S4pp3R

Yeah that's what I've been seeing... My goal after NBs this week (get to work H!!!!!) is to play mid tier CAs and see how that's panning out since the changes because high tiers this is bang on!

That's a terrible jole H... Take my upboat

Yeah WGs testing and QA system annoys the hell out of me, they've effectively cost eliminated a QA stage...

thankyou!

This is basically what I've been jumping up and down screaming for the last few days. The skills rework hasn't added much diversity at all, it's just created some range-biased builds that are bad for the meta and added more noob-trap nonsense to the game. Cookie cutter builds just evolved and changed and some classes are basically doing the same thing they were doing with 19 with 21 now (certain DDs). CE is still largely compulsory outside a couple of conditional skills that it can buff. It will take time for the meta to settle but 3 things are for sure. 1. Deadeye will change. 2. WG will not admit any error, despite overwhelming negative feedback. 3. Many issues that are currently hidden amongst the noise will never be addressed.

Yeah, I was trying to politely (yes I've probably stuffed that bit of it) basically say don't take the skill. It's not actually @Metal_illness's fault, WG have littered the skill rework with 'noob trap' skills... There's another one on CVs that increases time taken to get back to CV... From all reports it means more of your planes get shredded despite it appearing to be a good skill. This isn't to mention the 'usual' suspects for DDs like Last Stand, SE and CE... Taking any other skill first up is the noob trap and has been for a long time. Deadeye is somewhat like this as well, players thinking it's the unmodified concealment value, not the modified one. Honestly, I have to spend a lot of my effort keeping my frustration in check because there are just so many dumb (IMO) things in this rework without much positive.

Thanks, and I perfectly understand they will stick to this one but given how many issues I perceive in it, I figured doing some theorycrafting along these lines could be a fun activity (and let's be honest, theorycrafting is a sort of hobby for me). I completely disagree. If we accept that the stated goal is diversity, they've been lazy, uninventive and missed the opportunity entirely. As I've stated numerous times the big things that leap out is that: 1. if a skill is an auto-pick for a large chunk of ships, you've designed it poorly as you have not offered choice, 2. if a skill is only viable to a small number of vessels, it's designed poorly and wasting a possible skill that could offer diversity, and 3. if a ship has a large portion of skills that aren't remotely applicable, the tree has been poorly designed, or possibly the ship. But thanks for your feedback, I'll keep plugging away (hopefully with some significant input from folks) and see where we end up.

OK, 100% stuff has got more toxic towards CV players, however... Fighters are still for spotting, if you aren't doing that, decent players will get annoyed. Please allow me to explain why Fighters, even with buffs are ineffective at being fighters, are at best a zoning tool and are most effective at spotting. Keep in mind I'm not a pro CV player or anything, I just know things. The fighter can only kill stuff that enters it's zone and even then some planes are even too fast or tanky. Any player paying attention will simply go find another target, or strike through it. Generally CVs will strike once per flight, to conserve plane losses. So if a good CV player wants to hit something bad enough, they'll strike the target before the fighters can react and take whatever plane losses they incur, which won't be that many most of the time because they will return the rest of the flight as they strike. So. If the enemy CV can just avoid them and can mostly mitigate their power if they are good, what's left is spotting. And spotting is the single most powerful thing a CV does, followed closely by securing kills. This is just how CVs work now, regardless of whether we like it or not. Open for corrections from any of the pros, but this is the basics as I understand them.

Lol? No way mate! It matters a hell of a lot. Let me give you a few examples. Deadeye implemented, All BBs suddenly are even further back, even fewer pushes or support DDs, changing the meta further from where it was... Anti-concealment builds start doing the rounds, CAs are now sitting back with the BBs even more than ever. Why would you play a closer in CL/A that now is almost guaranteed to be deleted should he be seen? DDs because of these changes are in an odd place on their own, heavily biasing long range torp DDs and cap contesting DDs to the detriment of Hybrids. In the DD world, the difference between a DD with CE and Concealment Mod and one who doesn't is so stark to go into a match with that loadout and not have some specialty like run and gun or long range torps is tantamount to a death sentence. Captain skills and builds change how you play on a macro level and in large enough levels change the entire meta, affecting gameplay for all. I can't in good faith just say 'oh well MM screwed me' and just chalk up the meta to 'hahahaha oh MM...' MM is a separate issue but no less important. But builds do matter and this skills rework has game changing builds in it.

Yeah that's what I've started with, and why there are binary choices. The choice has to be a fair choice rather than an easy pick between two things. I can't in good conscience continue working with bs skills like deadeye and to a lesser extent CE, which is why I scrapped them as options. I don't know whether disabling the other choice is necessarily good but I'm rolling with that at this point. I don't think conditional skills are good at all. By having the condition you then make the skill stronger which makes balance harder and extremes worse. I think strength should not be from one skill but from the amalgamation of successive skills in a build that synergise together to created a rounded playstyle or at least that's my current theory.

SSs Upgrades Utility Maneuverability Durability Auxiliaries

CVs Upgrades Utility Maneuverability Durability Auxiliaries

DDs Upgrades Utility Maneuverability Durability Auxiliaries

CAs Upgrades Utility T1: T2: T3: T4: Maneuverability Durability Auxiliaries

G'day folks... So I'm working on an Un-Eff-It (maybe) or and In-Depth (probably) as to how I would do a skills rework... I had been working on this some time ago but as with many of my videos and ideas it sits in limbo based on an ever changing priority list that is heavily influenced by RL... In the course of events since I last looked at this, I did my Commonwealth Tech Tree series, we got new lines including KM CVs, WG implemented their own skills rework and my first child (a son) was born... So as part of the process of going back to the drawing board, I'd like to open the floor to every crazy tin-foil-hat theory for a skills system. Please go nuts, no idea is too crazy but please at least be in earnest (soz @Max_Battle, please no derailing thx). But I do have a working idea that would benefit from some more particular ideas if some of you are willing to work within a framework... So... SappeRs Skill System Theorycrafting Changelog - 24 Jan 20. Filled in more BB skills. Durability T3/4, Auxiliary T1, Maneuverability T1/T2. A few conditions for my current idea... (If you wanted to work within a framework, I always find it easier to work within parameters). Class skill trees are separate as per post-rework but for now I'm working on BBs. Damage (Main weapon systems) and Concealment related things should not be in the tree. There will be 'x' categories, most likely 3 or 4. At each level of skill in a category there is a binary choice between two related skills that unlocks access to next tier for that category. (I'll provide an example below) No skill should be an auto-pick but there will be some that are better for some ships than others. All accuracy and concealment bonuses from pre rework are hard-baked into ships, including upgrades. Upgrades are an integral part of a build and would need to be adjusted as well to provide balance. All numbers are negotiable, don't get tied up on them too much. The number of skill 'points' will be decided last, but my current working idea is enough for 2 complete 'categories' and maybe one or two leftover. My Current WIP Framework Upgrades: TBC. My focus is to keep things that would be actually physically implemented in reality mechanically, i.e. more HP on armaments, resistance to fire, etc. Mostly will function similar to existing system but with Accuracy/reload/range options removed and applied to certain ships... (Why would T8 to T9 CA range be SO different for example?) Skill Categories (WIP) 1. Utility. Think about things that are useful that don't really fit into the other categories. 2. Maneuverability. Think Speed, Rudder, Turning Circle 3. Durability. Skills that make you last longer. 4. Auxiliaries. Secondary and AA skills. For DDs, may include torpedo or gun skills. Skills (BBs) Utility T1: EL OR Greased Gears (Expert Marksman) T2: PT OR Torpedo PT (shows an indicator if an enemy torpedo locks on you) T3: Superintendent OR -20% cooldown on consumables (except DCP) T4: Radio Location OR +20% torpedo acquisition range. Maneuverability T1: -30% turret traverse time when rudder at 1/2 +, or -10% turret traverse time when at least one gun is on target. T2: -20% rudder shift time. OR -20% turning circle T3: +30% acceleration. OR -30% time taken to halt. T4: +5% maximum speed. OR +25% engine power, -5% maximum speed. Durability T1: 50% reduced chance of main module being incapacitated. OR 50% reduced chance of auxiliary module being incapacitated. The idea is that reduced chance of incapacitation is a skill, health of modules would be an upgrade. T2: DCP: 50% extended duration, 20% increased cooldown. OR halved duration, 20% decreased cooldown. This choice is pretty simple and would need to be adjusted (probably the cooldown reduction) but do you want a really long DCP for extended damage immunity or do you want more frequent DCP. T3: Heals heal 10% more but take 20% longer. OR Heals take half the time but have 20% longer cooldown. T4: Fires duration is 50% less OR fires burn for 20% longer but do 40% less damage. Auxiliaries T1: 20% increased secondary range, OR 10% increased AA range. T2: Secondary Mounts recover module HP when not destroyed. OR AA mounts recover module HP when not destroyed. T3: +20% secondary accuracy on a manually selected target. OR + 20% AA DPM, -10% Secondary reload. T4: +40% secondary accuracy on a manually selected target. OR + 20 % AA DPM, -10% Secondary reload. WIP will change/adjust as necessary, will reserve other class sections below in comments.