Discussions sur les News

[Komaaz]

"Nous préférons retirer un navire de la vente, plutot que de le nerf, si nous jugeons qu'il est trop puissant, car nous trouvons pas ça juste de nerf un navire, qu'ont a vendus en l'état a un joueur" Bref ils vont pas nerf un navire premium qui coûte 40/60euro et qui a était vendus en masse

 

*Regarde son Sims*

*se roule en boule par terre et commence à pleurer*

 

Merci Surcouf pour le retour sur les Classées !

[Winch76000]

 

Pour rappel, bande de pleureuses, le changement sur le blindage de proue est une EXPÉRIMENTATION. On n'a aucune certitude que cela sera implémenté en live ...

 

J'ai comme une impression de déjà vue....

 

Oh Wait ! Le nerf des long lance n'étaient qu'une expérimentation aussi ... Après on connais tous la suite..

 

Le problème c'est qu'on arrive a la limite du risible en terme de nerf ...

Bientôt on auras  cuirassé avec un blindage en taule ondulé ...Question d'équilibrage qu'ils disent ....

[Sym333]

 

J'aurais une petite question concernant la révision du blindage de proue des cuirassés haut tier. J'ai entendu dire que les BBs des rangs plus bas pouvaient déjà s'infliger entre eux des pénétrations par l'avant (ça sonne bizarre quand même). Est-ce juste? Car si c'est le cas, une touche à la citadelle me semble rester un évènement rare selon mon expérience.

 

Autrement, je me demande si le doublage français est bon. Parce que l'annonceur allemand pour le début de partie semble être shooté aux analgésiques.

 

[ShinGetsu]

J'aurais une petite question concernant la révision du blindage de proue des cuirassés haut tier. J'ai entendu dire que les BBs des rangs plus bas pouvaient déjà s'infliger entre eux des pénétrations par l'avant (ça sonne bizarre quand même). Est-ce juste? Car si c'est le cas, une touche à la citadelle me semble rester un évènement rare selon mon expérience.

 

Autrement, je me demande si le doublage français est bon. Parce que l'annonceur allemand pour le début de partie semble être shooté aux analgésiques.

 

À bas tier il y a pas de gros risque, les calibres étant relativement petits et les canons peu précis, c'est assez rare d'avoir l'opportunité d'overmatch la proue. Le Bayern et le Warspite peuvent sur le Dunkerque par exemple.

[WARning85]

 

À bas tier il y a pas de gros risque, les calibres étant relativement petits et les canons peu précis, c'est assez rare d'avoir l'opportunité d'overmatch la proue. Le Bayern et le Warspite peuvent sur le Dunkerque par exemple.

 

Et pourtant, tu prends un Colorado ou un Nagato et tu tirs sur un Nagato de face... c'est pas si rare que ça! Même l'Amagi de face parfois prend cher, et je le joue pas, je constate juste ce que je lui met.

 

Après plus bas en tier je ne saurait vous dire.

[LastButterfly]

 

Et pourtant, tu prends un Colorado ou un Nagato et tu tirs sur un Nagato de face... c'est pas si rare que ça! Même l'Amagi de face parfois prend cher, et je le joue pas, je constate juste ce que je lui met.

 

Après plus bas en tier je ne saurait vous dire.

 

La dernière fois que j'ai joué Nagato je me rappelle avoir panic-fire bien sur le bow d'un BB bien de face...

Que j'ai citadelle. Sur le coup j'étais là en mode :

 

 

Je savais même pas que c'était possible.

Du coup j'aurais pu le tuer bien plus tôt -.-

 

...Bon après l'action se passait à 1,5km du coup ça doit jouer =3

[ShinGetsu]

 

Et pourtant, tu prends un Colorado ou un Nagato et tu tirs sur un Nagato de face... c'est pas si rare que ça! Même l'Amagi de face parfois prend cher, et je le joue pas, je constate juste ce que je lui met.

 

Après plus bas en tier je ne saurait vous dire.

 

C'est pas de l'overmatch ça. Nagato comme Amagi ont assez de blindage pour éviter l'overmatch... jusqu'à la prochaine mise à jour où là ils vont vraiment prendre des citas de face.

[I_AM_LULU_SNAIL]

 

C'est pas de l'overmatch ça. Nagato comme Amagi ont assez de blindage pour éviter l'overmatch... jusqu'à la prochaine mise à jour où là ils vont vraiment prendre des citas de face.

 

J'ai joué toutes les classées jusqu'au r5 avec le Nagato, je peux te dire que les cita de face j'en ai mangé !! Par Nagatos et Colorados.

[OhMyWaifu]

Bof en Nagato et Amagi j'en prenais déjà des citas de face ça changera pas grand chose 

Meme en Colorado ça m'est déjà arrivé 

[gobolino]

The Armored Patrol a publié un Q/A intéressant notamment sur le modèle de fonctionnement de la DCA

 

 

WoWS Q&A – 20 September 2016

2016-09-21 ~ SEBASTIANUL

Original Source

 

Summarized by godzilla5549

 

Q1

 

Is there an internal focus on making Aircraft Carriers more into a “support” class? I know from previous responses that you (WG St.Petersburg) intend to make the Air Superiority loadouts more popular as a means to “support” or “help” the team and defend from other Aircraft Carrier attacks. My problem with this is that currently Air Superiority carriers do not really do much for the team, and I can easily play a Strike (no fighters) carrier and have much more effect on the battle. An Air Superiority carrier cannot defend from my attacks, and as such, does not really “help” the team at all. I much prefer to be dealing direct damage, as I have a much greater influence on the outcome of a battle and can provide support to the team by taking out high valued targets.

 

I also would like to note that I would take no issue with Air Superiority carriers if fighter combat was changed so that the problem of “fighter locking” was dealt with. Currently, fighter combat is far too simplistic and an Air Superiority carrier does not have to have the same skill level (at least in my own opinion) as a carrier that focuses on striking enemy surface ships. An Air Superiority carrier just has to have his fighters engage your planes by fighter locking and does not really have to do much else.

 

A1.

 

Hi. We are not going to remove damage/strike role, it is more a question of choice and opportunities to play differently and be rewarded for that. Overall, CVs need some re-work not even in terms of balance, but in terms of learning curve, UI and overall handling. We do realize that, but won’t be able to do much in the nearest versions. However, CV gameplay may be improved and diversified in some time.

 

 

Q2.

 

What do you think of the lack of any real defense against CV-sniping for low-level CVs?

 

A2.

 

We believe this to be a problem. We have a possible solution, and it is being approved internally. If everything’s fine, it may be implemented in several versions.

 

Q3.

 

can you go into more detail on how AA works? how often does each “aura” check to shoot down a plane? (once per second at listed DPS values, twice per second at 1/2 listed DPS values, etc?)?

 

how does ship survivability relate to skill ceiling and floor in the balance statistics? I’ve always thought that ships like DD’s will have lower averages because unskilled players will die early in them, and skilled players who know how to use the ships do far better than the averages (even more so than in many other classes), and I’m wondering how true this is.

 

in terms of high tier CV balance, does Essex/Midway actually compete with Taihou/Hakuryu on NA? I’ve seen how they are competitive on RU due to the meta there, but I’m wondering how the stats compare to the self-selected samples of the 3rd party tracking sites, especially with player opinion slanted towards the IJN CV’s.

 

A3.

 

Once per “tick” which is currently around 2 seconds. Uh…let me explain how “ticks” work.

 

We determine current aura efficieny;

We determine average life time of one plane in this aura;

We determine maximum “ticks” which a plane can bear before destruction;

We determinee number of ticks remaining;

We determine current probability of plane destruction.

Current aura effeciency (Et) is Et = Eb x Ek х %

Eb – base aura effeciency

Ek – all aura effeciency modifiers

% – aura effeciency percentage (depends on the remaining number of AA guns or planes, if we’re talking about plane-to-plane combat)

Current average plane lifetime is determined as base average lifetime divided by current aura effeciency.

Maximum ticks is determined with taking into account the destruction time of previous plane by the same aura. This is needed to balance overall squadron destruction time while keeping plane destruction not so strict and unrealistically ordered.

So the first plane in a squadron maximum ticks (Tm1) = average plane lifetime for current aura effeciency. For the next planes this value will be Tm=Tp-Cp+Tm1/2

 

Tp is Tm for previous plane;

Cp is tick number when previous plane was destroyed;

Ticks remaining (T) for a plane is determined as T = Tm – Tp

Plane destruction probability for current tick (V) is V=100/T9100%/current ticks remaining).

So destruction probability for each tick depends on:

 

Quantity of passed ticks – the less ticks remain, the more is probability (but maximum value for it is 90%);

Average plane lifetime

Additionaly, we reduce the number of extremely fast or slow plane destruction cases by using normal distribution when calculating “destruction plan”.

 

Of course the more you live (while playing actively) the more you contribute to the teamplay. It is true. That said, sometimes a glorious sacrifice is needed.

 

They do compete, but the balance is not ideal. The question of “local meta” is very interesting, though. We can’t support 4 different games for NA, EU, RU and ASIA. But we constantly have to consider all peculiarities we have on these servers.

 

Q4.

 

what do you do at WG? Like are you a balance guy, or a camo guy, or a coordinator, or a marketing engineer?

 

A4.

 

Currently I work as game analytics team lead. The job is to evaluate the game (from the perspective of actively playing community), using my own resources, statistics, surveys (together with other analytical teams). To help the developers in decision-making and prioritizing, gathering data and pros/cons for them. However, there’s also reverse direction – communicating with players to explain the game and the changes we make, so I work on forums and help Dasha with her scripts for videos. Previously I was organizing our supertest and at the very beginning I helped with alpha test and worked as community manager.

 

Q5.

 

This has been asked before I know. This specifically relates to high tiers. Many players blame the Eco for the passive gameplay, yet your dev decisions indicate a separate conclusion. Could you inform us of this conclusion and how you got there? And also, some of the more fleshed out ideas you may have to fix it?

 

A5.

 

This issue is being discussed internally now. The economy was designed so it is adequate with premium account on any tier. However, there are some problems, including excessive (in terms of economy) use of advanced consumables and some other factors that make high-tier economy quite hard. And for sure it affects gameplay. There are changes to economy coming in 0.5.12, and there may be more changes later.

 

Q6.

 

Can you tell us if there are any plans for a higher tier IJN premium BB in the future? I love IJN BBs, but with the only premium being in the “slow as mud” tier, I don’t have an IJN premium BB that I enjoy grinding with. T7 or T8 would be ideal.

 

A6.

 

There are certain plans to fill this niche with a solid premium ship, but I can’t tell you any details yet. Sorry.

 

Q7.

 

Hello again,

 

Thanks a lot for the quick answers!! If you don’t mind I have more

 

3 can you explain how the firing range is determined? Looking at some numbers I suspected a factor like 60% something which works for some. On the other hand there is this rumor that the height of the range finder is key? Plus, aren’t the ships twice the size compared to real life? What is the “true” range than and how do you get to it?

 

4 did you ever considered and tested manual secondaries? I know that the current meta is balanced mostly around primary artillery and torpedoes. But what was the reason to dismiss manual control in the first place and balance around that concept?

 

5 the game very WW2 heavy, however modern warship battles started a lot earlier. Considering that the big battleship vs battleship clashes happened actually in the dreadnought era – is there any hope we will see more of this stuff? WG. Dreadnought Battleships, armored cruisers, etc?

 

Thanks again!

 

A7.

 

Hello. Of course I don’t mind.

 

Ship size is determined in “ship meters” and ballistics is determined in “artillery meters” (you see them in combat UI). 1 ship meter = 2 artillery meters, so ships are twice the size relative to in-game ranges. Ballistic trajectories are made very close to historical ones, but they are lowered visually so that the player has more control and understanding when firing.

Ship, torpedo and plane speed values are increased 5,22 times relative to artillery meters. Shell velocities are increased 2,61 times. This scaling is needed for proper gameplay speed and player perception.

 

But let’s get to the point, maximum firing range in game is initially calculated as range where you can reliably see the target (and adjust your aim). Fire-control system position and quality is taken into account. But then balance tweaks may be applied, if needed. Very important thing to understand is that effective ingame range will be shorter than maximum firing range IRL. E.g. Yamato technically has 42 km firing range, but in game it is 26,6 km. Because this is the range we calculate as “confident aquisition and tracking of average target”. This method is both logical and good for gameplay.

 

Yes we did. It is too overwhelming and makes secondaries too vital. We did not like it.

We do like this early period you are talking about, but such ships are difficult to fit in current ship lines and gameplay. So we are not likely to expand main game period.

Q8.

 

The one and only Q: When will CV rework happen?

 

A8.

 

Sorry, I can’t give you any details yet.

 

Q9.

 

You are telling us single-clicking to fire turret-by-turret instead of double-clicking to fire a salvo will not improve “density”. Can we safely infer then the variables, aka “dispersion parameters”, are determined once per complete fire/reload? Or every so many seconds? Or is it at the start of a match?

 

You also told us this:

 

If this is correct, then supposing I have four turrets and fire each one separately, would each turret have it’s own dispersion ellipsis built? Each turret could be firing at slightly different ranges, so that must be correct.

 

If that is correct – each turret fired separately has its own dispersion ellipsis – then firing in this manner (single turret) “should” produce better shot patterns, yes? No? If no, what did I miss here? tia

 

A9.

 

Dispersion area paramaters (horizontal and vertical dispersion) are determined each time you click “FIRE”. They, as I said, depend on firing range.

 

No, turret-by-turret won’t help, because shells hit dispersion area at normal distribution. The quantity of shells and order in which you fire them do not affect this distribution.

 

Q10.

 

Still working merrily away in the Montana armor thread (although there are several other ships mentioned there too, you might want to take a look), and there are a couple of things that have come up.

 

The posts below that are spoilered refer to them — I’ve spoilered them because they’re quite long and I didn’t want to chew up the entire page with quotes. The first one has a planned picture of the armored citadels of the Montana and the other USN fast battleship classes. It seems that the Montana’s citadel should be below the water, not above it (although there’s a whole other debate going on about the merits of high armored freeboards and how these aren’t properly simulated in the game), Were you guys aware of this?

 

The second spoilered thread post has to do with the Montana’s turret face armor. Did you know that the Montana is missing one hundred and fourteen millimeters of armor in that area? Are there any plans to address this?

 

[i have excluded the spoilered posts as they are excesively long. You may view them directly if you want.]

 

A10.

 

Hi. We will look into this post a bit later, and if there’s any action needed, we will take it. Thank you for bringing this!

 

Q11.

 

Firstly, I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome you to World of Warships. I see from you’re profile that you’ve been a valued member since July, 2016. Secondly, warm greetings from the great city of Chicago, home of the cursed Chicago Cubs. My questions are, what are your thoughts regarding pVe, Its current state, and its future direction. Anything you can share would be appreciated. The last time we heard anything was from the marvelous Boyarsky back in January of this year.

 

Thanks

 

A11.

 

Hi. Thank you for your welcome.

 

PvE is being upgraded and developed further. You will probably see first results in one of the following updates. Our opinion that PvE in WoWs has potential hasn’t changed.

 

Q12.

 

How does spotting mechanics works for aircraft? it seems like they can spot and be spotted through islands. Whats the detectability range by sea and air? is the same for all types of aircraft and nations?

 

A12.

 

Hi. Aircraft spotting ignores terrain (but not smoke screen). So yes, they can spot and be spotted through islands. Detectability range is the same for all aircraft. I am not ready to disclose it now.

 

Q13.

 

I just want to know, how will the changes to high tier BB bow armor positively effect the game? From what i see, it’s just going to make people even more reluctant to push.

Is there any plan to stop radar from going through solid land masses like it currently does?

A13.

 

Our intent is to let BBs damage each other faster, and make this easier against camping targets. We hope that it will bring more brutality, more maneuver to the game. This is a short explanation, but I’ve been elaborating on this topic for a week, so, you can find more argument if you wish. However, this is an experimental change; we’ll see how it goes on public test.

No.

Q14.

 

Thanks for doing this Sub

 

Any plans to change the invisible firing spam (found in competitive play a lot) where whole teams simply sit in smoke and spam HE at each other, very little moment is involved. (I think DDs are fine) but are there plans to only allow DDs to do this and not CAs or BBs?

Are you guys currently happy with the German tier 10 BB performance or is there not enough data yet?

If i understand correctly the new IJN DD line stops at tier 8 and doesn’t lead back into the main line, does this mean we could see more lines in the future without tier 10s? Or partial lines in general?

German CVs are they a feasible line?

A14.

 

Yes.

Not enough data to be absolutely precise, but we can say for sure that main features of this line are working, and the line is quite successful.

Еventually, T9 and T10 will come for this alternative branch

Everything is a feasible line, if you have enough motivation. But we would like to focus on other, less “paper” lines for now.

 

 

[BobKane]

Sur le serveur test, dans le carrousel on peut voir la nation commonwealth .

 

Public Test 0.5.12.0 sorter, Commonwealth

2016-09-21 ~ SHIPMASTERCROOK

As you can see here, in the current test server, the sorter lists “Commonwealth” as a nation, thus, highly suggesting that commonwealth premiums will be allocated into a single tech tree.

No news on whether the Blyskawica will be relocated tech-tree-wise in the future to this commonwealth tree.

You can ignore my custom made skin for now.

 

 

https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/09/21/public-test-0-5-12-0-sorter-commonwealth/

[Youti_God_of_Pantsu]

Moi je le vois toujours le drapeau de la Pologne (juste en dessous le drapeau british).

[BobKane]

Moi je le vois toujours le drapeau de la Pologne (juste en dessous le drapeau british).

 

J'ai édit; j'ai mal lu du coup la traduction était faussé et mal vu aussi 

[Youti_God_of_Pantsu]

En plus je l'avais déjà signalé qu'il y aurai une nation commonwealth http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/61184-tier-vi-premium-australian-cruiser-%e2%80%93-hmas-perth/

 

[Mamie_traillette]

Bof cela reste l'empire Britanique non ?

[BobKane]

En plus je l'avais déjà signalé qu'il y aurai une nation commonwealth http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/61184-tier-vi-premium-australian-cruiser-%e2%80%93-hmas-perth/

 

Peut être signalé mais pas implémenté officiellement, le premium pourrait très bien arrivé dans six mois sans qu'ils mettent l'icone dans le carrousel, la au moins c'est officiel.

[gobolino]

 

Q13.

 

I just want to know, how will the changes to high tier BB bow armor positively effect the game? From what i see, it’s just going to make people even more reluctant to push.

Is there any plan to stop radar from going through solid land masses like it currently does?

A13.

 

Our intent is to let BBs damage each other faster, and make this easier against camping targets. We hope that it will bring more brutality, more maneuver to the game. This is a short explanation, but I’ve been elaborating on this topic for a week, so, you can find more argument if you wish. However, this is an experimental change; we’ll see how it goes on public test.

No.

 

Traduction simplifié :

Q : J'aurais voulu savoir en quoi les modifications du blindage de proue des BB de haut rang aurait un effet positif sur le jeu ? De mon point de vue cela va renforcer la prudence des joueurs.

 

R :  Notre intension est est de permettre aux BB de faire des dégâts plus rapidement et plus facilement aux autres BB entrain de camper. Nous espérons que cela va donner un jeu plus brutal, avec plus de manœuvres.. C'est un modif expérimental et on va voir ce que cela donne sur le serveur test..

 

[Ethors]

 

Traduction simplifié :

Q : J'aurais voulu savoir en quoi les modifications du blindage de proue des BB de haut rang aurait un effet positif sur le jeu ? De mon point de vue cela va renforcer la prudence des joueurs.

 

R :  Notre intension est est de permettre aux BB de faire des dégâts plus rapidement et plus facilement aux autres BB entrain de camper. Nous espérons que cela va donner un jeu plus brutal, avec plus de manœuvres.. C'est un modif expérimental et on va voir ce que cela donne sur le serveur test..

 

 

Ils vont juste encourager a mort le camping, ou en tout cas les combats longue distance 

Bien essayé quand même 

 

Je comprend l'idée, il veulent détruire le "Je me met de face, puis marche arrière, comme ça je suis invincible a tout les AP des 4 cuirassé en face"

Mais sérieusement, vous croyez que vraiment les gens vont présenté l'avant de leur navire (Anglé a 40/60 degres, hein malimoo) et avancer tout en sachant qu'ils peuvent se faire citadelle en proue ? =o

 

Du coup sans parler du Yamato  qui est surement le BB qui mange le plus pour cette maj

[Mamie_traillette]

World of Warships - 1:42 Scale: Ajax

[gobolino]

 

Ils vont juste encourager a mort le camping, ou en tout cas les combats longue distance 

Bien essayé quand même 

 

Je comprend l'idée, il veulent détruire le "Je me met de face, puis marche arrière, comme ça je suis invincible a tout les AP des 4 cuirassé en face"

Mais sérieusement, vous croyez que vraiment les gens vont présenté l'avant de leur navire (Anglé a 40/60 degres, hein malimoo) et avancer tout en sachant qu'ils peuvent se faire citadelle en proue ? =o

 

Du coup sans parler du Yamato  qui est surement le BB qui mange le plus pour cette maj

 

Ils misent sur le fait que certains joueurs vont se dire "comme ces gros BB ne sont plus invincibles de face je peux aller me castagner avec" ... ce qui pas vraiment dans l'esprit des joueurs de BB sur le serveur EU. Peut être que cela peut marcher sur le serveur Ru/NA ?

 

En tout cas c'est en test sur le serveur, ils feront leurs analyses et le mettront en place... ou pas. Ce ne serait pas la premières modification qui passerait à la trappe suite à sa mise en place sur le serveur test. 

[Mamie_traillette]

 

Ils misent sur le fait que certains joueurs vont se dire "comme ces gros BB ne sont plus invincibles de face je peux aller me castagner avec" ... ce qui pas vraiment dans l'esprit des joueurs de BB sur le serveur EU. Peut être que cela peut marcher sur le serveur Ru/NA ?

 

En tout cas c'est en test sur le serveur, ils feront leurs analyses et le mettront en place... ou pas. Ce ne serait pas la premières modification qui passerait à la trappe suite à sa mise en place sur le serveur test. 

 

J'aimerais bien moi qu'un se dise "ho il a moins de blindage je vais aller le titiller" .

Je peux t'assurer qu'avec + ou - de blindage le premier qui me prend pour un dindon le jour de noel se prendra un beau packet de citadelle

 

[Yamete_Oniichan]

Y a une différence entre ce prendre une cita de face, dans le blindage frontal, et une part le pont hein

[Ethors]

En gros maintenant de face, t'as intérêt a plus viser la ceinture que la super structure non ?

avant c'était assez casse gueule de viser la ceinture du navire au corps a corps, mise a part avec le Yamato 

[WARning85]

 

Ils vont juste encourager a mort le camping, ou en tout cas les combats longue distance 

Bien essayé quand même 

 

Je comprend l'idée, il veulent détruire le "Je me met de face, puis marche arrière, comme ça je suis invincible a tout les AP des 4 cuirassé en face"

Mais sérieusement, vous croyez que vraiment les gens vont présenté l'avant de leur navire (Anglé a 40/60 degres, hein malimoo) et avancer tout en sachant qu'ils peuvent se faire citadelle en proue ? =o

 

Du coup sans parler du Yamato  qui est surement le BB qui mange le plus pour cette maj

 

De toute façon c'est sur que ça va encore en refroidir plus d'un!

Maintenant ça ne changera pas la façon d'attaquer, puisque en avant anglé c'est quand même comme ça que tu présentes le moins de surface à l'ennemi et que tu encaisses le plus de coup, c'est juste que t'en encaissera moins!      Reste à voir à quel degré/fréquence!

[Webley_Mark]

Bof cela reste l'empire Britanique non ?

 

T'as tout compris à la vie.