Allied_Winter

Somebody help me please with my memory, doesn't that hold true only for the RU server? Has anybody on the other servers ever tried to convert large amounts? What is a "large amount"? Greetings

Met T0byJug in his Tirpitz, while I was playing Sims. Unfortunately RNG decided that this wasn't my game and detonated me while still on almost full HP And met thestaggy in a game, where our DD on the D flank, didn't want to cap, because he had bad experiences before... Luckily we won that one, due to the enemy team collapsing. Greetings

That's the spirit! I can't speak for Nurnberg or Yorck, but the Myoko is one heck of a good T7 cruiser. As others have said use your stealth to look for engagements you can win (that holds true for basically any class though). Your 203s are great fire starters, so light one or two on one target and then switch to a different one. Make use of the AP on broadsiding cruisers below 11km. Check out this video by notser: Sure it's not perfect, but he tries to do his best (e.g. at 9.50 when he engaged the Omaha he could've switched over to AP). Maybe you can pick sth of here. Or where you looking for sth different? Edit: Just saw your other answers... I'll see if I can do a Myoko battle these days and upload it. I assume he meant flamu's rage (without the N), as flamu is known for being as salty as the ocean surrounding him. Greetings

Spee in the harbour and done 7 of 9 Christmas Convoys. Can't finish them though, thanks to not owning a Tirpitz (but eh, who cares...) Greetings

Probably never going to happen, but yeah would be nice. True these are two different issues, but the former is the one, the devs thought we talk about since the RN CLs were released. That's why the answer was always the same. The later issue (timer still at less than 7 seconds and smoke finished puffing long ago) has been probably been in the code for long enough or I don't know. And I do not care since how long it has been there. The only thing that matters is how to make it clear to the devs, that the later issue is far more important to us players. Hence we need a way to show them what we're not satisfied with! Nothing else I'm trying to show here. Code works for issue one. Issue two and code apparently don't match up (and appart from the players) obviously the devs, never thought that this would be an issue. Greetings

The problem is, that we don't know the devs definition, so it could be possible, that your (and mine, and the whole playerbase's) definition is different from the devs. Would be bad, but could happen. Wouldn't be the first time, that devs implement something, that all customers don't like ("Yes Microsoft I'm looking at you!") And for the specification for proper smoke: The last time this was changed was in patch 0.5.9 (read here), so they announced way before the arrival of the RN CLs that if you want to stay concealed while moving you have to drop your speed to 12.5kts. It was this patch where blinking while laying smoke was patched out, so we knew that magic number for 6 months now... Greetings

Agree 100%. But the devs thought otherwise (for reason probably forever unknown to us). Maybe there was a different specification or (what seems more plausible to me) when the mechanic was implemented nobody thought of the mismatch at the end of the smoke timer. And look no problems (although it's repeatable) with DDs or the Kutuzov whose smoke run quite long (18 - 25s). And when the RN CLs came, either it wasn't thought of, or some said, that it wouldn't be an issue. It is an issue, but you can't demand the devs to sell out their colleague (iEarlGrey calls him Bob). Unfortunately, because many would like to have a few words with Bob. So, what does that leave us with: Trying to point out what's wrong with this smoke. And it appears to be the first step has been taken, the devs have recognized that something is off. Greetings

1. The smoke generator time is the time the generator emits smoke. 2. You're right, it shouldn't, but unfortunately according to the devs it currently does! 3. Apparently not, otherwise the devs wouldn't point with their finger on the concealed/not concealed part of smoking up everytime we ask them about it. Look, I know it's frustrating and adding a puff simple at (in this case the 7th) and last second of the smoke timer this would be an equally perfect and quick solution like the one I proposed. And sure you should be in smoke at the last second (if you have a speed that allows you to stop within 7s), but atm it's just not the case. BUT: According to the devs, the software was programmed to do that (so no bug on the software side). That we don't like the effects this causes on the battlefiled is (from a dev point of view) a different issue. Usually those in Community Management should be able to translate our issues (press 'smoke', press 'S' four times, stop inside smoke) into dev speak. For whatever reasons this is not happening (or at least I don't see no such things happen). So I dig back into my experience of working with devs and translate the issue myself on a direct way to at least one dev (via reddit, unfortunately). AND: Apparently Sub_Octavian recognized also, that the way smoke is currently implemented with the RN CLs isn't what we wanted! As said above I forwarded Cpt_Andre's requirement to him. There's not much more we can do, but if we keep saying it's a bug, then the devs don't understand what we're upset about, because to the software does what it should. Maybe this example can help: The devs think of a programm to add to numbers together --> RAND + RAND = X. This program works. However we'd like the outcome to be always X < 10. The program isn't buggy, because it adds perfectly. But we have to raise the issue, that RAND has to be RAND [0 .. 5]. And yes, this shouldn't be our concern either. For us it shouldn't matter, what we call it, WG should recognize our problem with it (the smoke) and act upon it. But as said, I don't see such things happening. Greetings

True! But the old mod, showed each individual circle, and highlighted the one you were currently in (it was green). See the NA forum for this: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/82122-smoke-boundary-mod0581created-by-wglast-and-final-update-714/ Greetings

The thing is though, testing with non constant speeds (other than Full, 3/4, 1/2, 1/4) is rather difficult. It could be though, that the 3/4 of the Leander was just a tad too fast. @RobS80: I know that we have "Show smoke screen boundaries". But I didn't know where to set, that it highlights the one you're currently in? Greetings

IN regards to clones: https://twitter.com/WorldofWarships/status/819732378797031424 Greetings

Btw. I forwarded Cpt_Andre's requirement to Sub_Octavian (with the addition of maybe increase the RN smoke timer by 1 or 1.5s). The logic behind the timer increase: If you stand still and are spotted by an enemy and activate the smoke it takes a short duration (I have measured it with a Leander, and there it's roughly 2.5s or rather more) before you're concealed (= detected sign disappears). Maybe there's a mechanic in place, that deploys smoke only after it recognizes whether you're concealed but not whether you're detected (ATTENTION: concealed != detected). This fits to the assumed check if you're inside a smoke screen to prevent additional puffs, when no more puffs are needed (This is taken as a fact since the devs confirmed, that there will be only one puff with any smoke, if you stand still in it). If the mechanic detects, that you're not concealed, it deploys smoke. The mechanic needs roughly 2 to 2.5 seconds to detect this and the smoke timer is only 7s long, so this behaviour fits pretty much what we've seen so far! Scenario 1: Deploying while stationary - 0s: activate smoke - 2.5s: detection done, ship not concealed, first puff - 5s: detection done, ship concealed, no puff - 7s: smoke generator ends (-7.5s: detection done, ship concealed, no puff) RESULT: 1 Puff, concealed Scenario 2: Deploying at full speed (32.6kts) - 0s: activate smoke - 2.5s: detection done, ship not concealed, first puff - 3s: you move out of the smokes boundaries (= not concealed) - 5.5s: detection done, ship not concealed, second puff - 6s: you move out of the smokes boundaries (= not concealed) - 7s: smoke generator ends (- 8.5s: detection done, ship not concealed) RESULT: 2 Puffs, not concealed Scenario 3: Deploying at half speed and stopping to zero (Leander = 16.5kts) - 0s: activate smoke - 2.5s: detection done, ship not concealed, first puff - 4s: you move out of the smoke boundaries (=not concealed) - 6.5s: detection done, ship not concealed, second puff - 7s: smoke generator ends RESULT: 2 Puffs concealed Secnario 4: Deploying at 3/4 speed and stopping to zero (Leander = 24.3kts) - 0s: activate smoke - 2.5s: detection done, ship not concealed, first puff - 4.6s: you move out of the smoke boundaries (=not concealed) Now this time is the tricky one. If my readings are correct and a smoke puff is deployed 2.5s after the mechanic decides, that you're not concealed, this leads via mathematics (7s - 2.5s = 4.5s) to the fact, that any detection that starts after the 4.5s mark (4.6s in this case) would deploy a smoke puff 0.1s after the generator ends. - 7s: smoke generator ends (- 7.1s: detection done, ship not concealed) RESULT: 1 Puff, not concealed Uncertainties: Be aware that this was just a short test in the Training room against a stationary Erie I used as a reference for being detected. But appart from my eyes I had no measure to check whether I was concealed or not. If somebody got the old smoke boundaries mod active (the one that highlights the smoke circle you're in), than a more accurate measurement would be possible. Also I used my eyes to determine, how long it would take for the smoke to deploy. In scenario 1 being concealed and not longer detected is coincident, thus my 2.5s mark. Also different RN cruisers have different speeds and different "brake power" thus leading to slighlty different times. Solution: Given above, prolonging the smoke timer by 1 or 1.5s. In Scenario 4 even a 0.5s longer smoke generator would've deployed a second puff. Although I didn't know if I would've been able to slow down to full stop within the second puff. Support: If you want, please feel free to either replicate my scenarios or add new ones, but try to mointor the times as accurate as possible. The more precise the numbers are in regards to smoke deployment (is it really 2.5s? or more close to 3s?) Greetings

You get a better rudder shift time! And from what I heard, the Iowa can benefit from any decrease of rudder shift time she can get. Greetings

Will do once I'm at home! Well... I still think the devs understand their game. Where I think Lesta is lacking is: - explaining the implemented content in a proper way to its customers (and according to the QnA, Sub_Octavian admitted, that with the RN CLs they have to explain more and better) - gathering requirements (and from a software point of view: 'laying smoke while moving and staying concealed' is what we currently have apparently for all smokes, but that is a different requirement than 'hitting the brakes at any speed, laying smoke and stop within the working time of the generator') I know this may sound nitpicky and it feels a bit as if we were doing the work for the devs, but translating requirements from player/customer speak to dev speak is allways difficult, so I try to help it this way. Your way of describing what needed is an intuitive approach and I don't know why the devs went for that approach (probably because a major overhaul of the smoke mechanic is needed before). A quick way to solve the problem (until a proper solution arrives) would be to increase the RN CL smoke timer by 1 or 1.5s. Greetings

Yay and nay: The value is correct (it works for 12.5kts) for being concealed. I tested a few battles with the Leander and the Belfast). Any time I was faster (no matter if I was stopping or keeping my spead), I was not concealed, but it may have created two puffs. If you say you were concealed, did you mean you were not detected or (and that would really be a bug) or really concealed (as in within the boundaries of your previous puff)? Keep in mind: You can be not concealed and not detected at the same time (concealed != detected). Greetings

Yeahhhh NOT! I know you that this issue is rather critical, but: Going 12.5kts has been (since the rework of smoke in patch ... 0.5.6?? or was it 0.5.7) and currently still is the way to lay smoke, while moving and staying concealed at the same time. You move with the boundary of your smoke. You'll get two puffs... or to speak dev: maximise your smoke screen. I aggree that (and apparently now are also the devs) that the explanation is in no way clear. The QnA today made a few things clear: Smoke works as intended for speeds up to 12.5kts! What we refer to as 'rule for n puffs' is simple the outcome of smoke generator timer and speed. Hence it's for the devs correct to negate any 'rule for puffs'. But this makes it less intuitive for the players At any speeds above 12.5 you're not concealed. At least that seems to be a tested value if Sub_Octavian gives us this value over and over. Apparently for the devs it is logical, that if you're not concealed, it doesn't matter how many puffs are generated. This has never been a problem since the smoke generator time for other ships was allways long enough to activate the smoke and then starte braking. With the short generator time for RN smokes this design became obvious I know we like to refer to this thing as bug, BUT (and this is a big one) if you want a bug to be fixed, there has to be a bug! Apparently the software does what it should (hence no bug), but we don't like it (deign is bad). If we stick to that wording (or as I did with "poorly designed"), than the devs recognize that there is a problem with the feature! Greetings

Thanks for the info. While I appreaciate it, the official answer from Sub_Octavian regarding that issue is: Pull smoke at 12.5kts to get the maximum smoke effect (in this case: two puffs). Source: news from RU Greetings

Wollte gerade nachsehen ob das schon jemand hierher kopiert hat Stehen einige feine Sachen drin. Einige Fragen auf reddit sind noch unbeantwortet. D.h. es wird evtl. noch eine Ergänzung kommen! Greetings

But I can ask Sub_Octavian if they can map the port view function to any other (currently) unused key in reach. How about SHIFT? CTRL (cursor) + SHIFT (movement)? Edit: Just a look in the control options in game says: You can change the keyborad bindings for Free Lock Camera to a different button. But still, you'd be using two insteat of one key. Greetings

You can move with just CTRL pressed, you just have to move the cursor to either edge of your screen The thing is though: Using CTRL in battle for the cursor and at the same time, moving your view around (without right mouse button and without steering the cursor to the edge) is a bit problematic. How would you move the cursor e.g. over your minimap to change some options? I don't think that my suggestion is workable. Greetings

Sorry I don't get you fully. Are we talking about port view or in battle? Oh wait a minute. Instead of using CTRL as it is now (standing on the bridge and turning and elevating your sight through the skies to find a target), you want to implement the movement from the port view but just with using still CTRL in battle? Greetings

QUICK: Sub_Octavian answered this: "Apart from that, radar/HAS circles on minimap, and some additional info in port, do you have any quick small improvements you consider vital? If you do, feel free to PM me. I will be happy to review them and pass them along." Soooo any ideas? As for the CV skill... yeah facepalm... or a noob catcher Greetings

Already found him Dasha looks more appealing to me Greetings

Not directly info from RU but from RU Dev: Currently QnA with Sub_Octavian on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/5niuro/dev_qa_round_8/ I keep the post updated with the current questions and answer: Q: Question regarding clans. Currently, with the clans in beta testing, we are limited to 30 members, and yet, in the "planned" features, we still are limited to only 30 members. When can we expect expanded clan rosters (I have a clan of over 80 members via my website) and when can we expect some type of clan battle/Strongholds battle functionality? A: We do understand that most of established clans / communities / teams will need more than 30 slots. We are working on several options to expand this number in future. It cannot be easily set to 100 (500, 1000) right now for several reasons, on of them is scaling for future clan activities. But we do know about this concern and are going to find the solution. As for release schedule - sorry, no leaks Q: Last year (Q3 or Q4) it was mentioned that a CV rework (UI and gameplay) was currently in progress. Iirc it was mentioned, that it would be ready for launch sometimes in 2017. The developer diaries video for 2017 (which was good overall, I'd give it a B+) however doesn't state anything in regards to that. Can you give any more info in regards to that? Oh and have we seen you in said video? A: CV improvements are in progress. We did not mention them in the video along with other improvements, because we wanted to focus it on new highlights. However, that does not mean that we are not going to solve current game issues. Yes, that big man that could use some sleep was me Q: In this sub (below a video from flamu in a Minotaur) the topic came up again and it seemed, that there is a 'dead zone' where you currently have to gamble if you get a second smoke puff (for RN cruisers) or not. This gambling (esp. in high tier games) is a no go. Are you devs aware of this unclear mechanic? I know you said it's not a bug, so it looks more like a poorly implemented feature. A: I already explained how smokes work. I will do once again: You will not be concealed if you move with the speed more than 12.5 kt There is no 1-puff, 2-puffs, etc, rule There is no gamble. Drop the speed to 12.5 and smoke safely However, I completely agree that current implementation is not intuitive at all. I will have a word with Game Logic and UI teams. Hopefully, we will find some way to make this clear to players. Addendum Q: So basically, if I want to stay safe I need to slow done to 12.5 before dropping smoke. Will be difficult though, if you're suprised. A: I will disuss the issue ASAP. Perhaps there's some quick way to indicate the "safe" speed. Mechanics itself is adequate, IMHO. The problem is in clarity. a few moments later (ok it was 45 minutes or so) A: Done. We will take this issue, and couple of others, and will try to squeeze small improvement pack somehere in the near future. No promises of exact date, as our UI is quite busy with big incoming features, though. Apart from that, radar/HAS circles on minimap, and some additional info in port, do you have any quick small improvements you consider vital? If you do, feel free to PM me. I will be happy to review them and pass them along. Q: Are RNCL handled differently than other ships with smoke in this regard? A: No, smoke mechanics is the same, only settings (work time, radius) matter. Q: Can you confirm that HE fire chance is not affected by successful penetration or shatter? During the last week there have been quite a few threads trying to analyze the effect of new IFHE skill, and some of them assume that shattered HE shells will have its fire chance reduced to 40% of original fire chance. I haven't seen this on official wiki though so I think it's not true, but if it's true then you need to update it on wiki asap as it's pretty important. A: Fire chance: Yes I can. Please let me copy-paste what I posted earlier: Q: Undocumented changes on PTS: on the 2nd upgrade module for CV (500k credit one), Flight Control Mod.1 gives -15% aircraft servicing time instead of -10% on live, and Air Groups Mod.2 gives an additional +50% ammo to fighters (none on live). Shells of Gnevny/Ognevoi/Kiev/Tashkent/stock Udaloi (HE-46 and SAP-46) takes ~6,2s to travel 10km instead of ~5,8s on live, and I believe Khabarovsk's shell is also slower. The velocity is still the same tho. Can you check all these changes and tell us if it is intended or not? A: Full change list will be provided in the version patch notes. I will double-check the info you provided, but shell travel time changes are part of shell travel time bug, and upgrade modules are intended buff. Q: What was the motivation behind the creation of "Evasive Maneuver" skill? It doesn't really make sense to reduce the speed and detection of planes when they are going back to carrier and should be when being sent to attack a target instead. A: The skill is indended for players that often lose their squadrons and run out of planes. Q: All new skills seem to have a fixed, straight bonus regardless of class. How does the team think about adding more scaled skill like CE(dependent on class) or AFT/BFT/EM(dependent on gun caliber). I also noticed that the skill tree doesn't have an option to improve maneuverability of ships, so I guess you should consider adding a skill that reduces like 10-16% ruddershift/turning radius based on classes. A: We are not planning to add more skills. Some changes to ships specs are achived through upgrade modules - e.g. Rudder shift mods. There's no need to copy everything to commander skills, we believe. Q: So with PTS 2.0 for the new captain skills I am still confused why the developers think that the Radio Position Finding skill is a good addition for the gameplay? Will we ever receive a statement for the intention of such a skill? A: You will receive full statement when there's final decision on this skill, and this, in turn, will happen after 0.6.0 PT2. We did not remove it for PT2 because we currently don't think it should be removed. This is to be determined. addendum A: Final decision between PTS2 and Release / PTS3 (if it is needed) obviously. I believe such information is logical to be provided before next release in any case. Q: What are some interesting things that have appeared when WG researched into the French lines that you can share? Such as obscure designs etc. (e.g. France's 450mm Gun and the 37,000 ton Battleship designs A and B) A: There were many peculiar and even crazy designs during research, from what I head. I will ask ship production team for details. When they have time to answer, I will translate and post info here, okay? Q: Has there been a mild rework of the T5-T6 matchmaking? I seem to notice during the Graf Spee-Grind (which I completed in my Kamikaze R and Warspite) that those ships weren't as often bottom-tier in T7-T8 matches respectively as in november or so. Or does this all boil down to confirmation bias? A: We did not change any MM settings. MM background can change due to current tier/ship popularity. We always seek to list all changes in patch notes, so... Q: Why more Bastion? A: To bring diverse high-level content. It is not ideal mode, obviously. We're designing several changes for one of the nearest updates, including eco reward for interacting with forts and balance changes. Please stay tuned! Q: Will the new PvE game mode have a separate stats page or will it be merged with Co-Op stats? Will the new PvE mode even have stats at all? A: Should have separate..it makes sense. But I will raise this question when I have a chance. Q: Is account wiping (research, credits, exp, stats) a possible feature in 2017, or at least the near future? I think it is currently available for WoT. If this feature will be added for WoWs accounts, what is your opinion of selective wiping - wiping all research, stats etc of specific nations nominated by the player? Sorry if that question is hard to understand. A: Nope, AFAIK. Q: So far, your development team launches lines of their own choice. Would it be out of the question to let the players decide one of the future lines instead, by way of vote? Assemble a list of potential tech trees, then let players vote what they want to see first? A: Our choice is not our personal-I-WANT-MOAR-VODKA-AND-WMF-DD-choice. It is the choice based on audience, metagame and, which is super important, reference avaliablity / production time. So, we cannot go with voting option. We watch audience needs (on all servers) - that is 100% correct, as lines are made for players, obviously. But this solely cannot be the only argument - unfortunately. If we produced orks, elfs and goblins, it would be much, much easier. Q: Will Blyskawica continue to stay under a Polish nation, or will it eventually be merged into a Pan-Europe nation? If not, why is Perth relegated to a Commonwealth tree? A: She will remain in Polish nation, and Perth will remain in Commonwealth. We see no reason to change it. Q: Why are there so few (just 4) different crew portraits for the UK nation? Warspite has been in the game since 2015, and the UK got a full tech tree line last year. To add insult to injury, the Commonwealth does not get unique portraits and has to share with the UK. A: I discussed that with UI team. Hopefully, they will update UK crew portraits in a few updates. Q: Do you plan to buff the most underpreforming IJN DDs? Also the upcoming changes like RDF skill and the removing of stealt fire make them totally unplayable. A: Currently there are no plans to buff IJN DDs and no fact that they are/will be unplayable. Typically, when IJN DD player has slightly worse avg.stats, it is because of trying to spam torps from longest distance possible. In the early days, that was a viable and effecient option - not anymore. IJN DDs became more skill-demanding and difficult. We realize that, but we are not inclined to change that. There is no purpose in doing any line uncompetitive. That's would be very dumb of us. However, making line more demanding is acceptable. I am sorry that I did not provide the answer you probably was looking for, but there it is. Q: Can you give us a hint when the Haifuri collab starts approx or any info? What we know so far is just a small announcement on the Asian portal from last year, no further official info since then.\ A: As for Haifuri, such things are mainly handled by our ASIA colleagues. I don't participate. Q: I know that eventually other nations without tech trees are going to have premiums to represent them (Canada, Spain, the Scandinavians or Netherlands). My question: it is possible to make a premium for Argentina? Probably the ARA General Belgrano? (is just a copy of the Brooklyn class that will come with the US cruiser line split). I know that this is not coming until 2018 or 2019, im just asking if you are considering my country for a premium in the next years. Thx for all your input to the community and the 2017 video is great A: We are considering your country and other countries that are impossible to transofm into full ship tree. Thank you for watching Q: Any chance we can get some more filters for the ship carasoul please. Suggestions I have are: 1. The ability to sort by ships that aren't elite. Right now you can sort for elite ships and premiums. 2. As many rows as possible to choose for the carasoul. People like me with larger res monitors have more space for rows without impacting the UI. Currently hardcapped at 4 3. There is a mod in aslains mod pack that's shows small images of the ship when using a multi-line carasoul instead off silhouettes. 4. The ability to filter ships if they where made or if they where blueprints. People like me with lots of ports would find that useful when showing them to family and friends. A: Studied and passed to UI as a feedback/suggestions. Thank you. Q: Are you happy with the current position of IJN DDs being bullied by virtually anything in the game, be it USN DDs, Radar, Torp nerfs (torpedo spotting range, etc), Alpha (Gun) damage nerfs (Shimakaze), and others? A: We are not happy with this because we don't consider IJN DDs to be bullied by anything. Sorry for not agreeing with you. Shimakaze was also given increased rate of fire, which lead to higher damage output (DPM remained the same, ROF increased -> more fire chance). Q: Why has Akatsuki been placed in the "normal' tree while how she handles would make her a better fit behind the Akizuki, yet Shiratsuyu, that has a better torp potential is behind the Akizuki in the side tree? A: There are no normal and not normal lines. And no gunboat / torpedoboat branches. Both branches have torpedo AND gun potential. Q: Sorry if this has been asked before, and it's a question that "I don't know" or "I can neither confirm nor deny" are perfectly acceptable answers. Regarding crates, is there a "Pity Timer" on opening each type of crates to get a Super Crate. eg: after opening X number of crate type Y, there is a guaranteed chance of getting a Super Container. A: There is no Pity Timer. Our RNG God is not that cunning..for now. Q: When the skills are reset, what will happen to captains who were in the middle of retraining after a boat swap? A: They should be automatically retrained. Full detailes will be provided in patch notes before version release as usual. Q: Bastion mode attracted a lot of attention (mostly hate..) in last weeks. At this moment our ships can be shelled by a fort directly on their spawn points and literally in the first second of the match. May we hope this will be prevented via bugfix soon or is this perhaps a deliberate feature of AI forces? (Coz it's a bit infuriating I'm afraid..) A: We all may hope for bastion improvement pack in one of future updates, with balance changes and possible eco reward. Q: Possibly dumb question (for anyone really) about upcoming commander skills, when they go live will we get to redo out commander skills or would we have to pay to redistribute them? A: You will have 1 free immediate and inevitable respec after 0.6.0 for each commander. You will also be able to respec for free (paying elite XP, not doubloons) - this is a part of new design. Maybe there will be more options, it is being discussed. Q: Are you happy with the German DD's gunfire detection being so high and giving everyone a hard time playing them, can we expect to see German DD's get normal gunfire detection at some point, or when do the rest of the other destroyers also get this massive gunfire detection nerf. ? A: For now, almost all German stats are noticeably higher. This is normal, because line release just happened. We will see if any balance changes are needed in some time when stats settle. As for detection, we don't want to add more open-water invisible fire to the game. Moreover, we are thinking about reducing the influence of such tactics. But this is not being implemented right now. Q: What changes are being considered to help improve the performance of the USN cruiser line? A: Some spec balancing, and overall line changes (including moving ships to different tiers). But I cannot go into detail now, sadly. Q: Next question: Is it possible for ships to be named after certain hulls or appearances according to different eras? i.e. Hulls used to be called by their years in which the historical ships appeared as in those years, i.e. Nagato 19xx, etc. etc. With the teasing of Mutsu, which is a stock hull Nagato, is it possible to call that ship "1930 Nagato", since that was how both sisters appeared in those times, they were quite similar. A: Currently there are no intention to add ship naming to the game. Q: Are new premium carriers only going to be released after the CV rework? I'm quite excited for Graf Zeppelin. A: Chances are high for what you said - new prem CVs are likely to appear only after we solve current class problems. Q: Will Takao ever make it into the tech tree? A: No plans for Takao in tech tree now. addendum: Q: Also, about Takao, there was a very old Q&A that said Takao was supposed to be released in the tech tree first before ARP Takao was to be released, but obviously this didn't happen, and nothing was heard of it after that. This was from a June 2016 Q&A. Q: Lastly... punches for no Dasha in Dev Diaries video A: Lastly...Dasha doesn't need to be in Dev Diaries. She is not a developer, she is superstar and has her own show which is called "Try to pay attention to update announcement instead of me, ha-ha!" Just a quote, no direct answer involved: I know "never say never". Even to submarines :@ Greetings

Mit Signal für die Sekundären sind 10.6km möglich ;) Edit: Shoggy war schneller Greetings