Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
bubbleboy264

Why did they change skills in the first place...

63 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
455 posts
7,127 battles

Seriously, the 19 point skill system was fine. Have the devs never heard the expression if it isn't broke don't fix it? Have they ever given a specific reason why the old system needed fixing? As far as I know they haven't. They ruined skills for no good reason. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,043
[SALVO]
Members
26,737 posts
32,126 battles
1 minute ago, bubbleboy264 said:

Seriously, the 19 point skill system was fine. Have the devs never heard the expression if it isn't broke don't fix it? Have they ever given a specific reason why the old system needed fixing? As far as I know they haven't. They ruined skills for no good reason. 

They wanted to add variety to the skill tree, which I have absolutely no problem with.  What I do have a problem with is that I feel like their follow through, their execution of this was pretty weak.  They would split some old skills into 2 new skills.  And some new skills didn't seem to be very well thought out (Deadeye, for example).

I happen to like that there are separate skill trees for different ship types.  That said, cruisers, as a whole, are in a bit of a bind because they cover the widest array of sub types, from super cruisers (like the Alaska) down to ultra-light cruisers (like the Smolensk or the Atlanta, i.e. the ones armed with DD guns).  They could probably fix most of the issues with SC's reducing their burn time from 60 seconds down to 45 seconds.    As for regular CLs, they seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place with guns too large to avoid the concealment penalty on the 3 point Heavy HE/SAP Shells skill, but not large enough to qualify for other skills, such as the Heavy AP shells skill.

Personally, I don't think that they ruined skills at all and certainly for "no good reason".

 

  • Cool 3
  • Haha 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,404
[-TRM-]
[-TRM-]
Members
4,086 posts

Its to drain player resources. A bulliten within the game itself indicated that we were sitting on way too much ECXP and other resources among many of the players. So a new tree system and commander rework is done to drain off that. And probably be a naked cash grab as players plow money into unconverted FXP  to force 19's to 21 again.

It also destroyed the income from EXCP as well. The only income I get playing comes from the daily missions that award 1000 per day to Commander points XP and a tiny percentage more is added on as a incentive to get you to take commanders to 21. Prior to this rework I was running 100-300K ECXP per month to boost commanders. Now it's about 40,000 a month give or take a week.

I need 10 million minimum in ECXP and thats just the beginning. So I am properly bent over and shafted.

Ive gotten used to some of the skills being trash and not used and tried very hard to keep the original skills that I have decided is mandatory through my fleet by Ship class. DD's in particular. Other new skills are crap and not used (Such as Deadeye)

The commander rework that will cost me about 500 dollars cash to do in doubleloons would be left as they are with their specific ships. I have about 90 commanders and 63 ships (three are crappy italian BB's that will be sold sometime in the future. They dont have commanders anymore. I will probably purchase the admirals IX BB from the store as its equal to the Georgia in battle. there is a special italian commander with 15 points slated for that one.

I have a bit over 6 million unconverted XP which is one years worth of game play minus 2 million already spent from October of last year (So I went through almost 9 million so far) so expect a annual income of 10 million FXP that is not converted. It will take me as of today about 1500 dollars in Doubleloons to convert all that and gain 5 19's to about 21 points. Then the ECXP will flow again sufficiently fast to bootstrap the other 16, to 18 commanders to 21 relatively fast.

Edited by xHeavy
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,188
[WOLF5]
Supertester
5,236 posts
4,363 battles

Because the old version was getting stale, give me a ship type and I can tell you the best captain build for it. There really weren't many options for build diversity.

That's the nominal reasons they changed them, and IMO it was a good concept. Now whether the rework did that or improved the system is a completely different question...

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
971
Members
2,070 posts
12,862 battles
23 minutes ago, Spirit_of_76 said:

It’s to easily add subs.

And also to adjust skills on a per class basis such as IFHE being 4pt on CA, 3pt on DD, 2pt on BB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,353
[CAAT]
Members
2,345 posts
5,434 battles
23 minutes ago, Spirit_of_76 said:

It’s to easily add subs.

I'll admit, this seems very likely to be the reason. There just weren't any really "sub-specific" builds you could make with the old captain skills...I mean, I GUESS you could just build it like you would a destroyer, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,404
[-TRM-]
[-TRM-]
Members
4,086 posts

American Sub. Drive fast. See enemy rubber ducky. Shoot. Wait to be sunk. (Because you cannot turn...)

Russian Sub. Find American Subs and Tbone by ramming. No weapons or hocus pocus needed.

German Sub. Find everyone playing with fancy toys pushing buttons of all sorts. Slowly get sunk.

Italian Sub. Cook something good and charm your enemies into defeat when they have to run to the loo.

English Sub. Having to be carried to battle area and maybe sink something. Or at least put a hole in it.

French Sub. Unknown. They sink one time really fast.

European Sub. By committee. Results inconclusive.

Chinese Sub. Build out of Gold. Then wonder why it sank.

Japanese Sub. Build everything. Big subs, little tiny subs and try to sink ships. Banzai!

Edited by xHeavy
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,481
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
32,203 posts
26,997 battles

The Old Skill System worked, refined with 5 years of the game being Live.  So obviously there was a need to smash it to pieces and reset the game basically back to Day 1 levels of unrefined, unbalanced, poorly implemented system.

 

We have a system now where we don't know if our own d*mn buffs are in effect.

We have a system now that strips away entire capabilities just because of the ship type you chose.

We have a bunch of stupid implemented skills like Outnumbered, Super Heavy AP Shells, etc.  What idiot is going to slot those?

 

This whole thing is several steps backwards.

  • Cool 4
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7,122 posts
23,342 battles
1 hour ago, bubbleboy264 said:

Seriously, the 19 point skill system was fine. Have the devs never heard the expression if it isn't broke don't fix it? Have they ever given a specific reason why the old system needed fixing? As far as I know they haven't. They ruined skills for no good reason. 

To monetize/revenue captains xp.

Everything is a diversion. The game is the same, we are just arguing about minutia concerning Deadeye and the other skills. We are not arguing about how much more time and money it will cost each player to have what he already had.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,464
[BEA5T]
Members
5,504 posts
26,082 battles
46 minutes ago, bubbleboy264 said:

Seriously, the 19 point skill system was fine. Have the devs never heard the expression if it isn't broke don't fix it? Have they ever given a specific reason why the old system needed fixing? As far as I know they haven't. They ruined skills for no good reason. 

I believe the real reason was to devalue the player economy.  The tool to do this was the Skill Tree Change to 21 Point CPT's.  The method to devalue the economy was to create the Facade of Choices they alluded would allow optimization and many assumed that Choice is an increase in efficiency.   That is not the case.  The overall goal of the Skill Tree Change was to "degrade and to make less efficient" Cpt to Ship choices....  Overall, after this change, we had to "pay for" what we already had in 19 point CPT and, with degraded choices, we earn less and have to play more.  In addition, our host trapped a lot of players whom did and don't understand how these choices are less efficient.....making them to play more matches for the same, pre-Skill Tree Change values under 19 point CPTs....

Just my opinion......

41 minutes ago, Crucis said:

They wanted to add variety to the skill tree, which I have absolutely no problem with.  What I do have a problem with is that I feel like their follow through, their execution of this was pretty weak.  They would split some old skills into 2 new skills.  And some new skills didn't seem to be very well thought out (Deadeye, for example).

I happen to like that there are separate skill trees for different ship types.  That said, cruisers, as a whole, are in a bit of a bind because they cover the widest array of sub types, from super cruisers (like the Alaska) down to ultra-light cruisers (like the Smolensk or the Atlanta, i.e. the ones armed with DD guns).  They could probably fix most of the issues with SC's reducing their burn time from 60 seconds down to 45 seconds.    As for regular CLs, they seem to be caught between a rock and a hard place with guns too large to avoid the concealment penalty on the 3 point Heavy HE/SAP Shells skill, but not large enough to qualify for other skills, such as the Heavy AP shells skill.

Personally, I don't think that they ruined skills at all and certainly for "no good reason".

They hid loss of value and the ability to earn pre-skill tree change amounts under the facade of "Variety..."    @xHeavy said it earlier:  "to drain player resources".....  And, to reduce the ability to earn "real value" at the same rate we did pre-skill tree change.

As I have reported and provided examples of other games doing very similar things, we lost more than we gained.....  In fact, most games that do this pretty much implode.....not close, although, some do, but take the slippery slope mature, status quo games operate on.........   In my opinion, having lived through this Skill Tree Change a few times, the "good reason" was to squeeze the last few dollars out of a game going no where...... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,272 posts
15,135 battles

Any time you see a major rework like this, in any game, it's to increase revenue and increase play time.

To drive those 2 metrics up.

It's common amongst f2p online service based games. F2P MMORPG vets will immediately recognize this.

Edited by Rollingonit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,432
[MIBRA]
Banned
1,424 posts
9,028 battles

1- To add subs

2- To cash in people trying to get to 21 pts

3- To cash in on players who missed the free respec

4- To cash in later on after they nerf the skills and force people to respec all over again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,368
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
4,648 posts

apparently to save the game before it dies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,525
[PVE]
Members
14,729 posts
31,352 battles
2 hours ago, bubbleboy264 said:

Seriously, the 19 point skill system was fine. Have the devs never heard the expression if it isn't broke don't fix it? Have they ever given a specific reason why the old system needed fixing? As far as I know they haven't. They ruined skills for no good reason. 

Increase the grind for the players  and to make more $$$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13,525
[PVE]
Members
14,729 posts
31,352 battles
2 hours ago, Spirit_of_76 said:

It’s to easily add subs.

They could have done that under the old system easier - just add some new skills and make the existing skill tree wider to accommodate them. No need for an entire rework of all the other ships skills. Also, there was no need to go from 19 to 21 either. This was a WANT by WG to increase player grind and to get more $$$ out of us.

Edited by AdmiralThunder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
629 posts
12,602 battles
1 minute ago, AdmiralThunder said:

They could have done that under the old system easier - just add some new skills and make the existing skill tree wider to accommodate them. No need for an entire rework of all the other ships.

I disagree. Too many people would try to choose expert marksman or whatever for their sub captain.

Edited by Spirit_of_76

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
224
[B_Y_F]
Members
714 posts
16,531 battles
2 hours ago, bubbleboy264 said:

Seriously, the 19 point skill system was fine. Have the devs never heard the expression if it isn't broke don't fix it? Have they ever given a specific reason why the old system needed fixing? As far as I know they haven't. They ruined skills for no good reason. 

No, the old system is broken. 

With the inflation of free XP because WG introduced and sell so many economic flags and camo. Also with the fact that most player more than one year old will have a healthy amount of 19 pointer.  The old system stop generating any profit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,368
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
4,648 posts
16 minutes ago, sapient007 said:

No, the old system is broken. 

With the inflation of free XP because WG introduced and sell so many economic flags and camo. Also with the fact that most player more than one year old will have a healthy amount of 19 pointer.  The old system stop generating any profit. 

 

i bet a lot of players had 19's but i don't think it is the majority...  i have 2500 games played tween coop and random, 2/3's random and not a single 19...   maybe they wanted more money out of the veterans...

if they really wanted to do a rework... they sure didn't put a lot of effort into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
971
Members
2,070 posts
12,862 battles

I don't think there is one reason, they did it for many reasons some of which have been listed in this thread.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,576
[CVA16]
Members
6,858 posts
21,047 battles

I will agree that the major reason was to add subs.

Pushing the max to 21 would be OK if they didn't gimp, split or inflate the price (PT!) of many of the skills so that your 21 pt commander was probably less effective than the old 19 pt version. And he costs a whole lot more.

The multiple skill pages for each captain is a cool idea IF you have a lot of premium ships. Although it still helps if you have a single premium you can cycle all of your captains thru to grind. They no longer have to be the same ship type. If you have no premiums for a nation, WG hopes you will buy one or two (and hopefully for cash)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
821 posts
6,303 battles

nothing but a moneygrab to make us spend our free exp/dubs to get back what they took away.

 

dont get me wrong, old captain skill tree was terrible and offered very little in the way of choice but instead of creating skills that increaced variety for the most part what they did was give us the same choices but  now we need 21 points to do what the old 19 points did...

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,437
[-BCO-]
Members
3,026 posts
5,311 battles
2 hours ago, Spirit_of_76 said:

It’s to easily add subs.

This. But not skill tree wise. By shafting the meta... and the game.

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.

×