Source:https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/08/11/wows-qa-11th-august-2016/#more-29639
来源↗

Thanks to Carnotzet.
感谢Carnotzet。

[Disclaimer: please be reminded that the following information comes from the Russian-speaking community and thus certain information may not apply to other clusters.]
[以下内容来自毛服，可能无法适用于其他服务器]

1. My question concerns the latest collection of data regarding spotting and tanking. More particularly tanking. Is it possible, technically speaking, to monitor conditions where a player is tanking? In other words, do evading volleys at the border of the map and maneuvering between four battleships have different weights that come into the calculation of tanking? If so, will they be rewarded differently?
1. 关于最新的这个点亮和抗伤害的数据收集我有个问题。更主要的是抗伤害这个问题。从技术手段上来说，真的可以检测到有玩家在抗伤害吗？换句话说，在地图边上躲开炮火和在四艘战舰之间做机动这两个行为在计算抗伤害的时候权重是有不同的吗？如果有的话，奖励会不同吗？

A. At the moment, it is not possible, but, according to our data, players who are more active during battles receive more tanking rewards. If, in the future, we see an urgent need to do so, we will add logging conditions.
答：当前是不行的，但是根据我们的数据来看，在战斗中更加活跃的玩家会收到更多的抗伤害的奖励。所以如果在未来我们认为这样做很有必要（区分各种抗伤害的行为）的话，我们会加入相应的条件的。

2. It’s no secret that a large part of the community is waiting for clans (in one form or another).
答：我就挑明了说吧，社群中的很大一部分玩家都在等军团（无论是什么形式上的）。

We know that it’s being worked on, etc., etc. and that it will be released someday.
我们也知道你们一直在弄，肯定会把这个功能上线。

So I wanted to know what department is assigned to this work and what parallel work (maybe more important tasks than clan functionality) they are assigned to?
所以我想知道到底是哪个部门在搞这个事，他们同时还在平行开发哪些功能（也许有比军团更加重要的任务）？

A. It is in the hands of the team that is in charge of what we call the metagame (economy, ranked battles, team battles, etc.), together with colleagues from Minsk who are working on clans and the global map in general. We plan to present their work to the players before the end of the year. We will try really hard to.
答：现在是一个我们叫做“关于游戏的游戏”的部门在开发的（经济模型，天梯战，组队战等等），同时还有一些明斯克那边在搞军团和领土战地图的人叶子啊开发。我们打算在年末之前就把这套功能呈现给玩家。我们在拼命搞了。
译注：关于metagame我实在是想不出什么好的译名，若有更好的想法可以回复。

3. Where is the long-due armour visualisation feature?
3. 装甲查看器咋还不出啊？

A. It is nearly ready. We will make some final changes and will try to release it in one of the next few updates. If you recall, we promised we would release it in 2016. There is still time until then.
答：就要弄好了。我们会进行一些最终的调整，然后在接下来的某个补丁中正式实装它。如果你还记得的话，我们当初承诺是在2016年内上线这个功能，现在还有时间不是。

4. Not so long ago, you explained that developers are happy with how fire mechanics are working. One of the arguments presented was that cruisers need to have a chance against battleships. I concur but my question is not about that.
4. 不久之前你们解释说开发团队对于现在的点火机制感到满意。之前的一个论点是巡洋舰需要一个可以对抗战列舰的机会。关于这点我是同意的，但是我的问题不止如此。

If we take into account the fact that cruisers need to have a fighting chance against battleships, then what about battleships who get burnt to the ground by invis-fire?
假如考虑到巡洋舰能够对抗战列舰这一点的话，那那些被隐身炮干到死的战舰又怎么办？

If you want, we can discount firing from smoke. Even then, what can a battleship player do when a cruiser fires on him from stealth? Since he cannot catch him, he doesn’t stand a chance.
就算我们撇开烟雾这一点不谈，那些被没有烟的巡洋舰还是会干到死的战舰又怎么办？战舰没机会的啊。

A. The situation you described is indeed possible, especially in 1v1 duels. On the other hand, a battleship can also remove more than half the HP’s of a cruiser in one salvo.
答：你描述的这种情况在1v1的情况下是可能出现的。然而另一方面，战舰在一轮齐射下来就可以削减掉巡洋舰一半以上的血量。

Currently, we do not think invis-fire is harmful since it requires a very specific build (which makes the ship weaker in other areas) and cannot be used very often in battle when there are many players.
现在的话，我们认为隐身炮并不是个什么大问题，因为它需要一套特定的加点（但是这么加点会使船在别的方面变弱），而且在战斗中也不能天天用，因为玩家太多了。

Regarding fires mechanics, since you asked, I will answer the question in details; I know there are many players interested in this matter that believe fires are more deadly than what they actually are. This is often the case with battleships captains. As an example, let us take tier 8-10 battleships, since it is a widely discussed topic.
关于点火机制，既然你诚心诚意的问了，那我就诚心诚意的回答你；我知道现在有很多玩家对于这个问题很感兴趣，他们相信火灾应该比现在更加致命才对。这是战列舰的舰长的想法。我们就拿8~10级的战舰来说吧，这个话题的讨论范围还是很广的。

1. Battleships popularity in general
1. 战列舰的人气

The statistics regarding the RU-cluster from January to July show that battleships popularity is stable and even slightly increased. If we take all standard battles played on the cluster during that period, battleships representation increased from 32.9 to 35.1%. Thus, they make up slightly more than a third of all ships. There is no reason not to expect a slight increase in popularity with the release of the German battleships, or, more accurately, there is no reason to expect a decrease at least.
毛服从一月到七月的数据显示战列舰的人气很稳定，甚至还有一点点的上升。如果我们考虑到在这段时间内所有服务器上的战斗的话，战列舰所占的数量从32.9上升到了35.1%。战列舰现在已经占了船只总数的1/3了。而且德国战列舰马上就要上线，战列舰的人气应该会进一步的上升，或者说人气至少不会降低。

2. Battleship damage distribution (damage received)
2. 战列舰的伤害分布（所受到的伤害）

During the last 30 days, battleships largest source of damage received comes from AP shells (42% – 45.6%), torpedoes plus flooding (19.9% – 20.2%). HE shells account for 16.8% – 17.8% and fires, 14.5% – 17.6%. Also remember that citadel damage can be healed by 10% (that is of course damage from AP shells and torpedoes direct damage), damage to the superstructure, stern and bow by 50% (here we can also add damage from HE shells and bombs), and damage from fires and flooding can be fully healed. That is why a badly damaged battleship can withdraw from battle to heal up and come with as much as half of his HP back.
在过去的30天中，对战列舰造成的伤害中最大的一部分是AP弹（42~4506%），鱼雷以及进水上海（19.9~20.2%）。高爆弹大约占了16.8~17.8，起火占到了14.5~17.6%。请别忘了，对核心舱造成的伤害可以回复10%（AP弹和鱼雷直击造成的），对上层建筑，舰艏和舰艉造成的伤害可以回复50%（HE和舰爆造成的），进水和起火所造成的伤害可以全部回复。这就是为什么一艘看起来严重受损的战列舰可以从战线上暂时撤退，然后过一会发现血量回复了一半还多，继续冲出来打。

3. Combat effectiveness
3. 战斗性能

Regarding the potential for dealing damage, battleships do not disappoint, combining the roles of damage dealers and tanks. Their concurrents are carriers and in about every category, there is a tough fight going on between these two classes regarding who is the best.
在造成伤害这一方面，战列舰是不会令人失望的。战列舰结合的是输出和坦克的角色。同时航母也在各方面不逊色于战舰，关于战舰和航母到底谁才是最强的争论也是难分高下的。

Destroyers and cruisers, which, according to some players, burn the poor battleships and flood them under waves of torpedoes cannot even dream of dealing that much damage. Moreover, according to those same players, battleships are easy food for these classes since they have a lot of HP on which to feed.
巡洋舰和驱逐舰的话，部分玩家表示就算能够在战列舰身上点无数把火，进无数次水也打不出战列舰那么多的伤害。但是也是同样这些玩家表示战列舰对于巡洋舰和驱逐舰来讲是最好的输出目标，因为血实在是太厚了。

Regarding winrate, battleships are about the same as other classes.
胜率的话，战舰和其他的船型差不多。

Their AA is normal (only cruisers are above them because of their barrage ability).
防空也是常规水平（只有巡洋舰比它们好，因为有弹幕）

Survivability (% of battles in which a ship has survived until the end) for battleships is considerably higher than for cruisers or destroyers.
战列舰的生存率（在战斗中活到最后的比例）比巡洋舰或者是驱逐舰的要高出很多。

4. A very brief summary
4. 总而言之

Battleships are played. Battleships survive. Battleships inflict damage. Battleships are a good and useful class. If we were to buff them, by increasing their survivability (especially against fires and HE shells), they would be overpowered. Our game would become World of Battleships. And that is bad. 35.1% popularity, we can live with that. But it is bordering on being too much.
的确是有人在玩战列舰。战列舰也能活下来。战列舰能造成伤害。战列舰是个很有用的船型。如果我们再buff这些船的生存性能（尤其是针对起火和HE弹的）话，那她们就太OP了。我们的游戏会成为战列舰世界的。现在战列舰占了船只总数的35.1%，问题倒是不大，但是这个数据已经离“过多”只有一步之遥了。

So, if we were to follow players’ suggestions, we would have to nerf them in another way. If they had a better survivability, we would have to nerf their damage for example, and according to our experience, such change would not be well received by players.
所以如果我们真的要跟着玩家的意见走的话，我们就需要从其他方面削弱战列舰了。如果生存性能上升的话，我们可能就需要削弱它们的伤害，而从我们的经验上来看，这么改玩家是不会开心的。

That is why we do not plan to make any considerable changes to battleship balance or to fire mechanics.
这也就是为什么我们没有计划改动战列舰的平衡，或者是点火的机制。

5. I once asked if you thought that Moskva was performing too well. You said no.
5. 我曾经问过你莫斯科是否过于OP，你说不是。

I also asked the same question about Khabarovsk.
我也针对哈巴罗夫斯克问过一个同样的问题。

So, here’s my question. You plan to nerf Zao, but you don’t see any problems with the overperforming Moskva.
所以我的问题是这样的。你们计划要削弱藏王，但是在OP的莫斯科身上看不到任何问题。

Even Yamato cannot pen its bow.
大和都打不穿她的舰艏。

Please tell me, is it a coincidence that a nation with such a mediocre fleet, of which half the branch is paper ships perform so well?
请告诉我，这么个平凡的科技树，其中一半的船都是图纸船反而表现这么优异的问题是偶然吗？

A. Cruiser Moskva and destroyer Khabarovsk have one characteristic in common: they are nearly ideal to fight against their pairs. On the other hand, they also share a common disadvantage: a high detection range. It is easier to avoid 1v1 duel with them than it is with other ships. And firing on them is the same as with other ships. Moskva is easily (and more importantly, more constantly) damaged by battleships and Khabarovsk, by cruisers.
答：莫斯科和哈巴罗夫斯克有着一个共同的优点：对抗同船型的其他船只的时候是有着近乎理想的状态的。然而另一方面，它们也有一个共同的缺点：点亮距离过长。想要避开与这些船单挑的情况比避开单挑其他船要容易。莫斯科很容易（而且更重要的是，更加经常的被）战列舰攻击，而哈巴罗夫斯克会被巡洋舰攻击。

We can say that these ships have a very distinctive role and a very distinctive disadvantage. They are bullies, who can give their pairs hell but who can be easily taken down by the “adults” (by the class above).
我们可以说这些船所扮演的角色与众不同，而且游戏体验也不太一样。它们都是窝里斗的能手，可以暴打同船型的其他船，但是面对更强大的对手的时候就不行了（面对克制这些船的船型时）。

In the current gameplay, we do not see the necessity to nerf their characteristics. Improve their concurrents, that is entirely possible.
在当下，我们并不认为我们需要削弱它们。至于加强它们的对手的话是完全有可能的。