Some interesting info around the world

[Babykim]

 

Summary of a news digest by getfun

 

Source:

 

1). The developer JamesWhite hints at more content on the Steven Seagal theme.

 

Players speculate on the introduction of the USS Missouri as a premium battleship, and the possibility of using Seagal as a captain on American as well as Russian ships, because the guy has accepted the Russian citizenship yesterday. LOL

 

Souce on the citizenship: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-04/vladimir-putin-and-steven-seagal-shake-hands/7994580

 

2). The CEO Malik promises at least four new ship branches in 2017, the same number we saw in 2016. The general aim is to speed up the release of new content, for example a game mode similar to the current Halloween event.

 

Ship customization with numerals is under development.

 

[Babykim]

 

Some information from a transcript of the stream with JamesWhite of October 31

 

Source: http://forum.worldofwarships.ru/index.php?showtopic=70755

 

1). The Halloween mode is popular, with long queues during the first days. Success statistics as percentage of total games by server look as follows: Asia 23 percent, RU 18 percent EU and NA 10 percent.

 

2) The profitability of British cruisers based on the first week of the RU server data.

 

Tiers 2-3: The Caledon and the Weymouth take, respectively, the tenth and the fourth place by profitability of all ships on their tier.

Tier 4. The Danae is the top earner among the cruisers this tier, inferior only to the premiums Iwaki Alpha and Yubari.

Tier 7. With an average of 140k per battle, the Fiji is the most profitable non-premium cruiser at tier 7. Among the premium ships, the top three are Flint (290k), Atlanta (170k), and Indianapolis (150k).

Tier 8. The Edinburg earns 143k per game on average. The top tier 8 earners are Kutosov, Eugen and Atago.

Tier 9. The Neptune (170k) is the top earner among all cruisers on its tier.

Tier 10. The Minotaur (152k) is the top earner among all cruisers on its tier.

 

These are raw gross earning, including all bonuses conferred by premium time, signals and daily multipliers.

 

Conclusion: In terms of profitability, the British cruisers are definitely not inferior to their non-premium counterparts. If anything, they appear to be slightly superior earners. The use of premium consumables decreases the intake, of course.

 

3). Players who have all the ARP ships might get a commemorative flag found in the client.

 

4). Very soon you would be able to see players' profiles in the client.

 

5). The models for the German destroyers are finished.

 

6). The are only two branches of carriers in the game. Are your working on the British carriers? It depends what you mean by working. We are collecting reference material such as technical drawings, etc.

 

7). We do not see a need for a training room in the client.

 

8). We do not plan introducing tournament functionality to the client in the near future.

 

9). The policy towards players using forbidden modifications such as aimbots has not changed. They get a permanent ban on the fourth warning, i.e. warning, short ban, long ban, permanent ban. There will be no parole, but the offenders can create new accounts. We believe to now be able to catch almost all offenders. We see that some offenders own premium ships. Why put your account at peril?

 

next stream is on November 7.

 

[Takru]

http://worldofwarships.asia/en/news/common/uss-missouri-coming/

 

 

Commanders!

The legend is back for some action!

USS Missouri was the setting of the 1992 action thriller "Under Siege" and she's back for some naval combat action in World of Warships!

And that's not all! In the upcoming Update 0.5.14, Commander Steven Seagal will show his true colors as he harnesses a special set of "Heroic Skills" to at his disposal!

Wanna know more? Read on to find out!

---

What is so special about the USS Missouri ?

The USS Missouri was featured in the 1992 action thriller "Under Siege", starring Steven Seagal as Casey Ryback, an ex-Navy SEAL operator-turned-cook aboard the USS Missouri. Using his legendary martial arts skills and deadly tactics, he single-handed took back the Missouri from the clutches of sinister mercenaries!

In real life, the Iowa-class battleship USS Missouri sits in Pearl Harbour, Hawaii, as a WW2 memorial ship.  

---

How to get the USS Missouri

USS Missouri will make her debut in World of Warships as the very first Tier IX Premium Battleship.

However, the USS Missouri, being the special ship that she is, will not come as easily as other Premium ships.

The only way to earn the Missouri is by using your hard earned Free EXPs !

---

Witness the Heroic Skills of the Seagal!

In the upcoming Update 0.5.14, Commander Steven Seagal will earn a special set of "Heroic Skills". These are Commander skills with boosted performance as compared to regular Commander skills!

• Expert Loader: -75% to reload time when shell type is switched (Ordinary Skill gives -50%)
• Expert Marksman: +3 deg/s to the traverse speed of guns with a caliber of up to 139mm. +1 deg/s to the traverse speed of guns with a caliber above 139mm, while ordinary skill gives +2.5 and +0.7

A former Navy SEAL, cook, and now a warship commander. Don't miss this chance to recruit a legend into your ranks!

 

 

 

[Takeda92]

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/102483-ok-i-think-ive-had-it-with-these-utter-garbage-qas/page__st__20__pid__2518348#entry2518348

 

From Sub_Octavian on the NA forums:

 

 

legoboy0401, on 07 November 2016 - 05:15 PM, said:

Before you ask, this is a WG WoWS Q&A with dev JamesWhite.

 

The first thing I don't get:

"

2) The profitability of British cruisers based on the first week of the RU server data.

Tiers 2-3: The Caledon and the Weymouth take, respectively, the tenth and the fourth place by profitability of all ships on their tier.

Tier 4. The Danae is the top earner among the cruisers this tier, inferior only to the premiums Iwaki Alpha and Yubari.

(why the heck did he not mention the Emerald? Did he just purposefully ignore the one major elephant in the room that undermines his crap argument?)

(also, Leander is missing. I wonder why?)

Tier 7. With an average of 140k per battle, the Fiji is the most profitable non-premium cruiser at tier 7. Among the premium ships, the top three are Flint (290k), Atlanta (170k), and Indianapolis (150k).

Tier 8. The Edinburg earns 143k per game on average. The top tier 8 earners are Kutosov, Eugen and Atago.

Tier 9. The Neptune (170k) is the top earner among all cruisers on its tier.

Tier 10. The Minotaur (152k) is the top earner among all cruisers on its tier.

These are raw gross earning, including all bonuses conferred by premium time, signals and daily multipliers.

Conclusion: In terms of profitability, the British cruisers are definitely not inferior to their non-premium counterparts. If anything, they appear to be slightly superior earners. The use of premium consumables decreases the intake, of course.

"

 

What on earth? No. These things are very bad at Tiers II-V. They only get better at Tier VI.

 

I'll go down this line, I'll review the Emerald with each and every consumable she can equip(a few different choices in the Smoke Screen slot, but not nearly so many as the Edinburgh has) I will do the same thing with the Edinburgh.Still, though, I don't like them very much, and as I've said since their release, they feel kind of gimmicky and rushed. Does Gimmicky = bad? For the first time, I don't know. Does Rushed = bad? Maybe. Enough with that, though. On to the next issues with this Q&A.

 

"7). We do not see a need for a training room in the client.(WG? what is this? It basically can be accurately translated as "We are lazy and stupid, so we will let the hard-working mod creators do the work for us. Screw you, Vanilla Client players! A permanent, convenient Training Room will only be for Chocolate or Sorbet( one mod or skin mods only, or multiple game-changing mods) Clients only.") 

 

8). We do not plan introducing tournament functionality to the client in the near future."

(why not? Because you don't care about Clan Wars fans?)

 

WG, you've made a great game, with wonderful graphics and semi-fun gameplay, but you really suck at Q&As.

 

 

What do you guys make of this?

 

edit: the full Q&A is available here: https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/11/07/wows-qa-7th-november-2016/

 

I make of this that learning Russian might be tough.

1. RN part - it was outlined that in the previous QA JamesWhite talked about combat stats, and now he answered the question about RN earnings. IMO: on the side note, even now, after main hype is down, I see RN low-tier stats are good. Yes, Leander too. I cannot do anything with it. She is popular, she is played, she has good WR and damage. Lets talk about it in a month or so, when RN gameplay and audience is stable. For now I see no underperforming RN ships and top tier Britts naturally shine (probably due to more skilled players there at the moment).

 

2. >>We do not see a need for a training room in the client
He did NOT say that, poor translation and you are already drawing conclusions. Good job!

What he said is (trust me, I have Master's Degree in English literature): "We don't see urgent need to lay down other tasks and make training room quickly". And this is true.

 

3. >>We do not plan introducing tournament functionality to the client in the near future

"(why not? Because you don't care about Clan Wars fans?)"

 

How is it connected with clans? Tournaments are tournaments. Clans are clans. We presume that tournaments can be organized by community managers, while clan warfare requires decent in-game implementation. We are working on it and aim to introduce both clan system and several updates (with new gameplay) during 2017. There are four planned stages:

1. Social basic - clan tag, chat, recruiting, etc - it is currently entering beta test.

2. Casual clan experience - something that will allow clan members to work together, but not too hardcore (roughly speaking, something that will draw people to clans and will not scare them). It is currently somewhat at "design end - prototyping" start stage.

3. Hardcore clan experience - something highly competitive. 

4. Clan meta - something strategic, conceptually similar to WoT Global Map.

No promises here, but stages 1 and 2 are must for us for 2017 (and most certainly will come as internally scheduled), and we do hope to cover the whole list (but that will depend on situation, as no plan is good without the ability to adjust it).

 

4. >>but you really suck at Q&As.

I respectfully disagree. As a person who is probably doing most Q&A in the project (or at least with the most regular Q&A schedule) I believe our team is quite good at interacting with players. However, poorly and unofficialy translated transcript of RU publishing producer semi-official interview is NOT a measure of sucking in Q&A. Really.

Uh...that escalated. I will probably go earn my 3rd container before commiting myself to more sucking at Q&A 

 

 

[Takru]

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/102461-so-the-missouri-will-be-a-different-kind-of-grind/page__st__40__pid__2517484#entry2517484

 

 

 

BossmanSlim, on 07 November 2016 - 02:31 PM, said:

If it is not available immediately after 0.5.14, I would guess Wednesday, December 7.

She is not planned for 0.5.14 update. 

maybe he can throw in a word about a functional replay system

Apparetnly he did, as replays are in developement plan for 2017 (and work has already started).

I was hoping Sub w/shed some light on this....

 

Guess we will sit and speculate the wordage 

Each premium ship has built-in credit modifier and maintenance discount. It gets better with every tier, so...

 

 

[Takeda92]

http://forum.worldofwarships.ru/index.php?showtopic=71160&view=findpost&p=2879291

 

German DDs will come after the IJN DD 2nd branch.

[Allied_Winter]

From the Dev QnA on reddit:

 

Q

a couple of weeks back, you answered this question with the following

"The part you are talking about is included in the citadel because it was valuable initially (torpedo armament storage) and it is protected accordingly: 25 mm citadel deck you mentioned; 32 mm deck you cannot see in port viewer currently (it is bow internal deck); 152 mm belt (you can see a part of it behind anti-torpedo bulge; 102 mm transverse (in game 102 mm layer is a sum of several IRL bulkheads); It is located underwater and extremely hard to hit. Most part of damage to Warspite is bow/aft/casemate/superstructure, so this part does not play a vital role in ship in-game performance. On the other hand it is logical to be included in the citadel, remembering its initial function and armor (these are two main criteria)."

how is logical that a cold-storage compartment that contains nothing more threatening than what amounts to supplies for the galley is part of the citadel ? the magazines have a separate bulkhead of 150mm plate between it and the former torpedo magazines that these rooms are, it's on the B9/11 one. i concur entirely that it used to be part of the citadel, but the ship we see in game several years past than the last refit of the Warspite that actually carried torpedoes.

Sub_Octavian: It is logical because it corresponds to balancing and gameplay purposes. And it corresponds to our damage model design. After this prolonged discussion we researched Warspite performance more closely. There is no need to buff or change her, (while the change you are suggesting is a very small buff). Your request, unfortunately, cannot be fulfilled. Sorry.

 

Q

As other have said, thanks for these... onwards!

While I'm finding the Royal Navy cruisers very challenging, I have to say that so far it's been an enjoyable one. That said, there's a UI factor that I reckon would greatly improve my enjoyment, and I wondering if there would be any chance of it being implemented.

It's a smoke timer. At the moment, I have to do quick head maths to work how long it is until I need to be hauling [edited]out of there. This is particularly important for the RN, as if you appear, stationary, you're going to blow up more often than not. Granted, you wouldn't want it to be something that everyone sees, but the ship that laid it down could do with some sort of countdown.

Sub_Octavian: You are welcome. Yep, this is good suggestion. It has been approved and will most lkely be implemented. However, at this time I cannot name update number. "Somewhere in 2017" is the most accurate date.

 

Q

One question.

How do you view CV game credit earning ? I have yet to have a single game breaking 400K credit earning on my Taiho although I can break 600K on Des Moines every few games.

Sub_Octavian: In net profit values CVs are currently on the same level as other classes, which is good. Before 0.5.12 they were a bit over-farming, which was bad: players should chose their classes based on personal preferences, not on economy.

 

Q

Thank you! Much much appreciated!

QUESTION: Will you add a marker in the Tech Tree (InGame and wiki) to distinguish ship lines that are more beginner friendly and lines that require more experience?

Background: With the British cruisers added to the game, we have now quite a selection of cruisers (five different lines). Each line has its gimmicks and difficulties one has to take into account while playing them. New players might run into unnecessary trouble if they go up a line and don't have any success. A marker that some lines might be more challenging to players, whereas other lines might provide an easier entry.

Example: From the questions I see (here, forums and elsewhere) that the most recommended beginner cruiser lines are the IJN and USN (although only up to a certain tier). These two lines should get a marker "A" attached to them. KM and VMF are a bit more challenging due to squishiness or bad concealment or lowish HE DMG. Those two lines should get a marker "B". And from what I saw from the RN cruisers, they require the player to work more and/or have more experience to get equal results as with other lines. This line should get a marker "C". Of course there is lots of room to detail such markes and even sub divide them (e.g. USN CLs marker "A", USN CAs marker "B")

Sub_Octavian: Always welcome! This is an interesting suggestion. Other possible option is using personal offers mechanics to show some line-specific tutorials. And there are other ideas floating around, too. We will consider yours. Thanks!

 

Q

Question: When the RN Battleship line eventually get done. Please can we not have any more of your experiments/gimmicks. Just solid ships like every other nation gets.

Sub_Octavian: They are in production. I cannot reveal planned update number, sorry. But I can say for sure that nearest lines are NOT RN BB.

 

Q

When are you going to balance USN CVs against IJN CVs? USN basically has to pick 2/0/2, do no damage and barely counter IJN due to IJN massive amount of squads, or pick 0/1/3 and get destroyed by the 2/2/2 IJN squads. IJN has to make no sacrifice at all. Give USN 1 fighter squad in their 0/1/3 or take away IJN fighter strafe. Outnumbered and out-damaged by ability to cross-drop and more map presence from more squads. WG Pls.

Sub_Octavian: There are currently no plans for such balance changes.

 

Q

I'll try again from last week ;-)

Around a week ago there was a small analysis about matchmaking. It wasn't really representativ but coincides with my own and other's observations. It basically said that at T5-7 the player is in more than 50% of all matches uptiered. Around 40% of all matches are even 2 tiers higher than the player. Is this true? And is this intentional?

Today I had a T7 match with the exception being 3 ships on each team that were T5...

This is frustrating a lot of people and we would really like to see a change to this... maybe a global +1 or -1 Tier restriction?

Sub_Octavian: The effect on T5-6 MM is not "intentional", but rather "natural". After the changes, T2-3 and T7-8 got more comfortable, and T5-6 got less comfortable. This coincided with upper tiers population growth. We realized it prior to the change and don't view it as something that should be rapidly "fixed".

Then this topic was raised, and we looked into it more, ready to change our mind. But we found no stong arguments for that.

 

Q

Since adding ship names to full map was mentioned, it occurs to me that I've long considered the big map (M key) to be in unusable state. This is because of the zooming transition animation. IMO it's disruptive and creates a delay that is enough to cause cognitive dissonance in gameplay as well as making the map too slow/dangerous to access beyond the starting minutes of the game.

Also there's a dumb little trick where people are spamming M key twice rapidly to use the transition animation to peek over islands. This lets us observe enemy ship's movement more accurately than only minimap. In streams I see this used more than the actual map screen itself. Luckily the need for the trick comes up fairly uncommonly because repeating it makes me slightly nauseous. I don't think designers intended for us to do this.

Could the transition animation be removed so I can go between normal 3d mode and the big map immediately, including flashing it to maintain situational awareness while fishing for specific information like MOBA players do with the score screen?

Sub_Octavian: Well, I am certainly not UI design expert, but from my point of view you made some sense. I will send your suggestion to relevant team. Thank you!

 

Q

My question: Are there any plans to revisit and relook at the torpedo armament of the IJN DD's? Historically long lance torpedoes give off less emissions and should be harder to detect. I know they were nerfed to hell cos of "balance", but this is too much IMO. Only an AFK person would be hit by them now. The long lance are the best torpedoes of the IJN and it's almost criminal they are misrepresented so badly. I don't feel it's right to nerf them this badly. The US ships get much better torpedoes at high tiers (8-10) due to low detection range. The Gearing's torpedoes are at 16.5km range and 66kn, 1.4km detection. Meanwhile the closest the Shimakaze gets is 12km range torps (4.5km shorter) at just 1kn faster than the Gearings, and +0.5km detection. It's not even a contest. Look at the Kagero's torpedoes for example. 2.5km detection on her longest ranged ones. It's so bad any BB can turn and avoid in time, always. Let's not even mention any other class which are even more easily able to dodge them. Personally I'm fine with the IJN DD's being more specialized for torpedo attacks, they have been that way for awhile now, and the new split in the line will allow for more gun-focused DD's. But right now, IJN DD's are bad at everything. USN DD's are better at torpedo attacks, and knife-fighting at caps, even have better smoke. There's literally no reason to pick an IJN DD now. They are just outclassed. What are you all going to do about it? You all changed the torpedoes, added in new ones, and are now telling people not to use the old ones. I don't think that's fair.

Sub_Octavian: No. We respectfully disagree and believe that IJN torpedos have adequate stats for current meta. Of course, "short" versions are superior. And this is good, because we don't want to encourage "torpedo soup" when all you have to do is to spam torpedoes from huge ranges. By the way, high tier IJN avg. torp+flooding damage is 20-25% higher than USN.

 

Q

Hi, thank you once again for continuing to do this Q & A. I know it takes effort and I appreciate you trying to answer some very hard questions all while trying not to break NDA. That said, I have some questions, all of which I believe are under the same topic.

Do you think BBs should receive a nerf soon? If I recall correctly the last time BB got nerfed was the maneuverability based on tonnage thing which was ages ago. After that is buffs. Armor reworked, USN main gun accuracy, AA guns improved. Buff to vigilance, intro to radar + lower radar cd makes BB's life easier when facing DDs, while cruisers are still very easily destroyed even when angled, and meanwhile ijn DD torps get nerfed, CV gets nerfed from AA buffs and economy. Its only after much rants and discussions about how inviable high tier cruisers are then they get steering mod 3 and even then it replaces the concealment mod.

Even if a BB sail in a straight line, it is still much easier and faster for said BB to delete any cruiser than a DD to delete that same BB with torps. Your plan to not nerf AA in the near future given their state now means CV isnt very enjoyable and sometimes not even fun anymore as well, and lets not forget that air dropped torps have way lower chance to cause flooding. A plus for BBs but a nerf for CVs.

So do you think BBs are a tad strong? Do you think they should receive a nerf anytime soon? Right now I really think that the counters of BBs are weaker now and this lead to a quite a heavy bb meta if not an unhealthy one. I strongly believe this game is meant to be enjoyed by players who plays all types of ships and I still believe you and your company would make it so rather than to just "please" the "majority" which is the BB players at the expense of making other ship types unfun

Thank you once again

Sub_Octavian: You are welcome. Any job takes effort, so this is fine

You have asked an interesting question. We do see some dangerous fluctuations in class balance, and currently are researching it in depth. That means conducting surveys, gathering data scopes and brainstorming. We want to establish several perfect battle compositions and then find a way to achieve them (to shift the meta if needed).

However, ideally we would like to do it smart way. Maybe some counter-buffs or even indirect tweaks. But nerfs are also possible. They are difficult to avoid when dealing with balance in MMO game, unfortunately.

I cannot go into detail, the research is not finished yet (but we plan to summarize what we have in several days and then go on with internal discussion).

What is important is that we are on this, and willing to act if needed. And yes - we believe all ship classes should have their happy player base. No one here wants World of BBs mono-class game.

 

Q

Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. With the introduction of the Commonwealth Navy as a separate line to the Royal Navy, will captains be transferable between them? Historically the Royal Navy was very closely connected to the navies of the commonwealth, so would a premium RN ship be able to host a Commonwealth Navy captain?

Sub_Octavian: You are welcome! No, in terms of gameplay these will be two separate nations.

 

Q

Hi, my question is this:

A lot of top tier players (especially in reference to playing ships like Baltimore, Des Moines, Atlanta, Montana, Mogami, Amagi ect) talk about power creep with the introduction of new lines. I am certainly not one to say that US cruisers are bad, because my experience has been quite the opposite, but I can say that in many instances I have to agree with the concept that a lot of times to make new lines or ships shiny and appealing they can often end up causing overlap and often out performance of previous ships that filled those roles. Is it likely that we will see changes to ships (like Atlanta in comparison to Flint / Belfast, which both basically seem to be outright better than Atlanta in nearly all scenarios) that have been somewhat left by the wayside in the wake of new ships, lines, features and premiums? Personally I was pretty peeved that the flint got a smokescreen and not Atlanta, considering the idea was to create a high skill ship, and I feel that smoke is a lot more user friendly than radar, especially given how the Atlanta guns are nuanced with very slow shell speeds. Baltimore also suffers from not having torpedoes, and having to rely on low DPM armament, and Mogami, for example is in sort of a weaker position than Atago / Mikhail Kutosov based on captains skill changes, and other game balancing considerations. Those are just a few examples, but I know many of the older ships have kind of fallen into a weird place due to coming out with increasingly nuanced ships and lines.

Being a military member, I am not one to complain about something and not offer my 2c for a solution, and honestly I think it should be with increasing customization options. I think that weak ships can become strong depending on consumables available to them for example. It would be nice to have some more consumable options, perhaps, to chose from, that would really allow skilled players to take advantage of ships that would otherwise struggle. I kind of like the idea of a consumable that dramatically increases main battery reloads for a limited period of time, for example, and think it might be cool on IJN DD's and US heavy cruisers, or a consumable that reduces citadel damage while active [maybe called "brace for impact"] temporarily might be kind of cool and remove some of the RNG involved in playing some of the "high skill" ships (IE British CL / Atlanta).

Sub_Octavian: Hello. Thank you for the ideas, they are interesting. We'd rather not let power creep, one of the reasons: because it is very bad for new players. However, we are not letting it now. We buff old ships if there are problems with them. Sometimes it takes research and much thought, sometimes we do it directly. But we would like to maintain all ships viable, this is good for players, and good for the game.

 

Q

Hi Sub, thanks for taking time off to answer the many questions posted since the start. I would like to ask what can be done for the Kagerou (or Yuugumo in the future) vs Fletcher matchup.

Takes out the torpedo table made by /u/iku_19

For this example, lets use the Type 93 mod.2 10km torpedo for Kagerou and the upgraded Mark 15 mod.1 10.5km ones for FLetcher. As it can be seen from the table, Kagerou's torpedoes have a worse reaction time by ~1.5s compared (the number may not be exact but it is around there). This drawback can be partially accepted if Kagerou is able to output more torpedoes per salvo or reload faster (Screw reload booster, it is not worth giving up smoke). Kagerou is running the 2x4 set-up compared to Fletcher's 2x5 setup which cannot be changed. However, why does Fletcher have a reload time of 106s for a quintuple mount while Kagerou reloads in 120s? Even the F3 torps reload at 104s, the fastest reloading torpedo on Kagerou and the most suicidal. It doesn't make sense for a quintuple setup to reload faster than a quad setup. USN DDs are a more general purpose DDs, but at T9 they are a better torpedo boat than the IJN.

Sub_Octavian: Hi. No problem, thanks for reading and asking.

There is a paradox: Fletcher is "better" at torpedoes while Kagero has significantly better torpedo damage according to server stats.

You are right about USN DDs being more general purpose. And Fletcher is a fine ship. But I cannot confirm that she has superior torpedoes. In theorycraft - maybe, but not "in real game".

 

Q

Hi, Octavian and the WG team! My question is how do the team approach the learning curve for less experienced players (but not beginners) entering higher tier play? Going from tier IV to tier V is very punishing due to frequent up-tiering.

Sub_Octavian: Hello! MM changes did not cause any significant influence on new players transition - this is data fact. However, you are absolutely right that for newcomers, there should be kind if additional guidance. And we already have quite an interesting solution that at least partially solves that problem. You will see it soon.

 

Q

I appreciate that you want to stand by the RN cruisers, but you only have to look at the numbers being played to see that people aren't happy with them. Other lines swamped match making for a while after release, now theyre barely more than average, despite how hyped people were for them. I often only see 1-2 RN ships per game, which is shockobgly low for such an anticipated line.

Sub_Octavian:I want to stand by objective answers.

I look at the numbers quite often. Let's see last 4 days worldwide, for example.

Most popular T2 cruiser: Weymouth (30,4% among 8 cruisers)

Most popular T3 cruiser: Caledon (32,9% among 6 cruisers)

Most popular T4 cruiser: Danae (39,7% among 7 cruisers)

Most popular T5 cruiser: Emerald (25,1% among 8 cruisers)

Most popular T6 cruiser: Cleveland (Leander has 14,5% share among 6 cruisers)

Most popular T7 cruiser: Myoko (Fiji has 7,9% share among 13 cruisers)

Most popular T8 cruiser: Mogami (Edinburgh has 7% share among 8 cruisers)

Most popular T9 cruiser: Ibuki (Neptune has 14,7% share among 5 cruisers)

Most popular T10 cruiser: Zao (Minotaur has 13,1% share among 5 cruisers)

By the way, RN cruiser have WR and avg damage from medium to the top places over all tiers currently.

So we see newcomers are dominating low tiers, look good on medium and high tiers (although, progress speed is not that high to evaluate high tiers properly).

If we look at the same period after 0.5.10 update (GER BB introduction), the picture is pretty much the same - new battleships were most popular on T3-6 and slowly securing their places at higher tiers.

There is no "shockobgly low" numbers. And if we notice that some ships are underpowered and need some love, we will buff them.

We did not work on this line to make it obsolete.

However, some ships will always be more popular than others. It is impossible to reach equal popularity among all ship groups.

 

Greetings

[Takeda92]

I think this is important. Sub_Octavian is currently making a Q&A on reddit live. No more of those weekly rounds that only the top 15 questions get answered. if you have a question, ask him in there:

 

edit:

summery of that Q&A:

 

Everything is fine, we are working on it, it's coming eventually, we are moniterig the data, blah blah blah.

 

Btw, 

 we will do 3 periodical Q&A now: RU official website, NA official website and Reddit.
So, NA does have separate official Q&A.

 

Filthy EU don't get to have one.

[Babykim]

 

Q&A from RU dated Friday, 11 November

 

Source: http://worldofwarships.ru/ru/news/common/question_dev_5/

 

Note that I skipped two previous sets of Q&A for lack of time to translate them.

 

---

Q: What do you think about a "seasonal" game mode commemorating historical events, in which only ships of certain nations can participate?

A: We cannot promise new game modes at this time.

---

Q: I would the option of selling or exchanging signals.

A: We do not plan such an option.

---

Q: The Halloween event has been a great success. Do you plan an escort game mode for the PvP, or just the PvE?

A: We are currently working on similar game modes, but we cannot announce any details at this time.

---

Q: The RN cruisers made the gameplay closer to that in WoT, with players standing and shooting out of smoke, or moving in and out of islands.

A: This type of gameplay was possible before the cruisers. Do not forget a game will always have many elements that makes it different from reality.

---

Q: The purely sequential arrangement of keys activating consumables is confusing since different ships have different consumables. Do you plan an option for assigning buttons by type of consumable?

A: We do not plan such changes, although we see scope for improving the interface.

---

Q: What about heavy cruisers? The Scharnhorst appears to have found her place in the meta.

A: The Scharnhorst has indeed found her place, but as a battleship. We do not see room for a full heavy curser line for any of the nations in the game, and also not plan any individual ships of this type in the near future.

---

Q: I have heard about plans to add crew on ships in port. This would highlight the size of the ships. I would also like the option of loading two ships in port for a visual comparison.

A: The crew in port is not a fake, but we cannot promise that this feature will be implemented for all ships. Concerning visual comparison, this feature will probably be of limited use for most players.

---

Q: We need more quick commands, such as "Use Defensive AA", especially in ranked battles.

A: We plan reworking the quick commands to make them more useful for teamplay.

---

Q: I am concerned about the low visibility of torpedo aiming template on brighter maps in sniper mode.

A: We are looking into this issue as a part of a general rework of the game interface, but we cannot say when the reworked interface will be released. The main problem is that a darker template will be less visible on darker maps.

---

Q: We would like to have a tier 8 premium ship for the US navy.

A: We are considering several candidates for a tier 8 US premium ship. The USN will definitely get a tier 8 premium ship in the future.

---

Q: Are you planning the option to change captains' appearance and names? When will the new captain skill tree be released?

A: The new captain skill tree is probably coming already this year. We do not plan further customization options for the captains.

---

Q: Will Mogami see a premium sister-ship similar to the Gneisenau/Scharnhorst duo?

A: We have no such plans at the moment.

---

Q: Do you plan adding ship names to the minimap?

A: The names are long and would clutter the minimap. This option is not a priority since it would not benefit all players. Players with large monitors and a fully enlarged minimap may appreciate it, whereas the many owners of smaller monitors or laptops probably not. The current minimal provides all the necessary tactical information.

---

Q: When will the French and Italian navies come out?

A: We plan both trees, with the French appearing sooner than Italians. We cannon say anything about their release dates.

 

[Takru]

Was posted on the forums already, but this might actually be interesting to more people, so I'll copy it over here as well.

 

 

Helloes!

So there was this post a couple of weeks ago by u/drowned_man.

I promised to look into it, and here's the result.

Foreword 1: Thank you, Mr. u/drowned_man, for such deep and well-thought post. You have our most sincere respect.

Foreword 2: Armor models in game have their limits in terms of detail quantity. It is mainly connected with server performance and internal mechanics. There are also cases when we expand our reference library and can re-work old models with new knowledge. Just like with visual models, we're gradually improving them. However, there always will be some game tolerations and conventions (historical accuracy is important, but gameplay is more important anyways). And of course, some mistakes to fix.

Let's go!

A. New Orleans: Source: Norman Friedman’s US Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History, 1945 Ordnance Pamphlet, Damage Reports for New Orleans, Astoria, San Francisco, Vincennes, and Quincy.

Now for the real flaws. Forward and aft magazine bulkheads should be 38mm, not 76mm. Forward and rear machinery bulkheads should be 76mm, not 89mm. Turret faces should be 203mm thick, not 152mm.

Flaw confirmed. We will fix it.

 

Turret roof should be 70mm, not 57mm. Turret sides should not be 38mm, but 95mm-38mm. US Cruisers doesn’t specify, but it appears the forward part of the sides was 95mm, and the rear 38mm. I really can’t blame WG for this, as the book directly contradicts itself. The evidence available suggests the 95mm-38mm arrangement.

We will look into it more. If there is truly such inconsistency, we will fix it.

 

All three belts should taper to 76mm well below the waterline (sources conflict on machinery belt--may have tapered to 82.55mm instead). Belt backing armor is apparently missing--there should be another 19mm plate laminated behind the main machinery belt.

We are not going to split cruiser belts into such sections. Tapering them for historical accuracy would be gameplay nerf, and this is not something we want for cruisers.

 

There should be a 31.75mm deck extending forward of the magazines near the waterline (I think it is a continuation of the main 57mm magazine deck; this neatly shields the thin forward bulkhead). US Cruisers gives little other information about this deck.

It's not that clear, we won't take actions until we have solid proof. Friedman often gives vague wordings, unfortunately. As for belt-backing we mostly treat it as balancing tool. We can add it if we need it.

 

B. Baltimore: Source: US Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History. The forward magazine belt should be 76mm, not 152mm, and should taper to 51mm near the bottom. The rear magazine should have the same arrangement. Machinery belt is also missing its taper (102mm at bottom edge). Machinery belt is apparently missing 16mm of armor laminated to the 152mm main plate. Believe rear portion of turret sides should be 38mm, not 95mm. Source vary. Believe forward portion of turret sides should be 83mm, not 95mm. Sources vary.

We will review the model. As for aft belt, it is not clear to us yet. We will look into it more. It would be nice to know whether external or internal belt is meant.

 

C. Atlanta: (Flint may have similar defects). Source: US Cruisers. Main belt should be 95mm, not 89mm. Forward and aft machinery bulkheads should be 95mm, not 89mm. US Cruisers indicates simply that Atlanta’s belt “bulkheads” were 95mm; I don’t know if that includes the magazine bulkheads too (I assume it does).

Will fix the belt, and will look into bulkheads (we will review it additionally).

 

The rear magazine belt should be 95mm, not 25mm, and should taper to 45.7mm at its bottom.

There was no belt there. If magazine protection is meant, then we need some solid proof to act.

 

The forward magazine belt should be 28mm, not 25mm.

Will fix that.

 

Sources conflict, but Atlanta may be missing a 16mm backing plate for the main machinery belt.

I commented on backing above.

 

D. Cleveland: Source: US Cruisers and these original plans: http://maritime.org/doc/plans/cl89.pdf Rear magazine belt should be 120mm thick, not 51mm. This belt should taper to 76mm at its bottom. Similarly, the main belt is apparently missing both its 16mm backing plate and its taper (82.55mm at bottom). Forward magazine belt has the correct thickness, but it seems to be too narrow (should extend farther downward). Turret sides should be 76mm-38mm, not 76mm; suspect rear portion of sides was 38mm. Turret rear should be 38mm, not 25mm. Conning tower roof should be 57mm, not 51mm. Fore and rear magazine bulkheads should be 95mm, not 127mm.

We will review the model.

 

E. Ibuki: Source: Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War. The deck armor is clearly a WG fabrication. Machinery deck should be 35mm, not 51mm; deck slopes should be 60mm, not 95mm; magazine deck should be 40mm, not 55mm. This was almost certainly changed on purpose, as the real Ibuki would have been nearly identical to Mogami’s modified sister Suzuya—and thus very poorly armored at tier 9. Fore and aft machinery bulkheads should be 105mm, not 100mm. Fore and aft magazine bulkheads are missing their tapers; thickness was ~95mm at their bottoms. Incidentally, the thicker rear magazine bulkhead was one of the few substantive armor differences between the real Ibuki and half-sister Mogami.

We will review the model, same here.

 

The upper deck armor between the second and third turrets is incorrect. 57mm is too thick; the centerline was 50mm thick (this area being the width of the barbettes), with the outboard sections being around 30-40mm.

Yamato nerf request, huh?

 

Fore and aft 50mm decks are too wide. They should not extend farther out than the barbettes do; the decks should be 35mm outboard of the turrets.

Our sources indicate they are adequate.

 

Missing 50mm plating on funnel.

It is present on the model, probably not viewable yet.

 

Missing main deck “hump” around turret 2. Deck should slope slightly upward fore and aft to barbette of turret 2. Slopes should be 230mm, not the current flat 200mm.

That's right, but these are intentional conventions. We won't change this.

 

Torpedo bulkhead around magazines should be 270mm (not 200mm) at top edge, and should taper to 100mm at its bottom.

Not confirmed.

 

Torpedo bulkhead around machinery should taper from 200mm at top to 50mm at bottom edge; it should have much more gradual slope.

Not confirmed.

 

Foremost and aftmost bulkheads (the very tips of the citadel) are too thick. Fore bulkhead should be 300mm, not 350mm; aft bulkhead should be 300mm (top) to 270mm (bottom), not 350mm. Aft 350mm diagonal bulkheads should taper to 330mm at bottom edge.

Another Yamato nerf request

 

Missing 9mm splinter deck over machinery. Don't think this one’s a big deal….

Yep, it's not a big deal, so no, it won't happen. Game convention.

 

Upper portions of the machinery citadel (ie above the splinter deck) take full citadel damage, even though on North Carolina these areas are not “counted” as citadel areas. Incidentally, the engines and boiler rooms were all almost completely underwater, under the (pitifully thin) splinter deck. Also note that the magazines apparently lacked the splinter deck. Personally, don't see much of an issue as-is.

That's right. NC is modelled differently because of balance purposes.

On the side note: we don't consider Skulski a reliable source. He is fond of making some missing parts up. This is understandable though - original Yamato blueprints are scarce, we spent much time and effort to gather everuthing we have.

 

A. Pensacola: Source: US Cruisers. I’ve heard conflicting numbers for the thickness of the machinery belt, even within the same book. 76mm is supported in some references, though I’ve seen 64mm also. Careful study seems to indicate that a 64mm belt was planned, but a 76mm belt was later substituted. Magazine deck armor should be 44.45mm, not 38mm. Turret side armor should be 19mm, not 25mm.

We will review the model.

 

B. Omaha: Conning tower armor should be 32mm, not 37mm. Source: US Cruisers.

Will fix that.

 

C. Des Moines: Source: US Cruisers. Believe rear portion of turret sides should be 51mm, not 95mm. Conning tower side should be 165mm, not 160mm. Conning tower roof should be 102mm, not 140mm. Belt should taper to 102mm well below waterline. Top deck should be 22 or 25mm (sources conflict), not 27mm. This was explicitly changed by WG from the accurate value due to overmatch mechanics.

We tend not to split magazine armor and decks into segments if there is tapering. Game convention.

 

D. Myoko: Source: Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War. Torpedo bulkhead should be 58mm, not 57mm, and should have a distinct curve at its top (oddly, the same bulkhead on Takao/Atago is pretty accurate). Top deck was extremely complex in construction, but total thickness seemed to range from 16mm to 41mm; I think 25mm is a reasonable approximation. Main deck was not uniform 35mm, but ranged from 32mm to 35mm.

We will review the model.

 

E. Takao/Atago: Source: Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War. Foremost (center) magazine bulkhead should be 89mm at the top and 63mm at the bottom, not a flat 76mm. Top deck was extremely complex in construction, but averaged ~28mm total, certainly less than 41mm in most places. Main deck was not uniform 35mm, but ranged from 32mm to 35mm. I don’t believe the magazine belt armor taper is modelled correctly, but it is hard to tell.

Same as with Des Moines: we don't split magazine armor and decks into segments if there is tapering. Game convention.

 

F. Mogami: Source: Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War. Machinery bulkheads should be 105mm, not 100mm. Foremost magazine bulkhead should taper at its bottom (common problem with many other ships). Rearmost magazine bulkhead should be 95mm, not 100mm. Not sure if the rear portion of the aft magazine is the correct shape—there are very few references to it; it may have resembled that found on Suzuya / Ibuki.

We will review the model.

 

—Things I can’t independently confirm. Take these with caution. A. Shokaku: Armor layout drastically differs from numbers on hand, not sure what the deal is—might be incorrect. Every source I can consult indicates a 46mm machinery belt, not 215mm, with deck thicknesses of 65mm to 132mm (plus 25mm backing), not 127mm to 152mm. Very unclear. Source: Navypedia, Pacific War Online Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

Navypedia is not a reliable source for us. It's not like we always have first-class sources. But according to them, it is heavy armor. So..not confirmed.

 

B. Midway: May be missing 51mm upper belt armor (though this might just be concealed behind the hull plating). Very uncertain. Source: Navypedia. C. Saipan’s armor model appears to be incorrect. It is 152mm belt, 127mm bulkheads, and 65mm deck; it should apparently be 102mm+16mm belt, 102mm bulkheads, and 64mm deck. Source: Navsource and Navypedia. D. Independence: Apparently missing 16mm of belt-backing armor. Incidentally, presence of belt armor indicates this is modeled on one of the last 7 sisters of the class. Source: Navypedia.

Same here.

 

E. Ranger: Very uncertain. May be missing 51mm belt armor over the magazines. Not sure if it is there but concealed, plans are deeply unclear. Source: Pacific War Online Encyclopedia, Wikipedia, Navsource, Navypedia, the original plans: http://maritime.org/doc/plans/cv4.pdf

It is not missing, it is not visible in the viewer. It was indicated upon viewer release in patch notes, that some parts may not be visible (technical reasons, will be improved at some point).

 

F. Aoba: This one’s weird. The forward and aft magazine citadels appear to be missing their 51mm belts. In fact, the belts are present, but are concealed behind a 16mm plate. Need to figure out if penetration of the 16mm plate counts as a citadel penetration (it shouldn’t). Half-sister Furutaka has the correct arrangement. Source: Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War.

We will review the model.

[Takeda92]

An interesting image appeared on the asian (chinese?) server, regarding captain skills..

 

https://sea-group.org/?p=1769&lang=en

 

 

Description of the skills are in the link.

[ilhilh]

Just linking back to the discussion thread:

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/56433-discussion-thread-for-some-interesting-info-from-ru/page__st__1720#topmost

[eliastion]

An interesting image appeared on the asian (chinese?) server, regarding captain skills..

 

https://sea-group.org/?p=1769&lang=en

 

 

Description of the skills are in the link.

 

Whoa, if it's the real stuff then it certainly seems like a big improvement to the current system. 

So that people don't have to go to other sites (the translation is as appeared there): 

 

TIER 1 SKILLS

On the mark
Add a counter to situation awareness showing the # of enemies aiming at you
Enhance situation awareness

 

Preventive maintenance
Reduce the risk of module incapaciation
-30% chance of module incapaciation

 

Expert loader
If your guns are all loaded, switch ammunition is faster
-50% reload time of main batteries

 

Aircraft servicing expertise
Increasing the survivability of carrier-based aircraft, and shorten the servicing time
-10% servicing time of carrier-based aircraft
+5% HP of carrier-based aircraft

 

Fog for the fog god
Increased coverage of the smoke screen
+20% radius of smoke

 

Dogfight
Increase the fighter's loadout, and our fighters perform better when fighting against aircraft of higher tier.
+10% fighter's DPS per tier difference against aircraft of higher tier
+10% fighter's loadout

 

Incoming alert
Incoming alert upon an enemy firing at you from a distance (shells take more than 6 seconds to land)
Incoming alert

 

Evasive maneuver
Increase survivability, concealment, but reduce speed only when carrier-based attack aircraft is returning to the carrier.
-10% to max speed of carrier-based attack aircraft (debuff)
-40% detectability of carrier-based attack aircraft

+15% survivability of carrier-based attack aircraft

TIER 2 SKILLS

Basic survivability
Reduce the time of fire, flooding and module incapacitation
-15% time of fire, flooding and module incapacitation

 

Jack of all trades
Reduce loading time of all consumables
-5% consumables reload time

 

Expert Marksman
Accelerate the rotation speed of ship's main turrets
+2.5 °/sec gun of 139mm (inclusive) and below
+0.7 °/sec gun of 140mm (inclusive) caliber and above

 

Torpedo acceleration
Reduce the torpedo range in exchange for torpedo speed.
+5knots torpedo speed
-20% torpedo range (debuff)

 

Two is better
Send an additional capapult plane upon skill activation, and increase the cruising speed of capapult planes
send two capapult fighters or spotters per consumable
+20% cruising speed

 

Expert rear gunner
Increase the self-defence firepower of carrier-based attack aircraft
+10% self-defense DPS of carrier-based attack aircraft

 

Last chance
Accelerate all weapons' reloading when ship loses HP
-0.1% reloading time of all weapons per 1% HP loss

 

Last stand
The engine and steering rudder function even when they are incapacitated
Allow ship to maneuver when engine or steering gear is incapaciated

 

TIER 3 SKILLS

Firefighters
Reduce the risk of fire
-7% risk of fire

 

High alert
Reduce loading time of damage control party
-10% reload time of damage control party

 

Torpedo experts
accelerate the loading speed of the torpedo tubes and reduce servicing time of carrier-based torpedo planes
-10% torpedo reload time
-20% servicing time of carrier-based torpedo planes

 

Firey takeoff
Aircraft can takeoff and land even when flight deck is on fire
Allow aircraft to takeoff and land when carrier is on fire

 

Basic firing training
Increasing the efficiency of small-caliber gun, all secondary guns and AA guns
-10% reload time of all secondary guns, and main guns of 139mm (inclusive) calibre and below
+20% DPS of AA guns

 

Superintendent
Increase the amount of consumables
+1 charge of all consumables

 

Demolition expertise
Increase the probability of fire
+3% chance of fire for HE shells and bombs

 

Vigilance
Increased capture range of the torpedoes
+25% capture range against torpedoes

 

TIER 4 SKILLS

Manual secondary fire control
Increase the efficiency of the secondary guns, but they only fire at marked target
-15% dispersion of secondary guns on tier 1-6 ships
-60% dispersion of secondary guns on tier 7-10 ships

 

Survival expert
Increasing the ship's HP
+400 HP per ship tier

 

HEAP (High explosive armor piercing)

Reduce the chance of fire in exchange for higher penetration
-6% chance of fire for main and secondary HE (debuff)
+25% penetration for main and secondary HE

 

Air supremacy
Increase the number of aircraft in a squadron
+1 plane in each fighter squadron
+1 plane in each dive bomber squadron

 

Advanced firing training
Increasing the range of small-caliber gun, all secondary guns and AA guns
+20% firing range of all secondary guns, and main guns of 139mm (inclusive) calibre and below
+20% firing range of AA guns

 

Manual AA fire control
Significantly increase the efficiency of large caliber AA guns when firing at marked target
+100% DPS of 86mm (inclusive) AA gun and above

 

Keen intuition
Displays the nearest enemy's direction
Display, only to you, the direction of the nearest enemy (even if they are not spotted)

 

Concealment expert
Reduce the detectability of ship
-16% detectability of aircraft carrier
-14% detectability of battleship
-12% detectability of cruiser
-10% detectability of destroyer

 

[Takeda92]

From Reddit 0.5.15 preview:

 

The captain skill rework isn't planned for patch 0515 or 0516. Missouri will enter production test after 0515

[Takru]

Q&A from the Colonials NA Server: http://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/lifesdeepestquestions/

 

American ships suffer a lot under the current meta. Do you have any plans on giving them buffs to restore playability?"

-JediMaster Draco

	On a wide scale, there are no problems with American ships in the current meta. Sure, there are individual ships that could use buffs, but that issue isn't unique to the US tree. Their destroyers and battleships perform well, while the carriers have problems that stem more from the class than the nation. Our current priority is resolving carrier class issues before moving onto nation-specific carrier issues.  On the other hand, American cruisers do suffer a bit at higher tiers, which is something we're planning on fixing.
"Why do the Arpeggio ships only have torpedo effects and not things like shell tracers, beam AA, klein field impacts, and other cool things from the series?"  -Chobittsu	Implementing Arpeggio content was great for content diversity, but our number one priority was the main game. We had to stick with the most definitive features using the game resources already at our disposal.
"Will we be seeing a French battleship line in 2017?" -Frostss	Nope, but we do have a different battleship line planned for 2017. ;)
"Historically, the best firing position in real naval battles was 'crossing the T;' firing all guns from the broadside while your opponent's bow faced you, stuck with only their forward guns. This is the opposite in World of Warships. Was history wrong?" -kjuice	Real naval warfare was not about having fun. Remember that World of Warships is still a game, and that we have many strange situations you won't see in naval history. Battleships didn't ram each other, destroyers didn't leap from island-to-island for surprise brawling, etc.
"Is there a carrier rework coming?" -GodofThunder2	Yep, in 2017.
"Why can't we have matchups within one tier of each other? Matchups with a two-tier gap seem very, very common."  -TilltRF	With three-tier matches, there is more ship diversity in a match, plus more incentive in being top-tier. We understand it's tough playing a tier V ship against tier VII, but tier VII can have a tough time against tier IX. That's fine. There will always be battles where you'll have a tier advantage, and others with a disadvantage. It's important to adjust your battle strategy accordingly.
"Most important question of all: Pepsi or Coke?" -Lolwutinator	Neither; Kvass. Google it. It delivers!

[Babykim]

 

Q&A from RU dated Friday, 18 November

 

Source: http://worldofwarships.ru/ru/news/common/question_dev_6/

 

Note that some answers provide links to previously given answers. These are omitted here but can be found in previous translations in this thread.

 

Q: The Ocean map has been removed. Only maps with islands remain. I would like more open maps. Many players sit behind islands in smoke. The gameplay is static and resembles that of tank-destroyers in WoT.

A: We have not removed the Ocean. It is still available at tiers IX and X. We balance the maps for all ship classes. There are open maps in game, such as Okinawa and Atlantic. The tank-destroyer analogy is not quite correct.

---

Q: Can we expect spectacular effects of ship detonations, with turrets flying, flash of explosions and columns of smoke?

A: We are already considering this idea. At the moment, we cannot say if and when such effects would be added to the game. We are currently working on a new technology for modeling special effects in the game.

---

Q: Do you plan to unify gold and doubloons? What about silver?

A: The unification of gold is not planned in the near future, but will occur eventually. We definitely do not plan unification of silver.

---

Q: You often refer to history when rationalizing design decisions. Be consistent and give the AA capability to USS Arkansas.

A: Let me say that only few ships at tier 4 have decent AA. The Arkansas has merits that make it different from her analogue the Wyoming. For example, six upgrade slots, which allow her to shoot further and more accurate, and be stealthier. The Arkansas has more secondaries, whereas the Wyoming more AA. So while better secondaries give the format ship an edge in close combat, the AA will not necessarily safe the latter from an air attack. Taking about historical facts, the ship is represented in its 1912 fit that did not carry AA.

---

Q: Do you plan a Japanese battleship of tiers 6-8?

A: We do, but I cannot share any release date. Please follow the official cite.

---

Q: When will you add "I am sorry" to quick commands.

A: We already answered this question (link).

---

Q: When will the game be optimized, bugs and glitches get corrected?

A: With every patch we work on correcting problems, trying to make the game more comfortable, and introducing new features. We did announce that the last patch will be small, and yet even such a small patch has included an important feature - antialiasing. We appreciate your staying with the game, despite not being entirely satisfied with its performance.

---

Q: When is the depot coming, where we can store, sell and buy resources. Why do I need to but your frigging doubloons, when I want to simply use my inventory and my silver? Tell us when the depot is coming? How many times should we ask this question?

A: We already said that we working on depot (link).

---

Q: Why do you keep telling us that depot is not an important feature of the game?

A: The depot is forthcoming, we already told about it (link).

---

Q: Why does the game have an English name, despite there being a close Russian translation available?

A: As is known, the WoW is one of a triad of WG games, which also includes World of Tanks and World of Planes. We cannot change the name of the game without coordinating it with the other two projects. Besides, according to our information, the majority of players would not like to see the game renamed.

---

Q: Will there be a depot with equipment, modules, flags, etc. similar to WoT?

A: We already answered this question (link).

---

Q: Developers tell us a lot about foreign history and great achievements… but this is a Russian server..this is Russia. Did we not have our heroes? Why not remind us about our heroes and battles.. to feel proud about the country, the motherland. Why do you close your eyes on our history?

A: We do not close our eyes, you are wrong. We have many videos in the history corner here (link). More videos material can be found in our gaming rubric "Overkill" and others on the official YouTube channel. Many of these videos are dedicated to the heroic deeds of Russian and Soviet service men.

---

Q: Do you remove popular questions from Q&A that are inconvenient to you?

A: Of course not. We already answered this question before (link).

---

Q: Will there be Kamikazes on Japanese carriers?

A: We do not plan introducing the Kamikazes. This was a desperate measure, taken under extreme conditions, when the technological lag and the lack of resources had a great influence of the outcome of war, and desperate measures were necessary. In our game, the players are initially in a situation of balance, which makes the inclusion of such desperate measures pointless.

---

Q: The title of the game on the Russian server is in English, despite having an exact Russian translation. This question has been posed and deleted several times. We will continue posing this question till we get an answer.

A: We answered this question above.

---

Q: Does the karma have any influence on gameplay (getting into weaker teams, losing more often)? I think this is unfair if karma actually aggrieves a player, them anyone can click down anyone purely out of spite (and undeserved).

A: Karma has no effect on matchmaking. Concerning clicking someone "down", this cannot be relevant to a good player with a good conduct, because compliments will prevail over reports and "down-clicks". Moreover, players with good karma may receive various bonuses for positive karma.

 

...correcting spelling and other small mistakes.

 

[Takru]

[Babykim]

 

This is a forum signature of an alpha tester from a Russian forum.

Several things are of note:

 

USA:

Tier 9 destroyer USS Black

Tier X cruiser USS Worchester and tier X battleship cruiser USS Buffalo

Russia:

Tier 3 premium cruiser Oleg and an undefined tier X ship

Japan:

IJN Tone at tier 7 and S. Dragon and E. Dragon (what are they?) and an undefined tier X ship

Shinonome, Japanese tier 6 premium destroyer.

 

Source: http://forum.worldofwarships.ru/index.php?showtopic=72094

[Egoleter]

NOT. IN. HERE. PEOPLE!

 

In somewhat nicer words...

Please use this thread to discuss the informations provided:

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/56433-discussion-thread-for-some-interesting-info-from-ru/

[GrumpyWorm]

Off topic posts are removed

[ilhilh]

Not from RU, and centred on the NA server so dates may well be different for us, but:

 

If you can't watch then summary is:

 

• Ship never seen before on the server will be in a bundle for Black Friday. EDIT: predictions being Spee or Oleg... or maybe Shinonome 
• No date for IJN Split
• Mighty MO will be in the game in the next couple of weeks with no price specified (Free XP to purchase)
• They balance ships based on stats from all servers, not based on meta from individual regions
• They watch all social media for complaints and review them (Such as the Montana deck armor buff) for legitimacy

[Babykim]

 

This is an update on the top performing ships 0.5.14 by tier compiled by the Russian video blogger z1ooo. The ranking is based on a damage, frags, winrates, etc. applied to a large sample from the RU server.

 

Source:

 

Carriers: In general, Japanese ships carriers perform better than American ships on most tiers. The rankings have changed since the previous evaluation. The Saipan, which was the top carrier at tier 7, now it performs worse than the Hiryu. The Hakuryuu is significantly better than the Midway.

 

Best ships by tier (without carriers):

 

Tier 2: Umikaze

 

Tier 3: Nassau

 

Tier 4: Isokaze, Imperator Nikolai I, Iwaki Alpha, Arkansas Beta

 

Tier 5: Minikaze (and clones), Gremyashchy, König, Texas, Königsberg

worst ships Bogue and Emerald

 

Tier 6: Arizona, Leander, Perth

worst ships Nürnberg, Mutsuki and Ognevoi

 

Tier 7: Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, Fiji, Belfast, Flint, Błyskawica, Leningrad

worst ships York, Pensacola and Hatsuharu

 

Tier 8: Bismark, Amagi, Mikhail Kutuzov, Edinburgh, Atago

worst ships New Orleans, Admiral Hipper, Prinz Eugen, Tashkent

 

Tier 9: Neptune, Friedrich der Große, Fletcher

worst ships Kagero, Baltimore, Ibuki

Tier 10: Carriers, Minataur, Großer Kurfürst

worst ships Shimakaze and Yamato

 

[MrWastee]

not from russia, but interesting enough i guess.

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/67220-15-patch-and-another-ijn-dds-thread/page__pid__1449730#entry1449730

 

tuccy in forum regarding ijn techtree changes:

 

Well, this question seems to pop up a lot and it saddens me to see that people do not recall previous shifts in the tech tree (after all, with this update Kagero will just return to her rightful place on tier VIII, where she was in the beginning... And Fubuki gets to HER rightful place as first "Special Type" destroyer and cause of panic in other navies)...

 

So while the full compensation scheme is generally a nice wall of text, it all boils down to:

• You keep the tier – and get some goodies on top depending on what you already have. 
• If you have a ship that is being moved in your port, you get both the ship in her new tier and her replacement.
• All upgrades, camouflages etc. will be removed for free and put into storage.
• If you have a permanent camouflage on that ship, you will get permanent camouflages both for the ship in her new tier and for her replacement.
• Example: You have Hatsuharu (VII) with permanent camo. After patch, you will have Hatsuharu (VI) and Akatsuki (VII), both with respective permanent camo.

 

 

 

[Babykim]

 

On the fate of ARP ships by developer kindly

 

Source: http://forum.worldofwarships.ru/index.php?/topic/71684-arp-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B1%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D1%83%D1%85%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%8F%D1%82/page__st__60__pid__2899876#entry2899876

 

It will not be possible to obtain the ARP ships after 2016, and the Yokosuka port will not be available in the client. All ships available to the player will remain in port, selectable using a carrousel filter. The filter will function as the Yokosuka port, i.e. selecting would allow the player seeing the ARP camouflage and effects in port as well as in battle, unselecting the filter will hide the ships in port and give them historical appearance in battle.

 

I am sorry if this is well-known (posted on 16.11), but I have missed it.

 

[Takru]

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum%2Eworldofwarships%2Eru%2Findex%2Ephp%3Fshowtopic%3D72707%26view%3Dfindpost%26p%3D2942161

 

This is sub_octavian answering to people on the RU forum who are concerned about the changes to their IJN DDs and how they'd have to respec their captains. Apparently, a few solutions are being discussed within WG, but he doesn't spoil anything.

 

---

 

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fforum%2Eworldofwarships%2Eru%2Findex%2Ephp%3Fshowtopic%3D72707%26view%3Dfindpost%26p%3D2941846

 

Regarding new captain perks, those have been moved to early 2017 as of now.

 

---

 

Don't remember if this has been posted here already, so... kindly from the RU forums informs about a change to ships from supercontainers:

http://forum.worldofwarships.ru/index.php?/topic/71661-контейнеры-с-персональными-предложениями/page__p__2910208

 

(Translation by google translate)

 

And you well.

Already in version 0.5.15, which is now at a general test of the containers will not fall a premium ships that are in your port. Similarly, if the container will ship that you already have, it will be automatically replaced by another random. If your port has a premium all ships, you will be given a bonus in the form of the ship cost in doubloons.

The current system of personalized offers us far enough, but thanks for the offer, discuss with your colleagues.

 

---

 

And for those tinfoil hats out there (you know you love those): Having supercontainers in your inventory does not affect your chance to get more supercontainers.