Sub_Octavian Reddit Q&A

Seems like Sub_Octavian, whom we’ve recently seen posting a lot on the NA forums, has now gone all the way to Reddit to spread information and apparently learn more about the community and stuff. An interesting goal; we’ll see where it goes. Over on the EU forums, Takeda92 has listed the most stand-out ones, and I’ve included my own additions from the original Q&A. Enjoy!

Q; Might not be within your ability to answer but misght as well ask.

Any plans to reduce the amount of BBs in game and improve CA/CL to make them more desirable?

A: We would like to make cruisers more popular. This is why they get rudder mod.3 in 0.5.12. Other tweaks will be introduced later.

In our concept of ideal class distribution, BBs should have 25-30% of popularity. It works more or less, but on some realms/tiers they exceeded this limit.

We don’t want global nerfs and will try to avoid them at all costs – this is why we cancelled bow plating reduction. But some smaller, more precise actions will be taken.

Q: Are you accounting with that 25-30% popularity with:

  1. CV limit, so there is more room for other ships.
  2. Outside of the game popularity of battleships, which are just much more popular than other classes, which can easily be confirmed by reading forum speculation threads – most of the discussion is about battleships there.

A: Yes and yes. The 2nd one is especially difficult – battleships are epic and attract many players, but in-game they must be balanced with other classes.

Q: I think the question that’s bugging most of us is what the hell is going on with the British Cruisers.

A: The initial concept implied too much “HE-smoke-spam-click-click” meta gameplay, which we really don’t want to support more. We want each line to offer some unique experience rather than being clone of previous lines.

We are testing a new concept, the 2-nd edition didn’t show good results on production test, then we improved it and will tests 3-rd edition. For now, it seems to be much closer to what we want. I am not sure the line will be ready by 0.5.13, though. We’ll see.

Q: Quite a few players feel that T5 and T6 are being handicapped since they currently see +2/-1. Is there any potential insight you could provide? Are those tiers likely to see +2/-2 ever again?

A: We do realize that after matchmaker tuning T3-4 and T7-8 got more fun and T5-6 got more difficult to play. It was preidctable, and this was our conscious decision. We’re conducting a dedicated research on that to see what action is needed (if any) to soften the effect.

Personal remark: one guy from my team has started a new account, so we play on low-mid tiers weekly to help him with advancing. I have to say, T5-6 are still fun (IMO).

Q: In the CV command interface, you seem to select your ship (no.1 squadron) each time you issue a lot of commands to your planes in a short timeframe. This can be very troublesome, not only because you might lose vital time in commanding your planes, but also because it might put your ship in danger, without you realizing it.

This feature is very rage inducing. Are there any plans to change how this works?

A: There are plans to re-work the whole CV UI, as it actually causes more problems then just someone pushing the wrong button. CV UI is very complex, it does not contribute to learning curve in positive way. We want to change that. However, for the next upcoming updates all major plans are complete, so I can’t tell you when and how exactly this will happen..yet.

Q:  It seems like Commonwealth and British ships will be separated (Perth, etc.). What was the reasoning behind this? It seems to somewhat clash with historical reality of WW2.

  1. Will we ever be able to dismiss ARP commanders (and/or recruit new ones)? They often were obtained multiple times while ships were not (I have 3 Hiei), meaning they are currently stuck in reserve for many people, taking up a slot.
  2. Any chance of ARP ships to be able to benefit from camo bonuses?
  3. With the upcoming Haifuri collaboration, will we still toggle anime content by using the Yokosuka port, or will it be done differently (i.e. in the menus?)

A: But there are too many ships in both “factions” that might be introduced to the game. They won’t fit into one screen:D

  1. Uh, I think your best shot might be support ticket – maybe they will help you and remove unwanted commanders.
  2. Small chance (or not in the nearest future) – we are thinking about special camos for these ships, but, for example, hight tier permanent camo are more important (and more demanded).
  3. Don’t know about this event, but I’m pretty sure all “stylized” content should be toggled, and it’s logical to toggle anime with one port.

Q: Do you plan to revisit the New Orleans T8 Cruiser armor model before Ranked Season 5 and restore it to its historical setup as pointed out in this thread by /u/drowned_man?

A: Part of it is planned to be fixed, and the rest will be checked ASAP. I guess the whole bunch of fixes is coming. However, it won’t go to 0.5.12 – only to 0.5.13 (hopefully not 0.5.14).

UPDATE: fix planned for 0.5.13.

Q: Knowing you can’t do specifics and it’s not your department…

Anything ‘coming soon’ for co-op? I do notice you guys are constantly tweaking the AI nearly every major patch (it’s not documented but the behavior differences are noticeable over time).

A: Yep, at least one experimental thing is likely to pop up soon. Then…we will see. I can safely say this: we have a separate dev group that works primarily on PvE evolution concept. So we do want to improve PvE.

Q: Compring Mogami and Myoko, the number 5 turret on Mogami doesn’t turn all the way to broadside on Mogami, while it does on Myoko (and on Atago and Ibuki as well). This means that Mogami has to show more broadside to fire her number 5 turret. I’ll post screenshots below. Is this intended or a bug? Are the turret angles changed for balance reasons (eg: nerfed for overperforming ships) or devs always try for the optimal angles for all ships?

Also, the same question for Tenryu’s number 2 gun. Compared to the other 3 guns, it can only turn slightly more than 180 degress.

A: Sooo..checked both cases with devs. You are right. This will be fixed in 0.5.13, thank you so much for yor help.

Turret angles are normally NOT used as up/nerf method, they are more about comfort and historical accuracy.

Q: Here are few:

  • Training Room – why is this not a fully implemented game feature? Currently, everyone needs to install a mod to unlock the training room
  • Chat in port – chat history will seem to just “magically” disappear – yet this is not an issue in WoT. Why are there still problems with the chat history?
  • Is there an estimated timeline for Team Battles?
  • Will there be something similar to the WoT Strongholds implemented in Warships?
  • When will the Wargaming Clans be updated to include Warships (currently has WoT and Warplanes…)
  • And finally, we have a unified account only in regards to premium time. Why has Warships back-tracked on a previous promise to unify gold/doubloons across platforms?

A: Training room will be implemented later in production quality. Chat – it is automatically cleared sometimes, triggered by inactivity or conversely, by messages limit. Team battles – not yet. Strongholds – let’s say, managing something in port is being designed as a concept. Clans – no comment yet. Unified currency – not possible now due to several implementing reasons, but will hopefully be worked out in future

Q: Given how you guys at WG have all of the data to look at when balancing, what stats do you tend to consider the most? Is it win-rate? Average Damage? Another category?

Often we as the players just pull up the stats on, but that is neither the complete picture nor tell us what stats you consider when balancing.

A: There are tons of data to consider. Win rate and avg. damage are important, but there also so-called “hand dependance” – the comparison between ship effeciency and player effeciency, and other particular values like lifetime, range, done/received damage structure, and so on.

And all of that cannot be used without exploring the ships ourselves and/or with help of ST and community feedbacks to get the impressions, the feeling of the ship.

There are some ships that are fine but are not comfortable for most players and vice versa. So “human factor” is always taken into account to some extent.


  1. Are there ideas about restricting a maximum number of DD and BB for each side? There is already a system in place preventing to have more than 2 CV on each side. For example not having more than 3-4 DD and 4 BB in one match on each side? Too often I see 5 DD and 5 BB on each side, making Cruisers and CV rare and the gameplay results in sniping campfests.
  2. Is Wargaming happy with the manual abilities of CV? Right now I am more or less forced to manually drop my torps in the face of enemy ships, making it either impossible to dodge them or letting me miss entirely because I dropped to close or at wrong angles.
  3. Do you guys think Air-Air battles need to be improved (too much rng and US fighters are vastly superior to IJN fighters?)

A: CV are too unique. Doing this limitations for other classes is not desirable and will surely mess up matchmaking.

  1. We are not quite happy with CV state and UI. Will work on it.
  2. We think this class will eventually be re-worked in general, as I said a few times even in this thread.

Q:  Previously you have given some answers about what Krupp value is, it’s something about the “hardness” of the shell. For AP shells it is self explanatory: harder shells penetrate better. But what is the function for HE shells as they explode on contact?

Japanese HE shells have better Krupp in general than other nations and they seem to do more relative damage along with better module damage. While Yorck HE has the extremely low value of 1 for example.

A: Krupp value for HE shells is a redundant parameter. It is not used in game.

Q: What is aircraft’s speed boost after dropping? And fire chance for each type of aerial bombs?

  1. How many more premium ships can we expect to get from now till the end of the year (except Leningrad, Belfast and Perth)? I guess it is not possible to disclose the name, but how about the nation or class?


  1. That should be 25% boost. I will check it, just in case. Fire is HUGE. Just..HUGE. Depends on bomb specs. This information is not in Port UI because it doesn’t matter when this chance is so high.
  2. Uh-oh. Nope. They’re watching me!

Q: Are we ever going to get a Detonation animation that actually makes everyone on the map go ‘Wow!’ and gives the mechanic at least some visual value – rather than a little bang and a footnote in the chat whilst someone rages behind a keyboard somewhere?

Or is it too taxing graphically for most users?

A: It is too “taxing graphically”, but we’re thinking about it.

Q: Thank you very much! Here’s my question: What is the situation with the Italian ships? Can we hope in at least a premium ship soon?
A: There will be SOME Italian ships – this is logical and expected. But…no leaks on that from me. Sorry.

Q1: When can we expect clans/clan wars? What format will CW be? 7v7, 9v9 or 12v12? Which tier?

Q2: Do you have any links to streams/vids/replays of competitive matches from the Russian community? I haven’t been able to dust anything up and I am interested in how their meta is.

Q3: Are you going to overhaul the CV interface? (So it get’s more responsive) if yes, when can we expect this change to hit?


  1. First implementation of clans is likely to be basic “social” part. It is in developement, and I hope you will see it in the nearest future. Then, “competitive” part is in design/developement, too. I won’t be able to provide you whith details, as it will be direct leak – these thing are not even on Supertest yet. But they will come to the game.
  2. Let me google that for you:
  3. Yes, but no details. Commented on this question before.

Q: Thank you very much. Looking forward to the new looks of my ships.

My apologies for asking a few more questions though:

  • Are you happy/satisfied with the current fire chance and HE DMG setup? Any plans on reworking this?
  • Is the captainsskill “Fire prevention” included in the mentioned captainskill rework?

A: No apologies needed.


I hope so, I insist on that when talking with colleagues. I may even blackmail some of them for that, huh!

Q: Do you believe the Khabarovsk’s reduction in range was too much?

I play this ship and I completely understand that it needed to be nerfed. But I feel like reducing it’s range by as much as you have will significantly affect its survival as it is such a big ship. Which at it’s new maximum range (even with AFT) can be quite consistently hit by other ships.

A: We currently believe the changes are adequate. If we believed them to be “too much”, we would soften them.

Q: Thanks for taking the time (your own time, no less) to do this. I hope it works out.

I have a question regarding game-play.

Everyone knows it’s a great feeling when you are in a battleship and instantly delete an opposing cruiser from the game with two or three citadels.

The problem is that it’s not fun for the cruiser player.

Now, you are introducing an enhanced rudder shift module for high-tier cruisers so they can ‘dodge’ fire easier but I have a few problems with that:

  1. dispersion being so random means that even if you dodge, there’s a pretty good chance of getting hit regardless.
  2. this mod takes the place of concealment mod, which everyone is still going to take anyway as if you can’t be seen, you can’t be shot so there’s no need for increased agility.
  3. What about low-tier cruisers? What help do they get? They are just as prone to being deleted as high tier cruisers, yet they get no love?

So I suppose my question is where do you see cruiser gameplay going forward? Are they just fodder for battleships (and carriers I might add) and hope they get into a battle where their consumables will be worth taking? Or there are only a few battleships a side and they ignore you until you annoy them by setting them on fire?

To me, cruisers seem like they should fill a supporting role but lack the means and rewards to play them as such – some high tier battleships have much better AA and are stealthier, destroyers have smoke for aiding the team and cruisers have… radar?

Would you consider something for cruisers that would allow them to contribute to a battle meaningfully without the need to go full stealth for fear of being deleted?

Off the top of my head I can think of maybe an AoE/targeted ability that improves dispersion for allied guns in range, or a map-wide ‘ping’ that shows up enemy fleet disposition for a few seconds on the mini-map or the ability to put out fires on ships within a small range (probably all suggested before).

I love cruisers but I always feel like it’s a race to see how much damage I can do before I inevitably get unlucky a couple of times and sink.

Sorry for the long post, but it is bothering me in the battleship-heavy game at the moment.


  1. Dispersion is calculated with normal distribution. More shells land closer to the center of dispersion ellipse statistically.
  2. We are absolutely not against reduction of concealment builds. That is one more reason to try something new, as being invisible all the time is not that easy.
  3. According to server stats and ship popularity, their life is easier on low tiers.

This doesn’t mean there are no problems and doesn’t mean we’re not going to make future balance changes, though.

We don’t want World of Battleships/Cruisers/Destroyers/CVs either.

Q: Hi, and thanks for coming over here, here are a variety of questions:

  1. Are there any plans to improve the replay system in the near future? Aside from making it less of a hidden feature it would be nice if zooming in and out was less juddery and one could use the spectator cam in replays, perhaps also toggle being able to see all ship positions (though for that the replay would have to be sent to the clients after each game I guess rather than recorded locally, assuming that’s how it works).
  2. Is there any chance that additional consumables will be added? (In addition to stuff like radar, hydro, defensive AA, smoke, etc.)
  3. (This one’s more of a bug report) I have all my quick commands bound to the numpad. For some reason the game keeps forgetting that I have set “Requesting Support” to Numpad 5 each time I relaunch the game since version 0.5.5, and since 0.5.11 it also keeps turning off division voice chat. It would be nice if those two things could be looked into. (As a Sidenote: I think binding those commands to the numpad makes them way easier to remember and should be the default setting for keyboards with a numpad)
  4. Why is the Standard Battle Interface still a thing? The only people I know of who use it are people who don’t know you can permanently enable the alternate battle interface (just look at all the YouTubers who recently tried promoting the game with no idea how to actually play it).
  5. (This one’s less of a question and more of a feature suggestion I just came up with) – The new armor viewer is great, but I think it could be taken to a whole new level: How about letting people see where their ship was hit after each battle? It would be really cool to see what shells/bombs hit the ship where and how much damage they did. Not only would that be quite interesting, but might actually really help with teaching new players which parts of their ships they shouldn’t expose.

Edit: came up with some more questions:

  1. Some of the older ships are starting to look a bit dated in places, is there any chance of them receiving a visual overhaul? (e.g. higher resolution textures)
  2. On a scale from 1 to 10, how much do you rage when someone detonates your ship through splash damage?


  1. Yes, but I am not sure about the definition of “near”.
  2. Conceptually – yes. Not planned for the nearest updates now, though.
  3. Not my specialty, sorry.
  4. Not all WoWs players need this, however. Casual and hardcore audiences often have different preferences.
  5. Yep, very gradually.
  6. 42

Q: Are you looking into bringing Montana’s armor (deck armor etc) on par with the blueprints that are widely available?

Are you happy with the way USN ships perform (aside Gearing, all of them seem to underperform looking at Warships today), any plans on the table?

A: Yes we are, thanks to NA community contributors. Other than that, no Montana buffs are planned currently.

Overall there are some problems with particular ships, including US – they will be solved gradually.

There is no global “US Navy” problem, however.

Sources: Reddit, EU Forums Info thread


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s