- 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系统的原则是「锁的不是误击队友的玩家，而是故意违反游戏规则的玩家」， 「连续手滑打中队友就不只是手滑了」 - 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整体的隐蔽加成不会被一刀砍光，TD的隐蔽加成中只有某些次项目(SS:例如 开火後的隐蔽加成)会被砍。金币TD的数据不会动，或者是只会极小程度的改变，所以 不用杞人忧天。 (反正现在游戏里也才三台金币TD外加一个插了17磅的英国便当盒，别动E25我就没意见) - 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 目前还没决定T-44A要怎麽处理，不过基本上制作组认为这台车反正只进过测试服， 整台拉掉也不是问题。 (上一台被腰斩的似乎是WZ111-5A) - the T110E3 and T110E4 changes are final according to Storm Storm表示E3E4的更动已经定案。 (译注：朋友的意见是这次变动对於E3是变相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”) 测试服的TK惩罚变严格了(一次TK就ban一天)，Storm表示这个变动会放进正规伺服器。 (「看最终版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. 这是和Andrey Gashkov─WOWS制作人的访谈。 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? 问：WOWS一开始的国家会是美日，为什麽选这两国？ 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：简单的解释是，只有这两国在二战爆发时(译注：太平洋战场)拥有最为复杂、威胁 性十足的舰队。此外，这两国的对抗也是最为激烈深刻的。英国在一战之後国力已经衰退 ，苏、德、法的海军和这两国相比之下较弱。 What are the subsequent nations that you plan to introduce further on? 问：之後还会有那些国家？ 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：基本上都已经公布，会有英、德、苏(包含帝俄时期)，法义应该也会有定位。此外 也有个提案是由其他欧洲国家组成的混合舰队。很多国家都有特殊有趣的舰艇设计，例如 荷兰、西班牙、瑞典、挪威、奥匈帝国和希腊。如果分开看，每个国家都很难找适合的船 凑出一整条科技树，但是如果放在一起，那就有机会加进我们的游戏中。 Can you briefly tell us about the key differences between the two nations? Their weak and strong sides, specific shipbuilding traditions or warfare tactics. 问：可以简短的介绍两国之间关键性的差异吗？两国的强势、弱点、造舰传统或是战术指 导？ 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. 和之前说的一样，我们会在最大程度上确保历史真实度。两个国家都有独特的军事准则 影响所有方面──从造舰到战术都是。日本海军拥有平衡、一致且容易操作的战队， 最早揭露航舰潜力、善於夜战且拥有当代最优秀的鱼雷。 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). 从另一方面来说，美国把所有的工业能力投入建造高科技、全方位、可靠的舰艇。 这些舰艇装备了尖端科技装备(雷达和高炮系统)。 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，日本造舰者倾向把舰艇设计得独特且相异，让她们像是艺术品；美国工程师则 更为务实，从大量设计生产的方案中撷取最精华的部分。 在30年代初期，美国发展出成功的Mk.12 5"/L38 DP，这门炮在战场上表现良好，美国 立刻开始量产这门炮，而这门炮基本上装备在任何可以装得下的地方。 All these facts and realities will be reflected in our game. 所有的史实和真实性都会被反应在游戏中。 (译注：吐槽时间。WG的大前提一向是游戏性优先，如果要反映史实，那日本光是没火控雷 达也没有有效防空这两点就没戏了。目前两个国家最可能被牺牲的史实强势面，美国是火 控雷达、航舰全甲板准则、5"/L37+40mm Bofors+20mm oerlikon三重防空火网、VT信管 、CIC。 日本的话大概只有个氧气鱼雷得牺牲一下，在雷达防空这两个面向上一定会超史实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? 问：选择舰艇的原则是什麽？在顶阶要怎麽平衡？如您所知，日本造舰史并不是一路平顺 ，而展现出几个时期，这会不会让科技树的平衡出问题？ 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. 有几艘船是我们非放不可的，因为她们在历史和玩家的心中都有明显的一页。 例如大和、俾斯麦、曙光号。再举个例子，埃赛克斯级代表了美国在太平洋战区的胜利 （译注：总共24艘，14艘赶上打二战且无一损失。光是埃赛克斯和独立两级的数量 就比联合舰队的所有航舰还多） 这些舰艇一定会放入游戏，剩下的问题就只是时间和放在科技树的什麽位置而已。 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. 就像之前说的一样，设定科技树是个趣味与复杂兼有的工作。在设定时，必须全盘考量 并不是每个国家都有相等的发展历程。举例来说，美国有很多可以放到平行科技树的战舰 设计(译注：和战术思想有关，USN通常会把两艘同级BB编成一个战队，因此BB的建造通常 以两艘为单位)，但是相对来说美国缺巡洋舰设计(译注：「缺」的意思是在WOWS找不到 适合放到某阶的船舰)，例如奥马哈级──一艘适合放在T5-T6，可以从上面研发後继舰 切斯特级的轻巡洋舰是在1907年服役的，不幸的是在这两级之间没有任何舰艇下水服役 ，因此科技树上面会有很多空洞。因此，我们必须用部分完工的船舰或是图纸舰艇来 填空，我们的工作室还有个部门专门负责这件事：这个部门就像是真的船舰开发小组， 拥有所有的文件、资料库、蓝图，用以「组装」这些从未完工服役的舰艇。 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. 我们在发展日本BB线的时候就用了这招，金刚级战巡被接在河内级无畏舰後面。金刚的性 能当然在很多面向上凌驾河内级，但是有点跳太快。在故纸堆里面翻找很久之後我们发现 一个早期发展案，装备12寸主炮，对我们而言非常适合。 (译注：平贺让的某个设计案，没记错应该是18500吨左右。之後因为英国给了狮级战巡 ，所以这个设计案就作废) 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. 实际上我们想让火力和其他性能随着阶级提升一路慢慢的升上去，因此有必要把我们 选择舰艇的逻辑公布给玩家知道。 不是所有玩家都正确的理解主炮口径上升的意义──例如说，从12寸加大到14寸，主炮 的外观不会有太大的变化；但是实际上炮弹的动能是以三次方上升的，所以一两发 14寸会比十几发12寸更有效，再加上海战时双方都在长距离上开火、机动，因此这就更 为显着。(译注：以WOT的逻辑来理解就是因为命中率很差，无法以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. 明天还有一篇，专门讲平衡设定和史实战斗模式。 -- - Q: "All tier 10 heavies lost their meaning!" - A: "Checked your stats, shrugged, didn't read further" --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 36.231.232.213 ※ 编辑: hsinhanchu 来自: 36.231.232.213 (01/25 20:24)