Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Strefs

WG DevQnA Transcription [RAW]

71 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
879 posts
11,126 battles
50 minutes ago, Strefs said:

Why is it harder in BBs to punish other BBs broadsiding?
From a historical standpoint BBs were supposed to withstand damage from other BBs

Come on, WG! You know I love you and all, but pulling the "historical accuracy"-card whenever suits you? Come... ooon! Especially when...

 

50 minutes ago, Strefs said:

Consumables like an AOE heal?
Yes, we’re considering looking into consumables like this.

Really. Really. With a repair ship maybe. However....

 

52 minutes ago, Strefs said:

CV Rework open the ability to field BBV and CVE?
Yes.

Yes. Yes. YES. My body is ready. More or less.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Community Contributor, Beta Tester
292 posts
5,128 battles
Just now, NoirLotus said:

What is BBV ?

ABB I'd think (Aviation Battleship).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Community Contributor, Beta Tester
292 posts
5,128 battles

correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Community Contributor, Beta Tester
292 posts
5,128 battles
11 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

Nice! You do all this manually?

The questions? Asked by fellow CCTs. The transcription is mine. Some of it is original (the exact wording that was used), but most of it I have altered to be shorter (hence the up and down in quality). This is until the original recording is out, which, has a few more questions and is about 2 hours and 30 minutes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
2,786 posts
11,545 battles

"Changes torpedo dispersion?" - Worth looking into...

 

Exactly what is the question and what is worth looking into?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[4_0_4]
Players
3,785 posts
10,363 battles
1 hour ago, Strefs said:

With the amount of radar, will DDs receive stealth fire again?
There are no DIRECT changes to radars planned. We have considered adding consumables to counter it.

 

Yes, just throw even more gimmicks into the fray. Do WG and you`ll soon need to add a 10th consumables key for all the consumables on the next gimmick line you`re planning.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[4_0_4]
Players
3,785 posts
10,363 battles
Just now, loppantorkel said:

"Changes torpedo dispersion?" - Worth looking into...

 

Exactly what is the question and what is worth looking into?

 

I guess those holes that are produced by RNG sometimes.

You know, throwing 5 fishes into the water and 4 of the cuddle so much, that there is a convinient gap for a BB to turn into the spread unharmed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Community Contributor, Beta Tester
292 posts
5,128 battles
3 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

"Changes torpedo dispersion?" - Worth looking into...

 

Exactly what is the question and what is worth looking into?

 

Torpedo launchers, especially quadruple tubes are notorious to throw huge holes between the mid section of the torpedo dispersion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
[ADRIA]
Players
3,566 posts
6,392 battles
2 hours ago, Strefs said:

Is the Giulio Cesare the Nikolai of T5?
No, at the moment it doesn't look like it, but we will look into it.

No, ship that's performing far far above any other ship of it's tier is perfectly fine. Just the thing that WG forgot to stick a Russian flag on it (or is intended that you'd have to find out on your own that this ship served in Russian navy under the name Novorossiysk (literally "New Russia") so it's perfectly fine to call it balanced when it's absolutely broken?)

 

Hell, the ship is so stupidly strong you can't even compare it with tier 6s, you have to take it up to t7 to start getting some actual comparisons.

 

Drink more domashniy vodka comrade, and zakusaj a pickle on top! Then stupid s**t like this will make perfekt sense!

 

2 hours ago, Strefs said:

Rewarding players for playing the objective?
We have already added quite a few features which incentivizes players to play closer to the objective, and we plan on adding missions to reward this.

271.gif

 

You don't need any missions or whatever for it, start finally awarding XP and Credits for it! And I, of course, mean in ammounts that make it worth while.

 

Right now the situation can be summed up like this:

  • Every second I spend farming dmg and / or making sure I don't get a single scratch on my ship I am earning $$$
  • Every second I spend spotting someone for my team and / or taking hits so others wouldn't have to I am losing $$$
    • "You are not losing anything! You are still earning!"
      • Compare it to that same situation if I was a few km back and letting someone else do that exact thing while freely farming myself some more dmg - would I be rewarded more? Yes. That means I'm losing my potential earnings

 

2 hours ago, Strefs said:

Individual specific keybinds for consumables?
Difficult with 8~ consumables and only 5 maps. We did consider allowing to swap the slots in which consumables can be placed. No decision have been made yet.

What exactly is difficult about giving the ability to rearrange those same consumables in the order that we want? Like you have with the Repair / Extinguisher / Medpack in WoT?

 

2 hours ago, Strefs said:

Radar to be taken into account for matchmaking?
Difficult. Matchmaker is very sensitive. It might work at some peak hours, but not at all times, therefore not planned.

What is so difficult about that same +/-1 that basically everything has?

 

1 radar? 1-0

2 radars? 1-1

3 radars? 2-1

4 radars? 2-2

And so on and on and on...

"Oh but divisions"

Div of 2 radars = enemies need 1...3 radars

Div of 3 radars = enemies need 2...4 radars

Yeah, "difficult"

 

2 hours ago, Strefs said:

Do we want to increase the role of support activities in terms of credits and experience points?
We don’t want to go too far into this. You will still get a decent amount of credits and XP for spotting and tanking, but at the end of the day we still want to reward the actions that lead your team to victory, which is, capturing points, sinking ships and dealing damage.

Define "too far". Is making them give you anything called "too far"?

Define "decent". Is those rewards being so low you could completely remove them and leave next to no impact on the final income called "decent"?

I don't think they understand either of those 2.

 

 

Actions that lead to victory:

  • Unspotted ships don't tend to get sunk. Spotted ships do. Sure, they can run into torps, but that means that they were:
    • Super obvious position (like smoke)
    • Were spotted when those torps were launched at them
  • Sunk ships don't keep fighting, living ships do. Ally tanking hits is ensuring his teammates live longer, thus keep fighting, instead of dying and losing the battle

 

Teamplay leads to victory, not that mong who sits 20km behind everyone else farming his precious damage. Funny that those who will be rewarded for it won't be those who focused on teamwork...

 

10 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

"Changes torpedo dispersion?" - Worth looking into...

 

Exactly what is the question and what is worth looking into?

1O2FXQq.png

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Community Contributor, Beta Tester
292 posts
5,128 battles
12 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

What exactly is difficult about giving the ability to rearrange those same consumables in the order that we want? Like you have with the Repair / Extinguisher / Medpack in WoT?

 

As stated, they will look into this second alternative. They elaborated on the first point of having INDIVIDUAL keybinds for each consumable.

 

12 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

What is so difficult about that same +/-1 that basically everything has?

 

1 radar? 1-0

2 radars? 1-1

3 radars? 2-1

4 radars? 2-2

And so on and on and on...

"Oh but divisions"

Div of 2 radars = enemies need 1...3 radars

Div of 3 radars = enemies need 2...4 radars

Yeah, "difficult"

 

They were referring to the matchmaker itself. Might be overbuilt, might be too fragile. As it stands getting a match is prioritized over having equal distribution of radar ships. Sure the idea itself might seem simple and straight forward, but putting it into practice might not be. Whether WG built themselves in with the way they handle the MM is a subject in and of itself, but from my understanding, it is not doable, or not worth the amount of possible damage it can do if it doesn't work out.

 

12 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Teamplay leads to victory, not that mong who sits 20km behind everyone else farming his precious damage. Funny that those who will be rewarded for it won't be those who focused on teamwork...

 

Yes, but at the end of the day someone has to do the damage. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone the sit back damage farm. Someone still has to sink the ships though. Spotting alone won't kill an enemy, even though it might cause a DD captain a heart attack.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
185 posts
3,446 battles
3 hours ago, Strefs said:

There are no DIRECT changes to radars planned. We have considered adding consumables to counter it

Oh please, please don't. Talk about over complicating stuff! Now, see we add this cool new gimmick and now we can add one more to counter it. Hmm, did'nt I see somewhere that WG used the argument for keeping stuff simple that they did not want to confuse the players... what the heck!? Next up, a counter for the counter of the counters counter... What's the point then, giving us more buttons to push, just to have some more buttons to push?

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,695 posts
10,594 battles

Oh God.

WG actually look into the dumbest possible way to deal with Radar overabundance.

Anti-Radar consumable, so that DDs without it will be even more screwed while DDs with it will have a gimmick with no use beyond screwing with somebody else's resource (Radar cooldown) :Smile_facepalm:

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[EST]
[EST]
Players
696 posts
17,414 battles
4 hours ago, Strefs said:

Combined arms (WoT+WoWs/WoWp)?
Not possible at the time. What could a tank do to a ship? ;)

Not important what tank can do. Important is what a ship can do to a tank :cap_haloween:

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
161 posts
5,853 battles
6 hours ago, Strefs said:

Combined arms (WoT+WoWs/WoWp)?
Not possible at the time. What could a tank do to a ship? ;)

about the same as a T4 ship can do to approaching strike planes..but that didn't stop you did it  :Smile-_tongue: 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,204 posts
4,944 battles
7 hours ago, Zemeritt said:

 

Yes, just throw even more gimmicks into the fray. Do WG and you`ll soon need to add a 10th consumables key for all the consumables on the next gimmick line you`re planning.

 

Ah but you forget, lots of people use doubloons to pay for premium consumables as they don't know about using credits ,so the more consumables a ship has, the money WG gets - Russian Thinking my friend!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,654 posts
11,443 battles
7 hours ago, eliastion said:

Oh God.

WG actually look into the dumbest possible way to deal with Radar overabundance.

Anti-Radar consumable, so that DDs without it will be even more screwed while DDs with it will have a gimmick with no use beyond screwing with somebody else's resource (Radar cooldown) :Smile_facepalm:

Don't worry, not a single DD will get this consumable. They are reserved for the new RU BB line (together with smoke, radar, hydro, DefAA and better heal than Monqueror).

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SV3]
Players
197 posts
6,811 battles
11 hours ago, Strefs said:

DEV QnA WG 15/06/2018

 

Here's my transcription of the latest Dev QnA with WG's balancing department. I left out some questions (some intentionally, some unintentionally) but I did get most of them. Bold is the question normal font is the answer, and finally any little additions from me are in italic. Note that this isn't 1:1 what the devs said, as it is my personal transcription (apologies in advance for any dents I didn't manage to buff out).

Just wanted to say thank you for all the info and great reviews that you give us.

:cap_like::Smile_great:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
879 posts
11,126 battles
7 hours ago, eliastion said:

Oh God.

WG actually look into the dumbest possible way to deal with Radar overabundance.

Anti-Radar consumable, so that DDs without it will be even more screwed while DDs with it will have a gimmick with no use beyond screwing with somebody else's resource (Radar cooldown) :Smile_facepalm:

"What is the counter to for example, cruisers?"

"WoWs 2020 - Uuh, destroyers that burn them down down by consumable-countering radar what counters smoke what counters BB AP what counters whatever it dearly pleases, but this also helps agains some battleships they are barely able to outrun plus those might have radar, and let's not forget the radar destroyers, though some of them have consumables that counters the radar counter, but oh well, there is active sonar also activated by button pressing and the "pressbuttontowin"-counter to that and..."

"WoWs 2015 - Battleships."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,708 posts
13,150 battles
12 hours ago, Strefs said:

CV Rework open the ability to field BBV and CVE?
Yes.

 

Pretty sure you mean "CAV" not "CVE" as CVEs are Escort Carriers and already in the game (Bogue).

Also quite honestly I fail to see how manual aircraft control can be merged with normal surface combat. It maybe could've worked with the current RTS playstyle but with how the rework looks like now it'd be impossibly micro intensive or make any hybrid ship camp in the back like a normal CV, defeating the purpose of hybrid ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-T-O-]
Alpha Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
1,970 posts
5,449 battles

here's the video of it if someone wants...

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×