Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Ado1fCarsar

Simple fix to deadeye

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

409
[APEZ]
Members
641 posts
7,778 battles

Rather than it being more accurate when there are no ships detected within base detection range. Make it have more long range accuracy only when ships are spotted within base detection range. So pushing bbs get a dispersion boost vs far away targets but no boost vs short range targets.

  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
569
[O7]
Supertester
392 posts
13,168 battles

If you change deadeye this way, I would expect to see lighthouse BB builds. 0 concealment BB sitting in the back.

Would be an interesting change, but probably not as effective as hoped 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
409
[APEZ]
Members
641 posts
7,778 battles
21 minutes ago, Your_SAT_Score said:

If you change deadeye this way, I would expect to see lighthouse BB builds. 0 concealment BB sitting in the back.

Would be an interesting change, but probably not as effective as hoped 

 

another idea would be a dispersion boost based on how many enemies are shooting at you. the more focus fire you are under, the more accurate your guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,150
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
3,919 posts
3 hours ago, Ado1fCarsar said:

another idea would be a dispersion boost based on how many enemies are shooting at you. the more focus fire you are under, the more accurate your guns.

i think that would be a bit silly...  in that your dispersion would be varying wildly during a battle.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
664
[USN]
Members
1,511 posts
20,402 battles

I thought about if changing Deadeye to how you mentioned, but then thought about...

6 hours ago, Your_SAT_Score said:

 

If you change deadeye this way, I would expect to see lighthouse BB builds. 0 concealment BB sitting in the back.

 

This, good idea, but might backfire horribly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,175
[WDS]
[WDS]
Members
4,265 posts
12,206 battles
4 hours ago, SKurj said:

i think that would be a bit silly...  in that your dispersion would be varying wildly during a battle.. 

 Like it doesn't already ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,150
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
3,919 posts
1 minute ago, clammboy said:

 Like it doesn't already ?

lol ok well the dispersion adjustments would vary wildly :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,000
Members
7,122 posts
22,043 battles
4 hours ago, SKurj said:

i think that would be a bit silly...  in that your dispersion would be varying wildly during a battle.. 

no sillier than the more your ship is banged up the faster it produces. Adrenaline rush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,375
[WOLFG]
Members
32,274 posts
9,988 battles
7 hours ago, Ado1fCarsar said:

another idea would be a dispersion boost based on how many enemies are shooting at you. the more focus fire you are under, the more accurate your guns.

My thought there is that it would decrease the back line camping, but increase the YOLO rushing.

It would really be very similar to Outnumbered.

Edited by Skpstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,426
Banned
1,424 posts
6,083 battles
8 hours ago, Your_SAT_Score said:

If you change deadeye this way, I would expect to see lighthouse BB builds. 0 concealment BB sitting in the back.

Would be an interesting change, but probably not as effective as hoped 

 

I suggested that same thing during PTS and light house BBs was one of the explicit goals of my suggestion. Either players get full concealment and stay closer to the fight or drop concealment entirely to get their long range benefits, making it much harder to disengage when they are in danger. That would be more diversity of builds than WG has actually done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,000
Members
7,122 posts
22,043 battles

The fix should come in the form in stability of your own ship's effective performance. Locking on to a target for a specific period of time, or doing so with moving or turning your own ship should allow for greater accuracy. Having certain ships within your detection or numbers of ships visible is silly.

Your own actions should magnify your skills, not the enemies numbers and location.

Edited by Pura__Vida

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,314
[SALVO]
Members
6,935 posts
5,502 battles

I still think the trade off should be reload. Decreased raw DPM in exchange of increased Critical chance and effectiveness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21
[36]
Members
27 posts
8,858 battles
2 hours ago, Pura__Vida said:

The fix should come in the form in stability of your own ship's effective performance. Locking on to a target for a specific period of time, or doing so with moving or turning your own ship should allow for greater accuracy. Having certain ships within your detection or numbers of ships visible is silly.

Your own actions should magnify your skills, not the enemies numbers and location.

"Locking on to a target for a specific period of time, or doing so with moving or turning your own ship should allow for greater accuracy."

I assume you meant without moving or turning, and I really like this idea. It would be a skill that only shows positives on the commander skills screen, but has a baked-in drawback when actually used: you become an easier target. Sometimes it forces the player to choose whether to take a benefit at a cost, and sometimes it rewards players who've done a good job of positioning their ship such that the enemy doesn't really have a good shot at them. While this isn't a simulation game, I imagine it also brings a small element of realism as well. I've never been a WWII naval gunner, but I imagine firing from a stationary ship is more accurate than from one that's zig-zagging in short lines, or in a hard turn at speed.

Edited by Glarus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
578
[WOLF1]
Members
2,947 posts

no, long range sniping is not because of dead eye, it's the intrinsic problem of this game, anyone goes out first will get killed quickly, especially BBs since they can't evade shells like cruisers can, nor can they hide like DDs can, if they go out first they are pretty much sitting ducks to be killed first. to solve this problem, they need to give BBs better concealment or increase BB survivability (like lower tier BBs usually snipe less that's a clue)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,060
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,751 posts
5,999 battles

I saw somebody on Reddit suggest it be like Adrenaline Rush, but for accuracy.  The lower your ship's health, the more accurate your guns become.

9 hours ago, Laser_Beam said:

A simple fix to deadeye - don't select it.

That doesn't address the negative impact it has had on the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
409
[APEZ]
Members
641 posts
7,778 battles
10 hours ago, SKurj said:

i think that would be a bit silly...  in that your dispersion would be varying wildly during a battle.. 

why would that be a problem? increase the accuracy by x% for each unique hit on you by the enemy for the next salvo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331
[SNGNS]
Members
601 posts
6,978 battles
1 hour ago, Ado1fCarsar said:

why would that be a problem? increase the accuracy by x% for each unique hit on you by the enemy for the next salvo.

people would hold their fire and let the lights plink away at them for a while before deleting them in one salvo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
409
[APEZ]
Members
641 posts
7,778 battles
2 hours ago, TobTorp said:

people would hold their fire and let the lights plink away at them for a while before deleting them in one salvo...

No one is gonna focus you from 20km or more. Once you commit, and are able to disengage and survive and then pop someone with a single volley, you deserve the kill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×