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”

Russian Video Translation

On the EU forums, Babykim has translated a video done by the Russian YouTuber getfun that involves the new version of the British cruisers, since they were changed from DD-like ships with smoke and good HE shells. Let’s just say that not everyone’s going to be happy with this, not at all.


The new RN cruisers:

All cruisers, except tier 5, have AP only.

(nerf) Their alpha damage is lowered initially 3200, to

1400 till tier 4

1500 on tiers 5 to 8

1600 on tier 9 to 10.

(buff) When a RN cruiser AP shell hits anywhere except the citadel, its damage will be 1/2, instead of the usual 1/6.

(nerf) There will be no smoke consumable.

(buff) The will be an improved Engine Boost, that increases the speed by 15 percent, instead of the usual 8 [0.8%, perhaps?] percent. The improved boost takes the fighter slot. This allows simultaneously taking Damage Control Party, Hydroacoustic Search and the (improved) Engine Boost consumables.

There is still no Defensive AA Fire consumable.

Continue reading “Russian Video Translation”

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”

Russian Q&A – 19/09/16

Babykim has also translated some of the regular RU forums Q&A, which isn’t as informative as the other interviews and stuff we’ve seen lately but it’s still good, of course. Enjoy!


Q: Why can the bow of the Scharnhorst (belt 70mm, rest 25mm) bounce shells from the Colorado and the Nagato, whereas the Warspite (belt 102mm plus a 25mm bulge, rest 25mm) can only bounce the Fuso shells?
A: The armor belt of the Warspite is shorter, leading to more frequent penetrations.


Q: How do multiple layers of armor work?
A: The penetration is checked every time armor is hit. For example, a shell can penetrate the armor belt, but bounce from a citadel.


Q: What was the content of a micro-patch released September 13th?
A: Correcting minor problems in the game launcher under Windows 10.


Q: Which guns shall I use on the tier 9 German battleship?
A: The 406mm are better suited for fighting cruisers, the 420mm against battleships. The same ideas apply also to the tier 10.


Q: When will captain levels beyond 12 unlock?
A: When we have the content that should come with them.


Q: How are base capture ribbons awarded?
A: You get an assist for less than 80 percent of the total cap points, and a capture for 80 or more percent.


Q: What about the 19th captain skill point?
A: It is effectively a lid. While it still can be achieved, doing so would take an unreasonable about of time. In other words, if you already have 18 points, probably you should not bother getting the next one at the moment.


Source: EU Forums Info thread, RU Forums Dev Answer thread

Russian Interview Translation

Babykim has translated an interview with Daniil Volkov, presented on Wargaming FM, which of course isn’t translated officially into English for what I’m sure are only the best of reasons. I’m sure the note about Russian battleships will make more than a few people sigh in relief; I’d like to see some British battleships next year.


1. We plan releasing another branch this year, in addition to the new Japanese destroyers and the British cruisers.

2. In 2017 we plan to release four new branches, and the German carrier Graf Zeppelin.

3. The depot is coming relatively soon.

4. We are seriously looking into the submarines, as they are in popular demand. They will probably not come in 2017, but likely at a later date. One alternative considered is having submarines as bots.

5. The new Japanese destroyers and the British cruisers are scheduled for 0.5.12, if they finish testing in time.

6. We do not like firing from invisibility. Destroyers firing from smoke are fine, but not battleships. We are working to change the gameplay.

7. We are satisfied with the current complexity of gameplay, and would rather make a bit more complex than simpler.

Continue reading “Russian Interview Translation”

Russian Q&A – 16/09/16

Babykim has once again translated more Q&A from the Russian forums, not a whole lot meaty new information this time around but it’s still good. There’s been quite a stir lately what with the new Japanese destroyers and the rework of the British cruisers besides. Enjoy!


Q: What will be the difference between the premium HMAS Perth and the HMS Leander from the RM cruiser tree.
A: We cannot provide any details on these ships yet.


Q: A torpedo hits a damaged section of a cruiser, and causes 200 points of damage only. How?
A: This is a known bug that will be corrected soon.


Q: The manual bomb attacks use a smaller ellipse, but does the distribution of the scatter in the ellipse change?
A: It changes proportionally with the size of the ellipse.


Q: What is the patch of September 9 (90mb) is about?

A: Hot fix of a sound problem.

Continue reading “Russian Q&A – 16/09/16”