu were the sea fighters, N1K were land fighters. And where did you fin the N1K5?

A. It's a very difficult question for me to answer. I'll have to ask my colleagues.


Q. When will you improve the detailed statistics? And make the achievement screen more convenient?

A. We plan to change some things. Regarding the statistics screens, our priority is to improve the post battle screen.





Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
95 posts

Next Q&A. Source


Q. On Ishizuchi, lifeboats prevent the middle turret to fire at some angles, it can barely fire at all. Do you plan to fix the models of ships like this one that have a lower performance because of visual elements?

A. We'll make sure to look at problems with lifeboats. It was already fixed on several ships: if they impede the ability to fire, we'll remove them.


Q. Suggestion regarding captain retraining. We all know how long it takes to retrain a captain with a lot of skill points. Why aren't the skills gradually unlocked? At the rate at which they first unlocked them?

A. Instant retraining is a paid service. Paid services are needed for the game to continue to run and for developing new features. Thus, it's very unlikely the retraining feature will change considerably.


Q. Today, I found myself in the following situation. My rudder was destroyed and I sailed right against an island and sunk....on the beach, my ship clipping through the land texture. Could you make ships remain on land when destroyed? For realism and the beauty of it?

A. We plan to add something like that but it's not high on the priority list. It's quite possible that, someday, we'll be able to admire the charred remains of a destroyed warship lying on a golden beach while wondering about the meaning of life.


Q. Do you consider lowering the requirements for the "Clear Sky" ribbon?

Currently, it's nearly impossible to earn it without playing with an air superiority CV. For instance, 2 IJN CV's (tier 6 and 7) = 120 planes + 5-6 on cruisers and BB's. I can't think of a way an AA oriented cruiser can shoot down 64 planes. Maybe if they all fly above it but it still will have to wait for defensive fire to recharge.

A. The requirements are not easy to meet but if a player has an oriented AA ship and there's only one CV, the requirements can be met. In addition, not all achievements should be easily "farmed". We currently don't plan to change it.


Q. Do you plan to give New York its famous AA setup back? Or should I sell the ship?

A. In the following month and a half, we plan to improve the AA on some ships, including New York. Stay tuned.


Q. In patch notes, Benson was supposed to receive a permanent cammo. Where is it?

A. It is currently in "reserve". It's an oversight. :hiding:


Q. Please explain how will personal offer work?

A. The concept behind personal offers is the following:

1. They will appear after the player has done a certain action.

2. We don't plan to "spam" offers.

3. They will include things like unique ships, invitations to private test drives, or training lessons.

4. Naturally, we will not disclose technical details on how these offers appear (to whom or in what circumstances).


Q. We're often told that regular TKers are banned. But, in my experience, the TK system barely works. Sometimes, a player damages a teammate for 50k damage and he doesn't even turn pink. What is taken into account in flagging somebody as a TK (damage, kills, etc)?

A. It's determined by unsporting behaviour, which means no other statistics are taken into account.

Here are the details: the current system is rather permissive. When we implemented it, it was intended for new players who committed all sorts of bad things because of their inexperience. And it worked quite well on them; it wasn't excessively punishing. Now, we're experiencing another phenomenon - "professional" trolls. Whether they get a 3 day or 30 day ban, they don't care.

That is why we plan to modify the system as to separate this kind of people from the normal players. When we'll receive the "go" to release the final version, we'll tell you more about it.


Q. 1. Why have you decided to cancel the test drive for new lines (for instance Soviet DD's)?

2. Did the event not meet your expectations?

3. Do you plan to do it again for Soviet cruisers?

A. We decided to cancel test drives because of the negative feedback we received from players. Players had mixed feelings for not being able to have upgraded ships and had the feeling that, in the end, we were "taking their ships away". Thus the effort is not worth the negative reaction it gets. We don't plan to bring back public test drives in the near future. We may add individual test drives though.




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Moderator
4,798 posts
2,057 battles

Q. We're often told that regular TKers are banned. But, in my experience, the TK system barely works. Sometimes, a player damages a teammate for 50k damage and he doesn't even turn pink. What is taken into account in flagging somebody as a TK (damage, kills, etc)?

A. It's determined by unsporting behaviour, which means no other statistics are taken into account.

Here are the details: the current system is rather permissive. When we implemented it, it was intended for new players who committed all sorts of bad things because of their inexperience. And it worked quite well on them; it wasn't excessively punishing. Now, we're experiencing another phenomenon - "professional" trolls. Whether they get a 3 day or 30 day ban, they don't care.

That is why we plan to modify the system as to separate this kind of people from the normal players. When we'll receive the "go" to release the final version, we'll tell you more about it.

I like this one!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
95 posts

No more public testing, that could go both ways


Yes, but from what they write, I do understand their reasoning. Unlike "regular" supertesters, public test seems to focus around T9-10, where many people have no ships, at least not yet. So you don't get much done testing-wise when people concentrate on high-tier ships.


Still, I'd like to test stuff on PTS :-/

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
6,605 posts
2,889 battles

Carnotzet translates even better than Google Translate :D


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
4,163 posts
1,924 battles


Yes, but from what they write, I do understand their reasoning. Unlike "regular" supertesters, public test seems to focus around T9-10, where many people have no ships, at least not yet. So you don't get much done testing-wise when people concentrate on high-tier ships.


Still, I'd like to test stuff on PTS :-/


Which is the main problem - part of any Public Test is to get bulk testing of ship performance done at all the tiers, as well as do some minor testing on progression up a line in addition to the regular brute force bugtests. Unfortunately, many players were basically treating PT as a way to "test drive" higher tier ships and pretty much rushed to shimakaze/yamato/midway (and complained when they couldn't). There was quite a stink raised in the second PT when upper tiers were slowly unlocked instead of being fully unlocked right off the bat. It's sad, really. 
Edited by Syanda
  • Cool 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
95 posts

Info about incoming interface improvements. Source


In brief

New sights with 20 "sections" (ticks) will be added in (not in 0.5.4).



Soon, we will release a new post-battle screen. Moreover, before we release our customization system, we will add several different sights to choose from. With the new customization system, this feature will of course be further improved.


Our current version of post-battle statistics looks like this. [i translated all of the Russian text in paint so don't blame me if it's not very beautiful and professional]





We will naturally fix all the bugs and anomalies.

On the whole, the thought process behind the interface development is to model it on what the users want. Naturally, there are those who "want submarines" or "want to play another game", but the majority of players see the same problems as we do, with some rare exceptions (as you probably know, the changes we're talking about were not planned in the past few days; by the way, this is a good opportunity for us to think about changing our way of informing players about what we do). Things don't go always as smoothly and quickly as we and the players would like, but the interface is fully part of the development of the game. The team in charge of interface development doesn't and can't have any priorities, except conceptual ones.


In details


Your post [the one the dev is answering to] was a useful read. I will try to give a detailed response and I'll start with your assessment of our work. It's rather strange to hear that we "do nothing" and that we've done only 4 improvements in 15 months.


Time flies by players often forget,take for granted, or don't notice certain things, it has been and always be so. 


For instance, "elements needed to be added with the release of new game modes" is considered by many as taken for granted, as if we don't need to spend time working on it. It is not true. The support for new game modes (Ranked, Team battles) can hardly be categorized as what we call "support"; in fact, the interface team fully developed these game modes hand in hand with the other teams. Here is the list of things we added since the beginning of the beta test (in no particular order):

  • Chat and contact list
  • Events, missions, challenges and their reward system (incidentally, the mission "banner" was significantly improved in the last update)
  • Port selection
  • Ship carousel filters (we will soon release an improved version)
  • Second version of the captain feature, including a captain carousel (as well as: the possibility to display captains from other nations, which many players whined about; the option to cancel the dismissal of a captain; an improved process for transferring captains; the ability to retrain captains)
  • Reports and compliments
  • First version of the karma system
  • Two versions of system messages
  • Cammos
  • Flags
  • Signals
  • Reworked profile summary (ranked season stats were improved in the last update)
  • Ranked battles
  • Consumables
  • Auto-resupply feature
  • Team battles
  • Personal offers system
  • "educational" messages for new players (they don't show for experienced players)
  • Arpeggio mod
  • Armor x-ray (not released yet)
  • Support for the "Zone" mode (yes it also required UI work since it differed from the old "Standard battle" mode)
  • Support for the new "Standard battle" mode
  • Tutorial mission


It's also important to remember that even basic features, such as the report and compliment system, don't make themselves (unfortunately), as some people seem to think. I must emphasize that, with this list, I'm not making any excuses for the things we didn't do. But as we have decided to put the matter on the table, I wanted everyone to understand the amount of work we're talking about.


Moreover, during all that time, we carried out several optimization cycles regarding the interface (freezes occur less often) and added several improvements "under the hood", which will give us more room for development and allow us to implement new decisions faster.


In addition to all of those features (of great and medium importance), every update brings many minor improvements (about 20-30 minor visual or functional features). For instance, the capitalization of ship names (which was a heated subject of discussion). Yes, it wasn't very successful when introduced - we didn't inform players about what it was and why it was added. It's a natural reaction when something people were accustomed to is changed. We fixed it, we explained - the anger subsided, many players understood our decision and are now fine using it. In general, there isn't a single solution; take for instance word capitalization, many other games use caps in their whole interface. We added a practical component to that decision (as we always try to do). 


Naturally, all of the work we've done doesn't mean there aren't any problems with the interface and doesn't negate the fact it needs some improvements. I will comment on the list you've made:



We increased the crosshair width. In update, it will have 20 "sections" (ticks)


Torpedo indicator

To track your torpedoes, you can switch to the tracking camera [Z]. In earlier versions, we had binoculars for torpedo armaments but decided to remove them. To aim torpedoes, you had to switch to binoculars and take aim, which wasn't very efficient since the ship you were aiming at was often outside of the binoculars view. 


Reload indicator

The problem of the reload bar not filling up linearly is an error. We'll make sure to fix it. 


[As you can see, the reload on the icon is not even half done whereas it's more than half completed on the line indicator]


Cannot see incapacitated torpedo armaments in gun mode (and vice versa)

Our primary goal is not simply to show information on the screen but to bring it to the player. Someone posted  a screenshot of a World of Warcraft player's interface (with a bunch of add-ons) that illustrates well what would happen if we implemented every suggestion players made. In such a case, it would become impossible for new players to apprehend the game. The idea of "it will solve itself" is important since it led us to the concept of allowing the playerbase to customize their interface.


Full interface customization is a very important aspect for us but, unfortunately, it will not be implemented in the near future. The technology we use is not appropriate to implement the customization we would deem suitable yet. For now, customizing one's interface as one would like is only possible through mods.


Ship "model"

In a near future, you'll be able to see your AA/secondary guns composition in battle



At about the same time, we will significantly improve the minimap. In addition to being able to display various radii, you'll be able to enable or disable several parameters directly in battle. I think that everyone will find his groove.


Messages regarding ship kills

[Player suggests adding something like : Vasya_Pupkin [Kongo] destroyed Alex_nagibator_666 [NewMexico]]

We plan to modify it, it's on our list.


"Players panel"


I will be frank, we won't add players panel soon. As you know, there are other problems regarding the interface which are more important than players panel. For those who want more information than what the current battle interface offers, I suggest you download legal mods. 



Generally speaking, we treat mods not only as an opportunity to experiment various features (as you probably know, there are several mods made by WG employees), but also to understand what the playerbase wants, what we should do first (and what we should not do); it's also a good opportunity for players to put their ideas in practice. 


Post battle interface

The post-battle screen doesn't suit anybody, us included. We've already said we're working on improving it. The new version is nearing release and will be implemented in one of the next updates.

I must add that all the values shown in the post-battle screen don't come from nowhere. All the values the player sees come from various data collected server and client side. If something doesn't appear on the stats screen, it often means that data simply isn't collected. Thus, the game interface is only the tip of the iceberg, a little part of a more complex system which all of the dev team are working on.


Arrows in drop-down menus

I agree that this feature is not obvious, but it works simply enough that players can understand how it works after the first time. Once a player learns how the arrows work and what they mean, he doesn't have further problems with them. Will we change it? We will, but in order to do that, we need to change all of the port interface first.


Upgrades on ships

If you want to change one upgrade for another, you can simply click on the new one and the game will ask you what you want to do with the previous upgrade. There are help bubbles everywhere in case you need help. And if you think that it's not enough for some elements, do not hesitate to report it to us.


Post-battles messages (messages that appear  in the port on the right after a battle)


The current interface already works a bit differently than how it's shown in your screenshot. The next step is to add specific messages depending on what tab the player is on in the port.


Pressing [Esc] in the captain skills or the ship modules/upgrades window doesn't send the player back to the port

We will fix this issue. Our current architecture doesn't allow us to quickly fix this issue.


Closing the game by pressing [Alt + F4] or clicking on the X in the upper right corner in windowed mode

It works as follows: every command for closing the client will ask for a confirmation. It's not only to prevent accidentally closing the game by clicking on the cross in windowed mode or pressing Alt+F4 but also to prevent inexperienced users to fall in the "Press Alt+F4 to..." trap.


Closing thoughts

We appreciate any feedback the players provide us. Moreover, the interface is created solely from players' feedback. Constructive feedback is, however, taken more seriously. But, as I have already said, it's impossible to please everyone of you without making another person unhappy. This does not apply to one person specifically. Yes, it's always worth it for you to give us your point of view and your ideas. But remember, that the implementation of a suggestion is not always as simple as you think it is, whether it be from a technical or game design standpoint.


  • Cool 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
95 posts

Hi again guys (and gals). Just wanted to let you know that there is really a lot of info on the Russian forums, so much in fact that I cannot keep up. Even now, it takes me quite long to translate all of the stuff, I'm but one man and there are a lot of devs on the other side. So if you'd be ok with it, starting from now, I will only translate interesting questions and questions that weren't already answered in the Q&A (for the other threads, I will see how I can deal with that). I hope you won't be too disappointed.


Anyway, here's some Q&A. Source and source.


Q. What ratios do you use when calculating, for instance, the different distances in game (firing range, AA, etc.), ship speed, etc?

A. 1. The distances of the different ship values (what you see in the port stats - AA, firing range, etc) is multiplied by a factor of 2.

2. The speed of ships and shells is increased by a factor of 2-2.5, but, because all ship distances are also multiplied, the speed of ships and shells is close to 5 times that of reality. Shells a little more.

3. The speed of torpedoes is also affected by the speed of ships. Moreover, their speed values were taken from the "better" tests that were conducted in reality. It means that torps are considerably faster than ships, as you observed.


This was all done due to the fact that real naval battles could last for hours, if not whole days, and we had to compress that into a 20min battle.


Q. Why can't we disable chat, like in WoT or WoWp?

A. Because we don't want to "disable" socialization. So far, we prefer the chat to be a crossroad where cultures meet than a way to isolate players from one another.


Q. How does automatic AA work?

A. One ship's AA can attack three different targets (if it has 3 auras). Each aura automatically chooses the most dangerous target (for instance, empty bombers flying back are seen as less dangerous than bombers setting up for an attack).

We still recommend to manually target planes since the bonus for manual targeting is getting increased from 1.1 to 1.3 in the next update.


Q. Why do Fubuki's stock and upgraded guns have the same name?

A. It's a game constraint. We needed a gun upgrade on the ship and we found nothing historically accurate. So it's a little fantasy of ours.


Q. I looked at the Soviet cruisers and I wondered what plane are they equipped with?

A. Budyonny: Beriev KOR-2

Shchors: Shavrov KOR-2 (M-105)

Chapaev: Beriev KOR-3 (M-87)

Kirov: Nikitin KOR-2 (M-62)


Q. Why don't you add the possibility to test-drive premium ships for one hour before purchasing them?

A. This is an interesting subject but, at the moment, it isn't a priority for us. We can't find an appropriate way to make automatic test-drives for now. We would like to resolve the issue but, as said before, it's not in the top of our priority I'm hopeful it will be implemented someday.


Q. How is the development for PVE modes going?

A. We're working on it, but it's currently in the background. We will tell you more about it as soon as we have developed it more substantially.


Q. Regarding the problem of shooting at enemies above an island (enemy stands at 17km, island at 4-5 from me, enemy at 7-9km from the island). From a 12 shell salvo, only 1 shell flies above the island, the others hit the island as if I had targeted it. Is it a bug and when will you fix it?

A. It appeared the problem is more complicated than anticipated. Moreover, we had a lot of work lately so we couldn't find the time to fix it. I very much hope it will be fixed in 0.5.6.


Q. When will you add the x-ray function which allows us to see where citadels are and what is the armour thickness of different parts of the ship?

A. We're still working on it and, if everything goes according to plan (this is not final!), it should be added in patch 0.5.5.


Q. A long time ago, you planned to sell flags for doubloons, any news regarding this matter?

A. We tried to sell flags for doubloons for a time but the negative feedback was tremendous (it was perceived as a over-the-top greedy move) so we gave up on the idea.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1,258 posts
4,732 battles

Takru_Asia thanks for linking the Q and A's here,seen your posts about it on the NA forum.

  • Cool 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
95 posts

Takru_Asia thanks for linking the Q and A's here,seen your posts about it on the NA forum.


Thanks Bandit. I only spread the word, Carnotzet is doing the actual work.
  • Cool 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
95 posts

Info from the 0.5.4 thread HERE


  • Regarding turret destruction (in particular to DD's), devs don't want to simply make them indestructible but prefer to find another solution to turret incapacitation. It won't be added before 0.5.6. though.
  • Kutuzov won't be equipped with radar, her "speciality" is the smoke screen. She would be too strong with radar.
  • Chapayev doesn't have repair party, only Donskoy and Moskva.
  • We won't be given a free slot with the release of Ru/Soviet cruisers as one free slot is given for each nation, not for each line.
  • The "Yubari" test ship is used to test maps in the training room. We can quickly sail around maps and fire at terrain from various angles, and test model collisions.
  • Dual purpose secondary guns (NOT dual purpose main guns) will be destroyed less frequently.
  • Teamkilling and Matchmaking problems are currently the top priority.
  • Arpeggio events will continue on the RU-servers since the feedback was either neutral or good.[whether that means it will only continue there, I don't know. Let the speculations begin!]
  • The longer maintenance times (compared to WoT or WoWp) are due to the shortcomings of the client. They are testing a recompressing system on the ST, which should cut down maintenance time. If everything goes as planned, it should be available in 0.5.5.
  • Various changes were made to Ru/Soviet cruisers since they were tested but they won't disclose what was changed. So their final stats may be different that what was datamined and tested.
  • With the change to AA manual targeting (1.1 to 1.3) the maximum modifier you can get is 7.8, instead of 6.6 before.​

​Manual targeting (1.3); captain skill (2.0); defensive fire (3.0). 1.3x2x3 = 7.8 (remember the maximum modifier only applies to dual purpose guns as the captain skill doesn't affect other AA guns).

  • Arpeggio Kirishima will be released in April if possible. Not earlier than that. [Remember they're talking about the RU server so don't get your hopes up needlessly]
  • Profintern won't be released with 0.5.4.
  • Sapain will be available to good CV players through personal offers . More info on that later.




  • Cool 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
6,605 posts
2,889 battles


  • Sapain will be available to good CV players through personal offers . More info on that later.


Can I cry?!

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
784 posts
4,856 battles


Can I cry?!


Here is hoping they consider your CV games from way before to give you the offer.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
95 posts


Redditor iku_19 did some datamining and found these two changes between and


  • Kirov has less armor (around 10~30mm lower at places)
  • The engine of Kirov and Schors are more vulnerable


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites