Source:http://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/03/02/wows-qa-2nd-march-2016/#more-17025
来源↗

Credits go to Carnotzet.
Carnotzet出品，我只转载

Q. WoWs is a historical game with realistic ship models faithfully created by a professional team. Programmers spend a lot of time and effort creating each ship. Players spend a good deal of their time farming silvers and xp in order to buy the next ship in line.
问：WOWS是个有着真实船只模型的史实游戏。程序猿们花了很多时间去制作每一艘船。玩家们也要花上很多时间来打够银币和经验来买出线路中的下一条船。

My question is the following: why can’t we examine our ships more closely in port, the zoom feature is kinda wonky and we can’t really see every detail on the ship. It wouldn’t be so hard to fix this. Would you consider doing this?
我的问题是这样的：为什么我们不能在港口中更加近距离的观察自己的船只，现在的这个缩放机制稍微有点不靠谱，玩家们是看不到船上的每一个细节的。想修复这个问题应该也不难。你们要不考虑一下？

A. Our ships are created with love and particular attention to details. On the other hand, due to scale, we can’t create HD models of every 7.62mm gun since it’d affect performance. Our current “tour” mode – when you click in port on modules on the right side – is, in our opinion, enough to look at ship models. We don’t think it’d make sense to allow a greater zoom. In brief, we don’t plan to change the zooming system in port in the foreseeable future (except for the armor x-ray).
答：我们的船只都是饱含着热情和对细节的注重来制作的。然而另一方面，鉴于比例的原因，我们也没办法给每一根7.62mm机枪制作高清模型，因为这样会影响游戏的性能。我们当前的这个“导览”模式—也就是说你在母港中点击右侧的模块就会带你过去看看的这个模式—我们认为这样就足以让玩家看到船只的各个模块了。我们认为更加进一步的缩放是没有必要的。简单来说。我们在近期是没有要对母港的缩放系统进行改动的（除了实装装甲的厚度透视图以外）

Q. In another Q&A you said: “Firing from smoke is an intrinsic tactic for DD’s. We don’t see anything wrong with it but would like to offer a counter solution to it (radars).”
问：在其他的QA中你说过：“在烟雾中开火是DD的根本战术。我们认为这套战术并没有问题，但是我们愿意给出一套可以反制这个战术的办法（雷达）”

Here’s my question: Do you plan to add radars to every ship? I like to play with IJN cruisers. So I’d like to know: will they be equipped with radars or will they still be helpless against invis-fire from smoke (since “IJN hadn’t any radars” or something like that)?
我的问题是：你们有计划给每一艘船都加入雷达吗？我很喜欢玩IJN的巡洋舰。我想知道这些船会不会有电探还是说它们对于从烟雾中飞来的炮弹都一点办法都没有（因为“我给你讲个笑话，IJN的电探”之类的东西吗？）

A. We only plan to add radars to US and VMF cruisers, and only at high tiers. It’s not so much “they hadn’t radars” as we think about what the game needs. IJN cruisers have good torpedoes and good HE shells. There’s no need to strengthen and diversify this ship class tactics for now.
答：我们现在只有给美国和苏联巡洋舰加入雷达的计划，而且只有高级船才会有。而且加入雷达的原因也不是因为我们在考虑游戏到底需要什么的时候突然想到“他们好像没有雷达”这样。IJN的巡洋舰的鱼雷和HE弹都很好。现在没必要加强并且继续分化这些船的战术了。

Q. If a ship AA rating exceeds 100 with the proper modules and perks, does its efficiency still increase or is it capped?
问：如果一艘船的AA数据在插件和技能的支持下超过了100的话，对空效率是会继续往上涨还是会被限制在100？

A. It will still increase. Ratings are only here to show the global efficiency of a ship in one field or another. If you want to see the actual values, you need to look at detailed info.
答：还是会涨，因为那套评分只是拿来显示一艘船的综合性能的。如果想看到实际的数值的话要去看具体的数据才行

——

[The following question is a follow up to the question about Aurora and Nikolai missing any significant AA defens]
[以下问题是昨天那条关于阿尔芙乐和沙皇尼古拉一世对空薄弱的问题的后续]

Q. Does that mean that you’re happy with the fact that any CV that turns its attention to these ships can inflict damage for free? I’m not even speaking about Arkansas, which hasn’t any AA whatsoever. Is is normal to be “food” for CV’s?
问：这是不是意味着你对于现在CV会把注意力放在这些不用怎么费劲就能打出伤害的船上？阿肯色这种没有防空的船就暂且不论了。你的意思是这些船只能被CV当做肉来吃吗？

A. My previous answer would be weird if most of tier 3-4 ships weren’t “food” for CV’s. By the way, Aurora and Nikolai are performing really well damage, win rate, and ships destroyed per battle wise. Moreover, most of the damage they receive comes not from bombs and torpedoes but AP shells.
答：我跟你讲，如果大部分的3~4级船对于CV来说不是肉那我之前那个回答就说不通了。还有就是阿尔芙乐和沙皇尼古拉一世在伤害，胜率，场均人头这些方面的数据表现都很好。此外它们所受到的大部分伤害都并不是来源于炸弹和鱼雷，而是AP弹。

Weak AA is also a feature of nearly all low tier ships. Among tier 4 BB’s, Wyoming is more or less the only one that does well in this regard. Regarding tier 3 cruisers, it’s Aurora but the difference is so small it doesn’t really matter.
低级船的对空薄弱都可以算成一个特色了。在4级的BB中，只有怀俄明的对空还算是矮子里面拔高个的。3级的巡洋舰里面这个位置就让给了阿尔芙乐，但是差距小到几乎可以忽略不计。

From a game balance standpoint, there’s certainly some aspects that need attention, but it’s definitely not our heroes (Aurora, Nikolai). To be honest, both ships are efficient, if not to say “overpowered”. They fare very well.
从游戏平衡性的角度来讲，现在我们的确还是有一些需要关注的方面，但是绝对不是这俩。说老实话这两艘船虽然说不上OP但是也不错了。她们的日子过的很不错。

Q. Do you plan to buff Yorck? In my opinion, the ship needs a buff to her AP damage so she’ll be a logical follow-up to Nurnberg.
问：你们有计划Buff一下约克吗？我认为这艘船的AP伤害需要Buff一下才能在逻辑方面认为她是纽伦堡的后继人。

A. We have no plans in that regard. She has historical armaments for which were developed good HE shells (used in fact for coastal defense). And she has excellent AP shells. Yorck is still very efficient with HE shells and is sufficiently balanced in that regard. We’re happy with that situation.
答：这方面的话我们暂时没有计划。她史实上的话曾经用过的是很好的HE弹（用于岸防）。而且AP弹也不错。约克的话打HE还是可以的，而且从这个角度来讲平衡上也很好。我们对于约克的现状感到满意。

Q.1. Why doesn’t the upgrade “Gun fire control system Mod.1 show the accuracy increase? After all, type 2 cammo shows that it decreases accuracy by 4%. Why can’t you do the same with the gun mod?
问：1.为什么“舰炮射控系统修改型1”不显示它提高了多少射击精度？你看连二型涂装都可以显示降低对方4%的射击精度。给插件也写一下这个很难吗？

2. Could you add a hotkey that would lock turrets in their starting position (bow guns aim forward, stern guns aim behind).It would help in situations where you don’t know from which direction a ship might come from and thus turrets would only have to rotate half way.
2.你们能不能加入一个可以把主炮角度锁定在起始位置的快捷键（舰首的主炮瞄准前面，舰尾的瞄准后面）。这样的话可以在那种你不知道敌人从哪里来但是你又要打的时候有帮助，因为主炮只需要旋转一半的距离就行了。

A. 1. It’s a great idea, I hope we’ll find the time to implement that.
1.这个想法不错，我希望我们有时间可以实装掉。

2. We considered this idea a long time ago. We came to to the conclusion that the benefits of such feature would be too small.
2.我们很久之前考虑过。但是我们最后得出的结论是这么做带来的好处太小了。

Q. 1. What’s the flight radius of spotter and float planes?
问：1.水上观测机和水上机的飞行半径分别都是多少？

2. Does the ship turning radius depend on its speed?
2.船只的转弯半径和速度有关吗？

A. 1. Flight radius for spotter planes is 4230m, for float planes: 3240m.
答：水上观测机的飞行半径是4230m，至于水上机的话是3240m。

2. Yes, it does. It’s different for every ship (and depends with their size), but generally speaking, the best radius is found at 1/2 speed.
2.对，是有关系的。但是每艘船都不一样（而且还和体积有关系），但是从通常角度来讲，最优的转弯半径是在1/2速度下实现的。

Q. Do you plan to do any file compression to the game files (there’s already more than 200 000 files and 35 000 folders in the game folder)?
问：你们有计划对游戏的文件进行压缩整合吗（游戏内现在已经有超过20W个文件和35K个文件夹了）？

A. Yes, of course. I have already said that this problem is quite important in our plans for optimisation. I can’t tell you specific dates but I can give you an overview: we’ve already found a solution regarding file compression and are in the process of developing it. After that, it will be tested by supertesters. If everything works out, it will then be implemented to the game after 2 or 3 major updates and the number of files and folders will be reduced several times over. Until then, I’m afraid you’ll have to wait.
答：肯定会。我们已经说过了这在我们对游戏的优化过程中是个挺重要的问题。我不能跟你说什么时候才会进行，但是稍微跟你说个大概还是可以的：我们已经找到了一个可以解决文件压缩的方案，现在正在开发中。在这之后会先由超测服的玩家进行测试。如果一切都好的话，就会在两三个大版本之后实装，而游戏内的文件和文件夹的数量会下降好几个级别。直到那一天到来之前，抱歉你只能等了。

Q. Please explain to me why AP shells penetrate Pensacola’s citadel and break her engines? I understand that they would inflict some damage but citadels and engines damage from the front? How am I supposed to play her?
问：请跟我解释一下为什么AP弹击穿了彭萨科拉的核心区并且打坏了发动机？我理解被打穿以后会有一些伤害，但是从正面被打穿核心区和发动机？我玩个卵？

A. Citadels are, broadly speaking, “boxes” so they also have a front, back and upper limit. So the bow of a ship is not protected, all the more so if you’re hit with high caliber shells.
答：核心区的话，广义范围来说是有着许多面的一个“盒子”。还有就是舰首的位置是没有被保护的，尤其是被大口径弹击中的话更是这样。

By pointing your nose to your opponent, you’re basically reducing the area he can hit and increasing the chances of shell bounces. But it doesn’t give you full protection, especially if you’re pummeled with high caliber shells. Especially at short and medium ranges.
把船头对向你的敌人的确会导致你的被弹几率，增加跳弹几率。但是这并不意味着彻底的防护，尤其是你在中近距离对上大口径弹的话。

Q.  Could you make differences between my aircraft squadrons and those of my teammate more visible? Sometimes, it’s quite hard to see which one is mine.
问：能不能从视觉上让我的飞机小队和我队友的飞机小队的区别搞的更大一些？现在的话我想看出到底哪个队伍是我的还是挺有难度的

A. According to our stats, current markers serve their purpose. We may look into making one’s own squadrons more visible but for, truth be told, there isn’t currently a lot of people complaining about this issue.
答：根据我们的数据来看，现在的这些标志有在好好的发挥作用。我们也许会考虑把玩家自己的飞机小队的标记做的更加显眼一些，但是说实话吧，现在并没有很多人在抱怨这个问题。

Q. Lately, there are a lot of DD’s in battles (5-6 per team) and few BB’s (1-2). What do you think about this situation and do you plan to reduce the number of DD’s per battle?
问：最近的话战斗中有很多DD（每队5~6个），而BB变少了（1~2个）。你们对于这种情况怎么认为，你们有什么计划来降低每场战斗中的DD的数量吗？

A. My opinion is as follows: 3-4 DD/CA-CL/BB is standard. 5-6 of any class is too much. However, this is not a critic. That said, I can foresee and answer your next question: we also don’t like “torpedo walls” (called “torpedo soup” in RU) from 5 Shimakazes.
答：我的意见是这样的：3~4艘DD/CA-CL/BB是正常的，而5~6艘就有点太多了。然而这并不是在鸡蛋里挑骨头。顺便我还能预测到你接下要问的问题，我先跟你讲好：我们也不喜欢5个岛风一起丢雷的那种鱼雷墙（毛服管它叫“鱼雷汤”）

Regarding our plans to solve this issue: first, wait for Soviet cruisers, it’s likely they will affect DD population. After that, we still have a couple of ideas but we’d like to implement them bit by bit.
关于我们解决这个问题的方案：首先等苏联巡洋舰出，这么一来很有可能会影响到驱逐舰的数量。在这之后我们也还有一些想法，但是我们想一点一点实装这些想法。

Q. Would you consider reducing the chance of turret destruction? We play the game to shoot stuff and when the first hit we get destroys a turret, it isn’t very interesting.
问：你们会考虑降低炮塔被彻底破坏掉的几率吗？我们玩这个游戏是来开炮的，然而当你被打了第一发你的炮塔就没了的时候这游戏可就没什么意思了。

A. We’re keeping an eye on this aspect of the game, players’ reaction to it and stats about it. We also understand how depressing it can be to sail “without turrets”; even if it happens 1 in 50 games, those battles are remember for a long time. There’s a high chance we’ll make changes regarding this issue.
答：我们有注意游戏的这一方面，玩家的反应以及各种数据等等。我们也理解各位被打成船棍以后的心情；就算这种事情50场里面才会发生一次，但是这一次却会被记住很久。关于这个问题我们很有可能会做出一些改动。

Q. If I buy a cammo with doubloons and after that, for whatever reason, sell the ship it’s on. And then, I purchase it again, will I have to buy the “premium” cammo again?
问：如果我用金币给一艘船买了涂装，之后出于各种各样的原因我把船卖了。然后我又把船买了回来，那这个金币涂装还在吗？

A. No, you won’t need to buy it again.
答：还在的，不用重新买

Q. At low tiers, there are many people shooting at friendly ships. Will you change the current punishment system for firing on friendlies?
问：低级有很多玩家喜欢对着队友开炮。你们会不会对击伤队友的惩罚系统做出改动？

A. I have already explained that the current system for fighting against players not following rules, in our opinion,  needs to be improved and adapted to the new realities of the game. We have some ideas on the matter. As soon as we are ready, we’ll share them with you and hear your ideas. At the moment, it’s too soon.
答：我以前就解释过了，我们认为现在使用的这套惩罚不守规矩的玩家的系统是需要改进，并且适应游戏的新的状况才行的。我们已经有了一些想法，等我们弄好之后会跟各位说，听听各位的意见。当然现在讨论这个问题还为时过早。

In brief, we’re considering the following options:
简单的来说我们考虑了以下几种方案：

• toughen the rules regarding the accumulation of “bad reputation”.
  加大关于所累积的“不良声望”的规则的力度
• progressive ban in TB/RankedB – PvP – PvE modes
  阶段性的禁止玩家进行组队战/天梯-PVP-PVE战斗
• lower damage inflicted to teammates by intentional teamkillers and trolls – up to “scrape a friendly ship, get blown up”.
  那些故意TK的和小学生对队友造成的伤害会降低——直到“碰了一下队友你就爆了”为止
• tune compensation so that it better covers repair costs.
  调整赔偿的金额，使赔偿的金额可以弥补修理费的损失