Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
dejiko_nyo

Captain downgrade skills.

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,694
[TLS]
Member
4,069 posts
20,266 battles

Someone named someone something somehows asked me to start this thread. >_>

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/225717-mouses-take-on-the-proposed-skill-changes/

All I have to say at the moment is that it's just sugarcoating the stagnating gameplay with some sugar without addressing the real issues. It's not to say the current set of captain skills are 'good' since at least half of them are practically meh. (eg. vigilance.)

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
708
[SMOKE]
Member
1,928 posts
16,057 battles
14 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

....

All I have to say at the moment is that it's just sugarcoating the stagnating gameplay with some sugar without addressing the real issues.

....

 

well pretty much the case for eons already and look like staying that way too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,114
[CLAY]
Member
2,778 posts
12,390 battles

Yeah, as much as I hate change, the skills need an overhaul.

I do like having separate skill trees for each class. Does eliminate misuse of certain skills which were not meant for a class.

But cruisers in particular do miss out on a lot of BB and DD skills that certain cruisers need to function.

And certain skills do need to be changed.

Though I think we need less focus on long range, and more focus on close range.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,359
[TDA]
[TDA]
Alpha Tester
2,241 posts
8,673 battles

The only constant thing in this game is change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
110
[-FUN-]
Member
419 posts
7,095 battles
9 hours ago, Grygus_Triss said:

 

But cruisers in particular do miss out on a lot of BB and DD skills that certain cruisers need to function.

This. RIP those "large cruisers".

How about the incoming "hybrids"? Wouldnt they will benefit more with current commander skill system?

Or probably the new change IS related to the planned hybrid. To prevent hybrids from becoming OP somehow?

Edited by zergling_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,431
[151ST]
Member
2,506 posts
10,201 battles
10 hours ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Someone named someone something somehows asked me to start this thread. >_>

I have no idea what you're talking about... ... Wait, who did what? I bet it was @Tagnbag, the cheeky devil...

I thought it was interesting as it's the first major analysis on the proposed Captain Skill changes. There's also a few tentative builds there that may be worth folks looking at.

The two big points from the post is that LWM has some ideas about certain Captain Skills that are a bit odd and she's assumed how 'Gunner' (old Expert Marksman) is going to function.

The first is that she weighs a few skills far more important than they are (in my opinion), being Argus Eye (old Priority Target) and Alarming (IFA), anyone who knows me knows that I don't value either of these as they are both giving information that you can get by being a better player, thus if you can learn to do something they're a waste of points and become a crutch.

This isn't to mention a range of other skills that LWM gives 'good' scores to or 'average' scores to that are either straight OP autopicks or shouldn't even be worth considering. 

But this is all tentative, WiP and of course subjective.

The big thing I think should be worth noting from the analysis is the BB build.

At T4 you'll get the ability to take 3 skills. As a BB there are 4 you want:

  1. Marksman (new Accuracy buff)
  2. Concealment Expert
  3. Fire Prevention, and
  4. Emergency Repair Expert (+1 DCP/Heal, +10% action time)

The reason this is such a big deal when compared to things such as how SCs and DD-gun CLs will function is that there may yet be conditional changes for SC/smol CLs given that they're all premiums, so there's every chance WG will buff them to keep them current or have yet to announce certain changes to them. Basically I'm waiting until we're almost at a release version before I start doing maths on SCs or smol-CLs.

BB skills for the whole class are now asking you to choose between an accuracy and tanking skill.

I don't think that this sort of choice should be in the Captain skills tree. I like conditional skills but one that's basically going to ALWAYS be on and encourage back-line play, no, not a good idea at all.

Conditional "SO"

I'm predicting that Marksman (the accuracy skill) will actually be dropped or at least changed significantly. It just doesn't fit the rest of the BB overhaul and if you are going to introduce such a skill there needs to actually be a draw back, sitting at the back simply isn't a risk-reward.

If the overall skill rework is to actually provide choice and not give you a new 'cookie cutter' build, then they have a long way to go as there actually needs to be a reason to take a 'standard' BB, say a North Carolina and build it one of two ways.

At the moment there isn't a choice, it's a minor choice between a few skills at T4 and even then once the numbers have been crunched, the optimal option will have been found.

Captain Skills rework is 100% a good idea to do as a general idea but having done the maths now, the only class that's legit got a range of choices is DDs... Which is no change. DDs have always had too much choice anyways and thankfully the skills were balanced well enough to provide choice.

Basically the Captain Skills rework as it stands... Isn't a rework but a tweak, it's the same cookie-cutter stuff and not actually offering build options to any 'standard' ship. Secondary ships will still have the option of secondaries or standard builds and Standard BBs don't really have a choice regardless.

If they really wanted to do a proper rework, they'd be aiming to have 3 builds per 'standard' BB:

  • Ranged Damage
  • Tanking
  • Secondary or Close-Quarters.

Ranged Damage would be at the expense of Concealment AND Tanking

Tanking would have survivability at the expense of damage OR concealment

Secondary would have close-in damage at the expense of concealment OR Survivability.

The above conditions function as a by-product of how WoWs functions as a game, in that ranged combat is already stronger, so tanking/secondary options would need more strengths to keep them viable.

Sadly to do this sort of build system would actually require some planning and thought, the sort that I honestly don't think WG has done. I know this is harsh but I don't have the time to crunch the numbers on this thing at the moment (thus why LWMs post is so good) but if WG sat anyone down like myself who min-maxes everything and brainstormed, you'd end up with a system that actually provides choice.

It's honestly not difficult, synergistic abilities that function better together which in turn create a more specialised playstyle.

Anyways, I gotta get to work... (Like actual RL work).

Edited by S4pp3R
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
93 posts
653 battles

I think some of the problem that they face is yes, to make Captain skills actually choices, after all now most skills are crossed out when you look at them.

But by the same token I think they want to be careful that they don't synergise too well. And by that I mean new players will be getting to higher tiers with less than 10-point captains, after all I currently have a tier 7 with only just a 9-point captain and I'm not sure I really got captains in an inefficient way. I basically added a new captain to the line each time it split, so I could play the new ship while finishing the grind for the lower tier. And I'm sure you all recognise when a ship you run into isn't running a single level-4 skill let alone a couple. I'm sure you can say that new players should take more time to grind to get to higher tiers, but be honest here you would be asking people to not get the Bismarck, not go towards the Yamato or the Iowa. That isn't really going to happen. And this is a game of skill. Player experience counts. If captain skills synergise too well I think they are concerned that:

a) choices will become just as limited as now, where it will just be a couple of limited chains that make sense, and/or

b) new players will reach those higher tiers and be so far behind the curve because they will still be reaching high tier with 9/10 point captains, but will now be facing 21-point captains stacked with min-maxing skills that work too well together.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,431
[151ST]
Member
2,506 posts
10,201 battles
2 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

she's assumed how 'Gunner' (old Expert Marksman) is going to function.

Being that I think they've stuffed up how EM is going to work from a description point of view...

I can't see the new Gunner skill being released buffing quicker turret traverse BBs more, that would be completely backwards from a logic perspective. So the ships that need the skill the most now get the least from it? Why even have the skill in the game then?

Edited by S4pp3R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,694
[TLS]
Member
4,069 posts
20,266 battles
54 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

Being that I think they've stuffed up how EM is going to work from a description point of view...

I can't see the new Gunner skill being released buffing quicker turret traverse BBs more, that would be completely backwards from a logic perspective. So the ships that need the skill the most now get the least from it? Why even have the skill in the game then?

The same issue with the torpedo reload. Faster torpedoes going faster. Slower torpedoes going... nowhere. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,007
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,311 posts
11,037 battles
2 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

BB skills for the whole class are now asking you to choose between an accuracy and tanking skill.

I don't think that this sort of choice should be in the Captain skills tree. I like conditional skills but one that's basically going to ALWAYS be on and encourage back-line play, no, not a good idea at all.

I don't really have a problem with sniping BB's as a concept, it clearly should be a valid play style.  I think the issue people have with them is that they feel those sniping BB's are too far back and don't impact the game, but that isn't on the game design, it's on the player not having sufficient skill or awareness to be well positioned.  This is on the same scale as the brawling BB that moves up too early and gets focused and killed.  Both of these problems stem from the same thing - those players not understanding where they should be to maximise the effectiveness of their ship.

You can't balance around people playing badly.

 

2 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

If they really wanted to do a proper rework, they'd be aiming to have 3 builds per 'standard' BB:

  • Ranged Damage
  • Tanking
  • Secondary or Close-Quarters.

Ranged Damage would be at the expense of Concealment AND Tanking

Tanking would have survivability at the expense of damage OR concealment

Secondary would have close-in damage at the expense of concealment OR Survivability.

I think you do have these choices.  The biggest winner out of the whole rework (with the current iteration at least - no doubt things will change) are secondary BB's.  Sniping BB's get thrown a bit of a bone with the Marksman skill, but the secondary based BB's are the ones that will be significantly buffed.  You do have to give up survivability skills to take these damage skills though - and that gives the choices you are asking for.

For example, a full survivability build would be 1 - Maint specialist (-30% module incap chance); 2 - Gunner (+20% turret rotation speed, assuming it is fixed); 3 - Survivability Expert (reduces flood and fire by 15%), Steady (-10% torpedo damage taken); 4 - Concealment Expert, Fire Prevention, Emergency Repair Expert (one extra repair party, reduces the c/d of repair and DCP).

For you to take ranged skills you have to give up some of these survivability skills.  For you to take secondary skills you also have to give up some of these survivability skills.  These are real choices.  Of course, survivability is usually the best spec simply because you do zero damage and have zero map influence when you are dead, so I would think that the best specs are going to be mostly the above build with one or two swapped out to specialise.  Survivability should still be the priority in a decent build.

This all seems reasonable to me in concept, although obviously individual skills need numbers tuning and some minor mechanic fixes.  The BB skill tree seems the most finished overall to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,114
[CLAY]
Member
2,778 posts
12,390 battles
6 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

If the overall skill rework is to actually provide choice and not give you a new 'cookie cutter' build, then they have a long way to go as there actually needs to be a reason to take a 'standard' BB, say a North Carolina and build it one of two ways.

At the moment there isn't a choice, it's a minor choice between a few skills at T4 and even then once the numbers have been crunched, the optimal option will have been found.

I worry because, I'm probably one of those who will select skills based on what was closest to my previous builds. And there are already new skills such as Marksman, which people are already "OMG MUST TAKE WILL BECOME ESSENTIAL!!!".

And while I don't mind "standard" "cookie cutter" builds because of the ease and simplicity for a casual player to throw on a ship without doing a whole bunch of reach and try-outs, I do hate the idea that you pick a few less optimal skills (maybe because they fit your playstyle more), and people are like, "Noob doesn't have X, go uninstall game". 

Of course, with my playstyle of wanting to push closer regardless of if I'm in a "sniper" BB or not, "Marksman" is going to be of limited value to me, so a survival build would work better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
261
[TWR]
Member
1,310 posts
4,882 battles
8 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

The first is that she weighs a few skills far more important than they are (in my opinion), being Argus Eye (old Priority Target) and Alarming (IFA), anyone who knows me knows that I don't value either of these as they are both giving information that you can get by being a better player, thus if you can learn to do something they're a waste of points and become a crutch.

This isn't to mention a range of other skills that LWM gives 'good' scores to or 'average' scores to that are either straight OP autopicks or shouldn't even be worth considering.

LWM said a while ago her guides generally are mainly aimed at the average player to help them get along,not the above average.

Thats why most of here builds for ships/captains favor stuff like Priority Target.If you are able to pay attention to whats happening around you and the mini map you definitely don't need it.

Edited by BanditSE1977

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,093
[MRI]
Member
3,523 posts
15,217 battles
6 hours ago, dejiko_nyo said:

The same issue with the torpedo reload. Faster torpedoes going faster. Slower torpedoes going... nowhere. 

Yeah the percentage-based changes are one thing I don't like about the new skills. It just means those ships which genuinely need those skills benefit less than those ships that don't.

6 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

I don't really have a problem with sniping BB's as a concept, it clearly should be a valid play style.  I think the issue people have with them is that they feel those sniping BB's are too far back and don't impact the game, but that isn't on the game design, it's on the player not having sufficient skill or awareness to be well positioned.  This is on the same scale as the brawling BB that moves up too early and gets focused and killed.  Both of these problems stem from the same thing - those players not understanding where they should be to maximise the effectiveness of their ship.

You can't balance around people playing badly.

Hmm I would say it is totally bad game design that a ship class that a ship class that has the most health and armour also has the longest range in the game. 

In other types of games like Mobas that would be equivalent of giving your tank character a sniper rifle. That is just bad design because people are going to use that range simply because they can. They are not going to be up front and tanking when they have the option of just sitting back and shooting.

Sure, bad players are going to be bad, but good game design can at least make players utilise their class in the way they are supposed to.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,694
[TLS]
Member
4,069 posts
20,266 battles
5 minutes ago, Thyaliad said:

Yeah the percentage-based changes are one thing I don't like about the new skills. It just means those ships which genuinely need those skills benefit less than those ships that don't.

It's like saying >150mm caliber guns get a 2.5degree/second turret tranverse and <150mm get 0.7degree/second turret traverse. Completely logical.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,431
[151ST]
Member
2,506 posts
10,201 battles
6 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

Both of these problems stem from the same thing - those players not understanding where they should be to maximise the effectiveness of their ship.

No, I don't think that skills should encourage more longer-range play when that is generally the default play, particularly at T10.

I don't think we need to flat buff the accuracy of BBs in general anyways, while I like playing reliably accurate BBs, they are objectively painful to vs. I personally would get rid of any direct combat buffs, or buffs that are basically unconditional (or have easy conditions). Marksman is right up there amongst the first I would remove.

6 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

Survivability should still be the priority in a decent build.

I don't think that 'swapping out one or two' skills is a significant build change and you basically just reinforce my point which is that if WGs point was to provide genuine build options, they've failed, there's only one or two skills you would swap.

One or two is not a massive build change, it's a tweak.

I could argue this point all day, it's something I've spent a lot of time analysing in a variety of games. To have build 'options' you need to have ways to distinctively change how you play, otherwise you are just going to find the right stack of buffs and still play the same way. And there are 100% ways they could build a skill and equipment kit that offers even a standard BB ways to distinctively change the play focus. Secondary builds are about the closest thing we have for BBs in WoWS but are far from being that distinctive, they're more like a sub-set, particularly given that only a small spectrum of BBs can do it even objectively effective.

 

6 hours ago, dejiko_nyo said:

The same issue with the torpedo reload. Faster torpedoes going faster. Slower torpedoes going... nowhere. 

Yeah there's definitely some areas like this that I expect to see changes to, still early days though. There's a lot to like in the skill changes but there are lots of areas that will probably see improvements even after the system goes live.

 

3 hours ago, Grygus_Triss said:

And while I don't mind "standard" "cookie cutter" builds because of the ease and simplicity for a casual player to throw on a ship without doing a whole bunch of reach and try-outs, I do hate the idea that you pick a few less optimal skills (maybe because they fit your playstyle more), and people are like, "Noob doesn't have X, go uninstall game". 

Yeah there's nothing wrong with taking whatever build you want, and no one should be telling you to uninstall, but internet be internets, people be idiots. 

 

1 hour ago, BanditSE1977 said:

LWM said a while ago her guides generally are mainly aimed at the average player to help them get along,not the above average.

Thats why most of here builds for ships/captains favor stuff like Priority Target.If you are able to pay attention to whats happening around you and the mini map you definitely don't need it.

I'm aware. I'm not trying to get into my whole PT/IFA discussion so I'll clarify my point and try and keep it as short as possible. I don't think you should run either, although I do run PT on some builds (due to a leftover point). PARTICULARLY for newer players, I would recommend not running them because there is a risk of becoming reliant on them (thus they become a crutch). I would argue being a newer player is MORE of a reason not to run either and for the player to try and learn how to function better without them as the points could be better spent.

I'm not telling anyone not to, I'm simply suggesting that a more 'optimal' and 'efficient' way to play is to improve so there is no need for either of those skills, freeing up valuable captain skill points. And by using them, you are more likely to rob yourself of the chance to learn how to function without them.

In the new system, this is even more important (as Argus Eyes costs more points).

 

22 minutes ago, Thyaliad said:

Hmm I would say it is totally bad game design that a ship class that a ship class that has the most health and armour also has the longest range in the game. 

Exactly!

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,007
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,311 posts
11,037 battles
31 minutes ago, Thyaliad said:

Hmm I would say it is totally bad game design that a ship class that a ship class that has the most health and armour also has the longest range in the game. 

In other types of games like Mobas that would be equivalent of giving your tank character a sniper rifle. That is just bad design because people are going to use that range simply because they can. They are not going to be up front and tanking when they have the option of just sitting back and shooting.

Sure, bad players are going to be bad, but good game design can at least make players utilise their class in the way they are supposed to.

I don't think that is bad game design.  BB's are a balanced class, and their long range is balanced by their poor dispersion and reduced game impact at range, just like their health and armour are balanced by their awful maneuverability and huge size.

Also comparing WoWs tanking to tanking in other games doesn't work.  Generally other games require tanks to be in melee range, but that is a recipe for a quick death in WoWs.  Instead tanking in this game requires a balance between damage taken and survivability, and maintaining an optimum range is absolutely key to that, and that range is quite significant, usually being in the 12-16km range depending on the circumstances of the battle.  You also maintain your survival by adjusting your range, where usually in other games a tank's survival is largely dependent on being healed by others. 

This is why the comparison doesn't work.  Also, in WoWs other ships can be very good tanks as well - long range cruisers and gunboat DD's are excellent tanks for example.  Everyone does damage as well.

 

18 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

I don't think that 'swapping out one or two' skills is a significant build change and you basically just reinforce my point which is that if WGs point was to provide genuine build options, they've failed, there's only one or two skills you would swap.

One or two is not a massive build change, it's a tweak.

I could argue this point all day, it's something I've spent a lot of time analysing in a variety of games. To have build 'options' you need to have ways to distinctively change how you play, otherwise you are just going to find the right stack of buffs and still play the same way. And there are 100% ways they could build a skill and equipment kit that offers even a standard BB ways to distinctively change the play focus. Secondary builds are about the closest thing we have for BBs in WoWS but are far from being that distinctive, they're more like a sub-set, particularly given that only a small spectrum of BBs can do it even objectively effective.

They could balance survivability builds with secondary or sniping builds, the problem is that this would involve a significant nerf to BB survivability, and that would be a bad thing.  I don't think that full secondary builds should be viable since I think secondaries are a terrible concept that should be a "fun but not particularly effective" option.  This is what they currently are, and that's a good thing.  BB's are the simplest class and have few key skills, requiring only the ability to aim well and the ability to position well to succeed.  Secondary builds take away half of these required skills by letting the ship do the aiming for you.  This should not be encouraged.

I really like the concept for BB's of survival being paramount, then you strengthen the particular flavour of your ship on top of that.  If you want build variety, I'd prefer to see different options of survival skills, where you pick the ones that best suit your ship or playstyle, and succeed due to playing to the strengths of the particular skills you have chosen.

Also, survivability is what enables BB's to put themselves in more aggressive positions.  A secondary build is actually actively hindering a BB's ability to move closer to the enemy.

 

27 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

No, I don't think that skills should encourage more longer-range play when that is generally the default play, particularly at T10.

I don't think that is the default play.  A lot of players play at the correct range for their class, and I see plenty of well positioned BB's.  I also see plenty too close or too far away, but that is a common issue with inexperienced players, or those who know where they should be but have made an error.  Encouraging BB's to get excessively close would just mean BB's would die earlier with less battle impact.

I think the actual characteristics of the BB is more likely to encourage excessive range than the captain skill system.  Some ships do offer the lack of tankiness and excessive accuracy combination that put the optimum range for those ships at a distance where they aren't going to cause the most desired effect of a BB, which is to make the enemy want to fall back.  That's an individual ship design problem though, and captain skills don't come into it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
708
[SMOKE]
Member
1,928 posts
16,057 battles

I work the math and check the spec, to be honest am not seeing much of a difference with the DD skill tree, in theory you can specialize, but too many of the parameters are based on the base value and then a % bonus buff or debuff applied, and for specialist boats most DD are this made little sense. it cannot help IJN torp to get to the point of actually able to hit with their torp with some certain consistency, it does not made the German DD any better in their role of being multi role. And too many skill are just lifted right off from the old one without minding that those parameters are there to balance for all class but prove pretty much useless for DD ( IFHE shall we talk )  . And for DD alone, many of the skill are basically essential , so it kind of limit the customization potential , and the captain skills cannot remedy the ill spec parameters of the boats / guns / torp themselves.

BB skill set kind of , well am baffled, again the problem lies with the parameter , so many of them base theirs on base value and a % buff , so already good one got buffed to super good when mediocre one or poor one still can;t get buffed enough even when skill applied .. it kind of limit the customization

The same % on base value applied to Cruiser skill also, and quite a number of them ... and again limit the potential and possibilities of customization.

I fail to see much customization possibility in and among them. Secondary BB seems able to benefit, but so do HE spammer Cruiser, and Gunboat DD , still I think these sets of skill would likely see changes before going live ... WG need to figure out how to deal with the whole Captain resspec, last time something major on Captain Skill revamp they need to give all the players 10 days ( or something along that ) to free re-spec, now that each and every Captain had 4 set of skill points to respec ...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,114
[CLAY]
Member
2,778 posts
12,390 battles
1 hour ago, Mechfori said:

I work the math and check the spec, to be honest am not seeing much of a difference with the DD skill tree, in theory you can specialize, but too many of the parameters are based on the base value and then a % bonus buff or debuff applied, and for specialist boats most DD are this made little sense. it cannot help IJN torp to get to the point of actually able to hit with their torp with some certain consistency, it does not made the German DD any better in their role of being multi role. And too many skill are just lifted right off from the old one without minding that those parameters are there to balance for all class but prove pretty much useless for DD ( IFHE shall we talk )  . And for DD alone, many of the skill are basically essential , so it kind of limit the customization potential , and the captain skills cannot remedy the ill spec parameters of the boats / guns / torp themselves.

If the skills exist, DDs will STILL stick with the same skills they put on everything.

  • Last Stand(Propulsive)
  • Survivability Expert(Enduring)
  • Concealment Expert

Yeah, Ships will no longer be brought to a complete standstill with loss of engine anymore, but DDs should still take Propulsive anyway.

Of course, now that Priority Target (Argus Eyed) is two points instead of one, captains will probably take Preventative maintenance (maintenance specialist) instead, and avoid Argus Eyed, like some people do already, like Sapper. That said, a few potential options at one point, but that will be the extent of you specialisation until you have the other three. Then, if you still feel like you need it, you can use those two new skill points to buy Argus Eyed, and spend the 9 others as you wish.

Like everyone does now.

Edited by Grygus_Triss
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,431
[151ST]
Member
2,506 posts
10,201 battles

I'm sorry @Moggytwo I disagree with most of that. But I'll leave most of it there, we're going round in circles.

I do agree secondary builds are for memes which was my point with them not really being a build option.

Comparing tanking in WoWS to other games still works, not all other games require all classes or tanks to be in melee range and that's not a pre-condition for a tank anyways.

A tank is basically anything that soaks damage, either by forcing you to focus them or by being the biggest threat if left unchecked.

While WoWS doesn't have quite the same metrics, tanking is still effective and the simple 'other classes can tank' isn't the same by far as each class has their own presence tactically.

But that's beside the point, what is the point is that if we are talking about legitimate build diversity the new system is little more than 'a little more' on the old system. This is fine, it has some big improvements but offering more build choice really isn't a thing because each ship will again settle on a cookie cutter build.

The new skill system is interesting but it's merely a tweak, if they actually wanted build diversity they would need to do something significant. In conclusion, the 'offering more build diversity' is the usual smoke and mirrors marketing by a game dev, there really isn't that much more diversity, just new cookie cutter alternatives.

Anyways I'm cutting it there, I have no desire to get into a loop with you, we'll be on that merry-go-round all week.

I don't mind many of the changes but they aren't going to create lots of shiny new build 'options' merely a similar level of choice with a slightly different set of toys.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
211
[KAMI]
Member
429 posts
5,781 battles
11 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

Being that I think they've stuffed up how EM is going to work from a description point of view...

I can't see the new Gunner skill being released buffing quicker turret traverse BBs more, that would be completely backwards from a logic perspective. So the ships that need the skill the most now get the least from it? Why even have the skill in the game then?

I agree, being all % based is a problem. It tends to make things further specialised and lock them into specific playstyles.

This means ships with hybrid playstyles can get left behind if they want...say both gun and torp buffs. So hybrids would need stronger base stats to compensate.

Speaking of which...we could use more dual-stat skills and less single stat skills. We have some like "gun + AA", and "better guns at cost of concealment" but those are further specialisations, not really supportive of hybrids.

 

Edited by Verytis
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,431
[151ST]
Member
2,506 posts
10,201 battles
9 hours ago, Verytis said:

I agree, being all % based is a problem. It tends to make things further specialised and lock them into specific playstyles.

This means ships with hybrid playstyles can get left behind if they want...say both gun and torp buffs. So hybrids would need stronger base stats to compensate.

Speaking of which...we could use more dual-stat skills and less single stat skills. We have some like "gun + AA", and "better guns at cost of concealment" but those are further specialisations, not really supportive of hybrids.

Yeah you raise an interesting point. Although I would guess you more mean what I call 'generalists' as opposed to 'hybrids' which has been coined for CV-BB/CV-CA/CV-SS style ships.

Generalists in games with good build systems are often some of the most fun to play as aside from competitive they offer a lot of viable build options while still not being useless in other areas.

Sadly the new skill system isn't really offering those options as much as I would hope.

And I agree, there are some interesting skills but they sort of go no where (at least after having a bit more of a look). Which is sort of what I was alluding to earlier, there's not a whole lot of synergy options.

I was going to look into the skill system some time ago but got side tracked with other stuff. One of my ideas would be much like you said, more dual-hatted skills, but the secondary option being influenced by abilities earlier in the build. (Based on current system)

For example; Concealment Expert.

Provides 10% concealment buff as primary and then a secondary based on number of points spent in the different sections. e.g.

- Utility. 3 points - 5% consumable duration buff, 6 points - 15%.

- Gunnery. 3 points - 3% increased (debuffed) dispersion of shells fired at ship, 6 points - 8%.

- Endurance. 3 points - 30% reduced spotted distance from fires, 6 points - 50%.

etc.

So basically T3/4 skills would synergise with a different number of points spent on the different 'sections'. T3 would be minor buffs, T4 would be minor/major buffs.

Specialists can min-max and generalists can do minor specialisation as appropriate.

WG would be unlikely to go with such a system because they'd fear it's complication for their darling potatoes.

But I digress.

I think there's some good ideas and concepts in this system but it needed far more work before going into testing.

I worry about their ideas department because the new system is like a half-baked attempt at an overhaul. It's like they tried to ovverhaul it and then got scared half-way through.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,694
[TLS]
Member
4,069 posts
20,266 battles

Remember @S4pp3R, "complicated" mechanics eat server resources and causes more server-side bandwidth throttling. Which doesn't stop wg from doing complicated things anyway. C'est la vie.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,007
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,311 posts
11,037 battles
13 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

Anyways I'm cutting it there, I have no desire to get into a loop with you, we'll be on that merry-go-round all week.

Understandable, we clearly are approaching this from different directions of thought.  No point going in circles as you say.  I'm interested to see how their balancing goes when we find out some more information on the subject - we can discuss it further then perhaps, and hopefully we can get something that provides multiple competitive builds.

2 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

I worry about their ideas department because the new system is like a half-baked attempt at an overhaul. It's like they tried to ovverhaul it and then got scared half-way through.

I share your concerns - the ranked system overhaul REALLY missed the mark in my opinion by leaving the worst part of ranked intact (stars and in particular the "save-a-star" system), and instead changed a heap of stuff that is fine, I guess, but in a game mode that will still be unpleasant to play.  The commander skill rework misses the mark as well a little.  I think they have struggled to identify the core issues here, and you can't fix things if you don't identify the problem first.

I can definitely see why they instigated the skills rework though - CV skills already felt wedged in the current tree, so how on Earth were they going to fit submarine skills in there?!  This resolves that problem entirely, and it also provides an even playing field for each class.  The IFHE rework and how much it affected the whole game would have been pretty motivating to make them change as well, since with individual ship trees a specific problem skill will be much easier to fix.

They did get a few things right with this commander skills rework.  The ability to have different specs for each ship class is absolutely brilliant (although less good if you mainly play tech tree ships).  I like the ability to dismiss commanders for extra commander XP, I think that will feel really good, but it is very much a system for the long term players. 

The things I don't like about the skills rework are the fact that the increase in points to 21 feels like those extra points will simply be spent on getting skills you used to have but now cost more, thus giving you nothing but a much more expensive commander.  It's not going to be pleasant if you get no additional power for your extra 2 pts, or even worse if your captain is overall less effective.  Also the much increased commander XP respec cost from 190k for a 19pt commander to 500k for a 21pt commander is absurd. 

The other major factor is the one that this thread is mainly about - the balance of the skills themselves.  It's pretty bad in this initial iteration, with certain ship classes being worse off than they are now, and certain types of play significantly advantaged while others are disadvantaged compared to live.  It will feel pretty bad if your entire favourite class of ship or style of play is significantly nerfed with this rework!  Obviously balance changes are coming, but I am still quite concerned about how it may look on release, as there are just so many different abilities to balance that it's going to be next to impossible to get everything right.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,093
[MRI]
Member
3,523 posts
15,217 battles
18 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

 I don't think that is bad game design.  BB's are a balanced class, and their long range is balanced by their poor dispersion and reduced game impact at range, just like their health and armour are balanced by their awful maneuverability and huge size.

Also comparing WoWs tanking to tanking in other games doesn't work.  Generally other games require tanks to be in melee range, but that is a recipe for a quick death in WoWs.  Instead tanking in this game requires a balance between damage taken and survivability, and maintaining an optimum range is absolutely key to that, and that range is quite significant, usually being in the 12-16km range depending on the circumstances of the battle.  You also maintain your survival by adjusting your range, where usually in other games a tank's survival is largely dependent on being healed by others. 

This is why the comparison doesn't work.  Also, in WoWs other ships can be very good tanks as well - long range cruisers and gunboat DD's are excellent tanks for example.  Everyone does damage as well.

You are missing my point. I am talking about player roles, which has little to do with balance of if they are melee range or not. There are plenty of non-melee tank characters or units in other games. 

What I am saying is like other games, ships in WoWs have their own roles. Granted, the roles are less distinct than other games but are still present nonetheless. There are exceptions like gunboat DDs and supercruisers, but the ship types generally have the following roles:

DDs generally function as stealthy scouts, with some nuking and area denial ability.

CL/CAs are your primary damage class with good sustained DPM. Some have support skills like Radar and some higher tier ones might be able to dodge tank, but their primary purpose is still doing damage with support as a secondary role.

CVs have many roles, but they are generally a support class. CVs' strengths like general scouting, dislodging camping enemies and attacking enemies anywhere or supporting allies anywhere on the map are basically supporting roles. They are are a support class with some damage mixed in.

BBs are a tank class with some damage nuking ability. When it comes to holding a position, there is no better class than them, because they actually have the health and armour to absorb damage. Cruisers and DD can kite but they cannot hold ground - if the enemy pushes they have to retreat because they do not have the armour nor the health to hold the line. However an entrenched BB can still be a severe threat if the enemy pushes, because a BB can nuke enemies with a good AP salvo at shorter ranges. Therefore for a successful push that BB will have to be dealt with first, which takes time.

Tanks function by drawing sustained aggro from the enemy - either by artificially forcing the enemy to attack them with certain skills (not applicable to WoWs) or by encouraging the enemy to attack them. The latter is achieved by multiple ways, such as by being a threat the enemy cannot ignore, proximity to the enemy or the ability to lock down an area and prevent the enemy from moving freely. And how does a BB do all that? Simple, by fighting at the frontlines instead of sniping at the back. A BB at the front is of much, much greater threat to an enemy than the BB trying to snipe from more than 20km away.

This is how a BB tanks in WoWs - by managing aggro and encouraging enemies to attack them instead of friendlies. And the easiest way of doing that is by not camping and sniping from max BB range.

This is why I said BBs in WoWs are bad game design. A good design nudges players into playing their respective roles. A bad design doesn't.

Anyway I think this is getting a bit off topic, so I shall stop here. To bring it back on track, I am just of the opinion that skills that incentivise BBs to snipe do not make a healthy meta. That current BB design allows BB playes to snipe is bad enough, we do not need captain skills to make it worse.

18 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

BB's are the simplest class and have few key skills, requiring only the ability to aim well and the ability to position well to succeed.  Secondary builds take away half of these required skills by letting the ship do the aiming for you.  This should not be encouraged.

Eh if you ask me I would say the exact opposite - Secondary builds actually require more skill.

Imo the player skill in BBs is more dependent on positioning, which is why people can still be bad at them despite BBs being the most forgiving class to play. Positioning is what enables a BB player to utilise their health and armour advantage by managing enemy aggro as mentioned earlier. Bad BB players are bad not because they are bad at aiming, but because they are bad at positioning and are either too safe and too useless or too reckless and end up dead.

Imo survivability builds are much, much less dependent on player skill than Secondary builds  - due to the simple fact that is effective all the time. Unlike Secondaries builds which are only usable in secondary ranges, survivability builds are effective every single time you are attacked. You can guarantee to be attacked every game, the same can't be said for using Secondary builds.

Survivability builds are a no-brainer when it comes to usage. It also gives you a lot more leeway when it comes to positioning. There is a reason why everybody and their dog advise new players to go for Survivability builds. Because it is both more effective and idiot-proof.

On the other hand, Secondary builds a lot of planning and skill to ensure you are actually able to get in a position to nake use of those Secondaries.

In any case, I believe this isn't the first time we have had this discussion on Secondary builds, and I don't think this will lead anywhere so I think we will just have to agree to disagree here.

 

Edited by Thyaliad
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
685
[SALT]
Member
2,030 posts
10,542 battles
6 hours ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Remember @S4pp3R, "complicated" mechanics eat server resources and causes more server-side bandwidth throttling. Which doesn't stop wg from doing complicated things anyway. C'est la vie.

Potato game engine is Potato

WOWs Run on game engine that build on architecture of 14-15 Years ago. it dont fully make use of Hyper threading so if you have multiple cores, the game just eat 1 core resources, and the game will still be somehow have weird lag and slow even if you have Top of the line PC

 

thats like era of Unreal engine 3. and next year there already Unreal Engine 5. or for console peasant, its build in PS3 era. The game engine is 2 generation behind

Edited by humusz
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×