Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
rhulkb27

The outright removal of deadeye was a terrible idea

61 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
227 posts
6,616 battles

With the removal of deadeye in 0.10.4,  the commander rework will stand as a direct nerf to battleships. Not only did wargaming nerf secondaries to the point where they are almost unusable, but now in order to get the exact same tank build as pre rework you have to spend 2 extra points.

Was a nerf on this scale to battleships even necessary? In terms of game influence on a randoms match, battleships rank as some of the worst, as they do not have the concealment to control an engagement or cap like a destroyer, they don't have the utility or dpm like cruisers, nor do they have an overpowering influence on the match like carriers do. Deadeye was the one solace given to battleships, that they would be able to punish mistakes with a greater level of consistency. From this point of view, the skill was healthy for the game. 

Most of the complaints about deadeye were about the debuff, and the passive meta it created. I agree with these complaints. For average battleship players who do not understand how to position well, it resulted in them staying much farther back. From a positional point of view however, the battleship that pushes in and dies in the first 10 minutes of the match is just as bad or even worse than the battleship that camps in the back, because not only will they remove thier match impact from half the match but they will also give the enemy team points. The issue is not necessarily that battleship players themselves are positioning any worse than they were pre rework, rather than that the passive meta created by the debuff created an unfun game experience as a whole.  

For good battleship players however, their playstyle barely changed at all. In general, optimal battleship play involves positioning as close as possible (depending on numerous factors such as your hp, and friendly and enemy ship positioning) but still always having a disengage option. Because of this, if you play your battleships correctly you will rarely be in a situation where there is a ship spotted within your concealment range, because this would mean you have no way to disengage. Thus, deadeye actually rewarded good positioning.

The correct way to approach the deadeye issue in my opinion would be to simply remove the debuff. It would reward good positioning and aim while simultaneously solving the passive meta issue. 

 

Edited by rhulkb27
  • Cool 12
  • Funny 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Boring 4
  • Meh 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,978
[WORX]
Members
14,144 posts
20,593 battles

Good conclusion but your arguments notwithstanding in support of your conclusion.. I disagree...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,618
[SALVO]
Members
3,664 posts
7,530 battles

Potato Quality was saying much the same thing. 

 

I do think its a good question whether it was intended as a BB nerf.   Maybe just a BBs stay where they are kind of thing.  However with the massive increase in cost on being able to achieve the old standard it definitely exposes that economic effect.   IE  its vastly more expensive now for BBs to achieve the same thing as before. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,618
[SALVO]
Members
3,664 posts
7,530 battles
7 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Good conclusion but your arguments notwithstanding in support of your conclusion.. I disagree...

Can you break this one down for me ? Is the final disagreement with the conclusions or with the arguments and if its with the conclusions why call them good ? 

Edited by eviltane
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
165 posts
8,129 battles
1 minute ago, eviltane said:

Potato Quality was saying much the same thing. 

 

I do think its a good question whether it was intended as a BB nerf.   Maybe just a BBs stay where they are kind of thing.  However with the massive increase in cost on being able to achieve the old standard it definitely exposes that economic effect.   IE  its vastly more expensive now for BBs to achieve the same thing as before. 

Several other nerfs to BB builds were overlooked by the playerbase on the account of Deadeye being controversial, i.e. superintendent being 4 points and not giving an extra reload booster for French Battleships, etc.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
227 posts
6,616 battles
5 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Good conclusion but your arguments notwithstanding in support of your conclusion.. I disagree...

I edited my post to try to make my arguements clearer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,664
[USRUS]
[USRUS]
Members
1,778 posts
22,310 battles

Dead eye was great for the game... removing it will make your back line campers go back to being usless. At least with deadeye they hit things. 

  • Funny 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,935
[SALVO]
Members
9,000 posts
6,709 battles
7 minutes ago, rhulkb27 said:

Was a nerf on this scale to battleships even necessary?

Since WG apparently balances on popularity and the Queue is constantly overloaded with Battleships, I guess steps were taken to discourage BB gameplay and steer players to other ship types. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,978
[WORX]
Members
14,144 posts
20,593 battles
10 minutes ago, eviltane said:

Can you break this one down for me ? Is the final disagreement with the conclusions or with the arguments and if its with the conclusions why call the good ? 

I agree with the OP on the following conclusion

 

15 minutes ago, rhulkb27 said:

The correct way to approach the deadeye issue in my opinion would be to simply remove the debuff. It would reward good positioning and aim while simultaneously solving the passive meta issue. 

^^^^ Even when a WG employee suggest a good replacement stipulation to Deaeye that made sense to the current WOWS game modes... The "Suits" went with a different choice (What we have now speed.)


I disagree with the body of his post... Its his opinion and that is fine... In no way its a BB nerf... At least at high tiers anyway...

Edited by Navalpride33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
165 posts
8,129 battles

I only recently got into playing comp BB but this is just suffering. We're just back to full tank build. It's not like any of the alternatives are even good. Super Heavy AP shells is more viable with the buff to the penalties but I personally don't care about a 5% increase in AP damage. Based on who you ask BOS is a bad skill and I didn't even remember that +10% to torpedo protection skill even existed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
[-A-8-]
Members
616 posts
23,784 battles
9 minutes ago, rhulkb27 said:

For average battleship players who do not understand how to position well, it resulted in them staying much farther back resulting in static and unfun games.

There are far more average or worse BB players though so the proportion of BB captains on the second to back row is why the skill has been so widely criticised by the player base.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
165 posts
8,129 battles
2 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Since WG apparently balances on popularity and the Queue is constantly overloaded with Battleships, I guess steps were taken to discourage BB gameplay and steer players to other ship types. 

From what I've seen MM is a very mixed bag with a lot of games BB's being an endangered species. Honestly too many steps were taken to discourage BB gameplay as every other class got direct buffs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,618
[SALVO]
Members
3,664 posts
7,530 battles
3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

I agree with the OP on the following conclusion

 

^^^^ Even when a WG employee suggest a good replacement stipulation to Deaeye that made sense to the current WOWS game modes... The Suits went with a different choice (What we have now speed.)


I disagree with the body of his post... Its his opinion and that is fine... In no way its a BB nerf... At least at high tiers anyway...

Thank you!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
165 posts
8,129 battles
4 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

I agree with the OP on the following conclusion

 

^^^^ Even when a WG employee suggest a good replacement stipulation to Deaeye that made sense to the current WOWS game modes... The Suits went with a different choice (What we have now speed.)


I disagree with the body of his post... Its his opinion and that is fine... In no way its a BB nerf... At least at high tiers anyway...

How do you come to that conclusion? Please explain as to how this is a buff to BBs at high tiers, I need to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,935
[SALVO]
Members
9,000 posts
6,709 battles
5 minutes ago, BattleshipPrincessRaulia said:

From what I've seen MM is a very mixed bag with a lot of games BB's being an endangered species. Honestly too many steps were taken to discourage BB gameplay as every other class got direct buffs

High tier BBs still comfortably outnumber any other ship type in matches played

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20210410/na_week/average_class.html

Edited by ArIskandir
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,978
[WORX]
Members
14,144 posts
20,593 battles
1 minute ago, BattleshipPrincessRaulia said:

How do you come to that conclusion? Please explain as to how this is a buff to BBs at high tiers, I need to know.

I never used the word "BUFF" in any of the post of the thread... All I stated, I disagree with the OP's post that its a "NERF" to BBs... Its not, especially at high tiers..

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,124 posts

it took about 1 hour after the release of the dead eye... then anybody that could be found to complain about the skill did so i will assume 2nd accounts got involved also....people played back because they wanted to try out the new skill and realized it could be deactivated so they moved back ....every body who installed this skill has the right to try it out and i think wows gave 7 days to do so ..before making it permanent...

but now it seems to me this bb nerf is to keep the cls they released and have plans to release  protected...kind of like what they are doing with dds... 

problem isnt the skill its the commanders on the receiving end ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
165 posts
8,129 battles
3 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

I never used the word "BUFF" in any of the post of the thread... All I stated, I disagree with the OP's post that its a "NERF" to BBs... Its not, especially at high tiers..

If it's not nerfing BB's then what is it doing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,978
[WORX]
Members
14,144 posts
20,593 battles
1 minute ago, BattleshipPrincessRaulia said:

If it's not nerfing BB's then what is it doing...

Nothing... High tier was/is a hot mess before deadeye... High tier will remain a hot mess for tomorrow's patch.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54
[SCCC2]
Members
126 posts
12,548 battles
1 minute ago, Navalpride33 said:

Nothing... High tier was/is a hot mess before deadeye... High tier will remain a hot mess for tomorrow's patch.

 

Uh... deadeye changes till 10.4 my dude...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,177
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
15,515 posts
17 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Since WG apparently balances on popularity and the Queue is constantly overloaded with Battleships, I guess steps were taken to discourage BB gameplay and steer players to other ship types. 

The problem is that they keep introducing new battleship lines and battleship events, which makes people play battleships more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,277
[CAAT]
Members
2,245 posts
5,171 battles
29 minutes ago, rhulkb27 said:

With the removal of deadeye in 0.10.4,  the commander rework will stand as a direct nerf to battleships. Not only did wargaming nerf secondaries to the point where they are almost unusable, but now in order to get the exact same tank build as pre rework you have to spend 2 extra points.

Was a nerf on this scale to battleships even necessary? In terms of game influence on a randoms match, battleships rank as some of the worst, as they do not have the concealment to control an engagement or cap like a destroyer, they don't have the utility or dpm like cruisers, nor do they have an overpowering influence on the match like carriers do. Deadeye was the one solace given to battleships, that they would be able to punish mistakes with a greater level of consistency. From this point of view, the skill was healthy for the game. 

Most of the complaints about deadeye were about the debuff, and the passive meta it created. I agree with these complaints. For average battleship players who do not understand how to position well, it resulted in them staying much farther back. From a positional point of view however, the battleship that pushes in and dies in the first 10 minutes of the match is just as bad or even worse than the battleship that camps in the back, because not only will they remove thier match impact from half the match but they will also give the enemy team points. The issue is not necessarily that battleship players themselves are positioning any worse than they were pre rework, rather than that the passive meta created by the debuff created an unfun game experience as a whole.  

For good battleship players however, their playstyle barely changed at all. In general, optimal battleship play involves positioning as close as possible (depending on numerous factors such as your hp, and friendly and enemy ship positioning) but still always having a disengage option. Because of this, if you play your battleships correctly you will rarely be in a situation where there is a ship spotted within your concealment range, because this would mean you have no way to disengage. Thus, deadeye actually rewarded good positioning.

The correct way to approach the deadeye issue in my opinion would be to simply remove the debuff. It would reward good positioning and aim while simultaneously solving the passive meta issue. 

 

Well, I mean, based on how that russian server dev claims "sekret spreadsheet says secondaries efficiency is fine" or whatever, it doesn't surprise me that Dead Eye just gets removed entirely as opposed to fixing the one real issue about it, the condition of use. Nope, they just removed it, DIDN'T fix secondaries, claim secondaries are fine (which has been proven to be an outright LIE based on the real math/statistics that they love so much), and overall made it so that survivability build is the ONLY viable build, once again, but because it costs more to make, it is a slightly inferior version to pre-0.10.0. Fun and engaging.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[SMURF]
Members
14 posts
5,447 battles
4 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

Nothing... High tier was/is a hot mess before deadeye... High tier will remain a hot mess for tomorrow's patch.

 

Just out of curiosity...how many high-tier BBs do you own/play?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×