Q: Where is the carrier rework that was promised before "any more premium carriers"? We've gotten Kaga, Enterprise, and Graf Zeppelin is just around the corner.

A: I really doubt there was a promise not to release carriers before rework.

The point was we were not concentrating on new carriers because there were some major issues with them as a whole. This includes: UI problems, in-class balance problems, lack of tutorial/learning curve problems. These things, along with others, lead us to very global and serious question "Are we sure that existing CV/AA concept should be just tuned and tweaked or we need a global overhaul? And if yes, should we try to introduce it in a couple of big updates or to make it gradual?".

For now, we fixed the major part of existing UI problems, which was the main blocker for releasing new CV content. USN/IJN balancing is WIP, and can be expected within several updates. Tutorials are being worked on, however, simpler stuff like movement and basic gameplay should be done first. As for global rework, this is a tricky one. Any major rework will be a stress for old players, so if we are going this way, we must be absolutely sure it is for good. Now, we don't have any concept that we like THAT better, than the existing one, but we keep thinking about it. And in the meantime, we aim to make various smaller quality changes to the existing CV mechanics, in evolutionary, not revolutionary way.

Q:你们以前还保证过在CV修改完成之前不会有“任何的金币CV放出”。结果现在你们已经出了Kaga，Enterprise和Graf Zeppelin这些船。A:我真的不觉得我们那么说过。现在我们关注的并不是新的CV，因为目前所有的CV都存在着一些相同的问题。其中包括：UI的问题，同等级之间的平衡，缺乏教程导致的玩家水平不一。这些以及其他的一些问题将我们引向了一个十分严肃且十分重要的问题：现在的CV和防空设定是应该调整修改还是应该彻底重做。如果是，那我们是应该逐步修改还是应该一步到位?现在，我们已经修复了UI的问题，为我们推出新的改动打开了大门，日航和美航的平衡正在做，预计将于最近几次更新中实装。教程也正在做，但是那些简单的东西，比如说移动或者简单的游戏操作当然应该先做好。至于大的改动，这个就比较复杂了。大的改动肯定会让老玩家感到紧张，所以我们如果要那么做，我们就必须确定这是绝对可行的。现在，我们也不觉得我们觉得那个更好，但我们会一直关注这个问题。同时，我们追求的是以渐变的而不是颠覆性的方式对目前的CV机制作出大量的但是细微的调整。

Q: There were a number if glaring balance problems since last year, mostly about how USN was terrible when compared to IJN due to inflexibility and inconsistency vs key targets like DDs.

Instead, we got ammo buffs... which did not help much when it truly came to winning (it primarily benefited good players when whacking enemy planes since the "less skillful playerbase" normally lost his fighters before using even half the ammo)

A: Well, lack of flexibility is the exact main target for upcoming USN CVs changes.

Q:从去年开始就有很多非常突出的问题，绝大多数都是关于美航的。相比于日航，美航在面对DD这样的关键目标时缺乏灵活性以及一致性。我们也得到过弹药量上的buff，然而这对取得胜利用处也不大(这只帮助了那些玩得好的人打下对面更多的飞机，对有些人来说他们的飞机在打掉一半弹药前就没了)

A:缺乏灵活性这个就是我们接下来修改美航的重点

Q: What determines the krupp value for AP shells? Also, why do British BB's have such low krupp values? ThanksA: Roughly speaking, Krupp value is used in our ballistics model to have the desired armor penetration value for different shells on different distances. And the "desired penetration value" here is the value that is as close to IRL as possible, because this is one of the game aspects we seek to keep realistic. So, this is just a tool for achieving needed shell performance.

Q:什么决定了AP弹的krupp值(弹头硬度)?另外，为什么英国战列的弹头硬度这么低?感谢回答。

A:大致上来讲，我们在***模型中用弹头硬度来计算得到炮弹在不同距离上的穿深数据。并且这个所求得的穿深数据应和实际穿深数据尽可能接近，因为在游戏这方面我们希望尽力保持真实。所以这只是为了让炮弹达到所需弹道性能的一个工具而已。

Q: For your new development blog how much information are you planning on giving with it? Will it be showing only changes for the next patch, or will it be further down the line (like 2-3 or even 5)?

A:I plan to talk about the changes starting from ST phase. Commenting on more distant things does not makes sense, as too many changes can be done even before ST.

Q:在你下一次的开发者博客上，你打算公布多少新的消息?是仅仅展示下次更新的改动，还是会包括之后的一些东西(比如将来2-3次甚至5次更新)?

A:我打算只讨论从超测阶段开始的改动。评论更加遥远的事情没有意义，因为太多东西会在超测前作出改动。

Q: Hi Sub, thanks for taking the time to do this. I'm not sure if this has been officially confirmed anywhere, but can you say whether or not theConquerorwill have the option of both the 419's and 457's?

Bonus if I may: Will theVanguardbe a future premium?

A:We know about some players who want to have 4x2 457 option, and we will consider it.

Bonus: it is a possible option for the future. Thank you for your question.

Q:你好Sub，感谢你在百忙之中抽出时间来回答我的问题。我不确定这个问题是否已经得到官方证实，但能否请你说明征服者是否会同时拥有419mm和457mm两种火炮配置。

Bonus：Van♂guard(前卫)以后会不会作为金币船出现

A:我们知道有些玩家想要4座双联装457mm主炮的选项，并且我们会考虑。

Bonus：它可能在将来成为一个选项。感谢提问。

Q: When using the catapult spotter plane, is the shell trajectory any different from the normal view?A: No, it only naturally differs when you are firing at longer range, no special tweaks are applied to it.

Q:在使用水上侦察机时，炮弹轨迹会和通常视角下有什么不同吗?A:并不会。只是当水侦作用下你在更远的射程上开炮时，炮弹轨迹会自然地有所不同，但并没有被特别调整过。

Q: I thought Scharnhorst put paid to the idea that a BB couldn't be balanced and fun for it's tier with sub-tier firepower? If 9x11 inch works at T7 surely 10x14 inch can be soft statted to work at T8?A: Scharny has much more features than sub-tier firepower to be viable. I do not underestimate the playerbase, but I think if we designed the IJN branch from the start right now, with all past experience, Izumo would be different or wouldn't be there at all. It is a good, but very demanding ship. Thank you too:)

Q:我认为沙恩**特已经证明了，拥有较低级别火力的战列舰可以满足平衡性和娱乐性的要求?如果9门11英寸炮在7级船上行的通的话，那么显然10门14英寸炮在8级船上数据也能凑合?A:沙恩除了拥有较低的火力外，还有着许多其他的特性来让它具有可玩性。我并没有低估玩家群体的意思，但是我认为如果让我们根据过往的经验从头设计日本科技树的话，出云可能会被修改或者根本就不在科技树上。它是艘好船，但是对玩家的要求非常高。感谢提问。

Q:BBs are still massively over-represented in the MM and game line-ups. What are the plans to deal with this? Surely not adding another line of BBs and nerfing smoke? Is it WarGaming's belief that battleships are over-represented because the class is overpowered or because people just enjoy the power of commanding a battleship?

A:There are two questions here, actually: about BBs and about planned smoke changes. Let's take them separately.

High BB population has two main reasons:

1. Big and iconic ships. Not everyone wants to play big ships with big guns, but this really contributes.

2. High survival abilities with high firepower - due to IRL natural specs. Of course if we were making fantasy MMO, we would try to avoid combining high tankiness with high firepower, but hey, we cannot give BBs 127 mm main guns and call it balance - because World of Warships is heavily based on history. We also cannot make them as powerful as they were IRL and limit them in some other way (for example, economically), because the core concept is the interaction of 4 peer game classes with as few artificial MM limitations as possible. Hence the gameplay limitations we have in core design: average accuracy, very limited secondary guns, fire & flooding mechanics, etc, etc.

There are two main directions we are going to keep BB in line and to keep the balance healthy:

1. Paying more attention to other classes. If you go through patch notes history over a year, you will find quite a lot of DD and cruiser buffs, and quite few BB buffs. They were not always direct - for example, new commander skill system actually favoured BBs less, forcing them to spec and be less universal. As for direct buffs, many cruisers were made much more viable.

2. Adding more counters to BBs, especially to passively playing BBs. AP bombs are one of the first implemented weapons, and they have all chances to be introduced on more CVs: Enterprise is kind of testing ground here. We think they are good, because they a). make horizontal armor count more in the game and b). due to stretched ellipse are more efficient against more stationary targets. We have two more BB-specific counters in development, and some other ideas in concept stage. This path seems slow, but healthy and user-friendly, because it can not only contribute to class balance, but also contribute to game diversity and other classes gameplay.

BB population itself is stable, without any growth over last year. To address this question I double-checked the popularity data from August 2016 to this date, and I can say that BB population fluctuates around 35%, depending on server, tier and month. However, even 35% is a bit too high - in our mind, the ideal number is 30%.

Q:现在出现在分房排队里的BB还是很多，你们准备怎么做?肯定不会是加一条BB线同时再去削烟雾吧?你们觉得为什么会有这么多BB，是因为BB太强了还是因为大家只是喜欢控制BB的那种感觉?

A:这里其实有两个问题：关于BB的和关于烟雾改动的，我们分开来回答

BB的数量多主要有两个原因：

1.她们是大而且是具有象征性的船，虽然并不是所有人都想去玩大舰巨炮，但是这是一个很重要的原因。

2.高存活性和强大的火力—这些是基于现实的特点。当然我们在做的是一个大型多人在线游戏，所以我们也会尽量避免出现集厚装甲和强火力的情况，但是，我们也不能给BB127炮当主炮然后说这个叫平衡—因为WOWS这个游戏还是非常基于历史的。我们也不能让她们像现实中那样强然后在其他方面(比如说收益方面)限制她们，因为这游戏的核心理念还是在尽可能少的人为分房限制下四个舰种的作战。所以就有了我们设计的那些机制：比较中等的命中率，被限制的次要武器，起火和进水机制等。

我们保持BB数量和保证分房正常有以下两个方式：

对其他舰种的加强。如果你去看看过去一年的那些更新你就会发现很多的DD和CA的buff和很少的BB buff。这些也不是直接性的—比如说新的指挥官技能让BB的获益减少，使她们专精于某一方面。至于那些直接性的，很多CA现在变得更加适合环境了。

增加更多的对抗BB的武器，特别是对付那些消极作战的BB的武器。AP航弹就是最早被实装的一个武器，而且它们会被装到更多的CV上：Enterprise就是这种武器的一个试验场。我们觉得AP航弹不错，因为a).使水平装甲在游戏中发挥了更重要的作用 b).拉长的散布椭圆使它更适合对抗那些不怎么移动的目标。我们现在还有其他两种对付BB的东西在开发中，另外一些还在概念阶段。这个进程看起来缓慢但是对玩家比较友好，因为这不仅可以促进舰种之间的平衡，也可以保证游戏多样性和其他舰种的游戏体验。

BB的玩家数量是挺稳定的，去年一年没有什么增长。为了确认这个，我检查了两次从2016年8月到现在的BB玩家数。现在BB的人数在35%左右波动，具体会受到服务器，等级和具体月份影响。然而，就算是35%也还是有点高了，我们的理想人数是30%

Sub Q: This is all excellent, and thanks for the detailed reply!

One quick question though, if there are 4 equally important game classes, shouldn't the target population for any given one be 25%? Why target 30% for BBs?

A:By equal I don't mean equal by number, but equal by opportunities and quality of life. We don't expect and don't want 25% of players to be interested in CVs - they are like a game in a game thing for more strategy oriented guys. Cheers!

追问：相当好!感谢这么细致的回答

还有一个小问题，如果四个舰种都同样重要，那为什么不把每个舰种的目标人数都定在25%呢?为什么BB的要定为30%?

A:我说的平衡当然不是数字上的平衡，而是相同的机会和游戏体验。我们不期望也不想有25%的人去玩CV—她们更像是一个为喜爱策略的玩家设计的游戏中的游戏。

Q: Why does the Kagero (and Akatsuki, to a lesser degree) have so little gun range? Up-to-date balancing or a legacy setting from before the stealth fire nerf? Stock gun range progression through her line is as follows:

Fubuki: 10.5 km

Akatsuki: 9.4 km

Kagero: 8.6 km

Yugumo: 10.9 km

Shimakaze: 11.4 km

A:Because basic firing range is calculated by universal formula (with FCS specs in mind), and then altered only if really needed gameplay-wise. Here, it is not needed gameplay-wise. The same reason Fuso stands out in range.

Q:为什么Kagero(还有Akatsuki这样等级低一些的)的火炮射程那么近?这是最近的平衡设定还是在隐身炮移除之前就这样了。这些是这些船的白板射程数据

Fubuki: 10.5 km

Akatsuki: 9.4 km

Kagero: 8.6 km

Yugumo: 10.9 km

Shimakaze: 11.4 km

A:因为基础射程是通过一个通用的公式算出来的(考虑到各种情况的)，然后在需要调整的时候才会进行调整。日驱的射程显然没什么问题。也是按照这个算法Fuso的射程才会那么突出。

Sub Q1: Thanks for that information. So both get the same value as if they are spotting alone?

A:Yes.

追问1：感谢你提供的信息。所以一起点亮时，两艘船都得到和单独点亮时相同的收益吗?

A:是的。

Sub Q 2: Does spotting bonus apply only when target is not visible to shooter? For example if enemy you are spotting fires its guns becoming directly detectable by the other ship shooting at it, the spotting bonus no longer applies?

A:Yes, if the shooter can see the target without your help, you don't get a bonus for the damage dealt in this state.

追问2：点亮收益是否是只在开火船只无法点亮目标时才存在?举个例子，如果敌军被点亮后直接开炮亮点，从而被其他开火射击的船只直接发现，点亮收益是否就不再适用了?

A:是的，如果攻击者能够靠自己直接发现目标，你在这种状况下得不到点亮伤害收益。

Q:Are you planning to introduce another premium Polish ship? Possibly Wicher-class destroyer?

A:Not in the near future, but hell, I would LOVE to play Wicher (and also Wicher-II: Assassin of Battleships and Wicher-III: Wild Torpedobeat).

Q:你们是否有计划加入另一艘波兰金币船?比如旋风级驱逐舰。

A:至少最近不会，但是，我乐意去玩旋风级(以及旋风2：战舰刺客和旋风3：狂雷)。(译者注：旋风wicher和巫师witcher谐音。)

Q:With the introduction of AP bombs on US CVs T7 and up, will the Saipan recieve them as well or not given the unique nature of the DB squadron?

A:Saipan, in our opinion, does not need any buffs or additional diversity.

Q:在7级及以上的美航获得AP航弹后，塞班是否也会获得AP航弹或者不再拥有独特的轰炸机中队配置?

A:在我们看来，塞班不需要被buff或增加额外的特性

Q:Why do Émile Bertin and Duguay-Trouin have no access to the Engine Boost consumable? Logically, if speed is an asset of the French Cruiser line then Light Cruisers of the French line should also be able to use Engine Boost at a lower level(i.e. 10%).

A(Vessery):We don't want to give low-tier ships so many consumables. Our plan is to introduce with new opportunity for players on high-tier. Both cruisers have plane, hydroacoustic search and good speed for their level. This set of consumables is enough.

Q:为什么Émile Bertin和Duguay-Trouin得不到引擎增压。从逻辑上来说如果说fa巡的优点是速度快，那么轻巡也应该得到水平稍低一些的引擎增压(比如说10%的)

A(Vessery):我们不想给低级船太多的消耗品，我们的计划还是在高级再给玩家这些机会。这两艘船都有水战和水听。与同级的船相比她们也有很不错的航速。她们的消耗品其实已经够用了。

Q: How can you allow a biased map such as "Strait" in ranked play. C cap is further from spawn than A cap, among the obvious advantages the northernmost team has for grabbing B cap.

A: Heya! Asymmetrical maps don't always give obvious advantages. For now, as I can see, the Northern team has slightly lower WR. The map will probably be tweaked for better balance, but overall, your impression that the Norther team has better conditions is wrong. I was surprised myself!

Q:你们为什么会让Strait这种对双方不公平的图出现在排位里。C点离出生点的距离明显比A远。北部的那队在占领B上明显有优势。

A:Heya!不对称的地图通常也不对带来非常明显的优势。现在，按照我看到的，北边的那一队的胜率反而稍微低一点，这张图在之后可能会调整使其对双方更公平。然而总的来说，你认为的北部的那队的条件更好其实是不对的。我自己都觉得有点吃惊。

Q: As someone who bought and loves the Duca d'aosta, purely for the commander's voice alone, are we going to see any more Italian ships in game any time soon?

A: Some Italian ships are in development plans, unfortunately, I cannot give you ETA without official announcement. But yes, we are definitely going to see more Italian ships in game.

Q:有些人仅仅是因为指挥官语音而买了并且喜欢Duca d'aosta，我们以后会看到更多的意大利船吗

A:有些意大利船已经在我们的开发计划中了，然而在没有官方通告的情况下我也没有办法给你预计出的时间。不过可以肯定的是我们以后一定会看到更多的意大利船

Q: Question about the smoke changes. Where does the Kutuzov fall in all this? Cause if you are afraid of IFHE cruisers in clan games being the meta in giant blobs of smoke, it's one of a few cruisers capable of generating that smoke on it's own, if you aren't wanting like an IFHE Chapy parked in that smoke farming damage, isn't that what the Kutuzov basically is?

A: If we're doing global changes, I doubt there will be any exceptions. As I said, IFHE + smokes combo is too strong, and it hurts competitive meta according to our obvservations AND player feedback, and here the ship doesn't really matter - it can be Kutuzov with her own smokes or Chappy parked in other smoke - we are going to find a way to reduce the efficiency of this combo.

That's going to be fair, because at the same time, BBs (who are the main targets for IFHE) will lose the ability to safely shoot from smoke whatsoever.

Q:关于烟雾改动的一些问题。Kutuzov会变成什么样。因为如果你们不喜欢带了IFHE的巡洋舰在军团作战中在一大团烟里输出。这是其中一艘可以自己产生烟雾的巡洋舰，如果你们不想让一艘带了IFHE的Chapayev躲在烟里输出，那Kutuzov不就是靠那种玩法玩的吗?

A:如果我们做的是整体的改动，那我估计也不会有什么例外了。就像我说的，IFHE+烟的组合太强了，而且从我们的调查和玩家反馈来看，这种打法对竞争性的玩法影响很不好，至于究竟是哪一艘船并不重要，这可以是Kutuzov蹲在自己的烟里或者Chapayev躲在别人的烟里。我们正在寻找一种方法来降低这种打法的输出效率。这其实是公平的。因为与此同时，BB(IFHE的主要目标)也会失去毫无顾忌地蹲烟输出的机会。

Q: Why Jack Dunkirk and not William Tennant, or at the very least Dunkirk Joe (which was his actually nickname)?

A: Legal reasons. We'd love to, but licensing such characters is surprisingly hard:( I'm glad we managed to resolve all issues with Yamamoto, by the way - there was a chance of failure too.

Q:为什么敦刻尔克的奖励是Jack Dunkirk而不是William Tennant，最起码也要是Dunkirk Joe啊(事实上是他的昵称)?

A:法律问题。我们当然想那么做，但是要得到使用这些人物的批准其实是出人意料的难:( 我们很高兴可以解决关于*****的这些问题，其实这本来也很有可能失败。

Q:I can get behind the line if Nelson is released as a permanent campaign reward or a Free XP purchasable ship.

Such an iconic ships should to be available to all the player base.

A: No, they shouldn't. There should be balance in premium/regular iconic ships, because we need to release iconic premiums in order to be profitable and develop the game further on. Nelson is a T7 ship, no matter how it is distributed, it won't be cheap (in terms of money) or easy to get (in terms of free XP or task difficulty).

Q:我希望纳尔逊能够作为一个永久的战役奖励或用****购买的船。这样一艘标志性的船应当让每一位玩家都有机会拿到。

A:不，我们不应当这样做。标志性的金币船和银币船之间应当有所平衡，因为我们需要发布一些标志性的金币船来骗氪好让游戏继续发展。纳尔逊作为一艘7级船，不管最后获得方式如何，它都不会便宜(用钱来衡量的话)或容易得到(用自由经验或任务难度来衡量的话)。

Q: To Wargameing a few questions, How do you determine the range of guns for secondary guns in the game as balanced? For example, why is the 5.9” guns of the top tier German Battleships have over 11 kilometers in range max when the 6” guns on Nelson is projected to be about 7 kilometers max? Why does the tier 9 German Battleship not have the name Ulrich von Hutten or Götz von Berlichingen? Why does the Wyoming and the New York and Texas not get their float plans? Is it because of difficulty rendering them on turrets? And lastly why does the Hood not get the four torpedo tubes that she had when she went down? I know that hood is spec’d for AA in game but historical the UP rockets were terribly and would have been removed. I believe the hood’s torpedoes would help her in close combat. Thank you

A: Hello!

Secondary gun range is pure gameplay/balance.

Sorry, but why should it have such name?

Yes, right now we don't have the mechanics of turret catapult, and it is not a priority.

We don't implement fixed torpedo tubes in the game.

Yes they probably were, this is why they are more like panic weapon to debuff bombers drop:)

You are welcome!

Q:顶级德战的5.9英寸炮(150mm)有超过11km的射程而纳尔逊的7英寸炮只有大约7km的最大射程?为什么9级德战不叫做乌尔里希·冯·胡滕或者格茨·冯·伯利欣根?为什么怀俄明、纽约和****没有水上飞机(译注：mdzz原文float planes少打一个e，我还想了半天这什么鬼东西)?是因为把它们实装到炮塔上很困难吗?最后，为什么胡德没有她沉没时所拥有的4根鱼**?我知道胡德在游戏中获得了AA的特化但是历史上她的防空火箭很糟糕，甚至可能将要被拆除。我相信胡德的鱼雷能在近战中有所帮助。谢谢。

A:你好。

副炮射程纯粹是为了游戏性而平衡。

抱歉，但我们为什么要如此命名?

是的，现在我们并没有炮塔弹射器的运作机制，而且它的优先级不高。

我们不打算在游戏里实装固定鱼**。

是的，它们(指胡德的防空火箭)的确很糟糕，这也是为什么它更像是用来阻止轰炸机投弹的威吓武器。

不用谢。

Q: Question : Why do you hate the players?

A: Answer: We don't. You should get some sleep, your question is psychedelic. I am worried.

Q：你们为什么要和玩家过不去?

A：我们没有啊。你应当保证充足睡眠，你的提问仿佛是石乐志。这令我担忧。

There was also a discussion about BB AP damage to light targets, especially DDs.Well, honestly, we still need more specific data inquiries to be sure, but overall, there are no signs of any changes or bugs. We will continue the research, because we want to be 100% sure. However, it would be good for balance to reduce BB AP damage to light targets, to force BBs into more shell choice, and to reduce the “Devastating Strike” feeling for DDs and cruisers. There are many ways to do it, but the most logical (at least this is our conclusion for now) is to update underwater ballistics model. Point is, the problem is not with simple overpens, it is more with regular pens, when heavy shells arm at water and then explode inside a DD or light section of a cruiser, dealing significant damage. To change this, we need to rework a section of ballistics, which is, honestly, quite scary (being one of the most complex game mechanics), but doable. We will start working on the prototype very soon, but I don’t expect we’ll manage this in 2017.ETAlooks like mid-2018, as there are a lot of work to do, and a lot, A LOT of testing to conduct before we can even try implementing it.

In the meantime, other workwill go on, so that huge ETAdoesn’t mean we won’t address BB balance in other aspects. Underwater ballisticsis not the only thing that can be changed for good– on the contrary, quite soon, a couple of important features will be delivered, and they will contribute to inter-class balance in a positive way.

之前也有一个关于BB的AP对轻甲目标特别是DD的讨论。老实说，我们还是需要更多的特定的数据来进行确认，但是通体来说，这应该不是bug。但我们会继续进行调查以保证100%的准确。但是，减少BB的AP弹对轻甲目标的伤害是有利于游戏平衡的，这样可以让BB进行更多的弹药选择，也可以减少DD和CA的那种被“Devastating Strike”的感觉。有很多方法来这么做，但是其中最符合逻辑的(至少是我们现在的结果)是更新水下弹道模型。重点在于，问题一般不是简单的过穿，更多的是正常的击穿，就是重型炮弹在水中击穿并在DD和CA的轻甲部分爆炸，造成显著的伤害。为了改变这个，我们需要调整一部分的炮弹弹道，这东西，说实话，挺吓人的(这是最复杂的几个游戏机制之一)，但是也是可以完成的。我们很快就会开始制作原型，但我并不期望我们在年内把这个做出来，这个估计要到2018年中期才会出来，因为我们不仅有很多事情要做，而且在我们尝试实装之前还要进行一大堆测试。

同时，其他的工作会继续进行，所以那个那么长的预计时间并不代表我们不会在其他方面平衡BB，水中弹弹道并不是唯一一个会变得更好的东西。恰恰相反，很快就会有很多重要的东西出现并以一种积极的方式促进舰种之间的平衡。

Q: Please clarify the positions of the tiers 7 and 8 RN BBs, and let me re-iterate that putting such famous and anticipated ships as Nelson or 14" KGV behind a premium paywall will not go down well among the community. Why do we need Monarch at all, when we already have plenty of ships with 2 armament choices of different calibres? Just balance KGV for tier 8 and give it both the 14" and 15" (or 16") options.

On the same vein, why does every line need to be so unique to the point of being gimmicky and inconsistent? See RN CLs. I feel that if you pursue this strategy for too long, you will rapidly run out of ideas and harm the game balance. I do not mind if a line is a near copy of an existing one, the historical relevance and appearance of the ships alone is enough distinguishing features for me. I just want reliable and simple RN BBs with no fancy toys.

Thanks for your time

A: I cannot 100% confirm the final line-up for RN BB branch. However, I can say that Nelson being premium and King George going to T7, being replaced with Monarch, have major gameplay reasons:

King George does not look good on T8 in terms of firepower, while it looks absolutely adequate for T7.

Nelson is a fine ship for very good players, but being in the branch, it has all chances to become a breaking point, where the major part of playerbase will stumble. Of course we would like to have it in the branch as iconic ship, but gameplay should come first. We do not expect Nelson to be good source of income, because premium RN mid-tier BB niche is already occupied by Warspite and Hood, and the point here is not to earn extra money, but to release a line which will have nice progression for all players. Who knows, maybe Nelson will remain premium, but with some other means of distribution...we'll see.

While the final decisions are not made, I can say that after testing different loadouts of RN BB, we're slowly coming to the conclusion this branch may not need any "gimmicks" to be viable. We will be considering basic BB loadout for it, with only advanced heal being "consumable gimmick".

Thank you too for good questions of immediate interest.

A(Tuccy):To expand on this from the historical point of view: "Just balancing KGV for Tier VIII and give her both 14" and 15" options" would mean she won't be KGV as built anymore (as the 3x3 15" was alternative design to the 3x4 14", ie the KGV the Admiralty wanted and before being cut down to fit in the tonnage limit). So... Effectively what Monarch is. Now there would be few options (making the "real" KGV stock configuration, for example)... But their result would be nobody really playing the famous historical configuration (say what you will about "historical enthusiasts for sure would", when it comes to winning and progressing, players generally do not stay on Stock longer than they need to). So... What is more important for you? To play a King George V in the proper configuration... Or to have King George V as a name on Tier VIII? ;) As it works in the tree that can be constructed from the previews we released (mind you: nothing is final until the release - you can remember swaps in the RU or IJN DD lines even quite short time before release) you would get the "real" KGV on VII and the "ideal" KGV on VIII.

Q:请说明一下T7和T8的英战到底是什么，并且我想重申把Nelson和14寸KGV变成金币船肯定会在社群中引起不好的反向。我们已经有了很多可以选择两种不同口径的主炮的船，为什么还要那个Monarch?把KGV放到8级去而且给她14寸和15寸(或者16寸)的选择就行了。同样的，为什么每条线都要这样有“特色”和与众不同?看看英巡就知道了。我觉得如果你们太过追求这种“要有特色”的想法，你们很快就会没有更多的选择，最终还是会影响游戏平衡。我也不介意一条和其他的线差不多的线。船的历史关联度和外观就已经够让我感觉不好的了，我只想要可靠简单，没有什么花哨玩意的英战。

感谢您的时间

A(S_O):我不能100%地确定最后出来的英战线是什么样的。但是我可以告诉你Nelson会变成金币船而KGV会被Monarch替换然后放到T7，原因如下：KGV在火力上的确不适合T8，但是放在7级肯定是比较合理的;Nelson对那些玩得好的玩家来说是艘不错的船，但是要是放在科技树里，那肯定会成为一个断点，大部分玩家都会在这里玩得不舒服。当然我们也愿意让她成为这条线里标志性的一艘船。但是游戏体验还是第一位的。我们都不期望Nelson成为一个好的收入来源，因为中级的金币英战的位置已经被Warspite和Hood，而且我们的目标也不是赚额外的钱，而是做出一条可以让玩家得到连贯的游戏体验的科技线。不过谁知道呢，也许Nelson会继续作为金币船，但是考虑到其他的因素，我们会看到的。

尽管我们还没有做出最后的决定，但是我可以说在我们测试了英战的不同的装备后，我们渐渐得出了这条线不需要什么“特殊消耗品”的结论。我们会为英战考虑基本的BB消耗品。她们的在消耗品上的花招也只有“英系维修小组”。

A(Tuccy):从历史的角度来拓展一下这个问题：把KGV放到8级然后给她14寸或者15寸炮就代表着这再也不是曾经被建造出来的那艘KGV了(3x3 15寸是3x4 14寸的一个替代性的设计，也就是说本来海军部期望的KGV后来被削成这个样子来满足条约的吨位要求)。所以把Monarch放在8级肯定更好。现在的选择也不多(比如说把“真实的”KGV作为白板船体)。但是这样只会导致没什么人会认真地玩这个著名的历史配置(你会说什么“历史爱好者肯定会”，但是关乎到胜利和进度的时候，玩家几乎都在可以过白板船体的时候就过去了)所以，什么对你来说更重要?去玩一艘配置合理的KGV?还是一艘8级的只是挂了名的KGV?:)当她们按照我们之前放出的预览图出现在科技树中的时候你就可以得到真正的KGV和之前的“理想的”KGV。(提醒一下：在正式放出前什么都是不确定的—你还记得二线日驱和毛驱在放出前不久还改过)

Subquestion1:

I thoroughly disagree with this.

KGV can easily work at T8, just buff her firepower. I admit she is in an awkward position, but surely small buffs to KGV firepower, to allow Nelson in at T7 is better, than Nerfing KGV to T7, and adding a paper ship?

I do not believe you. Nelson is one of THE iconic ships of the RN, it is clear that money is the motivator for making her Premium. Why on earth would Nelson be a stumbling block?

I'm really disappointed to have this confirmed. I was really excited from OBT about RN BB's, and in the current state, it looks awful.

Missing out on Historic Ships, for "smooth progression". Wat.

Steel Ocean is looking more and more promising.Subquestion2:

Q:I understand the logic. But why not make a 14" KGV work at T8 then?

How about make Monarch Premium, or a BB line split?

If WG are so insistent about having a 15" ship at T8, where is HMS Vanguard?

A(Tuccy):the issue with "making KGV work at VIII" for one leaves an odd hole or odd progression (a complete change of style) - in that case I think we won't have to wait long to be accused of designing it that way to force you to reskill captains all the time :) And I am also afraid Forum and Reddit community vastly downplays the player comfort issue - which goes hand in hand with predictability. Like it or not, a large portion of players does not go into detailed stat crunching and do not really like too many style somersaults in one branch ;)

As fro boosting KGV to fit Tier VIII, it then also spawns the question: What do you want to have? Do you want to have KGV... Or do you want to have a ship with KGV name and model, but with guns behaving like as if they are firing bigger caliber shells to compensate? And why then call it KGV? I mean it is kinda like trying to boost the Town class to fit Tier X so that we do not have to have Minotaur there (or, on the other hand, nerfing Farragut to fit Tier V so that we do not have to have the Destroyer Leader project from 1919 there) - certainly doable, but maybe not really worth the hassle...

Generally for me, KGV as Tier VII works even in context - she was, after all, built to a strict weight limit and thus "nerfed" on design from the ideal ships the Navy wanted... Let's call it Tier 7.5, but... With less twisting needed to get her to VII (esp. as there is a more than viable VIII option). I mean... Would you think a 3x3 14" North Carolina would be a workable and comfortable Tier VIII? ;)

(接上一个问题)追问1：我完全不同意你的观点。KGV在8级也可以，只要buff火力就行了，我承认她现在的位置很尴尬，但是略微buff一下KGV的火力，然后把Nelson放到7级不是显然比把KGV nerf以后放到T7，然后在加一艘图纸船要好吗?我并不相信你的说法。Nelson是皇家海军的一艘标志性的舰船，很明显钱就是你们把她变成金币船的动力。Nelson怎么就会成为一个障碍了呢?我对现在确认的东西感到非常失望。我在公开测试的时候就对英战十分激动。然而现在英战看起来很糟糕。缺失了重要的历史船只是为了连贯的游戏体验。看来还是海战世界前途一片光明。

追问2：我理解你们的想法，但是为什么不把KGVbuff到T8去呢?再把Monarch作为一艘金币船或者一个分支

如果你们如此坚持8级必须要有15寸的炮，那前卫又在哪里?

A:(Tuccy)让KGV去8级这个想法会给玩家带来一个坑以及不连贯的游戏体验(完全不同的作战风格)。如果我们真那么做那我估计你们也很快就要来说我们乱设计害你们要经常重训舰长：)而且我也很担心这样一来论坛和Reddit上会有很多人一传十十传百地说我们我们不注重玩家体验。不管你喜欢与否，有很多的玩家并不会去很仔细地研究数据而且也真的不喜欢一条线里的玩法变来变去的。

至于把KGVbuff到8级这件事，这也引出了一些问题：你想要的是什么呢?你是想要KGV，还是一艘只有KGV的名字和外形，靠着大口径主炮来弥补的船?既然这样你为什么还叫她KGV呢?我觉得这就有点像我们把一艘郡级巡洋舰buff到T10那样我们就不需要Minotaur了(或者说我们可以把Farragut nerf到5级那样我们也就不需要1919年驱逐领舰计划了(Nicolas))—这当然是可行的，但是看起来真的不值得去为这种事烦恼...

对我来说，KGV显然更适合7级的环境，它毕竟也被从海军部希望的样子“锉刀”到了后来的样子以适应吨位要求。我们可以说她是7.5级船，所以她还需要一些调整来使她成为7级船(特别是她看起来不是一个的可行的8级选项的时候)。我的意思是，你觉得一艘3x3 14寸的北卡在8级会很好玩吗?;)

Now, let's have a quick overview of "nerfing" smoke thing.

The most important thing you need to know is that main driver for the change is competitive meta. By competitive I mean not only locally hosted tournaments, but also Ranked and division play (partly, yes, I know it is not pure competitive) and, what has huge value, upcoming Clan versus Clan combat. What is the problem there? The smoke meta, and even smoke + IFHE meta. It is efficient, not fun, it leaves too little space for other tactics and..hell, we don't want it to be "hide your North Carolina and IFHE Chapayev in smoke and scout for them" every battle. Actually, the whole idea is NOT to nerf smokes - it is to nerf BB in smokes and shooting crowds in smokes.

On the other hand, we don't want to harm Random battles, which are still majority. We are 100% fine with Akizuki, Fletcher or Neptune setting smoke and firing from it. We're also fine with these guys setting smoke for friendly battleship for protection/repair, but not for stealth bastion thing!

First idea would be different mechanics, but no, it's a terrible idea. Ideally, a player should learn basics in Random Battles, and then either to go to competent solo player path or to engage in some form of competitive play. The core mechanics should be the same across all modes. Thus, the smoke dispersion mechanics was chosen.

For now, judging from all feedback and tests, I can say our solution has three big issues:

1. The debuff affects solo players noticeably, when it shouldn't. Remember - we don't want to really harm smoke firing tactics for solo DDs and smoke-equipped cruisers. This is one of their core tactics, and it is good.

2. The solution does not have protection from the scenario when a passing-by BB unintentionally blows your smoke away with one salvo.

3. The solution makes competitive a little bit better, but there is still little reason to take heavy cruisers, when you can go with HE+IFHE+smoke combo, which is avaliable only with limited team line-ups.

So, what we're doing now after we decided that 1st edition shouldn't be released? We are working on the issues discovered. Actually, we do have solutions to the issues I named, and hopefully, 2nd edition will be much better and will hit the target without harming Random Battles DD and cruiser players we absolutely don't want to harm.

Cheers!

Q:When can we expect the RN BBs to be released? i have tried to find this in the questions already but there was nothing coming up. I feel like these have been coming since Christmas now and were in August with no sign of them. I have played against or with about 50 of them in battles now sailed by Testers etc. and im sure they were due in July?

A:We are finalizing them, and I think they will be released in one of the very nearest updates. We took our time, tested different features and loadouts, listened to testers and to the community. For now, the line looks very good. No cruiser consumables, decent AP, good HE, good concealment and heal on top tiers, slightly better (Warspite-like) heal on all other tiers, and yes, the gun choice on Conqueror - this is what the line may bring:) I ask you for a bit of patience - the official announcement and release are really near.

Q:英战什么时候能出?我已经在问题里看到这样的问题了然而还是没有什么结果，我觉得她们从上次圣诞节就开始”coming”了结果到了8月还是没什么消息。我已经在游戏里碰到过不下50次英战了，还以为她们7月就会出。

A:我们已经在收尾阶段了。我相信她们会在最近的几次更新中就实装。我们花了大量的时间，测试了不同的特性和装备，听取测试者和社群的意见。现在，这条线看起来很不错。没有CA的消耗品，有合适的AP，不错的HE，很好的隐蔽性。顶级有英系维修小组，而其他等级有更好一些的维修(像Warspite那样的)。哦对，还有FV215b的457炮。这些就是这条线将要带来的。不过保持耐心，官方的公告近期就会出来。

Q:first of all I would just like to say thank you! I really think it's awesome that you come here and do these QnAs on reddit, especially as I am led to belive you do it in your free time, I hope WGEU knows how lucky they are to have you.

**I would like to know if WG is working any new ribbons?**

You have mentioned here that spotting xp is earned by spotting an enemy for a teammate who doesn't have line of sight on him. (also that everyone who is spotting him get equal xp).

**Wouldn't it be possible to have a ribbon for every 1k or 5k damage that is caused by your spotting?**

**And also maybe a ribbon for the first person who spots an enemy ship?** So there would be 12 per side to get.

Perhaps give dds an xp boost for these ribbons (or all classes), because at the moment I feel dds are hard done by in xp gain and you are very reliant on getting torpedo hits. It might also help combat the very passive gameplay we have, by teaching players early on that getting up and into the battle is a reward in itself.

A:Oh, thanks, but, as these Q&A were success lately, now it's a part of my team job - to do Q&A here and an all servers from time to time. So don't worry about free time anymore - we are here, and we will pop up every 1-2 months:)

As for your question, and community-driven UI improvements in general, right now we're finalizing HAS and Radar circles on minimap - which was proposed here on Reddit a couple of months ago, as far as I remember. Then, we will discuss several more things, like spotting ribbon and maybe even spotting damage/potential damage counters.

However, I must ask for your patience, because such things (unfortunately) involve two most busy teams - UI and Game Logic. Almost every new feature requires these guys support, so they have a long queue of tasks, many of which are of highest priority (like Clan Battles).

Surely you can just not bother with this reasoning, but hey, this is how it works, so I really hope you understand:)

To sum up, your UI suggestion is good and we're thinking about it as well.

Economy is not and shouldn't be tied to ribbons directly, but it is balanced around the same game events. DDs, by the way, are already given some boost for spotting withing economic balancing in 0.6.7.

Cheers!

Q:首先我想谢谢你。我真的认为你在Reddit上进行的QA很不错，特别是当我知道你是在你的空余时间这样做的时候。我希望欧服知道我们拥有你是一件多么幸运的事。

1.我想知道你们有没有什么新的关于勋带的计划，你之前解释了侦查收益机制，那么能不能有那种在你的侦查伤害每次累计达到1000或5000的时候就得到一个的勋带

2.有没有首亮的勋带，这样两边都会总共拿到12个这种勋带?

能不能在在勋带方面给DD一些XP上的加成(或者说所有舰种)，因为现在我觉得DD攒xp不怎么容易而且太依赖于鱼雷命中了。这也许会减少现在的那种消极作战的打法，因为这可以告诉玩家积极参与战斗本身就是一件有回报的事

A:感谢!随着这些QA的成功，这已经成为了我的团队的一份工作—在这里和各个服务器论坛进行QA。所以你也不用担心这占用了我的休息时间—我们一直都在，而且每一两个月就会出来进行一次QA

至于你的问题和社群要求的那些UI上的变动。我们现在正在进行小地图上的水听圈和雷达圈制作的收尾工作—这几个月前在Reddit上出现过。然后我们会开始讨论侦查勋带和侦查/潜在伤害计数器。

然而，在这里我也希望你可以保持耐心，因为不巧的是这些东西与我们最忙的两个团队—UI和游戏设计团队相关。几乎所有的新特性都需要他们的工作支持，所以他们有很多事情要做，其中很多的优先级还是最高的(就像军团战)

当然你完全可以不在乎这些原因，但是流程就是这样的，所以我真的希望你能理解:)

总而言之，你的对UI的建议是很不错的，我们也在进行考虑

收益本身和勋带没有直接联系，也不应该有。但是这和相同的游戏事件是相平衡的。至于DD，我们已经在0.6.7里增加了侦查的收益。

Q:1) is that you in the pic? ;p

2) is it addressed in any way, that the Graf Zeppelin has carapults? Like planes starting from the catapults instead of rolling on the deck. Or with a faster plane starting time?

Because of the time at her initial commission date, she would have been the only carrier with 2 catapults and where planes could start and land at the same time. Which would give her a advantage over others who were just floating decks.

A:1. Nah, that's the reason I am still sane and happy :D

2. Not now, but I can say that she's WIP, and we are still playing around with different options. Your suggestion is interesting, we will consider it. Thanks!

Q:1).照片里的那个是你吗?;p (这个是那个贴子的镇楼图)

2).有没有说过780有弹射器这件事?就是舰载机直接从弹射器上起飞而不用在甲板上滑行，或者说飞机的起飞速度更快?

因为在她预定的服役日，她会是唯一的拥有两个弹射器的CV。飞机可以同时起降。这使她相比其他只是飞行甲板的CV来说有优势。

A:1.啊，那是我现在还保持着理智且开心的原因 :D

现在不行，但是我能说780现在还在制作中，而且我们还在尝试不同的选项，你的建议很有意思，我们会考虑的，谢谢了!

Q:I'd like to address some perceived issues I have about the Commander skill tree. In my opinion, some skills are making it hard for you to balance ships.

IFHE is too good on CA's with 152-155mm guns. The main weakness of the lower caliber is gone, and they enjoy penetration values similar to 200+mm guns, while only suffering a small penalty to fire chance. I feel this strength is too overpowered on certain CA's, for example, Belfast or Kutuzov. What's the point of playing a 203mm CA now if a 152mm CA can output more damage with their faster firing guns?

For example, Kutuzov guns have 8s reload, 12 barrels, and 26400 alpha damage per salvo, for a total of 224,400 potential DPM.

Atago on the other hand, reloads in 16s, 10 barrels, 33000 alpha salvo damage, and 158,000 potential DPM.

Looking at the numbers, it's clear Kutuzov with IFHE, while having the same penetration values as Atago, will clearly do much more damage to armored targets. IFHE basically removed the one weakness of lower caliber guns, and thus unlocked their full DPM value whereas prior to this, some of your shells would shatter and thus the DPM would be similar to a cruiser with higher caliber guns.

Of course, this isn't even considering all the other things Kutuzov has like 19.1km range, smoke, and good anti-air.

Before IFHE, cruisers were differentiated well- CL's with 152-155mm guns would shoot more rapidly, but be less effective against armored targets and better against less armored targets (like DD's or other CA's), whereas 203mm CA's were slower firing, but heavy alpha damage and more effective versus BB's. Now it's simply the case that a CL does everything better than a CA, which simply doesn't make sense.

Are you all looking into this?

A:Yes. We have slightly different view on that, but overall, yes, that'll be addressed along with smoke change. We don't mind IFHE current efficiency, but we would like to make IFHE camping less efficient.

Q:我想谈谈关于指挥官技能的一些问题，在我看来有些技能让平衡变得更困难。

IFHE对152-155mm的CA来说实在提升太大了，小口径最大的劣势就因此消失了，而且这些船只需要稍微降低点火率就可以拥有接近200+mm炮的穿深。我觉得这东西对某些CA来说是过强了，比如说Belfast 和 Kutuzov。如果一艘152炮的CA可以靠更快的射速制造更多的伤害，你为什么还要去玩203mm的CA呢?

举个例子，Kutuzov 8秒装填，12门炮，一轮齐射的alpha伤害为16400，潜在DPM为224400

而Atago，装填16s，10个炮塔，一轮齐射的alpha伤害为33000，潜在DPM为158000

看看这些数字，很明显带了IFHE的Kutuzov，在已经有和Atago接近的穿深下，很明显可以对装甲目标造成更多的伤害。IFHE直接消除了小口径炮的劣势，也因此使这些船的DPM接近极限。你的有些炮弹可能会碎所以DPM会和重巡差不多。

当然，这些还没有考虑到Kutuzov的其他东西，比如说19.1km的射程，烟，还有防空。

在IFHE以前，巡洋舰的区别还是挺大的—CL的152或者155炮射速更快，但是对付重甲目标没那么有效，更适合去对付DD或者其他CA这种轻甲目标;203的CA的射速慢，但是alpha伤害高且更适合对付BB。现在是CL在各个方面都比CA好，这显然不合理

你们会调查这个吗?

A:会!我们的想法和你的有点不一样，但是总体来说差不多。这些都会和烟雾改动一起出来。我们不是很担心IFHE的现状，但我们会削弱IFHE蹲烟打法。

Q:By economy do you also mean xp gain? or just credits? What I meant was that DDs seem to be lower down in team rankings at the end (Sidenote: I am CL main).What I meant was, I feel as if DD who is doing well for his team, (you know spotting and smoking) doesn't really get any feedback at the moment from the game that he/she is contributing to the team if his torps keep missing. And ribbons would help negate this.But I think you understood, I'm just crap at explaining things.Thanks again for the answer.

Sub A:No, your explanation is good, and I argee that we need more in-battle feedback, and we will work on it:)

By economy I normally mean both credits and XP.

Cheers!

Q:你所说的经济上的是否也包括了XP呢，还是只是银币。我的意思是DD看起来最后在队伍里的排名都比较低，我觉得如果一艘DD为他的队伍做了很多(比如说侦查点亮和拉烟)，但是他的鱼雷一直走偏，那他也不会真正得到什么实质性的回报。勋带可以帮忙解决这个问题。我认为你可以明白这个，但我真的不善于表达。再次谢谢你的回答。

A:不，你解释的很清楚，我们也觉得我们需要更多的这样的回报，我们会着手做这个的:)至于经济上我一般都指的是银币和XP

Q: For smoke, why not give bb penalty of being spotted only while not affecting smoke and other ships?

A:Because BBs are not the only problem. Crowds and IFHE are problematic too. We considered what you suggest, and it won't work.

Q:对于烟雾，为什么不直接给BB在烟雾内开炮就会被发现的惩罚?这样也不会影响到烟和其他船。

A:因为BB不是唯一的问题。其他人和IFHE也是问题的一部分。我们也思考过你的方法，但是这没有用。

Q: Here's some idea for smoke: increase shell dispersion while firing from smoke, the higher the caliber the higher the dispersion

or just make smoke unable to hide a BB unless it is dead center or reveal BBs that fire, just don't disperse the smoke for other classes or give them that samemechanic

A: Dispersion debuffs won't prevent most players from camping in smoke. People tend to choose the safest way, in shooters they will camp with sniper rifle when the real need is to push, the same pattern is sitting in smoke. All this results in is more frustration. The same issue was with firing range a couple of years ago - some players asked us to leave the ability to constantly shoot at max ranges, just with bad dispersion, but in the end we cut the ranges and introduced spotter plane. There is no need to give people crap weapon, hoping they won't use it - they will, and blame you for it being crappy:) This is why I hope we will remove/rework Shima 20km torps eventually, and I strongly believe it will even buff her stats a bit.

We have the plan how to update the declined 1st version so it hits the goal without hurting those players/ships we don't want to hurt. We're implementing this plan right now, and I believe it has all chances to be final - but we'll see.

Other mechanics, including your proposal, were considered before and after 1st version tests - believe me, this idea is not rushed. For now, the initial mechanics is the best option, but with some meaningful tuning and tweaking.

Q:关于烟雾的一些问题：让在烟里开炮的炮弹散布变差，口径越大效果越明显。或者直接让烟雾藏不住BB，除非BB在烟雾的中心，也可以让开炮的BB直接亮。只是不要让烟雾被吹散或者给其他船相同的机制。

A:散布变差并不会使大多数玩家不蹲烟。人们总是会去选择最安全的方式。在拿枪的时候就算需要你冲上去那些人还是会端着狙击枪趴着，这种事放在战舰里面就是蹲烟。这样做只会让玩家觉得更糟糕。这和几年前的射程问题很像，有些玩家建议我们通过渣散布来阻止那种最远距离黑枪的行为，结果最后我们减少了射程并且加入了水侦。所以别指望给他们不好的武器他们就不会去用，他们只会继续用然后怪你武器太差。这就是我们为什么最后肯定要移除或者重置Shimakaze的20km雷，而且我非常相信这也许还会让她的数据好一些。

我们对如何修改第一版已经有了计划，这应该可以直击问题的根源同时不损害其他玩家利益。我们已经在将这个计划付诸行动。我也相信这次可以完成—但是还是得看看。其他的机制，包括你说的，我们在第一版的时候就已经思考过了，相信我，这个主意还没有被我们抛弃。现在来说，最开始的机制还是最好的选择，当然它需要一些有意义的修改和调整。

Q: Are there any changes for credits in Tier X matches? Just yesterday I had a game with 200k dmg in my G. Kurfurst and i still lost credits. I even run 20% cost reduction and increased credits flags. It's ridiculous that you lose so much credits without premium gear.

A: Playing on TX without premium time / premium camo is tough by design, and always was, but anyways, there were no changes that could really affect this, and all, even minor economy changes are added to patch notes.

I would say if you really think you are getting more normally, with the same conditions, check out other things. Absolute damage is not as important in rewards as relative damage, and there are also additional activities that have big importance, like capping and tanking. Not everything revolves around absolute damage, it's just one of the metrics that is nice to compare and boast, but it does not directly make your team win.

Cheers!

Q:我们在X级战斗中到底有没有机会赚钱?昨天我的大猴打了20W伤害结果还是亏钱，我还带了减维护费用和加银币的旗子。没有高账或者金币涂装会让你亏那么多真的很荒谬

A:在没有高账或者涂装的情况下玩X级本身就被设计的不容易。但是也没什么改动可以真正影响这个。那些小的经济上的改动也一样。我想说的是如果你经常碰到这种情况，你应该关注一下别的东西。绝对伤害并没有连带伤害的价值高，而且还有一些很重要的举动，比如说占点之类的。并不是所有东西都是围着绝对伤害转的。这只不过是个比较容易比较和拿来吹的数据而已，这东西并不会直接给你的队伍带来胜利。

Q: Then why not use Vanguard at T8 since every argument you've just used for Sharnhorst applies equally to her?

A:We have other plans for Vanguard:)

Q:为什么就不把Van♂guard放在8级呢?

A:我们对这艘船有别的计划(WG更衣室摔跤大赛冠军奖品?)

Q: Why don't fire directors get camo applied?A: Technical reasons. As you probably know, ship models consist of many misc objects (including directors) and camo is being applied semi-automatially, so, there are some tech limitations that prevent us from painting directors, including peformance issues. They can be solved by changing 3d content file structure, but right now, the priority is very low for that. Sorry for inconvenience.

Q:为什么火炮指挥仪上没有涂装?

A:技术原因。你可能知道，船只模型包括很多各种各样的物件(包括指挥仪)而涂装是被半自动地添加上去的。所以说一些技术上的限制会让我们没有办法给指挥仪加涂装，限制中也包括表现上的一些问题。这些问题可以通过改变3D模型来解决，然而这个的优先度非常低，对你造成的不便表示谅解。

最新消息，S_O在欧服论坛上确定将Nelson作为第二艘可以通过全局兑换的船，具体所需全局还没有确定，仍然在讨论中

Q: I still call BS on the “Nelson is too strange for regular players, so we make it a premium”.

WHY can’t you JUST make it as an alternative grind ? You did it on WoT for more than one tank (Ferdinand/JP2 is the best example, one is historical, the second is a prototype), that NEVER caused any issue. Just make it so that QE can grind both Nelson and KGV, and if that really is an issue for you, make Nelson 50k XP more expensive. Only players motivated by her would grind her, the other would get the KGV by default, and most players in this game go by the “default” option.

And why is having a different ship an issue anyway ? We already have Warspite and Hood as premium, Hood even already sitting in the tier 7 bracket. Now you want Nelson/Rodney as premium, and you’ll likely follow with Vanguard in tier 8 ? I really can’t call anything but BS at that. Or at least just admit you want money.

A: You may call whatever you want, that’s your right, however, now you are trying to invent a way to squeeze Nelson into the line, without listening to argument. You are ready to make accusations just to validate your point. That’s a way to nowhere.

I will say it one last time.

1.We don’t want to create another Izumo precedent and don’t want to create a pointless 1 ship sub-branch. Gameplay first.

2.Nelson is a fine ship, but won’t go good with general audience gameplay-wise, thus, the access to her will be limited in some way.

3.We are still discussing a way to release it. All community opinions on that were heard and we are truly taking them into consideration.

I know this is important topic for you guys, so I promise I or someone from the team will update you as soon as we have the final decision. This should happen just in a next few days, most likely, even tomorrow.

We’re on it, we know you care about this ship, and we will do our best to find a good solution.

Sorry for inconvenience, and see you very soon

Q:我现在还是认为什么“纳尔逊这艘船对普通玩家来说太奇怪了，所以我们把它做成金币船”是Bullshit

为什么你们就不能把它变成一个替代性的选择吗?你们已经在WOT里面这么做了不止一次了(Ferdinand/JP2就是最好的例子，一个是基于历史的，一个是原型计划)，这也从来没弄出什么问题来。直接这样做那么大家就能同时出纳尔逊和KGV，如果这对你来说还有问题，那就让纳尔逊的研发经验再多个5w，让那些想要这艘船的人才会去研发，其他人就会默认的去玩KGV。而且大多数玩家会去玩KGV。

而且为什么有一艘不同的船就会变成一个问题。我们已经有Warspite和Hood作为金币船了，而且Hood已经占了7级金币船的位置。现在你要把纳尔逊/罗德尼当成金币船，然后你接下来要把Vanguard放在8级。我真的不知道除了Bullshit外我还能叫它什么。要么直接承认你想要钱算了。

A:你想怎么说是你自己的事，这也是你的权利，但是你这样其实是在不顾争议将纳尔逊强行塞到这条线里。你的这些指责只不过是你在试图证明你的观点而已，这根本没有意义。

我最后再说一遍这个：

1.我们不想再弄出一艘Izumo来了，也不想弄出一条没有意义还只有一艘船的分线。游戏体验第一!

2.纳尔逊是艘还好的船，但是从游戏体验的角度来说要是绝大多数人都有肯定不会是件好事，所以获得这艘船必须要有一些限制。

3.我们还在讨论应该怎么放出这艘船，我们会考虑我们从社群论坛听到的意见

我知道这个对你们来说很重要，所以我保证我或者我团队的其他人会在作出决定以后马上通知你们，我们很可能在近几天就做出最后的决定，甚至是明天都有可能。我们已经在做了，我们知道你们很关注这艘船，我们会尽全力找到一个好的解决方案。对你的不便表示歉意。