EnglishFrenchGermanItalianPortugueseRussianSpanish

May 16, 2019

Sub_Octavian Q&A (May 2019) World of Warships

SUB_OCTAVIAN Q&A 15/MAY/2019


Question 1: Could we get a % damage dealt stat in the post battle screen? Or maybe in-match as well? And the API as well of course ;)

Sub_Octavian's answer: This item is currently in the backlog and thanks for the reminder. I will refresh this discussion within the team.


Question 2: Given the feedback from the testing, what is your opinion of the concept of the Pobeda/Slava? A lot of people don't seem to like a ship that promotes a very passive, sniping play style.

Sub_Octavian's answer: The ship is still a work in progress ship (WIP). The initial testing period is coming to a close and then data will be collected on the Pobeda/Slava. This data will then be analyzed by GD and they will decide on what changes will be made for the next testing phase. The most obvious option will be: Same concept overall but make it better/more balanced, but if that fails might try a new concept.
Sub's personal opinion: He hasn't spent enough time play testing the Slava but he does have some thoughts on the "passive play" topic.
Campers are going to continue to camp and pushers will push.
100% agrees with the evaluation of players this time and feels the Slava is a glass cannon sniper.
Yamato and Montana can be accurate at long range but are also effective with a push, while the Slava is less able to do this.
Good concept, but maybe needs more distinct weaknesses.


Question 3: What is the status on the gun fire bloom change?

Sub_Octavian's answer: We apologize but this is still in the developer's queue. This is in the same queue as priority sector rework and the new CV autopilot improvements. We have not forgotten about this and we apologize for taking so long. This will be done as promised.


Question 4: Are there any plans to adjust German battleships? They are fun ships but do not work in the current meta.

Sub Octavian's answer: Looking at the stats, the German battleships are in the middle of the pack in each tier for winrate. From the data we can see that their damage might be just average but they are contributing to the team's overall success enough. The popularity of German BBs is also very high. There are a couple of additional factors to keep in mind: Meta changes will have an impact on how certain ships feel and their playing experience. There are also strong choices of premium/coal/free XP BB at almost every tier with skilled players. These ships can sometimes make other ships feel weaker.
We are not opposed to improving the German BB experience but with the Soviet BBs being introduced, let us first see how they perform in the meta. The Soviet BBs occupy the same slot in the CQC BB slot so let us see how that plays out first. After the dust settles we can address this question one more time. I personally am a fan of secondary builds so I will vouch for that!


Questions 5: German BBs are good supporting and tanking BB but that does not generate many credits or free xp. Why is the reward (free xp/credits) for tanking so low?

Sub_Octavian's answer: It is comparable enough to other support activities and damage/capping will always be the main source. This question is a good question and I will ask the economy team to check KMS BB recent stats. Maybe there is room for tweaks and thanks you!


Question 6: Will WoWs ever get the same treatment WoT did in regards to graphics, performance, and optimization?

Sub_Octavian's answer: I believe I have commented on this topic a few times. We do not plan to make any big changes or total tech overhauls at one time. We like to do these changes in increments. There is currently no plan to change this approach. We will update visual, tech and under the hood parts from time to time. I want to clarify that WoWs and WoT are different teams, the engine is very different. There is almost nothing connecting the games from this point of view.


Question 7: Is WG happy with the effect that CVs have on tier VIII MM?

Sub_Octavian's answer: Tier VIII vs Tier X experience is roughly the same regardless of class. Some globacl MM improvements are being worked on but no CV specific changes are currently planned. We want to improve the experience for Tier VIII in general for all classes!


Question 8: What happened to Viribus Unitis, Yahagi and Leone?

Sub_Octavian's answer: Some ships are set aside until there is a good moment to release them. It is fine because not all WIP content is scheduled to be released immediately after testing. We have not forgot about these ships.


Question 9: When can we expect more details about the alleged IFHE/HE and cruiser plating re-balance, can you share any details now?

Sub_Octavian's answer: No ETA and no details to share as of right now.


Question 10: Could we ever get a soft-cap for only 1 CV per team like tier X at other tiers?

Sub_Octavian's answer: We are not against a soft cap for 1 tier VIII CV just like the tier X cap. The current tier VIII population is very high right now. We update the data and when it becomes viable we will strongly consider doing this cap. Right now it is not going to work.


Question 11: Are there any plans to update the Gearing model?

Sub_Octavian's answer: We will update older models from time to time just like the recent Yamato update.


Question 12: Do you think the AP bomb mechanic in general needs to be changed and explained better as well?

Sub_Octavian's answer: We are quite happy with how AP bombs work, they have a good skill to reward ratio. We are concerned about the AP alpha strike potential of some CVs while the general playerbase progresses in terms of skill. The base concept works well but there might be minor tweaks in the future.


Question 13: Any plans to add a German coal or steel ship to the armory in the future?

Sub_Octavian's answer: There are always plans to add ships of all nations and all tiers to the game for all currencies. We do not make such announcements in Q&As. There are some cool German ships planned for the future but that is true for other nations as well.


Question 14: Is WG happy with the amount of spotting and the reduced value of concealment in the game?

Sub_Octavian's answer:
CV related part: Not entirely.
With the planned changes in 0.8.4. of the squadron speed will influence spotting. We made these changes so they will target spotting and DPM equally.
This is a new meta and there is more spotting overall. We do not consider this a bad thing.
We will continue to work on this mechanic with further tweaks and not a rework of the mechanic. Options like "CV spots for itself" and "CV spotting delay like radar" are not options at the moment. We will only consider if we exhaust all other options first.
Overall Spotting: Not entirely.
With everything combined we are concerned about spotting in the game. We are fine with the meta changing but we would like to keep the change subtle when possible.
We are currently concentrated on the CV part and obviously the CV rework has had a big effect.
When we are fully happy with it, we will look at everything else.


Question 15: 20 second clip of Atlanta with DFAA vs tier 6 torpedo bombers. Would future planned changes to AA change this interaction in a meaningful way?

Sub_Octavian's answer: We are currently happy with the state of the Atlanta. If you are looking at average plane kills of non-CVs the Atlanta is only surpassed by the Minotaur, Worcester and couple of USN BBs. We are not entirely happy with the CV-AA interaction globally. We want the combination of AA ship/build + skillful use of priority sector usage to have a greater impact on a ship's AA defense. We are currently working on this right now!


Question 16: Any plans for further AA/CV balance that you can share at the moment?

Sub_Octavian's answer: Everything that we can share at the moment is on the Developer's Blog.


Question 17: Any plans on completely re-balancing the Graf Zeppelin, now that its biggest weapon (speed) has been nerfed 40 knots?

Sub_Octavian's answer: No, the speed boost is being changed globally. This is not a GZ nerf but a global mechanic change that is affecting all CVs in the game. In the meantime, GZ retains her individual quality - high speed, with DB and TB planes having 181kt of base speed while other CV at this tier have it in 130ish range. What's more, her DB are being buffed. Better accuracy, more comfortable attack and, what's IMO even more important, higher bomb speed and penetration. The numbers do not seem huge, but in game it can be a difference between penetrating or not penetrating armor deck, especially against higher tier ships. And we all know that citadel hit is very desirable when you use AP bombs. If GZ will be weak after the changes for some reason, she will be improved in some other way - that's a standard workflow. It is not a specific nerf, and will not be considered a specific nerf, because we are changing boost mechanic globally. GZ has "The Engine Cooling consumable lasts twice as long (10 seconds) and has an additional charge" in Prem shop description, and that remains absolutely true. Boost mechanic and Engine Cooling consumable are different things. If, for some reason, GZ will fall behind the group despite of quite strong (in our prediction) buff, she will be additionally buffed later.


Question 18: Are there any plans on making secondaries more viable as a build?

Sub_Octavian's answer: Yes. But it is not simple. I doubt we will make significant changes with current settings, and new secondary mechanics obviously will be a long term project, given other things being worked on. I can say this: we want to do something cool with secondaries, but there is no final decision what and when yet. At the moment we do not treat " secondaries being a fun alternative for just a couple of ship lines " an emergency. It is an area of the game we will eventually revisit, along with many others.


Question 19: Any chance for a setting to disable the in-game chat (apart from system messages like consumable use and the wheel messages)?

Sub_Octavian's answer: It's being discussed right now actually, as there are quite a few requests to do it from the players. We will let you know when the decision is made, of course.


Question 20: Is WG happy with the current efficiency of the Catapult Fighter consumable?

Sub_Octavian's answer: Yes, we're happy with the efficiency of this consumable. It does what it was meant to - inflicts losses on enemy squadron or, in some cases, creates area denial. It's more efficient when launched with good timing, it's less efficient when launched late. It's more efficient if CV plays aggressively, it's less efficient if CV plays carefully. TBH, we're fine with its state right now, and our nearest efforts to improve AA protection will be targeted at priority sector mechanic, not at fighters.


Question 21: Is there a possibility of another captain skill rework?

Sub_Octavian's answer: Some updates are more than possible in foreseeable future. Complete rework - highly unlikely this year or even beyond.


Question 22: Are there any plans to introduce a game mode without carriers anytime soon?

Sub_Octavian's answer: No. Certain events can be no "CV" or no "BB" and no "Whatever class" because it is an event.


Question 23: When will the Midway and Hakuryu get their Legendary Module back?
Sub_Octavian's answer: I'm not 100% sure they will, actually. Because in our plans, we want to readdress the Legendary Mod thing overall. Maybe there will be some other system instead. Or maybe there will be changes. There is no exact decision right now; it may turn out that these mods will appear in some time as a part of current system, or they may be replaced (for all ships) with something completely new. Or these systems will co-exist. Sorry, in all fairness, we don't know ourselves right now :-).


Question 24: In about another 6-8 months, when it is finally admitted that the CV rework has failed, how will WG attempt to repair the damage done?

Sub_Octavian's answer:
While "never say never" is true (looks at Halloween subs), we don't have any indication that CV rework is a failure. It has some issues, part of which are still to be resolved, it has some negative constructive feedback, and, sorry to say that, I mean no disrespect, it also has some echo-chamber hatred sentiment, which is not really constructive, too.
As you can guess, no developer is interested in making the game worse, less popular, less enjoyable, etc. WoWS is the result for our effort, it's main career project for most of us, and it's huge part of our lives. From all main audience metrics, overall results of CV rework are good. From balance metrics, CV rework is good. Some players being unhappy or salty is of course NOT good, but:
We're addressing the players concerns, and working on feedback points.
We had the gut to rework the class from scratch, and none of us had pink dreams that CV rework would suit absolutely everyone.


Question 25: Your statistics should also show you that DD play has dropped quite substantially?

Sub_Octavian's answer:
It shows that a lot of DD players started playing CV, because it's a very dynamic gameplay, though :-)
Fun is extremely important and not to be ignored of course (we play to have fun in the first place), but considering rework a failure because some players say it's not fun is a mistake, too. "It's not fun" is a valid feedback, and, if supplied with additional information, can be an action point.
"CV rework is a failure" is simply untrue statement, because, despite of some negative feedback, we see the big picture, in which audience metrics and activity overall is really good, and the class balance got better, too.
"CV rework is less fun for me" and "CV rework is not a failure for the game globally" can co-exist and do not cancel each other.
DD play undoubtedly got harder. Still, DD popularity is on acceptable level, DD performance is on acceptable level, DD battle influence is still high. And DD traditionally is a hard class to play.
Meta changes. We had torpedo soup dominance a couple of years ago, we had BB dominance and cruiser extinction approx. a year ago - in big scale, class popularity and meta shifts and changes. And you know what? It's because the game is alive and kicking, and we work and will keep working on it. And I am absolutely sure there will be no moment when 100,00% of the playerbase will be 100,00% happy. As well as there will be no big change that will be liked by everyone.
I will always accept constructive feedback, but I cannot argue with "it's a failure" statement. If we evaluate something as a general success with some room for improvements, and someone thinks it is fundamentally a failure, well, it means that we cannot satisfy this person with our work, unfortunately.
With all due respect.

Source: devtracker