[情報] WOWS 2013年成就+國家特色Part2

看板Wargaming作者hsinhanchu (hsinhanchu)時間12年前 (2014/01/25 22:22)推噓4(4推 0噓 5→)

留言9則, 6人參與討論串1/1

http://blog.worldofwarships.com/a-look-at-the-wows-alpha-test-in-2013/ 反正爆車也沒事做，就邊玩邊翻譯... WOWS2013年成就： 16814艘美軍艦艇被擊沉，是二戰損失數量的94倍。如果把所有參加Alpha的船首尾相接可以從紐約接到巴黎。一艘大和一場打出的砲彈數比WOT一場中所有戰車的砲彈量還多。所有參加Alpha的船都開了4萬海里，相當於今年Volvo Ocean Race環球賽程。 222000枚魚雷命中目標，彈頭當量相當於車里雅賓斯克隕石的威力。每場平均擊發1100枚主砲彈藥，當年曙光號只開了一砲轟冬宮... 每場平均有6艘船被擊沉，和偷襲珍珠港時出動的航艦數量一樣多。玩家總共用了3676小時，足夠讓島風沿著麥哲倫的航線繞地球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? 問：很多船都經歷過現代化改裝的需求以提升性能，這在WOWS會怎麼呈現？有船艦會因為現代化改裝就升一階嗎？ 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. 一般而言軍艦會設計為可以長期服役。目前的紀錄是斯堪地那維亞半島國家，某些船設計要服役70年。大部分都經過一連串的現代化改裝和改良，有時候整個改頭換面。最成功的例子就是金剛級，在1930年代幾乎整個重建(譯註：拆掉後主桅、重蓋艦橋etc) ，所以在科技樹中會有兩個版本─早期和現代化版本(譯註：就目前的資訊，金剛會有三版，平賀案、1920狀態和第一次改裝後，金剛代艦還不知道)。如果改裝並不全面，例如說只是火控系統、高砲、雷達的改裝，那就會放到研發項目中。 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? 問：同年代的巡洋艦可能會有相當不同的性能數據，某些甚至可以跟戰艦相比。你們要怎麼平衡這些船？ (譯註：例如說阿拉斯加級大型巡洋艦或是德梅因級重巡) 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. 實際上把戰巡當作巡洋艦是錯誤的分類，實際上她們只是輕裝甲版本的戰艦。 20世紀前半的海軍著作就把這些船分類為戰艦，我們也跟著堅持這個傳統，把戰巡分為戰艦。 (譯註：其實這邊有些觀念沒說清楚，戰巡=戰艦尺寸+巡洋艦裝甲+戰艦主砲，但是大型巡洋艦、巡洋艦殺手並不是這個思路，而是條約巡洋艦直接放大) 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，我們打算把輕重巡洋艦放在一類，前者拿來打低階，後者高階。輕重巡可能會在中階遇上，迎接很棒的遊戲體驗。究竟是擁有高速高射速的巡洋艦會贏，還是重裝的戰艦會贏？看來我們很快就會得出答案。 How many “paper” ships, represented only in blueprints, are to be added into World of Warships? 問:打算放多少圖紙船？ 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，這得看國家、船種甚至階級。例如德國航艦(不算水上機母艦)就只有一艘齊柏林伯爵差不多完工，所以我們需要圖紙船來填空。英國在戰時也只全力維持既有的艦艇可用，完全無力造新艦。這就是為什麼高階船有一大部分是用從來沒建造過的船艦。 (譯註：英國TXBB應該會是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. 另外某些型號只需要單純的加入遊戲中，例如美國曾經計畫過建造一整票的「航艦」，安裝巡洋艦武器和少量的航空設備，有一大堆類似的計畫，我們只需要把一部份放入遊戲 (譯註：這個計畫我真的沒聽過) 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? 問：20世紀的歷史因壯烈的海戰而聞名，很多玩家想要見證和自己動手玩這些戰役。你們會製作重現著名歷史戰役的模式嗎？ 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上市的時候不會有史實戰役，不過這不代表沒有放史實戰役的空間。目前我們還在思考這個點子。 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. 有幾個方式可以用。首先是艦艇以史實的狀態出戰。或者是「重建整場戰役」，例如說雷伊泰灣海戰或是追擊俾斯麥號。問題是要怎麼讓玩家基於劇本扮演實際上艦艇的角色，否則這種作法失去意義。照這個思路最終我們可能會做出PVE，完全相異的概念。 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. 第一種作法(史實配置+相關地圖)看來比較可行。這件事情目前在討論中，不過還沒決定是否會真的實裝。 (譯註：俾斯麥相關的戰鬥能進場的玩家太少，珊瑚海也是類似的問題。中途島的問題是日本的本隊要不要投入，我目前認為比較可行的應該是薩沃島海戰或是第一次瓜島海戰之類的。) -- 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?" -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 36.231.232.213

推

g3sg1

01/25 22:40, , 1^F

01/25 22:40, 1^F

→

g3sg1

01/25 22:42, , 2^F

01/25 22:42, 2^F

→

Angustks

01/25 23:12, , 3^F

01/25 23:12, 3^F