【WOWS Q&A】2017/08/02

Source:https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2017/08/02/wows-qa-2nd-august-2017/
来源↗

由Sub_Octavian在reddit上的回答整合而成
一如既往的有删节

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.
问:之前你们说在航母重制之前不出金币航母的,现在重制叫你们吃了?现在游戏里已经有加贺和企业了,齐柏林也是马上就出了。 

A: I really doubt there was a promise not to release carriers before rework.
答:我印象中从来没保证过不在重制之前实装新航母

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?”.
问题在于我们并没有在努力做新航母,因为现在航母整体都有问题。其中包括UI问题,船型内的平衡问题,缺少教程以及学习曲线的问题。这些问题以及其他种种都让我们想到了一个很严肃的问题。“现在的航母与防空的概念到底是继续用然后在此基础上改改还是从头开始?”如果要从头开始的话,到底是以一个大补丁的形式实装还是阶段性的实装?

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.
现在我们已经解决了UI部分的主要问题,这也是一直以来阻碍我们实装新的航母内容的一个原因。美/日航的平衡现在正在搞了,估计几个版本之内就会实装。现在也在搞新的教程模式,当然了教学还是会先教玩家如何移动船只以及最基本的游戏体验方面的 功能。关于全面重制的话就有些问题,因为任何全面重制对于老玩家来说就是一种无形的压力。所以如果我们真的要重制的话我们需要保证这个东西是绝对没问题的。现在的话我们手上并没有这样的一个想法,但是我们会继续去思考。同时我们也会对现有的航母机制做出小但高质量的改动,而且改动的方式都是进化式的,而不是革新式的。

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.
问:去年开始就有一些平衡方面的问题,尤其是关于美航和日航相比的泛用性和在面对关键目标(比如驱逐舰们)时的不一致性。

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)
然后这么久过去了,没有平衡,但是对载弹量做了Buff…这个buff在帮助团队取得胜利时也没大屁用(这个主要是方便了那些高玩在殴打敌方飞机的情况,因为那些“比较差的玩家”会在还没消耗掉VF一半以上的弹药时飞机就没了)

A: Well, lack of flexibility is the exact main target for upcoming USN CVs changes.
答:缺少泛用性就是接下来美航平衡的重点。

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.
问:能不能解释下7级和8级英战的地位,然后我再重申一次,把大家这么期待而且这么有名的船(纳尔逊或者14寸的乔治五世)拿出来卖在玩家群体中是绝对不会有好结果的。到底是为什么要出君主我其实不是很明白,现在游戏中已经有很多可以选择两种不同口径的主炮的船了啊?你们把乔治五世平衡一下然后塞给她14寸和15寸炮不就完了嘛。

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.
而且为什么每一条线都需要让他们之间的独特性都凸显到让人觉得不舒服的程度?看看英巡就知道了。我觉得你们把这个策略用的太久了,你们很快就会没有新想法去做新线然后伤害到游戏的平衡。我并不介意你们推出一条和现有的线差不多的新线,历史的关联性以及船只的外观本身对我来说就是足够大的差别了。我只想让英战变成可靠的,没有什么花头的战舰。

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:
答:我并不能百分百肯定英战的船只排列顺序。然而我只能保证纳尔逊变成金币船,乔治五世被放去7级而且会被君主替换掉的原因有以下这些:

  1. King George does not look good on T8 in terms of firepower, while it looks absolutely adequate for T7.
    乔治五世的火力放在8级有点不好,但是放在7级就妥妥的够了
  2. 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.
    纳尔逊对于高玩来说是艘好船,但是如果放在科技树内的话就很有可能会成为一个大家巨坑,大部分玩家都会吃瘪。当然了我们也想把它作为一个标志性的船放在线内,但是游戏体验更加重要。我们并不认为纳尔逊会成为一艘打钱用的船,因为中介金币英战的位置已经被厌战和胡德占领了,而且现在的想法是放出一条所有玩家都能很顺利的玩的新线。谁知道呢,说不定纳尔逊会继续作为金币船,但是会有一些其它的获得手段…到时候再看吧。
  3. 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”.
    现在最终决定还没有做好,我只能说在测试了这么多不同的英战配置之后,我们慢慢得出了这条线不需要任何的“特殊机制”也可以玩的很开心的结论。我们会考虑给英战准备基础的BB配置,然后只有唯一一个改进版修理作为“特殊机制”而已。

 

Q: What determines the krupp value for AP shells? Also, why do British BB’s have such low krupp values? Thanks
问:AP弹的Krupp值是怎么决定的?为什么英战的Krupp值这么低?谢谢。

A: 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.
答:笼统的来说,Krupp值是我们在弹道模型中去模拟不同炮弹在不同距离上的理想穿深值时才会用的。而“理想穿深”指的是最接近于现实生活中的值,因为这是我们所能够保证的真实性的一个方面。所以这只是个用来平衡炮弹性能的工具而已。

Q: Hi Sub, whether or not the Conqueror will have the option of both the 419’s and 457’s? Will the Vanguard be a future premium?
问:泥嚎,征服者会有419和457供玩家选用吗?前卫会作为金币船放在以后推出吗?

A: We know about some players who want to have 4×2 457 option, and we will consider it. It is a possible option for the future. Thank you for your question.
答:我们知道部分玩家想要2*457的配置,我们会考虑的。前卫的话以后可能吧。

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:
问:为什么阳炎(和秋月)的主炮射程这么短?到底是近期的平衡导致的还是之前的隐身炮nerf导致的?

  • 吹雪: 10.5 km
  • 秋月: 9.4 km
  • 阳炎: 8.6 km
  • 夕云: 10.9 km
  • 岛风: 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.
    答:因为射程是由公式决定的(计算了火控的数据),然后只有在游戏性方面有需要的时候才会进行人工改动。阳炎的话游戏体验方面并不需要改动。扶桑同理。

Q: Are you planning to introduce another premium Polish ship? Possibly Wicher-class destroyer?
问:有没有计划加入别的波兰金币船?旋风级驱逐舰之类的?

A: Not in the near future.
答:近期不会。

Q: How does the spotting damage mechanic work? How do you deal spotting damage?
问:点亮伤害机制是怎么样的?要怎么样才能造成点亮伤害?

A: Spotting damage is damage dealt by one ship to the target that is being scouted by another ship. E.g. if you turn on Radar and spot a DD in smoke, and your ally shoots him, you will get a reward, because without you, your ally wouldn’t see this DD. Another example – if you are scouting on front line with your DD, you will probably spot some enemies, and if your team manage to deal some damage to them, you will get bonuses as well, because without your help this wouldn’t happen.
答:点亮伤害是一艘船在侦查时,另一艘船对这个目标造成的伤害。比如说你在烟里开了雷达发现了DD,你的队友炮击了他,那你就会获得奖励。因为没了你的话你的队友就看不到这个DD。另一个栗子—如果你在前线索敌,然后点亮了一些船。之后你的队友炮击了这些船,那你也会获得奖励,因为没有你的话这一切就不会发生。

Important addition: if you are spotting, and your friendly DD is spotting, you both get EQUAL bonuses, so it’s nice to scout with some buddies.
又另:如果你在点亮,而且友军的DD也在点亮,那你们会获得同样多的奖励,所以最好是大家一起出去侦查。

Sub Q: Thanks for that information. So both get the same value as if they are spotting alone?
问:谢谢。所以一个人点亮的话奖励也是这么多?

A: Yes.
答:对

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?
另:那是不是只有在射击者看不到的时候才有点亮奖励?如果说你在点亮的时候,敌人开火,导致你的队友可以直接点亮这艘船的话,是不是就没有点亮奖励了?

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.
答:是的,如果射击者能够在没有你的帮助下也能够看到目标的话,那你就没有奖励了。

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?
问:美航7级以上有航弹了,那塞班也会有吗,还是说由于舰爆的问题就不会有?

A: Saipan, in our opinion, does not need any buffs or additional diversity.
答:我们认为塞班现在不需要任何buff或者是额外的特性了。

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. #Unforgivable.
问:你们到底是怎么让“海峡”
这种垃圾图出现在排位中的?C点离出生点的位置比A离出生点的位置要远太多了吧,而且更别说北边地图占领B点的优势了。

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!
答:非对称图并不会总是带来优势。现在的话北边的队伍胜率会稍微低一些。这张图以后会因为平衡的原因再调整,但是你所说的北边的队伍有优势的说法是错的。我都被自己惊到了。

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?
问:我单纯就冲着奥斯塔公爵的舰长语音买了这艘船,以后会有更多意大利船吗?

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.
答:现在部分意大利船在开发当中了,然而到底什么时候出还不知道。但是肯定会有就是了。

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?
问:关于烟雾的改动。库图佐夫会受到影响吗?因为你们害怕点了高爆穿甲的巡洋舰在军团战中会成为烟雾中输出的主力,而且它还是为数不多的可以自己拉烟的巡洋舰之一,如果你们不想让一个类似于点了高爆穿甲的恰帕耶夫蹲在烟里输出的话……可这不就是库图佐夫吗?

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.
答:这是全面改动,不会有任何的例外。我以前也说过,高爆穿甲+烟雾的combo太强了,而且据我们的观察以及玩家反馈来看这样做对竞争性游戏是没有好处的,而且至于是那艘船在操作其实并不重要—无论是库图佐夫自己拉烟还是恰帕耶夫在别人的烟里—我们会找到一个降低这套combo可行性的办法的。

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.
我们会公平的,因为BB们(高爆穿甲的主要受害者)也不能从烟里输出了。

Q: Question : Why do you hate the players?
问:你们为什么痛恨你们的玩家?

A: Answer: We don’t. You should get some sleep, your question is psychedelic. I am worried.
答:我们不。你该睡觉了,你的问题太迷了。我很担心你。

【WOWS Q&A】2017/08/02》上有2条评论

  1. MMP,这个游戏已经5个月没用外挂了,全手打,居然负分一直不减!!绿鼠狼2不是说一个版本监测一次,没有用就清一点负分吗?

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注