World of Warships Dev Tracker

CVs can fight CVs. It's commonly term'd a "CV Snipe". Carriers have fighters that patrol over the hull, so it limits attacks to one drop only (in almost all cases). This means it can take 4-7+ minutes for a CV to fly all the way across the map just to attack and sink an enemy CV. Because this amount of time investment is so long, it's not done very often. Still, it happens. Especially if Battleships can tag some damage into the CV Hull to speed up the process.

Subs can fight Subs, as well. They have a consumable which is specifically made for fighting other subs, but it takes around 4-5 minutes to activate after game start. The reasoning is so that subs have time to get into sneaky positions before they start fighting, and then the consumables are available for subs to fight each other after they've had a chance to sneak around for a while.

Hello Captains!

Today we've got a fair number of things on the menu~

Gaishu talks about his first almost month at WG!


We talk about the recent Submarine DevBlog and take questions from Chat!


Gaishu will talk MALTA!

Setup and Performance on Stream!

Maybe some Operation Wolfpack with viewers?


and, if we somehow have time, talking a little about KotS and Forum Contests!

Lots of stuff happenin' over at https://www.twitch.tv/worldofwarships ! See you at 5pm CST <3

The information provided is literally addressing the concern you have. The concern is that Subs were overwhelmingly not wanted, but the reality was not that. The information provided is broken down in terms of player interaction with the class and shows how even small amounts of interaction shows a dramatic reduction in concerns about subs being added to the game.

This argument doesn't make sense. If you want to assume there are three sections of players, we can do some assumption for visual representation:

0 Battles in Subs (We can assume a large number, so perhaps 75%?)


1-5 Battles in Subs (remainder between the two is ~15%)


6+ Battles in Subs (you suggested <10%)

The above example can be mathematically represented with the following formula:

([0 Battle Size] x [0B No %]) + ([1-5 Battle Size] x [1-5B No %]) + ([6+ Battle Size] x [6+B No %])
which reads as...


(.75 x .43) + (.15 x .23) + (.1 x .11) =

.3225 + .0345 + .011 =

36.8% "Against Adding Subs"

This uses the size sampling estimations listed above. The worst possible option would be if the 0 Battle Category represented 99.999% of players... which would mean ~43% "Against Adding Subs"...

It's a cool mode. Having smaller team sizes make your individual play much more impactful on-the-whole!

Steel and Doubloon rewards are also great incentive to give it a go <3

@VVoony

When the economic/gameplay aspects were separated the camos retained their original cost in our database. To offset this, we offer a discount on the first "Perma-Visual" purchased for a ship in the Exterior Tab.

The Epoch perma-visual is pretty cool, but if it's not your cup of tea that is perfectly ok~ There are options available in the Exterior section of the port if you'd like to pick up something nice for a favorite ship with a hefty discount (if it's the first one!).

Update on this, the screenshot is not current. I just reviewed 0.11.10 and all Battlepass related Daily and Weekly chains are Co-Op compliant as they are tagged "Cumulative", which means they can be ground over any number of battles.

Thanks for all of the feedback on Japanese DDs, gang. This has given me a lot to think about.
Also sorry for the delayed response - a few of us were at TwitchCon in San Diego this past weekend. :)

After the last "Earn 5 Achievements" section of a mission change, I now do a Co-Op Compatibility Review before each Update comes out to catch issues before they go live. Stuff like this will be caught in that review, but thank you for the head's up~

There is a mission chain in the current patch which I flagged as non-compatible a few weeks back for Superships in Random. That chain stayed as it was specifically just to boost supership use in Random Battles to help with queue times. As more Superships are released and there is more variety to choose from, it's expected that such chains won't be necessary.

Commanders!

Sorry for the waiting. I just received a confirmation, that rewards were already credited yesterday.

Unfortunately my colleague responsible for the portal is currently very busy, so atleast I will share the results here:

Winners of Tier X permanent economic booster

Winners of Tier IX permanent economic booster

Winners of Tier VIII permanent economic booster

Winners of Tier VII permanent economic booster

Winners of pack of 5 rare expendable economic bonuses of each type

Winners of pack of 10 special expendable economic bonuses of each type

Japanese cruisers in Early Access, graphics improvements, Battle Pass, and other new features in Update 0.11.10. Read it on the portal

Cruzadores japoneses em Acesso Antecipado, melhorias gráficas, Passe de Batalha e outros recursos novos na Atualização 0.11.10. Leia no portal

Cruceros japoneses con Acceso Anticipado, mejoras de los gráficos, el Pase de Batalla y otras nuevas características en la Actualización 0.11.10. Leer en el portal

We are a data driven company. If the information showed the detriment to be something insurmountable, then you are correct that the idea would need to be shelved. The current iteration of Submarines does not show that, which is why development continued and they have been released officially in 0.11.9.

There are various end-of-update reports on user experience and such, but things mostly related to event data and how people responded to new ship lines or battle modes. The first time I saw the tracking data being shown here was several months ago in a Submarine meeting I attended, so that's the beginning of my knowledge on this specific topic.

The information showing that people really do feel more comfortable with the class after they engage with it on even a small level is an important thing to understand. I've been aware that CVs hold a similar barrier-for-entry as some people will never play them, which causes issues when attempting to deal with a ship type you don't have direct knowledge of.

Arlskandir's addition method was wrong. If doing that, you would have to look at it as 77 out of 300, but that would only work if all three groups were even in size (which is not shown in the graph and players have requested in this thread).

Each sections is its own section. No section has higher than a 43% resistance to adding Submarines to the game.

The core intent of the graph is to answer the concern about the "Most players do not want subs" narrative which is often repeated. I suppose there will be some that will try to redefine that narrative as "Few players do want subs", but that's ultimately a different line of logic.

The largest showing of anti-sub sentiment is not over 50%. It has not been over 50% for months, which should answer some questions as to why we have continued forward with Submarines. Simply put, the majority of players are not against Submarines being in the game. Further, players that do interact with Subs on even a basic level show as much more ok with them being added as they understand the class better.

I can ask about that. I have a vague memory of what the dispersion was, but that was from maybe 5-6 months ago and I don't want to give an incorrect impression of this 0.11.8 survey data. If the concern is that 43% were anti-sub and 57% were neutral, that was not the case. There were For, Against, and Neutral in all cases.

I don't believe we release internal statistics on user-data like that. There are server tools that people use which track Concurrent Player Population (# of players simultaneously on a sever) across our servers, but we do not release active player numbers (to my knowledge).

Use of the percentage is the easiest way to understand the data. If the category had 100,000 people in it, 43% of that would be 43,000 people. If the category had 500,000 people in it, 43% of that would be 215,000 people. Etc...

No, a Neutral/Indifferent response would be recorded as a neither for or against. That being said, having no particular opinion would mean seeing Content as Content and not being overly concerned as to what package it came in.

Addition of Subs would still perform their function of adding gameplay variance/diversity as Content.