【WOWS Q&A】2016/03/20

Source:http://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/03/20/wows-qa-20th-march-2015/
WoWS Q&A #2 – 20th March 2016
来源↗

This is the next part of the thread with mal_h (Malik).
这个是和mal_h(Malik)之前那帖子的下一部分

A player writes: “it seems that developers-programmers seem to be much more active since Malik lately spoke on the forums”
玩家说:“看起来这些开发团队—程序猿们在Malik最近在论坛上发过言以后比以前更加活跃了”

Answer from Iwao (game designer):
lwao的回答(游戏设计师):

“I just want to remind you that there aren’t only programmers working in our firm.
“我想跟你说,我们这个公司并不是只有程序猿的。

Let’s then go back to the topic at hand.
回到我们眼下的这个话题。

I cannot speak for everyone, but many developers regularly visit the forums on their own and not only when there are serious problems. And when a serious problem arises, we search for a way to get rid of it. The bothersome thing about it is that when we solve a problem, it usually leads to the discontentment of those who the problem helped.
我不能代表所有人,但是很多开发团队的成员是会自发的跑去论坛看看的,而不是只有在出现了重大问题的时候才会去。当有重大问题出现时,我们会寻找一个可以解决这个问题的办法。麻烦的事情是我们每次解决一个问题就会导致那些从这个问题当中获益的人的不满。

Take, for instance, invis firing. For some, it was and still is a blast, but the implementation of hydroaccoustic search nerfed the ships that were used to fire from smoke one way or another. We all remember that, before their release, several Soviet DD’s had a significant invis firing window, which impacted negatively on the gameplay. It’s the same with launching torpedoes from stealth at high tiers, which leads to the so-called “torpedo soup” (or torp walls) since the range of torpedoes if far greater than detection range. The safety windows is tremendous, which leads to the belief that DD’s wreak havoc and stay clear of what could destroy them. In fact, several DD’s get obliterated when facing an advancing cruiser, but in order to do that, cruisers need to advance to the front line which isn’t safe for them since they get obliterated by BB’s there. As for BB’s, without cruisers, they fall prey to CV’s, against which they aren’t as efficient as cruisers.
就拿开火不被点亮这件事来说吧。对于有些人来说,这曾经是,现在依然是个很大的问题,但是随着水听的加入或多或少的就削弱了这些喜欢在烟雾中开炮的船只。我们依然记得在水听实装之前,苏联的DD可以在烟里随便开火,对游戏带来了很负面的影响。高级船在不被点亮的情况下扔鱼雷也是,就导致了”鱼雷汤“(鱼雷墙)的情况,因为鱼雷的射程比鱼雷的点亮距离大太多了。鉴于这种机会比比皆是,群众就开始认为DD可以大杀特杀,还不用承受被干掉的风险。实际上的话一艘巡洋舰是可以按死好几个驱逐舰的,然而只是说说简单,做起来的话巡洋舰们就要继续深入前线,但是这样风险又太大因为会被对面的BB打死。对于BB来说,没有了巡洋舰的对空保护时面对CV就束手无策了。

All of this is only a hypothesis and it requires thorough research, however, there is a little drawback. There aren’t a lot of players at high tiers compared to mid or lower tiers, thus the statistics regarding high-tier ships we need to draw conclusions is collected very slowly.
上面这些都只是假设,而且需要彻底的研究来证明才可以。然而缺点也是有的。鉴于高级的玩家明显没有中级和低级的多,所以我们在做出最后的结论之前的数据收集过程就十分的漫长。

Please excuse me for my digression but I wanted to explain that. Do we read the forums? Yes! We read them and try to do it regularly but by the time we examine the consequences of the problems raised there and find their causes, seas have already risen and fallen several times. Do we act upon your feedback? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Feedback is an open account of its author’s experiences, who shows in written form that something is wrong with the statistics, for instance.
不好意思跑题了,但是我想解释一下我们到底有没有在看论坛。我们的确是有,而且会尽量经常上去看看,但是当我们发现问题导致的后果以及问题的根本原因时,黄花菜都凉了三五回了。那我们会对玩家的反馈做出一些什么行动吗?有的时候会,但有的时候不会。反馈这个东西是根据作者本人的经验来的,所以有的时候会出现书面上写下来的东西会和数据对不上的情况。

Finally, not all problems are solved painlessly, those who need to have a tooth removed will prove it to you, but we’ll be as gentle as possible.
还有最后一点,并不是所有的问题都可以无痛解决,那些大刀阔斧的改动就已经证明了这一点。但是我们保证我们会尽量温柔的进行改动的。

PS. Regarding the excuse saying that we don’t want to change, online projects need to change radically quite regularly otherwise they stagnate. Too frequent changes (particularly drastic changes) will often cause a negative response from the playerbase since people prefer stability and comfort.”
另:关于有玩家说我们不想进行改动都只是借口的说法…在线项目必须要经常性的从根本上进行改动,不然就不会有人再来玩了。但是过于频繁的改动(尤其是大幅度的改动)又会导致玩家群体中产生负面的反馈,因为玩家更喜欢稳定和舒适的游戏环境。”

More on the same topic.
更多关于这个话题的回复。

This time by Turing_Bombe (GD Analyst):
这次是Turing_Bombe(通用动力公司的分析师)的回复:

He responds to a player saying that developers often give contradictory answers to one question.
他这次回复了一个玩家说为什么开发团队总是在同一个问题上给出了互相矛盾的回答:

“Well, if the developers have different positions, they will give different answers; if there isn’t a specific guideline established by the company (diverting from this guideline will lead to the boss kicking your butt). Fortunately, I haven’t heard of any team meetings teaching us “how to respond on the forums”.
“你看,如果这些开发团队的人的职责不同,如果公司内部没有一个预先制定好的参考大纲的话,他们就会给出不同的回答;(不按照大纲回答会导致老板暴走)。幸运的是我至今还没听说过哪个小组会议的主题是教我们“如何正确在论坛上进行回复”

A game is a complex world and none of the developers knows everything about it. Generally nobody. We are all human after all and each of us has his own opinion on certain things. Let’s take a specific case: what causes battles to be drawn out until the end of the timer (20min)? If you ask the people who are in charge of game modes and maps, their expertise will focus on what was the map, in what mode and where did the ships sail. If you ask the people in charge of ship trees, they will see look at it from their own point of view (battleships are a bit too large, guns are slightly weak, players are firing at each other for too long without destroying each other). In order to draw precise conclusions, we need to spend a lot of time on analysing our data. And again, in order to perform an analysis, we need to understand what we need to look at; is it a map problem or a balance problem, for instance. We have a list of hypotheses.”
游戏是个很复杂的东西,并不是每一个开发者都知道这个游戏的所有方面的。其实没有人能知道关于游戏的一切。我们大家都是人,对于特定的事物都有着自己的看法。举个栗子:到底是什么才会导致战斗被拖到时间结束?(拖满20分钟)如果你去问那些在搞游戏模式和地图的人的话,他们的经验和知识会让他们把注意力集中在地图上有些什么,游戏模式是什么,船都往哪里开了等等。如果你去问那些管科技树的人的话,他们就会从自己的角度出发(战舰有点太大了,炮稍微有点弱,玩家对射老半天打不死人等等)。为了得到一个准确的结论,我们需要花很多时间来分析数据。而为了分析数据我们就需要理解这个问题到底是什么;到底是地图的问题还是平衡上的问题。我们是有一整个问题原因的推定列表的。”

“Not every question is worth exploring. Examining it and finding its place in a larger mosaic requires resources in the form of man-hours. And there’s not always the guarantee it will give positive results. We can ask ourselves a huge amount of different questions.
“并不是每一个问题都值得我们去研究的。调查问题所在并且找到他在整个游戏当中所处的位置是需要很多人力资源才行的。并且我们也不能保证每一次的调查都能有正面的结果。我们可以问自己很多不同的问题。

“What percentage of the player base uses mods?”
“有多少百分比的玩家使用了mod?”

“Does the age of the players taking part in team battles differ from the age of the player base in general?”
“参加组队战的玩家的年龄和一般玩家的年龄上有区别吗?”

“After how many consecutive defeats do players quit the game?”
“连败多少场以后玩家就会关掉游戏不玩了?”

We can ask ourselves dozens of questions like this. Analysts are necessary to answer these questions, the director needs to understand which questions need an answer for him to make decisions.”
我们可以问很多这样的问题。为了回答这些问题就需要进行分析,我们的老大需要理解为了能够让他做出决定到底有哪些问题需要回答。”

A player asks : “Why is it so problematic to tell us where the game is heading for the next six months? For instance, you can just say that “we will add weather effects” and everyone is instantly happy.”
有玩家问:“你们到底为什么不能跟玩家说接下来6个月的计划?比如你们现在就说“我们会加入天气效果的”然后大家都很开心。”

Turing_Bombe: “Is it better for developers to say something that could eventually not be implemented? Regarding weather effects, it’s been in development for a long time. Now, it’s clear we can release it to the public. Incidentally, in all the surveys where we ask players what  they want to improve maps, the most requested feature is “adding weather effects”. Well, the developers know that what will improve map immersion the most is adding weather effects. Rather than, let’s say, a flock of flying seagulls screeching in your ear. But I, for instance, want to hear seagulls. There isn’t enough seagulls. Developers, you’re reading this topic, add seagulls. I want to look in my binoculars and see a giant seagull and hear how its screeches.
Turing_Bombe:“你觉得开发团队承诺一个有可能不会实装的东西很好吗?关于天气效果的话其实已经开发了很长时间了。我们肯定可以把这个东西实装上线。但是很巧合的是我们的关于玩家到底想怎么样改进地图的问卷调查中,玩家最想要的机制就是“加入天气效果”。好吧,现在开发团队倒是知道了最能够提高地图氛围的方式就是加入天气效果,而不是一票在天上乱飞还会乱叫的海鸥。但是我是很想听到海鸥的叫声的。现在游戏内的海鸥数量还是不够。现在正在读帖的开发者快去多弄点海鸥,我希望开镜状态下也能看到一个巨大的海鸥,还得听得到它叫唤才行。”

For a lot of features that are being developed, we generally need to see if they can be shown to the public first. Or, for whatever reasons (for instance, it uses too much resources) a feature is released but not at its full extent, players won’t be so pleased because the reality doesn’t meet their expectations. And in the end, developers will be hated because they “didn’t keep their promises”.
对于很多正在开发中的机制呢,我们首先要看这东西到底能不能够开放给公众使用。或者是说这东西出于各种原因(比如说消耗太多资源的话)没能够实装全部内容的话,玩家就会很不爽。因为我们做出来的东西和他们的预期不一致。最后玩家就会开始恨这些开发人员,因为他们“没能信守承诺”。

Naturally, it’s an active work which should tell us rather early if we can meet our deadlines. Which in turn will allow us to make an early announcement to the public.”
自然来说,如果这是一项主动工作的话,我们应该可以在很早期的阶段就能判断出我们能不能赶上截止日期。也就导致了我们能不能够提前向公众宣布我们接下来所要实装的内容。”

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注