---

- SerB states that the teamkill/teamdamage punishment system principle is to
“not ban a player after shooting an ally by accident, but a player
systematically breaking rules gets banned” and adds that “a series of “
random” teamdamage shots is not considered random”
SerB表示TK系統的原則是「鎖的不是誤擊隊友的玩家，而是故意違反遊戲規則的玩家」，
「連續手滑打中隊友就不只是手滑了」

- developer Yurko2F states that class bonus for tank destroyers will not be
cancelled as a whole – it consists of several components and only some of
the components (SS: for example, camo bonus after shooting) will be reduced.
Premium tank destroyers will have no changes at all, or really small ones, so
it’s too early to worry
Yurko2F表示TD整體的隱蔽加成不會被一刀砍光，TD的隱蔽加成中只有某些次項目(SS:例如
開火後的隱蔽加成)會被砍。金幣TD的數據不會動，或者是只會極小程度的改變，所以
不用杞人憂天。
(反正現在遊戲裡也才三台金幣TD外加一個插了17磅的英國便當盒，別動E25我就沒意見)


- for now there is no final decision on T-44-85′s fate, but in general,
developers don’t see removing it as a problem, because the tank was not
introduced, only tested
目前還沒決定T-44A要怎麼處理，不過基本上製作組認為這台車反正只進過測試服，
整台拉掉也不是問題。
(上一台被腰斬的似乎是WZ111-5A)

- the T110E3 and T110E4 changes are final according to Storm
Storm表示E3E4的更動已經定案。
(譯註：朋友的意見是這次變動對於E3是變相buff)

- apparently, teamkill punishments on the test server were made much stricter
(a day of ban for a teamkill apparently), Storm confirms that – this change
will apparently appear on live server too (“it will be in the final
patchnotes”)
測試服的TK懲罰變嚴格了(一次TK就ban一天)，Storm表示這個變動會放進正規伺服器。
(「看最終版patchnote」)


=

Author: Andrey Gashkov, Lead Producer World of Warships

Dear readers!

We are glad to present an interview with Andrey Gashkov, World of Warships
producer, where he reveals some details on different nations’ development,
tech trees and balancing basics, and shares his thoughts on American and
Japanese shipbuilding traditions.
這是和Andrey Gashkov─WOWS製作人的訪談。



It was already announced that the first nations to appear in World of
Warships will be the USA and Japan. Why were these nations chosen?
問：WOWS一開始的國家會是美日，為什麼選這兩國？

Well, there’s an easy explanation – only these two nations possessed the
most sophisticated and menacing fleets by the beginning of WWII. What’s
more, their rivalry was the most fierce and profound. Britain had lost its
authority since WWI. The Soviet, German and French navies were generally
inferior compared to the other two nations.
答：簡單的解釋是，只有這兩國在二戰爆發時(譯註：太平洋戰場)擁有最為複雜、威脅
性十足的艦隊。此外，這兩國的對抗也是最為激烈深刻的。英國在一戰之後國力已經衰退
，蘇、德、法的海軍和這兩國相比之下較弱。


What are the subsequent nations that you plan to introduce further on?
問：之後還會有那些國家？

Well, the majority of them have been announced already. We plan to add
Britain, Germany and the Soviet Union (including vessels from the time of the
Russian Empire) – possibly France and Italy will find a place as well. There
are also some ideas to have an “aggregate” team based on ships produced by
other European countries. Lots of countries had their own unusual and
interesting ship projects, namely Holland, Spain, Sweden, Norway, the
Austro-Hungarian Empire and Greece. Separately, each of these nations can
barely be represented by a number of ships sufficient for a decent tech tree.
Put together, though, they may be added to our game.
答：基本上都已經公布，會有英、德、蘇(包含帝俄時期)，法義應該也會有定位。此外



Can you briefly tell us about the key differences between the two nations?
Their weak and strong sides, specific shipbuilding traditions or warfare
tactics.
問：可以簡短的介紹兩國之間關鍵性的差異嗎？兩國的強勢、弱點、造艦傳統或是戰術指
導？

As was mentioned before, we try to stick to historical realities as much as
we can. Both opposing sides had their own unique military doctrines that
influenced all spheres, from ship construction to preferred battle tactics.
The Japanese fleet enjoyed balanced, consistent and easy-to-operate
squadrons. They were the first to reveal the potential of aircraft carriers,
turned out be crafty night warriors and their torpedo armament was the best
in those days.
和之前說的一樣，我們會在最大程度上確保歷史真實度。兩個國家都有獨特的軍事準則
影響所有方面──從造艦到戰術都是。日本海軍擁有平衡、一致且容易操作的戰隊，
最早揭露航艦潛力、善於夜戰且擁有當代最優秀的魚雷。



The USA, on the other hand, put all their production might into building up
the most technological, versatile and reliable vessels.  These ships had
state-of-the-art equipment (radars and AAA systems).
從另一方面來說，美國把所有的工業能力投入建造高科技、全方位、可靠的艦艇。
這些艦艇裝備了尖端科技裝備(雷達和高砲系統)。


Generally, Japanese ship builders tended to endow their ships with character
and individuality, making them close to works of art, whereas American
engineers were way more pragmatic. Having run into a successful engineering
solution they instantly churned it out, trying to take the best parts of it.
At the beginning of the 30s, the USA developed a successful Mark 12 127mm
cannon. When it showed excellent performance on the battlefield, the
Americans quickly arranged its mass production. This essentially placed the
Mark 12 almost everywhere where it could actually fit :)
基本上，日本造艦者傾向把艦艇設計得獨特且相異，讓她們像是藝術品；美國工程師則
更為務實，從大量設計生產的方案中擷取最精華的部分。
在30年代初期，美國發展出成功的Mk.12 5"/L38 DP，這門砲在戰場上表現良好，美國
立刻開始量產這門砲，而這門砲基本上裝備在任何可以裝得下的地方。


All these facts and realities will be reflected in our game.
所有的史實和真實性都會被反應在遊戲中。


、CIC。
日本的話大概只有個氧氣魚雷得犧牲一下，在雷達防空這兩個面向上一定會超史實buff的)


What is the principle for selecting ships for tech trees? How are they
balanced in the end? As you possibly know, the Japanese shipbuilding
development wasn’t smooth and even. Instead, it witnessed a number of
evolving successions. Didn’t that interfere with building balanced tech
trees?
問：選擇艦艇的原則是什麼？在頂階要怎麼平衡？如您所知，日本造艦史並不是一路平順
，而展現出幾個時期，這會不會讓科技樹的平衡出問題？


There are a number of ships that we cannot help but mention, as they left a
remarkable trace in history and on people’s minds. Among these floating
legends are the “Yamato”, “Bismarck”, “Aurora” and say the “Essex”
 carrier, which represents a symbol of American victory in the Pacific Ocean.
These ships will be added to the game for sure, it is only a matter of time
and place for them to take their place in the tech trees.
有幾艘船是我們非放不可的，因為她們在歷史和玩家的心中都有明顯的一頁。
例如大和、俾斯麥、曙光號。再舉個例子，埃賽克斯級代表了美國在太平洋戰區的勝利
（譯註：總共24艘，14艘趕上打二戰且無一損失。光是埃賽克斯和獨立兩級的數量
就比聯合艦隊的所有航艦還多）
這些艦艇一定會放入遊戲，剩下的問題就只是時間和放在科技樹的什麼位置而已。

As I used to say, arranging development trees is both an interesting and
complex occupation. While working on them, one should thoroughly consider the
fact that the shipbuilding didn’t develop evenly in each country. For
instance, the USA possessed a number of battleships sufficient for parallel
tech trees; on the other side they lacked cruisers. The “Omaha” – a
powerful cruiser suitable for Tier V-VI followed her predecessor, the “
Chester”, which was commissioned in 1907. Unfortunately the USA haven’t
built any ships between these two models and that’s why the relevant tech
tree turns a bit hollow. So we have to deal with partially-built or “
existing on paper” ships to fill this gap. Our studio even possesses a
special department for that. They resemble a real development laboratory,
where all documentation is collected: archives and blueprints that are used
later for the virtual assembly of a ship that has never seen reality.
就像之前說的一樣，設定科技樹是個趣味與複雜兼有的工作。在設定時，必須全盤考量


填空，我們的工作室還有個部門專門負責這件事：這個部門就像是真的船艦開發小組，
擁有所有的文件、資料庫、藍圖，用以「組裝」這些從未完工服役的艦艇。



We used that approach while making the Japanese battleship tree. The Japanese
“Kongo” cruiser became the successor of an early “Kawashi” dreadnought.
The new vessel was superior in many respects, but actually there was a
significant gap between them.  Digging into the archives revealed that there
was an early “Kongo” project, featuring weaker 305mm cannons. This
prototype fit our purposes perfectly.

(譯註：平賀讓的某個設計案，沒記錯應該是18500噸左右。之後因為英國給了獅級戰巡
，所以這個設計案就作廢)


Actually, we always tend to provide a smooth increase of firepower and other
characteristics across the tech tree, thus ship selection is quite thorough,
but leaving the logic of the whole process transparent for end users. Not
every player realises what it takes to increase a cannon calibre, say from
305mm to 356mm. The exterior of the cannon will barely show any significant
difference. In fact, the energy of a shell is proportional to its calibre
raised to the third power, so a couple of lucky shots from 356mm barrels
would be far more effective than dozens of 305mm ones. It is even more true
in naval warfare where everyone manoeuvres and the firing range is long.
實際上我們想讓火力和其他性能隨著階級提升一路慢慢的升上去，因此有必要把我們
選擇艦艇的邏輯公布給玩家知道。
不是所有玩家都正確的理解主砲口徑上升的意義──例如說，從12吋加大到14吋，主砲
的外觀不會有太大的變化；但是實際上砲彈的動能是以三次方上升的，所以一兩發
14吋會比十幾發12吋更有效，再加上海戰時雙方都在長距離上開火、機動，因此這就更
為顯著。(譯註：以WOT的邏輯來理解就是因為命中率很差，無法以DPM硬吃，所以alpha比
rof更重要)。

This Saturday, January 25th, we will publish an article that will reveal the
World of Warships balance work principles and describe the historical battle
mode.
明天還有一篇，專門講平衡設定和史實戰鬥模式。




--
- Q: "All tier 10 heavies lost their meaning!"
- A: "Checked your stats, shrugged, didn't read further"


--
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 36.231.232.213
※ 編輯: hsinhanchu      來自: 36.231.232.213       (01/25 20:24)

--