尊敬的舰长，欢迎
登录后查看活动中心的航海点，还可以查看自己的游戏战斗力以及排名情况。
最新动态你的位置：首页 > 公告
本游戏适合18周岁以上人群。健康游戏公告：抵制不良游戏 拒绝盗版游戏 注意自我保护 谨防受骗上当 适度游戏益脑 沉迷游戏伤身 合理安排时间 享受健康生活
-请选择大区-后使用快捷导航没有帐号？
查看: 3663|回复: 9
新人欢迎积分1 阅读权限150积分18276精华0UID帖子金钱25163 威望11
不肛小白浑身不漱妇思基
UID帖子威望11 多玩草2671 草
感谢来自：Sub_Octavian在reddit的帖子，以及欧服的Allied_Winter整合。
问：暴雪做守望的平衡就考虑到玩家、统计数据以及内部反馈这三方因素，但是这三点很难实现完全一致，所以他们不得不进行了一定的妥协。
那么你们是怎么做的平衡？你们也曾经为做哪条线的时候进行过相应的妥协吗？还是说只是单纯靠统计数据或者仅仅是凭感觉？
答：是的，我们也考虑到这些方面。守望那边做的确实非常正确（我毫无疑问地认为暴雪的平衡做得非常到位）。这三个方面总是相互联系的，而且常常相互冲突。
我们还有一些其他的考虑因素，然而我们是海战游戏，总要考虑一些相关因素。我们不可能让战列去当MT，巡洋舰去做治疗，驱逐舰去伤害输出吧！
虽然这样能让游戏更加容易平衡，但是会极大程度上影响游戏的历史性。
问：PT服收集的数据不是太准确，有的玩家只是随便玩几场战斗。这个在正式服也会这样吗？你们会通过一些奖励鼓励更多人去帮助你们测试吗？
答：确实，PT服的统计数据很有用，但是还不够好。最有价值的两个是PT服玩家的反馈以及版本修正。
对于PT玩家的奖励我觉得是个很好的措施，但是更多的是为了吸引大量玩家。有一些玩家并不会为了一些奖励而去参与测试，他们更多的是想去提前体验新的游戏内容。
问：WOT玩家可以选择自己喜欢玩的游戏模式，为什么WOWS不可以？许多玩家不喜欢震中和堡垒模式，大家更多的还是喜欢玩制海权。WOWS会出一个让玩家选择游戏模式的功能吗？
答：并没有打算做这个东西，那些玩家不喜欢的东西我们都删掉了，比如堡垒模式，但不会单独弄出来的。
问：五级航母会有分房保护吗？
答：没有。五级航母是会见到六级航母的。如果真的出现了这种情况，那么分房的航母镜像原则会生效，你这边会多一个六级航母，对面会多一个五级航母。
问：那你说那些新手的航母玩家在面对那些六级老司机的该怎么办。
答：你的论点是从老玩家的角度出发的。我尊重你的看法，但不幸的是我并不同意。游戏中的学习进程并不是这样的。我们认为0.6.3的低级航母数据比0.6.2的时候要好很多。
问：你们很多人说过，今年会是航母重制的一年。你们认为取消了手动投弹对航母玩家人数会有什么样的影响？
特别是一些新玩家在打过了五级，到六级以后突然就可以手动投弹了。你们有计划给手动投弹加入一个教程什么的吗？
答：1.CV改动并不是所有事情都按照我们最初设想进行的，不过这确实反映出我们的整体思路。这些改变是为了改进CV的平衡。
同时我们也在尽力去完善这个改动，主要在AA的机制和鱼雷投弹机制等等。因为许多改动让玩家感到紧张，所以我们正在合理改善这些东西，并且很快进行测试。
所以，到目前为止，我们也不是1百分百肯定CV是怎么变化，我们也有许多想法来完善并呈现给玩家。如同我们之前承诺的一样。
& && & 2.移除手动投雷主要为了改善低级航母的平衡并且减少屠幼行为。
& && & 3.教程的计划，团队正在制作中，到时候会有一些比较灵活性以配合玩家的技术水平。现在我们只有基本1-3的教程，如果实装之后反响不错，我们会添加CV教程的。
问：在前面的问题上：我假设如果五级和六级 CV是在同一房间（所以每队2 个航母），五级航母不能使用手动投弹，而六级航母可以。这个公平吗？
答：之前已经回答了。
问：既然你们把五级的手动投弹和BZ都取消了，那么为什么不把分房匹配改为±1呢？
答：因为目前的分房匹配是最好的。
问：CV平衡有什么设计或者想法之类的吗？我最大的抱怨就是收益不平衡，并且美系航母的飞控比日系航母要差。
答：我之前回答了一些。飞控需要重新评估，包括美系的。至于收益，由于玩家反馈和统计分析，我们得出的结论是，他们的收入过于平均。
我们会在0.6.3解决这个问题，所以历史性胜利将带来更大的数字。
问：我知道你们移除4-5级CV的扫射和手动投雷是为了减少屠幼，然而学习手动投雷仍然是必要的，尤其是在高级房。
新的CV玩家从6级开始学习手动投雷势必会遇到防空怪物，比如克里夫兰和亚特兰大。
你们能不能做一些教程或者加强低级船的防空，使其不会在学手动投弹的时候更累，我觉得这个更好。
答：我们考虑过不同的选择。问题是你是从经验丰富的玩家的角度来看的。
对于一个新手而言，你是选择从六级开始学手动雷还是从低级航母开始被其他CV屠幼屠到玩不下去.......不太清楚。
关于教程你说的很对。我们正在努力。
问：关于舰队。我们何时才能看到舰队系统的扩张？限制舰队只有30个名额似乎是一个圈钱手段，因为我们已经看到了几个舰队现在实施分舰队的标签了。目前舰队系统几乎什么都没有。
答：之前说过这个事情，舰队肯定会扩张的。我们的计划是“社交平台-非正式舰队玩法-竞争玩法-动态舰队系统”。
该计划还在实施中，我们正在做第二步。30人这个限制确实有点少，我们也在解决这个问题，并不是为了圈钱。
问：舰队战役。目前都是舰队之间自己组织的舰队比赛和舰队战斗，因为游戏还不支持这个功能。
我们什么时候能看到舰队战斗？舰队战斗会遵循类似于WOT的系统吗，（即限制，6级，8，和10）或舰队战会有其它系统？
答：暂时还不能透露更多细节，但是根据我们的计划，这个东西应该在很久以后了。
问：你是否同意，移除隐身炮影响很多舰船，比如DD来说，有射程配件或点了射程范围
比如：驱逐之间狗斗。你射程距离是15公里。他的支援BB是14公里，如果敌人的驱逐拉烟或死亡，你就会灭点，但是现在的情况，即便对手被你击毁后面的BB一样会点亮你。
答：我完全理解你的意思，但是在你开火的一瞬间没人能点亮你，那么20S的惩罚会立刻消失，并且很多地图有岛屿，也许你和其他驱逐狗斗后也没人能点亮你。
问：似乎有一个长期的（不成文的）规则，一些以前出的优秀的金币船/坦克慢慢就会挨刀，以便兜售新出的金币船 - 所谓的“隐身射击”的移除直接影响了游戏中的几艘优质船雷鸣 / 闪电 / 米哈等。
这和你们当初的宣传广告不一样了，你们将如何为这些巨大的变化提供赔偿？
答：0.6.3变更不会有任何补偿。所有的战斗模式都保持不变，这是游戏机制的改变，如果这个变动不涉及所有船将是绝对不公平的。
另外，我不记得有涉及隐身炮的商品描述（虽然我并没有在所有地区检查它们）。
如果玩家为了隐身炮点了某些指挥官技能和舰船升级品，将在0.6.3中得到免费的安装/拆卸。
问：如果隐身炮改变点亮距离，以后会不会有技能和配件降低射程？
答：对不起，我之前的说法有问题：开火惩罚（开炮后20秒的）还在，但是如果没有人能够直接发现你的话，你就不会被跨地形/穿烟雾被点亮。
问：关于在0.6.3实装后由于移除了隐身炮而进行的“补偿性”增强好像都是射程的增加。
WG有考虑过这么改动的话（开火后最大可发现距离=射程）其实是削弱f而不是增强，尤其是对于那些依赖隐身炮吃饭的日系驱逐的想法吗？
答：不，我们不觉得是削弱。说这个叫削弱简直就是颠倒是非。
问：巡洋舰的状况如何？最近我的随机战斗基本都是每边五个战列舰，然后只有一个巡洋舰的情况。这样对于游戏来说真的很差，而且最近移除了隐身炮受益最大的也还是战列舰。
答：移除隐身炮并不只是让战列舰受益，而是能够让整个游戏受益的。战列舰的确很受欢迎，有的时候太多了，况且我们还有其他在搞的船型平衡/人气平衡等等，我们在慢慢改变，巡洋舰不会消失的。
问：特别是秋月和雷鸣，没了隐身炮谁比较吃亏？关于秋月，不能隐身炮了，可能会导致它的数据暴跌，渣一样的速度和转向还有装甲很难躲避炮弹。还有雷鸣既然没了隐身炮能不能拿出来卖了？
答：如果秋月，雷鸣，或任何其他舰船的性能会下降，我们一定会平衡。再者，变化是为了提高游戏的整体性，而不是破坏特定的舰船。所以，任何不良的副作用都是固定的。我们也爱秋月，：）
问：我们有点担心，关于亨利四世，10级法巡。能不能透露点消息？
答：法国万岁
问：是什么原因让法国巡洋舰倒船的速度更快？甚至在你们公布之前，论坛已经流传了关于法国撤退/倒车/挂出白旗的坏笑话。我很惊讶的是，WG现在进一步助长了这种坏的玩笑，使其成为民族特色的一部分。
答：哦，不是开玩笑。法国巡洋舰的速度的确是很快，但是舵效不好。倒车加速快只是方便它们在撞岛上或者撞船的时候能够更快的离开而已。就是这样。
问：日系巡洋舰会有特殊消耗品吗？现在日巡没有什么特色。英巡有烟雾+水听，美巡/苏巡有雷达，德巡有超强水听。
日系巡洋舰在面对烟雾的时候束手无策，也不能利用它们的隐蔽性能。我不是说藏王需要增强，而是说如果有个可以用来抢点的消耗品也不错的。
答：“特色消耗品”的确是高效的东西，但它并不是影响游戏过程的唯一方式。日本巡洋舰的HE弹是很强，而且还有能够在特定情况下有很强大的鱼雷。
而且防护也不错。日本巡洋舰并不是一定要蹲在后面，也可以玩的奔放一些。目前没必要给日巡专用消耗品。
问：美巡的射速增强在你们看来结果如何？美巡的数据足以和其他国家看齐了吗？（我还是很喜欢美巡的，虽然过去表现不佳）
答：挺好的。很高兴看到这些船的统计和玩家对美巡积极的态度。也许我们稍后会做得更多一些，现在我们继续关注他们的表现。
问：日驱如何了？我知道你们有在观察它们，但是我也因为你们在0.6.3中终于加强了一下夕云和岛风而感到很担心。在新的隐蔽机制下这到底是不是加强还说不好，我只能希望你们对日驱的改动还没结束。
答：我们会在0.6.3的改动之后继续观察的。这次到底算不算加强我也说不好。到底要不要进一步增强还需要再看。
问：为什么基林也加了16.5公里的鱼雷？为什么弗莱切和基林的鱼雷比岛风的好这么多，导致大家鱼雷伤害都差不多（基林和弗莱切的鱼雷命中几率更高），但是岛风的鱼雷能力和伤害是要更高的。
答：基林鱼雷不错，这点不假，而且有鱼雷加速技能就更加厉害。但是我并不赞同日驱鱼雷更差这个观点。
我们也可以只看表面数据来讨论，但是其实是日驱的鱼雷伤害更高。日驱的单发伤害，鱼雷速度，伤害高和进水率高弥补了探测距离远。
基林在近战很强，而那些能够意识到自己主炮的优点的高阶日驱可以在远距离上利用射角优势打HE。
我不是说有什么完美无缺的船，也不是说0.6.3以后就不进行改动了，但是现在还是观察到底改动怎么样的吧。
问：日驱在狗斗的时候真的很弱啊，弗莱彻有强大的鱼雷同时具有优越的炮击真的不合适。
他们也努力用炮还击，因为即使有技能和升级品他们的炮塔转得太慢。如果你躲避炮弹，过慢的炮塔转速就使你不能攻击，如果不躲闪，你就会一直吃炮弹。
答：1.我们增强了进水伤害。
& && & 2.0.6.3会增加射程。
& && & 3.其他的调整以后再说。
& && & 4.基林和弗莱彻虽然强，但不是最好的雷驱。
日驱有优势也有劣势。如果你玩的方法正确就很强。并不是我的看法，而是服务器数据。以后我们还会进一步改善的。
问：问题是关于日驱的分支，日驱分线会继续下去吗？如果会接着分线做下去会做到几级？
答：我们当然希望它继续，理论上是希望能做出和秋月差不多的船/图纸船。至于什么时候做好还不知道。
问：冬云会不会像其他日本船一样有射程增强？我在0.6.3没看见啊。
答：会考虑的
问：MMP，有些任务活动我们别的服务器都没有。
答：你好。我建议你不要用这种语言在问答。我不是试图告诉你该怎么做，但实际上，这不会有助于沟通。不幸的是，我不能回答这个问题，因为这个事情完全超出了我的工作范围。
问：现在有没有考虑对排位赛进行改动，让打星变得没那么沮丧？我认为可以改成两边的前7名玩家都可以拿星，然后要掉星必须要连输两场才行。
你们对于在排位赛中加入气旋是怎么看的？以后的排位赛中会不会加入像以前的奖励机制？
答：我们的计划是在本赛季结束以后进行大规模的研究。现在的话我更倾向于问一些正确的问题，然后分析数据，之后再给出答案。现在要讨论排位赛还太早了。如果你收到了相关调查问卷的话，请仔细填写。
问：有计划移除或者改动标准战斗吗，现在的话，尤其是高级战斗都是鼓励蹲点以及十分被动/自私的游戏方式的，而占点就好很多，因为会鼓励并且奖励团队协作和更加进攻性的游戏方式。
还有就是标准战斗的平均经验奖励比占点要低。这个是刻意设计成这样的吗？
答：我个人和你一样是喜欢占点图的。但是很多其他别的玩家的观点也会有所不同，移除标准战斗会让那些玩家很不开心。
这件事我是很有自信的，因为我们做过大量的研究。这也就是为什么我们降低了标准模式的出现几率，而不是彻底的移除掉它。
问：你们之前说要把衣阿华的装甲区调低，那出云是不是也应该改一下？
答：我们并没有要调低衣阿华的装甲区。我们会在0.6.2.2调低（如果一切顺利的话）阿拉巴马的装甲区，并且会在0.6.4中对衣阿华/密苏里/蒙大拿进行一样的测试。但是现在并没有计划要改动出云。
原文见二楼：
本帖最后由 何以续病弦 于
06:26 编辑
总评分:&多玩草 + 150&
新人欢迎积分1 阅读权限150积分18276精华0UID帖子金钱25163 威望11
不肛小白浑身不漱妇思基
UID帖子威望11 多玩草2671 草
Huge WoWS Q&A – 25th March 2017
~ SEBASTIANUL
META and related:
Question: He mentioned that the way Overwatch balances is by looking at three aspects, players, stats, and internal feedback but rarely these things are aligned so they have to make compromises. How does StPB balance ships? Have you ever had to make compromises regarding a line? It it purely following stats or is it more a feel thing? (In regards to a QnA given by the director of Overwatch)
Answer: Yes, we had such cases. The director of Overwatch (unsurprisingly, as Blizzard are almost gods of balance, I think) put it absolutely right. These three aspects are always involved, and they often contradict. We, however, have additional issue – our game is based on IRL naval warfare. And despite of numerous conventions and “gameplay first” principle, we cannot act however we wish in balancing. We cannot make BBs purely tanks, cruisers purely support and DDs purely damage dealers, for example. While that would probably make balancing the game much easier, at the same time, that would greatly harm the immersion and historical accuracy, which is quite important for our core audience.
Question: He later went on to mention that their PT isn’t accurate for data gathering because players only stick around for one or two matches, does the same thing happen with World of Warships or does the fact that you get live server rewards help people to test more?
Answer: Again, this is right (although, I wouldn’t say that our players do only 2 matches – there are different levels of involvement across the board). PT stats are helpful, but they are not good enough for fine-tuning. The best two things about PT are players feedback (perception of changes) and version polishing (in terms of quality). Rewarding players for PT participation is good practice, I think, but more for adequate player quantity. Engaged and interested players are hardly motivated by the rewards – they want to be ahead of things and care about the project, that’s why they participate.
Question: Maps. In World of Tanks, players have the option to select/deselect which battle modes they want to engage in – why can’t Warships implement this same system. Many players dislike the Epicenter and Bastion game modes you’ve experimented with and would prefer to just play Domination. When can we expect a similar option, such as in World of Tanks, to opt out of crappy game modes.
Answer: Such option is not planned for any future updates. We remove the stuff that is not enjoyable, like Bastion, but not going to split match making
CARRIER and rework:
Question: are tier V CV’s getting protected MM where they won’t see tier VI CV’s ?
Answer: No. In any case T-V CV can meet T-VI CV in battle, it will be accompanied by additional friendly T-VI CV and countered by additional T-V enemy CV. While this will indeed increase the difference between T-V and T-VI CVs, such situation will hardly make noticeable impact. But we are aware of this concern, so we will be paying much attention to it.
Follow-UP-Question: At the same time you assume that the now hamstrung CV players will not suffer greatly at the hands of those who set up their sealclubbing shop on T6 now?
Answer: Your argument is made from experienced player POV. Which I respect, but unfortunately, cannot agree with. Sorry, but novice progress in learning the game does not work like that. Yes, we strongly believe that 0.6.3 low tier CV state is better than 0.6.2 low tier CV state.
Question: It has been said by you and others, that this year will be the year of the CV rework. How do you think will the less of manual dropping impact the CV population? Especially if you think about new players that get little to no hint once they progress past T5, that they now have a new tool available (manual drop). Are there any tutorials planned in regards to manual dropping?
Answer 1: The 0.6.3 CV changes are absolutely not everything we want to do, and it may even not reflect the whole concept we are working on. These changes are done to improve current CV balance. However, we are working on several prototypes that have complete “rework” feel – in terms of AA mechanics, drop mechanics, etc. As any rework is quite stressful for players, we are taking our time to do these prototypes properly, and then they will be tested. So, right now, we don’t know for 100% how CVs will change in 2017 – we have several solid ideas that need to be polished and presented to you – the players – for trying. But we are definitly going to work on this class, as we promised.
Answer 2: Manual drop removal is done mainly to improve low-tier balance and reduce seal-clubbing.
Answer 3: Tutorials are planned, my team is working on quite an interesting project of tutorials via personal offers, that will even have some flexibility to match player skill level. Right now we’re onto some very basic stuff for T-I – III ships, but if we launch it, and it feels good, we will definitely go on with dedicated CV tutorial.
Question: On top of the previous question: I assume if a T5 and a T6 CV are in the same battle (so 2 CVs per team), then the T5 CV can’t use manual dropping, while the T6 CV can. Is this assumption correct?
Answer: Already answered.
Question: Considering the proposed changes to CVs (tier 4/5) and the removal of strafe and manual drops from these tiers, why don’t we just move to a +1/-1 matchmaking across the board, rather than a +1/-1 for tiers 1-4 and +2/-2 for tiers 5-10?
Answer: Because current MM settings work best.
Question: Is there a vision/strategy/grand design for CV balancing? My biggest gripes currently are imbalanced earnings (really hard to get to top XP even with a great game), and poor loadouts of USN CVs compared to IJN CVs.
Answer: I partly answered here. Loadouts can also be re-evaluated, including USN CVs. As for economy, due to players feedback and stats analysis, we concluded that their earnings were too averaged. We are fixing this in 0.6.3, so epic wins will be bringing larger numbers.
Question: Regarding the removal of alt-fire for CVs at T4/5. I can see why such a decision would be taken – the gap in performance between CV players able to utilise alt-fire and those who aren’t is enormous, and given the small amount of AA and lack of Defensive Fire makes manually-dropped torpedoes devastating. Still, learning manual drop is an essential mechanic for CV players, especially at higher tiers, and forcing new CV players to learn it at T6 where they might meet AA monstrosities such as the Cleveland and the Atlanta seems harsh. So, instead of removing such a mechanic from the game, have the devs considered implementing a proper tutorial (as it is right now, the only way players will even find out about alt-fire is through guides or asking on the forums) and increasing T4/5 AA, perhaps giving cruisers Defensive Fire, to make manual drops less devastating? It would teach players better teamplay early on, too.
Answer: We considered different options. The problem is that you are looking from experienced player perspective. For a novice, the choice between “learn manual drop at T6, when you already learned other CV aspects” or “learn everything at once, with kind CV seal-clubbers to help you around and to delete you” is much..less clear. And you are absolutely right about the need to introdcue much more tutorial aspects to the game. We are working on it.
CLANS and related:
Question: Clan system. When will we see an expansion of the clan system? Limiting clans to only 30 roster slots seems like a money grab, as we’ve seen several clans now implement successive clan tags. There has been literally zero progress made on the clan system in Warships.
Answer: I think I mentioned this, but it won’t hurt to repeat: clan system will be expanded for sure. Our plan was “socialization – causal clan gameplay – competitive clan gameplay – meta-clan gameplay”. The plan is still in action, and we are working on step 2 right now. As for limitation of 30, we are aware that this limit does not accommodate some big established clans, and we are working on solution as well. No money grab intended – that would be quite pointless even from pure business perspective.
Question: Clan battles. Currently, other clans are sponsoring, organizing and running clan competitions and clan battles, because the game does not yet support this feature. When will we see clan battles? Will clan battles follow a similar system as in World of Tanks (that is, tiers 6, 8, and 10) or will Warships have a different tier system?
Answer: I cannot go into details, but according to our plan I described in the first point, the stuff you are talking about is step 3 and partly 4.
0.6.3 – Stealthfiring:
Question: Do you agree that the suggested fix for stealth firing will disproportionately affects the ships, DDs specifically, that have long gun range and/or are specialized into increasing the range? The scenario I am describing is: Say you are in a DD and fighting another DD at close range. Your gun range is 15km because you took all the skills and modules for range. His support BBs are at 14km. With current mechanics, the BB at 14km will not be spotting you and relying on the DD you are fighting. With new mechanics, the BB will also be spotting you, so if the enemy DD was to smoke up or die… you are still spotted. If you didnt have AFT, you would no longer be spotted.
Answer: No. I fully understand the scenario you are talking about, but I find it very situational and overestimated. Your after-firing 20s penalty will be cut off if no enemies are in direct LOS – and on most maps, there’s lots of terrain around the caps. You also will have smokes available. We’ll be monitoring this scenario on PTS to be sure everything works as intended. If you want my personal opinion, as a player, I’m not going to change anything in my builds. My USN, KM and IJN DDs (but for Akizuki) are doing without AFT/range mod, and VMF leaders are built for provoking fire, so they are going with it and rudder shift. Not sure about VMF 2nd branch and whether I can free up 4 points by removing AFT from Akizuki, remembering about her big range buff..we’ll see. (Adendum) Sorry, I put it wrong: the penalty itself stays, but if no one sees you in LOS, you won’t be detected through terrain or smokes.
Question: Wargaming seems to have a long standing (unwritten) rule of not engaging in massive nerfs to premium vehicles (ships/tanks) – and yet the discussed changes to “stealth firing” will do exactly that to several premium ships in the game (Gremy/Blyskawica/Kutuzov, etc). How will Wargaming provide compensation for these drastic changes, as the ships will no longer be what was advertised when we purchased, in accordance with the EU Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices.
Answer: There will be no compensation upon 0.6.3 changes. All battle specs remain the same, it is the game mechanics that is changed, and making it influence only researchable ships would be absolutely unfair. Additionally, I don’t remember any premium shop description that involves stealth firing (although I am not checking them all on all regions). And finally, I don’t recomment going this way, because we always care for premiums so they are competitive and buff them directly when it is needed. Without sticking to this “you bought exactly what you bought” idea. If we revert all positive changes to all premium ships, I guess, many of them will become much less enjoyable, with formal “we did not change a thing” being true. Stealth firing is an option which is utilized with certain commander skills and modernizations. For this part, free respecs/demounts will be introduced in 0.6.3. P.S. If any ship, including premium, will become unplayable in 0.6.3, it will be tuned in 0.6.4. Having lots of good ships in game is the mutual interest of players and developers.
Question: If the stealth firing change goes through in its current form, are there any plans to introduce modules or skills that lower your gun range?
Answer: Sorry, I put it wrong: the penalty itself stays, but if no one sees you in LOS, you won’t be detected through terrain or smokes.
Question: In your opinion, doesn’t the decision to get rid of stealth firing contradict WG’s official we don’t nerf premiums stance? If the answer is no, then why? Stealthfiring was definitely a major selling point for some premium ships.
We don’t have such official stance. Officially, we have EULA, but I’m not doing legal service, I’m more into game design and community interaction. And here, we always work so that all players spendings do not lose their value. This is why premium ships are buffed just like regular ones when needed, but on the other hand are not nerfed.
Stealthfiring cannot be major selling point, because we never ever balanced any ship around it. That would be stupid to balance the ship around quite unfun and marginal tactics (sorry, stealth-firing-guys).
0.6.3 changes are not individual nerfs/buffs, but mechanics rework.
The answer is no.
If any ship will become unplayable because of changes (which is really, really low chance – there’s whole world of opportunities to play without open-water invisible firing), it will be tweaked and buffed ASAP. Because the idea of SF removal is to “buff” the whole game, not to ruin things and to bring down the sky
Question: Removal of stealth fire. It’s safe to say that this is a decision that has been very hotly contested, and I will try not to repeat any points that (to my knowledge) have already been answered. To my mind, stealth fire in general was troubling only in very specific situations and most ships had to make tradeoffs for this ability. IJN DDs (barring Akizuki) have awful DPM, not making their stealth firing too much of a problem. USN DDs have it slightly better, but at the ranges they can stealth fire at, their low shell velocity leads to enormous lead times, making hitting anything but the largest and slowest battleships consistently near-impossible. Russian destroyers had their post-fire detection bloom nerfed specifically to make stealth-firing more difficult (excepting Gremyashchy) and the German destroyers infamously had such a change made to them pre-emptively. So, that leaves the number of the worst abusers of stealth fire at 4, unless I missed some: Zao, Blyskawica, Gremyashchy, Akizuki. What was the thought behind removing stealth fire globally rather than nerfing these specific ships?
Answer: Because we were not going to nerf a specific ship, rather to exclude the mechanics, which in our opinion, is bad for the game in general. P.S. There were also some very hotly contested topics before, like RPF, bad skill tree, UK cruisers and German BBs being bad, etc. Sometimes, players concerns prove to be justified, sometimes – not. Not everything we say is always right. Not everything Redditors/hardcore players say is always right. However, the decision and, what’s important, the responsibility, will be ours.
Question: Regarding the “compensation” buffs we are getting in 0.6.3 in return for the removal of stealth fire, which near-exclusively seem to be firing range buffs. Have Wargaming considered that with the way the new system is projected to work (detection range after firing = maximum firing range), increasing a ship’s maximum firing range is actually something of a nerf, especially for the reliant-on-stealth IJN destroyers?
Answer: No, we don’t consider this to be a nerf. To call it a nerf is very close to fact-twisting.
Question: What’s the status of cruisers? Recently my random battles are finally 90% of the time with 5 BBs on each side, going as low as 1 cruiser per team. This is really bad for the game, and the recent removal of stealthfire mostly benefited BBs.
Answer: The removal of SF should benefit the whole game, not BBs. As for the actual effect, I don’t think you are time traveller (neither am I) so I guess we should not jump to such conclusions. BBs are popular, sometimes too much, and there are other things in class balance/popularity we are changing slowly, but there is no cruiser extinction.
Question: Specifically about Akizuki and Gremyashchy, who will be hit hard by the stealth fire nerfs. About Akizuki, have the devs considered that with no longer being able to stealth fire, her weaknesses will likely cause her performance to plummet like a rock? She is slow (she can be outpaced by some battleships in her matchmaking spread!), fat (leading to horrifyingly large penetrations from high-calibre guns) and turns like a brick (making her less able to dodge incoming fire, compounding the above problems). Has buffing her agility instead of “buffing” her firing range been considered in light of the stealth fire changes? As for Gremyashchy, with no longer being able to stealth fire and thus the removal of its most infamous strength, will it be made available for purchase again? I greatly enjoyed her sister, the Gnevny, when I was grinding her at T5 and would love having a Gremy in my port as a player who only fairly recently started playing.
Answer: If Akizuki, Gremy, or any other ships performance will “plummet like a rock” (which may also NOT happen, because, you know, we are not nerfing them to oblivion, as some players think), we will surely fix them ASAP. Again, the change of mechanics is designed to improve the gameplay overall, not to destroy particular ship. So, any bad side effect will be fixed. We love and play Akizuki, too:)
FRENCH and other cruisers:
Question: I am concerned about Henri IV, the TX French cruiser, because of the leaked stats. I know you can’t confirm or deny and don’t want to discuss leaks, but is there anything you can say so we are not worried so much?
Answer: Viva la France! (&–BEST ANSWER SO FAR)
Question: What was the reason for giving French cruisers faster reverse/deceleration? Even before this announcement, the forums were already ripe with bad jokes about the French retreating/reversing/hissing the white flag. I’m quite surprised that WG is now further fuelling this bad stereotype by making it part of the national flavour.
Answer: Uh-oh, I guess people often see what they want to see:( Sorry, but no jokes intended. French cruiser are going to be quite fast, but they won’t have fast rudder shift. Extra power to reverse will give them more chance to park off an unfortunate island or any other collision. This is it.
Question: Will high tier IJN CAs get some special consumable? Right now, they are pretty bland and don’t offer any thing to the team. RN has smoke+sonar, USN/VMF has radar, KM has uber sonar. Their lack of capability to push smoke effectively makes them to stay at the back and not utilise their stealth better and play the objective. I am not saying Zao needs a buff but it is nice to have comsumables to help you when you want to push an objective.
Answer: “Consumable flavour” is a nice and obviously efficient thing, but it is not the only way of influencing game process. IJN CAs are notorious for their uber-HE shells, and they have situational, but powerful torpedoes. And quite well-protected layout. They really don’t need to sit back and can be played with risk.
Right now we don’t see any argumented need to add IJN-cruiser-specific consumable.
Question: how did the latest USN CA ROF buffs turn out in your view? Was it enough to get them on par with the other nations? (I liked them, but they performed subpar in the past).
Answer: Quite enough. Nice to see the stats and positive attitude towards these ships growing. Maybe we will now we keep looking at their performance.
DDs – state of IJN:
Question: What’s the status of IJN DDs? I know you’re looking into them, but I am also worried since you introduced a “well deserved buff” in 0.6.3 to Yugumo and Shima, which isn’t really a 100% buff considering the new concealment mechanics, so I am just hoping you’re not done with them.
Answer: The status is that we will keep researching them with 0.6.3 changes. I cannot confirm that range upgrade is not 100% buff. It stacks well with their low profile, good arcs and HEs, low comfort in CQC and long torpedoes. Whether further buffs are needed is to be determined.
Question: Why does Gearing get 16.5 km torps? Why are Fletcher and gearing torps so much better than Shimas-resulting in similar torp damage (because Gearing and Fletcher torps are so much more likely to hit) despite Shima having so much more torp capacity and dmg.
Answer: Gearing torps are really good, especially with torpedo acceleration skill, but I don’t support the opinion that IJN torpedoes are worse. We may stare at their specs and discuss them, but in the end, IJN DDs do more damage with their torps. Their alpha, speed and flooding chance compensate their higher detectability. And while Gearing shreds things in CQC with her RoF, high tier IJN DD who knows about her guns (which many IJN DD players forget, unfortunately), shreds things from range due to powerful HE and nice arcs. I’m not saying everything is perfect, and no buffs are considered after 0.6.3, but for now, we need to see how things change.
Question: Hi! Is there any news about IJN DDs? Few months ago you said they get overview but nothing new since then. They seriously need some fixing, a better turret turn speed or decrease their torpedo detection ranges. Fletcher and Gearing being a better torpedoboat then a torpedo focused line while they also having superior guns is seriously not right. Average players learnt how to dodge torps, especally IJN torps with terrible detection range, they also struggle to fight back with guns because even with skill and equipment their turrets turn too slow. If you dodge shells, can’t fire back because of slow turrets, if don’t dodge but fire back the enemy just wrecks you.
There was flooding damage buff, that increases their damage output against large ships.
There is firing range buff for most of them coming in 0.6.3.
Other tweaks may be introduced later.
Sorry to ruin it, but Gearing and Fletcher are not better torpedo boats. They are definitely good, though.
IJN DDs have pros and cons. Right now, we see that if played to their pros, they are showing very good results – I don’t mean IMO here, I mean server stats. However, we would be happy to meet the community concerns and make these ships more enjoyable without over-buffing them. So we keep working.
Question: simply question IJN DDs sub branch, it continue or stop? if continue then how long?
Answer: We would definitely like it to continue, ideally, with the ships/projects similar to Akizuki. No ETA yet, unfortunately.
Question: will the Shinonome also get a firing range update like many other IJN? I didn’t see it in the 0.6.3 notes.
Answer: We are considering it.
MISCELLANEOUS (WG EU, standard battle, ranked progression,…):
Question: [… Foul language …] For example the christmas convoy missions which we wouldn’t have gotten, repeating missions where in EU you have to get 2 Krakens and a separate double strike to complete the final stage of a mission? If the community wouldn’t be actice we would get [edited]all compared to the NA server where WG staff seem to actually care about their community.
Answer: Hi. I suggest you don’t use that kind of language in Q&As. I am not trying to tell you what to do, but really, that won’t contribute to communication. Unfortunately, I cannot answer this question, as events & missions are completely out of my area of work. I will try to find someone who can talk about it, and summon here. Cheers!
Question: Is there anything in the works regarding changes to the way progression occurs in ranked battles to make ranking out less frustrating? Some of my thoughts include awarding stars to top 7 players of both teams and losing a star requires 2 consecutive losses. What are your thought on adding cyclones to ranked games? Will you be reintroducing the old rewards for future seasons of ranked?
Answer: We are planning big research upon current season end. So right now, I’m more interested in asking right questions and analyzing the data, then giving answers. It is too early to speak about RB in detail. If you receive the survey, be sure to complete it. Thanks!
Question: Is there any plan to either remove or modify how standard battles work, as at the moment, especially at high tiers, they promote base camping and very passive/selfish gameplay, whereas a domination game is much better, as it encourages and rewards teamwork and more aggressive gameplay. Also, the xp rewards for a standard battle are much lower on average than domination games, is this by design, has this been noticed?
Answer: I personally can agree with your point. I love Domination so much more than SB. However, LOTS of players have different opinion, and removing this mode would upset them significantly. I’m speaking with confidence, because the matter was researched specifically:( This is why we lowered the presense of this mode but did not remove it.
Question: Lastly, I believe Wargaming have stated that the battleship overpopulation (40% and rising) is a problem. Yet, why does seemingly every recent change, barring two minor ones (reduction of catapult fighter uptime, Bismarck hydro nerf – but only specifically Bismarck) seem to run counter to this goal? AA buffs, the new skill tree in general, Radio Location specifically, and now the removal of stealth fire… the dev team’s actions seem to run counter to their stated goal, and that may be why many people are upset.
Answer: Have you seen many BBs with RPF? Because we don’t see them at all. Why have you excluded flooding damage buff, which now causes BBs to melt with unrepaired leak? Sorry, but I don’t see any objective approach here, so the question itself is not correct. Thus, I am not sure I can answer it.
Question: Since you are lowering the citadel of Iowa, will Izumo going to get some love as well?
Answer: We are not lowering Iowa citadel. We’re lowering (most likely, if testing goes good) Alabama citadel in 0.6.2.2 and testing the same change for Iowa/Missouri/Montana for 0.6.4. There are no buff plans for Izumo currently. Sorry.
Source: Sub_Octavian on Reddit, compiled by Allied_Winter (EU)
本帖最后由 何以续病弦 于
06:21 编辑
新人欢迎积分1 阅读权限70积分7859精华0UID帖子金钱64398 威望1
Lv.7, 积分 7859, 距离下一级还需 2141 积分
UID帖子威望1 多玩草1451 草
版主大大，辛苦啦！感谢
新人欢迎积分1 阅读权限80积分14973精华0UID帖子金钱36824 威望10
Lv.8, 积分 14973, 距离下一级还需 5027 积分
UID帖子威望10 多玩草2717 草
好早，感谢翻译～～
新人欢迎积分2 阅读权限255积分86766精华27UID1651706帖子金钱190349 威望16
UID1651706帖子威望16 多玩草1108 草
何以续病弦 发表于
感谢来自：Sub_Octavian在reddit的帖子，以及欧服的Allied_Winter整合。&&问：暴雪做守望的平衡就考虑到玩 ...
坦克盒子更新有问题请下载：/thread--1.html
战舰盒子更新有问题请下载：/thread--1.html
新人欢迎积分1 阅读权限80积分18192精华1UID8912432帖子金钱42867 威望5
Lv.8, 积分 18192, 距离下一级还需 1808 积分
UID8912432帖子威望5 多玩草11218 草
一句mmp道出了无数国人的新生啊，不过毕竟已经是二雷家的了。wg也管不了。。。。。。
新人欢迎积分0 阅读权限30积分104精华0UID帖子金钱761 威望0
Lv.3, 积分 104, 距离下一级还需 146 积分
UID帖子威望0 多玩草0 草
发表自UC浏览器
毛子再次声明，岛风依旧强而有力，说岛风弱的都是不会玩的& && && && && && && & mmp
新人欢迎积分0 阅读权限80积分14150精华0UID帖子金钱7044 威望0
Lv.8, 积分 14150, 距离下一级还需 5850 积分
UID帖子威望0 多玩草166 草
岛风依旧强而有力，只是需要在它喜欢的玩家手里可以发挥出最大功率
新人欢迎积分0 阅读权限70积分7823精华0UID帖子金钱61793 威望-1
Lv.7, 积分 7823, 距离下一级还需 2177 积分
UID帖子威望-1 多玩草0 草
新人欢迎积分1 阅读权限60积分2980精华0UID帖子金钱15101 威望0
Lv.6, 积分 2980, 距离下一级还需 2020 积分
UID帖子威望0 多玩草0 草
截止二战结束，航母都是没有天敌的。你可以放心的搞航母了。真的，这就是最真实的历史，老子看你扯历史就脑壳痛
还有就是历史上那个上任的舰长是还需要训练的
我们好像击穿了，我们未能击穿敌方装甲
& &一侧履带被击毁，我们停止移动，履带已修好继续前进
我们痛击了敌人，发动机失灵，发动机勉强工作
驾驶员受伤，车长阵亡，装填手受伤。我们撤离坦克
版主培训勋章
版主培训勋章
365天！天天有你
连续签到1年即可获得
元宝专属一阶勋章。已绝版
双鱼座勋章
双鱼座勋章
LOL手机盒子勋章
据说下载了LOL手机盒子APP才能拥有
活动奖励勋章
活动奖励勋章
手机论坛勋章
APP发帖双倍积分，登陆即送勋章！
马年新春勋章
手机APP马年迎春，马上有钱！
猴年新春勋章
猴年大吉，猴年行大运！
开心功勋勋章
开心功勋勋章
龙之谷功勋勋章
龙之谷功勋勋章
大唐无双功勋勋章
大唐无双功勋勋章
龙之谷活跃勋章
在龙之谷版面活跃而奖励的勋章
斗战神功勋勋章
斗战神版块功勋勋章
DOTA2功勋勋章
DOTA2杰出会员专属
新人进步奖
新人进步奖
阳光热情勋章
阳光热情勋章
解答员勋章
解答员勋章
元宝专属二阶勋章。已绝版
需要金钱：1100
手机盒子客户端点击或扫描下载
Powered by}