Crysantos

First of all, when I talk about myself - I talk about myself, not the company. But besides that, we as company are doing our part to improve QoL, step by step - if this would be very easy to code or change, it would have been done already - there always more strings attached to this, especially when it comes to UI. We always have to find a balance between improving QoL, visuals, providing new content and keeping a huge variety of players happy, with very different interests, attitudes, opinions, etc. It's not easy to build a successful game and it's even harder to make sure it stays that way. Sorry but I don't understand why you jump on a comment like this, obviously we all like to improve quality of life. Why wouldn't we? Greetings, Crysantos

Thanks for the kind words. When it comes to the feature - it's on our to do list, but I doubt it will be implemented anytime soon. I'm also a huge fan of QoL features, especially for games that you play a lot since these things tend to annoy you more the more you play. We're already changing a few things in the exterior tab (e.g. sorting of flags) and hopefully we'll have more improvements coming up in the foreseeable future. Have a nice evening! Crysantos

This is something that Sub_Octavian was trying to point out with his post as well. Also it's kind of logical - you'll always have a certain local bias. Nation X players being in favor of strong Nation X ships, even entire servers having a different stances on balancing than others. It's natural and always a channel for every developer to find a balance and make everybody happy. I get your point, but just because German ships aren't the strongest or top in a certain category doesn't automatically mean they need to get a buff. Ships need to be in a certain area of performance in the context of their traits and gameplay - if we would always buff the lowest performing ship or even the ones that aren't the top, we'd create the worst power creep ever. We hear your concerns and based on the amount of feedback we heard about German ships, we are looking into how we can help them without breaking them, so they will be fun to play for you guys. Yeah I understand your point - in order to help players to have a better start, we're preparing guides and see how things develop. We also added IT CAs to the second round of PT as testable ships. Well if you take a look at the stats we shared, they're not really that specific to be able to spin them in a weird way, but I understand a natural skepticism towards statistics you don't have full access to yourself (scientific background does that to all of us ) 1.) I haven't played or worked for WoT in a while, so it's hard for me to comment. 2.) On top of what Sub_Octavian wrote - we're keeping a close eye on that. You also have to keep in mind that these modes have specific requirements by teams - a ship that is great for randoms might not be a good pick for competitive and vice versa. This is also true for various maps, if you paid attention to the different stages and line-ups for maps, it varied quite a bit. I agree that in this iteration there was a significant representation of Russian ships and I understand why teams picked them due to the things they excel at. But we're not interested to have a very one-sided representation of ships - we invested a lot of money and time to create a game with huge variety in gameplay, traits and ships, not to just downgrade everything vs. one nation. I'll include the point 3 here - Stalingrad vs. Moskva depends on the situation what you want to get from it, competitive teams will take them depending on what they want to use the ship for. We don't ignore feedback - look at the changes we make to ships, e.g. recently announced changes to Puerto Rico or Mainz. It's simply not true - but you might not always agree about changes we make or the performance level you expect from ships. We also incentivize our CCs to create proper reviews for the ships so players can make up their mind whether the ships are worth it or not - and we don't benefit from players doing a short time investment and then leave / be unhappy, we want you guys to be around for a long time and be happy to spend money. I honestly don't understand why people would complain about Viribus Unitis performance for example, it's a very strong ship with clear strengths and weaknesses. Also Yahagi is doing well but is definitely not something for everybody. If we would buff these ships, they would then become overpowered and we don't want that. Well some of them were released, others are still in testing or waiting for a good opportunity to sell them. When it comes to submarines, there should be an update soonTM. So we'll do our best to make sure this isn't the case and I'll guarantee you that we are always addressing the concerns you bring up here with our developers - and they take the time to listen to us and consider how to improve things or share their reasoning behind it. Greetings, Crysantos

We did - check out the stream I linked or the presentation we held at the CC summit, which was shared later on by them on their channels / videos (e.g. Flambass). I'm sure we'll do another dedicated stream on this in the foreseeable future because obviously balance is always a hot and important topic. And I do appreciate the feedback and suggestions how you personally would like us to change things - and how to regain your trust. I'll see what we can do to improve this - and I hope you also see the other side of the coin. Greetings, Crysantos

I understand criticism, but it's still not addressing the point I raised here. Using single cases to judge us in general is not fair, nor are we sugarcoating things in terms of balance. If we make a mistake - like we did with Graf Zeppelin's release, we're honest and live up to it. If you work with data, you know that it's not an easy task to make it available for everybody. I've always been very outspoken to release more stats and transparency to give you guys a better, more complete picture so you can understand where we are coming from and why we do the things we do. But I also see the reactions to it and how some people try to twist it / rip it out of context or then just completely disregard it. When you claim we would skew things in our presentations, would you suddenly believe stats we give you access to? It's impossible to prove this if a player strongly believes / mistrusts us - despite our best efforts. Yes I can expect more than sarcasm of you - we're doing our best to showcase our approach, to give you guys insights and we take your concerns seriously. We don't ignore complaints, we talk to you here and a lot of other channels, we invest time and resources to keep you guys informed - with DevBlog, streams, posts, early access for our CCs to not just go out there and release stuff without any prior info. You might not always agree with our approach or with the conclusions we draw from what he have available. And I keep repeating myself - but balancing is no easy task and things keep changing. That's a good question but I don't think it's a big risk. When the tree is released, a lot of players will still give it a try - keep in mind the vast majority of players isn't on forums, they might hear things from friends - but will still give it a try. Obviously we want any new branch to be interesting for players to check out - alhtough some might be easier to access / master than others. We have no intention to release a bad IT CA branch, but keep in mind the things I posted above. If we see that there is a need to adjust them, we will definitely do it. Greetings, Crysantos

No, I don't have to pick one because context matters. New ships are usually stronger because players don't know how to deal with them - but if they introduce a new mechanic or even a new type of ammunition, obviously this adds a layer of difficulty for the player of the new ship. The world is not black and white. How is one example representative? Yes we nerfed the YY significantly and it worked as expected for our balance team. But we forwarded your feedback about this big leap in performance adjustment and it's the exception, not the rule. Most nerfs and buffs are done in smaller increments, unless we're very confident that the bigger step will achieve the goal we had in mind. First of all we can't, since these statistics are not on a website but in internal tools and you'd need context to be able to read them. We released significantly more stats this year, we are presenting / discussing a lot of detailed stats about ships that were a hot topic this year with exactly those stats - to then get told off by focusing only on statistics and not measuring the fun factor. I don't think releasing more statistics will really achieve the goal of contesting complaints about OP / UP - when we show you what we see, the discussion or direction of the discussion doesn't really change significantly, it usually moves then to "spreadsheet says it's okay". We improved transparency here significantly compared to the past and we do our best to address this where we can - but you also have to take a look at how many of you react to us releasing this. @Chaos_Umbra Thanks for your detailed post - I really appreciate you taking the time. Also please don't get me wrong - our main goal is to have a fun game that you guys enjoy to play and be happy to spend money on, so we can keep developing and improving it. This is also true for IT CA line - you can be sure that we monitor your feedback very closely about how these ships perform and how you feel about them. Nobody here wants to release a new branch that is unfun and won't be played. I'm very happy to read more feedback about what you would like to see changed about them (besides adding HE) to make them more worthwhile - from a quality of life and performance point of view. We are keeping a very close eye on this but we're also cautious with early buffs, with a completely new mechanic we want to also give players some time to get used to it and see where we need to tweak without breaking things. Greetings, Crysantos

I'm not saying we're always 100% correct - we are human, we make mistakes. But we address things where we can and especially when it comes to rumors, it's better to check with us than panic about it. In most cases we can give you a good answer and that was the context of my answer. And we never said CVs are final or there are not things that still need to be fixed. Provide me replays / proof and I will always do my very best that it gets checked and fixed asap. Greetings, Crysantos

Sub_Octavian dedicated a lot of time to address this to showcase it's not the case - and it should also show you that we do take such concerns seriously - externally and internally. When it comes to analysis of ship balance, we have to use data - and we use it in combination with feedback from you guys, STs, CCs, etc. I'll recommend to watch this stream we dedicated to explaining how we work: While this is obviously the case for "average stats" that you would see on popular statistics websites, we do have way more refined stats to check how the ships perform in the hands of bad, average and good players. To be honest - I think IT CAs are in a good place personally, but they do require more skill than most other cruiser lines, proper knowledge how to use SAP and where to hit makes a significant difference. SAP is a completely new ammunition and it takes some time to getting used to how to use it most effectively - and it does have pros and cons. It's to be expected that initially players will struggle a bit with new mechanics - and we've slightly buffed the normalization for most IT CA's SAP. If we see that they are in trouble - we will help them but we won't rush it to give people time to adapt. My personal 2 cents on this are that it's good to have variety - it's good to be careful about too early buffs / nerfs. And we'll add some guides about how to make the best out of SAP for those who struggle with it. Not above everything else - we do listen and we pay attention. But statistics are a good basis to work from - they show you clearly how a ship performs comparatively and with the amount of data we have, there is also a lot of context for that. Additionally we do take feedback into consideration - not just about pure performance, but also about playstyle and fun. Perception is always tricky and with a thousand players come a thousand opinions - depending on who you ask. Graf Zeppelin is actually a good example of a rushed decision (and we fully admit that, shit happens unfortunately) - but the player feedback driven iteration wasn't stellar either. So we have to find a middleground - and we also have to be able to trust our guys who came up with this game that they sometimes will take a step that might be a bit daring initially, but work out just fine in the end. Is everything perfect in terms of balance? Nope and I don't think it ever will be in a constantly changing game with a very diverse playerbase and the concept of the game - featuring ships with distinct traits, strengths and weaknesses. I love common sense, it's just not very common anymore these days ;) a) We're not saying "everybody" else is wrong but we do share our point of view - or in this case Sub_Octavian shared his comments about concerns regarding a Russian bias. He's not talking down players or claiming they're lying, he's trying to give insights and back it up with data. We listen and we take this very seriously - and if we can do something about it, we will. b) We already tweaked Kremlin, but I'm well aware of the criticism that further changes to survivability or accuracy would be needed. We did a first step, we'll see how it works out and if needed, we'll tweak her more. The same applies to any ship, no matter where it's from. c) If our devs would believe that, there wouldn't be regional community teams around to collect your feedback and share it with them. But it's part of the equation - just like statistics are. We are very aware of certain perceptions and we do our best to address them - both with creating more awareness / sharing context or data and by making changes. Sorry, but nope - IJN & US BBs are still in a good place, even after all this time - in particular with Montana and Yamato. We do keep an eye on ships that underperform - like we saw with Izumo or Friedrich der Große - and apply buffs where needed to keep them competitive. Every game keeps developing, meta changes, players learn how to deal with ships, new features / mechanics impact gameplay, etc. - and surely some of these things do attribute to some ships falling behind. This is why we constantly monitor them and apply changes where needed, so that both old and new ships are competitive. New ships will always look quite strong initially when you meet them for the first time, since you probably don't know yet how to deal with them. Unicums and hardcore-players might do with reading up in advance, but the Average Joe won't - this is also why we take a few weeks for statistics to settle down and see where ships are at performance-wise to make an educated, not rushed decision. I know there are many more comments here, but I wanted to address some of the main concerns voiced here (and it's getting quite late) - and yes, you can be assured that we'll address your concerns about any bias / anti-bias and balance internally. Greetings, Crysantos

Not sure how this is related to my quote, but I can doublecheck this specific issue with our devs. Afaik remember we did this back then already and it was confirmed. Do you have any recent example of such an instance? This is why we always highlight that these things are work in progress and what our current plans are. This is still the intention as far as I know, but no final confirmation on this concept yet. As soon as we have more info on this, we will share it. It's always a tricky balance between sharing intentions early on to create transparency and be able to deliver exactly that later on, since many things can change - from design to implementation or balancing. We do want you guys to have an idea of our vision of the game - but we're always careful about the promises we make. Have a nice evening Crysantos

Yes, these are options - and we still need to decide what to do with the previous uneven Tier CVs - this is something I wouldn't expect in the near future though. Obviously I can't make any promises here, but these things are not off the table. Greetings, Crysantos

Sorry but there is no pattern there and no bad intention. There are a lot of other historical or museum ships who have been available for ages and still are. In some cases we didn't do a great job with balancing - like Belfast or the Imperator Nikolai. But most of that is years ago and it's the clear exception that this happens - not the rule. We add a lot of new ships on a constant basis and the overwhelming majority of them end up in a good spot - we have over 300+ ships in our game at this point. Also I don't understand how this is related to the actual topic. There will be more content for CV players in the future - Indomitable still has to be released and another CV branch is likely to be released at some point - when we're ready to talk about new content, we will. That's fine, just ask us and we'll do our best to answer/address your concerns. Don't believe random comments about what people allegedly said - if we can confirm or deny, we'll do that here. Greetings, Crysantos

Thanks for the report, we'll forward it and see what we can do for you. But please always create a support ticket so that it's in the system anyway. Greetings, Crysantos

This is something maybe for the future that we're investigating, but I can't make any promises yet. Right now I can't answer that, we're checking internally. When it comes to winning - it's actually quite easy. Why don't you join us for today's Halloween stream and we'll show you how to do it? Greetings, Crysantos

You get the dubloon value back (so you pay 8k dubloons, get 8k dubloons) and in case you bought it in the exterior tab first, you will get the commander on top from the Armory offer That is only the case if you don't have any unoccupied port slot - but I'm checking what we can do about this specific case. Happy to hear that you enjoy it - for the rewards you decide how much time you want to spend on it and you'll always see what the next random bundle contains. BBs are amazing in this mode with the amount of tanking and damage dealing you can do. A truce is for the weak, I personally love to grab other division's filth - the best filth you can get out there Greetings, Crysantos

Good one