Some interesting info around the world

  • You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.

4,887 posts in this topic




Maybe, just maybe, someday... you know.. 


Well, I had not seen that thread. Plus, I did have the vain hope that it would be the end of it.


However, trying to stop stuff like this is a little pointless, since every-time some new info comes out from a Q&A, discussion is inevitable, when people express their views on it. Especially on ships. This thread effectively invites tangents on people discussing what is in the Q&A.... 

Ideally we could have one clean thread and one for discussion, both with the Q&As in them, though what might be easier is a new dedicated Q&A thread, instead of trying to clear discussion from this one. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, also, it's a user request ( which has been made before ) so everyone is free to ignore it :)


A 'clean' Q&A thread would be very nice to have though, coupled with a discussion thread where everyone can talk about the last news items. I also go off topic, don't get me wrong, I'm not pretending to be a saint, but I also agree that this is one of the first threads I read when I log into the forums and that it is not always a positive experience because instead of new info I just see the same discussions as are being held in the other threads. Like all this talk about the gun options, it's also in many threads including one dedicated to the upcoming German BB's.


I also seem to remember the moderators once already stating that there is no need for a separate thread if people can stick mostly on topic. The problem there is that 'mostly on topic' is a loose definition, and some people have lower thresholds for 'off topic-ness' than others. And, some of the discussions about the news items are actually at least as informative as the Q&A on it's own. 


But, a lot of the off topic is also constantly between the same people ( me included this time at least ). Might be better than to put the off topic's in a spoiler or something as to not clutter the thread, if one doesn't want to use a separate thread for it?


7 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sub_Octavian posted a fairly lengthy post that will surely keep all of us in this thread busy for some time. It's about the previously discussed topic of Gneisenau, 380 vs 283 mm. Source



 "For all of those who are not aware of this conundrum, here is a brief summary: players are questioning the developers' decision to equip the premium ship Schranhorst with her historical 283mm guns whereas the standard Gneisenau is planned to be equipped with 380mm guns.


More than once, we have explained that historicity cannot be entirely supported in the game for several reasons. We try to conform to historical realities or at least take them into consideration but the gameplay will always come first. In some rare cases, we have decided not to implement certain changes because of their glaring inconsistency with reality, but it happened extremely rarely. On the other hand, we try to model our ships as close to their historical counterpart as possible. Standard ships represent their class whereas premium ships represent one concrete ship in a given period.


Do some ships have errors or lack precision ? Of course. We are progressively identifying and fixing them. In our Supertesters team, we have one expert whose work for the year ahead is to fix all these little things.


Have we already deliberately forsaken historicity for gameplay ? 100% yes. As an example, we can take the AA configuration of Atago or Arizona (to make them more balanced, the first one had her AA made worse, the second one, better) or the coats of arms displayed on German ships (during combat, they were not displayed, but they are rather pleasing to the eye). There are a lot more of these examples.


The calibers on German BB's follow the same deliberate choice.

Here are the reasons behind our decision:


1. We currently think that it is best to avoid caliber size going back and forth when advancing in a line. Regarding Scharnhorst, it's not a problem since it is a premium ship and stands apart from the main line. Regarding Gneisenau, the problem is as follows:

283-305-305-380-380-380-406-406. This is the current caliber progression.

If we had equipped Gneisenau with her historical guns, it would be 283-3055-305-380-283-380-406-406.


When gun caliber changes drastically, players have to change the tactics they use considerably. In general, when the main gun caliber changes, it is a risky and stressful moment. Just remember for example the jumps that occur when hopping on Pensacola or Furutaka. Both ships are more difficult to learn because players have to change the way they approach these ships' gameplay.


Let's not forget about the enemy ships Gneisenau will face. They are equipped with 410 and 406 mm guns. In this case, a decrease in caliber can be even more off-putting.


2. One ship having more than one gun caliber size option is, sadly, a bad idea. According to our research, Mogami, which is often cited as an example, having the gameplay option between being a heavy cruiser and a HE spam monster is negatively affecting the "audience" of the ship. Now, players are talking more about the satisfaction this ships brings, how it affects their desire to get better and master the game (etc.) than the ship's combat effectiveness. 


3. We are not against sometimes releasing sisterships or developing premium ships that play like their standard counterparts. However, in this case, taking into account the arguments that were previously given, we had the opportunity to release a premium BB with an unusual gameplay (Scharnhorst + 283 mm) as well as fit a standard ship into the BB line (Gneisenau + 380 mm), which will be a logical step in regards to the lower and higher tier ships.


We believe that both ships will be interesting to play as well as being different and needing different styles and tactics. We also believe that with our current plans each of these remarkable ships will find its place.


When both ships will be made available to everyone, we will see if we were right. Currently, we have however no reason to change our plans or question them.


Thank you for your attention !"



Edited by Carnotzet

7 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



I am a bit sad some people either don't care or just purposely continue to use the wrong thread for their discussions. 


I would suggest to write to not use this thread for discussion under every Q&A, so people get reminded of that and new users get the information too.

5 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


I would suggest to write to not use this thread for discussion under every Q&A, so people get reminded of that and new users get the information too.


I planned to do that when I read the suggestions in the other thread. Great initiative by the way.

2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

READ FIRST : In order to keep this thread as clean and readable as possible, please discuss this post or any previous or following news post in the appropriate thread found HERE.


Latest Q&A's (18 July). Source

1. It seems that the people behind the ranked battles matchmaker only play DD's, don't play the game or are too busy developing AAA MMO games to even care.

Since we're nearly through 4 seasons of ranked battles, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts about it and what you plan for the future.

A. All my colleagues and myself that played ranked battles share your pain (that having different ship classes composition between the teams is painful). The RB matchmaker does indeed have some problems. They will soon be resolved when we will implement the new matchmaker (that was introduced in 0.5.8 in random battles) in this mode as well.

2. Permanent camouflages are way overpriced. Wouldn't it be better to allow players to put them on different ships ?

A. Permanent camouflages are designed for the players who desire to keep one ship. We don't plan to allow players to put them on other ships or change the way they work or are sold. They were first introduced as a special "feature" to those interested to play on a single ship for a long time. Moreover, most of the bonuses they give can be found on camouflages that can be bought with silvers so I don't think we can speak about them being "overpriced".

3. In WoT, players are rewarded for spotting enemies whereas in WoWs, they aren't. Wouldn't be fair to reward those who allow other players to inflict damage by spotting enemies for them ?

A. We would really like to do it. Beginning with patch 0.5.9, we will start collecting server data regarding teamplay actions such as spotting and tanking. This data will help us set an economical reward for such actions in the future (hopefully not so far future). However, it's important to remember that in doing so, we don't plan to improve economic gains. When rewards for such actions will be implemented, the economy will take them into account when calculating final rewards and thus economical gains will remain as they were previously. 

4. I have more than 2 million experience points that can be converted into free xp. Could you add another use for that experience ?

A.We don't plan to. The convertible experience you accumulated is a resource that doesn't force to do anything with it. Either you convert it, either you wait for another use for it to appear (as said before, currently, we don't plan to do that), or you don't do anything with it. There's nothing wrong with that.

Second series (18 July)Source

1. I read your comments about the 283 vs 380 mm Gneisenau discussion. For me, it seems you're saying that 155 mm Mogami is an unplayable trashcan and thus 283 mm Scharnhorst will also be an unplayable trashcan.

Just make 155 mm Mogami a premium ship so she can at least make some profits. Why wouldn't you equip both Scharnhorst and Gneisenau with 283 mm guns but give Scharhorst 1.5X defensive fire for 20-30 seconds. She would thus sill be different and players would buy her. All in all, I'm less and less willing to buy Scharnhorst. 

Are we stuck in a battle without alternatives ?

A. Mogami was a bad example. The fact that she has the option to sport 155 mm guns is fine from a historical standpoint but it's a mistake from a gameplay standpoint. I explained the reason for this. And to deliberately repeat one's mistake is not the best course of action.

If you read my explanation, you must be aware that balance comes before historical accuracy. This reflects our general thought process.

I will also add that you should not make premature conclusions regarding the effectiveness of ships that are still being tested. For now and from what the tests have shown, Scharnhorst is too performant and it's unlikely it will be released in her current state. We will slightly tweak her and test her once more.


Edited by Carnotzet

4 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

READ FIRST : In order to keep this thread as clean and readable as possible, please discuss this post or any previous or following news post in the appropriate thread found HERE.


Latest Q&A (19 July)Source

1. This must be a joke. In 10 months, I managed to gain 1 million commander's xp and here you're asking me to gain 2.5 millions. You're kidding me right ?


A. It is not a joke, it is a tough economy. We are not pleased with it as well. That is why in patch 0.5.9 (that is currently undergoing public testing), we have set a limit to the experience needed for commanders retraining without paying or for credits. In the current test configuration, the limit is set at 100k and 50k, respectively.

2. I received 10 camouflages type 6 as reward for my progress in ranked battles. I was quite happy to equip them. However, after a certain time, it got worse. By activating auto resupply, it got through the 10 "free" camouflages and then started to buy them for doubloons. It is rather easy to miss the moment when one's stock is depleted. Would it be possible to give me back my 100 doubloons ?

A. I am afraid I cannot give them back since you already purchased the product.

However, there are good news coming : in patch 0.5.9, we have split the button for auto-resupply and auto-purchase. That way, we will avoid situations where players lose doubloons or credits inadvertently.


Bonus from 0.5.9 bulletin thread. Source

  • Warspite should sit slightly lower in the water in patch 0.5.9


Edited by Carnotzet

5 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies being late to the party. I notice the discussion thread relating to this Q&A was created on the 13th July.  I have therefore cleaned up the section of this thread starting from the 13th July. It would appear you would like this is be purely a Q&A thread. That being said, any posts that do not conform to this requirement will be removed, therefore, please report any such posts.


best regards



PS. Please do not respond to this post as they will be removed for breaching the threads requirements :)

18 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: please discuss this post or any previous or following news post in the appropriate thread found HERE.

Here are some explanations from Sub_Octavian about why they decided to give everyone Basics of Survivability after Situational Awareness is gone. 0.5.9 bulletin thread source


According to the studies, be it old (before 0.5.3) or new, they conducted before the patch, the most popular tier 1 skill on all classes of ships after Situational Awareness is Basics of Survivability. Even on destroyers, and even on gunboats.

If he had the choice, Sub_Octavian would have also preferred BFT on certain destroyers. But the technology used does not allow them to give commanders with only one tier 1 skill the choice, so they followed the choice of the majority of players. Players have to understand that they really do not care what skill they should give players. They based their decision on what most of the players played with.

If they would give players another skill, the dissatisfied group of players would only be different. The only difference is that that group would be bigger, and in some instances, much bigger.


The change made to Situational Awareness (that it was made baseline for everyone) was needed in their opinion and since they also improved visibility mechanics, they believe it came at the right time.

The data they based themselves on is rather large and was collected from different samples (by class of ships, servers, etc.).

Commanders with 1 to 5 skill points were not interesting for them since this problem concerns high level commanders, which have already gathered a lot of experience.

In other news (but still in the same thread), an explanation about the changes made to commanders' retraining.

Regarding the changes made to the retraining of commanders, Sub_Octavian explained that no experience will be lost. So, for example, if you needed 100k for your commander to be fully retrained and you had already accumulated 90k, then, when the patch hits and the retraining experience points needed drop down to 50k, your commander will be fully retrained and in addition will receive 40k "bonus" to his experience points.

If, for example you needed 100k and you had accumulated 20k, when the retraining experience points needed drop down to 50k, you will still need to gather 30k to fully retrain your commander.


Edited by Carnotzet

8 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pacific Q&A:



Any news on:

Royal Navy? Will cruisers be the first line?

CA/CL split?

Second BB line for the Americans? BC/CB line for the Americans?

German DDs?



RN is coming, don't worry! Cruisers are planned to be first

Not planed for 2016 at the moment

Not this year either

German DDs in progress and we are expecting to finish them by this year but no promises!



8 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

NA has the announcement first, will come here too I guess:

Sauce: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/89611-new-wargaming-rules-violation-policy/


Greetings Captains!


Wargaming is pleased to announce an update to our Rules and Violations policy. We’ve heard your requests for more transparency regarding how violations are handled and we want to provide this to you.

We are committed to providing everyone with a positive gaming experience, and a key part of that is how we handle our rules and what happens when they are violated. Our goal with this update is to reward players who contribute positively to our games, and to make sure there are policies in place to help keep our games as safe as possible for everyone.


Earn Rewards for Good Behavior


The most important part of our new policy is the addition of rewards! Players who step up to the challenge and consistently exhibit good behavior will be rewarded every three months.


Everyone who has no game, chat, or forum violations during the 3 month period:

  • Will receive a token of appreciation from Wargaming - these could be things like Premium consumables or other in-game items.
  • Will be entered into a drawing for ninety (90) days of Premium time. Fifty (50) random players will be selected to receive this Premium time!

All players that have no game, chat, or forum violations for an entire year will be entered into a drawing for a selection of in-game items worth $250. One (1) player will be selected to receive this package of items that would include things like Premium Time, rare vehicles, and Gold.


Start Date

Our new policy will go into effect on August 8, 2016 . We are providing it here today so that everyone can be aware of these changes in advance. 

As we are rolling out the updates to our policy, we will be wiping the slate clean for every Wargaming customer with an active account.* Any previous in-game sanctions, chat violations, or forum warnings will no longer count against you. (Players who are already permanently banned are NOT eligible to be unbanned and receive a clean slate).


How Strikes Work

Previously, violations would “roll off” and no longer count against you after a certain period of time. This left open the possibility for people to “game the system” by improving behavior only long enough to let their violation roll off.


Under the new policy:

  • Players will receive one warning, and each offense afterwards will then count as a “strike” against the account.
  • Each strike received will come will a restriction. Restrictions increase with each strike.
  • Important: Strikes do not roll off!
  •  Once you have reached 5 strikes, your account is eligible to be permanently restricted.
    • 5 strikes in chat violations can result in a permanent chat ban.
    • 5 strikes in game violations can result in a permanent game ban.
    • 5 strikes in the forums can result in a permanent forum ban.
  • If you believe a strike was placed on your account incorrectly, submit a Penalty Appeal as a Support ticket and we will thoroughly review the issue.
Please note! For extremely severe violations, an account can be restricted with less than the above number of strikes, at the sole discretion of Wargaming employees. Wargaming reserves the right to review each situation and take the best action based on the individual details of the particular issue.


We have provided a detailed explanation of exactly what this means for in-game behavior, chat behavior, and forum behavior.



We believe these new policies will help improve everyone’s overall experience, keep the games you love as friendly as possible. Our desire is not to punish people – we want to have a clear policy in place  and then hold players accountable for their behavior in order to ensure we do everything we can to provide you with the best possible gaming experience! At the same time, we want to reward those who step up to meet these expectations consistently.

*Please note – accounts that were banned under the previous system will remain banned. Existing banned accounts are not eligible for a clean slate.



Edited by LilJumpa

1 person likes this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the rest of the text. source

[Disclaimer: please be reminded that the following information comes from the Russian-speaking community and thus certain information may not apply to other clusters.]



Even though it is easier and faster to get credits in our game than in other companies' games, there are often complaints about the economy. The situation improved through the whole year with us balancing ships' incomes after the release, beginning with the addition of credits and xp for capping points. From Spring until now, there is a special discount on repairs. We are thinking about implementing it permanently or keep it until we introduce other changes that would increase the amount of credits earned.


However, we still must examine this issue carefully. We want the economy to be accommodating enough for the game to be comfortable at every tier with a premium account and for players without a premium account to have to farm credits at lower tiers from time to time.

Secondary batteries


We received complaints that secondary batteries are slightly too weak and are acting weirdly. We have added several upgrades, flags and captain skills that improve the secondary guns situation and makes them more deadly against enemies. And in cases where you just did not killed you enemy, these batteries can help you. There is still room for improvement but we have to do it right or we will end up with "World of Battleships".

Customer service

[since this concerns only the Russian server, I have decided to skip it]

Chat moderation


At the beginning of Closed beta, there was a tacit rule in every battle "If you are afraid of being sent packing, do not go on the internet". When discussing the issue, the obscenity filter seemed like a considerable limitation. Unfortunately, it was necessary to prevent players from insulting each other. What are we doing? All chat logs are automatically uploaded and analysed, and if a player insulted another one, he receives a chat ban. The same effect can also be reached with the reports we get from players, but, in this case, it is the players who decide whether or not they feel insulted. In the future, we would like to crisscross this system so that, for example, players who rage at themselves in chat do not get banned. Moreover, we do not analyse division chat or personal messages. In addition to that, we will soon implement "component" bans, i.e. a chat ban will be divided into port, battle, personal and division. This means that a player who received a chat ban will still be able to write to his friends and division mates.


There have been many complaints regarding the severity of the moderation of port chats. Not long ago, we loosened the rules in that regard, which had a positive effect on communications. We will continue asserting the situation and will try to limite the cases where our rules impede on healthy social interactions.

Site moderation


I very well know that it is not very clear. We remove posts that violates the rules but, at the same time, players do not always know what rules they violated. They then ask about it and such posts fall under another rule violation. After that, they get banned. The system is not logical. That is why in the near future we will update the forums and add notifications that will explain why a player's post has been removed. After that, we hope that the system will be transparent enough and that we can think about ways to improve it.

Karma system


It now has been quite a long time since we first introduced the karma system on the forums and in the game. And if it meet our expectations on the forums (good posts receive positive karma and bad ones, negative), this system needs improvement in the game. It was supposed to be some kind of an indicator of social adequateness but in its current state, it does not fully fulfill its tasks. Especially in those cases where players report the top three players on the opposite team. We will have to fix this.

Unreleased features


There are two things that players often ask to be added into the game: replays and module depot. What is being done? At the moment, we have added a "technical" version of replays into the game. What needs to be done? Implement the replay functionality at a proper level of quality. We have already started working on this. We need to allow players to manage their upgrades. Achieving this by adding a depot or by another more convenient feature, that is the question.

Team communication


There have been a lot of requests for better team communication tools. What have we done? We have added quick chat commands, and voice chat in the latest update. What needs to be done? We need to improve and expand communication functionalities while taking your feedback into account.



There were a lot of complaints about teamkills and that the current system do not work. How it was. For quite a long time, players could teamkill extensively (they had to sink three or four teammates or deal an extremely high amount of damage to them) before the mirrored damage system would kick in. 


What has changed? Now, the mirrored damage system kicks in nearly instantaneously - after a players sinks his first teammate or if he inflicts a low amount of damage. Moreover, teamkillers receive x10 mirrored damage and only inflicts 10% damage against teammates (those numbers are not entirely accurate, unfortunately, since I do not have all the data before me but they are about right). That means that teamkillers become nearly instantaneously harmless to their teammates.


What still needs to be done? Add an automatic ban to serious offenders. There is already a punishment system but it is operated by hand and only once a week. We would like it to be instantaneous, but, in any case, it is always minus one player for one team, which is bad.

Bots and AFK players


There are some complaints about this issue as well. We already manually punish players that display such anti fair-play behaviour. However, we would like to improve the system, making it faster and automatic.

Updates size


Our updates are quite heavy. Taking into account that they are release about every three weeks, many players are starting to get annoyed. We have started to work actively on reducing the size of our updates and hope that in time, it will make the life of our players easier.

Gold and doubloons unification


For now, we cannot implement this feature because of technical limitations. However, we believe that we will make some progress in this matter and, hopefully, this year. At the minimum, we would like to give players the possibility to transfer their currencies from one game to another, in the case of players who have stopped playing one of our games and would like to play another one.

Too few ships and nations


There are complaints that the game have too few ships and nations. This issue can only be solved slowly. The reason for this is the work needed to create high quality models. Since the release of the game, we have added German and Soviet ships and are about to release German battleships. We will also add British ships this year. We will then gradually add ships we think are interesting to play and beautiful to look at.

Communication between developers and players


We have done a lot of work regarding this matter. Since this post is quite long, I will be brief:

  • added comments on the portal;
  • shared with players our plans for the year and since recently our patch notes do not need to be edited anymore;
  • implemented a three week system for the release of updates, which allows us to add changes and solve problems quicker, and also make every version more stable;
  • restructured the forum several times;
  • started to rework the forum so as to make it more user-friendly (we will soon release the first patch);
  • added surveys in game;
  • established regular streams where players can ask questions formally and more entertaining streams on "Корабли TV" where players can discuss with us more informally.

And it is far from being all we have done. 

As a final reminder, please do not forget that a lot of these features and comments concern mainly the Russian server so do not get upset some things seem different in this text than what you can experience on your server. 

14 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

News from the latest Q&A's (I have been busy so I'm lagging behind). 

First series (2 August). Source

1. The current economy (how credits and xp are earned) encourages passive gameplay for BB's, especially in Ranked battles where passiveness helps to keep a star on a defeat. Are you happy with this situation?

A. No, we are not, it is not an enjoyable situation. We do not like it as well. That is why in the next few updates we plan to rework the economy system by rewarding more teamplay actions.

2. Are there any plans to introduce flags, upgrades or skills that increase radar (duration, distance)?

A. We do not plan to but the idea is interesting. I will send it to my colleagues.

3. Will you give players the possibility to add cosmetic decorations on their ships?

A. We are actively examining the topic. We would really like to. We plan to complete work on patch 0.5.11 and then quietly start working on prototypes of decorations.

Second series (2 August). Source

1. Why do CV's torpedoes not change when going up tiers? After all, DD's see their torpedoes improve, but not CV's?

A. Because CV progressions is about planes, in this case TB's that carry torpedoes to their objective. They become faster and stronger. If their torpedoes characteristics improved as well, they would create an absolute hell.

2. Why is Tirpitz's secondary batteries range only 4.5 km and Scharnhorst's, 5 km? (and other tier 7-8 BB's, 5 km as well).

A. For balancing reasons. You have not seen Bismarck's secondaries yet. :)

Third series (2 August). Source

1. Do you plan to add the fire resistance to ships info cards?

A. It is planned, yes. I very much hope we can add this useful improvement into one of the updates.

2. I saw on the forums that British cruisers are coming this year. I take this opportunity to ask you if, per chance, you haven't discussed about adding HMS Ulysses? Is there any hope?

A. Was it you who told me about Ulysses quite some time ago? Thank you very much since it motivated me to read that wonderful book.

We discussed this question with my colleagues. They like the idea in principle but it will be not subject to a fast development. We will tray to find a way to make it work. There is hope, even though it is small.

3. How many Super league battles (Rank 1, tier 10 battles) were fought during last season?

A. Only few dozens on the RU server.

The experiment paid off: we will not bring the Super league in its current form. It will come back in another form, we will try to make it more popular.

4. You have already released and will release tier 6-7 premium BB's from the British, USA, German and France nations. Couldn't you think about adding a tier 6-7 premium soviet BB before the end of this year?

A. Before the end of the year, unlikely, but, generally speaking, it is planned.

Fourth series (3 August). Source

1. Do you plan to change cyclones in the near future?

A. Cyclones will be improved and further developed. You can expect a small set of changes as soon as patch 0.5.10.

2. Regarding invis-fire, do developers think this kind of mechanics is adequate in a game about warships from the first half of the 20th century? If not, can you share some info on what you plan to change?

A. Yes, such mechanic has its place in a game about warships. It became more easy to do since improvements were made to the minimap. But generally speaking, it is a useful feature.

On the other hand, we are not happy with the state of certain ships. For example, there may be changes coming to Zao and other high-tier cruisers. Some of them needs some improvements, others are just too strong.

3. [Question about spotting, tanking, etc.]

A. We are currently working on earnings for spotting, damage done to spotted ships and tanking, it is planned to be available in one of the next few updates.

Moreover, in patch 0.5.10, you will already be able to see those figures in your statistics.

4. Do you plan to make that torpedoes have a chance to bounce off the armour, just like it is the case with shells?

A. Technically speaking, it could be done, but such mechanic is not needed in the game for now.

5. Since CV's dominated high-tier games, you decided to limit their numbers to one per team. However, you didn't touch the limit set for tier 3-5, where ships have practically no AA to speak of. This also raises the entry level for BB's, who are rusty buckets at lower-tiers and just food for CV's.

What do you think about CV's at tier 3-5, about the AA ships have at those tiers when facing two CV's, and about the high entry level for BB's in general?

A. We are aware of both problems you speak of (CV's at low tiers and BB's at lower tiers). We will take measures to fix them. Regarding CV's, limiting their numbers will not necessarily help. The limit we set for high tiers was done so as to not have CV's of different tiers fighting each other. The fact that it also helped other classes is an additional benefit. However, we would still like a better distribution of CV's across battles. Generally speaking, I mean. 

Regarding BB's, first and foremost, the problem arises because new players are confronted with the controversial comfort of tier 3-4 battles. Especially when it comes to the shooting. We are not just thinking about these issues, but working on concrete solutions. It is important to remember that these issues cannot be easily solved by, for example, adding +20% to a characteristic. In this case, we need to tread carefully. 


Edited by Carnotzet

17 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest Q&A (4 August). Source.

1. Lately, it is not rare to see team compositions such as this:

1-2 CV's

4-5 BB's

1-3 CA/CL's

3-5 DD's

Are you happy with such differences between classes? Can we expect any buffs to cruisers?

A. Well, this is not entirely the real tendency. However, it is true that BB's have become more popular lately.

It is also true that certain cruisers need some balance tweaks. Although I cannot share any details, they are planned for the next few updates, that is, after 0.5.10 though.

2. Do you plan to add new alternative branches to already fully released trees, such as different types of IJN DD's or BBV's?

A. We have plans for several alternative branches. This way there still will be more diversity for certain nations/classes.

3. Is it true that developers have abandonned the concept of rock-paper-scissors?

A. As I have already written more than once, we have not abandoned the concept, even though it is not 100% followed. If we followed it to the letter, for example, rock would always beat scissors, without compromises. However, in the game, a BB can stand up to a DD, a DD to a cruiser and a cruiser to a BB. Even if it is quite hard. So, when we are talking about this concept, we are not talking about applying it to the letter, but more like which class is at an advantage against another one.


6 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the minipatch, the German battleships of tiers 8/9/10 got the Hydroacoustic Search


Bismark from Hipper

Friedrich der Große from Hindenburg

Grosser Kurfuerst from Hindenburg


This is obviously not mentioned in the patch notes, since the line is not yet released. Source: http://forum.worldofwarships.ru/index.php?/topic/61564-%d0%bd%d0%be%d0%b2%d1%8b%d0%b5-%d0%b8%d0%b7%d0%bc%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b5%d0%bd%d0%b8%d1%8f-%d0%bd%d0%b5%d0%bc%d0%b5%d1%86%d0%ba%d0%b8%d1%85-%d0%bb%d0%ba-%d0%b2-0591/

2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites




Well replying before the 1st Cup of coffe of the day.  copying over to the discusion Posts.

Edited by Spellfire40

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the proliferation of aimbot on the RU server (food for thought)


As you may know, Lesta constantly fights the use of aimbot on the Russian cluster. They fortified the client against unwanted modifications, used server statistics to find the cheaters, etc. They had "public prosecution" by coloring cheaters nicknames in brown, and, of course, bans.


Vallter_ has mentioned that 508 users on the RU server have received a permanent ban for cheating. The Russian community demands the names to be revealed, which Lesta is reluctant to do.


One user sent Vallter_ the list of top 1000 players according to the ProShips ranking, a kind of XVM, asking to reveal how many top players have been banned.


According to Vallter_, of the top 1000 players 39 have been permanently banned, or nearly 4 percent.


Source: http://forum.worldofwarships.ru/index.php?/topic/61601-%d1%81%d0%bf%d0%b0%d1%81%d0%b8%d0%b1%d0%be-%d0%bb%d0%b5%d1%81%d1%82%d0%b0/#topmost

2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

WoWS TAP Q&A V – Answered Questions


Link to original post: https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/08/09/wows-tap-qa-v-answered-questions/


To other sites reposting this: please give credit to TAP. Seriously.


1. Are there any plans on the Dutch navy? How does WG want to materialize the tiers of smaller navies such as the Dutch in general; limited amount of realized ships or including many concept ships to fill up the tiers?


Now we are still working with branches of major naval nations, and there is still no Royal Navy in the game. So we do not consider additional incomplete branches currently. Some ships might be introduced as premiums.


2. Why is the Russian Navy implemented before the Royal Navy? Is it for economic reasons?


(Reasons are) not exactly economical. Of course, players from RU region were waiting for Soviet Navy, but WoWS is being published in other regions as well, equally important. The idea was to add two warring nations and by various reasons USSR-Germany pair was chosen. No other “special” reasons. Royal Navy’s implementation is inevitable (Implementation of at least one branch of RN was promised for this year – cruisers).

3. Can we expect to see more statistics options in game like in World of Tanks? (Like stats for individual ships and post game results of other players after a game).


Yes. Progress on this topic will be in 0.5.10 already. Follow the news! (Patch notes for 0.5.10 were published)


4. Will there be an option for players to display the Imperial Russian Navy flag in port and/or in the tech tree? Doesn’t make sense to have the Soviet flag in the background while the ship itself flies the IRN flag. The Storozhevoi for instance was a paper project and as such was never used by the Soviets.


This option is not planned. I would describe it as “would be nice to have, but of low priority”


5. Are there plans to implement fighter strafing ability? (for attacking the ships, I presume)


Yes, we would like to implement this feature. But we have many doubts about current CV gameplay. We would like to make it more player friendly and not so one-way win or lose. And not break overall class balance in the course (of changing CV gameplay). What exactly we are planning  – can’t say for now.


6. Are there chances for implementation of old fan kit’s ships (e.g. Akizuki)?

Chances are always there. Even for Kitakami. At least theoretically :)


7. What are the changes in statistics of high level U.S. CVs after 0.5.3?


We do not disclose server statistics without serious cause. Discussion of American CVs is very complicated because of the great influence of chosen flight control scheme.


8. Would you consider bringing back the space battle occasionally like you did before in beta? That was great fun.


Yes, we thought about it. But if we would do something for fun we would like to make something different.


9. Is there any possibility of new paint schemes or camouflage patterns? It would be cool if you could paint different sections separately. Example: top of the turrets.


Working plans – add more permanent camouflage patterns. In perspective we want to introduce decals: identifying insignia, side numbers, smokestacks’ rings, etc. But nothing specific yet.


10. Any thoughts on decals or names on ships?


Same as 9th.


11. I had plenty of tier8 + matches recently where both sides had like 6 DDs. Don’t you think that’s to much? Have you any thoughts on that?


We think that the best ratio is about 3-4 DDs, five as the maximum. Six is definitely over the top. We continue to work on the balance, to achieve proportional class presence in battles and make all classes appealing for different players.


12. A CV subclass is mentioned to come which includes refitted BB’s but also mentioned some interesting ships too: cruiser-carrier Tone and a maybe battleship Ise too in the CV subclass. My question is if this happens are the Tone and Ise will be an unique ships gameplay wise? So basically a crusier/battleship what can launch for example a squadron of torpedo bombers?


This question is not currently at work, because of other more urgent matters.


13. Did any recent game mechanic changes affected negatively the Warspite? Or do you changed its armor effectiveness? Some players feels it is less tanky than before. And how is it performing stat-wise?


No and no. Warspite is one of the ambiguous ships in the game. She is behaving fine statistic-wise, but some players feel very uncomfortable about her. We are watching this issue closely and made some minor improvements lately. We want to enhance comfort (of her owners) while not making the ship imbalanced, or lose her “individuality”.


14. What is the fate of Buffalo and Worcester cruisers?


All I can say is that these ships sooner or later will make it to the game. We have such plans but nothing specific for the moment.


15. After the change to Expert Marksmen, are there any plans to undo the nerf to Mogami’s 155mm turret rotation and survivability? (it used to be 40 seconds traverse).  51.4 seconds is a bit too slow for a stock grind considering the range is only 13 km stock.


We would think about it but as the result of changes to Mogami, from imbalanced it evolved to normal, in balance. We do not want to compensate anything. As for choice between 155 and 203 mm – this is probably a false conception (e.g. game design decision).


16. According to this response: “The experience was positive, but we’d do it if Turkish, Dutch or Spanish players played more actively. Polish players play quite a lot, so we released Blyskawica. The same applies to the Pan-Asian ships.” . Following that way, can we expect to see some ships introduced from South America navies, like Argentina, Brazil, Chile, etc in the game, if the statistics show much activity from the playerbase of that region?


Yes, definitely.


17. Would you consider adding Hamburg as a harbor to WoWs?


That is not a question, but a direct suggestion :). We do not have such plans.

2 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest Q&A (9 August). Source

1. When do you plan to start the next season of Ranked battles (fifth one)?

A. I cannot say yet, but it is certain we do not plan to take out Ranked battles for long. Follow the news.

2. I understand that you are trying to hold back the release of the new branch until the Gamescon but, for now, the patch looks a little but thin (except the new branch and the suppression of failed division).

On another topic, are you happy giving players so many updates so often?

A. In addition to the release of the new branch, the suppression of failed divisions and other positive changes, patch 0.5.10 will bring:

  • Statistics for each individual ships directly in the client;
  • New data (spotting, tanking, damage to spotted enemies);
  • New log for sunk ships (that which is above the minimap);
  • Update concerning the crit ribbons;
  • Improved game sounds, including a very interesting solution for the sound of radar and hydro consumables;
  • Greatly improved Fault Line and Two Brothers maps;
  • Improvements for new players (changes made to tier 1 ships);
  • Adjusted settings for the Cyclone even and Domination mode according to players' wishes;
  • Removed friendly fire from secondary guns, again, according to players' wishes.
  • Optimisation of several interface operations;
  • Put in order BB's shells normalisation;
  • Added colour filters for those who need it, including the players who are colour blind.

If you add up these changes with the release of a new branch, patch 0.5.10 does not look that bad.

Regarding the patch release cycle, the three-week cycle we are currently working with allows us to quickly react to changes made to the game and to your suggestions. We are aware that it has its flaws too. But, as far as we are concerned, we believe it has more ups than downs. We will try to release more content, but not at the expense of quality. We will also work on reducing the updates size.

3. Regarding the new high tier German BB's, doesn't it bother you that Friedrich der Große has 84'300 HP and Großer Kurfürst only has 3700 more HP (88'000)?

A. We plan to increase it to 105k. It is not necessary to discuss the combat capabilities of unreleased ships.

EDIT: added one question from the previous Q&A which I found could be interesting for some players.

Bonus. Do you have any plans regarding Baltimore? It isn't a secret to anyone that, according to statistics, she's the worst performing tier 9 cruiser?

A. In the very near future, she will receive a buff from the shell normalisation changes we wish to introduce in patch 0.5.10.

In a more distant future, we plan to implement other changes to underperforming ships, including Baltimore. For now, unfortunately, I cannot say anything about it.


Edited by Carnotzet

6 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest Q&A (10 August). Source

[Disclaimer: please be reminded that the following information comes from the Russian-speaking community and thus certain information may not apply to other clusters.]

1. My question concerns the latest collection of data regarding spotting and tanking. More particularly tanking. Is it possible, technically speaking, to monitor conditions where a player is tanking? In other words, do evading volleys at the border of the map and maneuvering between four battleships have different weights that come into the calculation of tanking? If so, will they be rewarded differently?

A. At the moment, it is not possible, but, according to our data, players who are more active during battles receive more tanking rewards. If, in the future, we see an urgent need to do so, we will add logging conditions.

2. It's no secret that a large part of the community is waiting for clans (in one form or another).

We know that it's being worked on, etc., etc. and that it will be released someday.

So I wanted to know what department is assigned to this work and what parallel work (maybe more important tasks than clan functionality) they are assigned to?

A. It is in the hands of the team that is in charge of what we call the metagame (economy, ranked battles, team battles, etc.), together with colleagues from Minsk who are working on clans and the global map in general. We plan to present their work to the players before the end of the year. We will try really hard to.

3. Where is the long-due armour visualisation feature?

A. It is nearly ready. We will make some final changes and will try to release it in one of the next few updates. If you recall, we promised we would release it in 2016. There is still time until then.

4. Not so long ago, you explained that developers are happy with how fire mechanics are working. One of the arguments presented was that cruisers need to have a chance against battleships. I concur but my question is not about that.

If we take into account the fact that cruisers need to have a fighting chance against battleships, then what about battleships who get burnt to the ground by invis-fire?

If you want, we can discount firing from smoke. Even then, what can a battleship player do when a cruiser fires on him from stealth? Since he cannot catch him, he doesn't stand a chance.

A. The situation you described is indeed possible, especially in 1v1 duels. On the other hand, a battleship can also remove more than half the HP's of a cruiser in one salvo.

Currently, we do not think invis-fire is harmful since it requires a very specific build (which makes the ship weaker in other areas) and cannot be used very often in battle when there are many players.


Regarding fires mechanics, since you asked, I will answer the question in details; I know there are many players interested in this matter that believe fires are more deadly than what they actually are. This is often the case with battleships captains. As an example, let us take tier 8-10 battleships, since it is a widely discussed topic.


1. Battleships popularity in general

The statistics regarding the RU-cluster from January to July show that battleships popularity is stable and even slightly increased. If we take all standard battles played on the cluster during that period, battleships representation increased from 32.9 to 35.1%. Thus, they make up slightly more than a third of all ships. There is no reason not to expect a slight increase in popularity with the release of the German battleships, or, more accurately, there is no reason to expect a decrease at least.


2. Battleship damage distribution (damage received)

During the last 30 days, battleships largest source of damage received comes from AP shells (42% - 45.6%), torpedoes plus flooding (19.9% - 20.2%). HE shells account for 16.8% - 17.8% and fires, 14.5% - 17.6%. Also remember that citadel damage can be healed by 10% (that is of course damage from AP shells and torpedoes direct damage), damage to the superstructure, stern and bow by 50% (here we can also add damage from HE shells and bombs), and damage from fires and flooding can be fully healed. That is why a badly damaged battleship can withdraw from battle to heal up and come with as much as half of his HP back.


3. Combat effectiveness

Regarding the potential for dealing damage, battleships do not disappoint, combining the roles of damage dealers and tanks. Their concurrents are carriers and in about every category, there is a tough fight going on between these two classes regarding who is the best.

Destroyers and cruisers, which, according to some players, burn the poor battleships and flood them under waves of torpedoes cannot even dream of dealing that much damage. Moreover, according to those same players, battleships are easy food for these classes since they have a lot of HP on which to feed.

Regarding winrate, battleships are about the same as other classes.

Their AA is normal (only cruisers are above them because of their barrage ability).

Survivability (% of battles in which a ship has survived until the end) for battleships is considerably higher than for cruisers or destroyers.


4. A very brief summary

Battleships are played. Battleships survive. Battleships inflict damage. Battleships are a good and useful class. If we were to buff them, by increasing their survivability (especially against fires and HE shells), they would be overpowered. Our game would become World of Battleships. And that is bad. 35.1% popularity, we can live with that. But it is bordering on being too much.

So, if we were to follow players' suggestions, we would have to nerf them in another way. If they had a better survivability, we would have to nerf their damage for example, and according to our experience, such change would not be well received by players.

That is why we do not plan to make any considerable changes to battleship balance or to fire mechanics. 

Edit: added a question I forgot.

5. I once asked if you thought that Moskva was performing too well. You said no.


Win rate
Avg. frags
Avg. damage
Avg. experience
Avg. planes destroyed
Kills / deaths
Moskva U.S.S.R. 22 769 57.45 % 1.09 80 173 1 845 4.98 2.83
Zao Japan 81 408 56.48 % 1.14 80 057 1 980 4.19 2.86
Hindenburg Germany 29 639 55.55 % 1.02 70 253 1 908 5.98 2.29
Des Moines U.S.A. 46 225 54.36 % 1.08 65 496 2 072 7.05 2.05

I also asked the same question about Khabarovsk



Win rate
Avg. frags
Avg. damage
Avg. experience
Avg. planes destroyed
Kills / deaths
Khabarovsk U.S.S.R. 28 141 58.91 % 1.07 58 529 1 868 1.26 2.22
Shimakaze Japan 92 548 52.40 % 0.96 50 122 1 670 0.30 1.92
Gearing U.S.A. 30 020 55.26 % 1.07 48 752 1 985 1.31 1.83

So, here's my question. You plan to nerf Zao, but you don't see any problems with the overperforming Moskva.

Even Yamato cannot pen its bow.

Please tell me, is it a coincidence that a nation with such a mediocre fleet, of which half the branch is paper ships perform so well?

A. Cruiser Moskva and destroyer Khabarovsk have one characteristic in common: they are nearly ideal to fight against their pairs. On the other hand, they also share a common disadvantage: a high detection range. It is easier to avoid 1v1 duel with them than it is with other ships. And firing on them is the same as with other ships. Moskva is easily (and more importantly, more constantly) damaged by battleships and Khabarovsk, by cruisers.

We can say that these ships have a very distinctive role and a very distinctive disadvantage. They are bullies, who can give their pairs hell but who can be easily taken down by the "adults" (by the class above).

In the current gameplay, we do not see the necessity to nerf their characteristics. Improve their concurrents, that is entirely possible.

Edited by Carnotzet

13 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite uninteresting Q&A today (12 August). Really, only one question I thought was worth translating. Source

1. How will the tanking functionality work? With shells and torpedoes?

A. Currently, the mechanic is as follows : your ship has a "virtual" circle of 700 meters (test value) around it. Every shell and bomb that fall in this circle, and every torpedo that run through it are calculated in the tanking statistic. Your ship does not need to be visible or locked by an enemy for "tanking" to register since, after all, blind firing exists.

If objective motives arise and compel us to redo this mechanic, we will. So far, taking into account the data we have collected for two versions, it looks good.


6 people like this

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites