Jump to content
Planned Server Restart 23.06.2021 at 04:00 UTC (no downtime) Read more... ×
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Klopirat

Discord-Q&A

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[PUPSI]
Freibeuter
12,288 posts

Da ja wahrscheinlich nicht alle auch auf dem Discord unterwegs sind mal die aktuellen Antworten:

(imho zu lang  für den Info-aus-aller-Welt-Thread, deswegen nicht dort eingefügt)

Quote

Can we permaban players/clans caught cheating/RMTing/account sharing in CW instead of doing a three strike policy. the current punishments are far from enough to deter people trying to cheat the system

 

We are constantly thinking about how to improve our policy to counteract violators and perhaps our rules will change in the future. However, it should be understood that our goal is not to ban users, but to make sure that people do not violate the rules in the future. We always hope that all our players are really good people and can understand their mistakes. As for the violations in clan battles, it makes no sense to punish one player, and sanctions should be applied to the clan itself, which we do at the end of each season of clan battles.

Quote

Now that Clan Battles have started, it is apparent even after only 2 days that Petropavlovsk continues to be an extremely popular pick in organized competitive play despite being not that good in random battles. Are there any plans to rebalance her in a way that will reduce her competitiveness to a reasonable level without making her underpowered in Random battles, and will you consider consulting the top level competitive players to help you with balancing? (the results of recent balance decisions imply you need help, and the top players are the most qualified players for that as they have the best perception of game balance)

 

Overall, the question of balancing based on top-level players and/or competitive scene is raised quite often and in many games, but more often than it seems, this approach, also called "trickle-down" doesn't really work quite well in most games with more or less complicated mechanics, and ours is not an exception. Players of different engagement, experience and skill level usually have very different knowledge and perception of mechanics and the game itself. Though technically mechanics are universal for all players, due to these differences players have different interactions with mechanics and different experience. Thus solving balancing questions based only on stats or opinion of a small group of players with roughly the same involvement level won't be the best way to achieve the result, useful for all players.

 

Thus, when we check ship's performance, we don't look only at values of some limited group. We break down all stats (relative and absolute damage, WR and many others) by players WR, and that helps us understand, for example, whether the ship is too strong in hands of an experienced player, or that the concept is too difficult to grasp, etc. There was a stream last year, where we described this in detail in 2019, you could watch it here: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/461485651?filter=archives&sort=time

 

So, overall, we do consider highly involved players in our process (both their stats and feedback), but we have to look wider and don't forget about other players and that the result of our work should be valid for them as well.

Quote

what happened to this map? (Bering Sea)

 

Originally this map was added to the game to test the concept of the “Breakthrough” game mode. Now the location of islands on the map has been adapted so it can be played in regular game modes. At the moment the map is being reworked and tested

Quote

Do you have any plan on adding a "1 CV per team" cap on tier 4 games ? Having 2 CV in both team happen almost 100% of the time. It's one of the major ragequiting factor for new players.

 

Currently we have no such plans. In low tier battles there are usually many players, a lot of them playing on CVs, trying out new mechanics. It has always been like that. We cannot reduce the interest of new players in this class, neither can we restrict the presence of these players in battles. However, there were several improvements made to bring low-tier battles to balance, improve the game experience there and make the amount of CVs in these battles not excessive.

First of all, there were matchmaker changes in 0.9.3, which reduced the number of battles with 2 CVs per team and fully eliminated battles with 3 CVs. Secondly, there were bots added in the low-tier matchmaking in 0.9.6, aimed to make game experience for new players less frustrating and their transition to higher tier battles more smooth and consecutive. Besides, we've significantly decreased the research cost of tier VI aircraft carriers in 0.9.7, thus making new players progress to higher tier CVs faster and not linger in low-tier battles for long.

Quote

What is the reasoning behind IJN torpedoes having significantly longer reaction times compared to other nations' torpedoes? They already pay for their high alpha damage with very long reload times which adds to their hit-or-miss nature being more pronounced than with other DDs, why is it also necessary to have additional inconsistency through long reaction times?

 

The major reason is the one you've already mentioned - extremely high damage. Yes, they may hit the target less often than torpedoes of other nations and their reaction time is higher, but if they do hit the target, it looses a great deal of HP. Besides, they have decent range. IJN torpedoes initial design implied that with such alpha damage and range these torpedoes were not supposed to hit the target so often, that is why it resulted in having longer reload and reaction time. However, in spite of that IJN torpedoes are still one of the most efficient in the game.

Quote

Can we have karma improve our chance for getting supercontainers?

 

Do you really want other players to decide the fate of your supercontainer drop chances ? Just think it trough.

Quote

In the previous Q&A you stated that T10 special ships aren’t immune to individual nerfs, yet we haven’t seen one targeted at blatantly imbalanced ships such as Thunderer, Ohio, Bourgogne or Småland. Do you still stand by this statement and do you plan to act upon it outside of the context of global nerfs?

 

Yes, we did make such a statement, and if it is necessary to make changes to the ships mentioned by you, we will do it. However, it should be understood that problems with the perception of the ship may lie not only in the sphere of balance, but also for example, the popularity as it was with Smolensk. At the moment, the listed ships are in good balance, so we do not plan to make any balance changes. But we will continue to monitor these ships and will take certain actions if necessary

Quote

In the Battlefield series and other shooters, XP and the action that earned it show up in real-time on the player's HUD. This allows players to instantly recognize and understand how their play is rewarded. In contrast, in WoWs the XP earned is only revealed to the player at the end of the battle and there is no detailed information as to how it was earned. What is the reason for obscuring this vital information?

 

From our point of view, the currently available metrics in battle such damage and ribbons are quite sufficient to assess their own effectiveness. In addition, displaying the XP only after the battle allows player to focus on victory and team play, rather than pursuing only the indicators of personal effectiveness.

Quote

Akin to how German DDs and BBs were buffed without making them imbalanced, could such a buff happen to Zao? (specifically targeted at her distinct lack of durability compared to other T10 cruisers with not enough qualities to make up for it)

 

For now we have no such plans. Zao is currently a well-balanced ship. She might have a low HP in comparison to the majority of tier X cruisers, but she has many advantages - a powerful and accurate artillery, decent maneuverability and concealment, good armor and one of the strongest torpedoes among other Tier X cruisers.

Quote

Considering CVs can somewhat recover from plane losses by means of plane regeneration, could a case be made for surface combat ships to repair some of their AA mounts over the course of the battle, either passively or through Repair Party usage?

 

As for now, we now don’t have plans on AA regeneration. CVs are a unique class with absolutely different gameplay. Mostly, their main and the only weapon are planes. Without them they would be totally inefficient that’s why they have such feature as planes regeneration. So, if a CV loses all his planes, the game provides an opportunity to be al least somewhat useful by planes restoration, even if it will take much time. Moreover, if you feel like your AA is being destroyed fast, there is a modification that may increase AA survivability.

Quote

will wargaming ever actively support the competitive scene in this game? it's a multiplayer game which is centered around winning a match so its competitive scene has developed naturally but without official support it can't grow quickly or to a great size. Seeing how successful and popular the competitive scenes of many other multiplayer games have become, why has wg been shying away from this for such a long time? Note that giving out in game prizes for kots and other small tournaments isn't adequate support

 

Actually, we have some thoughts about the development and support of the competitive aspect in our game. Surely, conducting KOTS is not the only direction we are planning to move in. We are constantly working on different concepts of competitive events, and, when they are finalized, we'll definitely inform you about them. However, we can give you no specific details for now.

Quote

Can we have it show the damage everyone did in battle on the scorecard at the end, like in WoT?

 

We thought about this idea, and there are no major concerns not to implement it, however, the feature isn’t the priority for us at the moment, maybe we’ll roll it out someday, but, frankly, there are no certain details to share. Please, stay tuned and read our DevBlog all the newest info will appear there.

Quote

Сonsidering the ranked battles rework is a massive missed opportunity that you could have used to get rid of the toxic star saving mechanic, may I ask why that wasn't addressed? And what is your stance on making ranked battles actually ranked (as in, having a "skill rating" or ELO), or at the very least making them more similar to WoT's ranked battles chevron system?

 

During the ranked system rework, we simultaneously wanted to change the whole system to improve it and remove many of the old shortcomings. At the same time we want the new system to be the successor of the old one and to give the players a good competitive gameplay without complicating and overburdening the rules of ranked battles. The star system is familiar and understandable to our players, so we decided to keep it. Also we want to keep some form of reward for the best players in the losing team. Considering all the above, leaving the old star saving mechanics was the most optimal solution available to us.

Quote

Can we expect a (T10) CB season without CVs again?

 

Sure, you can expect some seasons on T10 ships with no CVs. Each season’s parameters adjusted individually. As for now we did a big work on improving players' experience in CBs with CVs and we’re carefully watching and analyzing the results and after that, we’ll decide how next season will be set up. We’ll announce the details a bit later.

Quote

Any news on updating the old ship models? How's the USN DD line and IJN BB line model updates going?

 

Our 3D team continues to work on a big update to US DD models and, moreover, a nice chunk of the models is already updated. Once we finish the update and have any news, we'll certainly share them with you. Regarding IJN BBs we don’t have such plans in the nearest future, but the game is developing and sooner or later we will take care of IJN BBs models as well.

Quote

Do you plan on addressing the issue with the fact that German CVs' (and a few other CVs') fighter patrol planes are very stealthy? As it currently stands, these fighters can only be spotted from around 5km, making long-range AA pointless as means of taking them down. And even if a ship approaches the fighters to around 5km distance, the nature of plane rendering and AA firing delays makes the process of taking these fighters down extremely tedious and very unfun to interact with.

 

Currently we have no plans to nerf the detectability range of German CV's patrol fighters. CVs of all other nations are effective against all classes. German CVs are not effective against destroyers. Thus, in order to balance it, we added this low fighter's detectability, to be more effective against other CVs and to have a better scouting abilities. Thus, like when playing against, for example, radar ships, the player has to take these low detectability ranges into the account when interacting with German fighters.

Quote

The Nomogram crosshair is vastly better than both the standard and the so-called 'dynamic' crosshair offered by default. Are there any plans to include such a crosshair in the game?

 

The default crosshair provides all the necessary information, has all the required functionalities and is comfortable for a vast majority of our players. Of course, in case the basic one isn't comfortable enough for you, there are various crosshair mods at your service. However, mods provide additional functionalities which may be best suitable for some of the players, but not that useful or comfortable for all of them. Sometimes they may even be overloaded or confusing, especially for new players. Therefore we are not planning to implement any modified crosshairs for now.

Quote

Many players are speculating that R-10 is a replacement for Khabarovsk, based off how Moskva was replaced by Nevsky. Others are speculating she's a test bed for buffs to Khabarovsk. Could you shed some light on the purpose of the R-10?

 

We don’t disclosure the info about what type of ship she will be till it announced. But we can say, it’s not a test bed for Khabarovsk’s buff. However, she is still a test ship, and her destiny will be clear later.

Quote

Would it be possible to buff the firing angles of the high-tier German Battleships, such as the Friedrich der Grosse and the Grosser Kurfurst. Also, when will we see a Tier X German Battlecruiser?

 

No plans for now. The model of these ships will not allow further extension of the firing angles without removing the catapult. Besides, current firing angles of Friedrich der Grosse and the Grosser Kurfurst are in a fine state. The only thing we can possibly do about it is to buff the 4th turret, but different firing angles within the same group of armament would be inconsistent and thus confusing.

Quote

Have you considered such features for sorting camos? Such as by filters like:

-highest to lowest XP

---Captain XP

---Free XP

---Credit earnings

-Checks for all three bonuses, two bonuses, or only one bonus

-Amount of camos available

 

There are some plans for updating exterior tab. But we can't share the details of what exactly will be changed and when. Stay tuned!

Quote

Asking the real question here. Why not just buff DFAA back to when it used to decrease drop accuracy/scatter drops? This could/should be the one thing that does counter CV's and currently it is a completely useless consumable.

 

For now we have no such plans. However, now the DFAA actually indirectly affects the accuracy of the squadron attack. For example, if a player attacks a ship with DFAA activated and maneuvers - the attack will become less effective due to the aiming reticle expansion while moving. And if he doesn't maneuver, a greater deal of his planes would be destroyed.

Quote

What is WG's vision for WoWs over the next few years?

 

Well, first of all, thanks to each of you, the game is alive and kicking! I say this not just to sincerely appreciate you all for the incredible support over the years, but also to make it clear that unlike a lot of games of such respectable age, WoWS is not anywhere "maintenance" stage. That's pretty amazing, because that means, that over next years we will NOT limit ourselves with just adding new content like ships and maps to grow the game in "width". What's most exciting, we have all drive, resources and plans to keep exploring the "depth" of the game.

And it is absolutely not only a pun about submarines (and then, hybrids) classes that are being tested. We will be trying a lot of new features, game modes and generally will keep evolving the game as a whole while also staying true to its core nature. Some of these will be in "experimental" form - I hope you will enjoy the upcoming Halloween event. Some of them will appear in the core game. Some of them will make a progress in terms of how the game looks, rather than how it plays. And some of them will probably be shelved or canceled, which is a normal part of any consistent development. Bottom line is, there is a long and most interesting journey ahead!

 

Of course that's the "strategic" take, and maybe you expect some precise roadmap leaks for 2021 Unfortunately I can't give you that - but please follow our Devblog and streams. As soon as we're ready, we present our ideas for the future there.

Quote

Will WG add an option to make the guns stay in place? For example: Yamato front guns stay forward, and its back guns don't turn(this will make it easier to fight someone in front of you and back) This will make it even better for ships with guns on all sides.

 

No plans for now. First of all, situations where a player is in need of having one turret stand still rarely happen. A player usually tries to aim as many guns as possible, or at least turn the turrets to the needed direction. Secondly, the technical realization and the UI support of the feature will require a lot of time and effort. It will also be quite difficult to implement this mechanics on ships with unusual turret configurations. Therefore, as there is a little need in such functionality, and as we are currently focused on other changes and improvements, we have no plans for the feature.

Quote

The Puerto Rico dockyard event was said to be an early access mechanic for the ship herself, but we have yet to see her appear in the armory. Any ETA on that?

 

In World of Warships there are a lot of ships that are available to players only for a short time (for example, rewards for in-game events or special premium shop offers) or only for a certain resource (steel ships). Getting them at another time or in another way is not possible, which in some way makes this ship additional value for players. Puerto-Rico belongs to such ships, as it was the main reward of the New Year Dockyard. So, we have no plans to distribute Puerto-Rico in the near future. But who knows, maybe one day this ship will be available for obtaining again.

Quote

Is there any progress on implementing helicopters as utility aircraft for ships equipped with a helipad?

 

At the moment we have no plans to add helicopters to the game. But World of Warships will exist for many more years and who knows what can happen in the future.

Quote

Are there any plans to revisit how AA works? As it stands the nature of passive AA leads to little meaningful interaction between CV and their targets.

 

Currently the AA is in a fine state. We've done several changes to make the interaction with CVs more active, for example, we've updated the priority AA sector in 0.8.7, which made the efficiency of players AA depend more on his actions. There is also DAAF consumable activation and active maneuvering to counter CV attacks. Making interaction with CVs more active might excessively complicate the gameplay and make players concentrate more on it when fighting several other ships, which will not always be comfortable. However, we are having some thoughts about AA mechanics, but it's too early to tell any details.

Quote

What is your stance on Akizuki and Kitakaze? Among the top players, they are almost universally perceived as outstandingly overpowered, yet they have managed to avoid nerfs ever since the IJN gunboat DD branch extension.

 

The main point here is that Akizuki and Kitakaze are perceived as OP ships by strong players. These players, of course, have more experience and are more skillful, they know the game better than average players, who make up a vast majority of our audience. However, in terms of balancing, we try to make changes which will be most suitable not only for the smaller group of our players, but also for a vast majority of players. Akizuki and Kitakaze may be perceived strong by skillful players, but are overall OK for a common player. Taking all this into account, and the fact that these ships are currently in a fine state both in terms of overall winrate and balance, we have no plans to change them for now. Nevertheless, we are keeping an eye on these ships and will make changes in deem necessary.

Quote

Will the Epicenter game mode ever be addressed with regards to starting points and point gain rate? As it currently appears, the game mode tends to last significantly shorter than other game modes, which makes for an unpleasant game experience and players loathing the mode quite often.

 

In fact, according to statistics, the average duration of a battle in epicenter mode is only 1 minute shorter than in domination mode. The gameplay in this mode is really a little bit faster and more dynamic, but this is its peculiarity. That's why we don't plan to change its settings at the moment.

Quote

Why do CVs get so much attention when they are only 1/12 players in about 50% of matches

 

All this is because the other classes of ships in our game have established mechanics and gameplay, but aircraft carriers were completely redesigned last year. And of course, in order for the aircraft carriers to completely fit into our game, it took a lot of small additional edits and changes during several updates. Even now, despite the fact that we are happy with the сarriers' gameplay and their balance, we make changes from time to time, as it is always possible to improve something.

Quote

Can you change the port UI so that we can see the effects of captain skills or equipment before we actually lock / pay for them?

 

Actually, we have some plans to change the UI and informativity of commander's skills when the updated skill system is released. However, we cannot give you any specific details for now. If by equipment you mean upgrades, we have no such plans towards them.

Quote

If aircraft carriers are balanced now, how come it isn't allowed to bring more than one in a division?

 

The aircraft carriers are actually in the balance right now. However, this class of ships is also balanced taking into account the team lineups. At the moment in our game there can be no more than 1 and in some cases 2 aircraft carriers in a team. Therefore it makes no sense to change the current restrictions. In addition, the removal of such restriction would have created an unnecessary load on the matchmaker, and the players who decided to go into battle with two aircraft carriers would have to wait a long time for their battle.

Quote

What is the reason behind most T8 and lower cruisers not having access to the Repair Party consumable? Given how BBs have up to 5 charges, it would only be fair for cruisers to have at least 1 charge (2 with Superintendent) as a means to recover from mistakes and means for more playmaking potential, akin to why T9 and 10 cruisers have it. (with, of course, appropriate nerfs to cruisers that already overperform and would most likely overperform as a result of this change)

 

All ships in our game are balanced with taking into account their consumables, including the presence or absence of a repair party. The absence of a repair party for any ship is always due to other ship characteristics and features, such as speed, maneuverability, detectability or for example the presence of a smoke generator. For example, tier IX-X cruisers tend to have higher detectability range, size and often worse maneuverability than tier VIII ships. So they are equipped with a repair party. Also, for many ships, the very style of gameplay implies the need to play carefully without making such "mistakes" as getting caught in enemy fire.

Quote

How about making it so that if you don't pick a CV in clan battles but two battleships, you will also face a team with two battleships rather than a CV? That way those who don't want CVs in Clan Battles can choose not to have them in their games

 

No plans for now. The main point of Clan battles is to provide a Clan vs Clan combat, while supporting different team setups for participants. During Clan battles commanders of each clan choose the setup most suitable for his team, taking all the risks and possible outcomes into the account. Each Clan can use any setup which fits the restrictions, like, for example, only 7 cruisers or 7 DDs. Restricting particular setups, or creating a different queue for a particular setup (like 1CV+1BB) goes against the logic and the idea of Clan battles. Besides, it will excessively overload the Clan Battles matchmaking, which will result in players waiting significantly more time in the queue. Clans waiting for much longer may refuse to play, which, respectively, will result in even further increase in the matchmaking time.

 

  • Cool 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALONE]
Modder
2,319 posts
14,108 battles
Zitat

[...]we have no plans to distribute Puerto-Rico in the near future[...]

 

Hm, im Q&A letztes Jahr hieß es noch das die PR mittelfristig auch anders zu erhalten wäre. :cap_hmm:

 

Aber egal, man weiß ja das (Q&)A's nur solange gelten, bis sie nicht mehr gelten.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PUPSI]
Freibeuter
12,288 posts
16 minutes ago, Smeggo said:

Hm, im Q&A letztes Jahr hieß es noch das die PR mittelfristig auch anders zu erhalten wäre. :cap_hmm:

ich dachte eigentlich auch, dass in den Streams damals immer wieder betont wurde, dass nur die Camo Dockyard-exklusiv ist, nicht das Schiff...

 

edit: ok, richtig gedacht

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,617 posts
9,971 battles
Vor 1 Stunde, Klopirat sagte:

Now that Clan Battles have started, it is apparent even after only 2 days that Petropavlovsk continues to be an extremely popular pick in organized competitive play despite being not that good in random battles. 

Häh? 

 

F5A82DFB-AD7C-473D-9F03-CB83A8693B0B.jpeg

F196A96C-478F-489B-8E07-D2B4B3AA0E84.jpeg

B52893D5-4202-4479-8225-327D158CDC6B.jpeg

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
780 posts
11,756 battles

Hier sind meine Best-of-Antworten ;)

Vor 1 Stunde, Klopirat sagte:

Secondly, there were bots added in the low-tier matchmaking in 0.9.6, aimed to make game experience for new players less frustrating and their transition to higher tier battles more smooth and consecutive.

 

Vor 1 Stunde, Klopirat sagte:

Besides, we've significantly decreased the research cost of tier VI aircraft carriers in 0.9.7, thus making new players progress to higher tier CVs faster and not linger in low-tier battles for long.

Vor 1 Stunde, Klopirat sagte:

Even now, despite the fact that we are happy with the сarriers' gameplay and their balance, we make changes from time to time, as it is always possible to improve something.

Vor 1 Stunde, Klopirat sagte:

At the moment we have no plans to add helicopters to the game. But World of Warships will exist for many more years and who knows what can happen in the future.

Vor 2 Stunden, Klopirat sagte:

From our point of view, the currently available metrics in battle such damage and ribbons are quite sufficient to assess their own effectiveness.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
14,951 posts
21,708 battles

Kurz zusammengefasst:

- *irgendeine Frage*

- Antwort: Nein.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B-F-M]
Weekend Tester
5,909 posts
Vor 1 Stunde, El2aZeR sagte:

Kurz zusammengefasst:

- *irgendeine Frage*

- Antwort: Nein.

Ah... endlich mal eine Übersetzung zu der englischen "Wall of Text" oben im DEUTSCHEN Forum. :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,884 posts
23,211 battles
59 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Kurz zusammengefasst:

- *irgendeine Frage*

- Antwort: Nein.

Etwas ausführlicher bitte (sonst klingt es irgendwie salty und nach schlechter Berichterstattung)!

 

- Antwort: Nein, alles ist perfekt so wie es ist. 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BAZI]
Beta Tester
1,174 posts
5,710 battles
1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

Kurz zusammengefasst:

- *irgendeine Frage*

- Antwort: Nein.

Ich dachte bei den meisten Antworten kam ein "Vielleicht" zurück. 

Also möglichst keine Antwort.

Edit. So etwa:

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,219 posts
16,944 battles

Nun ja als ich die Fragen bezüglich IJN Torps und andere Balace Sachen lass.

Dachte ich mir schon das die Antwort so lautet wie diese oben steht.

 

Aber ich dachte die kennen ihr spiel selbst nicht. 

Manche alten Balsce Geschichten wie die erwähnten IJN Torps oder Chaba. Mögen damals richtig gewesen sein. Teilweise sicher auch übertrieben. 

 

Durch die weiteren Linien und deren Gimicks. Wäre eine Reduzierung der nerfs von damals sicher notwendig.

 

Z.B. IJN Torps 200m weniger Aufdeckungseite. Chaba max Range auf 15,x km bringen mit allen Skills.

 

Die Max DMG ausrede bei den IJN Torps naja.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Players
3,289 posts
26,784 battles
20 hours ago, Klopirat said:

Сonsidering the ranked battles rework is a massive missed opportunity that you could have used to get rid of the toxic star saving mechanic, may I ask why that wasn't addressed? And what is your stance on making ranked battles actually ranked (as in, having a "skill rating" or ELO), or at the very least making them more similar to WoT's ranked battles chevron system?

 

During the ranked system rework, we simultaneously wanted to change the whole system to improve it and remove many of the old shortcomings. At the same time we want the new system to be the successor of the old one and to give the players a good competitive gameplay without complicating and overburdening the rules of ranked battles. The star system is familiar and understandable to our players, so we decided to keep it. Also we want to keep some form of reward for the best players in the losing team. Considering all the above, leaving the old star saving mechanics was the most optimal solution available to us.

nich ma ansatzweise nen lacher wert.... in anderen worten steht da::"das star-system is jetz etabliert, deswegen behalten wirs"..... anstatt die gelegenheit zu nutzen nen wirklichen overhaul des systems zu machen wird ma wieder der weg des geringsten widerstands gewählt.... nochma naders: für die füsse, könnter behalten, nein danke!

 

22 hours ago, Klopirat said:

Why do CVs get so much attention when they are only 1/12 players in about 50% of matches

 

All this is because the other classes of ships in our game have established mechanics and gameplay, but aircraft carriers were completely redesigned last year. And of course, in order for the aircraft carriers to completely fit into our game, it took a lot of small additional edits and changes during several updates. Even now, despite the fact that we are happy with the сarriers' gameplay and their balance, we make changes from time to time, as it is always possible to improve something. 

xD..... na denn, alles klar auf der andrea doria würd ich sagen :Smile_facepalm:.... und hier dann andersrum: alles kompletrt neu gemacht, im grossen und ganzen direkt getroffen, alle probleme mit minifixes ausgemerzt... fun and engagaing!!!! und jetz, ruhe da und an die ruder, sonst gibts noch mehr davon ^^ xD.... manmanman, die kunst des selbstveräppelns oder was?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PONYS]
[PONYS]
Players
3,551 posts
27,126 battles
4 minutes ago, MrWastee said:

nich ma ansatzweise nen lacher wert.... in anderen worten steht da::"das star-system is jetz etabliert, deswegen behalten wirs"..... anstatt die gelegenheit zu nutzen nen wirklichen overhaul des systems zu machen wird ma wieder der weg des geringsten widerstands gewählt.... nochma naders: für die füsse, könnter behalten, nein danke!

Da kommt mir die Frage, für was ein Q&A? 

Warum nicht einfach ein Announcment.  

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B-F-M]
Weekend Tester
5,909 posts
Vor 40 Minuten, MrWastee sagte:

nich ma ansatzweise nen lacher wert.... in anderen worten steht da::"das star-system is jetz etabliert, deswegen behalten wirs"..... anstatt die gelegenheit zu nutzen nen wirklichen overhaul des systems zu machen wird ma wieder der weg des geringsten widerstands gewählt.... nochma naders: für die füsse, könnter behalten, nein danke!

....

Ja, da musste ich auch lachen. Da wird das Ranked komplett überarbeitet, aber ausgerechnet den am meisten kritisierten Unfug, nämlich das Sternesystem behalten sie.... "weil es jetzt halt mal da ist". :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,219 posts
16,944 battles

Man könnte meinen WG macht genau das Gegenteil von dem Was die Kundschaft möchte.

 

Und es scheint zu funktionieren

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PONYS]
[PONYS]
Players
3,551 posts
27,126 battles
22 minutes ago, Bollzilla_1 said:

Man könnte meinen WG macht genau das Gegenteil von dem Was die Kundschaft möchte.

 

Und es scheint zu funktionieren

Naja, der Anteil von Forumsuser entspricht ~3%, ob man da als Kundschaft einen Einfluß hat, bezweifle ich ^^ 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Players
3,289 posts
26,784 battles
56 minutes ago, da_Sti said:

Naja, der Anteil von Forumsuser entspricht ~3%, ob man da als Kundschaft einen Einfluß hat, bezweifle ich ^^ 

und das is teil des problems.... im zweifel werden die meisten sich einfach passiv verhalten, sprich einfach spielen oder nich. auf der basis können sie eigentlich machen was sie wollen. brenzlig, siehe santagate, wirds erst wenn genau die fraktion dann auch mal über die social media kanäle öffentlichen druck aufbaut (nur weil diese mehrheit sich i.d.R. nicht direkt äussert heisst das ja nich, dass es dort nich auch meinungen gibt).

aber da brauchs schon was für, z.B. unterschiede bei wesentlichen events zwischen den servern. bei sachen wie cv rework, u booten oder eben dem ranked system gibts einfach zuviele meinungen/kommt nich genug dampf auf den kessel. was sogar lustig in bezug auf die cv's scheint, aber es gab einfach eine entsprechend grosse, vokale fraktion pro rework.

 

und in dem moment als die spieler sich gegenseitig beharkt haben, konnte wg eben letztendlich machen was sie wollen. ganz klassisch lol.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PONYS]
[PONYS]
Players
3,551 posts
27,126 battles
24 minutes ago, MrWastee said:

und das is teil des problems.... im zweifel werden die meisten sich einfach passiv verhalten, sprich einfach spielen oder nich. auf der basis können sie eigentlich machen was sie wollen. brenzlig, siehe santagate, wirds erst wenn genau die fraktion dann auch mal über die social media kanäle öffentlichen druck aufbaut (nur weil diese mehrheit sich i.d.R. nicht direkt äussert heisst das ja nich, dass es dort nich auch meinungen gibt).

aber da brauchs schon was für, z.B. unterschiede bei wesentlichen events zwischen den servern. bei sachen wie cv rework, u booten oder eben dem ranked system gibts einfach zuviele meinungen/kommt nich genug dampf auf den kessel. was sogar lustig in bezug auf die cv's scheint, aber es gab einfach eine entsprechend grosse, vokale fraktion pro rework.

 

und in dem moment als die spieler sich gegenseitig beharkt haben, konnte wg eben letztendlich machen was sie wollen. ganz klassisch lol.

Damals als das mit dem research und den buffs Anfing, da hat WG auf die Com reagiert, das Center kam dennoch. 

Im Prinzip kann die Com noch soviel Reden und Tun, im Endeffekt macht WG was WG möchte. 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WORU]
Players
1,761 posts
21,144 battles
Vor 3 Stunden, da_Sti sagte:

Damals als das mit dem research und den buffs Anfing, da hat WG auf die Com reagiert, das Center kam dennoch. 

Im Prinzip kann die Com noch soviel Reden und Tun, im Endeffekt macht WG was WG möchte. 

Naja immerhin hat man damals ne große Runde Globulis verteilt und das ganze "im Sinne der Community" so verändert das der anfängliche Shitstorm geebnet wurde.

Um dann mit jedem weiterem Patch die Richtung einzuschlagen die von Anfang an geplant war.

Ein Schelm wer böses dabei denkt.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG]
WG Staff, Alpha Tester
6,679 posts
2,293 battles
On 10/21/2020 at 7:02 PM, Smeggo said:

Hm, im Q&A letztes Jahr hieß es noch das die PR mittelfristig auch anders zu erhalten wäre. :cap_hmm:

Aber egal, man weiß ja das (Q&)A's nur solange gelten, bis sie nicht mehr gelten.

 

On 10/21/2020 at 7:18 PM, Klopirat said:

ich dachte eigentlich auch, dass in den Streams damals immer wieder betont wurde, dass nur die Camo Dockyard-exklusiv ist, nicht das Schiff...

 

edit: ok, richtig gedacht

"So, we have no plans to distribute Puerto-Rico in the near future" -> Wir haben also keine Pläne die Puerto Rico in naher Zukunft verfügbar zu machen.

Wir haben sie im Hinterkopf und sie ist nicht tabu für eine erneute Herausgabe über Events oder so, aber wir haben für die nahe Zukunft keine Pläne. Wie das in einem halben Jahr oder Jahr aussieht steht in den Sternen.

Es wurde an keinem Punkt gesagt, dass sie exklusiv ist, aber es wurde auch nicht gesagt wann genau sie wiederkommt. Klar kann sich auch etwas ändern, aber wenn wir definitiv keine Pläne mehr für sie hätten oder sie auf einer Art schwarzen Liste stehen würde, würden wir das deutlicher sagen.

 

20 hours ago, da_Sti said:

Naja, der Anteil von Forumsuser entspricht ~3%, ob man da als Kundschaft einen Einfluß hat, bezweifle ich ^^ 

Teils schon, aber repräsentativ für die allgemeine Spielerschaft ist der Anteil nicht. Uns eben aber auch wichtig, sonst hätten wir Forum oder Discord nicht. Nur weil wir uns mit Feedback beschäftigen und es in Erwägung ziehen, setzen wir es nicht gleich um, denn es gibt auch viele andere Aspekte und Spieler zu beachten.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PUPSI]
Freibeuter
12,288 posts
3 minutes ago, Sehales said:

Wir haben also keine Pläne die Puerto Rico in naher Zukunft verfügbar zu machen.

der nächste Satz ist da halt nach meinem Verständnis noch viel einschränkender:

Quote

But who knows, maybe one day this ship will be available for obtaining again.

also dass es eben noch gar nicht klar ist, ob es das Schiff jemals wieder geben wird...

 

ich habe die PR ja, also betrifft mich das nicht, und es wäre ja auch nachvollziehbar, wenn so Event-Schiffe exklusiv in den entsprechenden Events erhätlich wären, aber damals kam halt von euch die Info, dass die PR auf jeden Fall auch anders erhältlich sein wird :Smile_honoring:

 

und die Aussage deckt ja eigentlich auch die (Ex-)Stahlschiffe Flint  & Co ab...kommen die damit also doch nicht mehr für Kohle zurück :Smile_sad:?

Quote

In World of Warships there are a lot of ships that are available to players only [...] only for a certain resource (steel ships). Getting them [...] in another way is not possible, which in some way makes this ship additional value for players.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[O_PC]
[O_PC]
Players
1,059 posts
25,628 battles

Eigentlich sollte doch im Herbst die Neustrashimy und Flint für Kohle wiederkommen, hören tut man da aber nix bisher.

 

11 hours ago, Sehales said:

Teils schon, aber repräsentativ für die allgemeine Spielerschaft ist der Anteil nicht.

 

OK, hm, wieso nicht? Sample zu klein (3% ist schon mehr als jede Wahlprognose hat) oder wieso? Es gibt hier Coop-only, Unicorns, Durchschnittsspieler... was fehlt denn, oder welcher Anteil ist denn überproportional oder eben unterproportional vertreten, dass man sagen kann es sei NICHT repräsentativ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_OST_]
Moderator, Players, WoWs Wiki Team, Freibeuter
3,852 posts
15,129 battles

Es wurde damals (meine ich) gesagt sie würden im Oktober (wieder)kommen. Das wäre dann Update 0.9.10 aka Halloween Update. Und spätestens zu Weihnachten, also mit Update 0.9.11 (was Ende November kommen müsste) haben dann dank der Schneeflocken auch viele Spieler die notwendige Kohle beisammen inkl. Coupon aus der Waffenkammer. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Tester, Privateer
211 posts
13,889 battles

Also generell wissen wir das wir nichts wissen respektive ein klares energisches Jein oder doch ein Nö? 

Also Infos seh ich keine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FUNE]
Players
889 posts
5,689 battles
Vor 22 Minuten, Rheinfront sagte:

Also Infos seh ich keine. 

Eine Info kann man aber deutlich rauslesen. 

 

Wargaming kennt nach wie vor nicht den Unterschied zwischen "Veränderung" und "Verbesserung".

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COSA]
Players
2,491 posts
11,974 battles
Vor 9 Stunden, Chronos1969 sagte:

OK, hm, wieso nicht? Sample zu klein (3% ist schon mehr als jede Wahlprognose hat) oder wieso?

Die Menge da ist auch repräsentativ ausgewählt, so dass ein hochrechnen auf das wahrscheinliche gesamtergebnis wissenschaftlich fundiert möglich ist. 

 

Das trifft auf die menge der forumuser absolut nicht zu. Da sorgen auch Einzelpersonen mit kontinuierlicher Wiederholung ihres Standpunkts dafür, daß Themen immer während weiter kochen und der eindruck erweckt wird, "die Community" würde konstant und einheitlich diese denkweisen vertreten. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×