MrConway

We do actually have a solid plan on how to make further changes to make CV play more comfortable and balanced - many of which are based on player feedback. But we are still figuring out what we can implement and when. I for one am hesitant to make any promises that we are not sure we can keep yet, so stay tuned and we'll let you know as soon as things are finalized a bit more. As one of the people tasked with collecting the player feedback I can assure you that I have compiled as accurately as I can based on everything I have read here over the last weeks. Players like you are the reason we come back, because although there is often some backlash we know that the information is appreciated by many. I for one take my hat off to Sir_Nelson who came and did an intense Q&A session without pre-collected questions and pre-written answers in a language that is not his native one. I really think it is a shame that many people lashed out at him for this - I'd like any of them to step up and try doing something similar. In fact many people did, there were entire threads dedicated to "Lul, he doesn't even play" Thanks!

The timeframe is correct, but I don't know if we can do another respec - we'll look into it. The price was adjusted slightly to better work with some popular pre-paid options, we don't usually do discounts for first releases of "naked" premium ships.

Just as you have to put more effort into playing CA/CLs or DDs, that shouldn't be an issue. And with a CV you can enjoy your coffee while flying your next squadron to target.

It is not my place to determine or pass judgment on a moral question or whether we are in the right to do something. The fact is that we are currently only testing this change - I don't know how many times I have said this already. We can talk about specifics regarding the compensation IF THIS HAPPENS, for now this question is academic. Also: Please do not open up a thread with staff members mentioned in the title. You can always ping me in another thread on the topic (there are plenty) or send me a PM. So lets close this down - again. If you feel a need to discuss further, please use an existing thread. closed

Damn, forgot to update the post - the modstation is back up and running!

Guys, Alaska will come when she comes - there is really nothing else I can say. The shells are not flat-out worse, just different. And Wichita has superior concealment and mobility so there have to be some trade-offs. As with everything, balance is the main consideration for these differences.

I don't know if we play the same way, but I put a lot of focus into my BB games in order to do well and get very comparable results to what I now do in a CV over the course of a battle. Sure it needs more tweaking, but I disagree when you say playing BB is that easy.

A bug report would really help! You can submit this to our customer support to make sure it can easily be tracked and handled. Please include: * Clear description of the bug * Replay of the game + timestamp where the issue is visible * Latest python.log (taken immediately after the game finished) that you will find in the /profiles folder in the Warships directory * If at all possible a video recording

Look, we clearly announced that this change will be implemented based on the community's feedback, but also that it will take some dev-time to implement and will hopefully come in 0.8.2. So of course it cannot be in 0.8.1 patchnotes. Which is why we have already, pre-emptively announced that we will have a second round of free re-speccing with 0.8.2 when we anticipate the meta having stabilized.

Musste mich echt an die neue Geschwindigkeit der Audacious torps gewoehnen, war kein gutes Gefecht fuer mich ;)

So, lets talk about your questions. We made a game that you played for 20000 battles over the last years, so clearly something you really enjoy and care about. (at least I hope so for your sake) Should this not mean that you can trust us that we are trying to evolve and improve this game? We're not going to willy-nilly make changes to premium ships because we feel like it - IF AT ALL then only where we feel it is necessary. I would hope that you enjoy playing the game, and while the first few weeks of the rework were bound to be bumpy, the game is in my opinion still just as fun. I don't know what information you base this assumption on, I certainly think the skill-gap has improved vastly. I don't know why people assume that changes to the PC version are based on any console considerations - it baffles me. If you look at WoWs Legends you will see that it is already a very different game. It is a mixture of own experience and vision for the game, coupled with player, supertester and contributor feedback and statistics. There is not simple answer as it always depends on the decision being made. I don't know what my personal opinion matters in any kind of context, but I do think that it was absolutely necessary to release it to the live server - yes. Thats one question. As I said above, the reason a change is being CONSIDERED, is game balance. And since this thread has devolved into name-calling and ad-hominem attacks I am shutting it down for now. If you want to have a discussion keep it civil and on-topic. closed

Because we are not a historical warship simulator - I don't think that would be much fun - we put the main focus on gameplay rather than historical accuracy. Unfortunately I don't understand your question. If its about the option to "refund" the CVs you had prior to 0.8.0, you can do this until 0.8.2.

You can expect reviews on the final version of Wichita to pop up this afternoon, if you're not sure I would suggest you wait until then :) That was a mistake, the "naked" version is now also up, sorry for the delay. You can find it here: https://eu.wargaming.net/shop/wows/vehicles/11835/ Thanks for pointing it out for sure, it was meant to be available immediately.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but unfortunately the chances of USS Conway being that ship are... slim.

You can expect more ships to be introduced throughout the year, these are just the ones coming in the near future.

I agree, unfortunately I don't have the clout to get a ship implemented because "it would be cool" :P

From my experience I agree that we over-nerfed them, but that doesn't mean we cannot make further tweaks to make them more useable again. For now try the other set, I've had good results with them. I think there was indeed a bit of nuance lost in translation in some of the answers and we should give massive props to him for coming on the stream and doing such a heated Q&A in another language in the first place. Having spent quite some time with him during his visit discussing various aspects I am confident that he knows what he is doing. If you feel like any specific questions need some clarification I am happy to try and provide it. I am trying hard not to ignore any of the questions and spent a lot of time debating the GC issue in too many threads to count, the feedback that the GC change timing is poorly chosen has been heard loud-and-clear and passed on. Regarding your last point I am at a loss what you are referring to, please clarify when I said this :)

Thanks for the feedback. Re: The flag I'll have to check!

Of course it will take several months to be perfect, that doesn't mean we won't be continually making improvements and tweaks along the way. We also keep changing other things, mechanics and ships - that doesn't mean that the game isn't finished. And I understand why you understood his answer the way you did, but he was talking about playing 20-30 battles a week at work. If you have any doubt that he plays the game and knows it well, you can look up his public stats. You know, I was thinking of how to respond to your post but honestly, it makes so little sense to me. We don't care about any console audience in relation to WoWs PC, we are not a console game and never will be. We make changes to the game based on what we think is best for it and our current audience. I also don't mind addressing difficult questions - try me.

Denied. All of my efforts are squarely behind USS Conway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Conway_(DD-507))

I don't think we will have further 0.8.x hotfixes, but you can expect changes to be implemented over the next few updates. We have had a lot of feedback and now also data that we are working through to decide what to give priority. We'll keep you updated as things evolve for sure!

1) Alaska will come when she comes, but for 1 million free XP. 2) They are not nailed down yet, but you can expect them to be similar to existing ships of the same class and tier.

This is a valid concern, but I just looked at the numbers and considering that each player can contribute 20,000 XP to the total needed XP this should not be a problem for the vast majority of clans, as long as the active players contribute a decent amount.

Play ranked? ;) As the article states, "The Naval Battle competition will be held every week without interruption starting on Monday, February 18, 2019." I agree that the clan battles aspect is confusing, we'll look into rewording it. And while players compete individually, you can of course division up and work together to get the maximum amount of stars by assigning players to try certain ship classes and nations. This format is a continuation of the event we held last year, which was overall quite well liked. Clan battles will be back, don't worry. That is a valid point of feedback, I'll pass it on. The /1000000 at the bottom is the maximum XP each player can contribute to the overall goal, obviously a placeholder number in this case, it will be 20,000 XP in the first iteration of the naval battles. This is a format for random battles.

I also played Kaga, Enterprise, Graf Zeppelin and Shokaku. Other stock ships at tier VIII face the same issue when in a tier X match. And since the total number of planes you can lose is limited by their cooldown, you also cannot lose unlimited credits. But the economical settings are something we will indeed still change.