Source:http://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/03/19/wows-qa-19th-march-2016/
http://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/03/19/wows-qa-2-19th-march-2016/

来源：↗

Thanks to Carnotzet.
感谢Carnotzet。

Hi there fellow captains. It’s been quite a long time since we had some juicy news from over the iron curtain, but the wait is finally over. Developers have heard our voices and decided to bless us with their insight once again.
各位舰长们好。自从上一次我们获取到新鲜的新闻已经过去了很久，但是风暴要塞的失败已经过去了。你以为我会把性命交给一个粗鄙又下贱的暗夜……哦不好意思拿错剧本了
开发团队决定再一次和我们分享他们现在的一些想法。

So, let’s start with our very well known Q&A.
首先从QA开始。

Q. 1. Does the torpedo aim assist (gray indicator) take into account the Torpedo Acceleration skill (when learnt)?
问：1.鱼雷的辅助瞄准线（灰色的那条东西）有考虑到鱼雷加速技能的效果吗（学了以后）？

A.Yes, it does.
答：有的。

2. Would it be possible to allow for more customization regarding what elements we want to see on the interface, for instance, I find player names (above ships) useless whereas HP’s and ship names are much more important.
2.有没有可能增加游戏界面上的关于玩家到底想看到什么的自定义元素的数量，我发现在船上方的玩家的姓名没什么屁用，但是血量和船名本身却很有用。

A. It isn’t possible at the moment, but we plan to add marker customization.
答：现在的话还不行，但是我们有计划加入对于标记的自定义。

Q. Please explain why Clemson’s 100mm HE shells are doing 1500 damage while Soviet DD’s 130mm shells, 1600 damage….why not 1800? (it would match the 30% increase in caliber).
问：请解释一下为什么克莱姆森的100mm的HE弹能够造成1500的伤害，而苏联的130mm可以造成1600的伤害，而不是1800（因为口径上升了30%）

A. Because of game constraints. If their HE damage was 1800, they would be overpowered. Let’s not forget that, unlike US DD’s, Soviet DD’s have good ballistics.
答：因为游戏上的限制啦。如果HE弹的伤害是1800的话就会太OP了。还有别忘了，和美国的DD不一样，苏联的DD的弹道是很好的。

Q. I watched the Japanese movie Yamato (2005) and it shows the battleship using her main guns to shoot at aircrafts (with special AA shells). Thus, here is my question: do you plan to allow main guns to fire at aircrafts? Players would have to aim and fire at aircrafts manually. It would allow players to really take part in and improve their AA defense.
问：我看了“男人们的大和”，电影里面有提到大和用主炮进行防空射击（用三式弹）。所以我的问题是：你们有计划做出让主炮可以进行对空射击的机制吗？玩家必须要手动瞄准飞机然后开火才行。这样的话可以让玩家参与到对空，并且也可以提高对空的防御性能。

A. Historically, BB’s AA shells were practically useless. Regarding Yamato, take a look here.
答：历史上来说的话，BB的对空弹其实是很没用的。关于大和的话请看这里

“Common Type 3 Sankaidan Anti-Aircraft Shell. The concept behind these shells was that the ship would put up a barrage pattern through which an attacking aircraft would have to fly.  However, these shells were considered by US Navy pilots to be more of a visual spectacular than an effective AA weapon”.
“三式烧霰弹。这东西背后的概念是预测好攻击机的行进路线然后对着这个路线进行弹幕齐射。然而美国海军的飞行员认为这些东西更像是视觉特效而已，不足以作为一种有效的对空武器来使用。”

So, it was more about putting on a show (and disturbing the attack) than inflicting real damage.
所以说这其实是更像放烟花（并且干扰对方的攻击）而不是能够造成实际伤害的东西。

Moreover, main guns that could historically fire on air targets efficiently – a lot of CA/CL and DD’s guns – can also do it in the game. Regarding manually aiming and firing on planes, we don’t want that mechanic in the game and it’s unlikely it will be added. It’s simply not interesting for the players; the game remains about ship battles.
另外很多主炮在历史上的话其实是可以对空中目标进行有效打击的—游戏中的很多CA/CL和DD的主炮都可以做到。关于手动瞄准飞机然后开火的事，我们是不想要这种机制出现在游戏内的，所以实装的可能性并不是很大。因为这对于玩家来说没什么意思；这个游戏还是关于船只之间的战斗的。

Q. It has been reported several times that Ishizuchi’s rudder and turrets get incapacitated by HE shells. Those modules shouldn’t be incapacitated by HE damage. After all, turrets (and ammo magazines) were the most protected parts of a battleship. Is this a bug in the modelling?
问：一直有说石锤的船舵和炮塔会被HE打坏掉。但是这些模块本来是不应该被HE打坏的，因为炮塔（以及弹药架）是战舰上最受保护的部位才对。这是建模上的Bug吗？

A. It’s not a bug. However, we plan to fix the protection on this ship so situations like the ones you described will not repeat.
答：并不是Bug。然而我们有计划要修复这艘船的防护能力，修复后希望你上述的那些情况不要再出现了。

Q. The game models two types of shells: HE and AP. When googling these two shells, we can see that HE have a lot more explosive than AP. Now, in the game, it’s possible to citadel certain ships with HE shells (for instance CV’s). So why are HE shells doing less damage (when hitting citadels) than AP while having a bigger explosive charge?
问：游戏中有两种炮弹：HE和AP。我在查这两种炮弹的区别的时候发现HE弹的炸药量比AP要高很多。游戏中的话其实是可以用HE来击穿核心区的（比如击穿CV的）。那为什么炸药量更大的HE（在击穿核心区）的时候的伤害比AP更低呢？

A. AP damage is higher because it’s assumed that AP shells, when penetrating the citadel, explode deep inside the “compartment”. On the other side, when HE shells penetrate very thin armour, they detonate on the edge of the “compartment”. This is the reasoning behind the maximum damage values of each type of shells. And it also makes sense balance wise.
答：AP伤害更高是因为我们假设在AP击穿装甲区的时候会在“核心区深处”爆炸。而HE击穿了非常薄的装甲时会在“核心区外围”就爆炸。这也是为什么不同的弹药有着不同的最大伤害的原因。还有就是从平衡角度来讲也说得通。

Q. I have a question regarding “Captured a base” and “Assisted in capture” ribbons.
问：我对于“占领基地”以及“协助占领”这两个缎带有所疑问。

We all know that if I capture a base alone, I receive the “Captured a base” ribbon. But what happens when 2 or 3 ships capture a base? Do all of them receive “Assisted in Capture” or does one of them receive “Captured a base”?
我们都知道如果我单独占领基地的话是会拿到“占领基地”这个缎带的。那如果两三个船一起占领会怎么样？是大家都会拿到一个“协助占领”还是说只有其中一个人可以拿到“占领基地”？

And what about when a 4th ship enters the point circle?  Does he receive any points? IIRC, only three ships can effectively capture a base.
那如果第四艘船进入了占领圈又会怎么样？他会获得任何的基地占领点数吗？我没记错的话三艘船就可以达到最大速度的占领了。

One last question: do both ribbons give the same amount of points (xp/cred)?
最后一个问题：占领和协助占领在点数（经验/银币）的奖励上是一样的吗？

A. If a player earns 80% of the capture points needed to capture a base (without leaving the base nor receiving damage), he receives a “Captured a base” ribbon. If less than 80%, he receives a “Assisted in capture” ribbon.
答：如果玩家获得了占领基地所需要的总点数数量的80%的话（在不出圈而且不受伤的情况下）就会拿到“占领基地”的缎带。如果少于80%的话就只能拿到“协助占领”

Moreover, if a 4th (5th, 6th, etc) enters the cap, he also receives points. Only the capture speed doesn’t increase after the third ship.
而且如果有第四艘船（第五艘，第六艘等等）进入了占领圈，他也是会拿到占领的分数的。但是占领的速度在第三艘船之后就不会增加了。

Regarding economics (xp/cred), ribbons aren’t taken into account, only the percentage a player added to the capture point.
关于经济（银币/经验）的话，缎带其实是没效果的。真正影响收益的是玩家对于占领贡献了多少点数。

Q. How are dual purpose guns handled in terms of their AA role? When firing at ships, do their damage decrease against planes?
问：高平两用炮在处理对空数据的时候是怎么算的？如果我在对其他人开火的时候是不是就会降低它们对于飞机的伤害？

A. Dual purpose guns fulfill their AA role only in the abstract. AA fire is separated from artillery fire (main and secondary guns). So even when you’re firing at ships with your dual purpose guns, they can still fire at planes at full efficiency.
答：高平两用炮只是在理论上会进行对空射击。因为对空火力是和常规的炮击（主炮和副炮）分开的。所以就算你在用高平两用炮开火的时候，它们对于飞机的伤害依然不会受到影响。

Q. Players who spend money on the game and are willing to spend more, those who buy your products…don’t you have any plans for them such as giving them discounts, bonuses or allowing them to get new ships (or other things) first?
问：那些在游戏上花了钱的，而且还有计划要继续花钱的玩家……你们就没有计划给他们点优惠，折扣或者是让他们能够提前体验到新船（或者是其他新内容）的计划吗？

A. We have some plans (for instance, by proposing personal offers, a mechanic which is being tested at the moment).
答：有计划啊（现在的话是有一个正在进行测试的个人折扣的机制）

Q. How do torpedo hits work? Can there be duds, or ricochets? Or do they all explode on impact? They sometimes seem to hit at steep angles, while having the detonator on the nose. Only torpedoes equipped with a magnetic detonator would explode at those angles. Are all the torpedoes in the game magnetic?
问：鱼雷命中到底是怎么回事？会有哑弹或者是跳弹吗？还是说所有的鱼雷都是撞击印信，一撞就炸？因为鱼雷的起爆装置是在鱼雷头上，而它们命中的角度又很刁钻（也就是说其实并不能让鱼雷爆炸的角度）。只有装配了磁性起爆器的鱼雷才能够在这些角度上起爆才对。难道说游戏内所有的鱼雷都是磁性鱼雷吗？

A. All torpedoes explodes on impact. This is not an attempt to depict magnetic torpedoes but it was done to make the game less complex.
答：所有的鱼雷都是撞击起爆的。这并不是为了把游戏中的鱼雷都刻画成磁性鱼雷，而是为了让游戏不那么复杂才做成这样的。

Several interesting discussions were held on the RU forums.
毛服论坛上有一些很有趣的讨论。

Here are some of the most interesting answers from the devs.
以下是开发团队给出的最有意思的回答的一部分。

Speaking about the possibility of adding ships to be purchased in game via doubloons, Jluca explains that “we always have said we don’t want and don’t plan to sell ships in game [for sales limited in time]. In order to do that, we would need to lay off some development and add a client update when the sale begins and add another one when it ends. It would mean that for every sale, you’d need to update your client and wait for maintenance”.
关于给游戏内加入可以通过金币来购买的船只的可能性，Jluca解释说“我们一直都说我们并不想而且也没计划在游戏内[进行限时的打折]销售船只的计划。因为如果真的要这么做的话就得搁置更多的开发计划，在打折开始的时候要进行一次客户端更新，在打折结束的时候再更新一次。意味着每次打折销售都得更新客户端，还得等服务器维护好。”

Another topic where a player compares WoWs to WoWp and thinks the game is in decline (population wise).
另一个话题是玩家拿战舰世界和战机世界进行对比，认为这个游戏已经在走下坡路了（玩家数量）

To this, mal_h (general manager) explains that:
关于这一点，mal_h（总经理）解释说：

“1. there are 130’000 concurrent players (all regions included).
“1.全球范围内有130000的玩家

2. The population decrease WoWs has suffered is due to players going back to WoT. For the first time in a long time, we released a successful update (9.14). So the number of players passing from one game to another is quite significant. It already happened a couple of times before. After some time, players start to come back to WoWs.
2.战舰世界玩家数量下滑主要是因为大家都跑回去玩WOT了。因为9.14算是我们这么久以来的第一个比较成功的补丁。所以玩家回流的数量还是很大的。以前其实就发生过好几次这种情况。但是过段时间大家就会跑回来玩WOWS了。

3. WoWs yields about twice the profit of all of the games available on mail.ru.
WOWS的利润大概是其他在mail.ru上可以找到的游戏的两倍。
译注：mail.ru算是俄罗斯最大的门户网站

4. Globally, the number of concurrent players is rising.
4.从全球范围来讲，玩家数量是在上升的。

5. In April, WoWs Russian playerbase will stabilise.”
5.四月的话，毛服的WOWS玩家数量应该可以稳定下来”

“The production cycle of a tank, from the beginning of the development to the release is about a year. For ships, it’s about half a year. Because of that, it’s nearly impossible to  react quickly to what is happening at a specific moment. When it comes to cycle of an update, the amount of interconnected data that needs to be modified and tested is enormous. During those six months, there’s a lot of stress put on some key people, who barely see their family and spend their nights working. I’m not complaining, just explaining how it works. By virtue of its complexity and internal design, a MMO game is about as complex as a space shuttle. Because of that, when I read on the forums about proposals on how to fix everything easily, I cannot help myself but smile. A lot of players have taken part in the game development with different responsibilities. And all of them were staggered when they started to understand how complex a MMO game is. What is our governing principle when making decisions? It’s you, the players. We listen, analyse, test – and according to that, we develop the game.”
“坦克的开发周期，从开发开始直到正式放出大概是需要一年的时间。战舰的话大概是半年。所以说想要对当先的某个情况做出快速的反应的话是几乎不可能的。当说到补丁的周期的话，那些互相有联系的并且还需要进行更改和测试的数据的数量是不可估量的。在这六个月的周期内，很多关键人物身上的压力其实是很大的，很少能够回家看家人，到晚上了也还是在工作。我并不是在抱怨什么，我只是在解释这一切到底是怎么回事。由于MMO的这种复杂性和内部设计，它的复杂程度并不亚于宇宙飞船。因此我每次在论坛上看到说这个问题只要这样那样就能轻松解决的时候我都是在笑的。很多玩家其实都有参与过到游戏的设计和开发当中。当他们意识到一个MMO究竟有多复杂的时候他们其实都吃了一惊。我们在做出各种决定的时候的原则到底是什么？是你们这些玩家。我们听取你们的意见，分析，测试——根据这些结果再去开发游戏。”

About the people working for WG : “The former Head of Blizzard Europe is our Publishing Director, Frederic. Our US department is lead by Jay, who is from DICE and created Ubisoft America, Thain helps with tanks at the moment, he was the head of the FPS department at Activision, head of human resources at Riot games, he formed the team working on League of Legends. And so on. Viktor Kisly works hard so that WG is a respectable and competent firm.”
关于为WG工作的人们：“暴雪欧洲部的前任老大Frederic现在是我们的出版总监。我们的美国部门是由创建了美国育碧的，出身于DICE的Jay领导的。动视暴雪的FPS部门的老大，曾经也担任过拳头公司和HR并且创建了制作英雄联盟的团队的Thain现在正在帮我们处理坦克方面的事情。诸如此类。VK也在很努力的工作才能让WG被称作一家值得尊敬的，而且还有能力的公司。”

“The problem with balancing elements of the game is that no amount of testing by testers, supertesters or during public testing will give us a good representation of what will happen when it’s eventually released to all players. Often, all of our predictions are swept away by public statistics”.
“关于游戏的平衡问题是不管测试和超测还有常规测试服到底怎么测，我们也从这些测试结果中看不出这些内容在正式上线之后到底会怎么样。经常会出现我们的预测的幻想被真实数据的现实无情打破的情况。”

About matchmaking, PPK explains: “At the moment, our algorithm works as follows: If a players is bottom tier with a given ship 4 times in a row, the next battle, he’s assured to be top tier. The counter is calculated for each ship, in addition to a general counter for the account. I have recently done some statistics regarding matchmaking, it seems the chance for getting into +0, +1, +2 battles is 40%, 30%, 30% respectively.”
关于MM的话，PPK是这么解释的：“现在的话我们的算法是这样的：如果玩家连续垫底四轮，下一场一定会作为班长出现。每艘船都有独立的垫底计数器，同时还有一个账号范围的垫底计数器。我最近翻了下数据，现在进入+0，+1和+2的战斗的几率分别是40%，30%，30%。”

“Counters don’t work on T10 ships since they’re always top tier.
“另外10级是没有垫底计数器的，因为已经是顶级了。

Ideal balance: fully mirrored teams.
理想中的平衡：全部一样的队伍配置。

Ideal gameplay: diverse, unpredictable, with prodigious victories (winning against all odds, with less ships) and humiliating defeats. Those two points contradict each other.
理想的游戏性：变化多样，无法预测，各种情况下的胜利（突破千难万险胜利，少船也可以胜利）以及各种情况下的败北。但是这两个论点其实是互相矛盾的。

The ideal matchmaker puts a player into battle as soon as he click “To Battle”.
理想中的MM会在玩家点击”战斗“之后就把玩家丢进战斗。

The ideal matchmaker carefully chooses for each player the ideal team composition and opposing team composition.
这个MM会为每个玩家小心的选择他理想中的队伍配置以及对面的配置。

Here again, these two points contradict each other.
再说一次，这两个论点是互相矛盾的。

> not rigidly tied to other elements of the system.
> 并不和其他系统中的元素紧密相连。

However, this is unfortunately not the case. Formerly, the matchmaker could create teams equal in strength but not in number of players in each teams, and it created interesting gameplay.
然而其实并不是这样。以前的话，MM是可以创建强度相等，但是玩家数量并不对等的队伍的。这样就造就了很有意思的场面。

Then, the notion of “Superiority” was introduced in the game and the number of players in each team became a very important factor. It was necessary to have the same number of players on each team.
于是我们给游戏加入了“制海权”模式，队伍中的每个玩家都扮演着一个很重要的角色。这样的话保证每队玩家数量相等就很重要了。

It’s similar to the problem with DD’s.
其实驱逐舰的问题也是一样的。

Of course, we could easily put a filter in the game that says “no more than 3 DD’s on each team” and adapt everything else to that rule. But I would be happier if the players themselves would step on DD’s toes, with beefed-up cruisers. It’d make me much happier.”
当然了，我们也可以直接给游戏加上一个“每队不超过3DD”的限制，然后游戏的其他元素去适应这个改动。但是如果玩家们可以自己开着各种巡洋舰去找DD的麻烦的话我是更加开心的。”

mal_h on DD’s overrepresentation : “The option of limiting the number of DD’s in a battle is quick and simple. However it could have a snowball effect on the DD’s that are not chosen by the matchmaker. Let’s say 10 DD’s enter the queue, 6 of them are chosen in a battle, 4 remain in the queue. 10 more DD’s enter the queue, the matchmaker let only 6 of them enter a battle. Now, 8 are still waiting in the queue. So in the end, after a critical amount of time (if all of them have the patience to stay in the queue), will the matchmaker throw them all at once in a battle (pure DD battle)? Or will it throw them back to the port?”
mal_h关于DD数量过多的说法：“的确，直接限制战斗中DD的数量看起来是个简单有效的办法。然而MM不去选择DD导致的后果其实像滚雪球一样越来越大。比如说10个DD进入了战斗等待队列中，其中6个被选了，4个还呆在队列里。又来了10个DD，MM只放了6个DD进入战斗，现在队列中有8个了。那到最后等到一段时间（假设所有DD都能在队列中耐心等待的话），那MM是把他们全部丢在一起（驱逐舰大战）？还是说把他们全部扔回母港？”

BEWARE, WALL OF TEXT INCOMING
以下大量文字袭来

The following discussion is very interesting (and quite different from what we’re used to) but contains a lot of text which takes me forever to translate.
以下是个很有意思的讨论（和我们曾经看到过的那种讨论不一样）但是包含了许多文字，翻译起来很痛苦。

The thread is about the lack of communication from WG developers. In the thread, a player compares WG with a bortsch (kind of soup) company. “It’d be as if all your customers told you every day you need to put less carrots or more onions in your soup. Would you react after every comment? Well it’s the same for WG”.
整个帖子是关于WG的开发团队和玩家的交流不足的。帖子中有个玩家把WG和罐装罗宋汤公司做了对比：“就像你的顾客每天都跟你讲少放点萝卜多放点洋葱一样。你会对每个评论都跟着他回复吗？WG其实也是一个道理。”

This is mal_h’s answer:
以下是mal_h的回答：

“The analogy is rather good, but at the same time, we don’t want to offend anyone. Players make suggestions out of interest for the game. I instantly discard some of the suggestions I read….I’d like to explain in details why the suggestion cannot be accepted, and could even be more harmful than helpful to the game. I start to write, but then I realize that the person I’m writing to will not understand what I’m talking about and will only get irritated thinking that I’m showing off. Let me make an analogy with the “Orange revolution”. It happens when problems inherent to a society are artificially inflated and instead of trying to solve them, the society plunges into self-destruction. In those situations, there are always opposing groups. In this case, there are two groups, one from Ukraine, one from Russia.
“你这个比喻其实不错，但是我们并不想冒犯任何人。玩家会提出一些没有任何建设性的意见。看到这些意见我都是直接无视掉的。我来解释下为什么这些意见不被接受，不如说假如接受了这些意见游戏反而会更加完蛋。当我写下这段话的时候我意识到我回复的玩家并不能理解我到底在说什么，反而会认为我是在装逼而被激怒。我拿“橙色革命”来举个例子吧。这个情况其实是由于社会内在的一些问题被认为的煽动并且夸大，而人们不去解决这些问题，而是选择了跳进自我毁灭的大坑。在这些情况中总是有两个互相对立的群体。在橙色革命这个栗子中，对立的两个群体是乌克兰和俄罗斯。

They are incurable. They don’t need anything or report to anyone, they just need destruction. They don’t know what it is to work to earn money. It is even more frequent on forums as people are hidden behind a nickname.
这些人都无药可医。他们也不需要什么东西，也并不需要对什么人进行汇报，他们只需要毁灭而已。他们也不知道工作和赚钱是什么。在各种论坛上看见这些人披着马甲反而更加常见。

It is important to see this and understand it. They destroy game communities, not on their own, but by manipulating sensitive persons. That is why we have a hard time discerning who is who. Whom is it worth speaking to, who isn’t. That’s why it’s hard (sometimes even useless) to speak to people who are overwhelmed with negative emotions. When the forum finally reaches the point where any dialogue turns into a slaughter, who will be the victims? The constructive part of the community will be the first victim. And no Community manager or developer can do anything about it, no matter how hard they try. Only those who really like the game, those who understand what is happening and can make the difference between the terminators and the victims, will be able to bring the forums back from the point of no return.
你要理解这个情况。他们会毁灭整个游戏的社群，而且不是通过自己的力量，而是去操纵那些很敏感的人来达到这个目的。这也就是为什么我们花了很长时间来辨别到底谁是谁，谁值得去对话，谁不值得。也就是为什么有的时候想要和那些充满了负面情绪的人对话是很难的（有的时候是毫无意义的）。当论坛变成任何一句发言都会被瞬间曲解的时候，谁才是真正的受害者？整个社群中最有建设性的人会成为第一批受害者。而且社群管理和开发团队的乘员也无计可施。只有那些真正喜欢游戏，并且理解当下状况，而且可以和那些毁灭者和受害者保持一定距离的人才能够拯救这个论坛。

I’d like to change your Bortsch analogy into an airplane analogy. The game is at least as complex as an airplane. And experienced passengers’ advice is valuable but not always implemented. We gladly listen, think, speak and explain. But without your help, we can’t make the difference between passengers and terrorists ready to blow themselves up. You’re the only ones able to do that.
我觉得你这个罗宋汤的例子还是不好，换成飞机会好一些。这游戏往少了说也和一架飞机一样复杂。那些经验老道的乘客的意见的确很有价值，但是并不一定会实装。我们会听，会去思考，发言并且解释。但是在没有玩家的帮助下我们是分不清正常的乘客和想要自爆的疯狂伊凡之间的区别的。只有玩家可以做到。

By the way, here’s a video showing the evolution of WoWs over the course of its many versions. [It’s in Russian but it shows some nice screenshots for those who don’t know how it looked like before]. VIDEO”
顺便一说，我这里有一个关于WOWS在这么多版本中的进化历程的视频[视频是毛文的，但是里面有很多很不错的截图]。视频Youtube链接“

A player’s answer to that : “It’s a good analogy (with the plane) but to know how passengers can be more comfortably seated, you need to ask them and not decide for them. For instance, nothing was done or is planned for the interface (I’m not talking about TB, RB functionalities). And the old one doesn’t work that well.”
某个玩家的回答：”（飞机的）比喻也不错，但是想要知道这些乘客怎么坐才能舒服，你得问他们的意见，而不是帮他们做出这些决定。比如说界面就一直没有改动，也没有计划要改动（这还不算组队战和天梯的功能）。而且原来的那个界面也不咋地。“

mal_h: “I will likely trigger a new wave of angry mob but I’ll try to explain. Be patient and try to hear me out. Let’s keep the plane analogy that works rather well.
mal_h：”我估计接下来的这段话会再拉一批仇恨，但是我会解释。请耐心听我说完。就留下这个飞机的例子来说。

You pretend it’s obvious “passengers know best how they can be more comfortably seated”. Well let me take the role of the passengers (we all were once in their shoes), how can we be seated more comfortably?
你的假设是“乘客自己知道他们怎么坐才能舒服”。那我来扮演乘客的角色好了（反正大家曾经都做过乘客），我们怎么坐才能舒服呢？

This will be a perfect analogy for the suggestions found on the forums, I will be the passengers and you, the aircraft developer.
这对于论坛上的这些各种意见其实是个最好的例子。我来作为乘客，你来作为飞机的开发人员。

1. There should be enough room for tall, small and corpulent passengers.
1.高矮胖瘦的乘客都应该有足够的空间。

2. There should be enough room for passengers to stretch their legs and adjust their chair in a lying position.
2.乘客应该可以有可以把腿伸直的空间，还能把座位调到躺下的位置。

3. Air conditioning and light switches needs to be easily and comfortably reached by tall, small, corpulent and thin passengers.
3.各种乘客都应该能够轻松的碰到空调和灯光的开关。

4. Every seat should be near a window and the window should be centered so the passenger can easily look out of it.
4.每个座位都应该靠近窗户，而且窗户应该要居中，这样的话乘客才能不费力的看出去

5. Seats must have armrests and an adjustable headrest, and preferably be equipped with heating/air conditioning and massage. As usual they should fit tall, small, corpulent or thin passengers.
5.作为应该有扶手，还要有可调的头枕，最好还有按摩功能和加热/空调功能。当然和前面的一样，高矮胖瘦的乘客都要有的坐。

6. Seats must be next to an aisle so passengers can get up or sit down without disturbing others.
6.座位必须要靠近过道，这样的话可以不用打扰别人就能够坐下/站起来。

7. The heating and air conditioning system need to provide specific air humidity, temperature and pressure.
7.加热和空调系统必须要做成可调湿度，温度和压力。

8. Spaces between rows must be large enough so passengers can easily pass each other (including corpulent passengers).
8.两列座位之间的空间要足够大，这样的话可以轻松的绕过其他人（包括肥胖的乘客）

9. Luggage compartments must be large enough to contain all types of luggage.
9.行李架必须足够大，要能够塞下所有种类的行李才行。

10. Cumbersome luggage should be loaded and unloaded quickly and should not have any damage, be placed on top of each other or be dirtied.
10.大件行李必须要能够快速的装上/卸下飞机。还不能有任何损伤，不能堆在一起，也不能变脏。

11. Windows should be large enough and preferably square for passengers to see outside easily. Preferably, it should have a sliding panel to have some ventilation.
11.窗户要足够大，最好是方形的，这样乘客就能直接看出去了。最好是加入通风功能。

12. Seats for children should be separated from the others with soundproof partition.
12.儿童用的座椅最好和其他乘客的分开，还要带隔音功能。

13. Passengers should have the option to choose their neighbour – man or woman, nationality, religion.
13.乘客应该可以选择他们邻座坐的是谁—性别，国际，宗教信仰等等。

14. Meals on board should take into account each passenger’s health, tastes, traditions, including religion. Meals of every kind should be provided, kosher, halal, gluten free, vegetarian, even human meat for cannibals.
14.飞机餐应该考虑到每个乘客的健康，口味，习惯，包括宗教等等。应该有各种各样的飞机餐才行，犹太教的，清真的，无淀粉的，素食的，还得给食人族准备人肉。

15. Obese people should be able to expand their seat to a size which they’re comfortable with.
15.肥胖的乘客应该可以把椅子扩展到一个他们认为舒适的尺寸才行。

16. Flight cost should be appropriate for all passengers, preferably free.
16.飞机票的价格最好是合理一些，最好不要钱

17. Purchase of a premium flight should provide a flight twice as fast and its price should be affordable for all social classes.
17.头等舱应该让飞行时间缩短一半，而且大家都要买得起才行。

Well, with all the suggestions I got from the passengers, there should be 78 points in total but I think that 17 is enough.
你看，这些就是我从乘客那收集来的意见，一共有78条但是我觉得17条就够了。

Now tell me, as an airplane developer, how you will fulfill all of those wishes and if you can do it by tomorrow?
你现在跟我讲讲，你作为飞机的设计师你是要怎么样在明天就解决这些不同乘客的愿望？

And tomorrow, I’ll start to complain about your laziness, your stupidity and your greed.
而且从明天开始我就会开始抱怨你有多懒，多笨还多贪婪。

I’d like to mention two areas in which, according to my long experience, everybody seem to be an expert: 1. Interface. 2. Game design.
顺便根据我这么久的经验，我想要提两个大家都是专家的方面：1.游戏界面。2.游戏的设计。

A few words about the interface.
界面我少说两句。

The interface is how the game interacts with you, in other words, it’s the game itself. In order to change it, we usually have to change the game. Let’s take the plane analogy once again and talk about windows. They are the plane interface with passengers. And they are also part of the plane. See point 11 (above), why aren’t windows centered with each seat? I have to tilt my head to see something? This interface is crap! And the form is strange and not to my liking. It should be square, centered with my seat, with a sliding panel in case my neighbour farts.
界面其实是游戏和你进行互动的方法。换句话说，就是游戏本身。想要改动界面就必须要改动游戏。再来拿飞机这个例子说事，飞机的窗户。这其实就是飞机和乘客进行互动的界面。而且还是飞机的一部分。请看上面的第11点，为什么窗户和座位不是居中的？我还得转头才能看东西咯？这你妈界面就是一泡屎！而且窗户的形状我也不喜欢，最好是方形的，和我的椅子居中，最好有通风功能，这样我旁边的人放屁了也无所谓。

Everything evolves and some of the points I listed above are without no doubt already implemented in airplane services in one form or another.
当然，随着一切都在进化，我上面列出的点的部分功能已经以各种形式实装了。

And we’re making sure the game is evolving. Once again, go watch the video I linked to see how the game evolved.
我们也会保证游戏也在进化。我再说一次，去看那个游戏到底是怎么进化的视频。

Moreover, I’m very grateful for all the players who post their suggestions and don’t get angry if we don’t respond to every one of you, we are several thousands less than you are and we have to develop a game on top of that. We make the game according to our capabilities and your advice.The more emotional conversations become, the harder it is for us to develop the game and answer to your suggestions.
另外我对于那些在论坛上发了他们的建议，并且对于没有得到我们的回复也没有生气的玩家表示感谢。我们会根据我们的能力以及你们的建议来制作游戏的。随着对话变得越来越感性，我们开发游戏也会变得越困难，想要回答你们的建议也就变得越困难。

It’s possible that I’m becoming a Buddhist but I think together we can improve the communication between us, both in form and content. At least, on our side, we will try.”
我这好像说的跟佛教徒一样，但是我觉得我们可以加强我们之间的交流，无论是从精神还是从物质层面上。至少，我们会尝试的。”