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

Captain Skill Major Tweak Suggestion

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

531
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,809 posts
6,220 battles

Limiting the skills used in battle to the ship-type-skill tree is too restrictive - some ships are not exemplary of their type.  For example, as another player mentioned in another thread, USS Alaska has a lot more in common with a battleship than a light cruiser.  I should be able to use some of the battleship skills on my Alaska captain.  Currently, every Alaska captain is limited to a set of skills that are optimized for ships that are very little like her.

Putting every ship-type skill tree on every captain just quadrupled the player's job of managing commander skill profiles.  60 captains before 0.10.0 meant 60 skill profiles.  After 0.10.0 - now it's 240, with the additional task of figuring out which specific four ships a player is going to train each captain for.  This makes port management a much larger time sink.  Going out on a limb here, I think most players would rather be playing the game than managing details in port.

Suggested solution:

  • Each commander has one set of skills.  (Insert Liam Neeson reference...)
  • The skill tree for the ship type a captain is (currently) trained on is shown as "main" or recommended branch, each of the others are shown as "not recommended".
    • If a skill is in two branches at different point levels:
      • If it is in the captain's main branch, that is the only place it can be selected.
      • If it is in two "not recommended" branches, it is only available at the highest point cost.
  • The player is allowed to fill captain skills from all four ship-type trees without additional penalty.  (i.e., it doesn't cost more to pick a BB skill for a DD trained captain, BB skills aren't less effective in a cruiser, etc.)

This takes it back to one captain, one ship; and allows the player to select the best skills for the specific ship that captain is trained on.  It also restores intended and tested capabilities to ships that have been effectively removed by the captain skill rework.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,446
[SALVO]
Members
26,123 posts
29,108 battles
16 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

Limiting the skills used in battle to the ship-type-skill tree is too restrictive - some ships are not exemplary of their type.  For example, as another player mentioned in another thread, USS Alaska has a lot more in common with a battleship than a light cruiser.  I should be able to use some of the battleship skills on my Alaska captain.  Currently, every Alaska captain is limited to a set of skills that are optimized for ships that are very little like her.

Putting every ship-type skill tree on every captain just quadrupled the player's job of managing commander skill profiles.  60 captains before 0.10.0 meant 60 skill profiles.  After 0.10.0 - now it's 240, with the additional task of figuring out which specific four ships a player is going to train each captain for.  This makes port management a much larger time sink.  Going out on a limb here, I think most players would rather be playing the game than managing details in port.

Suggested solution:

  • Each commander has one set of skills.  (Insert Liam Neeson reference...)
  • The skill tree for the ship type a captain is (currently) trained on is shown as "main" or recommended branch, each of the others are shown as "not recommended".
    • If a skill is in two branches at different point levels:
      • If it is in the captain's main branch, that is the only place it can be selected.
      • If it is in two "not recommended" branches, it is only available at the highest point cost.
  • The player is allowed to fill captain skills from all four ship-type trees without additional penalty.  (i.e., it doesn't cost more to pick a BB skill for a DD trained captain, BB skills aren't less effective in a cruiser, etc.)

This takes it back to one captain, one ship; and allows the player to select the best skills for the specific ship that captain is trained on.  It also restores intended and tested capabilities to ships that have been effectively removed by the captain skill rework.

No one' stopping you from limiting one captain to one ship in your port.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,642
[RLGN]
Members
15,645 posts
27,371 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

No one' stopping you from limiting one captain to one ship in your port.

While there have been a very few captains I’ve considered multi-roling, (1 or 2?) beyond that I’ve so far seen little point to doing so.

Not exactly a fan of WG promoting diversity by taking away choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,046
[WPORT]
Members
8,105 posts
13,162 battles

I'm not a fan of the skills re-bork.

That said, there are people who have one Captain that gets played on several types of premium ships.  And they're doing it to maximize their fun quotient while gaining experience to train that Commander.
I can appreciate that approach as an option.

Personally, I have more Commanders than ships.  I'm okay with that, because I tend to assign a Commander to a Ship and keep them partnered for a long time in most instances.

As for @Fishrokk's idea(s)....

4 hours ago, Fishrokk said:

Limiting the skills used in battle to the ship-type-skill tree is too restrictive - some ships are not exemplary of their type.  For example, as another player mentioned in another thread, USS Alaska has a lot more in common with a battleship than a light cruiser.  I should be able to use some of the battleship skills on my Alaska captain.  Currently, every Alaska captain is limited to a set of skills that are optimized for ships that are very little like her.

Putting every ship-type skill tree on every captain just quadrupled the player's job of managing commander skill profiles.  60 captains before 0.10.0 meant 60 skill profiles.  After 0.10.0 - now it's 240, with the additional task of figuring out which specific four ships a player is going to train each captain for.  This makes port management a much larger time sink.  Going out on a limb here, I think most players would rather be playing the game than managing details in port.

Suggested solution:

  • Each commander has one set of skills.  (Insert Liam Neeson reference...)
  • The skill tree for the ship type a captain is (currently) trained on is shown as "main" or recommended branch, each of the others are shown as "not recommended".
    • If a skill is in two branches at different point levels:
      • If it is in the captain's main branch, that is the only place it can be selected.
      • If it is in two "not recommended" branches, it is only available at the highest point cost.
  • The player is allowed to fill captain skills from all four ship-type trees without additional penalty.  (i.e., it doesn't cost more to pick a BB skill for a DD trained captain, BB skills aren't less effective in a cruiser, etc.)

This takes it back to one captain, one ship; and allows the player to select the best skills for the specific ship that captain is trained on.  It also restores intended and tested capabilities to ships that have been effectively removed by the captain skill rework.

 I suggest a "blend" that doesn't diminish options, but expands them instead.
1.  Commanders can still have a skill set for each type of ship available (which will include Submarines, someday).
2.  Commander can take ANY skill that they have the points enough for.
3.  Eliminate the need to select a Tier-1/2/3 skill before taking a Tier-4 skill.  Allow a Commander to select any skill they have enough points for.
4.  All skills should be available for each ship type.  Cost (in skill points) might have to be kept different for the ship type in question, or made the same for all ship types.

Just brainstorming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,046
[WPORT]
Members
8,105 posts
13,162 battles
3 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

 

Not exactly a fan of WG promoting diversity by taking away choice.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,446
[SALVO]
Members
26,123 posts
29,108 battles
5 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

While there have been a very few captains I’ve considered multi-roling, (1 or 2?) beyond that I’ve so far seen little point to doing so.

Not exactly a fan of WG promoting diversity by taking away choice.

I've used the "multi-roling" of captains as a way to provide captains for premium ships that seem to need commanders that don't mesh well with my existing tech tree captains.  And so far, it seems to be working out OK.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,642
[RLGN]
Members
15,645 posts
27,371 battles
26 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I've used the "multi-roling" of captains as a way to provide captains for premium ships that seem to need commanders that don't mesh well with my existing tech tree captains.  And so far, it seems to be working out OK.  

And that may be it. Most of my premiums have captains; why would I move one from a tree ship.

About the only exceptions I made before the rework were running my Grozovoi driver in Okhotnik and Murmansk, my Akizuki driver in Pumpkin, Apple, and Blueberry, and my Gearing driver in Atlanta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,446
[SALVO]
Members
26,123 posts
29,108 battles
14 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

And that may be it. Most of my premiums have captains; why would I move one from a tree ship.

About the only exceptions I made before the rework were running my Grozovoi driver in Okhotnik and Murmansk, my Akizuki driver in Pumpkin, Apple, and Blueberry, and my Gearing driver in Atlanta.

Duh.  Because people use premium ships as trainers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,642
[RLGN]
Members
15,645 posts
27,371 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

Duh.  Because people use premium ships as trainers.

As you well know; I seem to be the forum’s resident contrarian.

I actually realized how training works here in Warships, which finally helped me understand how it was supposed to work in Tanks.

Despite that, I use premium ships as trainers so rarely, it might as well be never. I suppose that’s a consequence of most of my ships having settled captains?

More often I just pay for retraining, or take the penalty and grind out the cxp.

I get the cost can be a big deal for f2p players, but both the cost and the skill penalty have mattered to me so rarely, even considering the times I’ve paid for retraining, that I’ve basically never considered it as a reason to move a captain, without being reminded about it, as you’ve just done.

 

Edited by Estimated_Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,446
[SALVO]
Members
26,123 posts
29,108 battles
3 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

As you well know; I seem to be the forum’s resident contrarian.

I actually realized how training works here in Warships, which finally helped me understand how it was supposed to work in Tanks.

Despite that, I use premium ships as trainers so rarely, it might as well be never. I suppose that’s a consequence of most of my ships having settled captains?

More often I just pay for retraining, or take the penalty and grind out the cxp.

I get the cost can be a big deal for f2p players, but both the cost and the skill penalty have mattered to me so rarely, even considering the times I’ve paid for retraining, that I’ve basically never considered it as a reason to move a captain, without being reminded about it, as you’ve just done.

 

Yeah, I know that you're a contrarian, but so am I, though perhaps in my own way.  

I use my premiums as trainers, though not per se to train untrained captains for new tech tree ships.  I've played the game long enough to have a rather large reserve of elite commander's XP.  And one way that I build that reserve is to put my fully trained commanders into my premium ships to earn more commander's XP for that reserve.  Of course, with the skill  rework, things have changed in that  regard, because I have not yet spent any of my reserve to upgrade some of my 19 point CO's up to 21 pointers, but I will at some point.

Also, as I've pointed out, I do use the feature of the skill rework that allows for COs be trained for ships of all 4 ship types.  I've found this useful for premium ships that really require commanders who don't fit the normal mode for tech tree ships of that type in that nation, such as the Atlanta or Smolensk.  I've found it to be a nice convenience.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
531
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,809 posts
6,220 battles
On 2/17/2021 at 5:13 PM, Wolfswetpaws said:

I'm not a fan of the skills re-bork.

That said, there are people who have one Captain that gets played on several types of premium ships.  And they're doing it to maximize their fun quotient while gaining experience to train that Commander.
I can appreciate that approach as an option.

Personally, I have more Commanders than ships.  I'm okay with that, because I tend to assign a Commander to a Ship and keep them partnered for a long time in most instances.

As for @Fishrokk's idea(s)....

 I suggest a "blend" that doesn't diminish options, but expands them instead.
1.  Commanders can still have a skill set for each type of ship available (which will include Submarines, someday).
2.  Commander can take ANY skill that they have the points enough for.
3.  Eliminate the need to select a Tier-1/2/3 skill before taking a Tier-4 skill.  Allow a Commander to select any skill they have enough points for.
4.  All skills should be available for each ship type.  Cost (in skill points) might have to be kept different for the ship type in question, or made the same for all ship types.

Just brainstorming.

Fair enough!  I would advocate for this as better than my original suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,046
[WPORT]
Members
8,105 posts
13,162 battles
1 minute ago, Fishrokk said:

Fair enough!  I would advocate for this as better than my original suggestion.

Thank you.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
531
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,809 posts
6,220 battles
Just now, Wolfswetpaws said:

Thank you.

No - thank you for reading what I wrote, actually thinking about it and giving a constructive response, rather than just knee-jerk popping in on a new thread, and dropping a deuce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,046
[WPORT]
Members
8,105 posts
13,162 battles
2 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

No - thank you for reading what I wrote, actually thinking about it and giving a constructive response, rather than just knee-jerk popping in on a new thread, and dropping a deuce.

You're welcome.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
47 posts

Before the rework I was intrigued by the idea, and when the rework first hit I though some of these skills sounded neat. Now that I have tried them, I am no longer impressed. I'm especially disappointed in how the Battleship tree was done. Too many of the skills were just split from a few of the original ones so they are only good if taken in conjunction with one another. There's almost no room for flexibility in how you set up your ship now. Obviously this hurts brawling ships most as so many of their points are taken up in the new secondary line up that almost nothing is left for anything related to survivability. I personally want to slap whoever decided Superintendent had to be removed from the battleship tree. Also as has been mentioned earlier in this thread, some of the ships in the game don't really play to their specific trees. Personally I have had better luck in ships like Alaska and Puetro Rico by just using them as smaller battleships rather than cruisers. Lastly another problem I have is just how jumbled up the old skills got. Like they just decided these certain skills were too popular and rather than offering a real alternative to them, WG just made them cost more and put some placeholder where that skill used to be.

Some of these skills have potential and they would probably work best if they were just added to the old skill tree. I don't see why WG thinks they have to arbitrarily limit the tree to a 4x6 grid when there's plenty of space on the screen. I mean this game isn't that complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,150
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
3,919 posts

i run Tsar Alex in at least 4-5 ships..  i just have a big gaping hole that is T7 US/RU prems...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[FEB-M]
Members
122 posts
5,432 battles

A have a much simpler approach to this:

-> Allow the player CHOOSE SKILLSET for each ship. (BB/CA, CL/DD)

So, Supercruisers like Alaska or Siegfried can select BB skillset. Big DDs as French ones can pick up Cruiser skills. Light cruisers as the Huanghe can pick up DD skill set. Or "light BBs" as the Odin can pick up CA skillset. OR use the skillset for its own class.

I would not allow BB<>DD interchange, only BB/CA and CL/DD, or, in other words, Cruisers can go "up" to BB, and "down" to DD skillset, while BBs and DDs can pick Cruisers skillset as an option.

But I see this proposal as a temporary WORKAROUND, until this new captain skiils gets a major rework, with better, more realistic skills are implemented. I really like to see minor improvements that can be tied to REAL WORLD skills, like, training crews can shoot/aim/repair much better than a green crew. But nothing in real world explains why a ship moves faster if the enemy isn't looking, or can aim better at far enemies only why no other enemy is close, or worse, few seconds of bad aim when detected. These type of "MAGIC SKILLS" should be forgotten, replaced by "realistic" ones. 

Because some things as "grease the gears" or "preventive maintenance" that applies to all and any ship class, subs included, while other skills are specific to a class, like torp/airplane related skills, there should be 2 categories of skill:

  • Generic, that applies to any ship class
  • Class-specific ones

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2
[GISH]
Members
5 posts
3,203 battles

i think Alloh has a great point. I mentioned this in another thread and it could be a small start to what he mentions and that is creating a separate class:

Battlecruisers/Super Cruisers that can access either the cruiser or battleship line. 
 

Would bring a lot more diversity and help feel out this idea  

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13
[APEZ]
Members
41 posts
16,498 battles

You took superintendent on battleships which was  a 3 point captain skill and made in 4 points with massive limitations. Id suggest Make it a 3 point skill again with just repair and heal and call it like Jr grade. Then make a 4 point version you could select with plus one too all consumables. That would let the commanders choose between the 2 or none at all but allow nations to pick a skill that fits them. If you play a Russian bb you have no consumables so a stripped down  superintendent makes sense. But if you play something like Bourgogne with speed boost and a reload you you get screwed after this patch. Your investing more points and getting less than you had before and a ship that needs after bit of help you can get you have 15 inch guns and a tier dominated by 18 inch guns. You said you would never nerf premiums but that is exactly what you did to ships like this and Georgia with that patch.

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.

×