Q:Hi, can I ask about the logic in IJN premiums lately? Many are sister ships of tech tree ships, but they appear in 'stock' form one tier lower (i.e. Mutsu, Ashitaka, Musashi). I can't help but notice that the IJN seems to be getting this very often, meanwhile other nations have sister ships in the same tier (Missouri, upcoming Duke of York, Tirpitz and Scharnhorst). The IJN also have other ship classes or sisters with equivalent refits that can be balanced to the same tier, so why not release those instead? Perhaps there are other plans for the ships that did exist?

A:Hello!

I'd say, it is not some deliberate strategy, but rather a coincidence. While Musashi was a pretty popular request, Mutsu and Ashitaka are the result of us having spare hulls (basically, ship models), and willing to put them into use. Actually, the former New Mexico stock hull could have a new life as well. We do not plan to specifically continue with such ships for IJN, and will try to make IJN premium fleet generally more diverse.

Q:Hi，我能问一问最近的日本金币船的问题吗?很多都是科技线船的同型船，但是都是以白板形态出现在低一级的位置上(比如说Mutsu, Ashitaka, Musashi)我不可避免地注意到这在日系船里很常见，而其他国家都是同型舰都处于同级的位置(Missouri, 之后要出的Duke of York, Tirpitz 和 Scharnhorst)日系船也有其他船拥有合适的改装，使她们可以胜任同级的位置，那为什么不实装她们呢?难道说对这些船还有其他的计划?

A:你好!

我想说的是，这不是什么有意而为之的策略，这只是一个巧合而已。尽管Musashi是一个很受欢迎的要求，但是Mutsu和Ashitaka的出现只是因为我们有闲置的船体(船只模型)，而且我们想把它们投入使用。事实上以前的New Mexico的白板船体也可以像这样重获新生。我们不打算继续特意给日系加这样的金币船，而是让日系金币船变得更加多样

Q:Since you didn't answer it last time i will just post it again.

Hey! i have 2 camo related questions. First, any chance of adding the second colour option that you get whit the Yamamoto collection to premium camoes as well, like Zao or Yamato's premium camo. Second question is regarding North Carolina's premium camo, so when i bought it i really loved the look it had on the A hull, but when i finally went and upgraded the camo changed to another completely different skin. Any possibility to let you change so you can get the A hull camo on the B hull?

A:Hey. Sorry for not replying last time, but I'm happy to communicate now!

So...

1.You know, yes, there is a chance. The mechanics is not here, because permanent camos work a bit differently from regular ones in terms of their texture application, so adding customization option requires a lot of additional work - hence, it was not present initially. But as we see, overall color customization is quite a thing for many players, so implementing it for permanent camos sounds reasonable. We will try to do it, probably in the beginning of 2018.

2.Sorry, I don't think so, and 2 skins per 1 camo is more a legacy thing.

Q:既然你上次没有回答那我再问一次

我有两个关于涂装的问题

1.以后会不会给56收藏的金币涂装加上第二种颜色的选项，就像Zao和Yamato的金币涂装一样。

2.关于北卡的涂装问题。我买了涂装的时候我真的相当喜欢A船体上的那种涂装，但是我弄出完全体的时候这涂装就变成了另一个样子。以后我们让A船体的涂装也可以用在B船体上吗?

A:Hey!抱歉上次没有回答，但是这次我相当愿意和你聊聊

那么......

1.是的，当然有机会。这个机制并不一样，因为金币涂装和普通涂装的区别在于材质处理上。所以加入定制系统要花费很多额外的工作——所以说这不是目前的主要任务。但是我们也知道，颜色的定制对很多玩家来说是件挺重要的事，所以实装这个对我们来说也是合情合理的。我们会做这个的，大概在2018年年初。

2.抱歉，我不这么认为，一个涂装有两种样子是一件很正常的事

Q:Does the presence of the Torpedo-Guy on board the cargo-vessel have anything to do with the probability to drop a supercontainer (when using TYL-containers)?

A:Hey.

Of course. But the exact relation formula is очень sekrit, and I'm not going to Gulag for indulging your curiosity!

Q:在运输船上擦鱼雷的那位兄弟和超级货柜的出现有什么联系吗?(在你选试试你的运气的时候)

A:Hey!

当然，但是具体的关系函数是очень sekrit，当然我也不想为了满足你的好奇心被丢进***。

Q:Can we get objective based achievements?

Though we are awarded medals for dealing lots of damage(like High Caliber) or tanking lots of damage(like Fireproof), I find it odd there is no comparable medal for playing the objective. It would be nice if WG rewarded certain medals for playing the objective, like take 2 caps in 1 match, taking 1 cap as a CV, earn X amount of defended ribbons, etc.

A:Good evening.

It is a nice idea, IMO, and I will relay it to the guys responsible for achievement update! Thank you!

Q:我们能得到基于作战目标的成就吗?

尽管我们现在有制造很多伤害的奖励(High Caliber)或者抗了很多伤害的奖励(Fireproof)。但是我发现没有给完成任务目标的成就。如果你们能加入那种一场比赛中占领两个区域，用CV占一个点，获得多少个防御勋带这样的成就就好了。

A:晚上好

在我看来这是好主意，我会告诉负责成就系统的人的，谢谢!

Q:感谢你一直活跃于这里。真高兴你能一直和我们进行QA

在这段对话中：

Q:为什么要增强有AA消耗品的DD的防空

A:对很多CV来说DD是首要目标，本来CV应该关注那些大型目标，但是从经济和游戏玩法上来说在开局对付DD是有利可图且有效的。所以我们希望给那些防空特化的DD一个更好的结果(首要原因)。对随机战斗里的有些DD来说AA消耗品不是什么受欢迎的选项，所以我们提高了它的作战效率以让它变得更有吸引力(第二原因)

对这个答案，我有两个问题

1.这个改动对那些容易被空中侦察发现的DD(日驱，德驱，没有AA的毛驱)。除了Akizuki, Z-46, 和Z-52外，她们在空中侦察面前还是处于弱势。这样，对她们的开局飞机点亮还是会继续下去

2.这个改动对buff了那些已经很擅长打下同级飞机的防空特化DD。事实上，正如你所知，那些有AA消耗品DD的长距离防空火力，就算没有任何升级品，也已经接近同级防空最好的BB了。这是你们预期的吗?这会导致一种极其糟糕的情况，如果说一艘CV组了两艘防空DD(Sims, Fletcher这样的)，那他们就可以直接卡死一个甚至两个点，同时在美驱烟里用接近BB水平的AA轻松打下CV的飞机。因为CV的分房只是匹配同级CV，而且也不会关注消耗品。

所以说，因为这些改动，WG扩大了有AA消耗品和没这个消耗品的DD的防空差距，这没道理啊。我确定很多人(包括我)肯定希望看到一个对DD防空水平的总体性提升，同时让那些防空特化DD可以轻松打下飞机，这样开局针对DD也会更不容易。当然这也需要去研究需要多少DPS。这也是CV重做的一个要点吗?

这引出了我心里的另一个问题：如果说这些改动是为了让CV玩家更关注那些大型目标，那么难道不应该给CV一些激励，让他们愿意开局对付BB吗?

我知道经验系统是基于相对伤害。但是更重要的是开局对付DD的影响更大，且开局对付BB的风险更大。

现在，BB开局都是抱团，血量健康，而且几乎都有CA护航。看起来你们让CV去找BB不是因为BB很有吸引力，而是因为AA特化DD不好对付。

忘了一个很重要的问题：有没有让战斗机可以攻击水面舰船的计划，我记得你们说过这个

A:你好啊

这样做的主要目标就是在AA消耗品配置和常规消耗品配置中形成更强烈的竞争。并不是说改变CV的优先目标

整体来说，你指出了一些重点。问题在于现有的CV理念中，很难在现有的理念中做到CV与相关内容的平衡。Buff没有AA消耗品的DD显然会把AA系统搞乱套(我们努力让现有的AA中的各种数据贴近历史)

事实上，有两种方法可以改变这种情况：

1.提高CV的攻击能力，让他们对付谁都可以(这样他们还真会倾向于其他目标)

2.把深水鱼雷给CV，那么他们只能靠舰爆来对付DD

两种方法都极富争议性，而且有很多问题。它们也没有解决DD被挂天灯的问题。

老实说，我们之后会(我说过好几次了)试验至少一种CV重置的方案。而且我们在这里讨论的所有问题都在待解决的清单上。我的意思是，在CV重置之后解决这些问题比现在解决更有效。因为我们的经验会从一开始就影响开发过程。

至于说战斗机与攻击机的能力交叉问题，这可以在重置之后再讨论

Q:What's the status of HMCS Haida at this point?

iChase showed the behind the scenes filming of the Naval Legends episode for Haida but we've seen or heard nothing about that for months.

pigeon_of_war said he was working on getting Haida into the game a few months ago however, the rumors on the forum said he brought Haida up to the head office in St. Petersburg and the idea didn't go over well.

Can we get a bit of insight on what's going on at least with the Naval Legends video if nothing else? Thank you in advance.

A:The status is "we're working on it". Here, I said this. Don't tell anyone. Especially Pigeon - let's make a surprise for him:)

Q:HMCS Haida(加拿大海军海达人号)怎么样了

IChase展示过海军传奇关于她的那集的制作，但我们在之后几个月里什么都没看到。Pigeon_of_war几个月前说他在努力让这艘船加入游戏。但是又有传言说这个被送到圣彼得堡以后进展非常不顺利。

我们可以知道到底是怎么回事吗?就算是海军传奇都可以。提前感谢。

A:现有的状况是“我们在开发中”在这里我要说，别告诉别人，特别是Pigeon，咱们给他来个惊喜。

Q:HISTORY QUESTIOOOOON I'M BACK ON MY NONSENSE

Could you elaborate upon the formula used to determine torpedo damage reduction numbers/TDS value? Richelieu was noted for having a very deep, elaborate TDS layout using multiple layers and a thing called ebonnite mousse, which gave her one of the best, if not the best underwater protection systems of any battleship ever put afloat, yet in-game she has a paltry 19% (according to the devblog). Similarly, King George V's TDS, which was noted for being at least passable and at best pretty good is also fairly low; on the other hand, Roma, a battleship using a system that was noted for being really bad and potentially a liability has a better TDS rating than Richelieu!

Which brings me to my question: is there a formula that's being used to determine these numbers or are they being fudged for balance reasons? If there's a formula, does it actually take an underwater protection system's layout and contents (single layer vs multiple layer liquid-filled and void compartments, mousse, crush tubes like the Pugliese system, etc) into account, or is it solely based upon system depth and holding bulkhead thickness?

Thanks for the answer in advance!

A:Helloes!

The base formula uses armor thickness and volume. It does not take the material and other peculiarities into account. So, after base TDS is calculated, we tweak it individually lore-wise and gameplay-wise. 19% is the base value, most probably it will be tweaked (improved). And yes, you're absolutely right about ebonnie mousse, that's why we will be reviewing base value.

Q:我又来问历史的问题了!

能不能跟大家说一说鱼雷减伤和鱼雷防护之间的函数关系，Richelieu被记载拥有吃水深而且可靠的鱼雷防护系统。这个系统使用了多层设计同时使用了一种叫做ebonnite mousse的系统。这使她成为了拥有当时最好的，或者说起码水下防护性最好的防护系统的战列舰。然而在游戏里减伤只有19%(看你们的blog里这么说)。同样的，KGV的鱼雷防护系统也还算不错，但是在游戏里也还是不行。另一方面，Roma，一艘鱼雷防护不怎么样的战列舰的鱼雷防护却比Richelieu还要好(我真的不知道这个人说的对不对)

这就让我思考这有一个问题：是不是有一个函数来确定这些鱼雷防护数值，还是说这就是为了平衡的?如果有这样的一个函数，它有将水下防护系统列入考虑吗(比如说多层设计这样的)，还是它只考虑深度和防雷带这些东西。

提前感谢!

A:你好啊!

基础函数使用了装甲厚度和体积，但并没有把材料和其他东西纳入考虑范围。所以在基础鱼雷防护性数据出来以后，我们会依据平衡来调整。19%是一个基础数值，我们很可能会调整(提高)。而且没错，你说的关于ebonnie mousse的那些很对。这也是为什么我们会重新关注基础数值。

Q:Hello S_O。我的问题是关于殉爆的。你以前在QA中也讲过，但是我想要更多的信息。我会尽量保证我的问题专业但是我也会吐槽这个机制，所以可能有些话说得不太好听

现在有这样一个玩家，结果就被RNG从很多血量直接给打沉了。没什么血量的时候这倒还没什么，因为横竖都是死。

如果说有一个高级玩家组队，结果一发打偏的炮弹飞了过来，没打到Gearing，打到了他，然后他就开局两分钟暴毙了，他犯的唯一的错误就是用完了殉爆旗，现在他们就要最多等18分钟才能开下一盘因为他们是组队的。他们也损失了200000的银币因为他们还什么事都没做。这就是为什么玩家不喜欢殉爆。

对我来说，这是个糟糕的设计(我不是开发组的，所以如果你不认同我的观点，我也希望你能反驳我)。在一个没有重生，维修要花钱的游戏里，这种靠RNG就可以把一个没出什么错的玩家干掉的设计对我，以及其他顶级军团玩家来说都是一个糟糕的设计。

你们也提到了殉爆对游戏设计来说是必需的，我还真高兴你会这样想。对其他很多人，包括我，都觉得殉爆是不是什么好玩的事，这只会因为把游戏变成掷骰子一样而让玩家恼火。

以前你也说过：“我们收集了一些要求，甚至有说被殉爆气的退坑的。但是没什么能真的证明这让玩家怎么不高兴了。”

玩家还会继续玩因为没有什么替代的游戏了，但是一个在游戏里的能因为RNG一下把你干掉这样的机制肯定让玩家不舒服。我觉得如果你们移除这个机制那很多玩家都会愿意在游戏里花更多的钱，因为这是绝大多数人想要的(也许你们也可以把它改成少部分的血量)。因为它发生的次数不多，就算是那些真的想保留这个机制的也不会去留恋它，但是这就代表着大家都不用去担心这个了。

如果这个语气过激了还请谅解，S_O。但是我非常关注这个机制，我也希望开发组可以理解玩家的想法且不要只关注服务器数据。

我的问题很重要，你能回答我提出的那些问题吗?

在重读一遍以后的想法：如果说把殉爆伤害变成40%-50%，并且直接摧毁那门炮。然后你还是可以得到殉爆成就，只不过你就没那么容易死了而已。这只是我的一个突发奇想而已因为我知道你们也不会轻易移除殉爆。但是我还是不喜欢那种一发打偏的炮弹结果秒了一艘船这种事。

A:你好!

我明白你的想法。我自己也想了很长时间，因为这个问题经常出现。你知道，我刚和同事讨论过这个，我们打算重新审视殉爆机制，看看能做些什么修改。我们没有准备大改但是我们想做的事移除开局初期血量健康时的殉爆。我觉得这是个不错的开始，然后拭目以待。

感谢以这样好的态度提出这个问题:)

Q:Any thought of making torpedo's require someone in the detection radius to make them visible? In other words if they are plane spotted they only remain visible if the plane is actively in range detecting them?

Many a torp launch are ruined by spotter/catapault fighter planes rendering an attack with a large cool down ruined.

A:No. Even if we considered it to be a design choice, it's too "moddable", and thus, exploitable. We avoid adding the mechanics that are easy to exploit for unfair advantage.

Q:有没有让鱼雷在玩家的探测距离内被点亮才算被发现的改动?换句话说就是如果说鱼雷被飞机点亮了以后如果飞机不继续点亮鱼雷就会灭点。

很多鱼雷发射的机会都是被水战水侦这样的给毁了。

A:不会，就算我们认为这是一个设计上的选择，但是这太容易被mod影响了，会导致不平衡。我们一直避免加入这种容易导致不公平优势的机制。

Q:With the re-shuffling of the American Cruiser lines, has there been any thought given to un-nerfing the reload speed on 5"/38 twin mounts used as secondary batteries? Since the addition of increasingly more powerful and numerous Dual Purpose guns at tier 6-7 ( as well as the upwards movement of Cleveland ) have essentially rendered the old explanations for their slow fire rate obsolete? Especially when other nations secondaries are treated with the best-case-scenario in mind, even ones with already powerful gun and torpedo armament?

It would be a nice bonus to a line that relies entirely on its guns and fighting at close-medium range, where other nations have powerful torpedo batteries.

On that note, is there any reason not to give Colorado the Maryland hull, now that Lyon is entering the game with incredibly powerful Dual Purpose AA/secondaries, which totally outstrips the aged and powercrept American tier 7 in terms of both surface and Anti-Air lethality? It seems counter-intuitive that what-if refits for ships that were never built are allowed to be downright superior to real ships that are left languishing, because the wartime refits THEY received are deemed "too powerful" for some nebulous reason?

A:Heya.

Right now we don't consider any cruiser to have really viable secondaries; and I can't say it's really good for the game to have such ships. So, with downgrading, there could be changes, but I wouldn't expect too much in terms of secondaries.

Q:美巡分线之后，有没有计划去把127双联装炮(副炮)的射速给改回来?因为现在在6-7级有了越来越多，越来越强的高平两用炮(而且Cleveland要去8级)，它们难道不使那些对127副炮的低射速的解释过时了吗?特别是还有其他国家的有些船有好的主炮还带了鱼雷，副炮对她们来说只是“理想状态下有用”?

在其他国家的船可以用鱼雷的情况下，这对一条完全靠炮输出，中近距离战斗的线来说是一个不错的提升。

在这个问题的基础上，为什么不给Colorado一个Maryland的船体，现在Lyon要加入游戏了，这船有很强的高平两用炮。在对空能力和输出能力上都碾压了美战7级。图纸船比史实船还要强，这难道不有点反常理吗?还是因为史实船在战争中接受的改造你们觉得“太强了”?

A:Heya!我们现在认为巡洋舰都没有很强的副炮，而且我也不觉得有很强副炮的巡洋舰对游戏有什么好处。所以船降级肯定会有改动，但一般来说副炮是不会改的。