PSA. Part 2 of the Q&A is now up.

[Andrewbassg]

The part 2 of the now infamous Q&A is up on discord. I don't do discord but it had been quoted on the NA forum.

 

2 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

For those who haven't seen them on the WoWS discord yet, I thought I'd post up the replies from the WoWS dev team to player questions that were just released:

 

Q10. Zao is currently the weakest T10 cruiser and really needs a few buffs. It has gotten powercrept over the years with laughable armor, poor turret angles, terrible AA and an absolute joke of an HP pool for a heavy cruiser. She also has surprisingly low range for guns with those kind of ballistics. She could really use an HP/range buff. She might have good average damage statistically, but that's just because Zao is good at farming and almost nothing else. And even in farming she is outperformed by other heavy cruisers (Goliath, Hindenburg, Des Moines) and almost all CLs. She might have "solid" torps but let's be honest you're not hitting anyone with those except some random unsuspecting BB player with his WASD keys broken. Zao's armor and HP pool are abysmal for a heavy cruiser. She gets chunked by literally every battleship AP shell and doesn't have enough HP to compensate for it. Since zao's original gimmick was being tanky (back when 30mm was a big thing and 457mm armed BBs weren't plaguing T10), maybe consider an armor buff? Her range is also surprisingly low for her guns which have good ballistics, and mounting range mod becomes almost mandatory since going below 16.2km with Zao is just asking for deletion. If those buffs are not possible, try to give her a reduced reload (11s). I hope you really consider this since Zao was one of my first T10s and it saddens me to see how she fares compared to her peers.

A10. We indeed noticed that many players comment on Zao's state of balance, especially after one of our answers in the first wave of this QnA. In terms of player perception, the ship is seen as one of the weakest among Tier X cruisers. We of course took all feedback about Zao into account and we really appreciate it. However, in order to see the whole picture with regard to Zao's balance, we must consider not only the perception POV, but also statistical data and balance metrics.

Zao really doesn't have the highest winrate. However, a ship's winrate by itself is not enough to determine if there are problems with the ship. As an example, let's take a look at Hindenburg. If we look at the stats, her winrate is also below 50% — the same value as Zao's — yet the ship is quite balanced in terms of combat efficiency and remains one of the most popular Tier X cruisers. This means that, in terms of evaluating a ship's current state, other metrics should also be taken into account. Some other important things that should be factored in are metrics such as absolute and relative damage, number of destroyed ships, and related statistics, as well as broader considerations, such as the different skill levels and gameplay styles of the players that actively use these specific ships. Subsequently, based on the analysis of all of these metrics as one complex equation, we find that Zao is not in a position that would warrant any serious changes. Additionally, if we look at the stats from the past couple of updates, Zao's popularity is in a fairly decent position, and--as obvious as it sounds--most players are unlikely to willingly play a bad ship. Popularity itself is not the main indicator that a ship is in an OK balance position (there are other, more important metrics as mentioned above), but we still need to consider it when analyzing the ship's current condition.

Perhaps the perception that Zao is a weak ship is a result of her winrate being taken at face value alongside her playstyle. The ship, for the most part, has highly pronounced strengths, and a great deal of them at that: powerful artillery with comfortable, flat-topped ballistics and high accuracy, strong long-range torpedoes, good maneuverability, and one of the best concealments for her Tier and type. However, effective use of her strengths is impossible without additionally taking her weaknesses into account, which are also notable: not the best armor, a vulnerable citadel, short firing range, low number of hit points, and obtuse angles of rotation of main battery guns. As such, getting more comfortable playing towards her strengths while being aware of her weaknesses may prove more difficult when compared to cruisers with simpler gameplay, often demanding better communication with allies as well. Considering all things said, we cannot make balance changes based only on the perception of the ship, especially considering that the ship is in the norm in terms of different combat effectiveness metrics. Therefore, we are not planning any balance changes of the ship for now, as buffing a ship with normal effectiveness may lead to an increase in her efficiency that takes her above the norm, which may have a negative impact on the in-game balance. However, as there was a lot of feedback on Zao, we are monitoring the situation with this ship and in the future will look into the possibility of implementing a buff that would not negatively affect the in-game balance.

 

Q11. After the recent devblog of the new German BB's you said that those ships are best suited for brawling and short range combat but it's pretty evident that your whole concept of brawling is completely out of the window since the T10 (the best of the best) has the lowest HP pool and the thinnest armor of all the researchable T10 BB's and is pretty clear that the secondaries of those new ships are useless (most of them are 105 mm so they will pen 26 mm of armor even with the german special HE pen) so my question is: Why releasing a completely new line with questionable stats instead of buffing the already existing German BB's that should already be suited for brawling?

A11. First of all we would like to point out that in the development blog announcement we did not refer to the new German battleships as close-range fighters. It is too early to talk about their final gameplay concept. Unfortunately, no matter how much we wanted to be sure of the effectiveness of the new branch at the announcement stage, it is impossible without testing all of the ships in live battle conditions. Even considering these ships in the context of your question, it's hard to draw any conclusions based on individual characteristics.

For example, consider similar characteristics on other ships: - A ship's bow is certainly important, but it doesn’t completely determine the armor and overall tankiness of the ship. Let's take Petropavlovsk as an example. She has 25 mm plating in the bow--not a great deal in the grand scheme of things--but is still considered to be an excellent brawler. This is largely due to the bow armor belt. If we look at the tier X new German BB, Schlieffen, she may not have the thickest plating, but she--like Petro--also has a bow armor belt (in fact, all of the newer German battleships have it). Therefore, we believe that this feature will also help German battleships perform in close-quarters combat. - As for secondaries, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Ohio have 127mm secondary guns that only penetrate 21mm, which doesn't stop them from being strong close-range combat battleships. Therefore, we should remember that the strength of a ship is determined by a wide set of parameters. But again, we'll see how things will actually work out in a live environment. The test phase is in place for us to check the concept, and--if necessary--make balance changes to bring the ship up to the desired level of gameplay. We add new ships to offer exciting content to our players, as well as to increase the variety of ships and prevent the meta and overall gameplay from becoming stagnant. The process of creating and testing new ships doesn’t affect the efficiency analysis and the balance adjustments made to existing ships. As for the old branch of German battleships, each one is at a satisfactory level of balance. This branch has not been neglected by us, and when it has needed balance changes in the past, we have made them on a regular basis.

For example, the accuracy and range of the secondary guns were increased in 0.10.0, the accuracy of the main guns in 0.8.11, and the penetration of the 105mm HE-shell was significantly increased in 0.8.6. Additionally, there will be further improvements to the secondary battery skills in 0.10.7, which should improve the playstyle of German battleships as well. As such, at the moment, there is no need for branch buffs.

 

Q12. Is there any consideration to have separate stats/balancing for competitive versus randoms/coop modes? Some ships are incredibly strong in randoms while being rather mediocre in competitive, such as Hindenburg for example. Other others are the opposite, being incredibly strong in comp especially when massed but rather mediocre in randoms, Petropavlovsk to name the biggest candidate. Hindenburg is disgusting at melting ships in randoms, particularly battleships but its use in clan wars is limited due to the prevalence of carriers, the existence of Goliath, and the rather mediocre turret arcs. Petropavlovsk while good at punishing broadsides at mid to close range lacks much capabilities outside of that in randoms alone, although it's not bad it's nothing compared to its competitive potential. Massing several Petropavlovsks in competitive creates an incredibly strong lineup that is very hard to beat. Another thing is that carriers need to be balanced around competitive properly, such as removing air spotting at the very least from clan battles to make battleship lineups more competitive or all together. AA is another factor as in a 12v12 you are inherently running into more AA versus a 7v7. Overall carriers seem too strong in both competitive and randoms, but especially for competitive.

(Related question) Why have you decided for a band-aid solution to ship spam in CB in the form of restrictions instead of making an effort to fix the state of balance of T10?

A12. Most of the matches in World of Warships are fought in Random Battles. There, game experience is gained both on a particular ship as well as against a particular ship. In contrast, Clan Battles are centered around tactical team interactions, where you can discover new aspects of using a particular ship or even a combination of ships.

We don't plan to introduce different characteristics of ships for different types of battles. By changing the ships, we could come to a point where a player will need to constantly retrain a commander to play in each type of battle. We must also factor in that Clan players tend to play a lot of Random Battles as well. As a result, you would need to constantly remember–as well as ask yourself in the heat of battle--how each and every ship performs in this particular type of battle. Clan Battle is the main competitive mode in World of Warships, and in it, players must show their skills both as an individual when it comes to controlling their ship, as well as implement various new team tactics within the familiar mechanics (rather than re-learn how to play their own ship). It is obvious that, as with any competitive mode, Clan Battles have quickly shaped their own meta. It is unavoidable that some ships will be more popular than others. In addition, the overall Clan Battles meta changes from season to season: in one season there could be a cyclone or other weather hazard, and in another there could be restrictions on the number of certain ships, while the next one adds a new branch of ships. We also don't want to make changes to the ships based on their effectiveness and popularity exclusively in Clan battles, as many players don’t participate in this game mode at all - ships are primarily balanced for Random Battles. That is why we decided on the system of limitations in Clan Battles, which was a compromise that has shown its effectiveness time and time again.

 

Q13. Currently British Aircraft carriers (especially T8 Implacable and T10 Audacious) seems quite weak when we compare them with their equivalents. Since these Carriers are weak on direct damage and relies on fires and flooding to build their damage they are not competitive enogh and it's very rare to see them in competitive game mods like Ranked and Clan Battles. Do you have any plans to improve this carriers and make them more competitive ?

(Related question) It seems like Midway is underperforming in randoms, can she maybe receive some buffs to bring her win rate and average damage on par with other cvs at t10? She could receive a small speed buff on the slower squadrons to improve game influence, another possible buff would be in the manouverability and aiming time of torpedo bombers, to improve responsiveness and versatility of the squadron.

(Related question) Is WG happy with the current state & power of CVs? Should we expect more major changes in the future, similar to rocket rework?

A13. It is worth admitting that, historically, British ships are not the most suitable vehicles for competitive modes. British aircraft carriers and other ships, like the cruiser Minotaur, for example, do not fit into such modes as well as their classmates of other nations. This is largely due to the specifics of their gameplay and mechanics. However, these ships are quite good in random battles, and we don't want to make balance changes just based on competitive modes.

As for the current state of Midway, and the entire class in general, it isn’t the best time for us to draw any conclusions for now. At present, we are closely monitoring the impact of the attack aircraft changes that were implemented into the game in 0.10.5. This change could have a significant effect on the performance of individual ships. After a few updates, players should get used to the changes and the situation will stabilize, and at that point it will be possible for us to conduct an analysis and, based on its results, decide as to whether we are satisfied with the current state of the class and individual CVs, or whether any further adjustments are needed.

 

Q14. In the new cv skills, interceptor makes it so that fighters don't spot and don't engage other fighters, why can't this be there by default on cv fighters, as we all know that cv spotting from random invisible fighters is one of the most annoying things. And instead of the interceptor skill you can have a "spotter" skill, which means that if a cv wants to be using the fighters for spotting purposes as well then he/she will have to invest 3 points into it instead of the current scenario where he can spot for free and spec completely into damage mitigation and offense.

A14. As was said in one of the previous answers in the first wave, we do acknowledge that CV spotting could be improved. Therefore, we are currently in search of new possible solutions. The option that you suggest - replacing fighters with interceptors - was reviewed as well. However, it was rejected for several reasons. This change would not solve the problem of the unnecessary spotting of CVs, as spotting from fighters is only a small fraction of the total reconnaissance capability of CVs. If all CVs originally had interceptors, players on them would want to give their fighters the ability to detect enemies and attack fighters, while still being able to attack squadrons of enemy aircraft carriers, even if it comes at a cost of overall efficiency. Thus, the skill would almost be a necessity for all builds, and the appearance of ubiquitous skills has always been something that we have wanted to avoid when implementing skill reworks. In its current iteration, however, the Interceptor skill is not as overwhelmingly chosen, but still offers players slightly different gameplay - being more effective against squadrons of enemy CVs, but losing some spotting potential.

 

Q15. Can you explain the rationale for the use of hidden statistics such as Krupp, Air Drag Coefficient, and Shell Penetration that are unavailable to be understood through the in-game client? These statistics are not easily known yet they can vary pretty significantly between ships of the same class and tier. Do you have any plans to improve the understanding of these mechanics through the in-game client, or alternatively any plans to standardize these values such as by class, caliber, and tier to make understanding ship performance more straightforward? As an addition, I'll also add the specific dispersion pattern of ships, for example the maximum dispersion as displayed in port is just the dispersion size at maximum range. However this is only really intuitively useful to compare when ships have the same or similar ranges, which they often do not. Do you think there is a better way to display the dispersion of ships in the in-game client so that players can better understand the accuracy of the ships? There is often, at least in the community, mention of things like "battlecruiser" dispersion however this is not easily understood when looking at ships in the in-game client.

A15. What you currently see in the client are the most basic, useful, and easily digestible breakdowns of the ship's guns that a player needs in order to go into battle. In case you need additional data to play effectively, there are many information resources and additional tools created by our players for in-depth analysis of game mechanics. They provide detailed information about all the characteristics of the guns, as well as useful graphs for dynamically changing parameters. Shells in our game interact with the gun, the environment, and the armor of the enemy ship before detonating. To implement all of this complex game logic in the case of each particular ship requires a number of hidden parameters that determine ballistics, shell velocity, and armor penetration.

We do not specify these parameters in the game client for two main reasons: They will, more often than not, mean nothing to the vast majority of players. Adding so many characteristics would significantly overload the game interface. We have no plans to standardize these parameters, because they exist precisely for the purpose of customizing any guns and projectiles in the game in case of design or balance needs. As for scatter: Characteristics such as scatter or penetration of AP-shells depend, for example, on the distance — so it is impossible to describe them in the game client in one simple figure that can be understood by any player. And terms such as "battlecruiser dispersion" exist in the community, where the most involved players communicate and allow them to characterize their familiar ship configuration patterns, which--unfortunately--again does not apply to the entire audience.

 

Q16. After the commander skill redesign, many players on large cruisers experience a lack of survivability. For example, Siegfried now cannot use his secondaries properly and implement his unique gameplay. Are there any buffs or trade-offs planned for large cruisers to solve this problem (particularly with zygfried's secondaries). And have you considered the idea of allowing big cruiser owners to use either the battleship page or the cruiser page when playing those ships?

A16. Speaking specifically about the Siegfried - the unique gameplay of this ship is still more about its 380 mm guns, rather than the secondaries - which, although not bad, aren't the main feature of the ship, so I would recommend not relying exclusively on it and would use it with caution. We have no plans to allow players to choose which page of commander skills to use on a particular ship, as commander skills are customized for a particular class, which, in turn, allows to maintain game balance and customize interclass interaction between ships. Departure from this concept can negatively affect the entire gameplay process. Also, we have closely monitored the effectiveness and survivability of large cruisers after the commander skills rework and have found that their performance has remained virtually unchanged.

 

Q17. Will match making also be adjusted so not one team has 5 or 6 radars and the other team only has 1 or 2 for example? Sometimes one team has 3 radars and other team 0 etc. Same for torpedo focused DDs versus gunboat DDs, sometimes one team has 4 torpedo focused DDs like Kagero, Yugomo, Shimakaze, Ostergotland etc. and the other team is full with Friesland, Akizuki, Kitakaze, Kleber, etc. In my opinion the team with only or way more gunboat DDs will have a very big advantage to first kill the enemy DDs easy so they and the rest of the team can win easy after that

(Related question) Any plans to implement some kind of player skill distribution to the matchmaker? It's not really funny, if a 60% WR team steamrolls a 43% WR team...

A17. In general, there are no plans to change the matchmaker in terms of selecting teams by ship characteristics or player level, and there are several reasons for it. The first one is that, speaking about random battles as the main battle type, we want random battles experience to stay varied and not entirely predictable. Only this condition of randomness allows players to have standout battles where they prevail against several enemy ships and experience "epic" moments. With 100% balanced teams in all parameters, this would be much rarer.

Another important reason is that the introduction of additional team selection parameters would complicate the matchmaker and increase the waiting time in the queue. After all, if teams need to be selected, in addition to the current restrictions, and, for example, on the percentage of wins, it would take a very long time to collect the Random 12 vs. 12 with a suitable winrate. As a result, players who are first in line may end up having to wait much longer than 3 minutes for the battle, and in the end the queue time potentially becomes longer than the time spent in game, which cannot be called a positive experience. This also contradicts the matchmaker's main goal, which is to generate battles with the most balanced team compositions as quickly as possible. In its current state, the matchmaker handles this task quite well and players are left waiting in the queue for Random Battles on only the rarest of occasions. Besides, as was stated some time ago, instead of introducing "Radar" restrictions to the matchmaker we would rather balance the consumable itself, which we did some time ago: we made it less impactful with the implementation of delayed spotting for the team. Moreover, even if we introduced further team balance by an additional parameter, such as the "Surveillance Radar" balance, it would mean that we would have to introduce restrictions on other parameters, such as team balance by the number of torpedo ships per team, the number of "HE-spammers", winrate, etc. As a result, the teams would find themselves in mirror matches more often than not. In this case the battles will quickly become rather monotonous: for example, playing on Cleveland or Mogami, you will play against approximately the same ships and in teams with almost identical lineups using the same tactics. The mode is called Random Battles for a reason.

In addition, the radar advantage doesn’t always define the result of the battle, but it does require the enemy team to adjust to this feature and play according to an unusual strategy: for example, a destroyer must stay away from key areas for a while and wait until battleships and cruisers come closer and "clear" their access to the area. As a benefit, radar usage means less combat bonuses on the side of the enemy team, so your team should win in an outright fight. Nevertheless, while there are no plans to balance teams on additional parameters, we are trying to make the matchmaker more intuitive, and in recent years we have made several changes designed to make the selection of teams and battles better.

 

Q18. Has wargaming considered adding a form of a controllable fighter to cvs or ships (e.g. a fighter that can be directed to a grid square or a specific ship and will protect ships in that area by shadowing incoming strikes along the border of said grid or a certain distance from that ship and attacking any plane that enters it) or some other elements of effective counter play for both cvs and ships which has long since been missing ever since the rework?

A18. During the CVs rework in 0.8.0, we considered various ideas and gameplay options for CVs, and one of them was fighters with direct control. However, we decided to abandon this idea. First of all, World of Warships is a game in which the foundation of gameplay is the battle of ships against each other. The addition of controllable fighters would greatly shift the focus of a CV player's game from fighting other ships to confronting the squadrons of an enemy CV. However, this doesn’t mean that we have abandoned the idea of steerable fighters altogether, and--in the future--we aren't ruling out the possibility of adding them. However, there are no plans for this at the moment as we are more focused on working on other aspects of aircraft carriers. Presently, we are exploring options for the spotting problem mentioned above, as well as watching the impact of the very recent changes - the attack aircraft adjustments.

 

Q19. Why do we get clan battle with 2 CVs allowed when the community not wanted them at all?

A19. Many of you have spoken out against the recent changes to the clan battles format. But the constant updating of clan battles gameplay is necessary to develop this mode. We understand your concerns about having two aircraft carriers on your team, but we assume this will not be an issue. In case this experiment proves unsuccessful, we will take appropriate measures. We regularly change the rules, format and maps of clan battles in order to add more variety to the team compositions and tactics used by players. Restrictions within the current season have been introduced for the same purpose. We don't think that 2 CVs on the team will be an issue or a universal choice this season. Despite the spotting capabilities and the relatively weak AA of the enemy ships at Tier VI, the CVs themselves don’t have the best attack potential. The overall influence of CVs on the outcome of the battle in the current format is not nearly as high as it is in Random Battles. The most important factor here is that at the Tier 6 mark, battleships are very powerful and have a huge impact on the battle results. Therefore, it might not be the best strategy to reduce the number of battleships on your team to add an aircraft carrier. So taking into account the fact that set ups with two aircraft carriers probably are not the best and there is an alternative choice, we believe that this is a good opportunity for players to expand their pool of ship picks while implementing new tactics. In addition, variation in gameplay and meta can have a positive effect on this type of battle. If, during the season, the statistics show that our expectations are not satisfied, we can quickly change the current restrictions - not only those on specific ships, but also ones on the number of ships of a certain class.

 

Q20. World of Warships has mostly linear symmetrical maps. Whereas map design in Starcraft 2 often uses rotational symmetry. Since linear symmetry there promotes stale gameplay and therefore is often called 'turtle symmetry'. Is there any reason as to why wargaming went for linear symmetry and will we see more rotational-symmetric maps in the future?

A20. One of the most important factors which we consider during the map design is the balance of ships on each flank for both teams. For ships on spawn positions to be distributed more evenly around the center and flanks on both sides, linearly symmetric maps are best. Of course, in some battles there may be a different number of ships on different flanks, but such situations are quite rare and are primarily due to the presence of divisions, as they spawn on the map together. Basically, we try to have the same number of players on different teams in the center and on the flanks. With rotational symmetry, each side will almost always have an advantage on one flank in one way or another, either due to rotational symmetry of islands on the map or both islands and the number of players on different flanks. While this does not affect the overall balance of the teams, for specific players it can significantly ruin the game experience. Besides, even if we introduced maps with rotational symmetry, they at first would indeed look quite new and interesting, as you have to get accustomed to different combat conditions on the same map. However, with some time, as players get used to such maps, they might realise that eventually it doesn't differ much from linear symmetrical maps in terms of general gameplay. However, we are constantly working on the maps in our game, and--in the future--we aren't excluding the possibility of adding maps with rotational symmetry, on the condition that they will not tip the balance in favor of one of the teams and run the risk of damaging competitive integrity.

As for the monotony of gameplay due to the linear symmetry of maps, the same map can still feature dynamic and different gameplay and tactics. It depends, for example, on what part of the map the player's ship appeared in - closer to the center or on the flanks. Moreover, diversity also depends on the type of battle on said map, and the fact that battles can take place in different modes, such as Domination, Epicenter, etc.

 

Q21. Seeing that submarines will inevitably come to the game, how confident is Wargaming that you will not repeat the same mistakes made during the the reworked CV launch? CVs and AAs have had balance changes upon balance changes and slight reworks upon reworks. It's been 2.5 years since CVs were reworked and you're still making changes in gameplay and balance. Will this bleed over to the submarine launch too?

A21. Changes to aircraft carriers were our first experience with a rework on such a grand scale, especially given that it was the global rework of a full ship type which was already present in our game. This introduced specific difficulties in the rework process, which required a significant amount of time to be fixed. This is why we fully changed our approach when we started designing submarines. First of all, we are trying not to rush the introduction of submarines: they first appeared in game courtesy of an event operation in 2018, and their addition as a standalone class was officially announced in Summer 2019. It is only now, in 2021, that submarines are making their debut in one of our main battle types - this to allow players get acquainted with the new class, as well as to allow us to collect additional data on the submarines from a wider audience. A large amount of time was required in order to develop unique and interesting gameplay mechanics for the new class, but at the same time, these massive changes have been extensively tested to be balanced and fit well into the template of currently existing interactions between different ship types.

Each prototype was tested first through internal closed test sessions, and - later - on public ones, which any willing player could take part in. Over the course of this, we collected lots of feedback and statistics, and as such we have made changes to almost all the mechanics. Currently, submarines are closer than ever to a full-fledged release, but the work on them is not yet finished. In order to make sure that submarines are ready, we need more data than testing on a separate, less populous server can give us. That’s why we gradually started adding submarines to the game and began to introduce them to all WoWs players. As an example of their gradual implementation, there was a separate temporary battle type – “Submarine Battle” – in Update 0.10.4, after which we continued to make improvements and conduct additional submarine test sessions. And now we have the appearance of submarines in Ranked and Co-op Battles – the greatest challenge for a new class that will set the future course of submarines. To summarize, we are doing everything that we can in order to avoid our past mistakes, and submarines will be fully released only when we are sure they are 100% ready for it. It's a certainty that, even after the release, submarines will be subject to balance changes and slight tuning - as with any other ship type. After all, the game does not stand still: the meta is constantly evolving, alongside the game systems and other aspects. WoWs is almost 6 years old, but we still make changes and tweak balance where necessary. However, we’ll try to avoid any large-scale changes to submarines after they are fully released.

That's it for the current QnA. We tried to cover most popular questions that you aksed. See you next time on the next QnA session!

I think nobody can accuse me of being a Weegee "lover" but.....what I see is a different approach. It seems that honesty is being tried.  I personally welcome this.

 

Particularly this: The overall influence of CVs on the outcome of the battle in the current format is not nearly as high as it is in Random Battles.

 

Literally throws every single pro Cv argument under the bus. So, those who for long have pointed out the facts and the truth related to this class can feel.... "vindicated" 

 

So "sorry guys" you are arguing with Weegee from now on" : xD

 

[rage1750]

Yeah I gave up on Discord.

If you are looking for an honest and reasoned response from a WarGaming employee may I suggest you go and hit your head repeatedly; and often with a brick.

 

You will find more logic and happiness taking the brick route.

 

All Discord offers is more of the same; WarGaming employees showing off their contortionist skills by wedging their head so firmly up a specific orifice. 

They have been that way since the "Great CV ReeeeeeeeWork"....  

You can have a million and one reasoned posts...

 

Dear friend....  Your post, so very, very important to us,  But know, that we care about youre feedback.  

[Aethervoxx]

I'd be a really happy WoWS player if WG removed the CV rework from the game & returned the RTS CV style of play (& ofc, the old pre CV rework AA play & ofc the old Cpt skills). 

[Andrewbassg]

41 minutes ago, rage1750 said:

Yeah I gave up on Discord.

If you are looking for an honest and reasoned response from a WarGaming employee may I suggest you go and hit your head repeatedly; and often with a brick.

 

You will find more logic and happiness taking the brick route.

 

All Discord offers is more of the same; WarGaming employees showing off their contortionist skills by wedging their head so firmly up a specific orifice. 

They have been that way since the "Great CV ReeeeeeeeWork"....  

You can have a million and one reasoned posts...

 

Dear friend....  Your post, so very, very important to us,  But know, that we care about youre feedback.  

Oh I'm not disputing your words :) I'm just saying that compared to Weegee standards......is kinda surprising.

 

I mean we have WeeGee, then we have B.S ,then we have corporate and then we are getting closer to neutral grounds...... 

[totally_potato]

2 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

The part 2 of the now infamous Q&A is up on discord. I don't do discord but it had been quoted on the NA forum.

 

I think nobody can accuse me of being a Weegee "lover" but.....what I see is a different approach. It seems that honesty is being tried.  I personally welcome this.

 

Particularly this: The overall influence of CVs on the outcome of the battle in the current format is not nearly as high as it is in Random Battles.

 

Literally throws every single pro Cv argument under the bus. So, those who for long have pointed out the facts and the truth related to this class can feel.... "vindicated" 

 

So "sorry guys" you are arguing with Weegee from now on" : xD

 

ah thnx, lemme take a look at it

I'd like to see what WG says that everyone thinks is messed up in part 2

[SodaBubbles]

3 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

The part 2 of the now infamous Q&A is up on discord. I don't do discord but it had been quoted on the NA forum.

 

I think nobody can accuse me of being a Weegee "lover" but.....what I see is a different approach. It seems that honesty is being tried.  I personally welcome this.

 

Particularly this: The overall influence of CVs on the outcome of the battle in the current format is not nearly as high as it is in Random Battles.

 

Literally throws every single pro Cv argument under the bus. So, those who for long have pointed out the facts and the truth related to this class can feel.... "vindicated" 

 

So "sorry guys" you are arguing with Weegee from now on" : xD

 

As you noted, except for this idiotic comment about CVs...
 

  We understand your concerns about having two aircraft carriers on your team, but we assume this will not be an issue

...that was a pretty honest and open Q&A.

 

It's pretty obvious that pernicious, toxic effects of CVs (and now subs) are necessary to their business model. The real problem is the business model they have chosen that relies on creating crap playing experiences and arbitrary damage to get players back in the queue as quickly as possible. Until they are willing to grow and change, we are going to continue to face a degraded, impoverished Randoms filled with toxic ships that generate player toxicity.

[totally_potato]

 

This is a long one

6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Q10. Zao is currently the weakest T10 cruiser and really needs a few buffs. It has gotten powercrept over the years with laughable armor, poor turret angles, terrible AA and an absolute joke of an HP pool for a heavy cruiser. She also has surprisingly low range for guns with those kind of ballistics. She could really use an HP/range buff. She might have good average damage statistically, but that's just because Zao is good at farming and almost nothing else. And even in farming she is outperformed by other heavy cruisers (Goliath, Hindenburg, Des Moines) and almost all CLs. She might have "solid" torps but let's be honest you're not hitting anyone with those except some random unsuspecting BB player with his WASD keys broken. Zao's armor and HP pool are abysmal for a heavy cruiser. She gets chunked by literally every battleship AP shell and doesn't have enough HP to compensate for it. Since zao's original gimmick was being tanky (back when 30mm was a big thing and 457mm armed BBs weren't plaguing T10), maybe consider an armor buff? Her range is also surprisingly low for her guns which have good ballistics, and mounting range mod becomes almost mandatory since going below 16.2km with Zao is just asking for deletion. If those buffs are not possible, try to give her a reduced reload (11s). I hope you really consider this since Zao was one of my first T10s and it saddens me to see how she fares compared to her peers.

A10. We indeed noticed that many players comment on Zao's state of balance, especially after one of our answers in the first wave of this QnA. In terms of player perception, the ship is seen as one of the weakest among Tier X cruisers. We of course took all feedback about Zao into account and we really appreciate it. However, in order to see the whole picture with regard to Zao's balance, we must consider not only the perception POV, but also statistical data and balance metrics.

Zao really doesn't have the highest winrate. However, a ship's winrate by itself is not enough to determine if there are problems with the ship. As an example, let's take a look at Hindenburg. If we look at the stats, her winrate is also below 50% — the same value as Zao's — yet the ship is quite balanced in terms of combat efficiency and remains one of the most popular Tier X cruisers. This means that, in terms of evaluating a ship's current state, other metrics should also be taken into account. Some other important things that should be factored in are metrics such as absolute and relative damage, number of destroyed ships, and related statistics, as well as broader considerations, such as the different skill levels and gameplay styles of the players that actively use these specific ships. Subsequently, based on the analysis of all of these metrics as one complex equation, we find that Zao is not in a position that would warrant any serious changes. Additionally, if we look at the stats from the past couple of updates, Zao's popularity is in a fairly decent position, and--as obvious as it sounds--most players are unlikely to willingly play a bad ship. Popularity itself is not the main indicator that a ship is in an OK balance position (there are other, more important metrics as mentioned above), but we still need to consider it when analyzing the ship's current condition.

Perhaps the perception that Zao is a weak ship is a result of her winrate being taken at face value alongside her playstyle. The ship, for the most part, has highly pronounced strengths, and a great deal of them at that: powerful artillery with comfortable, flat-topped ballistics and high accuracy, strong long-range torpedoes, good maneuverability, and one of the best concealments for her Tier and type. However, effective use of her strengths is impossible without additionally taking her weaknesses into account, which are also notable: not the best armor, a vulnerable citadel, short firing range, low number of hit points, and obtuse angles of rotation of main battery guns. As such, getting more comfortable playing towards her strengths while being aware of her weaknesses may prove more difficult when compared to cruisers with simpler gameplay, often demanding better communication with allies as well. Considering all things said, we cannot make balance changes based only on the perception of the ship, especially considering that the ship is in the norm in terms of different combat effectiveness metrics. Therefore, we are not planning any balance changes of the ship for now, as buffing a ship with normal effectiveness may lead to an increase in her efficiency that takes her above the norm, which may have a negative impact on the in-game balance. However, as there was a lot of feedback on Zao, we are monitoring the situation with this ship and in the future will look into the possibility of implementing a buff that would not negatively affect the in-game balance.

uhh what???

Much better reply than part 1 where all kinds of shenanigans were made. But apart from that, are they trying to say that Hindenburg is as weak as Zao coz spreadsheet says so? 

Ok so they stated some good points. WR isn't everything as some players like to see it, Zao is a popular cruiser sure (that's mostly down to it being the last ship of a pretty popular line of ships).

And ok, if you really mean that Zao is alright in other areas of statistics, release it to the public domain. We all would like to see, how good it actually is.

And no, the perception that Zao is a weak ship is not becoz of low WR. ZF-6 has a pretty average WR, yet its a very good destroyer. It comes from playing the ship. Its seen how many ppl actually played the ship, and most of them are saying Zao is weak, not just me and some random streamer. Her main strengths are her agility and firepower (torps are a bonus, so I am not touching that aspect). But we have to look at these 3 strengths relative to other T10 cruisers. She has 12 8 inch guns with good HE shells (standard pen, good alpha and good fire chance), and decent AP shells (decent pen, and alpha) and good ballistics, very good conceal, and good maneuverability as a whole. Now if we compare her to other farming cruisers like Henri, Hindenburg, Moskva, Salem etc, we can see that the guns are similar in performance and if lacking somewhere, it compensates somewhere else. Henri has 9 guns only, but a big caliber with very good HE shells (good pen, good damage, good fire chance), and good AP shells (amazing pen, great damage) with great ballistics. She has base faster reload than Zao (not by much tho tbh), better range, better firing arcs and MBRB. While she doesn't share the maneuverability characteristics, she is insanely fast (fastest cruiser in the game atm), however turns worser than a Zao. She has worser concealment, but sufficient HP, and combined with her speed, she is quite survivable. So Henri not only has better guns than Zao, but beats her in speed as well as survivability. 

Let's compare her to her closest companion, Hindenburg. 

To start off with guns, they are polar opposites yet the same. Zao has decent AP and great HE, while Hindi has great AP and decent HE. Her HE has a significant armor threshold crossed which is 50mm, which means unlike Zao who has to rely on fires here, Hindi does consistent damage to several BBs, soviet cruisers, and some of the other heavily armored cruisers. Her fire chance is lower (its still quite decent tbf),  and her alpha is the lowest among T10 CA HE, but she makes up for it in RoF, and raw DPM which is applies very well. So her HE is much more versatile than Zao. As for her AP, pen is a bit lower, but her alpha is amazing, and her RoF and good ballistics makes this AP quite good against broadsides, just like Zao AP. And she has some of the highest AP DPM among T10 CA. Her guns are also very comfortable to use (arcs, range and all). Her concealment is worser and so is maneuverability, but she is way more survivable, and is in fact the better damage farmer.

Honestly from a damage dealing point, Zao's concealment and maneuverability don't provide that much to the table. It makes her disengage better, sure. But from a damage dealing perspective, it doesn't provide much to the table. They are more national traits than actual valid points to bring a Zao to even randoms, let alone comp. Back in the day, the Japanese cruisers had this stealth attack sort of deal that made them quite strong. But ever since the ranges have been pushed out, and better damage farmers have been introduced, Zao has lost her touch. You nerfed her HP becoz stealth fire was a thing, and that was a good balance change. But its been years since Stealth fire was removed. Zao hasn't got her HP back. Her turret angles were also a balancing factor becoz she could do the whole pop out of nowhere, set a fire and disappear jazz, and so players should be able to somewhat counter it. Yeah that made perfect sense when stealth fire was a thing and engagement ranges were shorter. Now it doesn't.

I don't ask for much, but 5-6k more HP (still lower than other cruisers, but now her concealment and maneuverability trait make a lot more sense with this buff, and slightly better turret angles. I don't want them to be absolutely amazing, but it would be nice if she had a bit better turret angles. Her firing range is also an issue, but that can be kept, or used as an alternative for the HP or gun angle buff. Then Zao would be fine tbh. 

 

6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Q11. After the recent devblog of the new German BB's you said that those ships are best suited for brawling and short range combat but it's pretty evident that your whole concept of brawling is completely out of the window since the T10 (the best of the best) has the lowest HP pool and the thinnest armor of all the researchable T10 BB's and is pretty clear that the secondaries of those new ships are useless (most of them are 105 mm so they will pen 26 mm of armor even with the german special HE pen) so my question is: Why releasing a completely new line with questionable stats instead of buffing the already existing German BB's that should already be suited for brawling?

A11. First of all we would like to point out that in the development blog announcement we did not refer to the new German battleships as close-range fighters. It is too early to talk about their final gameplay concept. Unfortunately, no matter how much we wanted to be sure of the effectiveness of the new branch at the announcement stage, it is impossible without testing all of the ships in live battle conditions. Even considering these ships in the context of your question, it's hard to draw any conclusions based on individual characteristics.

For example, consider similar characteristics on other ships: - A ship's bow is certainly important, but it doesn’t completely determine the armor and overall tankiness of the ship. Let's take Petropavlovsk as an example. She has 25 mm plating in the bow--not a great deal in the grand scheme of things--but is still considered to be an excellent brawler. This is largely due to the bow armor belt. If we look at the tier X new German BB, Schlieffen, she may not have the thickest plating, but she--like Petro--also has a bow armor belt (in fact, all of the newer German battleships have it). Therefore, we believe that this feature will also help German battleships perform in close-quarters combat. - As for secondaries, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Ohio have 127mm secondary guns that only penetrate 21mm, which doesn't stop them from being strong close-range combat battleships. Therefore, we should remember that the strength of a ship is determined by a wide set of parameters. But again, we'll see how things will actually work out in a live environment. The test phase is in place for us to check the concept, and--if necessary--make balance changes to bring the ship up to the desired level of gameplay. We add new ships to offer exciting content to our players, as well as to increase the variety of ships and prevent the meta and overall gameplay from becoming stagnant. The process of creating and testing new ships doesn’t affect the efficiency analysis and the balance adjustments made to existing ships. As for the old branch of German battleships, each one is at a satisfactory level of balance. This branch has not been neglected by us, and when it has needed balance changes in the past, we have made them on a regular basis.

For example, the accuracy and range of the secondary guns were increased in 0.10.0, the accuracy of the main guns in 0.8.11, and the penetration of the 105mm HE-shell was significantly increased in 0.8.6. Additionally, there will be further improvements to the secondary battery skills in 0.10.7, which should improve the playstyle of German battleships as well. As such, at the moment, there is no need for branch buffs.

Uhh ok?

You did not refer to the branch of new BBs as close range fighters? Yep you totally didn...........

..........right anyway

The BCs from T3-6 are pretty well armored imo, however, the T7-9 are certainly not tanky at all. Then the T10 is back to good armor. Its kinda weird tbh. But honestly 30mm icebreaker makes no sense in any way, especially on T8 and T9 (the entire bow and stern plating of a standard BB of that tier is more than that, like literally). The T8 has this massive 10Head superstructure, and a ton of shell catchers and traps. The T9, well its better but the whole armor scheme makes no sense. 

Also well BCs are supposed to be you know, fast? Atleast faster than the same tier German Battleships? This holds true again for the same pattern of ships. T3-6 have this and so does the T10, the T7-9 don't. T7 Prinz Heinrich German BC goes 28 knots, while T7 German battleship goes 32 knots. Now this one case can be forgotten, becoz the Gneisenau was sort of a Battlecruiser type of ship. So I can be fine with it. But Zieten and Prinz Rupprecht? Zieten goes at the same speed as Bismarck, and the BCs and some BBs of the tier outrun it. T9 P.Rupper goes faster than FDG by a whole 1 knot while sacrificing a ton of armor and HP, which makes no sense. Not to mention a ton of T9 and T10 ships outrun it. Georgia, Alsace, Iowa, etc. 

 

Now these were my problems listed. Back to the main topic. I don't see any issue with the secondary battery, unless the accuracy isn't good. And yes, if possible, give the 105mm guns a bit more fire chance, becoz the ships you compared them with, relied on fires and high accuracy to hit the superstructure at mid range. And yes as you mentioned, a test is better than an assumption. 

Btw, despite adding all kinds of ships, the meta is still kinda of stagnant so yeah, so much for saying that.

Now you did buff German BBs in the past, but that doesn't mean they are great or anything. Also on every stat page, we see these ships at the absolute bottom of the pack, especially the high tier German BBs. The lower tier ones are completely fine, so are the mid tier ones. But the high tier ones, well, they suck to put it lightly. So much superstructure, pushing being an opportunistic and dumb than a smart and tactical play in todays meta, secondaries not being the best (hopefully next update fixes that) and being prone to breaking in HE spam, inconsistent gun performance, you name it. While a full branch buff is not needed, the high tier ones (T8-10) need a whole lot of tweaking.

 

6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Q12. Is there any consideration to have separate stats/balancing for competitive versus randoms/coop modes? Some ships are incredibly strong in randoms while being rather mediocre in competitive, such as Hindenburg for example. Other others are the opposite, being incredibly strong in comp especially when massed but rather mediocre in randoms, Petropavlovsk to name the biggest candidate. Hindenburg is disgusting at melting ships in randoms, particularly battleships but its use in clan wars is limited due to the prevalence of carriers, the existence of Goliath, and the rather mediocre turret arcs. Petropavlovsk while good at punishing broadsides at mid to close range lacks much capabilities outside of that in randoms alone, although it's not bad it's nothing compared to its competitive potential. Massing several Petropavlovsks in competitive creates an incredibly strong lineup that is very hard to beat. Another thing is that carriers need to be balanced around competitive properly, such as removing air spotting at the very least from clan battles to make battleship lineups more competitive or all together. AA is another factor as in a 12v12 you are inherently running into more AA versus a 7v7. Overall carriers seem too strong in both competitive and randoms, but especially for competitive.

(Related question) Why have you decided for a band-aid solution to ship spam in CB in the form of restrictions instead of making an effort to fix the state of balance of T10?

A12. Most of the matches in World of Warships are fought in Random Battles. There, game experience is gained both on a particular ship as well as against a particular ship. In contrast, Clan Battles are centered around tactical team interactions, where you can discover new aspects of using a particular ship or even a combination of ships.

We don't plan to introduce different characteristics of ships for different types of battles. By changing the ships, we could come to a point where a player will need to constantly retrain a commander to play in each type of battle. We must also factor in that Clan players tend to play a lot of Random Battles as well. As a result, you would need to constantly remember–as well as ask yourself in the heat of battle--how each and every ship performs in this particular type of battle. Clan Battle is the main competitive mode in World of Warships, and in it, players must show their skills both as an individual when it comes to controlling their ship, as well as implement various new team tactics within the familiar mechanics (rather than re-learn how to play their own ship). It is obvious that, as with any competitive mode, Clan Battles have quickly shaped their own meta. It is unavoidable that some ships will be more popular than others. In addition, the overall Clan Battles meta changes from season to season: in one season there could be a cyclone or other weather hazard, and in another there could be restrictions on the number of certain ships, while the next one adds a new branch of ships. We also don't want to make changes to the ships based on their effectiveness and popularity exclusively in Clan battles, as many players don’t participate in this game mode at all - ships are primarily balanced for Random Battles. That is why we decided on the system of limitations in Clan Battles, which was a compromise that has shown its effectiveness time and time again.

Hmm, good answer for this

 

6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Q13. Currently British Aircraft carriers (especially T8 Implacable and T10 Audacious) seems quite weak when we compare them with their equivalents. Since these Carriers are weak on direct damage and relies on fires and flooding to build their damage they are not competitive enogh and it's very rare to see them in competitive game mods like Ranked and Clan Battles. Do you have any plans to improve this carriers and make them more competitive ?

(Related question) It seems like Midway is underperforming in randoms, can she maybe receive some buffs to bring her win rate and average damage on par with other cvs at t10? She could receive a small speed buff on the slower squadrons to improve game influence, another possible buff would be in the manouverability and aiming time of torpedo bombers, to improve responsiveness and versatility of the squadron.

(Related question) Is WG happy with the current state & power of CVs? Should we expect more major changes in the future, similar to rocket rework?

A13. It is worth admitting that, historically, British ships are not the most suitable vehicles for competitive modes. British aircraft carriers and other ships, like the cruiser Minotaur, for example, do not fit into such modes as well as their classmates of other nations. This is largely due to the specifics of their gameplay and mechanics. However, these ships are quite good in random battles, and we don't want to make balance changes just based on competitive modes.

As for the current state of Midway, and the entire class in general, it isn’t the best time for us to draw any conclusions for now. At present, we are closely monitoring the impact of the attack aircraft changes that were implemented into the game in 0.10.5. This change could have a significant effect on the performance of individual ships. After a few updates, players should get used to the changes and the situation will stabilize, and at that point it will be possible for us to conduct an analysis and, based on its results, decide as to whether we are satisfied with the current state of the class and individual CVs, or whether any further adjustments are needed.

Fair enough

6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Q14. In the new cv skills, interceptor makes it so that fighters don't spot and don't engage other fighters, why can't this be there by default on cv fighters, as we all know that cv spotting from random invisible fighters is one of the most annoying things. And instead of the interceptor skill you can have a "spotter" skill, which means that if a cv wants to be using the fighters for spotting purposes as well then he/she will have to invest 3 points into it instead of the current scenario where he can spot for free and spec completely into damage mitigation and offense.

A14. As was said in one of the previous answers in the first wave, we do acknowledge that CV spotting could be improved. Therefore, we are currently in search of new possible solutions. The option that you suggest - replacing fighters with interceptors - was reviewed as well. However, it was rejected for several reasons. This change would not solve the problem of the unnecessary spotting of CVs, as spotting from fighters is only a small fraction of the total reconnaissance capability of CVs. If all CVs originally had interceptors, players on them would want to give their fighters the ability to detect enemies and attack fighters, while still being able to attack squadrons of enemy aircraft carriers, even if it comes at a cost of overall efficiency. Thus, the skill would almost be a necessity for all builds, and the appearance of ubiquitous skills has always been something that we have wanted to avoid when implementing skill reworks. In its current iteration, however, the Interceptor skill is not as overwhelmingly chosen, but still offers players slightly different gameplay - being more effective against squadrons of enemy CVs, but losing some spotting potential.

Ok I suppose

I wish Interceptor was a type of fight available for BBs, so that I can hurt CVs a bit more

6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Q15. Can you explain the rationale for the use of hidden statistics such as Krupp, Air Drag Coefficient, and Shell Penetration that are unavailable to be understood through the in-game client? These statistics are not easily known yet they can vary pretty significantly between ships of the same class and tier. Do you have any plans to improve the understanding of these mechanics through the in-game client, or alternatively any plans to standardize these values such as by class, caliber, and tier to make understanding ship performance more straightforward? As an addition, I'll also add the specific dispersion pattern of ships, for example the maximum dispersion as displayed in port is just the dispersion size at maximum range. However this is only really intuitively useful to compare when ships have the same or similar ranges, which they often do not. Do you think there is a better way to display the dispersion of ships in the in-game client so that players can better understand the accuracy of the ships? There is often, at least in the community, mention of things like "battlecruiser" dispersion however this is not easily understood when looking at ships in the in-game client.

A15. What you currently see in the client are the most basic, useful, and easily digestible breakdowns of the ship's guns that a player needs in order to go into battle. In case you need additional data to play effectively, there are many information resources and additional tools created by our players for in-depth analysis of game mechanics. They provide detailed information about all the characteristics of the guns, as well as useful graphs for dynamically changing parameters. Shells in our game interact with the gun, the environment, and the armor of the enemy ship before detonating. To implement all of this complex game logic in the case of each particular ship requires a number of hidden parameters that determine ballistics, shell velocity, and armor penetration.

We do not specify these parameters in the game client for two main reasons: They will, more often than not, mean nothing to the vast majority of players. Adding so many characteristics would significantly overload the game interface. We have no plans to standardize these parameters, because they exist precisely for the purpose of customizing any guns and projectiles in the game in case of design or balance needs. As for scatter: Characteristics such as scatter or penetration of AP-shells depend, for example, on the distance — so it is impossible to describe them in the game client in one simple figure that can be understood by any player. And terms such as "battlecruiser dispersion" exist in the community, where the most involved players communicate and allow them to characterize their familiar ship configuration patterns, which--unfortunately--again does not apply to the entire audience.

while I do agree that adding penetration, impact angle charts, every single statistic will overload the game interface, small things like fuse time, ricochet angles, flooding chance for torps, overall alpha and DPM of a certain shell type of a certain ship, these things can be mentioned in the main statistics tab. These small things shouldn't overload the interface to the point where it can't be fixed, atleast any 2 of these figures. 

6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Q16. After the commander skill redesign, many players on large cruisers experience a lack of survivability. For example, Siegfried now cannot use his secondaries properly and implement his unique gameplay. Are there any buffs or trade-offs planned for large cruisers to solve this problem (particularly with Siegfried's secondaries). And have you considered the idea of allowing big cruiser owners to use either the battleship page or the cruiser page when playing those ships?

A16. Speaking specifically about the Siegfried - the unique gameplay of this ship is still more about its 380 mm guns, rather than the secondaries - which, although not bad, aren't the main feature of the ship, so I would recommend not relying exclusively on it and would use it with caution. We have no plans to allow players to choose which page of commander skills to use on a particular ship, as commander skills are customized for a particular class, which, in turn, allows to maintain game balance and customize interclass interaction between ships. Departure from this concept can negatively affect the entire gameplay process. Also, we have closely monitored the effectiveness and survivability of large cruisers after the commander skills rework and have found that their performance has remained virtually unchanged.

 

How can a few numbers simply tell you something is unchanged? The gameplay speaks for itself. While it is true, that Siegfried's main feature wasn't secondaries, it was still a feature many ppl bought siegfried for, not just the guns. Some of us bought this becoz this was the first cruiser on which secondaries could be built. Well now, the cruiser either needs to have good secondary accuracy base, or you can just forget secondaries exist, and I really don't think that should be the case. Also super cruisers in general, have had their survivability taken away becoz of these fires

I did a proposal on the forum a few days ago altho idk whether that matters anyway but I'll show it. It basically brings back the secondary skill and FP for cruisers along with tweaking a few weird skills. Now I could have give BoS, but keeping the fire duration at 60 seconds unless major maneuverability or concealment sacrifices are made, but I wanted to keep at 3 fires. Even normal cruiser can spec it if the want, so its overall helping both cruisers and supercruisers.

But back to my point, many of the features, that you took away made certain ships fun and appealing to the consumers, so taking it away was not a great move on your behalf. 

6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Q17. Will match making also be adjusted so not one team has 5 or 6 radars and the other team only has 1 or 2 for example? Sometimes one team has 3 radars and other team 0 etc. Same for torpedo focused DDs versus gunboat DDs, sometimes one team has 4 torpedo focused DDs like Kagero, Yugomo, Shimakaze, Ostergotland etc. and the other team is full with Friesland, Akizuki, Kitakaze, Kleber, etc. In my opinion the team with only or way more gunboat DDs will have a very big advantage to first kill the enemy DDs easy so they and the rest of the team can win easy after that

(Related question) Any plans to implement some kind of player skill distribution to the matchmaker? It's not really funny, if a 60% WR team steamrolls a 43% WR team...

A17. In general, there are no plans to change the matchmaker in terms of selecting teams by ship characteristics or player level, and there are several reasons for it. The first one is that, speaking about random battles as the main battle type, we want random battles experience to stay varied and not entirely predictable. Only this condition of randomness allows players to have standout battles where they prevail against several enemy ships and experience "epic" moments. With 100% balanced teams in all parameters, this would be much rarer.

Another important reason is that the introduction of additional team selection parameters would complicate the matchmaker and increase the waiting time in the queue. After all, if teams need to be selected, in addition to the current restrictions, and, for example, on the percentage of wins, it would take a very long time to collect the Random 12 vs. 12 with a suitable winrate. As a result, players who are first in line may end up having to wait much longer than 3 minutes for the battle, and in the end the queue time potentially becomes longer than the time spent in game, which cannot be called a positive experience. This also contradicts the matchmaker's main goal, which is to generate battles with the most balanced team compositions as quickly as possible. In its current state, the matchmaker handles this task quite well and players are left waiting in the queue for Random Battles on only the rarest of occasions. Besides, as was stated some time ago, instead of introducing "Radar" restrictions to the matchmaker we would rather balance the consumable itself, which we did some time ago: we made it less impactful with the implementation of delayed spotting for the team. Moreover, even if we introduced further team balance by an additional parameter, such as the "Surveillance Radar" balance, it would mean that we would have to introduce restrictions on other parameters, such as team balance by the number of torpedo ships per team, the number of "HE-spammers", winrate, etc. As a result, the teams would find themselves in mirror matches more often than not. In this case the battles will quickly become rather monotonous: for example, playing on Cleveland or Mogami, you will play against approximately the same ships and in teams with almost identical lineups using the same tactics. The mode is called Random Battles for a reason.

In addition, the radar advantage doesn’t always define the result of the battle, but it does require the enemy team to adjust to this feature and play according to an unusual strategy: for example, a destroyer must stay away from key areas for a while and wait until battleships and cruisers come closer and "clear" their access to the area. As a benefit, radar usage means less combat bonuses on the side of the enemy team, so your team should win in an outright fight. Nevertheless, while there are no plans to balance teams on additional parameters, we are trying to make the matchmaker more intuitive, and in recent years we have made several changes designed to make the selection of teams and battles better.

this kind of makes sense on paper, but doesn't happen in practice that efficiently. 

But yes, "Random" battles. It would be nice however to have a filter for maps, tier selection, etc. 

So the one who chooses a comfortable experience, have to wait a bit longer than others.

But queue time impact is not great and a "positive" experience. Still I feel like a filter option should atleast be in the game.

So that the time spent waiting for your random MM or comfortable MM is mostly in control of the player.

Just a suggestion 

6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Q18. Has wargaming considered adding a form of a controllable fighter to cvs or ships (e.g. a fighter that can be directed to a grid square or a specific ship and will protect ships in that area by shadowing incoming strikes along the border of said grid or a certain distance from that ship and attacking any plane that enters it) or some other elements of effective counter play for both cvs and ships which has long since been missing ever since the rework?

A18. During the CVs rework in 0.8.0, we considered various ideas and gameplay options for CVs, and one of them was fighters with direct control. However, we decided to abandon this idea. First of all, World of Warships is a game in which the foundation of gameplay is the battle of ships against each other. The addition of controllable fighters would greatly shift the focus of a CV player's game from fighting other ships to confronting the squadrons of an enemy CV. However, this doesn’t mean that we have abandoned the idea of steerable fighters altogether, and--in the future--we aren't ruling out the possibility of adding them. However, there are no plans for this at the moment as we are more focused on working on other aspects of aircraft carriers. Presently, we are exploring options for the spotting problem mentioned above, as well as watching the impact of the very recent changes - the attack aircraft adjustments.

Fair enough

6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Q19. Why do we get clan battle with 2 CVs allowed when the community not wanted them at all?

A19. Many of you have spoken out against the recent changes to the clan battles format. But the constant updating of clan battles gameplay is necessary to develop this mode. We understand your concerns about having two aircraft carriers on your team, but we assume this will not be an issue. In case this experiment proves unsuccessful, we will take appropriate measures. We regularly change the rules, format and maps of clan battles in order to add more variety to the team compositions and tactics used by players. Restrictions within the current season have been introduced for the same purpose. We don't think that 2 CVs on the team will be an issue or a universal choice this season. Despite the spotting capabilities and the relatively weak AA of the enemy ships at Tier VI, the CVs themselves don’t have the best attack potential. The overall influence of CVs on the outcome of the battle in the current format is not nearly as high as it is in Random Battles. The most important factor here is that at the Tier 6 mark, battleships are very powerful and have a huge impact on the battle results. Therefore, it might not be the best strategy to reduce the number of battleships on your team to add an aircraft carrier. So taking into account the fact that set ups with two aircraft carriers probably are not the best and there is an alternative choice, we believe that this is a good opportunity for players to expand their pool of ship picks while implementing new tactics. In addition, variation in gameplay and meta can have a positive effect on this type of battle. If, during the season, the statistics show that our expectations are not satisfied, we can quickly change the current restrictions - not only those on specific ships, but also ones on the number of ships of a certain class.

So uhh, CVs don't nuke ships outright, so not OP, while ignoring the other factors? CVs shouldn't even be in Clan Wars tbf, but oh well, no luck for clan guys. Glad I don't have to play that mode. 

That still doesn't change the fact that 2 CVs is hilarious

6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Q20. World of Warships has mostly linear symmetrical maps. Whereas map design in Starcraft 2 often uses rotational symmetry. Since linear symmetry there promotes stale gameplay and therefore is often called 'turtle symmetry'. Is there any reason as to why wargaming went for linear symmetry and will we see more rotational-symmetric maps in the future?

A20. One of the most important factors which we consider during the map design is the balance of ships on each flank for both teams. For ships on spawn positions to be distributed more evenly around the center and flanks on both sides, linearly symmetric maps are best. Of course, in some battles there may be a different number of ships on different flanks, but such situations are quite rare and are primarily due to the presence of divisions, as they spawn on the map together. Basically, we try to have the same number of players on different teams in the center and on the flanks. With rotational symmetry, each side will almost always have an advantage on one flank in one way or another, either due to rotational symmetry of islands on the map or both islands and the number of players on different flanks. While this does not affect the overall balance of the teams, for specific players it can significantly ruin the game experience. Besides, even if we introduced maps with rotational symmetry, they at first would indeed look quite new and interesting, as you have to get accustomed to different combat conditions on the same map. However, with some time, as players get used to such maps, they might realise that eventually it doesn't differ much from linear symmetrical maps in terms of general gameplay. However, we are constantly working on the maps in our game, and--in the future--we aren't excluding the possibility of adding maps with rotational symmetry, on the condition that they will not tip the balance in favor of one of the teams and run the risk of damaging competitive integrity.

As for the monotony of gameplay due to the linear symmetry of maps, the same map can still feature dynamic and different gameplay and tactics. It depends, for example, on what part of the map the player's ship appeared in - closer to the center or on the flanks. Moreover, diversity also depends on the type of battle on said map, and the fact that battles can take place in different modes, such as Domination, Epicenter, etc.

 

fair enough I suppose

But still we haven't even had new maps in a while let alone a different symmetry of a map. 18-19 months to be specific. So new maps plz? And yeah, different symmetries of maps would be something different and even fun. Even tho, at a later point it might not be relevant, it would atleast confirm your speculation if you release a map with rotational symmetry into the random queue of maps we currently have.

6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Q21. Seeing that submarines will inevitably come to the game, how confident is Wargaming that you will not repeat the same mistakes made during the the reworked CV launch? CVs and AAs have had balance changes upon balance changes and slight reworks upon reworks. It's been 2.5 years since CVs were reworked and you're still making changes in gameplay and balance. Will this bleed over to the submarine launch too?

A21. Changes to aircraft carriers were our first experience with a rework on such a grand scale, especially given that it was the global rework of a full ship type which was already present in our game. This introduced specific difficulties in the rework process, which required a significant amount of time to be fixed. This is why we fully changed our approach when we started designing submarines. First of all, we are trying not to rush the introduction of submarines: they first appeared in game courtesy of an event operation in 2018, and their addition as a standalone class was officially announced in Summer 2019. It is only now, in 2021, that submarines are making their debut in one of our main battle types - this to allow players get acquainted with the new class, as well as to allow us to collect additional data on the submarines from a wider audience. A large amount of time was required in order to develop unique and interesting gameplay mechanics for the new class, but at the same time, these massive changes have been extensively tested to be balanced and fit well into the template of currently existing interactions between different ship types.

Each prototype was tested first through internal closed test sessions, and - later - on public ones, which any willing player could take part in. Over the course of this, we collected lots of feedback and statistics, and as such we have made changes to almost all the mechanics. Currently, submarines are closer than ever to a full-fledged release, but the work on them is not yet finished. In order to make sure that submarines are ready, we need more data than testing on a separate, less populous server can give us. That’s why we gradually started adding submarines to the game and began to introduce them to all WoWs players. As an example of their gradual implementation, there was a separate temporary battle type – “Submarine Battle” – in Update 0.10.4, after which we continued to make improvements and conduct additional submarine test sessions. And now we have the appearance of submarines in Ranked and Co-op Battles – the greatest challenge for a new class that will set the future course of submarines. To summarize, we are doing everything that we can in order to avoid our past mistakes, and submarines will be fully released only when we are sure they are 100% ready for it. It's a certainty that, even after the release, submarines will be subject to balance changes and slight tuning - as with any other ship type. After all, the game does not stand still: the meta is constantly evolving, alongside the game systems and other aspects. WoWs is almost 6 years old, but we still make changes and tweak balance where necessary. However, we’ll try to avoid any large-scale changes to submarines after they are fully released.

While I agree that the approach is much better than the CV rework and commander rework fiesta, the subs are not anywhere close to release. They are kinda boring, they don't offer anything new that DDs couldn't do. Subs diving is similar to DD smoking up, DD has a sap secondary that is nice, but utterly pathetic compared to DD guns, and DDs also have torps, as well as a ton of utility. Subs are basically in this case, gunless DDs, and its pretty boring. The whole idea of subs was never going to work tbf but since its been 2 years, do what you can. 

 

What I did find bizarre is that the BBs that are kinda supposed to push and close in (Russians, Germans and Italians) get no ASW equipment whatsoever, while ones that don't need to push in, do get the ASW equipment. Weird. Again, idk how all of this is gonna work, its a mess atm, but well again, do what you can. 

6 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

That's it for the current QnA. We tried to cover most popular questions that you asked. See you next time on the next QnA session!

Better QnA than before with better answers, but some of the weird ones still remain. 

Again, you are just looking at statistics in terms of balance, not looking at the gameplay where the ships interact. 

Maybe have a look at that too, in the future?

 

Edit: Press F to pay respect to my hand

[SodaBubbles]

This answer also made me laugh:
 

Quote

As for the monotony of gameplay due to the linear symmetry of maps, the same map can still feature dynamic and different gameplay and tactics. It depends, for example, on what part of the map the player's ship appeared in - closer to the center or on the flanks. Moreover, diversity also depends on the type of battle on said map, and the fact that battles can take place in different modes, such as Domination, Epicenter, etc.

Hahaha. Shatter, Sea of Fortune, and Shards give exactly the same garbage gameplay every. single. time. There's nothing dynamic about what happens on Shatter, especially once you throw in a CV. T10 on Shatter with a CV is the worst gaming experience WOWs can offer.

 

The games are far more dynamic in the low tiers where the maps offer far more movement choices. I'll take a T5 or T6 action on New Dawn over a Shatter or Shards crapfest at T9 ot T10 any day.

[Andrewbassg]

49 minutes ago, totally_potato said:

What I did find bizarre is that the BBs that are kinda supposed to push and close in (Russians, Germans and Italians) get no ASW equipment whatsoever, while ones that don't need to push in, do get the ASW equipment. Weird.

Hmm.... not really. Its the same reason why they shafted ( initially) the secondaries and introduced "deadyee". In order to keep the average babbie caps away from subs. Brawling bb's not having ASW capabilities will have the same effect as Cv's on the meta .( i.e when Cv is present  the blob will form ) with discouraging actually playing the game. " Just shoot some ships will ya"....

 

Good analysis tho...

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 4 Stunden, SodaBubbles sagte:

  We understand your concerns about having two aircraft carriers on your team, but we assume this will not be an issue

I have this "non issue" in the vast majority of my games when I play T4.

 

"We don't think that 2 CVs on the team will be an issue or a universal choice this season."

 

"WE DON'T THINK" is the most honest part of the entire Q&A.

[MannequinSkywalker]

8 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

The part 2 of the now infamous Q&A is up on discord. I don't do discord but it had been quoted on the NA forum.

 

I think nobody can accuse me of being a Weegee "lover" but.....what I see is a different approach. It seems that honesty is being tried.  I personally welcome this.

 

Particularly this: The overall influence of CVs on the outcome of the battle in the current format is not nearly as high as it is in Random Battles.

 

Literally throws every single pro Cv argument under the bus. So, those who for long have pointed out the facts and the truth related to this class can feel.... "vindicated" 

 

So "sorry guys" you are arguing with Weegee from now on" : xD

 

Some Q's and some A's are just not noteworthy. Excessive CV (fighter, UK CVs, etc.) specific questions apparently coming from CV griefers, while they represent an insignificant portion of players. Irrelevant answers like why Zao doesn't need any buff. Whoever answered this Q apparently does not play the game but rather checks the ship chars from wows wiki and prepares their answer accordingly. It is clear. On the other hand, some Qs are really mind boggling as the case is not true. For instance, Hindenburg being strong in randoms and weak in competitive while Petro being the opposite. It is wrong. The ships are the same ships. What differs their effectiveness in different modes is the amount of players and specific ship selections in CBs. Spamming HE on players from 20km in a 12 vs 12 game with full of below average players of course will be different than try hard players in a 7 vs 7 competitive game mode where they will want to bring more resistant ships especially with radars, since capping wins the game most of the time. Petro not being able to perform just as good in randoms is also BS and asking for ships to have different stats for randoms and CBs is ridiculous. Regarding the double CV question, the answer is also ridiculous. The answer tells you not to bring double CVs or even any CV at all since T6 BBs are very strong and will have much bigger impact on 7 vs 7. Then, why allow double CV right at the start? Because player base is the lab rat of WG. They are just testing anything on the player base. In this case, they wanna see the results, how good/bad games will go with double CVs how many clans will go for no CVs,  what will be the cross-class interaction like. They  just want to feed their curiosity at the expense of players' time and stress level.  Overall, neither the Q's & A's are satisfactory nor have been prepared meticulously.

[DDMafiaAssociateMember]

The addition of double CV in clan wars is absolutely a deliberate decision to force clans to run double CV. WG have admitted that they need to keep the proportion of CV games above the pre-rework threshold to keep management happy, and so they up the cap to two so that every clan war battle has four CVs. Any other claimed reason is a lie.

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

IMO they did a good job answering the Q&A. 

 

 

[Onsterfelijke]

7 hours ago, Aethervoxx said:

I'd be a really happy WoWS player if WG removed the CV rework from the game & returned the RTS CV style of play (& ofc, the old pre CV rework AA play & ofc the old Cpt skills). 

Only if the RTS is modified i allways found the ability to strike with three groups at the same time too powerfull So that must be 'nerfed'!

[Panocek]

9 hours ago, Andrewbassg said:

Thus, the skill would almost be a necessity for all builds, and the appearance of ubiquitous skills has always been something that we have wanted to avoid when implementing skill reworks

-Concealment Expert still exists

[ghostbuster_]

"We understand your concerns about having two aircraft carriers on your team, but we assume this will not be an issue."

 

in other words: we dont give a slightest fck about your feedback.

 

 "To summarize, we are doing everything that we can in order to avoid our past mistakes, and submarines will be fully released only when we are sure they are 100% ready for it." 

 

They have been doing the same mistakes... Player feedback!! They still dont give a f about player feedback.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

"Alright. I'm going to stab you in the face now. Do not be mad. I am honest. Me I am a good guy. I tell you I stab you. Okay?

 

Okay. I'm going to stab now."

 

Admits carriers have a spotting issue and refers to previous admittance to that problem. Hasn't solved it in two and a half years. O wait, hasn't solved it in over five years actually, made it worse two and a half years ago. Let that sink in.

I only bought the Siegfried over the Aegir because of the secondaries. Rofl.

[ihan_paras_nimi]

Q10-Q21: "We are not going to change anything. The game is fine."

[PaxtonQuigly]

35 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

"To summarize, we are doing everything that we can in order to avoid our past mistakes, and submarines will be fully released only when we are sure they are 100% ready for it." 

The recent buffs just before implementing them into ranked, after numerous tests and reworks, surely emphasizes how ready this class is for the live server............... 

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 3 Minuten, PaxtonQuigly sagte:

The recent buffs just before implementing them into ranked, after numerous tests and reworks, surely emphasizes how ready this class is for the live server............... 

Just an incentive to play them. They would have given them wings and lasers if necessary.

[Hugh_Ruka]

1 hour ago, LemonadeWarriorITA said:

IMO they did a good job answering the Q&A. 

 

 

Yes, in their usual fashion: "Interesting question, but no ...."

[K82J]

According to iEarlGray: cherry picked questions with carefully crafted answers.

[Andrewbassg]

3 hours ago, MannequinSkywalker said:

Some Q's and some A's are just not noteworthy. 

Actually I think that the persons who answered the second round are different from those the first round. The tone is different, and  the answers are different in the sense that they actually try to answer and say something.

3 hours ago, MannequinSkywalker said:

. Excessive CV (fighter, UK CVs, etc.) specific questions apparently coming from CV griefers, while they represent an insignificant portion of players. 

The choice of what questions getting answered is entirely theirs. Nevertheless, what and how Cv's are is an ongoing, quite divisive subject. 

 

3 hours ago, MannequinSkywalker said:

 Irrelevant answers like why Zao doesn't need any buff. Whoever answered this Q apparently does not play the game but rather checks the ship chars from wows wiki and prepares their answer accordingly. It is clear. 

i think they tried to address the "Zao question" from the previous part. Based on whatever metrics they are using.

3 hours ago, MannequinSkywalker said:

 On the other hand, some Qs are really mind boggling as the case is not true. For instance, Hindenburg being strong in randoms and weak in competitive while Petro being the opposite. It is wrong. The ships are the same ships. What differs their effectiveness in different modes is the amount of players and specific ship selections in CBs. Spamming HE on players from 20km in a 12 vs 12 game with full of below average players of course will be different than try hard players in a 7 vs 7 competitive game mode where they will want to bring more resistant ships especially with radars, since capping wins the game most of the time. Petro not being able to perform just as good in randoms is also BS and asking for ships to have different stats for randoms and CBs is ridiculous. 

Hmm.....that's actually could be a complex issue. One can argue that Petro is not a support cruiser (even with the radar) and actually needs support to really shine and Hindenburg is the other way around. In the end, is about the players ability to understand the ship's strengths and weaknesses + situational awareness and play around them. 

 

What I see is a certain openness regarding their mindset. I'm not saying that they are right, I;m saying that they are actually trying to explain, their perspective.

3 hours ago, MannequinSkywalker said:

  Regarding the double CV question, the answer is also ridiculous. The answer tells you not to bring double CVs or even any CV at all since T6 BBs are very strong and will have much bigger impact on 7 vs 7. Then, why allow double CV right at the start? 

 

Hmm....that's an interesting question. Some reasons 1. they want to evaluate the impact of rocket change, how much dat changed things in regard of ship interclass balance ,if good players; 2. to evaluate if 2 Cv's are a viable choice.3 to appease the Cv crowd etc etc.

3 hours ago, MannequinSkywalker said:

   Because player base is the lab rat of WG. They are just testing anything on the player base. In this case, they wanna see the results, how good/bad games will go with double CVs how many clans will go for no CVs,  what will be the cross-class interaction like. They  just want to feed their curiosity at the expense of players' time and stress level.  

Some data can't be gathered otherwise. Nevertheless I'm not defending them .

3 hours ago, MannequinSkywalker said:

    Overall, neither the Q's & A's are satisfactory nor have been prepared meticulously.

Like i said I see a different approach. Like somebody else just took over.

[MannequinSkywalker]

1 minute ago, Andrewbassg said:

Actually I think that the persons who answered the second round are different from those the first round. The tone is different, and  the answers are different in the sense that they actually try to answer and say something.

Might be, but still not noteworthy.

 

1 minute ago, Andrewbassg said:

The choice of what questions getting answered is entirely theirs. Nevertheless, what and how Cv's are is an ongoing, quite divisive subject. 

Agreed, but still the answer of that question is a concern of an insignificant player base portion.

 

1 minute ago, Andrewbassg said:

 

i think they tried to address the "Zao question" from the previous part. Based on whatever metrics they are using.

Maybe, maybe not but that's not the issue. The issue is, players who have been playing Zao from its early days until now, know that the ship is extremely power-crept in late recent meta. Yet, responder talks about the WR not being the only factor, talks about ships pros and cons and how to play her according to her strengths. Really? Why treat people like noobs who know nothing about the ship? Apparently they think people who have Zao for five years don't know its pros and cons...It is their behavior that annoys me as if they are smart and all the player base is dumb (but they didn't say that-of course they didn't but that's where it comes down to!)...It is the reverse. Here is a Quote "Put a dev guy into  the same room with Einstein and Newton, and the room IQ will drop to 20".

 

1 minute ago, Andrewbassg said:

Hmm.....that's actually could be a complex issue. One can argue that Petro is not a support cruiser (even with the radar) and actually needs support to really shine and Hindenburg is the other way around. In the end, is about the players ability to understand the ship's strengths and weaknesses + situational awareness and play around them. 

 

What I see is a certain openness regarding their mindset. I'm not saying that they are right, I;m saying that they are actually trying to explain, their perspective.

Except that it would not be correct and an argument at all. Hindenburg can be played both ways, HE spamming and close combat. That's why it has strong torps and relatively resistant armor. Petro is also a very strong ship that can be played either way. They have their differences and that doesn't mean one should have different stats and be buffed for CBs. But yea, like you wrote, it is up to the players' ability to understand totally. I really stopped reading after i saw this part of the Q.

 

16 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Hmm....that's an interesting question. Some reasons 1. they want to evaluate the impact of rocket change, how much dat changed things in regard of ship interclass balance ,if good players; 2. to evaluate if 2 Cv's are a viable choice.3 to appease the Cv crowd etc etc.

This Q is good. It is a Q every sane person has been asking. Why double CV? And the dev guy answering does not explain why. He rather explains why not in a way "Yea we put these double CVs into CBs but take BBs instead, they have better impact".  1. It is not about rocket damage as one can hardly hit DDs with rockets and would use torps&bombs against other targets much more often than rockets. 2. No, they already know CVs are not a viable choice as getting double BB is much stronger, they imply exactly this in their answer. 3. Yes, to please the insignificant amount of CV players, to attract more people to play CVs, to cross-check interclass impacts, to check CV-Submarine interaction specifically and to fill their glorious spreadsheets with temporarily inflated CV numbers. 

 

16 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Some data can't be gathered otherwise. Nevertheless I'm not defending them .

Oh yes, data can be gathered in many and better ways. They can use the PTS but they made it so unattractive for everyone, they removed most rewards, why? They could have increased the rewards in PTS, get more players there and get better data instead of removing. Plus they have their own test server. They can do countless automated simulations there with different possibilities. There are ways. Also using the player base is one of those way. Just not the best one or an ethical one.

 

16 minutes ago, Andrewbassg said:

Like i said I see a different approach. Like somebody else just took over.

I don't know who took over or if someone did. Writing 10 sentences of empty explanation doesn't mean they are really answering what is asked. Plus like you said earlier, they answer the Q's they like, really? Why not  answer all Q's? If they don't have time, how do they determine which Q is more important to players?

[FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor]