World of Warships

[Readers Digest] – WoWS Live Q&A #21

WorldOfWarships7 - [Readers Digest] - WoWS Live Q&A #21
Loading...

Hello everybody,

by now it should be obvious what this digest is aimed at. Compressing all the questions, answers and discussion from the latest Questions and Answers from Sub_Octavian into one readable format. For that I skip lengthy discussions and link to each individual question (as I have trouble keeping this QnA Digest within the 40.000 length limit of reddit).

And to give you something to hum along, here's a song that's stuck in my head all day: From the depths of hell in silence.
Cast their spells, explosive violence …

Anyway, try to stay civil!

—-

Q: Any idea when we'll get back the "bugged" gun bloom duration mechanic?

A: Hello. ETA 0.8.5 (I think I said that before), but no hard promises. The design is more or less ready, and it awaits in queue for implementation.

Q: Hey Sub!

Regarding
gtgRT8Y 2V4?t=13238 - [Readers Digest] - WoWS Live Q&A #21

your Anaheim presentation:

We already got quite a lot from it but there are still some cruiser related points missing..

  • Cruiser plating
  • CA vs CL: more distinguishable in terms of HE…
  • CA penetrates any plating on their battle tier…
  • CL generally won't penetrate BB plating…
  • IFHE less mandatory, more tradeoff

Were they scrapped or are they still work in progress and just got delayed due to CV rework?

A: All these things are not scrapped, but with CV Rework, Radar and Flooding changes, we really would like to have 2-3 updates of more stable, less volatile meta. Things were too spicy lately, and while we still want to do the points mentioned earlier, believing they are good for the game, some of them are too global to deliver right now.

Q: When will we get the option to unmount all flags at once?

A: I honestly don't know, as it's among big list of nice to have things.

Q: Is the UI team understaffed, the code too spaghetti or why do UI changes and improvements seemingly take forever to implement?

A: Hello. Well, a combination of factors:

  1. Yes, getting a trained UI programmer (even an experienced one should spend some time learning the game inner workings) is not THAT easy (but I wouldn't say we're really understaffed – we do hire and train new talent);
  2. However, even having many of them does not entirely solve the issue (giving birth to a baby generally takes 9 months regardless of how many women you ask to help, if you allow such analogy);
  3. Optimizing UI requires heavy rework of under-the hood part (that's why we do it piece by piece – turning spaghetti 1.0 into shiny optimized spaghetti 2.0);
  4. Adding new UI stuff should in most cases be delivered with rework of a respective component (or else it will harm the optimization);
  5. While technically setting ALL dev team priorities to UI improvements can make the process faster, it would mean several updates without really fresh content (and sorry, that will hurt the game much more – it's not a theory).

All in all, UI improvements and optimization is an important priority for us. Recently we optimized Port with ships switching, next up we're optimizing signal flags operations (ETA 0.8.3), and thus, component by component we want to make the UI much smoother and friendly overall. This is our real actual plan, and we're determined to deliver. But, on the other hand, such plan means that the improvements will be incremental and one should not expect a massive overhaul in one update.

Q: How do you see the game evolve in the future? Can we still expect a focus on releasing new lines, or will we see a shift on releasing new game content of a different type to keep the game fresh and players engaged?

A: New lines are expected to arrive on relatively same scale in the foreseeable future. But as you probably know, we also want to introduce new game modes and even willing to try more..daring ideas. Overall, yes, there is a limit of how many ships we can reasonably add, but it's not nearly close, and new ships is not at all everything we want to add into the game

Q: What is your opinion on "fighter despawning" and the "last second dive bomber drop" for carriers? Will they be tweaked or will they mostly remain unchanged?

A: Yes, if I understand the cases you're mentioning correctly, that will be fixed (consider it a bug). Although, there is no 100% confirmation on HOW exactly it will be fixed, so some time could be required to finding the best solution.

Q: Regarding the now culled proposition to rework overperforming premiums to make them available back again. Is there a possibility that the reworked ships will become available nonetheless, without touching the already existing premium ships?

A: Yes sure, but the point is, we're absolutely don't feel rushed to do it. I mean, we could make better balanced copies of Belfast or Cesare, and maybe they will appear at some point. However, mass sales of such ships were never the point in the first place, we're fine with NEW premium ships production in sales in general

Q: Is there any chance that the old models of ships that has existed since this game's inception (Japanese and American destroyers, crusiers, battleships and carriers) will be updated any time soon?

A: I fully understand your request, and when there's time – sure, we'd like to update some old stuff. Unfortunately, with our tight release schedule, we struggle to find a lot of time for such changes, and that's a part of the price we pay for delivering one major update per month (which has proven to be great thing for players engagement).

P.S. Just checked the plans – there will be some good news on the topic soon, though (Yaaaaaa-maaaaa-toooo!).

Q: What are the current plans for Operations in general? After the CV rework pretty much all of them that included AI planes are gone for known reasons. Are there any plans to bring them back or are they gone for good?

A: New CV AI is being worked on, but as for Operations in general, no huge content updates are planned at the moment, with most of the Maps&Modes team working on prototypes for PvP (maps, game modes).

Q: Is WG happy with how the radar changes turned out specifically and about the role of (classic) high tier DDs in general?

A: Okay, let's try to make it point by point, as there are two questions involved:

DD balance overall with the early 2019 changes.

Overall with 0.8.0 release DD suffered a blow to their popularity and combat efficiency (while CV had of course huge immediate spike in popularity). While we were adjusting the balance in 0.8.0 and 0.8.1 (and all incremental mini updates), and while CV popularity stabilized on acceptable level, DD popularity and combat efficiency were going back on previous level. While there are differences and nuances per server/tier/ship, (and answering your direct questions) overall we're not happy, but rather concerned about DD gameplay (it's kinda fragile atm, and we're happy to see the recovery, and don't want to interrupt it), but there is no emergency or indication that DD need immediate help. Here I must say we're not dismissing any feedback that says that DD feel differently – they surely do, as WoWS in general, after such a massive change, but that goes with reworking 1 out of 4 classes completely. However, they still deliver the results, in most cases, on pre-0.8.0 levels, and for now we just stay vigilant and monitor the situation.

Kots and competitive meta.

CV in competitive of course bring a lot of new factors, while KoTS being very indicative of that as top tier event:

  1. More spotting is available;
  2. Engaging targets covered by terrain is available;
  3. Quick strikes on nearly dead enemies are available.

I should say, old CV could do EXACTLY the same, but were much stronger in it (and partly that's because they were not in CW). Judging by KoTS, new meta is..different. Different is not necessarily bad, it's just different. Also, it's still a separate event, with relatively low amount of players, so we cannot take it as 100% argument for any further changes.

However, while we will be addressing CV balance issues in 0.8.3, 8.4 and 8.5, we will remember about competitive meta and KotS. As you could guess, we want to add CV in Clan Battles, but in their current and immediate state, we're not ready to. Next season? Possible, if by next season we establish the meta and resolve (or be fine with) some issues, like spotting or HE bombs.

Q: I would really love to get special soviet commander akin to Halsey or Yamamoto. Are there any plans for such captain (and obviously a campaign) for soviet nation anytime soon?

A: There are some plans about heroic commanders in general, and, well, let's just wait for the news

Q: What is Wargamings opinion about the matchmaker? Are you happy with how it works or are changes coming? Personally, I mostly stopped playing T8 because of the horrible MM. Same goes for T5. It really is a shame because some of my favorite ships are at T8. Being bottom tier 8 times out of 10 is not fun.

A: We're not happy, and changes are hopefully coming. I think I commented a lot on this, and here's the recent example from 2w ago (will just copy-paste it here, as it's fully relevant):

Look, I know it’s a problem, and I’m not going to paint this gold: such matches hurt. I’m sorry for this unpleasant experience, especially if such matches appear often for you. We are working on a couple of potential solutions. As soon as I have the confirmation from the programmers who implement them (yes, it’s in dev plan, and the design has already been done), there will be publications with details. Solving this issue, unfortunately, is not easy (all easy solutions are not really viable at the moment, I’ve discussed it several times, including this sub – there is nothing that can be done quickly without hurting a portion of player base). But I just want you to know that this is an acknowledged issue with high priority for us, and we’re not going to abandon it.

Q: Will you change the matchmaker so that we'll not have two or even three CVs in a single battle any more? Any plans when that change will happen?

A: Removing three (at all tiers except for 4 at least) is quite possible. With limit to 1, there is an issue, and it is connected with how complex MM actually is (something that a lot of us don't see).

The problem is that if we, for example, introduce 1CV limit to tier 10 at the moment, there WILL be more battles of 4v4 or 5v5 ships with 1 CV from time to time, even during prime times (when the number of CV in the queue fluctuates up), and any slight increase in T10 CV popularity will make things worse. MM works with the players in queue, and it is bound to launch a battle after some time no matter what. CV should always be mirrored, which adds to the problem. It's not even about "I am ready to wait for 2 seconds longer", it's about waiting for several minutes and then having 5v5 battle with 1 CV. Sorry, but it's not easy, and for now, while we're inclined to go down to 2CV hard limit, I don't see us setting 1CV even at T10, unless their popularity drops a bit (which honestly is not desirable, as CV current popularity is at lower border of target zone).

I should also add that working on CV and AA balance, which we do, will contribute to the situation. In other words, having 2 CV per team is not bad because of number itself, but rather because of some irritating situations coming from it in ship vs ship / class vs class interaction.

Q: What metric(s) is chiefly used by the statisticians in the wargaming balancing department to evaluate the strength (deciding whether a ship/class/feature is overpowered or underpowered) after release to live servers? I ask this because I am routinely confused with some of the balance decisions by the team. I am not asking to share *all* the data, but some pointers would be great. Is it the winrate? is it the average XP? Is it data from competitive modes? From randoms?

For example, Yueyang was considered to be over performing, but kitakaze is deemed to be fine. I would like to understand the thought process for that decision.

A: Our methods have seriously improved since game release. We have much better tools at the moment. For example, while we still pay attention to avg. stats everyone usually discusses (WR, damage, etc) and popularity, we use MUCH more relative data nowadays, and it really helps.

Your YY example is actually pretty good. I know it was not a popular change, but the ship was overperforming significantly, on Daring level, and there's the question: why YY was nerfed and Daring wasn't? Well, because we pay close attention to relative stats.

For instance, we have a tool that allows us to see player efficiency distribution for a particular ship. Basically it looks like this (ship names specifically omitted, that's just an example of one ship group "Tier+class"):
https://i.gyazo.com/e6ee5b18d21f14e70a5f52ccacc6b794.png

Each curve corresponds to one ship, and in this particular case we can see the account WR distribution. Do you see this one ship shifted heavily to the right? Its players are really better than other ships' players – it can be either a test ship (CCT + ST + clan test + staff generally plays better) or some hardcore ship (owners of Stalingrad, Flint, Black, etc are generally much better), for example. And when evaluating ship's efficiency we take this distribution into account. Speaking of YY and Daring, they both were overperforming, but while Daring's audience "skill curve" is significantly better, YY skill curve was more or less in line with other T10 DDs. Same players showing better results = overperforming, means the ship "buffs" its players and allows them to show much better results than they can achieve on other ships. If we theory-craft a bit more, I'm pretty sure if we replace Shimakaze (most popular T10 ship with very average players skill curve) audience with Daring audience, Shima will look OP as well – due to various reasons these guys just play better.

But that's not just it. We have special tools for making custom slices of all main performance metrics: winrate, frags, relative and absolute damage, lifetime and survivability, capture points in a ship group.

Let's take Kremlin balancing, for example. Obviously we cannot balance it by avg.stats due to the same audience difference – hence we create a slice where we can see all combat efficiency curves relative to players. So we compare Kremlin player's results with their results on other T10 battleships / results of players with similar skill. E.g. 150 k avg damage (not real stats, just an example) looks scary, but what results these players / players of the same skill show on other T10 BBs? We answer such questions before we make a decision.

The only challenge here is to get enough battles for certain ships, as all systems like that require quite A LOT of data to be precise.

I'm honestly not sure we can go into such details for any announcement we make to general audience (I will think about your question and argument more, though). But what I really want to say: when we claim "this ship is overperforming" or "it is underperforming" we typically give it A LOT of research beforehand. It's not just "look up avg.numbers and scream"

Q: Are those datasets reset after changes are made to particular ships or when global changes influencing the ships in question are made? To be more precise, are you using the aggregated total stats for each ship, or are you resetting the stats when changes are made to the ships?

A: We can chose any target period we want for a slice (and of course we do that, because generally it's worth checking per update at least, or more often, if there are in-between changes), and also we have a tool for showing stats by dynamics (e.g. per week). The data is not being reset technically, we store everything, but the scope, of course, will be relevant and depend on the question we want to answer. Also checking any huge term is a pain, because it takes A LOT of time to process. For most appliance cases, we're fine with 2-4 weeks.

Q: When will you revise legendary modules? Some ships don't have one, some of the ones that have been released are not really useful while others are semi-mandatory…

A: Most likely, this year. But we're not entirely sure, will it be "revision" or just some new, better system in place. Time will tell

Q: Hi Sub, are there any plans on changing the cruiser meta in competitive now that Henri IV is dominant?

A: Certainly Henri IV dominance hasn't come unnoticed, and we do base some of our changes on hardcore competitive meata (still, Random Battles always bigger priority). But I don't expect harsh nerfs to the ship at the moment. Maybe we will address her (really popular, btw) Legendary module, as we feel it contributes to her status a lot.

Q: Is there a plan to rework spotting mechanics for CV's? Something along the lines of reverting spotting distances back to how they were, so adding 20% or so, but making the CV only able to spot a ship to the minimap?

Загрузка...

A: As for the question, right now the only big change being worked on (not yet confirmed, but it may come) is reducing the quick spotting in the beginning of the match. Other than that, currently we don't plan anything heavy to nerf spotting, and definitely no huge changes (as "only minimap" in your example).

Q: Will there be an option to remove weather effects while still getting the penalties that come with it?

A: Sorry, but for now what we did is FX slider in the settings (I hope you tried it, according to the feedback I saw it helps a lot). Other than that – no.

Q: Blyskawica buff, when?

A: Okay, so here's the situation:

  1. Blyskawica is fine balance wise and she does not require any straight buffs;
  2. We know she used to be better (the game changed since then);
  3. We would be OK with some rebalance (make her more FUN without overbuff).

So basically we will be open to addressing her when there is a good cause, e.g. if (when) there is some progress about Pan-EU game nation. But as for direct and standalone buff it's a no.

Q: Any news regarding implementation of some basic, class related tutorials (I.e. a tutorial campaign that can give some minor start up rewards for new players, incentivizing them to learn about the game)?

A: Okay, that will be a tough answer: no.

Why? Because we don't want to implement an expensive tutorial (like a full scale tutorial mission) that won't really help. And be sure, there are a lot of in-game tutorials in games that don't really help (it can be easily tested with A/B). We have several ideas, they are either in back log of our Onboarding team, or being slowly prototyped (and when they're ready, extensive lab testing will be next step before continuing working on them). So it's going, but very, very slowly.

Q: With Update 8.2 nearly upon us, has a list of the upcoming Armory premium ships been compiled/finalized? Would it be realistic to expect ships that aren’t currently sold, but are also not offered in the Santa Crate lootboxes? (HMAS Vampire, as an example)

A: Full list will be included in patch notes, to be fair, I'd rather not leak it in this Q&A. Patch notes are to arrive soon. P.S. No Vampire in the current list.

Q: All the premium CVs have been tier 8 so far (after the rework). Tier 8 has been too difficult to me, and I prefer sticking to Tier 6. Any chance we will be getting premium tier 6 CVs, or is there a rule that all premium CVs must be tier 8?

A: Sure, there are perfectly valid chances of having T6 premium CVs. It's just that all existing CV prems fitted to T8 better in our opinion.

Q: as players become more familiar with the new CV mechanic, how will WG revise the game going forward? For example we are seeing skilled CV players who can largely avoid taking flak. If the AA values are balanced around that it could mean some players are taking pretty low damage to their planes as they get better at flak dodging.

A: TBH, some top players skillfully avoiding flak is a factor, but not huge enough to justify wide scale AA changes. We're monitoring players progress in CVs, and sure, if (for example), bulk of the playerbase ends up with much less plane losses, which will overbuff CVs efficiency in all segments (not just top 1% of players), then there may be some response (e.g. increasing AA efficiency across the board or something else). For now – no, as you know from 0.8.2 test we're slightly changing AA mechanics in favor of less plane losses, actually.

Q: If an AP shell enters a ship, is so fast that it reaches the other side of the ship before the arming time is over and then doesn't have enough penetration power left to leave the ship as overpen, would it still count as overpen, would it shatter on the inside of the ship's armor for 0 damage or would it deal pen/citadel damage?

A: Shattering inside of a ship's part counts as a shell detonating in that part.

Q: Did WG-staff underestimate the impact the CV-rework rollout had on the liveserver starting from 0.8.0 (and its skewed balance it brought to the game)?

A: Not really. I mean, certain aspects were properly estimated (like target CV popularity or the need to rapidly deploy various fixes), but there were underestimations, too (like tier 4 CV popularity and spotting damage per squadron in generals – both ending up higher than expected and calculated). In general, it went more or less as planned (yes, we did understand it will be a stressful and meta-shaking event).

Q: Are there any plans to significantly rebalance the RN BB line (outside of more vulnerable citadels)? For example, make them more Warspite/Vanguard-esque? In connection to that, what is the state of Conqueror's 457mm guns' rebalance that was hinted some time ago?

A: We will test Conq and Monarch just as a benchmark. Depending on test results, we will decide what to do with the line overall and what changes we need to try. As for Conq guns, I will not exclude the possibility to create alternative fir for her to make 2 distinguishable playstyles depending on guns, but that's a bit far-fetched at the moment. We need to deal with line in general first.

Q: My question is regarding Secondaries. Could we see more intelligent secondary aiming? Perhaps a buff to 100mm secondaries found on MN BBs and more accurate secondaries when specced for them.

A: Yes, they are generally more fun, but not ultra competitive (although stealth is to some extent less valuable with more detection from air).

We don't want to straight up buff secondaries across the board in the current implementation (for several reasons, one of them being a risk to over-punish light ships), but we're certainly big fans of idea of making such build more fun to play and more relevant. Secondaries rework 2019? 2020 Year of Secondaries? I don't want to make any hard promised on that, but we will be looking into improving or heavily updating that part of the game.

Q: Could you comment on submarines? Did players enjoy them in the Halloween test, is the idea tabled for now or is there development activity occuring, etc.?

A: 🙂

Q: With prem CV being done. Are they now principally allowed to be sold and thus can we expect to see them on Shop in near future?

A: Yes, they are, yes, you can.

Q: Has there been any thought put into what planes the carriers of the various nations are actually using? Is there any chance that we will see changes to this later, given that you can balance aircraft in any manner deemed necessary anyways? It really sucks that planes like the SBD, F6F and TBF are only available as stock modules. Especially when the opportunity for their usage exists by simply using a later modification of the aircraft. Some aircraft, like the Firefly, could be used in an earlier modification to diversify the visuals of the aircraft loadouts (Furious and other carriers only having 1-2 types of plane gets boring visually very quickly).

A: Hello. I totally understand and partly support your point, but…

you can balance aircraft in any manner deemed necessary anyways

Not really. The reason we use various plane models is because we have more or less systematic approach to plane in-game stats – we do base them on IRL stats for all initial calculations. And with this approach, for example, if Stuka on GZ is not good enough gameplay-wise, we replace her with a better (stats-wise) plane model. Even if it's very "fictional".

I certainly understand that this approach has some big flaws, and I will pitch it to the team, however, I hope you understand that at the moment it will not be high priority. What we have now works for the majority of players, and there are much more important things to fix.

Q: Dear WG: For the love of God please re-make in-battle UI with simple fix that can show _ALL_ detection icons ("Detected" / "Priority Target" / "Incoming Fire" / "Radar" / "Hydro" / "Plane Spotted" etc.) at once and not altering like it is now!

A: This request is in our back log. We want to do it, we appreciate that a lot of hardcore players want it, but for now we struggle to raise its priority high enough (comparing, for example, to general UI optimization or UI support for some huge new features planned for 2019).

Q: A good few months ago, WG announced the restart of the collectors scheme. We've had ingame badges up until now, any news on other features for this?

A: Not yet, but I'm pretty sure eventually something good will come up for the club. We just want it to be fair to other players (don't really want to push on VIP stuff too much here) and automated (manual work with such initiative = hell).

Q: Is there anyway to change Dynamic Music with mods? So far I asked some modders with experience in sound mods and they have no idea where to look for the files with the music, much less start modding them.

A: TBH, there is no good reliable way. Sure, theoretically one could unpack our sound banks and change files, but I doubt the result will be..smooth.

Q: What is WG looking at to try and differentiate CA and CL in the game?

A: Yes, we do, as we stated before, however, we want to let the meta settle a bit after all the recent massive changes. It will be worked on later

Q: So since the flooding changes have been out for a while. How are the boats that rely on torp damage faring?

How about some stats to back them up. Has the "mad ticks" of flooding damage that were the selling point of nerfing flooding materialized for those boats that primarily do their damage via torps? How's the population of those DDs faring in the current CV and radar heavy meta?

On the CV side.. Any changes to AP coming up? It's rather ridiculous that the AP automatically assumes you want to reverse across the map as opposed to turning the boat around.

A: Too early to evaluate. The problem with evaluating this change is not just about the amount of data – it's about changing the old habit which is "I keep my DCP for flooding". It will take a while.

Q: Any chance that the German battleships could get the Russian battleship dispersion.

A: Well, the chances of it are more or less the same as RU BB getting German-level secondaries, German turtleback or Hydro = almost zero. Sure, we design both lines to be CQC-oriented, but they do play differently, have their own strengths and weaknesses, and that's fine. We don't want them to be too similar.

Q: AA still seems to still have some balancing issues, when do you think it’ll finally be worked out.

A: Well, in this case you're welcome to share these issues (here or PM, as you wish). From our side, generally we're fine with how AA works, and we do not plan any changes except for 0.8.2 (AA stacking). Some individual tweaking may arrive, but again, nothing global for now.

Q: Is there a plan to make fighter planes useful on t4-5 ships?

A: Tier 4 and 6 carriers have generally very moderate efficiency on all levels, and I don't think we're going to nerf them in any way. What ships you're struggling with?

Q: So maybe remove the safetynet on CV's and lower their planes HP as this shit is frustrating to play against, and it has already ruined ship lines – – and when he does he can kill you with a single plane squad. So please revisit this balancing or give me unlimited reports for each and all CV.

A: Because we don't want "closer to ship, more damage" to be a solid rule anymore. We do want to create various AA "curves", where certain ships can unleash more punishment in long AA zone, but be weaker up close (or vice versa, the classic way). It's more interesting and flexible to balance.

As for DDs, certainly in some cases it can be very challenging, and we know that a good HE DB drop can be a pain, but looking at stats, with all due respect "what's the point of playing DD" looks like overestimation of the issue. There is "mafia" on any class, and unfortunately, I can only embrace the fact that I will be hated by someone each time I answer class-specific question 🙂 but we don't think that any class in WoWS currently is particularly "oppressed" at the moment. Sorry.

Q: Dear sub, quick question, when will we see u as an in game commander?

A: I'm already there, not unique of course, just a USN generic portrait 🙂
cd80dd2ba0d2e6090f9654dabf5f88ab - [Readers Digest] - WoWS Live Q&A #21


https://i.gyazo.com/cd80dd2ba0d2e6090f9654dabf5f88ab.png

A disclaimer though: I am potato in heart, and can harm your performance on a ship you assign me to

Q: Are you happy with the current state of CV to CV and CV to surface ship interaction?

A: With some reservations, yes. What we still want to address (apart from the things done in 0.8.2):

  1. Individual balance;
  2. Priority sector usability and efficiency;
  3. (most likely) initial spotting
  4. (most likely) certain cases of CV-DD interaction
  5. Autopilot (it's not interaction, but still and important component to be improved a lot).

Q: Could you provide some insight to 'lessons learned' from the cross server matchmaking test season?

A: A lot of tech stuff had to be dealt with (cross server MM was indeed a challenge). 5th season is planned for 0.8.2 – with cross-server and for now, without CV (still checking test results). Official news will arrive soon.

Q: When WOWS actual transform to real 64bit program?

A: 64-bit client is to arrive in a few updates, most likely, first it will be automatic option depending on available memory (64-bit is more memory hungry, and it won't be beneficial on weak configs).

Q: In a few of your responses so for, you mention how some QoL and 'nice to have' things are in the backlog. Could you describe your prioritization process? Could players be allowed provide their input on what they'd like to see sooner/later?

A: Community requests and complaints on all platforms are being gathered by respective Community Managers, and then being prioritized based on CM evaluations in a special list which we call "Painkillers" (community has some pain – we need to address it). A request voiced in a couple of topics (with a lot of upvotes/reactions/support) on each region/platform will get more "points" internally than a request voiced on 1 forum in 1 obsolete topic, for example. However, the quality of idea and team's own evaluation contribute as well. I cannot formalize it fully, as this is basically sentiment analysis across the whole playerbase, but we do our best to take all trends and popular opinions into account.

Then, there is planning stage, that can change priorities depending on "cost". For example one request can require a UI tech artist, another can involve UI tech, Game Logic, Game design and Server core specialists at the same time. So the first one is easier to slip in some nearest update, while the second one should be planned months ahead.

If you have an idea, voice it and discuss with the community. We care for things our players want, but one should also remember about popularity of an idea/complaint and it's impact. E.g. port UI optimization and adding all Detection icons at the same time are both very cool, but the first one influences much more players and has bigger impact on the game quality, so, with all other factors even, it will be prioritized.

Sorry for the long reply, but this is not the simplest topic 🙂 Cheers!

Q: There have several brief periods of server downtime recently, is there a general reason for this or is this just a series of unfortunate events?

Also, would you rather be attacked by a horse sized duck or 100 duck sized horses?

A: Almost all tech issues are “series of unfortunate events”. There is not much to say here, even if it was server hardware one time, then server software, then update issue, it does not make player experience less affected. There is after action discussion each time we have big issues, and in most cases, something new comes up sooner or later.

Also, I would pick 100 horses and load HE (please remember that our game is 12+, I don’t support any violence towards animals and duck sized horses do not exist).

Q: Myself and many other people have noticed significant performance issues since the CV rework went live. Is this something that is being looked into?

A: Yes, and there are some changes planned in 0.8.2 to address it, but I recommend filing a CS ticket if you have significant issues – having such ticket (with all info attached) can help the devs a lot (and also help us in estimating the scale of the problem). Thank you!

—-

That's for now folks … took me about 30 repeats of the song mentioned in the introduction. If you have any questions or think something is missing, let me know. Thanks again to Sub_Oct for this QnA.

Source: Original link


Loading...
© Post "[Readers Digest] – WoWS Live Q&A #21" 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.

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *