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.
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”
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.
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.
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”
A couple of notes posted by MrConway on the EU Forums about two important elements of patch 5.9 that will be coming. The first is about the change to the Situational Awareness skill; it’s still being removed and made universal, but the hopes for free skill resets or a skill point are, sadly, dashed.
From the thread:
If Situational Awareness is the only 1st-tier skill taken by your commander, it will be changed to the Repair skill;
If there is more than one 1st-tier skill taken by your commander, the commander will receive 1 skill point for the now removed SA skill;
So, in other words, the same as it was originally intended. I’m not so sure of this, since a blanket skill removal/skill point would be for the best in my opinion, but it’s not a particularly huge issue, just frustrating.
The second thing is that the Co-op Assault Mode, which was present in the public test, won’t be in patch 5.9. It needs more extensive balancing and work to make it fun and interesting, and it’s supposed to debut properly in a future patch. It was kind of cool to play, but I really won’t play Co-Op mode with any regularity until the credit rewards are the same as random battles; it’s too easy to lose money at tiers 8+, or even 7+, even though Co-Op is pretty easy compared to battling against human players.
Source: EU Forums Dev Post