Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[CaptainThunderWalker]

 

 

 

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.

 

It very likely does. Happened to me this morning (I don't think the 51mm plate was penetrated as well from that angle). The shell hit those wires on the aft sides of the Aoba and then deflected downwards into the torpedo bulge, where it proceeded to cause a bugged impact mark that made no sense whatsoever. Should probably have made a screenshot, but I was too fascinated by the odd lines of the impact mark to notice before I was blown out of the water.

 

Sadly I don't have replays enabled.

[Deamon93]

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!

 

RUBBs coming? Since they confirmed the fact they are working on them.

[Gojuadorai]

 

RUBBs coming? Since they confirmed the fact they are working on them.

 

open secret

[Takru]

RUBBs coming? Since they confirmed the fact they are working on them.

 

 

Dunno when they did confirm that, but I'd expecting them to work on a whole line of star detroyers with a doom star being their top tier before trying to invent RUBBs....

 

(inb4 some WG staff confirms development of WoWs - Star wars / 40k mode)

[Deamon93]

 

Dunno when they did confirm that, but I'd expecting them to work on a whole line of star detroyers with a doom star being their top tier before trying to invent RUBBs....

 

(inb4 some WG staff confirms development of WoWs - Star wars / 40k mode)

Conqueror confirmed tier X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CaptainThunderWalker]

 

RUBBs coming? Since they confirmed the fact they are working on them.

 

Russian BBs are confirmed, so yeah.

 

They are also working on French and Italian lines, but we know no more than that (except that the French are scheduled to appear before the Italians). French BBs would be nice too, but I think we get their DDs first for some reason.

[Deamon93]

 

They also confirmed they are working on Italian ships. Considering no one knows (and cares about) their DDs, outside of Italians themselves maybe, that leaves the Cruiser and BB lines.

So who knows, we may get the Italian BBs instead.

 

Have they? Last time Octavian mentioned them he said Italy will come but haven't said anything about working on them(at least that's what I recall). Regardless I agree that either cruisers or battleships are the better lines, only a handful of DDs have the "must have" factor and their role is already taken by the Russian ones.

[NoirLotus]

Yeah, let's put in game another fantasy RU line while the French BB, with their unique & original gameplay, are delayed for 1 year ...

[CaptainThunderWalker]

 

Have they? Last time Octavian mentioned them he said Italy will come but haven't said anything about working on them(at least that's what I recall). Regardless I agree that either cruisers or battleships are the better lines, only a handful of DDs have the "must have" factor and their role is already taken by the Russian ones.

 

Remembered it wrong. They are working on French ships as they are scheduled before the Italians. Considering they seem fairly certain about that, I'm pretty sure they are working on both but are much further ahead with the Frenchies whereas the Italians are still in the "gathering blueprints" phase or something.

 

Whereas for the Italians, the BBs are the most obvious line with the Cruisers second, for the French the DDs seem to be more obvious, especially with the Russian BBs confirmed. Nobody that isn't French knows about the French Cruisers, the BBs are well known (again) and the DDs have some unique gems like the Fantasque class.

 

And yes, I remembered it was the other way around (so yes, Italians first and then the French), which is why I edited my previous post.

 

Edit:

This however, all leaves another question: I am pretty sure WG intends to introduce a line of Cruisers next year.

 

Russian BBs, French DDs (or BBs)... which cruisers? French? Maybe, but a quick glance upon the Wiki gives only five Cruisers that were actually built (Jean d'Arc, Emíle Bertin, Le Galissonière, De Grasse (which are AA cruisers), and the Colbert (another AA cruiser, later a guided missile cruiser), the latter two being AA cruisers with 5" main armanament which is awkward. This disregards the Protected cruisers and stuff for Tier II and III, though, but it still means this line is going to be awkward or filled with paper ships. If there are enough of them, that is.

Russians, Germans, British, Japanese and American Cruisers already exist and they don't plan on any split branches of them (not even the Americans, the most obvious candidate). That implies another new country - the Italians, or the Dutch?

[Takru]

Russian BBs are confirmed, so yeah.

 

Where exactly? Link please?

 

I remember them talking about RU ships but also saying that if they were to come, they would have to fill huge historical gaps with guesswork / made up stuff. I do not remember WG staff saying that they were actually actively working on RU BB.

[CaptainThunderWalker]

 

Where exactly? Link please?

 

I remember them talking about RU ships but also saying that if they were to come, they would have to fill huge historical gaps with guesswork / made up stuff. I do not remember WG staff saying that they were actually actively working on RU BB.

 

It is an open secret. It should be in the thread this one is linked to.

[Bortasqu]

What? Russians got BB's?

[Gojuadorai]

What? Russians got BB's?

 

*some WW1 era ships

*some war prizes/lended/sold

*and they wanted to build some

 

[Babykim]

They said that they will eventually release French and Italian trees, the French likely sooner than the Italian.

 

They said that they are working on Russian battleships.

[NoirLotus]

 

Whereas for the Italians, the BBs are the most obvious line with the Cruisers second, for the French the DDs seem to be more obvious, especially with the Russian BBs confirmed. Nobody that isn't French knows about the French Cruisers, the BBs are well known (again) and the DDs have some unique gems like the Fantasque class.

 

Problem with French DD is that at this time, RU DD have stolen their niche : big size DD with good guns and very high speed.

 

 

[Spellfire40]

What? Russians got BB's?

Wait till you see their CVs.  their IL 2 shoot down fighters that even try to strafe then.

 

Honestly thogh they should finish the Fantasy stuff asap so the can go to make real ships.

[Babykim]

 

*some WW1 era ships

*some war prizes/lended/sold

*and they wanted to build some

 

 

Its gonna be all paper at higher tiers, so gamewise alright (if not OP at times). In the current meta all is battleship food anyway.

[Takru]

 

It is an open secret. It should be in the thread this one is linked to.

 

Sorry mate, but unless you can come up with a link where they said they would come, and come next, that's just you throwing in a rumor.

[Deamon93]

Q&A from RU dated Friday, 7 Oktober

 

Source: http://worldofwarships.ru/ru/news/common/question_dev_1/

 

---

Q: Will you limit the number of DDs to at least to 3 per side? The new economy rewards aggressive play, which is difficult with so many DDs around.
A: No.
1. Doing this will increase the average waiting time - a serious problem since nobody likes waiting.
2. Even if we assume that most players would wait, the excess destroyers will form a snowball that would lead to battles with incomplete teams, which is also bad.

 

The destroyers are popular, but so are the battleships. To address the issue we plan to make the cruisers more viable. The aggressive gameplay is still possible, just wait for the destroyers to begin skirmishing before attacking with capital ships.

---

Q: Will we able to sell unnecessary modules?
A: Yes, in a similar way you can sell upgrades. The automatic selling was introduced very early in the project, and appealed to the majority of players. But we understand that the player sometimes would want to sell them individually. We are currently working on this, so stay tuned for announcements.

---

Q: Will use change the karma system?
A: The karma system needs an overhaul. We need to review the types of reports and commendations, and to protect against the misuse of reports. We plan to do this in a few versions.

---

Q: The recent patches have been met with criticism by players. Will you take this critique into account?
A: The latest changes have been well-received by many players, but we cannot hope to suit all. Some positive changes can be met with criticism initially. We perfectly understand this. The criticism is important to us for obvious reasons. We want the audience to like the game, and would like to know of the problems. On the other hand, there is a difference between strong negative opinion by a relatively small part of the player base and real issues that diminish the enjoyment of all players. The first type of criticism is food for thought, the second type needs to be addressed immediately.

---

Q: Do you plan to add the ship name to the players nickname in chat.
A: We like this idea and plan something like this in the future. The challenge is how to fit the text in the chat window.

---

Q: When a manually focused plane becomes unspotted, I need to reset the focus, whereas focus on a ship will remain after the target becomes spotted again.
A: This mechanic was introduced very early in the project, but keeping focus sounds reasonable. We will think about the issue.

---

Q: Is it possible to display the wrecks of sunk ships, depending on the depth?
A: Yes, this is possible and would undoubtedly improve the visuals. The problem is that ship wracks as obstacles would increase the server load. Solving this is possible but not a priority in view of more pertinent issues. We are not working on it at the moment.

---

Q: Will the German pocket battleships appear in the game?

A: Possibly. They are not in the game yet because it is difficult to balance them. They were designed for raiding, and have smaller caliber guns than most battleships and rather cruiser-like armor. They will appear when we find their niche in the game.

---

Q: Could we use free XP on captain?
A: We are considering this possibility among other changes to the skill progression. In addition to using free XP, we would like to change a number of skills whose value is dubious, increase the variability of choices, and lift the 18 (for some players 19) point cap. The new design is already finalized and the changes will appear in one of the next versions. Wait for announcements.

---

Q: When will Russian battleships appear in the game?
A: Although we cannot announce a new tree here, we will not deny working on them either. The tree would look quite viable and interesting, provided it includes a high number of unreleased projects. But this is distant future. The RN cruisers and the new IJN destroyers are next.

---

Q: Please tell us about the clans.
A: We welcome the clans, and understand the desire of players to form clans for a shared gaming experience. We plan introducing clans in four stages, the work on the first stage is nearing completion, whereas the other three stages are at various stages of completion. The new content that will be sequentially added at each stages can be described as "basic", "casual", "medium" and "hardcore".

 

Stage 1: The possibility of forming a clan and recognizing clan members in game.
Stage 2: Introducing motivation to enter a clan by adding new game content. This would still appeal to causal gamers, who will find participating attractive but without the level of competition what would require discipline and training.
Stage 3: Introducing "medium" level content will be added, that would require a higher level of clan organization.
Stage 4: Introducing "hardcore" level content that will benefit well-organized and strong clans, similar to the content in WoT.

 

These changes are scheduled for the end of 2016 and the whole of 2017.

---

Q: With each release, the ships become more the same. A kind of undistinguishable grey mass. Will you make ships of different nations sufficiently distinct, perhaps by adding nation-specific consumables? What are you ideas on personalizing ships?
A: We do not share you impression of a "grey mass". For example, the qualities of German battleships make them excellent brawlers. The forthcoming RN cruisers will not be bland either. Many existing ships have distinguishable national traits, and we plan to continue this tradition. Concerning consumables, we want to improve the general variability for all nations rather than giving nation-spefic options, although such options already exist and cannot be completely excluded in the future. The US battleships have a unique upgrade, as do the IJN Iwaki and Yubari. The high tier German battleships have Hydroacoustic Search. The RN cruisers will not have Defensive AA fire.

---

Q: It would be nice to include "I am sorry" as a hot key.
A: Interesting suggestion. In 2017, we plan to rework the quick commands.

---

Q: When will the R-Project begin? (RU related)
A: Let it remain a surprise.

---

Q: Do you plan to change the way AA works? At the moment, the AA of ships in close proximity does no multiply, with little incentives for team play.
A: We do not plan such changes. We are working on other AA-related issues that pertain to low tier games, with many unexperienced players and ships with weak AA. A solution is forthcoming. Overall, we see the AA mechanics as adequate, but cannot exclude changes in the future, including buffing the ships with weak AA.

I highlighted the part in question.

 

Anyway mine was just an assumption based on this particular answer(unless they're working on another BB line as well but there's no evidence on that)

[CaptainThunderWalker]

Same ^^ . It'll be a paper tree which is kinda sad (especially with the Italian, French and Royal Navy BBs still not in the game) but very understandable (a large percentage of their playerbase being Russian, and having relatively easy access to Russian blueprints compared to the others).

[Spellfire40]

It make sense to compleate a Nation.  Mostly paper trees will case some discontent no matter when they are released.

[WestyII]

..., and having relatively easy access to Russian blueprints compared to the others).

 

I still call BS on this, as there are plenty of inaccuracies with the ships armour layouts (Q&A from Reddit) for game play reasons, mistakes etc. And you don't need ships blue prints to create models of the ships, which is the time consuming part.  All of the info is equally available, it is just an excuse that WG like trot out to explain why they are developing the Soviet Navy over others. It bugs me, as it feels like a lie. 

 

The real reason is commercial, in extending the Lifetime of WoWS. By staggering the release of the limited 'big names' (Yamato, Iowa, Bismarck, Belfast, Hood, Richelieu, Roma etc), we get peaks of interest as each ship or tree comes out. Paper ships can fill the void between big name releases, but probably couldn't sustain the game on its own. They also have an advantage of being easy and probably fun to develop, and made up. 

 

This is why it has taken 2.5 years to get the one branch of light cruisers for the Royal Navy, and Graf Spee, etc. 

 

Once they have implemented a ship, you cant re-implement it, so I expect further big names like Hood, to be much much later, so WG can extract money off those of us waiting for her whilst WG tickle interest with paper, or uncommon designs.  

 

TLDR; Whilst I don't like the fact that we are still waiting for many big names, I do understand it, but I am really disillusioned by WG's 'reasons'.

[OldGrandad]

 Q: Do you plan to add the ship name to the players nickname in chat.
A: We like this idea and plan something like this in the future. The challenge is how to fit the text in the chat window.

 

Already a mod, so what challenge is there for the developer? or are our modders more talented?..... 

 

[CaptainThunderWalker]

 

I still call BS on this, as there are plenty of inaccuracies with the ships armour layouts (Q&A from Reddit) for game play reasons, mistakes etc. And you don't need ships blue prints to create models of the ships, which is the time consuming part.  All of the info is equally available, it is just an excuse that WG like trot out to explain why they are developing the Soviet Navy over others. It bugs me, as it feels like a lie. 

 

The real reason is commercial, in extending the Lifetime of WoWS. By staggering the release of the limited 'big names' (Yamato, Iowa, Bismarck, Belfast, Hood, Richelieu, Roma etc), we get peaks of interest as each ship or tree comes out. Paper ships can fill the void between big name releases, but probably couldn't sustain the game on its own. They also have an advantage of being easy and probably fun to develop, and made up. 

 

This is why it has taken 2.5 years to get the one branch of light cruisers for the Royal Navy, and Graf Spee, etc. 

 

Once they have implemented a ship, you cant re-implement it, so I expect further big names like Hood, to be much much later, so WG can extract money off those of us waiting for her whilst WG tickle interest with paper, or uncommon designs.  

 

TLDR; Whilst I don't like the fact that we are still waiting for many big names, I do understand it, but I am really disillusioned by WG's 'reasons'.

 

Oh yes you do. Believe me, trying it to model a ship without somewhat accurate blueprints is a horror. You will get things terribly off, and I can tell you you really don't want to screw up a ship's barbette size or armor layout from experience. Seriously, you don't. And this is a thing already if you want a fantasy ship to look somewhat real already. Let alone when trying to accurately model the actual thing. I know from experience.

 

You are probably right about the Commercial thing, at least partially.  Note that our reasons don't mutually exclude each other - it may very well be we are both right in regards to the introduction of ships. I'm sure some ships are more easier to implement than others. And yeah, I bet they are going to delay the Hood for the reasons you mentioned, but I also think Wargaming struggled a lot more to get the RN blueprints than those for the Americans and the Japanese.

[Loran_Battle]

 

Already a mod, so what challenge is there for the developer? or are our modders more talented?..... 

 

 

Russian Potato screens that run at the absolute minimum resolution probably cannot fit it on their screen... You have to remember that the standard of gaming PCs in Russia (well in a lot of the world to be honest) is easily beaten by my smartphone...

Anyways, point is, there are people out there playing at the lowest resolution (don't even know what that would be... 1024x786 or something?) and WG always caters to those players to the expense of those that have "normal" PCs.