No new Capt. Skills without Public Test first

[Willy55_1955]

Hi.

Well, I don't know anyone who asked for this massive, monumental change in a major game mechanic. What is more surprising is that supposedly they received feedback since their first posting of this massive change through a SuperTest ("We would like to thank you for your feedback that allowed us to improve the new commander skill system!"). Now, one would have thought WG had learned from the CV Rework fiasco, but I guess not.

So this was a Super Test? So a group of Super Testers input feedback on a fundamental change to a game mechanic and they don't post it to the Public Test Server for players to test and provide feedback? They put up a Public Test server to test updates, a special test server for submarines, but NOT for this massive revamp of the Capt. Skills.

They add 2 more skill points (just 2?). They use skill names with NO relevance to the actual skill (Provident, Dazzling, Fearless, Threshing, Enduring, Argus-Eyed, Propulsive (what was wrong with Last Stand?), and more. Not confusing at all! Everybody will certainly learn all these in no time (tongue in cheek). Could have done better with the descriptions:

Liquidator = Enhanced Torpedo Damage

Alarming - Back to Incoming Fire Alert

Argus-Eyed = Back to Priority Target

Really, is the basis for the skill is the same, despite any stat changes, leave the skill name to what it was.

Why not put these changes up on the Public Test server or a special test server like the Submarines and let the player base get used to the changes, naming schemes and play with the different builds. This will be a disaster if you just pop it on the player base unless the player base can have some time to get used to it. Then release it f to a full patch cycle with free Commander Skill resets, etc.

[Bill1923]

Give WG a break.

How would they ever break the cycle of complaints about the CV rework if they didn't do something even more asinine to grab players' attention?

[AJTP89]

[paradat]

52 minutes ago, Willy55_1955 said:

Hi.

Well, I don't know anyone who asked for this massive, monumental change in a major game mechanic. What is more surprising is that supposedly they received feedback since their first posting of this massive change through a SuperTest ("We would like to thank you for your feedback that allowed us to improve the new commander skill system!"). Now, one would have thought WG had learned from the CV Rework fiasco, but I guess not.

So this was a Super Test? So a group of Super Testers input feedback on a fundamental change to a game mechanic and they don't post it to the Public Test server for players to test and provide feedback? They put up a Public Test server to test updates, a special test server for submarines, but NOT for this massive revamp of the Capt. Skills.

They add 2 more skill points (just 2?). They use skill names with NO relevance to the actual skill (Provident, Dazzling, Fearless, Threshing, Enduring, Argus-Eyed, Propulsive (what was wrong with Last Stand?), and more. Not confusing at all! Everybody will certainly learn all these in no time. Couldn't do better with the descriptions:

Liquidator = Enhanced Torpedo Damage

Alarming - Back to Incoming Fire Alert

Argus-Eyed = Back to Priority Target

Really, is the basis for the skill is the same, despite any stat changes, leave the skill name to what it was.

Why not put these changes up on the Public Test server or a special test server like the Submarines and let the player base get used to the changes, naming schemes and play with the different builds. This will be a disaster if you just pop it on the player base unless the player base can have some time to get used to it. Then release it f to a full patch cycle with free Commander Skill resets, etc.

Several CC and players have asked for this for a long time. We currently have very limited best builds. The Captain skill tree lacks many side builds. 

[Learux]

WG at work, why are you even complaining? Here to improve your game and get your money!

[Taichunger]

2 hours ago, paradat said:

Several CC and players have asked for this for a long time. We currently have very limited best builds. The Captain skill tree lacks many side builds. 

Sure, but by removing tank builds for cruisers, it has actually reduced side builds.

There is nothing to stop them from raising the captain skill level to 21 points and then adding more skills to the current set. From what I understand in reading this, managing all this stuff on one captain is quite a headache. I quite like the way it is.

Right now I have captains like my Okhotnik--gremy--leningrad--kiev captain or my Tirp--Odin--Pommern--PE Fred captain. I know these well, augmenting them with two more points and increased skills would be child's play.

By contrast, keeping track of Captain X and his three set ups on three different ship types is going to be a major PIA.

 

[Estimated_Prophet]

3 hours ago, paradat said:

Several CC and players have asked for this for a long time. We currently have very limited best builds. The Captain skill tree lacks many side builds. 

"So what?' or 'Who cares?' Either expression of indifference about a'rework' which will benefit only a very few works for me.

53 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

Sure, but by removing tank builds for cruisers, it has actually reduced side builds.

There is nothing to stop them from raising the captain skill level to 21 points and then adding more skills to the current set. From what I understand in reading this, managing all this stuff on one captain is quite a headache. I quite like the way it is.

Right now I have captains like my Okhotnik--gremy--leningrad--kiev captain or my Tirp--Odin--Pommern--PE Fred captain. I know these well, augmenting them with two more points and increased skills would be child's play.

By contrast, keeping track of Captain X and his three set ups on three different ship types is going to be a major PIA.

Only min/max fanatics and tryhards are going to get any real benefit out of this.

I would expect the rest will be effectively unaware it exists, will consider it too much trouble to deal with after brief experimentation, or just plain won't care.

[Snargfargle]

4 hours ago, Willy55_1955 said:

I don't know anyone who asked for this massive, monumental change in a major game mechanic.

It's not a "massive" but only a modest change, plus they are giving commanders two more points so you will have a little more room to work in. So what if commander skills are changing a bit? Personally, I'm looking forward to the free respec and also to trying out the new skills. Maybe some of my ships will play a bit differently but who cares? 

[monpetitloup]

I think its good there is no public test, becaus those things only allow the select few to get a heads up over everyone else. This way everyone has the same timeframe to learn the new system. Cant get more democratic than that.

part of the problem with the cv rework is you had all the early testers already knowing the exploits before the majority of players even figured out how to fly the planes. This is clearly not fair.

[Camo68]

It's really about opening up a new revenue stream, if you look at the changes in that light they make more sense.

 

 

[CV_Jeebies]

45 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

It's not a "massive" but only a modest change, plus they are giving commanders two more points so you will have a little more room to work in. So what if commander skills are changing a bit? Personally, I'm looking forward to the free respec and also to trying out the new skills. Maybe some of my ships will play a bit differently but who cares? 

Well sure, those 2 points however cost more than a 19pt commander.  If the total cost of a 19pt commander is 1, the cost of a 21pt commander is 2.5.

This situation could be somewhat alleviated if a captain could receive advanced command course for ~1k doubs or equivalent and be able to be tied to TWO tech ships at a time.  Otherwise the whole "a unique config for each class" is wasted on everything but premiums.  I already have enough 19pt commanders for many nations where there's a build for every potential ship variant and even variants of that.   I've got 6 19pt commanders for US DDs, and 5 more for BBs.  I've even got 2 19s for my T10 ships ie: a torp commander and gunboat commander for gearing.   I'm also about to hit 10 mil Cap'n XP, especially these clan brawls where I've probably made around 1.5mil.   Being able to tie a commander to 2 TT ships would certainly help given that a commanders max worth is going to increase to 2.5x that of which are invested into a 19pt.

I'd personally like to see 8 new skills added to the current line up and a 2pt bump in the commander's total pts.  Some of these skills appear as if they're going to substantially alter the characteristics of ships, especially those already on the edge of being broken. 8% speed increase on frenchies?!?

[Snargfargle]

2 minutes ago, CV_Jeebies said:

 Otherwise the whole "a unique config for each class" is wasted on everything but premiums. 

You are correct. The Unique config for each class will mainly benefit those who have Premiums, especially more than one per nation. 

[Wye_So_Serious]

7 hours ago, Willy55_1955 said:

Hi.

Well, I don't know anyone who asked for this massive, monumental change in a major game mechanic. What is more surprising is that supposedly they received feedback since their first posting of this massive change through a SuperTest ("We would like to thank you for your feedback that allowed us to improve the new commander skill system!"). Now, one would have thought WG had learned from the CV Rework fiasco, but I guess not.

So this was a Super Test? So a group of Super Testers input feedback on a fundamental change to a game mechanic and they don't post it to the Public Test server for players to test and provide feedback? They put up a Public Test server to test updates, a special test server for submarines, but NOT for this massive revamp of the Capt. Skills.

They add 2 more skill points (just 2?). They use skill names with NO relevance to the actual skill (Provident, Dazzling, Fearless, Threshing, Enduring, Argus-Eyed, Propulsive (what was wrong with Last Stand?), and more. Not confusing at all! Everybody will certainly learn all these in no time. Couldn't do better with the descriptions:

Liquidator = Enhanced Torpedo Damage

Alarming - Back to Incoming Fire Alert

Argus-Eyed = Back to Priority Target

Really, is the basis for the skill is the same, despite any stat changes, leave the skill name to what it was.

Why not put these changes up on the Public Test server or a special test server like the Submarines and let the player base get used to the changes, naming schemes and play with the different builds. This will be a disaster if you just pop it on the player base unless the player base can have some time to get used to it. Then release it f to a full patch cycle with free Commander Skill resets, etc.

You write as if you think WG gives a  about it’s playerbase.

[pepe_trueno]

6 hours ago, paradat said:

Several CC and players have asked for this for a long time. We currently have very limited best builds. The Captain skill tree lacks many side builds. 

quite sure no one is against more variety but is this rework realy going to bring a significant increace in choices? so far it looks like more of the same but with extra grind.

 

it would have been much easier and less convulted to add variants to existing skills, Variants that could be unlocked using captain free exp say "concealment expert" skill:

Variant 1: -10% to the detection radius of all ships and aircraft launched from them. (current)

Variant 2: -20% to the detection radius of all ships and aircraft launched from them, -15% to main gun and torpedos max range, -25% aircraft speed 

Variant 3:  -5% to the detection radius of all ships and aircraft launched from them, reduce duration of concealment penalty from firing the main guns by 50% 

 

or manual secondary

Variant 1: -60% to the maximum dispersion of shells for the secondary armament ships, only shoot at targeted ships

Variant 2: -40% to the maximum dispersion of shells for the secondary armament ships, has no target limit

Variant 3: -90% to the max dispersion of  secondary guns , +20% to secondary range, main guns -15% to max range and 15% increace of max dispersion

 

and the list goes on.

  

 

 

 

[Bandi73]

7 hours ago, Willy55_1955 said:

Hi.......

 

 

.....

Why not put these changes up on the Public Test server or a special test server like the Submarines and let the player base get used to the changes, naming schemes and play with the different builds. This will be a disaster if you just pop it on the player base unless the player base can have some time to get used to it. Then release it f to a full patch cycle with free Commander Skill resets, etc.

 

While I agree with your pov, PTS is used to test mainly the reward systems and mechanics and to filter out possible game breaking bugs. NOT anything  related.to actual gameplay and game mechanics

[WarStore]

8 hours ago, Willy55_1955 said:

Hi.

Well, I don't know anyone who asked for this massive, monumental change in a major game mechanic. What is more surprising is that supposedly they received feedback since their first posting of this massive change through a SuperTest ("We would like to thank you for your feedback that allowed us to improve the new commander skill system!"). Now, one would have thought WG had learned from the CV Rework fiasco, but I guess not.

So this was a Super Test? So a group of Super Testers input feedback on a fundamental change to a game mechanic and they don't post it to the Public Test server for players to test and provide feedback? They put up a Public Test server to test updates, a special test server for submarines, but NOT for this massive revamp of the Capt. Skills.

They add 2 more skill points (just 2?). They use skill names with NO relevance to the actual skill (Provident, Dazzling, Fearless, Threshing, Enduring, Argus-Eyed, Propulsive (what was wrong with Last Stand?), and more. Not confusing at all! Everybody will certainly learn all these in no time. Couldn't do better with the descriptions:

Liquidator = Enhanced Torpedo Damage

Alarming - Back to Incoming Fire Alert

Argus-Eyed = Back to Priority Target

Really, is the basis for the skill is the same, despite any stat changes, leave the skill name to what it was.

Why not put these changes up on the Public Test server or a special test server like the Submarines and let the player base get used to the changes, naming schemes and play with the different builds. This will be a disaster if you just pop it on the player base unless the player base can have some time to get used to it. Then release it f to a full patch cycle with free Commander Skill resets, etc.

You are getting this wrong. Those two more points were not designed to make your ship better. They are designed to make you grind more and give WG more money, as you will get less benefits with more skills.

 

[Skpstr]

5 hours ago, Taichunger said:

From what I understand in reading this, managing all this stuff on one captain is quite a headache. I quite like the way it is.

Right now I have captains like my Okhotnik--gremy--leningrad--kiev captain or my Tirp--Odin--Pommern--PE Fred captain. I know these well, augmenting them with two more points and increased skills would be child's play.

By contrast, keeping track of Captain X and his three set ups on three different ship types is going to be a major PIA.

 

So don't do it. If you are happy with the way you do things now, there is no reason to change.

You can respec your Russian DD and German BB captains, totally ignore their other profiles, and carry on exactly as you have been.

In fact, if you don't really care about the utility provided, why would you even consider doing the multiple profiles?

Heck, I like the idea, and I'm probably only going to do 10 or so out of 96 captains.

[Skpstr]

2 hours ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

You write as if you think WG gives a  about it’s playerbase.

I find it amusing how many people believe exactly that, and then profess outrage when WG does something that they ought to expect.

[Weapon_of_Proliferation]

10 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

I find it amusing how many people believe exactly that, and then profess outrage when WG does something that they ought to expect.

Yes, watching people get angry for having their game destroyed in the span of two years is very amusing...for some.

For me, this is my third rodeo of this kind with WG, and I still haven't never reached the 'amused' state.

[Skpstr]

6 minutes ago, Weapon_of_Proliferation said:

Yes, watching people get angry for having their game destroyed in the span of two years is very amusing...for some.

It's not the anger, that's understandable. It's the surprised outrage, "how could WG stoop so low?"

Quote

For me, this is my third rodeo of this kind with WG, and I still haven't never reached the 'amused' state.

You need to have a certain detachment (which being upset at what WG does hinders) and a keen eye for trends in human behaviour. And a minor attraction to schadenfreude doesn't hurt either.

Most of all, you need to be able to call yourself out on similar behaviour you notice in others.

[Weapon_of_Proliferation]

1 minute ago, Skpstr said:

It's not the anger, that's understandable. It's the surprised outrage, "how could WG stoop so low?"

You need to have a certain detachment (which being upset at what WG does hinders) and a keen eye for trends in human behaviour. And a minor attraction to schadenfreude doesn't hurt either.

lol, thanks

[Skpstr]

1 minute ago, Weapon_of_Proliferation said:

lol, thanks

And I basically added that you have to be able to identify such behaviours in yourself too. 

That's probably the biggest thing.

[Weapon_of_Proliferation]

3 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

And I basically added that you have to be able to identify such behaviours in yourself too. 

That's probably the biggest thing.

I could have just applied a vintage cat-of-nine-tails to myself and saved myself a lotta time and money.

Ah, hindsight.

[Freelancerinc]

I'll throw my hat into the group of "this should have alot of testing done before it becomes the next CV rework", this rework is going to affect more builds negatively than positively. I'm sure at some point someone from WG will say that they put the skills through an algorithm or a spreadsheet, and that it won't affect any ships negatively or will some how balance ships across the board.

 

I'm not against a skill rework. I'm against a large change to the game that has extremely minimal testing, and hinders many ships. Lack of testing has been proven to be a bad thing historically.

[Skpstr]

39 minutes ago, Weapon_of_Proliferation said:

I could have just applied a vintage cat-of-nine-tails to myself and saved myself a lotta time and money.

Ah, hindsight.

Yeah, doesn't hurt that I'm basically cheap lol.

I don't mind paying for premium, as that's pretty straight up and not expensive.

The other thing is, if I spent money and got ships, I'd feel obligated to play them, and I'd rather just play whatever I'm in the mood for.