http://blog.worldofwarships.com/a-look-at-the-wows-alpha-test-in-2013/ 反正爆车也没事做，就边玩边翻译... WOWS2013年成就： 16814艘美军舰艇被击沉，是二战损失数量的94倍。 如果把所有参加Alpha的船首尾相接可以从纽约接到巴黎。 一艘大和一场打出的炮弹数比WOT一场中所有战车的炮弹量还多。 所有参加Alpha的船都开了4万海里，相当於今年Volvo Ocean Race环球赛程。 222000枚鱼雷命中目标，弹头当量相当於车里雅宾斯克陨石的威力。 每场平均击发1100枚主炮弹药，当年曙光号只开了一炮轰冬宫... 每场平均有6艘船被击沉，和偷袭珍珠港时出动的航舰数量一样多。 玩家总共用了3676小时，足够让岛风沿着麦哲伦的航线绕地球7圈。 = Dear Readers! In the 2nd part of this interview, Andrey will describe modernizations that ships undergo, the historical battles mode, and balancing principles for light and heavy cruisers. Many of the included ships faced a need to modernize that necessitated an increase in their parameters. What will that look in World of Warships? Will it be possible for a ship to “jump” a tier higher based on these modernizations? 问：很多船都经历过现代化改装的需求以提升性能，这在WOWS会怎麽呈现？有船舰 会因为现代化改装就升一阶吗？ Normally, most of the ships are developed for long-term service. The record belongs to Scandinavian countries – some of the ships they developed served up to 70 years. A major part of them underwent a sequence of modernizations and improvements, sometimes pretty radical. One of the most successful examples is that “Kongo” project we mentioned before, as the ship was almost completely rebuilt in the 1930′s. So, in this case, such a vessel may be represented in the tech tree by two versions – early and modernized. If the changes were not that drastic and large scale, say, just the replacement of FCS systems, AAA sites, radars, it will be reflected in the internal research tree of the ship. 一般而言军舰会设计为可以长期服役。目前的纪录是斯堪地那维亚半岛国家，某些船 设计要服役70年。大部分都经过一连串的现代化改装和改良，有时候整个改头换面。 最成功的例子就是金刚级，在1930年代几乎整个重建(译注：拆掉後主桅、重盖舰桥etc) ，所以在科技树中会有两个版本─早期和现代化版本(译注：就目前的资讯，金刚会有三版 ，平贺案、1920状态和第一次改装後，金刚代舰还不知道)。如果改装并不全面，例如说 只是火控系统、高炮、雷达的改装，那就会放到研发项目中。 Light and heavy cruisers of the same era may differ significantly when comparing their parameters; some of them are even comparable with battleships. How are you going to balance such ships? 问：同年代的巡洋舰可能会有相当不同的性能数据，某些甚至可以跟战舰相比。 你们要怎麽平衡这些船？ (译注：例如说阿拉斯加级大型巡洋舰或是德梅因级重巡) Well, it is a faulty approach to assign battlecruisers to a “cruiser” class. Actually, they were just less armored, speedier battleships. Even naval establishments of the first half of the 20th century marked these ships as battleships. That’s why we’re going to stick to this tradition and include them in battleship trees as well. 实际上把战巡当作巡洋舰是错误的分类，实际上她们只是轻装甲版本的战舰。 20世纪前半的海军着作就把这些船分类为战舰，我们也跟着坚持这个传统，把战巡分为 战舰。 (译注：其实这边有些观念没说清楚，战巡=战舰尺寸+巡洋舰装甲+战舰主炮，但是 大型巡洋舰、巡洋舰杀手并不是这个思路，而是条约巡洋舰直接放大) In turn, it was decided to group light and heavy cruisers, so that the first would enjoy low-tier battles, whereas the latter – higher ones. It’s possible their paths will cross in middle-tier battles, ensuring exciting gameplay. Who will win such a battle – the low weight cruiser with rapid fire artillery or the more armored and heavily armed battleship? It seems that soon we’ll have a chance to learn that ourselves. 相反的，我们打算把轻重巡洋舰放在一类，前者拿来打低阶，後者高阶。 轻重巡可能会在中阶遇上，迎接很棒的游戏体验。究竟是拥有高速高射速的巡洋舰会 赢，还是重装的战舰会赢？看来我们很快就会得出答案。 How many “paper” ships, represented only in blueprints, are to be added into World of Warships? 问:打算放多少图纸船？ Well, this largely depends on the nation, ship class and even the tier. For instance, the German fleet possessed only one carrier (apart from early seaplane carriers) that could be considered almost completed – “Graf Zeppelin,” so, that’s why we need “paper” ships to fill the empty places. The British tree also faces the same difficulty. Great Britain had a hard time keeping her ships afloat during the war, merely dreaming about new ships ’ keel laying. That’s why the major part of high-level ships will be represented by vessels that were never built. 嗯，这得看国家、船种甚至阶级。例如德国航舰(不算水上机母舰)就只有一艘齐柏林伯爵 差不多完工，所以我们需要图纸船来填空。 英国在战时也只全力维持既有的舰艇可用，完全无力造新舰。这就是为什麽高阶船有一大 部分是用从来没建造过的船舰。 (译注：英国TXBB应该会是L3) Moreover, some models simply deserve to be added to the game. For instance, the United States had plans to build a whole fleet of aircraft carriers – those that would carry ordinary cruiser armament and equipped with takeoff strips for a dozen of planes aboard. There are lots of such instances, so we’ re going to introduce some them into World of Warships. 另外某些型号只需要单纯的加入游戏中，例如美国曾经计画过建造一整票的「航舰」， 安装巡洋舰武器和少量的航空设备，有一大堆类似的计画，我们只需要把一部份放入游戏 (译注：这个计画我真的没听过) 20th century history is famous for fierce naval battles that most of our fans would like to witness on their screens and, of course play. Are you planning a battle mode which will reproduce famous battles of that era? 问：20世纪的历史因壮烈的海战而闻名，很多玩家想要见证和自己动手玩这些战役。 你们会制作重现着名历史战役的模式吗？ It is certain that the release stage of World of Warships will not include “ historical battles,” though that doesn’t mean there’s no place for them at all. Currently, this idea is being thoroughly considered. WOWS上市的时候不会有史实战役，不过这不代表没有放史实战役的空间。 目前我们还在思考这个点子。 There are a number of concepts pertinent to its realization. Firstly, the ship clashes with their historical configurations. Secondly, this implies “ whole battle reconstruction,” like Battle of Leyte Gulf or Hunt for Bismark. The problem there is to make players play the same roles that real ships did, according to a “historical scenario;” otherwise, the idea becomes senseless. Ultimately, we’ll get a player-versus-environment fight that demands a completely different approach. 有几个方式可以用。首先是舰艇以史实的状态出战。 或者是「重建整场战役」，例如说雷伊泰湾海战或是追击俾斯麦号。问题是要怎麽让玩家 基於剧本扮演实际上舰艇的角色，否则这种作法失去意义。照这个思路最终我们可能会做 出PVE，完全相异的概念。 Whereas, the first variant (ships with historical configurations and a setting of relevant maps) – seems to be more realistic. This matter is being actively discussed now, but there’s still no indication when (or if) it will see the light. 第一种作法(史实配置+相关地图)看来比较可行。这件事情目前在讨论中，不过还没决定 是否会真的实装。 (译注：俾斯麦相关的战斗能进场的玩家太少，珊瑚海也是类似的问题。 中途岛的问题是日本的本队要不要投入，我目前认为比较可行的应该是萨沃岛海战或是 第一次瓜岛海战之类的。) -- Q: "Dear developers, does WoT generate so little profit that you have to reduce the profitability of the tanks?" A: "Dear players, do you play so bad that you have to imagine the profitability drops all the time?" --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 36.231.232.213