Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
S4pp3R

So why is the new skill system a hot mess?

37 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,850
[151ST]
Member
2,996 posts
11,069 battles

Ok so I've been having a look at the new skills system on the PTS...

There are SOME good ideas and I do think the skill system does need a rework but there are some issues too.

But before I get started; here are my higher-level thoughts that I've written about before:

  1. All concealment buffs in the game should just be applied to all ships. If you take concealment out of the equation you can actually have build diversity.
  2. Direct damage buff skills should not be a thing (HE buff skills, AP buff skills). These skills make balancing harder and will buff ships that don't need buffs. Doesn't matter if there's a negative or not, get rid of them.
  3. Skills that encourage longer range gameplay should disappear. You don't need to encourage this type of gameplay more, it's already the default. Yama and Slava don't need another 10% better accuracy.

Right - to the stuff I've been playing with... ...

 

Not all Unique Commanders are equal...

First off, there's an obvious issue with unique commanders. Let me use Jack Dunkirk and Reinhard von Jutland as an example. These are both unique commanders with a couple of buffed skills in the current system. On the new system:

  • Dunkirk has a buffed Grease the Gears (Expert Marksman) and Gear Specialist+Enhancements (improved cooldown, improved duration for hydro-type consumables) all of which work on Cruisers, Battleships and Destroyers.
  • Jutland has improved Vigilance and Gear Specialist (but not Enhancements). Specialist works on Cruisers, Battleships and Destroyers but Vigilance only works on Battleships.

So I realise that Jutland is less effective than Dunkirk as far as utility across a range of classes in the current system, but the bonkers thing is even on the 'shared' buffed skills, Jutland has been robbed. The only way I could see this as being 'fair' is that Jutland got enhanced EM as well, then the trade is no Gear Enhancements but you get Vigilance on BBs... But even then it's still a bonkers comparison.

So WG haven't even bothered to do some unique commander comparisons on paper, let alone in-game as I noticed this almost straight away when I went to my tier 10 CL/As...

 

Not all Classes are equal...

Destroyers were going to be one of the winners from the skill rework from the outset; they have a lot of use for a LOT of skills under the current system but never enough points to quite 'finish' a build... This is now even worse.

Now Destroyers could use 30 points and still have skills worth getting... Now this is actually a good thing in theory as it means there will be build diversity BUT this doesn't apply to other classes and it isn't quite that simple. Quick overview:

  • Destroyers. As mentioned, amazing variety of skills that all benefit almost all DDs with a few more 'niche' picks to favour pure 'torpedo' play. Unfortunately there aren't enough points to take the torpedo skills after taking core skills that are needed to remain competitive in the push-pull of DD play. Basically if a commander took all the torpedo skills, they aren't going to want to do anything other than long-range torping thanks to having no ability to contest other DDs.
  • Cruisers. Feels like a brain-fart in comparison to DDs. A string of 'Torpedo' skills that will only be worth taking for ultra-niche ships that aren't in the game yet. Then there's HE/AP damage buff skills, niche or 'secondary' picks that have caveats to their picks. All in all about 1/2 of the skills in the Cruiser tree are niche picks and only worth taking for specific ships. Basically there's very little choice here for most CL/As; your build writes itself.
  • Battleships. A lot of choices to make that aren't choices. BB tree is full of skills that once numbers have been crunched will become a 'standard' build with the others forgotten. The promise that secondaries could be viable is a nope, there are too many skills that buff tankiness that a full 'tank' would likely beat a full 'secondary' in a brawl. 
  • Aircraft Carriers. A mess of two ideas, buffing specific squadrons and trying to buff fighters. Mostly it's just a matter of knowing which squadron type is your primary weapon and buffing that type, pretty easy picks with some minor speed ones leftover. The fighter consumable buffs/changes idea seems interesting at first glance but after digesting it - useless. The skills are taken with the view that you use fighters in an anti-plane role. They aren't, they are for spotting and a deterrence at best.

So DDs have the most choice, CL/As it's 'pick your ships niche', BBs will be 'cookie cutter' and CVs will be 'pick your damage dealing plane'...

 

Conclusion

This new skill system does not achieve what it sets out to (being offering build diversity for your ship), has massive issues as far as balance is concerned (with accuracy and damage buff skills) and has a mess of skills that are pointless (CV fighters, torpedo skills on CAs, etc).

Honestly WG, go back to the drawing board on about 50% of the system.

One of the biggest things in Game Design is making sure that everything that's in a system or mechanic has a purpose and that purpose is relevant. When the skill is only viable on a small % of ships it's effectively removing a slot with an option for the majority, this system does this so much and in so many areas, it's silly.

The perfect example of how silly the new CL/A skill tree is can be seen with Minotaur...

image.thumb.png.d953bd7aff26f8453aa16ce6807211bf.png

If you take away the torpedo skills, because they are not your primary weapon system and the 'Top Grade Gunner' down the bottom left, as it's a close-quarters skill; 11, almost half the skills available are pointless or do nothing for Minotaur... ...

11 out of a possible 24 skills.

On the current system it's 12/32...

And I'd say that's too much to start with.

 

My final thought for you WG...

Iterate this captain skills rework as much as you have been iterating Submarines... It's arguably going to have more impact on the game than Submarines will...

(The angle I'm coming from is that Submarines will basically just be slower, stealthier DDs from a meta perspective... Meaning that the way the game plays won't actually change that much, whereas Captain Skills will impact every game for every player every time...)

And on that bombshell...

  • Cool 7
  • Thanks 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
554
[AN-DO]
Member
706 posts
10,391 battles

Glad we still have you and the other boffins here to run through all the data for us, because what you just wrote needed to be said

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[TWR]
Alpha Tester
1,592 posts
5,569 battles

The dakkadakka ships Atlanta, Flint Colbert etc won't have access to increase firing range, so will have to play from stock firing range, 11kms.... YEAHHHHHH...

Atlanta is getting a stock range buff to 13kms...but ONLY Atlanta.

So for anyone who just paid coal for Flint....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,168
[CLAY]
Beta Tester
4,820 posts
21,559 battles

What happens when a full secondary GK charges down a long range Yammy in new system?

Unrealistic scenario of course unless 1v1 ranked at TX...

I do not have an informed opinion on new skills - I'll play when they go live but man I would have loved for my German BBs to have been given secondary viability.

I mean, I can see a moderately stealthy US BB being dangerous with the "no one in base conceal range buff" cuz, kinda stealthy being dangerous and I have all of them, but man, diversity? Let me use secondary botes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,356
[CLAY]
Member
3,006 posts
13,334 battles

The two good things from this rework is:

1. Skill trees for each class

2. Each commander can have a separate skill set for each class (Unfortunately, it’s only practical for reassigning to premiums, but considering that premiums outnumber tech tree ships...)

But the skills themselves are a mess. Especially Cruisers, which run the gambit from ‘DD like’ to ‘BB like’.

All in all, I agree with S4pp3R.

And as someone not too concerned with being competitive, I’m going to try to line my captains up with how I originally had them, regardless or being ‘optimal’ or not. They will be set up for how I want to play. Which means I will probably avoid direct damage buffs.

Edit: I 110% agree regarding long range. BBs don’t need encouragement to build for long range. I don’t care that “many people prefer this playstyle”, that’s because the meta demands it!

Most BBs already out range cruisers, they don’t need cruiser accuracy.

I’ve complained about this before: Flank has 4 ships, 1 CA, 2 BB, 1 DD. CA closes in to 19km to be in range, BBs stay back at around 24km, DD undetected. BBs and CA open fire, CA is closest to enemy, enemy target CA. With improved accuracy at 19km, 18 inch BBs don’t need to get lucky often in order to rob CA of 50% HP, even when rapidly using WASD.

To say nothing for the poor DD who is trying to close to torpedo range. He’s lucky there’s no radar ships on his flank, but aircraft are overhead, and he’s about 6km away from friendly ships and their AA fire. Oh, and they’re all telling him to “cap A” and “I need intelligence data”.

Yes, I know, BBs do have risks in getting closer, that’s why they should build survivability to negate the HE spam and still be able to support allies.

Because that’s the problem with long range builds, you sacrifice your ability to support allies. All long range BBs need from their allies is spotting, whereas DDs, CAs and CLs need tanking, threat(I.e enemy sees 3 BBs closing in and thinks it might be a good idea to run away) and AA support.

Sorry for rant.

Edited by Grygus_Triss
Ranting
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
241
[CLAY]
Alpha Tester
1,146 posts
7,862 battles

For me the biggest note is my Bismarck commander (BB) is also is my premium "pocket battleship" Graf Spee command which is a CA. 

The Graf Spee really needs a BB commander to work best since they gave her burn much along the BB line.

I know this is just one ship ship but how many other premium ships will be affected by the new commander rework :cap_hmm:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,356
[CLAY]
Member
3,006 posts
13,334 battles
13 minutes ago, BigWaveSurfer said:

For me the biggest note is my Bismarck commander (BB) is also is my premium "pocket battleship" Graf Spee command which is a CA. 

The Graf Spee really needs a BB commander to work best since they gave her burn much along the BB line.

I know this is just one ship ship but how many other premium ships will be affected by the new commander rework :cap_hmm:

From WG:

“Survivability skills won't be available for cruisers, and thus you're lowering the survivability of big cruisers.

 Big cruisers are distinguished from standard ones by thicker armor and bigger caliber guns, and they have a weak spot - long fires. This weakness could be bypassed by skills. We want to split big and standard cruisers in the new skills system. Big ones will have their strength in armor and shells, but fires will be their weakness, and this is how standard cruisers will be able to counter them.

They’re basically saying “ you get big guns and thicker armour (is this true of AGS?) in exchange for long burn, maximise your big guns and amour”.

Which I don’t agree with. As implied above, cruiser run the gambit between BB and DD (maybe eventually CV if they implement hybrid cruisers), they need the skills to match, to simply say, “use the pros granted by this ship to mitigate the cons of not getting DD/BB skills” is a cop out. Which ignores the fact that the ship was designed when those skills were available.

Its especially bad when you consider WHAT skills BBs are getting. More damage and the ability to hit a fly at 20 paces. I.e, perfect skills to one shot a cruiser at range with a lucky shot.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,420
[FORCE]
Modder
2,679 posts
12,927 battles

Aside from the fighter-related skills, CV's have been like that in the upgrades department (buffing one of the squadrons). Like my US CVs have been emphasized for bombers, UK for rockets, etc.

The cruiser's mess is not that surprising. There have been a lot of complaints about the supercruisers breaking the game. This is just the petty response to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,076
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,402 posts
11,335 battles

Thanks for the write up based on actual PTR experience, I think it's really useful info.

4 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

Direct damage buff skills should not be a thing (HE buff skills, AP buff skills). These skills make balancing harder and will buff ships that don't need buffs. Doesn't matter if there's a negative or not, get rid of them.

How is this different to indirect damage buffs, like increases to fire chance or rate of fire?  They all do the same thing, which is increase your damage done.  I think these are valuable skills to have, because they let you focus on improving a particular aspect of the ship so you can play it in a way you desire.  For example, let's look at the Z-52 (or similar general purpose DD).  You can build it for torpedo play by improving the reload of the torps, or you can buff it for gun play by improving the gun reload and range.  You can't focus on both though.  This gives genuine options that completely change the way you play the ship, and should be exactly how the commander skill tree functions.  You couldn't do this anywhere near as effectively without skills that increased your damage output.

4 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

All concealment buffs in the game should just be applied to all ships. If you take concealment out of the equation you can actually have build diversity.

I disagree with this as well!  (I promise I'm not trying to be contrary!)

Choosing concealment or not is a valid choice, and a good one to have to make.  Although everyone wants better concealment, for many ships you have to make the decision to take it over other competing skills.  If we go back to the Z-52 example above, if you run a torp build you want concealment to enable you to minimise torp running time when possible, but for a gunboat build you can either choose a standard gunboat build with concealment, or a full gunboat build by dropping last stand and concealment.  I personally run Z-52 without concealment and much prefer that build, but it does change the way I play the ship, and this is a very good thing!  It's everything you want in commander skill options, where the game play of a single ship completely changes based on the skills you choose.  For Z-52 there are three viable builds all with quite different game play - how great is that?!

Moving on from this, we get to your points about cruisers and BB's.  This is where I start to agree with you completely.  The main problem with the current system for cruisers is that you get about 12 pts in and then not much else seems appealing.  Ideally you want to have difficult choices to make where you feel you don't have anywhere near enough points, which is why DD commander skills work so well on live.  As you say, cruisers not only have this problem on live, but they continue to have this problem even with their own tree.  Cruisers really need valid choices.  The only issue with this would be trying to give them this without significantly buffing them, because tier 10 cruisers in particular are too powerful when compared to tier 10 DD's.

BB's have a related but different problem, as you once again outline well.  On live, although they do have plenty of choices, there is one choice that is far and above better than any other (the tank build of 1-PT, 2-AR/EM, 3-BoS/SI, 4-FP/CE), and that means that any other build is just nerfing yourself.  Once again, you want multiple viable builds like DD's have, and BB's just don't have that.  However, I think they may have improved this with the rework, it does seem like there may be multiple viable options.

4 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

The promise that secondaries could be viable is a nope, there are too many skills that buff tankiness that a full 'tank' would likely beat a full 'secondary' in a brawl. 

This is where I think BB's are actually getting their biggest buff - they will be able to get the most important tanking skills (BoS, FP) while still taking all the most important secondary skills.  Because of this I have hope that there will be more than one viable build for BB's.

Secondary builds look much stronger to me with the rework.  Ranges are being buffed, they will be much more survivable due to being able to take BoS and FP, and the secondaries are not limited to one target (and only while selected) with manual secondaries.  Tiers 7-10 lose accuracy in exchange for this, (while tiers 6 and below will receive a significant accuracy buff, making the skill viable for them!), but I think despite this they are well ahead overall.  The importance of BoS and FP for a secondary build cannot be overstated.  Also, I think the accuracy buff is definitely a nerf against DD's, but not really a nerf against BB's (and will likely increase the chance of multiple fires), so overall not that impactful a change.

I'm still not sure on the CV tree - so many skills for fighters, which are a relatively minor part of CV game play (and the least engaging part), is not a good direction to go.  Overall I think replacing some of the fighter skills with some genuine options that change the important parts of CV game play would be better, but I can't see this happening at this late stage.  Even changing one skill would help.

Overall, I think the focus should be on skills that change the way you play the ship so you can focus on playing it your way, to your own personal strengths.  In this way the DD tree is pretty good on live, and even better with the rework - they really are the gold standard as to how a tree should function.  Cruisers skills are crappy on live, and somehow still crappy with the rework despite getting a whole tree to themselves, and this is probably the tree that needs the most work.  BB's are better off, and I can definitely see how they are trying to give multiple viable builds, with the introduction of long range game play options, potentially creating three viable builds (full tank/secondary/long range) compared to just one on live. This is good but more work is required.  CV's are heading in a better direction as well, but the tree seems clunky to me, with many of the skills not meshing well together.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
655
[GS]
Video Contributor, Beta Tester, Clantest Coordinator
2,817 posts
14,231 battles

at least stop running CE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,003
[TLS]
Member
4,368 posts
20,667 battles

Thank you for putting into words what I don't want to waste time doing. Concealment mods just need to be removed since concealment is a very strong defence mechanic. You cannot hit what you cannot see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,781
Member
5,164 posts
9,111 battles

Ammo damage increasing skills = no no without limitation. And the HE/SAP damage skill for CRs is kinda stupid because of the weird concealment drawback.

Remember how AFT/BFT had a gun size limit? If all those new skills have gun size limits, it'd be better. While it limits choices, some ships simply don't deserve having their ammo damage increased.

Examples: AP damage for CRs cannot include 280 mm or higher, for BBs it's 411 mm. Torpedo damage skill? Only 533 and 550.

 

CE is actually optional now... for certain ships. If you run a gunboat Kita/Haru/Moga/Kleb/Khab, etc., I don't think you would need to pick CE, if you pick the skill that reduce reload time when you're spotted ("Fearless"). That would be good for those ships. And only those ships. Would you run CE on a Kleb that you will be gun blazing regardless!? If you play a ship that is torpedo-focused, why do you pick Fearless?

So while I think this rework does give more diversity, some skills should be replaced with something that don't scream "I DIRECTLY INCREASE YOUR DAMAGE OUTPUT!"

Can I have an Upgrade that increases shell speeds for certain shell sizes...

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14
[AUSSI]
Member
19 posts

Captains the weather radar is showing hurricane force winds with expected heavy seas ahead.  The Commander skills rework is going to be bigger than the CV rework as it will affect every ship in the game.  I think I will just redistribute every commander I have back to zero assigned skills with the free reset.  Reset just a few commanders on my favorite ships and weather the storm coming.  One positive is the ability to set up commander skills for different classes of ship with one Captain.  After getting through the hurricane and the weather is fair again I will reallocate my other Captain skills again.  Hopefully by then I will understand what skills will work best for me.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,076
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,402 posts
11,335 battles
31 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

CE is actually optional now... for certain ships. If you run a gunboat Kita/Haru/Moga/Kleb/Khab, etc., I don't think you would need to pick CE, if you pick the skill that reduce reload time when you're spotted ("Fearless"). That would be good for those ships. And only those ships. Would you run CE on a Kleb that you will be gun blazing regardless!? If you play a ship that is torpedo-focused, why do you pick Fearless?

In some of my DD's I actively don't want to run CE.  Specifically if I want to disengage, or at least kite away, on contact with an enemy DD, then I am better off without CE.  This is because I will be spotted at longer range, and can begin kiting from further away, thus minimising my chance of taking damage.  Most full gunboats that aren't specifically DD hunters actively don't want concealment, and radar DD's don't really need it as well.  In Smaland I don't run concealment, because as soon as I am spotted at 6.8km I can radar and whack the enemy DD, and it enables me to go full gunboat (1-PM, 2-AR, 3-SE/BFT/SI/DE, 4-AFT) rather than standard gunboat (1-PT, 2-AR/LS, 3-SE/BFT, 4-AFT/CE).  This gives me a much stronger build overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
765
[SMOKE]
Member
2,215 posts
17,119 battles

My take

Cons :

  • too many old skill just taken as is and really not tailored to the specific class applied , this happen for all class of surface ships , prime example being the IFHE ( what's the new name anyway ) , pegged to +25% pen on DD , hell we all know why its reduced from 30% to 25% and its to balance the mad machine gun CL caliber , but aside from 3 , exactly 3 out of all the DD , none had this kind of gun and that +25% had proven pretty useless for the small guns already, so why just take the 25% value and apply it to DD class when all know it should be something more . Similar for BB and Cruiser, and why are so many skill just taken off the old one and not use the chance to actually balance, tailor it to the class in concern
  • too many % based skill buff that turn out - do not help those who need the buff cause their base value is of no help , buff the nominal middle of the road one to a degree that do not actually specialize , only marginally better; buff the already good or superlative to even more OP .. call that a balance
  • re mapping of old skill captains had onto the new skill set if awful, had Captain that had old skill that clearly can be had in the new skill straight off the same but would be mapped to something else, and skill that had equivalent then had it mapped to something totally irrelevant , pls WG, just reset the points so people ca allocate themselves
  • too many mis-placed skill , skill that should be for one class was fashioned to another and vice versa, the Torpedo specialization part is very apparent and so is the AP buff
  • Direct Damage buff given the many who do not deserve it and yet do not give to those who need it - that AP buff on Cruiser clearly so, its Cruiser guns already and yet it say +7% for guns that 190mm and above , hell that really discourage CL for utilizing their close in and AP instead of HE spamming, it should be something like +7% on guns under 180mm, and +5% on guns above it, and why is that same skill on DD only buff to +5%, clearly discrimination here
  • Reload buff again too many % based which , while benefit the really slow , pretty much useless on faster , middle of the road ships , but so many are there , again this look like trying to balance for so many but end up pretty much not suited for those who actually need it to specialize.
  • Old skill that are nerfed but do not take into account its effect on different class of ships ; Pyro is the prime example , if the game really do not want more HE spamming, get rid of it, if allowing for these HE specialization then made it work , from -2% to -1% sound little, but for a Cruiser who already had base value like 10% , 15% its only a less than 10% reduction, but on a DD wit say 5%, 7% that 1 & is hugh nerf and if you allow that specialization then made it work, but my take, if you cannot actually balance it then get rid of it. Smilar case for some Cruiser / BB skill, which kind of defeat the purpose of differentiation for classes
  • Skill value differentiation for different classes , you want to emphasis the class difference not making them all the same , and that goes within a class as well as between classes, and too many skill are still tailored for trying to please all and work for none
  • Lack of some key skill for classes , DD is perhaps the worst effected, WG trying too much to give it too many and then left out too many, but this is the same for Cruiser and BB if we look at the skill on offer ( all of them ) , one can realize some skill for one class of ship actually only benefit a little and instead should be on another class of ship but is not
  • Lack of defensive skill for DD, and Cruiser
  • lack of versatility skill for BB
  • lack of support skill for CV
  • Many useless skill .... come on do we really need Watchful eye these days, how often you do not encounter a shoot from more than 4.5KM in a game, its more like absolute majority of them are , even among DDs ... and there are more of these
  • Questionable skills : AP Damage buff in particular, we all know its not the lack of damage , its the range, the ricochet angle. .... ah .... Increase torpedo chance of flooding, hell no body complain about that its the over nerfed detection distance ( especially on IJN torp ) and the lack of range , same IFHE for BB secondaries useless for too may at +25%, just as its useless for DD, and then there are others , the problem still the same , % based specialization had to be balanced , and with such it made the skill useless for those in need, only marginally OK for most, and the already OP even more OP

 

 

Pro

  • well  you can specialize now for class , nit just one set for all
  • some new skill can be useful but had to wait and see
  • well not much I shall say , I say it only partially specialize ..
Edited by Mechfori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,168
[CLAY]
Beta Tester
4,820 posts
21,559 battles
12 minutes ago, NOJ_iron said:

Captains the weather radar is showing hurricane force winds with expected heavy seas ahead.  The Commander skills rework is going to be bigger than the CV rework as it will affect every ship in the game.  I think I will just redistribute every commander I have back to zero assigned skills with the free reset.  Reset just a few commanders on my favorite ships and weather the storm coming.  One positive is the ability to set up commander skills for different classes of ship with one Captain.  After getting through the hurricane and the weather is fair again I will reallocate my other Captain skills again.  Hopefully by then I will understand what skills will work best for me.

I have done this on previous capt skill changes and free resets.

The wait and see method seems wise to me too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
765
[SMOKE]
Member
2,215 posts
17,119 battles
12 minutes ago, Max_Battle said:

I have done this on previous capt skill changes and free resets.

The wait and see method seems wise to me too.

Last time thye did this, first thing I do , I go through the Roster and reset each and everyone  , WG should made that automatic and that goes for Captain already on a sip and Captain in reserve

Edited by Mechfori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,168
[CLAY]
Beta Tester
4,820 posts
21,559 battles
2 minutes ago, Mechfori said:

WG should made that automatic 

Well, maybe a global one click option would be nice.

I don't think everyone would appreciate an auto global reset.

I like choosing and tweaking, I don't think EVERYONE does! 😛

 

Edited by Max_Battle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
765
[SMOKE]
Member
2,215 posts
17,119 battles
5 minutes ago, Max_Battle said:

Well, maybe a global one click option would be nice.

I don't think everyone would appreciate an auto global reset.

...

 

Sounds good for me

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[TWR]
Alpha Tester
1,592 posts
5,569 battles

Exactly how much sit down and spend many hours %#$#ing around with my captains and ships, am I gonna have to do here, if I have say 100-150 ships, 200 captains?.

I will also just reset ALL of them and play for a while, wait and see how the damn system works before building a captain.

resetting will just cost soooo much REAL MONEY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,781
Member
5,164 posts
9,111 battles
1 minute ago, Metal_illness said:

resetting will just cost soooo much REAL MONEY.

Congrats, you've figured it out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[TWR]
Alpha Tester
1,592 posts
5,569 battles
Just now, Paladinum said:

Congrats, you've figured it out!

See, I don't deserve the teams I get.

I'm in a different league.

WG puts me in the league under the sea....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
765
[SMOKE]
Member
2,215 posts
17,119 battles

Another interesting discovery I got off the PTS is that some specialization build actually could be made ( especially at T9 and T10 when coupled with the last slot of upgrade ) but for the part player will not do it cause WG made it so that specialization sacrifice too much on the other part of the ships need and the specialization do not return enough of a return so to speak ; say Colbert , Smolensk, Atlanta, Flint, and might be Austin down the road , they can be made to be super strong AA support, but why made it an AA support when you know even if you can down the whole squad, come around the CV still can send them after you wave after wave, and then doing all the AA do not reward really any and your other aspect of performance will be severely hampered both offensive and defensive ...

This is not the skill rework's fault, its the combination of Specification, and game score / reward mechanism .. so while on face value you can specialize , you would not .. cause it us do no play out OK for the individual player and the individual ship to be able to " perform " , and I had to use the word in quote cause  what it means is that it cannot perform what the game actually score and reward, it can do the specialization part very good in fact , I try Smolensk with a full AA specialization ( except Upgrade slot 2 which I choose Smoke Upgrade instead ) and its very effective but again while it do the AA support real good , it benefit others but severely punish the individual player playing the ship .. CV now know where you are and your smoke is not going to reload faster than the planes send your way , downing all the plane score and reward little , you had practically no offensive skill against surface ships, some DD can do it better than you do and shoot further ... go figure. And I try also on Cruiser AP / Damage build, well when it score it score but most of the time the limitation is too great ( did we all not know that already in the Royal Navy CL ) and BB, ah BB .. secondary build ... sorry just do not work .. the problem with any brawling build today ( even defensive tank build ) is that while the BB can go brawl, your team's Cruiser and DD simply cannot survive in that close in rage and unable to support and when they cannot support you, you just become a mobile target and at that range , nothing gone to help. The game need a team, a fleet to work at anything other that just ranged , and the mechanism, the skill just do not give enough for most ship to do that.

Specialization is good, give the game variety but when this specialization get too far to made the individual ship or class of ships unable to survive, unable to fight , and most of all unable to perform ( score and reward ) people will not do it and it end up everyone just play for that one build only ....

 

As a side-note, almost all CL still shafted , almost all the Cruiser skill balanced for CA and cater to the CA/CB , when the only skill(s) that's had value tailored for CL are tailored to limit, to nerf, not to specialize ....  Its no wonder why CL adopt the mad HE spamming approach these days and the change do not actually allow specialization to deviate from that , it only try to limit it and then not give any options , this apply to DD ( torpedo boat side ) , BB ( brawling hybrid Tank / secondary ) also , I simply do not understand why the skill favor even more ranged , sniping 

Edited by Mechfori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,850
[151ST]
Member
2,996 posts
11,069 battles
2 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

How is this different to indirect damage buffs, like increases to fire chance or rate of fire?

Yeah see I'd get rid of half of those if I had my way. It's different in that it provides a higher maximum for them to balance which they've demonstrated time and again they aren't great at doing.

In reworking the skills and adding these new types of skills in that increase damage potential, we don't fully know the worst combinations yet.

At the very minimum CVs are the last class that need more AP damge at this stage in the game.

We've gone through some of these motions before, I'm surprised you wanted to rehash the same disagreement.

Before I get any further though...

3 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

Thanks for the write up based on actual PTR experience, I think it's really useful info.

You're welcome! I enjoy doing the write-ups and having these sorts of discussions with you all, even if you are wrong on the damage skills Moggy... :Smile_trollface:

I didn't do as much testing as I would like, I just focused on niches and some common ships to get a decent idea.

3 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

This gives genuine options that completely change the way you play the ship

I was thinking that way initially but after a set of 'must picks' that I personally would take on just about all DDs, I wasn't left with enough points to make much of a difference DD to DD, it's much like the existing system. Time will tell but that's what I was finding.

3 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

Choosing concealment or not is a valid choice, and a good one to have to make. 

 

2 hours ago, Paladinum said:

CE is actually optional now... for certain ships.

I completely disagree, perhaps on Khaba but honestly I don't think concealment will stop being king. It'll be god like it always has.

But this is another time will tell thing, IMO spotting by CVs is so prevalent at the moment you are crazy not to...

3 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

This is where I think BB's are actually getting their biggest buff - they will be able to get the most important tanking skills (BoS, FP) while still taking all the most important secondary skills.  Because of this I have hope that there will be more than one viable build for BB's.

I'm not so sure... For Yamato I actually ran out of points for BoS from memory... I'd have to redo the maths but it comes back to concealment being such an autopick that I ended up doing a FP or DCP+Heal skill choice for one of the 4 points.

Secondaries - ManSec (almost an autopick for KM secondaries) is no where near as good if flamu is right, which is a concern.

Increasing secondary range is all good and well but it's getting to the point where KM BBs being 'secondary' isn't as much of a thing due to the accuracy issue.

It's still a similar problem, you don't get THAT much more tankiness from the new system compared to the old, particularly if you get all the cqb skills... ...

But time will tell, I weight concealment heavily so if that falls over as a thing (I firmly believe it will be as important as ever) then I'll need to re-evaluate.

 

Share this post


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

×