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.

Continue reading “Sub_Octavian Reddit Q&A”

Patch 5.12 Economy Changes Detailed

NikoPower on the NA Forums has posted a handy table outlining what the recent changes to repair costs mean for each individual ship. Generally speaking, high-tier tech tree ships are affected the most, while premium ships are still helped by the changes, just not as much because they don’t exactly need help earning credits.

The table is below, with a bit more explanation of how/why the changes were made in the source post on the forums.

Continue reading “Patch 5.12 Economy Changes Detailed”

English Q&A – 27/09/16

Yes, another one of these, from Sub_Octavian, and formatted for easier reading by godzilla5549 on Reddit. I have to wonder what made Sub_Octavian start posting on the NA Forums all of a sudden. The EU Forums would probably make more sense, considering the greater population size of their server, but who knows. Anyhow, here’s the Q&A!

As you might know by now if you’ve kept up with Sub_Octavian’s Q&As, it’s long.


Q1:

HI Sub_Octavian!

You caught my interest when you said you were an analytics person. Can you say more about the kinds of data and analyses that WG uses to determine whether gameplay changes are needed? Nothing proprietary, of course. For example, it is a very common practice among players to compare average winrates among ships in order to judge their relative effectiveness. However, I would imagine that with the full data set, you could do separate comparisons of effectiveness when, e.g. playing as the lowest-tier ship, or in CV vs. non-CV games. Do you use an internal regression of some sort to account for player skill when looking at balance? Do third-party ratings like WTR come close to approximating the kinds of things WG takes into account? Or do you do mostly analytics on the customer base, rather than the ships?

Regarding gameplay mechanics, I am curious about the penetration mechanic for multiple layers of armor, e.g. turtleback, front bulkhead, citadel wall. I usually see armor described as Layer1(mm) + Layer2(mm) + Layer3(mm), sometimes with effective thicknesses given due to different angling of the layers (i.e. perpendicular to Layer1 will hit Layer2 at an angle). My question is regarding overmatched armor layers — if this occurs, will they still reduce further penetration, and if so, at what effective angle are they assessed? Is it zero (overmatched armor ignored)? Is it assessed at 28mm @ 60 degrees (autobounce angle)? Is it 28mm @ true angle (perhaps as steep is 80+ degrees)? This is of interest currently, because the proposed 28mm bow/aft armor changes to high-tier battleships mean that they could be taking a lot of shells in an overmatched section that subsequently challenges the (angled) citadel wall, and I am interested in understanding what kinds of angling will be viable on different ships (e.g. NC and Iowa have an extremely large bow section, and a very small, thin belt for battleships).

Continue reading “English Q&A – 27/09/16”

Patch 5.12 Notes

Arriving September 28th (for NA) and September 29th (for everyone else), patch 5.12 is here with a number of changes, but not the Japanese destroyers nor the British cruisers; those are hopefully due out next month if everything goes well. Here’s a summary of what is in the patch, though:

  • You now receive credits and XP for spotting ships and aircraft, for the damage allies do to the enemies you spot, and for blocking damage with your armour.
  • Ship repair costs have been drastically changed, and now are fixed rather than being scaled based on damage taken. Overall, repair costs are now lower for all ships, especially aircraft carriers and all high-tier ships.
  • Aircraft carriers now get more credits/XP for shooting down enemy aircraft.
  • If you do nothing in a battle (ie. botting/AFK) you get no credits or XP at all.
  • New sound and voiceovers!
  • Cruisers and destroyers of tier 8 and up have access to the Steering Gears Modification 3 upgrade, reducing rudder shift time.
  • New map, “Shards,” for tiers 7-10.
  • Various other balance and interface changes, and so on.

The full notes can be found at the source below. Enjoy!


Source: http://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/update-notes-0512/

 

PT 5.12 New Economy, Armour Changes

A post by Ph3lan on the EU Forums has outlined some changes coming to the public test (and probably live release) of patch 5.12, and it’s quite important. Here’s a quick summary, followed by the full quote:

  • Battleship bow armour and destroyer hull armour changes have been cancelled.
  • Tier 8-10 Cruisers will still get the new steering modification, and now tier 8-10 destroyers will get it as well.
  • Repair fees based on damage taken are being replaced by a fixed cost, hoped to reduce operating costs of tier 10 ships by about 50,000 credits.

The quote:

Continue reading “PT 5.12 New Economy, Armour Changes”

Patch 5.12 Public Test Datamine

Over on reddit, Vaexa has datamined the files of the public test server to find stuff that wasn’t included in the patch notes, and to spell out some of the exact changes that were made, ie. to some ship armour and high-tier Russian destroyers.


[Disclaimer: these are datamined changes, which means they’re a. not the official notes and b. I could’ve misinterpreted something here.]

Data changes

Additions

  • New Japanese destroyers and relevant modules added
  • Cruiser HMAS Perth and relevant modules added
  • Rudder shift mod. 3 added (also documented)
  • New ranked season flags added

Balance changes

Global changes

  • Tier 8-10 BB bow armour nerfed (32mm > 28mm) (this was documented; Tirpitz is exempt from this change)
  • Destroyer armour nerfed (this was also documented)
  • Tier 4-10 carriers: armour models changed very slightly

Continue reading “Patch 5.12 Public Test Datamine”

English(!) Q&A – 20/09/16

In what I find to be a hilarious turn of events, there’s a new Q&A in English, done by none other than Sub_Octavian – yes, the same dev who usually does the Russian Q&As. Ah, what a world we live in.

Anyhow, he gave his usual detailed answers to some good questions, which are given below; the Q&A itself was lovingly formatted by godzilla5549 on reddit, because the actual Q&A itself on the NA forums is split up over a number of posts in one thread. It’s pretty long, too, so be prepared for quite the read.


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.

Continue reading “English(!) Q&A – 20/09/16”