Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Sea_Tiger_59

Dead eye: how it should be!

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

8
[CHPYV]
Members
6 posts
3,697 battles

A BBs dispersion should be it's full rated dispersion at max range.

A BBs dispersion should be the 10% lessor as per having dead eye as you become/get to within the BBs secondary's range. in other words, the secondary guns range is used as a defining line as to when the full 10% lessor dispersion occurs

So, at maximum range you get the maximum dispersion of the ship and at the secondary guns range then the main guns have the 10% lessor dispersion.

if you pernitrate that defined zone by 10% then dispersion would be 1% lessor

if you're 20% into that defined zone then dispersion would be 2% lessor

if you're 30% into that defined zone then dispersion would be 3% lessor

ect... until you're within range of the secondary's of which "then" the dispersion would be the dead eye offered 10% lessor. In other words, the maximum effect of Dead eye would occur at the ships secondary range.

anything nearer than that would still be/remain the 10% lessor dispersion that dead eye offers.

I think then that Dead Eye could/should also be offered to Cruisers.

Cruisers without secondary's as a determinant boundary would use the AA range as the 10% lessor dispersion range.

The nearer you get the more deadly they are!

If that's too much of a nerf for 4 commander points then lets go 15% lessor dispersion and use the lessor AA range as the inner boundary and use the same ideals

Now that makes sense!

What do you all think?

Sea_Tiger_59

 

Edited by Sea_Tiger_59
touch up
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,373
[PVE]
Members
10,930 posts
18,933 battles

I think, just get rid of it, because no one wants it, with the possible exception of the OCC (original camping community.)

Edited by Sovereigndawg
  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,494
[SALVO]
Members
26,141 posts
29,198 battles
27 minutes ago, Sea_Tiger_59 said:

A BBs dispersion should be it's full rated dispersion at max range.

A BBs dispersion should be the 10% lessor as per having dead eye as you become/get to within the BBs secondary's range. in other words, the secondary guns range is used as a defining line as to when the full 10% lessor dispersion occurs

So, at maximum range you get the maximum dispersion of the ship and at the secondary guns range then the main guns have the 10% lessor dispersion.

if you pernitrate that defined zone by 10% then dispersion would be 1% lessor

if you're 20% into that defined zone then dispersion would be 2% lessor

if you're 30% into that defined zone then dispersion would be 3% lessor

ect... until you're within range of the secondary's of which "then" the dispersion would be the dead eye offered 10% lessor. In other words, the maximum effect of Dead eye would occur at the ships secondary range.

anything nearer than that would still be/remain the 10% lessor dispersion that dead eye offers.

I think then that Dead Eye could/should also be offered to Cruisers.

Cruisers without secondary's as a determinant boundary would use the AA range as the 10% lessor dispersion range.

The nearer you get the more deadly they are!

If that's too much of a nerf for 4 commander points then lets go 15% lessor dispersion and use the lessor AA range as the inner boundary and use the same ideals

Now that makes sense!

What do you all think?

Sea_Tiger_59

 

You don't get the point that Deadeye is a skill that, for better or worse, is designed to appeal to snipers not brawlers.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,494
[SALVO]
Members
26,141 posts
29,198 battles
2 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

I think, just get rid of it, because no one wants it, with the possible exception of the OCC (original camping community.)

Speak for yourself, because you certainly can't speak for everyone.

Mind you, I think that it needs some significant changes, but it really gets my goat when people claim to speak for everyone (when they say "no one wants X ").

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,373
[PVE]
Members
10,930 posts
18,933 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Speak for yourself, because you certainly can't speak for everyone.

Mind you, I think that it needs some significant changes, but it really gets my goat when people claim to speak for everyone (when they say "no one wants X ").

I allowed for exceptions. I was going to say Seems Like no one wants it, but didn't.

Edited by Sovereigndawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,142 posts
44,199 battles

Dead Eye kills cruisers very effectively. No matter their evasive capability, if a BB player does a sequential fire and walks the shots on that cruiser, then the cruiser is hit at least twice fatally. 

That would be usually enough to take it out of the fight and the rest of the team can burn it down at that point as the cruiser attempts to go dark. But if that cruiser makes another attempt to go in, it is over. And that is on the presumption that they survived the first encounter and that only 1 BB fired on their ship in their turn.

Because a 2 hit would be fatal, a 2 hit simultaneous from another BB would be over. It is called bracketing. Bracket a cruiser and have two BBs shoot sequential shots as they turn with Dead Eye skill. Even if a turn was well executed, incoming fire alert went bat crap crazy, and the cruiser player has reflexes like Neo; they can't dodge the other BB or subsequent cruiser HE that starts to hit as well. 

It is a deadly skill. It will get adjusted or the cruiser players will stop playing.

I don't use it because I want to use other skills instead. I am trying the other skills.

Dazzle as was recently explained is not nearly an effective skill either. 

Like all new skills, they may make it live and still be a dud or were never properly evaluated. 

That leaves players as the guinea pigs(cruisers) for example. 

I don't think cruiser players appreciate being the test subjects, but most BB mains can't help but snicker that it is the cruiser players' turn. 

As humorous as this has become, the seriousness is that eventually WG will have to fix it. Cruiser players have feelings too. (There is anecdotal evidence to prove these "feelings")

Play Dead Eye for laughs is up to you. But that cruiser player might be a future Khan Noonien Singh. 

As for Dazzle, well, I haven't used it on my DDs. Apparently, if you use your concealment, you can get away with murder in this game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,494
[SALVO]
Members
26,141 posts
29,198 battles
2 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

I was going to say Seems Like no one wants it, but didn't.

This would have been a far fairer representation.  :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,749
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
27,938 posts
14,888 battles
1 hour ago, Sea_Tiger_59 said:

A BBs dispersion should be it's full rated dispersion at max range.

A BBs dispersion should be the 10% lessor as per having dead eye as you become/get to within the BBs secondary's range. in other words, the secondary guns range is used as a defining line as to when the full 10% lessor dispersion occurs

So, at maximum range you get the maximum dispersion of the ship and at the secondary guns range then the main guns have the 10% lessor dispersion.

if you pernitrate that defined zone by 10% then dispersion would be 1% lessor

if you're 20% into that defined zone then dispersion would be 2% lessor

if you're 30% into that defined zone then dispersion would be 3% lessor

ect... until you're within range of the secondary's of which "then" the dispersion would be the dead eye offered 10% lessor. In other words, the maximum effect of Dead eye would occur at the ships secondary range.

anything nearer than that would still be/remain the 10% lessor dispersion that dead eye offers.

I think then that Dead Eye could/should also be offered to Cruisers.

Cruisers without secondary's as a determinant boundary would use the AA range as the 10% lessor dispersion range.

The nearer you get the more deadly they are!

If that's too much of a nerf for 4 commander points then lets go 15% lessor dispersion and use the lessor AA range as the inner boundary and use the same ideals

Now that makes sense!

What do you all think?

Sea_Tiger_59

 

Too complicated, just give it a negative to reload say 15% or 20% longer. Better yet reverse it to give the bonus at closer ranges so that the campers will not like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,880
[O7]
Members
5,419 posts
12,416 battles

@Sovereigndawg @Crucis

As stupid as the skill is in the current game, when you think of how submarines will push BBs further away it's probably for the best people get drawn to that type of play sooner rather than later.

Whether you or I personally think subs should be introduced isn't really relevant. If WG already intends to put them in, this would be a logical way to make that introduction less impactful to players.

Being up close and personal in a BB is just not feasible with accurate (because of homing) torpedoes from strange angles.

Think of hotspot A and B caps. In a normal game, the gap of islands between A and B would never be an angle of torpedo attack in the opening quarter, unless your team didn't contest the center and the enemy dd never capped to reveal something being there. With subs, it would not only be a great angle for torp strikes from A to B, but because it's such a highly contested area you can't get any real asw onto it, even if it wanted to walk into A from B. BBs normally tend to end up in the NW or SW side of the cap, because there is a big island there to sit behind.

Things like that are just not going to be safe, because sub stealth can open up these camped positions, especially if they win a sub trade and push opponent DDs further back because of superior concealment. (i can't remember if they changed anything about that, been a while).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,749
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
27,938 posts
14,888 battles
2 hours ago, Pulicat said:

@Sovereigndawg @Crucis

As stupid as the skill is in the current game, when you think of how submarines will push BBs further away it's probably for the best people get drawn to that type of play sooner rather than later.

Whether you or I personally think subs should be introduced isn't really relevant. If WG already intends to put them in, this would be a logical way to make that introduction less impactful to players.

Being up close and personal in a BB is just not feasible with accurate (because of homing) torpedoes from strange angles.

Think of hotspot A and B caps. In a normal game, the gap of islands between A and B would never be an angle of torpedo attack in the opening quarter, unless your team didn't contest the center and the enemy dd never capped to reveal something being there. With subs, it would not only be a great angle for torp strikes from A to B, but because it's such a highly contested area you can't get any real asw onto it, even if it wanted to walk into A from B. BBs normally tend to end up in the NW or SW side of the cap, because there is a big island there to sit behind.

Things like that are just not going to be safe, because sub stealth can open up these camped positions, especially if they win a sub trade and push opponent DDs further back because of superior concealment. (i can't remember if they changed anything about that, been a while).

Currently the only ship type that is toothless against subs are the CV's and I think they need the same consumable that the CA's and the BB's have so far. My main argument against them is that they are functionally very slow DD's, even with overly fast submerged speeds without guns as they currently are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,146
[PISD]
Members
1,847 posts
6,137 battles
7 hours ago, Sovereigndawg said:

I think, just get rid of it, because no one wants it, with the possible exception of the OCC (original camping community.)

It did bring back some ships needing a buff, like Roma.

 

i would leave it as it is, but stack a 10% range nerf.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
354
[TDR]
[TDR]
Members
1,112 posts
11,850 battles

Dead eye certainly has made some change in meta and the point about subs by @Pulicat is a good one, hadn’t thought of that. However people saying cruisers are blowing up everywhere and are useless is not something I’ve experienced. I still have some very effective cruiser games. It is causing different play for me though. Making me pay more attention to where red guns are aimed, When they fired last,  firing in open water with more care I.e. maybe just a few salvos then going back undetected depending on how many target me, etc.

Edited by ditka_Fatdog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,060
[WPORT]
Members
8,185 posts
13,206 battles
8 hours ago, Sovereigndawg said:

I think, just get rid of it, because no one wants it, with the possible exception of the OCC (original camping community.)

+1

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,060
[WPORT]
Members
8,185 posts
13,206 battles
Quote

 

Deadeye encourages failure to capture areas.
Deadeye encourages kiting to the edge of the map boundaries.

Also, Deadeye doesn't make much logical sense, to me, at least.
How is it achieved?
Weighing gunpowder charges to insure uniformity of velocity from the gun's barrels?
Gunnery training and gun maintenance to reduce the slop or tolerances within mechanisms and ensuring the projectiles meet ideal criteria for weight & physical dimensions?
Comprehensive research of gun performance vs. gun director information and ironing out what aiming values to use when using a given a set of targeting data?

How would any of that be affected by the ship being detected?
Seriously.

Deadeye is four skill points that somehow make the ship's main-battery fire extra lucky when the ship is not being detected.  (Am I the only one appreciating the irony?)
The principle of "this is a game, an arcade game, and not a historical simulation" has been applied once again.
This time, it is to the detriment of the entertainment of the game.

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/234262-excellent-video-on-perspective-from-my-lord-jingles/?do=findComment&comment=5369148

 

Quoting myself from another topic.  Seems relevant here, too.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
880 posts

dead eye skill needs a buff ..no doubt....this can be activated and deactivated in battle which in my opinion is [edited]... it should never be able to be deactivated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,981
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
13,192 posts

Just a Saturday morning observation but does it not seem apparent that any skill that "improves" accuracy will draw players like flies to a fresh roadkill? 

IOW, if you weren't a sniper, you'll be one sooner - or later - but a sniper you'll be... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,514
[ALL41]
Beta Testers
2,407 posts
10,651 battles
11 hours ago, Sea_Tiger_59 said:

...

What do you all think?

Sea_Tiger_59

 

I think its the worst idea I've ever heard. All you're doing is denying long range gunnery which, btw, IS a battleship's primary armament's benefit, and replacing it with 'buff the close range BBs, specifically the already overpowered as F! soviet ones'. 

The problem is that secondaries were nerfed into useless waste of cmdr points and it obviously was done to make soviet ships more potent as they no longer have to fear their bow tanking close range ships getting melted by secondaries. 

 

- Fix secondaries. They should have the old manual secondary accuracy and their range increased to 15km... but with refire rate reduced a bit and all secondaries firing AP not HE (so angling matters). 

- Change deadeye to be 20% dispersion reduction (so that ships that were mediocre at long range can now be competent) but increase the ship's detection range after firing main guns to 1 minute. That way sniping ships from long range have to be fully visible and vulnerable to other sniping ships...and thus the snipers have to choose between damage output or stealth. In short, this is like counter-battery artillery fire was in world of tanks.

- Remove HE's ability to start fires when shell does not penetrate and add a small (8% for BBs, 4% for heavy cruisers, 1% for light cruisers, 0.5% for destroyers) chance of starting a fire to AP rounds (they do have an HE charge after all) but only if they penetrate.

- When superstructure is damage saturated, ship loses ability to send and receive team spotting information. 

- Remove citadels from the game as damage pinhatas. Replace with severe engine power debuffs. Each citadel hit should reduce engine power by 25% for 1 minute, up to 4 citadel hits max will be allowed to be active at any one time. Citadel hits would yield normal pen damage + 50%. 

- Change fires to do very low DOT damage (only 25% of what it does now) but instead, each active fire decreases ship's max firing range of main guns by 20%. This will enable fires to 'blind' a ship somewhat and the above change to citadels enables cruisers and BBs to engage in maneuvering combat not hide behind islands or bow tank in reverse as their only option. 

There. You now have a mostly fixed and fun WOWS where sniping and brawling are fully enabled and there is no overpowered damage pinhata or game the game DOTfest. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[HOLE]
Members
204 posts
2,352 battles

I personally find it funny how BBs are being tagged for kitting , when in fact cruisers have been using this method for some time now. Its either your a kitting scrub or if you push, then your a yolo scrub. In others words no one can do the right thing.  I don't have any issues with the new captain system other than not enough real time to adjust before you have to pay or just learn to deal with what you have  since you have so many ships to go through. WG test server is more of a joke then being able to learn and adjusting to ships or new content coming into the game. Rather than just worrying about limited time and what is put into the game. People should question how its done and why isn't their Test server playing a major role to what new and coming to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[CHPYV]
Members
6 posts
3,697 battles
16 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

Too complicated, just give it a negative to reload say 15% or 20% longer. Better yet reverse it to give the bonus at closer ranges so that the campers will not like it.

Reversing it is exactly what this does. zero effect at full range and it "becomes" very effective as the range shortens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[CHPYV]
Members
6 posts
3,697 battles
10 hours ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

Quoting myself from another topic.  Seems relevant here, too.

I couldn't agree more and swift and silent is the same, how can a ship be faster because nobody can see it? what used to be a reasonably realistic based game is turning into a "magic wand" video game.

How does physics change just because nobody can see you? How does it change because somebody can see you?

And how is it that my crew and guns don't operate correctly for the first 15 seconds after I spot you? A Magic spell that lasts for 15 seconds is cast upon my and everybody's' ship?

 I reupped for another 180 days and I'm not really certain why, in hopes that it will change back or for the better I guess but I'm full of doubts to be certain!. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[CCTV2]
Members
41 posts
10,052 battles

Think of something easier... the programmer of WG is just some college boys don't know much about coding.

Well though WG's Devs for new skill is worse, I doubt if they can even read a chart or they should have notice that this game is already losing 30-36% of the active players....(at least for steam parts)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×