Source:https://thearmoredpatrol.com/2016/09/21/wows-qa-20-september-2016/#more-33280
来源↗
译注：删除了一些以前回答过的问题和与游戏本身没关系的问题
由godzilla5549 进行总结
Q1
问：
Is there an internal focus on making Aircraft Carriers more into a “support” class? I know from previous responses that you (WG St.Petersburg) intend to make the Air Superiority loadouts more popular as a means to “support” or “help” the team and defend from other Aircraft Carrier attacks. My problem with this is that currently Air Superiority carriers do not really do much for the team, and I can easily play a Strike (no fighters) carrier and have much more effect on the battle. An Air Superiority carrier cannot defend from my attacks, and as such, does not really “help” the team at all. I much prefer to be dealing direct damage, as I have a much greater influence on the outcome of a battle and can provide support to the team by taking out high valued targets.
你们内部有没有准备把航母改成一个“支援型”的定位的计划？我知道从之前的恢复中来看你们（WG的圣彼得堡工作室）是想把制空权的配置的人气提高，作为一种“辅助”或者是“帮助”团队乘员，抵抗对方航母的进攻的这么一种角色。我觉得这么改的问题是现在制空权航母对团队来说贡献不大，而且那种纯突击型的航母（不带舰战）对于战斗结果的影响反而更大。制空配置的航母根本没办法抵挡我的攻击，所以对于队伍的贡献也是几乎没有的。我更喜欢直接造成伤害，因为这样的话会对战斗的影响更大一些，而且还能通过干掉那些重点目标来支援我的队友们。
I also would like to note that I would take no issue with Air Superiority carriers if fighter combat was changed so that the problem of “fighter locking” was dealt with. Currently, fighter combat is far too simplistic and an Air Superiority carrier does not have to have the same skill level (at least in my own opinion) as a carrier that focuses on striking enemy surface ships. An Air Superiority carrier just has to have his fighters engage your planes by fighter locking and does not really have to do much else.
还有就是，如果你们能够对舰战的战斗机制做出改动，并且解决了“战斗机锁定”的问题的话，那我觉得制空配置其实就没问题了。（战斗机在开始战斗之后，直到弹药打空/被摧毁之前都两边都动不了）。现在的舰战战斗过于简化了，制空权配置的航母的水平（起码在我看来）和那些突击型的航母水平是不一样的。制空权航母就只需要把舰战扔在对面飞机上就没事了。
A1.
答：
Hi. We are not going to remove damage/strike role, it is more a question of choice and opportunities to play differently and be rewarded for that. Overall, CVs need some re-work not even in terms of balance, but in terms of learning curve, UI and overall handling. We do realize that, but won’t be able to do much in the nearest versions. However, CV gameplay may be improved and diversified in some time.
我们并不会移除掉这个输出/突击的定位，这个问题其实更像是一个玩家个人选择和到底要怎么玩游戏和获得奖励的问题。总的来说航母是需要重制的，不是平衡方面，而是学习曲线，UI和整体操作感方面的。我们的确有意识到这个问题，但是在最近的版本中没办法做些什么。然而航母的游戏体验会随着时间的推移而改进，并且做出区分。
Q2.
问：
What do you think of the lack of any real defense against CV-sniping for low-level CVs?
你们怎么看那些低级航母面对开场就狙击你的敌人手无缚鸡之力的情况？
A2.
答：
We believe this to be a problem. We have a possible solution, and it is being approved internally. If everything’s fine, it may be implemented in several versions.
我们认为这是个问题。我们现在有一个可行的解决方案，正在内部进行批准。如果一切顺利的话，几个版本之内就会实装。
Q3.
how does ship survivability relate to skill ceiling and floor in the balance statistics? I’ve always thought that ships like DD’s will have lower averages because unskilled players will die early in them, and skilled players who know how to use the ships do far better than the averages (even more so than in many other classes), and I’m wondering how true this is.
在平衡数据的时候，船只的生存率和玩家水平有多大的关系？我一直觉得像驱逐舰这样的船的平均数据会比较低，因为那些玩的很差的玩家很早就会死了，而那些经验丰富的玩家的数据会比平均数据高很多（甚至比其他船型还要多），我说的是对的吗？
in terms of high tier CV balance, does Essex/Midway actually compete with Taihou/Hakuryu on NA? I’ve seen how they are competitive on RU due to the meta there, but I’m wondering how the stats compare to the self-selected samples of the 3rd party tracking sites, especially with player opinion slanted towards the IJN CV’s.
还有关于高阶航母的平衡，美服的埃塞克斯/中途岛能和大凤/白龙拼一枪吗？我知道由于毛服的特色导致那边的竞争还是很吉利的，但是我在想这些数据和那些自选样本的第三方数据比起来又是怎么样的呢，尤其是玩家的意见普遍都倾斜于日本航母的情况下。
A3.
答：
Of course the more you live (while playing actively) the more you contribute to the teamplay. It is true. That said, sometimes a glorious sacrifice is needed.
那肯定是活得越长（当然前提是你在主动的玩的情况下），对队伍的贡献就越大。你这个说法是没错的，但是有的时候也是需要你挺身牺牲一下的。
They do compete, but the balance is not ideal. The question of “local meta” is very interesting, though. We can’t support 4 different games for NA, EU, RU and ASIA. But we constantly have to consider all peculiarities we have on these servers.
能打，但是平衡并不是很理想。关于“贵服特色”的问题其实是很有意思的。我们不可能为了毛服，欧服，美服和海服各自创造一份平衡再进行支持，但是我们一直都需要考虑每个服务器上的这些奇妙的情况。
Q5.
问：
This has been asked before I know. This specifically relates to high tiers. Many players blame the Eco for the passive gameplay, yet your dev decisions indicate a separate conclusion. Could you inform us of this conclusion and how you got there? And also, some of the more fleshed out ideas you may have to fix it?
这个之前肯定有人问过了。这个和高级房的关系很大。许多玩家说他们游戏方式很被动的原因是经济的问题，而开发团队的决定好像表明你们的结论和玩家的不同。你们能说说你们现在的结论是什么样的，而你们又是怎么样推导出这个结论的吗？还有就是你们有没有更加具体一点关于要怎么修复这个问题的想法？
A5.
答：
This issue is being discussed internally now. The economy was designed so it is adequate with premium account on any tier. However, there are some problems, including excessive (in terms of economy) use of advanced consumables and some other factors that make high-tier economy quite hard. And for sure it affects gameplay. There are changes to economy coming in 0.5.12, and there may be more changes later.
我们现在正在内部讨论这个问题。我们当初设计的经济系统是只要有高级账户，每个等级上都应该是足够的（收益）的。然而问题在于大量使用（从经济系统的角度来讲）高级消耗品以及其他一些因素导致高阶战斗的经济有点崩。而且会影响到游戏体验。0.5.12会对经济系统做出一些改动，以后也还会有更多的改动的。
Q6.
问：
Can you tell us if there are any plans for a higher tier IJN premium BB in the future? I love IJN BBs, but with the only premium being in the “slow as mud” tier, I don’t have an IJN premium BB that I enjoy grinding with. T7 or T8 would be ideal.
在未来有计划出高阶日本金币战舰吗？我是很喜欢日本战舰了，但是金币战舰就只有那一个“比慢还慢”的，所以我现在没有一个能玩起来开心的金币战舰。金币的话7级或者8级就不错。
A6.
答：
There are certain plans to fill this niche with a solid premium ship, but I can’t tell you any details yet. Sorry.
现在有计划拿一艘金币船来补上这个空缺。但是具体计划还不方便透露，不好意思。
Q7.
can you explain how the firing range is determined? Looking at some numbers I suspected a factor like 60% something which works for some. On the other hand there is this rumor that the height of the range finder is key? Plus, aren’t the ships twice the size compared to real life? What is the “true” range than and how do you get to it?
能解释一下射程是怎么判定的吗？看了数据的话我觉得你们是把射程压缩了60%，但是只有部分船只是这样。另一方面一直有传言说测距仪的高度才是关键？还有就是你们之前说过船只尺寸是现实生活中的两倍对吧？那“真正的”射程是什么，你们又是怎么得出的？
did you ever considered and tested manual secondaries? I know that the current meta is balanced mostly around primary artillery and torpedoes. But what was the reason to dismiss manual control in the first place and balance around that concept?
你们有考虑并且测试过手动操控的副炮吗？我知道现在的游戏情况的围绕着主炮和鱼雷来平衡的，但是你们最开始是因为什么原因而放弃了手操副炮和围绕副炮的平衡？
the game very WW2 heavy, however modern warship battles started a lot earlier. Considering that the big battleship vs battleship clashes happened actually in the dreadnought era – is there any hope we will see more of this stuff? WG. Dreadnought Battleships, armored cruisers, etc?
这游戏注重于二战，但是现代的战舰战争在很早之前就开始了。在无畏舰的时代就有战舰vs战舰的冲突了——那我们会在游戏中看到这种东西吗？无畏舰啊，装甲巡洋舰之类的？
A7.
关于船只尺寸是现实生活中的两倍以及炮弹/船只速度的问题请参考前两天的QA。
But let’s get to the point, maximum firing range in game is initially calculated as range where you can reliably see the target (and adjust your aim). Fire-control system position and quality is taken into account. But then balance tweaks may be applied, if needed. Very important thing to understand is that effective ingame range will be shorter than maximum firing range IRL. E.g. Yamato technically has 42 km firing range, but in game it is 26,6 km. Because this is the range we calculate as “confident aquisition and tracking of average target”. This method is both logical and good for gameplay.
说回重点，游戏中的最大射程是根据你能够相对清楚的看到目标（并且调整瞄准的）距离来计算的。同时还要考虑到火控的位置和治疗。然后如果有需要的话就进行一些平衡性上的调整。很重要的一点就是要知道游戏中的有效射程是比现实生活中的最大射程短的。比如说大和的射程理论上来说是42公里，但是游戏中是36.3公里。因为我们计算出这个距离是“能够有效追踪到一般目标的”。这个办法从逻辑和游戏体验的角度上都能说得通。
Yes we did. It is too overwhelming and makes secondaries too vital. We did not like it.
我们有过啦，但是会让副炮变得过于重要。我们并不喜欢这样。
We do like this early period you are talking about, but such ships are difficult to fit in current ship lines and gameplay. So we are not likely to expand main game period.
我们的确是很喜欢你在说的这个早期阶段啦，但是这种船现在很难塞进当前的船线和游戏体验中。所以我们就不会去扩展我们游戏主要注重的时间阶段了。
Q8.
问：
The one and only Q: When will CV rework happen?
我就问一句，什么时候重做航母？
A8.
答：
Sorry, I can’t give you any details yet.
不好意思，具体不能说。
Q9.
You are telling us single-clicking to fire turret-by-turret instead of double-clicking to fire a salvo will not improve “density”. Can we safely infer then the variables, aka “dispersion parameters”, are determined once per complete fire/reload? Or every so many seconds? Or is it at the start of a match?
你跟我们说单击一次发射一个炮塔，而不是双击齐射并不会增加“密度”。那我们是不是可以推断出变量，也就是“散布系数”是在一次完整的装填/开火之后才会确定？还是说多少秒就确定一次？还是说在战斗开始的时候就已经确定好了？
A9.
Dispersion area paramaters (horizontal and vertical dispersion) are determined each time you click “FIRE”. They, as I said, depend on firing range.
散布系数（水平和垂直散布）是在你点击“开火”的那一瞬间每次决定的。而这些系数和你的射击距离有关。
No, turret-by-turret won’t help, because shells hit dispersion area at normal distribution. The quantity of shells and order in which you fire them do not affect this distribution.
每个炮塔单独开火没什么用，因为炮弹在散布圈内都是以正态分布的形式进行散布的。炮弹数量和开火顺序并不会影响这个散布。
Q10.
问：
Still working merrily away in the Montana armor thread (although there are several other ships mentioned there too, you might want to take a look), and there are a couple of things that have come up.
依然还在看蒙大拿装甲的帖子（在帖子中也有提到了其他的船，估计你也会想看看的），有一些提出来的东西。
The first one has a planned picture of the armored citadels of the Montana and the other USN fast battleship classes. It seems that the Montana’s citadel should be below the water, not above it (although there’s a whole other debate going on about the merits of high armored freeboards and how these aren’t properly simulated in the game), Were you guys aware of this?
第一篇文章中有一张蒙大拿和其他USN的高速战舰们的装甲区的详细图片，看上去蒙大拿的装甲区应该是在水下，而不是水上（但是现在还有另外一个关于厚装甲干舷的优点而且游戏中并没有再现这些优点的的讨论），你们知道这个吗？
The second spoilered thread post has to do with the Montana’s turret face armor. Did you know that the Montana is missing one hundred and fourteen millimeters of armor in that area? Are there any plans to address this?
第二篇文章中有一些关于蒙大拿炮塔正面装甲的东西。你们知道蒙大拿现在炮塔正面缺少了114mm的装甲吗？你们有计划要修复这个问题吗？
[I have excluded the spoilered posts as they are excesively long. You may view them directly if you want.]
[链接都被我拿掉了，因为太长了。想看的话请去原帖翻找]
A10.
答：
Hi. We will look into this post a bit later, and if there’s any action needed, we will take it. Thank you for bringing this!
我们之后会看一下的，如果有需要改进的地方我们肯定会改的。谢谢你。
Q11.
问：
My questions are, what are your thoughts regarding pVe, Its current state, and its future direction. Anything you can share would be appreciated. The last time we heard anything was from the marvelous Boyarsky back in January of this year.
我的问题是，你们对于PVE是怎么个想法，它现在的状态和将来的方向。随便说点什么都行。我们上一次听到关于PVE的话题还是今年一月的时候。
A11.
答：
PvE is being upgraded and developed further. You will probably see first results in one of the following updates. Our opinion that PvE in WoWs has potential hasn’t changed.
现在正在进一步的开发PVE。估计接下来的某个补丁中就能看到一些苗头了。我们对于WOWS的PVE很有搞头这个想法一直没变过。
Q12.
问：
How does spotting mechanics works for aircraft? it seems like they can spot and be spotted through islands. Whats the detectability range by sea and air? is the same for all types of aircraft and nations?
飞机的点亮机制是怎么样的？现在好像是可以穿透岛屿进行点亮啊。那水上点亮距离和空中点亮距离呢？空中点亮距离对于所有飞机和所有国家的飞机都是一样的吗？
A12.
答：
Hi. Aircraft spotting ignores terrain (but not smoke screen). So yes, they can spot and be spotted through islands. Detectability range is the same for all aircraft. I am not ready to disclose it now.
飞机的点亮的确是会无视地形（但是会受到烟雾的影响）。所以它们的确是可以穿透岛屿进行点亮。点亮距离的话对于所有飞机而言都是一样的。其他的现在就不能说了。
Q13.
问：
I just want to know, how will the changes to high tier BB bow armor positively effect the game? From what i see, it’s just going to make people even more reluctant to push.
我就想知道，你们改了高阶BB的舰艏装甲到底会对游戏性有怎么个正面影响了？就我看来这么改只会让玩家更不想推线而已。
Is there any plan to stop radar from going through solid land masses like it currently does?
有计划把现在雷达的这个可以穿透地形进行侦测的机制改掉吗？
A13.
Our intent is to let BBs damage each other faster, and make this easier against camping targets. We hope that it will bring more brutality, more maneuver to the game. This is a short explanation, but I’ve been elaborating on this topic for a week, so, you can find more argument if you wish. However, this is an experimental change; we’ll see how it goes on public test.
我们的想法是能够让BB更快的互相造成伤害，对那些蹲坑的目标来说更加简单。我们希望这么改能够给游戏带来更多的暴力面和更多的机动。这只是简短的解释，但是这个话题我已经讲了快一个礼拜了，如果你还想提出什么其他的论点的话就请吧。然而这还只是个实验性的改动，等公开测试的时候再说吧。
No.
不会。
Q14.
- Any plans to change the invisible firing spam (found in competitive play a lot) where whole teams simply sit in smoke and spam HE at each other, very little moment is involved. (I think DDs are fine) but are there plans to only allow DDs to do this and not CAs or BBs?
有计划要对那种隐身炮（现在天梯很常见的）做出改动吗，就是整个队伍就站在烟里，对射HE，都不怎么动弹。（我觉得DD这么搞还是可以的），但是你们有没有计划要把这个改成只有DD才能做，而CA和BB做不到？ - Are you guys currently happy with the German tier 10 BB performance or is there not enough data yet?
你们对于现在德国10级战舰的表现感到满意吗，还是说现在数据不够？ - If i understand correctly the new IJN DD line stops at tier 8 and doesn’t lead back into the main line, does this mean we could see more lines in the future without tier 10s? Or partial lines in general?
如果我没理解错的话，新的日驱线8级就封顶了，而且并不会被并入到主线中，这是不是意味着我们未来会看到更多类似于这样没有10级船的线路？或者说会看到这种“部分的”线？ - German CVs are they a feasible line?
能弄出德国航母线吗？
A14.
- Yes.
有。 - Not enough data to be absolutely precise, but we can say for sure that main features of this line are working, and the line is quite successful.
准确的说是数据不够，但是起码这条线的主要特色都还是正常运转中，而且这条线挺成功的。 - Еventually, T9 and T10 will come for this alternative branch
这条线会有9级和10级船的 - Everything is a feasible line, if you have enough motivation. But we would like to focus on other, less “paper” lines for now.
硬要说的话其实什么都能凑出来，只要动力够了就行。但是我们现在更想注重于那些“图纸”船更少的线上。