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

2 Suggestions for Deadeye Changes

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

28
[EGO]
Members
85 posts
16,662 battles

I've been thinking about how to change Deadeye to reduce its negative effects on the game (i.e. other BB players being unwilling to move up because something might get spotted within their surface detection radius and cause the skill they spent four points on to deactivate).  In short, I feel like the all-or-nothing nature of Deadeye needs to be removed.  Instead,  I propose trying one of the following:

1.) Make Deadeye a scaled dispersion buff that doesn't rely on a ship's detection radius - it's always active vs. targets at the appropriate range.  It would start at a minimum value at a percentage of a ship's maximum range and ramp up to full value right at the edge of maximum range.  To avoid confusion and not penalize ships that take additional range upgrades, I'd have "max range" include modules but not upgrades, spotter planes, or weather effects.

For instance a fully unlocked Iowa has a maximum range of 23.3km with the Mk. 9 Mod. 2 Gun Fire Control System module.  As such, it would get the full bonus only around the 23km mark.  If the same ship also mounted the Artillery Plotting Room Modification 1 upgrade, it's actual maximum range  would increase from 23.3km to 27.1km.  However, the effects of Deadeye wouldn't ramp up any further; they'd hit maximum around 23km and have the same dispersion percentage bonus from 23km to 27km.

With that said, the exact point at which the dispersion buff starts would need to be determined, as would the percentage upgrade.  Let's use the Iowa as an example and assume the dispersion boost starts at 1% at roughly half of the ship's maximum range and scales up in a linear manner to 10% at just before maximum range.   This means the Iowa would get a 1% dispersion boost at roughly 11.6km which would increase to 10% at 23.km.

To compare this to the current state of Deadeye, an Iowa with a full concealment build has a surface detection radius of 12.7km, meaning that is gets a flat 10% dispersion boost against any target 12.71km out or further (assuming there aren't any spotted ships within their surface detection radius).  As such, an enemy cruiser at 13km would face the full brunt of 10% improved dispersion.  In contrast, it would only be a roughly 2% increase at 13km with range-scaling Deadeye as described above.  (Again this is assuming the boost starts at half of the ship's max range and maxes out at 10%; this could be changed to cover more of the range or have a higher or lower percentage boost.)

The intent of this suggestion is to make longer ranged battleship gunnery somewhat more comfortable than it was prior to the commander skill rework while not promoting "stay back as far as you can to keep Deadeye active" gameplay.

2.)  My second suggestion is more simple: instead of dispersion, have Deadeye boost main battery shell velocity somewhat.  This would be an always-active buff with no conditions attached to its use.  Whether is should be a percentage buff or a flat boost is hard to say, though there's definitely an argument for a flat amount in terms of making sure the skill is equally effective for any battleship which takes it (instead of providing the most bang for those battleships which already have speedy shells).  This would result in rounds arriving sooner, making it somewhat easier to hit maneuvering enemies at range.  As it wouldn't improve dispersion, battleships using this version of Deadeye would still have to contend with wide dispersion ellipses at longer ranges, meaning that--while they're more likely to to actually connect against a maneuvering target--the actual percentage of the volley which hits would remain low.

However, this option does have one drawback: the increased velocity would also increase armor penetration.  As that's likely undesirable, the velocity boost from this version of Deadeye would probably have to be left out of armor penetration calculations.

Thoughts?

Edited by Wrayeth
Grammar is important
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,068
[WORX]
Members
12,638 posts
19,907 battles

Its not the skill... Its the ordnance as the base cause of the problem...

Increase the potency of the ordnance only makes things worse not better...


In order to change an unwanted in game behavior.. You have to nerf the root cause of the problem... Its the Ordnance problem/issue.. Not the skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
[BB35]
[BB35]
Members
536 posts
15,485 battles

Id like to see the following added to it.

A - It only works if a enemy is ouside your detection range. If theres a ship within your detection range, it doest work.

B - You get a 30% increase to your reload or +50% duration to fire/flood on YOU.

 

 

  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
[KIVA]
Members
160 posts

Increase gun bloom duration with Deadeye to 25s at T8, 30s at T9, and 35s at T10. Thus, by T10, no ships remain able to maintain their maximum rate of fire while still going undetected for 10-20s in between main battery salvos (only ships with greater than 35s reloads would be still be able to fall off detect at all during reloads). T7 and down- ships which do not have access to the slot 5 and 6 upgrades, and are always at a major disadvantage when uptiered, since many more powerful ships at T8, 9, and 10 out-spot and outrange them already- do not suffer the penalty. Thus, Deadeye captains still get their precious accuracy bonus, but in order to maximize their damage potential with it they now have to accept an increased risk of return fire (encouraging pairing Deadeye with survival skills rather than concealment)... and they'd be forced to stop firing in order to gain a reprieve and DC/repair or reposition, giving the ships they'd otherwise be aggressively blapping time to make their own counterplays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,447
[SALVO]
Members
26,124 posts
29,108 battles
31 minutes ago, Wrath_Of_Deadguy said:

Increase gun bloom duration with Deadeye to 25s at T8, 30s at T9, and 35s at T10. Thus, by T10, no ships remain able to maintain their maximum rate of fire while still going undetected for 10-20s in between main battery salvos (only ships with greater than 35s reloads would be still be able to fall off detect at all during reloads). T7 and down- ships which do not have access to the slot 5 and 6 upgrades, and are always at a major disadvantage when uptiered, since many more powerful ships at T8, 9, and 10 out-spot and outrange them already- do not suffer the penalty. Thus, Deadeye captains still get their precious accuracy bonus, but in order to maximize their damage potential with it they now have to accept an increased risk of return fire (encouraging pairing Deadeye with survival skills rather than concealment)... and they'd be forced to stop firing in order to gain a reprieve and DC/repair or reposition, giving the ships they'd otherwise be aggressively blapping time to make their own counterplays.

This idea is, quite frankly, stupid.  It's only purpose is to penalize players for using the skill in an effort to make them not take the skill in the first place.  And that's why it's stupid.

Furthermore, IMO, no skill should come with a penalty associated with it.  They should all be 100% positive benefits with no downsides.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
[BB35]
[BB35]
Members
536 posts
15,485 battles
5 minutes ago, Crucis said:

This idea is, quite frankly, stupid.  It's only purpose is to penalize players for using the skill in an effort to make them not take the skill in the first place.  And that's why it's stupid.

Furthermore, IMO, no skill should come with a penalty associated with it.  They should all be 100% positive benefits with no downsides.

Take a look at the skills, some skills even now have penalties.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,447
[SALVO]
Members
26,124 posts
29,108 battles
2 minutes ago, Gemlin said:

Take a look at the skills, some skills even now have penalties.

 

Yes, I know.  And I don't like them either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
112
[KIVA]
Members
160 posts
29 minutes ago, Crucis said:

This idea is, quite frankly, stupid.  It's only purpose is to penalize players for using the skill in an effort to make them not take the skill in the first place.  And that's why it's stupid.

Furthermore, IMO, no skill should come with a penalty associated with it.  They should all be 100% positive benefits with no downsides.

The stupid idea was adding that skill in the first place. Removal is unlikely, and a straight nerf to the bonus won't change the effect it has on gameplay (BB players staying in the backline to keep their bonus active for as much of the game as possible), so adding a penalty to the skill is the most reasonable alternative. If that means fewer players take the skill... so what? The stated objective of the re-bork was to eliminate cookie-cutter builds, but right now Deadeye has become the keystone of the new cookie-cutter BB build, and the meta forming around it is toxic. Fewer people taking that skill in particular is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,426
Banned
1,424 posts
6,083 battles

Make it work while there are enemies visible within the base detect range. Done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,447
[SALVO]
Members
26,124 posts
29,108 battles
1 hour ago, Wrath_Of_Deadguy said:

The stupid idea was adding that skill in the first place. Removal is unlikely, and a straight nerf to the bonus won't change the effect it has on gameplay (BB players staying in the backline to keep their bonus active for as much of the game as possible), so adding a penalty to the skill is the most reasonable alternative. If that means fewer players take the skill... so what? The stated objective of the re-bork was to eliminate cookie-cutter builds, but right now Deadeye has become the keystone of the new cookie-cutter BB build, and the meta forming around it is toxic. Fewer people taking that skill in particular is a good thing.

From what I've read elsewhere, the Devs wanted to provide skills for different play styles, and that (for better or worse) included BB sniping.  Personally, I think that they should have found a different way to provide a sniping skill.

"If fewer players take a skill, so what?"  The point of providing it is to encourage people to use it, not punish people for using it.  It is profoundly dumb to punish players for using a sniper skill to, heaven forbid, snipe.

"Fewer people taking that skill is a good thing..."  No, it is not.  The entire point of adding new skills in this reWORK is encourage them to use those skills.  To say otherwise is foolish.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not saying that Deadeye as we know it is good for the game.  I tend to think that it's not.  But the solution is NOT to punish people who chose it.  A proper solution is to develop a more appropriate "sniper BB" skill that doesn't force everyone into taking sniper BB builds by being so overpowered.  (BTW, I do agree that Deadeye creates its own cookie cutter builds because it is so OP.)

Here's an idea.  Give any BB using this skill a bonus (+5%, for example) to AP damage (yes, specifically for AP damage) outside of some distance, whether it's the same one used for Deadeye (i.e. the current detection range) or a fixed value, though fixed values have the problem of not scaling by tier.  That is, say that it was set for 20 km.  BBs that couldn't shoot out to 20 km couldn't use the skill at all, whereas nearly all tier 9-10 BBs can.  Better to use the range built into Deadeye, which is scaled by tier.  This idea doesn't enhance accuracy, nor does it encourage long range HE spamming.  It only encourages long range AP sniping with a buff to AP damage that's not all that large.

Or they could just reduce the dispersion benefit for Deadeye by half down to +5%.

Or they could give BBs sniping at ranges above "standard detection range" a Dazzle-like incoming fire defensive dispersion bonus.

In the end though, anything they do will provide some form of encouragement to sniping, whether on the offensive or defensive side.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
682 posts
220 battles
20 minutes ago, Crucis said:

From what I've read elsewhere, the Devs wanted to....

edit

 

 

Just no.

 

This comment would make sense if the Devs played the game and the Devs paid the microtransactions which keep the game alive.

As the answer is NO, what the DEVs want should have NOTHING to do with any rework.

 

IMHO - the DEVs should be 100% focused on Balanced Gameplay (and maps) for the good of the game, not what they want.

If the DEVs want people to get annoyed, then they have gotten what they wanted.

 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×