Hello fellow redditors,
caught quite by surprise Sub_Octavian organized a Live QnA. And judging by the number of comments … I got some work ahead of me. As always, the "Q" provides a link to the comment chain of the adjacent question. Starting web radio. Let's go:
Q: Could we get a % damage dealt stat in the postbattle screen? Or maybe in-match as well? And the API as well of course 😉
A: It's in our backlog, and thanks for the reminder. I will refresh the discussion in the team 🙂
Q: Now that IJN AA was further nerfed with the CV/AA Overhaul, can Atago finally get her missing AA, as well as an updated superstructure to match her actual hull?
A: Missing AA? Atago plane kills score is surpassed by only Baltimore, Cleveland, Kutuzov and Wichita, and only by 1-1,4 frags on average, while all other combat stats are absolutely decent. Pre-rework she was roughly in the same spot, and I don't recall her being strongest AA ship on T8. Sorry, there is no justification for buffs at the moment. As for model improvements, we normally do this for older models from time to time, if there are better references and free resources. If there is room for improvement, she will get them some day.
Q: Will WoWs ever get the same treatment WoT did in regards to graphics, performance, and optimization?
A: I think I commented on it a few times. We do not plan to make any complete and total tech overhaul in one huge updates. We do incremental changes. Some FX improvements here, sound improvements there, x64 client there, etc, etc. For now, there is no plan to change it approach. We will update visual, tech and under the hood part from time to time. Your question is valid and good, but for the future, I want to clarify: WoT and WoWS are different teams, studios and even before WoT engine changed, our common engine versions were very different. There is almost zero point in connecting this games from this point of view.
Q: Given the feedback from the testing, what is your opinion of the concept of the Pobeda/Slava? A lot of people don't seem to like a ship that promotes a very passive, sniping playstyle.
A: It's a WIP ship; pretty soon her testing will be stopped, then feedback and data will be studied and then GD will decide what to do with her for then next test stage. With most obvious options being: to continue with the same concept, but change it to be better/more balanced/better perceived or to try different concept.
Speaking about my personal opinion. I've been hearing "it promotes passive playstyle" all the time, about everything, for years. Anything people don't like, they slap this "passive gameplay" marker on. In reality, it usually does not affect anything a lot. Campers continue to camp, pushers push. But this time I actually 100% agree with your evaluation. It is a true glass sniper cannon. Yamato and Montana can be very good at long range, too, but unlike Slava, they are not useless in CQC and can push.
Q: What is the status on the gun fire bloom change?
A: Same, in dev queue. Unfortunately, it's a game logic component, so it's in the same bin with, like, Priority sector rework or CV autopilot improvements. We will get there, but we're not ready to increase the priority of this feature to emergency (aka drop everything else and do it ASAP), because, at the time all this gun bloom changes were happening, it was obvious (after several weeks) that the impact is really low. For sure, there IS impact, in some particular cases it can be a game changer, and no denying that we're bringing this back as we promised. But right now, other things are just more important and cover much more players. TLDR – Work in progress, sorry for taking so long, will be done as promised.
Q: Are there any plans to adjust the German battleships?, there are multiple different small changes that could be implemented to make them relevant again. They are fun ships but simply not working in the current meta.
A: I cannot back the opinion that German BB are "not working". If we look at different stats, German BB are in the middle of the group on each tier in terms of WR. They may not have stellar absolute avg. damage, but they're contributing to the team success well enough. Their popularity is also very high, even with all other options which are in the game.
There are a few additional factors, though:
- Meta changes indeed, and so does feelings and gameplay experience. I am not arguing that German BB gameplay may feel different, most likely, it does (for me personally – no, but again, I appreciate other opinions).
- There are quite a few strong premium/coal/freeXP BB on almost every tier, and a lot of skilled players stick to them. E.g Missouri, Musashi and JB are very solid, very popular, and a lot of good players use them for farm regularly. When such ships are in the group, other ships can feel weaker.
All in all, we're not opposed to improve German BB experience while staying within balance. Right now RU BB are being introduced, and they occupy the same slot of CQC BB. Let's see how their stats settle, how they shake down with German BB and then we will address this question one more time. If there is room for improvements, I don't see any single reason not to give them love. Also, I'm a fan of secondary build BBs, so…you can be sure I will be the first to vouch for that 🙂
Q: Is WG happy with the effect that CV has on Tier 8 matchmaking? T8 ships are helpless against T10 aircraft, and T8 aircraft are helpless against T10 AA. This is punishing for surface ships and CV alike when being bottom tier in a T8 boat is bad enough already.
A: T8 vs T10 MM situation is roughly the same regardless of the class. As stated before, some global MM improvements are being worked on, and no CV-specific changes are currently planned. We want to improve the experience for T8 in general, for all classes.
Q: Could we ever get a soft-cap for only 1 CV per match like you did for T10 but for all tiers or was it the intention from the start to have at least 2 CVs in a match? Maybe a slightly changed cap for 1 minute or so instead of 3. Bottom tier in a double CV game feel really frustrating, not to say about the amount of spotting they can do.
A: We're not against soft cap for 1 CV on T8 in the same way it's implemented for T10. The problem is T8 CV popularity. We update the data from time to time, and overall, when it becomes viable, we will strongly consider doing this cap. Right now it's not going to work, and I actually did a long post about it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/b62cx7/just_a_small_clarification_on_mm_cv_limits/
Q: What happend to Viribus Unitis, Yahagi and Leone?
A: I mean some ships are just being put aside for some time, until there is a good moment to release them. It's fine, not all WIP content is scheduled to be release immediately after testing.
Q: Are there any plans to update the Gearing’s model? Currently, it’s proportionally wrong and quite a bit wider than it should be (it should have the same width as a Sumner like the Yueyang).
A: We will update old models from time to time, as we recently did with Yamato.
Q: Do you think AP bomb mechanic in general (not just Graf which is already being tested) needs to be changed and explained better as well? Currently its behavior is too extreme and difficult to predict imo. It either deals 15-25k citadel damage which is super frustrating to the receiving side or deals 2-3k overpen damage which is meh from the CV player view. There is also no baseline stat to compare the penetration number of each kind of AP bombs either, unlike HE bombs which is a fixed number.
A: No. We're quite happy with the current base mechanic, and think that it has good skill / reward ratio. What we're concerned about is AP alpha strike potential on some CV, especially while the general playerbase progresses in terms of skill and learns how to use this armament properly. So there may be some, most likely minor, tweaks in future. But the base concept itself, in our opinion, works well.
Q: Is WG happy with the amount of spotting and the more and more reduced value of concealment in the game?
Same question, only longer:
In the days of old with few/no CVs/Radar/Hydro concealment was very very powerful and a tool that good players could use to play with for interesting and often tense results.
CV related part:
That may not be obvious, but the planned 0.8.4 changes, which, basically, affect the squadron speed WILL influence spotting. And for us, these changes are targeted at dpm and spotting equally. The takeoff delay will affect initial spotting, which we do consider a problem as well.
We cannot promise that it will be enough, but:
- I can absolutely confirm that in any case, there is new meta, where there IS more spotting overall. We do not consider it a bad thing.
- While working on this issue further, we will try hard to use tweaks, not reworking the mechanic. Which means that options like "CV only spots for itself" and "CV spotting has delay like Radar" are not viable for us at the moment, and we will consider them only if absolutely necessary (everything else won't work).
Overall spotting part:
All factors combined, we are concerned about spotting in the game. We're fine with meta changing, but would like to keep it soft, when possible. Right now we're concentrated on CV part, as obviously CV rework had big and immediate effect, when we're fully happy with it, we will look at everything else.
Q: Can you give us a penetration value of AP bombs? It's really interesting to know. Thanks.
Hosho (Type 99 25 Mod1): 174
Ruyjo (Type 3 25 Mod1 Mk4): 228
Shokaku (Type 2 50 Mark1): 262
Hakuryu (Type 2 80 Mk5 Mod1): 351
Enterprise (M62): 244
GZ (PD 500): 334 (pre buff)
These should be the base values. Please take this into account:
- Penetration capability is always the same, it's not affected by anything.
- However, bombs interact with effective armor, so angle matters and they even can bounce.
- They have normalization. It's base value is bigger than AP shells, but it's applied non-linearly; if the angle is bad, even great normalization won't help.
- Aircraft angle and speed affect bomb speed and trajectory (but bombs do not loose penetration from speed!). Which means that for maximum penetration capabilities we must make the drop as close to 90 degrees as possible -> dropping early. For soft targets it may make sense to drop lately because, as with AP shells, for soft targets you don't want overpens and increasing effective armor turns into a benefit.
Q: Are there any plans to add a german coal or steel ship to the armory in the near future?
A: There are always plans to add ships of all nations and all tiers to the game for all currencies. But in Q&A, we do not make such announcements, sorry. The only thing I can say there are some cool German ships planned for the foreseeable future and I look forward to them myself 🙂 But that's true for other game nations as well.
Q: Has there been any thought given toward allowing 19 pt captains to further specialize in skills(picked by the player) much the same way the special coal/doubloon captains do now? To clarify I mean skills, not special traits that activate when certain conditions are met.
A: Captains "meta" is something we may want to update in the future, but from all "meta" things at the moment, we have higher priorities.
Q: Are there any plans to address the (imho) imbalance between the volume of almost non-stop damage over time ships have to deal with since the CV rework and the very limited (few heals and repair parties with long cooldowns) possibilities a player has to counter DOT damage, given the fact that surface ships can not disengage against a CV like they could against any surface ship (stop shooting to reduce spotting range, take cover, move away) ?
A: Overall CV balancing and AA improvements will affect his anyways. Less plane speed + better AA counterplay = less strikes = less hits = less damage, including DoT. It does not make any sense to do your proposed change until 0.8.4 and further planned changes are made and do their impact.
Also, their damage structure is not so DoT-reliant as you may think. Torps have very nerfed flooding chance, rockets are not stellar either. T10 CV atm have roughly 6% of flooding and 13,5% of fires in their damage structure, and that's the highest value of the class. T10 cruisers do 21% in fires alone.
Q: Regarding AA, would you consider the outcome of this clip to be working as intended? It’s a 20 second clip, just an Atlanta with DFAA vs Tier 6 torpedo bombers.Without giving too much away, would the future planned changes to AA change this interaction in a meaningful way?
A: We're happy with Atlanta herself. From all non CV ships in the game, Atlanta avg plane kills are surpassed only by Minotaur,Worcester and a couple of USN BB. Relatively to the game, Atlanta has an amazing AA.
However, we're not entirely happy about CV-AA interaction globally, especially in regards to priority sector. We want the combination of AA ship/build + skillful priority sector usage to have noticeably more impact on ship's AA defence, and that's what we're working on right now.
Q: Are there any plans on making secondaries more viable as a build?
We now have a pair of US ships that show that a good build can be fun but that's about it. ManSecs is a waste of 4 points for 99% of ships. Between a T9 BB having 5km guns and the Vanguard having the wrong ones it seems to be an area that's been mostly overlooked.
A: Yes. But it is not simple. I doubt we will make significant changes with current settings, and new secondary mechanics obviously will be a long term project, given other things being worked on. I can say this: we want to do something cool with secondaries, but there is no final decision what and when yet. At the moment we do not treat " secondaries being a fun alternative for just a couple of ship lines " an emergency. It is an area of the game we will eventually revisit, along with many others.
Q: I have a question regarding Catapult Fighter consumables. As of now, they seem rather slow to actually attack enemy aircrafts, and also, the full squadron is depleted even when they shoot down a nearly used-up squadron consisting of, say, 2 aircrafts. Is WG happy with the current efficiency of Catapult fighters? Any tweaks to make players feel more protected when using the consumable?
A: Yes, we're happy with the efficiency of this consumable. It does what it was meant to – inflicts losses on enemy squadron or, in some cases, creates area denial. It's more efficient when launched with good timing, it's less efficient when launched late. It's more efficient if CV plays aggressively, it's less efficient if CV plays carefully. TBH, we're fine with its state right now, and our nearest efforts to improve AA protection will be targeted at priority sector mechanic, not at fighters.
Q: What is WG's opinion on presence of skill gap between players in current reworked CVs? I have personally seen fails in current CVs worse than anything I have ever encountered in old CVs.
A: The presence of skill gap is not a problem (good players should be rewarded, bad players should be punished), the question is in the "width" of this gap, and it's effect on the game: on player's personal performance and on the team. Pre rework CV were very different in this aspect from everybody else. And in this aspect, with all data we have, we don't have any doubts that new CV are much much better than old CV.
Q: While I understand specific changes to a module and/or system would be reserved for the Dev Blog, can you update us on the plans for the system as a whole? Approximate timing of the change?
The number of new T10 ships is continually increasing thus the inventory of ships with and without Legendary Modules grows. Would premium ships ever have a Legendary Module opportunity? What about CV’s?
A: That's not about getting in trouble 🙂 As I've hinted a few times, we're at the design stage. It may be completely new system, or complementing system or just "keep these mods and do more of them". Right now there is truly no answer, and the decision is in the process.
Q: Any chance for a setting to disable the in-game chat (apart from system messages like consumable use and the wheel messages)?
A: It's being discussed right now actually, as there are quite a few requests to do it from the players. We will let you know when the decision is made, of course.
Q: Right now CVs feel very removed from the gameplayloop. A lot of the time as a surface player i feel like just a target / NPC for the damage race between the two CVs. This is made worse by there being basically no interaction between CVs. Fighters are buggy as hell and usually just cancel each other out.
- We want to add more counterplay, as stated several times in thisn QnA. Please check out my replies about Priority sector.
- Fighter cancelling each other is exactly what we want. If you have a fighter ready you can try to cancel enemy fighter. Also, we don't want them to be "press the button to wipe the enemy out immediately". For now we see that they work as they should.
- I play the same game, regularly, on various ships classes and tiers. Sorry, but I feel you are blowing this out of proportion. Some issues? Sure. NPC mode? Eh, no, and it is not backed by stats either. CV damage increase with player skill is relarively higher than on other classes, but WR increase is lower. CV as a class influence battle outcome less than other classes and much less than they used to. Also, please read about new AA mechanic. Auras deal very consistent damage. They were much more RNG pre rework.
Q: What are the alternative ways for players to acquire the Admiral Kuznetsov captain after the Victory event? Will there be a permanent campaign for Kuznetsov similar to the campaigns for Yamamoto and Halsey? Given that Kuznetsov has abilities that give a significant advantage over a standard captain, if players who miss out on the campaign cannot get him later on, they would be significantly disadvantaged during combat.
A: It's WIP, but according to the current plan, there will be means to get this commander afterwards, however, not immediately after the event. For exactly the reasons you state: we don't want newer players to miss out good content. What it will be (a campaign? an armory item?) – I cannot confirm now.
Q: Has there been any updates regarding linux players getting warnings and potentially banned?, I know you guys aren't officially supporting linux but the game runs perfectly under wine it's just the warning system causing issues since the last update.
A: We're looking into it, but unfortunately, as Linux is NOT officially supported, I cannot give any guarantees. Sorry 🙁
Q: Is there a possibility of another captain skill rework. I feel that AA skills should be separated from secondary skills currently as both suffer from their meh performance together and their significant investment away from skills that increase survivability and/or captain skills that increase comfortability.
A: Some updates are more than possible in foreseeable future. Complete rework – highly unlikely this year or even beyond.
Q: I know that balancing is cyclical, and that you're actively working on spotting and CV balance in general (thanks!), but my question is on the DD side of the equation: Are you seeing as significant of an affect on DD's as a class since rework as the population of DD mains is claiming?
A: DD popularity has decreased of course (what's interesting quite a few DD players have become very active with CV). It is on acceptable level, and to be honest, I don't think it's something very special. We had a lot of popularity fluctuations over the years – at some point BB were over dominating and cruisers were nearly obsolete, and even before thet DD were on top. Right now the class distribution is okay (cruisers did big comeback btw), and with a few changes to CV, most likely, DD and CV populations will bounce back a bit more (more DD less CV).
As for DD efficiency, it's definitely fine stats-wise, but we fully understand subjective, situational factor. Hence the upcoming changes to HE bombs for example, the already done nerfs to the rockets, etc, etc.
Balance is cynical, but numbers is not the only thing we care about. Sentiment has huge weight too, and the biggest challenge is to balance these things before balancing the ships 🙂
Q: Are there plans to introduce similar things for the AP shells ? Say at 5,10 and 15km where applicable ? That would be extremely useful for certain ships in deciding whether to use AP or not.
A: Not a priority, as unfortunately, AP shells loose penetration with distance non linearly, they have different trajectories, hit at different angles, and normalize. We're not fans of adding super hardcore information to the client, which the bulk of playerbase will never use. On the other hand, adding this information in interactive and digestible form so it actually helps players to make decisions, is a big task. A good one, but very costly. So it sits in back log for now.
Q: Do you think that the binary nature of HE penetration is a problem when it comes to balancing skills like IFHE and small-caliber guns, or do you guys think that its fine and you can balance it regardless?
A: I do not comment on leaks and speculations 😉 But answering the main part, we think that core mechanics of HE is fine, and with 99% probability any further improvements will be "tweaking the knobs" rather then "2020 year of HE rework".
Q: Has the dev team considered "changing/nerfing" IFHE by buffing the consistency of small caliber AP a small amount (like lower arming threshold, OR slightly better normalization, OR slightly better bounce angles, etc.) in order to create a competitor to IFHE?
A: Yes, along with many other options, but there is no direction that we're firmly believe in just yet.
Q: Are there any new operations in development?
A: Apart from some..interesting special events – no. Our efforts in terms of game modes will be concentrated more on enriching PvP and making cool events this year.
Q: Is there any chance to increase the punishment for afk and bot at asia server? Since the chinese server stopped update and remained at 0.7.3. There are many players from Chinese server moved to Asia server since last year. Bots are everywhere, You can meet at least 1 bot or afk players per team per match. Situation are even worse at low Tier during morning and midnight server time. It is just not fun to play with such numbers of bot and player who fire once every 5 mins.
A: Yes. And not only for Asia. Actually, we're readdressing our system right now to better detect and better suspend the accounts which looks like "bots". Whether they are bots or just zero-effort farm accounts played by 10 ppl, is not relevant – we know they ruin the experience for fair players. So there will be improvements here in the near future.
Q: Are there any plans to introduce a game mode without carriers anytime soon?
A: No (apart from various events, that can be "no CV", "no BB" and "no whatever class, because it's an event").
Q: Any plans on completely rebalancing Graf Zeppelin, now that its biggest weapon — speed — has been nerfed 40 knots? Any plans for further AA/CV balance that you can share at the moment?
A: Question 1: no, the speed boost mechanics is being changed globally and systematically. It's not a GZ nerf, it's a global mechanics nerf affecting all CV in the game. In the meantime, GZ retains her individual quality – high speed, with DB and TB planes having 181kt of base speed while other CV at this tier have it in 130ish range. What's more, her DB are being buffed. Better accuracy, more comfortable attack and, what's IMO even more important, higher bomb speed and penetration. The numbers do not seem huge, but in game it can be a difference between penetrating or not penetrating armor deck, especially against higher tier ships. And we all know that citadel hit is very desirable when you use AP bombs. If GZ will be weak after the changes for some reason, she will be improved in some other way – that's a standard workflow.
Question 2: everything we can share ATM is in Dev Blog.
Q: Special commander Kutznetov has a much less specialised (ship reaches <10% HP) special ability activation threshold. This was because Yamamoto and Halsey’s were considered too specific (score a kraken, ect.).
With this in mind, will there be a revision of Halsey and Yamamoto’s special ability threshold?
Is this activation threshold something we could see in future special commanders of other nations?
A: The idea is that we want to try slightly different concept.
Right now we have guys like Doe Brothers (no super talents, improved skills), Epic Yamamoto and Halsey ( improved skills, super rare and super epic talents), and now we want to try Kuznetsov as "less improved skills, less epic, but easier to trigger talents".
Right now we're not 100% sure of the further developments. But if Kuznetsov is successful, I'm pretty sure there will be more commanders like that for other game nations. At the same time Yamamoto and Halsey future in this case is an open question. Should they be reworked, removing their mega epic effect in favor of less good/easier to trigger? Or should we get the alt.versions? Or maybe all 3 types of commanders will co-exist to suits different tastes 🙂 We will see.
Q: Have you considered making AA rewarding or at least the investment for AA specs less costly?
It requires a substantial investment to specialise any ship for AA, yet there is next to no control.
A: Yes, and that's kinda in the plan. To reward more for AA control and/or AA loadout. Without making ships like Mino into "I evaporate you in a second before you even notice", preferably.
Q: Will the Yueyang ever be rebalanced to account for the unnecessary nerfs a few patches ago?
A: As any other ship, YY can be changed in the future, but we do not consider the nerf "unnecessary", happy with the result, and there is no reverting planned. YY sits firmly in the middle of T10 DD in terms of damage, WR, frags and other stats. At the same time, YY audience skill curve is not special (as opposed to Daring for example), so her relative performance is also fine. She's the least popular T10 DD, but always was like this, and her popularity is still acceptable to us. She used to be OP, now she's OK. Can it be "more OK" (better) while staying within acceptable balance? Yes, as many other ships, too. So we will consider it for the future updates.
- Citadels that are small in size and are placed in the stern. In the case of the Enterprise almost none existent.
- Automatic fire and flood control damage
- High resistance to fire and flooding
- The automatic movement control moves the CV in reverse. This has the effect of not exposing a citadel that is already hard to get to.
What is the rationale for these design features?
- Citadels in the game are being defined according to a specific set of rules. CV citadels follow this set as well, and their citadel placement has nothing to do with rework. From what I see in game and in stats, they can be easily citadeled in most cases.
- Already explained long time ago in DevBlog.
Q: When will the Midway and Hakuryu get their Legendary Module back? They got frozen after 0.8.0 and currently cannot be used (although they can be earned).
Personaly I would love to see the Midway get its old jets back from the Closed Beta when the Legendary Upgrade gets mounted. Dont know how it should balanced, but it would be cool to look at nonetheless
A: I'm not 100% sure they will, actually. Because in our plans, we want to readdress the Legendary Mod thing overall. Maybe there will be some other system instead. Or maybe there will be changes. There is no exact decision right now; it may turn out that these mods will appear in some time as a part of current system, or they may be replaced (for all ships) with something completely new. Or these systems will co-exist. Sorry, in all fairness, we don't know ourselves right now 🙂
Q: In about another 6-8 months, when it is finally admitted that the CV rework has failed, how will WG attempt to repair the damage done?
A: While "never say never" is true (looks at Halloween subs), we don't have any indication that CV rework is a failure. It has some issues, part of which are still to be resolved, it has some negative constructive feedback, and, sorry to say that, I mean no disrespect, it also has some echo-chamber hatred sentiment, which is not really constructive, too.
As you can guess, no developer is interested in making the game worse, less popular, less enjoyable, etc. WoWS is the result for our effort, it's main career project for most of us, and it's huge part of our lives. From all main audience metrics, overall results of CV rework are good. From balance metrics, CV rework is good. Some players being unhappy or salty is of course NOT good, but:
- We're addressing the players concerns, and working on feedback points.
- We had the gut to rework the class from scratch, and none of us had pink dreams that CV rework would suit absolutely everyone.
If you disagree, fine, everyone is entitled to own opinion. And I apologize if the game is worse for you as a result of out efforts to make it better. Obviously none of us can be happy about it. But in all honesty, I am not going to admit something I don't believe in, while the full picture looks good and the game is alive and kicking. Even if this sub has turned into CV hate fest for some players, when many positive opinions are actively mocked and downvoted.
Q: My clan is one of the top Naval Battle clans in the world. We set the pre-damage star record with 164 stars and put up 245 last week. We have really enjoyed the game mode and how it brings the clan together.
However, the change to damage from base XP had a HUGE side effect last weekend. A strategy I saw was to div in a co-op game with two other players and have them not fire their guns until the player going for the star gets their damage. This makes what was a fun game mode very boring, especially when more players take advantage of this. Can WG either to go back to base XP or only allow Naval Battles to be done in randoms? Thank you.
A: Feedback appreciated, most likely we will get to XP and think about damage more.
Q: Will there ever be high tier operations It would give me great feels to play operation Ten Go as Yamato/Musashi at Leyte or something with Missouri
A: Unfortunately our current efforts are mostly switched to PvP maps and modes, and to thematic events. For now, we're not able to spend any significant resources on Operations, simply because there are things much bigger chunk of playerbase cares about.
Q: Kinda two questions stuffed in one, but. Will there ever be considered doing a BB line split for RN and KM, for Battlecruisers? Having vessels like HMS Renown would be awesome.
A: There is no reason for not adding new interesting lines, but I am not announcing them on QnA 😉
That went quicker than I thought! As always, I have omitted super obvious questions that result in a "This is confidential" answer. Also: If I have forogotten any important question OR a link is broken, let me know.
Source: Original link
© Post "Live Q&A 22 [Readers Digest]" for game World of Warships.
Top 10 Most Anticipated Video Games of 2020
2020 will have something to satisfy classic and modern gamers alike. To be eligible for the list, the game must be confirmed for 2020, or there should be good reason to expect its release in that year. Therefore, upcoming games with a mere announcement and no discernible release date will not be included.
Top 15 NEW Games of 2020 [FIRST HALF]
2020 has a ton to look forward to...in the video gaming world. Here are fifteen games we're looking forward to in the first half of 2020.