Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
ArIskandir

On Deadeye's conditional

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

8,067
[SALVO]
Members
12,964 posts
8,608 battles

Imo, the problem with Deadeye is its conditional. Linking the skill to detection range is not a good idea for obvious reasons, in practical use the skill provides a bonus without any drawbacks which wouldn't be a bad thing in itself but considered in relation to other skills and build options (that include clear drawbacks or are much more difficult to activate) is clearly the superior and best choice of skill. 

The logic solution would be to change its conditional to a flat debuff on some other aspect in exchange of the buff to accuracy. I think a debuff to reload would be a nice exchange for the increase in accuracy, turning the choice less obvious and orienting it towards what it is intended to be, a true sniper skill and not just a long range spam promotion skill. Also making it unrelated to Concealment would help mitigate the "need to remain at range or lose 4 point skill" conundrum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,328
[BGA]
[BGA]
Alpha Tester
3,941 posts
31,068 battles
14 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Imo, the problem with Deadeye is its conditional. Linking the skill to detection range is not a good idea for obvious reasons, in practical use the skill provides a bonus without any drawbacks which wouldn't be a bad thing in itself but considered in relation to other skills and build options (that include clear drawbacks or are much more difficult to activate) is clearly the superior and best choice of skill. 

The logic solution would be to change its conditional to a flat debuff on some other aspect in exchange of the buff to accuracy. I think a debuff to reload would be a nice exchange for the increase in accuracy, turning the choice less obvious and orienting it towards what it is intended to be, a true sniper skill and not just a long range spam promotion skill. Also making it unrelated to Concealment would help mitigate the "need to remain at range or lose 4 point skill" conundrum. 

I made a proposal saying they should switch the Super Heavy AP debuffs to Dead Eye at least. That when if the dead eye BB gets spotted it pays for it whether it be from another ship or a CV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,067
[SALVO]
Members
12,964 posts
8,608 battles
Just now, Skuggsja said:

I made a proposal saying they should switch the Super Heavy AP debuffs to Dead Eye at least. That when if the dead eye BB gets spotted it pays for it whether it be from another ship or a CV.

I don't think that would solve the "don't come near me" issue, just worsen it. It would make them pay of course, and turn the skill a lot less attractive, but imo it would still be promoting the "far away" game play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,323
[KWF]
Members
6,767 posts
7,444 battles

Would rather get "Liveeye"; starting from your standard concealment,  the closer your distance to an enemy in km, the higher a dispersion buff you get. So let's say you are a Roma with 11,7km concealment, at 1,7km from an enemy you get 10% better dispersion. Problem solved, I'm ready to solve even more problems, WG hire me :Smile_trollface:

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,328
[BGA]
[BGA]
Alpha Tester
3,941 posts
31,068 battles
13 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

I don't think that would solve the "don't come near me" issue, just worsen it. It would make them pay of course, and turn the skill a lot less attractive, but imo it would still be promoting the "far away" game play.

It making it less attractive would help. However, the idea is more that when you fire you're at greater risk of Dot Damage because at range there isnt much risk from any other damage source outside of CV. Most BBs arent going to be worried about other battleship shells unless they start fires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
862 posts
1,050 battles
49 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Would rather get "Liveeye"; starting from your standard concealment,  the closer your distance to an enemy in km, the higher a dispersion buff you get. So let's say you are a Roma with 11,7km concealment, at 1,7km from an enemy you get 10% better dispersion. Problem solved, I'm ready to solve even more problems, WG hire me :Smile_trollface:

Liveeye: reduces dispersion when you are in torp range of a dd and have been moving in a straight line for 3 secs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,067
[SALVO]
Members
12,964 posts
8,608 battles
2 minutes ago, Lose_dudes said:

Liveeye: reduces dispersion when you are in torp range of a dd and have been moving in a straight line for 3 secs

Sounds more like Soon-to-be-deadeye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
862 posts
1,050 battles
3 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Sounds more like Soon-to-be-deadeye

I'd love to meet a liveeye bb

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,483
[ARS]
Beta Testers
7,786 posts
8,472 battles

The problem is that none of this really fixes the root problem.  Sure, it would be better than it is now, but the root problem, excessive lethality, remains.  Too many skills increase lethality and not enough boost durability.  The result is nobody wants to risk being caught a little too far forward, spotted and focus fired into oblivion.  The existing Dead Eye skill simply exacerbates this pre-existing problem.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,067
[SALVO]
Members
12,964 posts
8,608 battles
10 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

The problem is that none of this really fixes the root problem.  Sure, it would be better than it is now, but the root problem, excessive lethality, remains.  Too many skills increase lethality and not enough boost durability.  The result is nobody wants to risk being caught a little too far forward, spotted and focus fired into oblivion.  The existing Dead Eye skill simply exacerbates this pre-existing problem.

I agree, the focus seems to be on increasing damage of every kind. Few of the skill are focused on survivability. Considered in that light tho, by exchanging an increase in accuracy for a decrease in rate of fire might help keep the lethality index in check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,036
Members
34,409 posts
10,768 battles
2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Imo, the problem with Deadeye is its conditional. Linking the skill to detection range is not a good idea for obvious reasons, in practical use the skill provides a bonus without any drawbacks which wouldn't be a bad thing in itself but considered in relation to other skills and build options (that include clear drawbacks or are much more difficult to activate) is clearly the superior and best choice of skill. 

The logic solution would be to change its conditional to a flat debuff on some other aspect in exchange of the buff to accuracy. I think a debuff to reload would be a nice exchange for the increase in accuracy, turning the choice less obvious and orienting it towards what it is intended to be, a true sniper skill and not just a long range spam promotion skill. Also making it unrelated to Concealment would help mitigate the "need to remain at range or lose 4 point skill" conundrum. 

I dunno if that would make much difference.

I know that I've debuffed reload on most of my high tier BBs, simply by replacing MBM3 with MBM2. (now that I can hit effectively at longer ranges) I'm sure others are doing the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,067
[SALVO]
Members
12,964 posts
8,608 battles
1 minute ago, Skpstr said:

I dunno if that would make much difference.

I know that I've debuffed reload on most of my high tier BBs, simply by replacing MBM3 with MBM2. (now that I can hit effectively at longer ranges) I'm sure others are doing the same.

First, it would remove the "need" to be at range to use the skill.

Second, it would introduce a payback from using the skill. The point is not making the skill useless or nonviable, but presenting you a choice on par with other possible skill options. Say you incur in a +20% reload time, now you need to consider if the skill is worth the price or not. The skill selection wouldn't be as trivial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,483
[ARS]
Beta Testers
7,786 posts
8,472 battles
14 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

I agree, the focus seems to be on increasing damage of every kind. Few of the skill are focused on survivability. Considered in that light tho, by exchanging an increase in accuracy for a decrease in rate of fire might help keep the lethality index in check.

I agree it would make it better.  Ideally the reduction in rate of fire should be significant, on the order of 20-30%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,067
[SALVO]
Members
12,964 posts
8,608 battles
1 minute ago, Helstrem said:

I agree it would make it better.  Ideally the reduction in rate of fire should be significant, on the order of 20-30%.

agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,036
Members
34,409 posts
10,768 battles
13 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

First, it would remove the "need" to be at range to use the skill.

Second, it would introduce a payback from using the skill. The point is not making the skill useless or nonviable, but presenting you a choice on par with other possible skill options. Say you incur in a +20% reload time, now you need to consider if the skill is worth the price or not. The skill selection wouldn't be as trivial.

Fair enough, I missed that you would remove the range condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×