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

Commander Skills Do Not Work.

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
91 posts
3,815 battles

As you already know, the commander skill system was implemented with the idea of giving players options. However the method of giving players options doesn’t really work, commander skills is a grid of skills that you pick when you have enough levels, leading to a basically endless amount of combinations. At first glance this probably seems appealing, however what we have is deeply flawed.

 

My Issue

 

Firstly, each decision is not equal and likely will never be. It’s just such a huge thing to try to balance all at once, it’s unrealistic to think it can be done, especially when there are other priorities. For example concealment expert is basically required on every build, because it simply allows you to be shot at less. Then there is priority target/ incoming fire, and so on. You’ve got high value skills and low value skills mixed together, obviously you would try to have as many high value skills as you can, which limits the actual choices you have to a handful.

 

Secondly, there are predetermined builds in the system that take up multiple skills. It kind of defeats the purpose of giving so many options when you have these select few builds that aren’t mentioned in game to tailor. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it is needlessly confusing and even goes against the goal here, it is an obstacle when it doesn’t need to be one.

 

My Solution

 

Now at first I wasn’t sure what was off about the system, but then I saw how other games handled player choice, or I started to get into DnD and saw where it succeeded where WoWs doesn’t.

 

My proposed solution is to allow a commander to specialize in a specific part of the ship, or be a jack of all trades with a predetermined path put out directly in front of you. This will be the major decision point of what you do with your commander. Commander level ups will be a mixture of major and minor skills based on what they are specialized as, along with being based on ship class. Level ups may improve a previous skill or give the user a choice of around 3 skills to tailor the build.

 

The builds themselves could be a creative as the devs want, one could be a mix of main guns and stealth, and another could be cranking secondaries to 11. They would obviously need a noticeable impact on any ship, though a Montana wouldn’t have as strong of a secondary build as a GK, the point would be that it’s possible and reasonably effective.

 

Conclusion

 

I feel going down the predetermined build route would give us what we already have but without the needless complexity that perhaps harms the accessibility of WoWs. I also feel that these would be much easier to balance than a grid as they are their own entity, you can justify a gun spam build not having stealth because of how much damage they pump out, and so on. You also give minor skills some spotlight when they would be overlooked as they couldn’t compete in the previous system.

 

I’m curious to what other thoughts are, as this is a WIP idea.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
[-TRM-]
[-TRM-]
Members
3,863 posts

If you had a Montana, full secondaries... that worked almost as if you had two full Atlantas on each side of your main batteries, then there would be nothing left of red team in a couple of minutes.

The game is a arcade not a simulator.

Its endured many nerfs and will continue to do so. Players stick to ships that work in battle, lethal and effective. In some modes those ships are removed or restricted. Or removed from game entirely. (Too popular they said... well DUH....)

 

All my ships have a captian and each of them generally stay with their ship for the entire life of the game product. Some going on 6 years with no progressing beyond 10 because the ships they drive cannot survive battle in game. And are port queens. Attention and expenses are lavished on the few ships, about two dozen that do well.

Edited by xHeavy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,277
[CAAT]
Members
2,245 posts
5,159 battles
5 minutes ago, eMercody_Viveleny said:

The builds themselves could be a creative as the devs want, one could be a mix of main guns and stealth, and another could be cranking secondaries to 11. They would obviously need a noticeable impact on any ship, though a Montana wouldn’t have as strong of a secondary build as a GK, the point would be that it’s possible and reasonably effective.

This is the ideal outcome. This is what I want from my secondaries builds.  I want it, so that, IF you invest THAT heavily into a secondaries build, no, my Montana would not be as strong with secondaries as GK, but they'd at least be a viable choice (no, being a CQC proc machine doesn't count as "viable") and reasonably effective. And this is exactly what the Manual Secondaries nerf kills currently. Why would you ever build into secondaries if you can barely hit 10% or even 15% of the time? Why build into it if all you're doing is less than 10k damage with secondaries, if even that much? And this is the problem that specifically afflicts any battleship WITHOUT built-in secondaries dispersion buffs. It even affects those secondaries/German battleships too, if we're being fair, because the over-nerf to secondaries dispersion is SO large that even THOSE ships are struggling.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,277
[CAAT]
Members
2,245 posts
5,159 battles
3 minutes ago, xHeavy said:

If you had a Montana, full secondaries... that worked almost as if you had two full Atlantas on each side of your main batteries, then there would be nothing left of red team in a couple of minutes.

Naturally, I'd expect that Montana to have viable secondaries WITHIN REASON, not iWin buttons on the side of your ship. Nobody wants that. What I want are secondaries that RELIABLY deal supplementary damage alongside main battery fire, which is something they're just not doing well enough atm to justify building into them, doubly so on battleships without improved secondaries dispersion buffs built-in.

As they are right now though, they're a glorified proc machine for CQC's main battery boost, especially on said BBs without built-in secondaries dispersion buffs.  Which is EXTREMELY disappointing, because it limits the number of ways a battleship can be built. Also, you don't buy Massachusetts for "good secondaries for proccing CQC's main battery boost!" do you? Or Tirpitz? Or any secondaries BB? There's a reason they're called "Secondaries BBs". It's because one of their MAIN selling feature is...good secondaries! 

TL;DR, ISBA is over-nerfed and Wargaming needs to buff secondaries accuracy to at LEAST passable levels. (ESPECIALLY for non-Secondaries BBs)They are NOT reliable as supplementary damage dealers alongside main battery fire, which is their literal purpose. And because of this nerf, once again, Captain builds have stagnated. you build tank or bust. "Build diversity".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
91 posts
3,815 battles

Theoretically dedicating an entire build to them would give WG a chance to get them right, including dispersion buffs, perhaps you could be worried of being too accurate and that would be a good decision point in the build. As its own entity, you could balance based on win rate, which is more leverage to get WG to buff secondary builds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,369
[BEA5T]
Members
5,413 posts
25,154 battles
43 minutes ago, eMercody_Viveleny said:

As you already know, the commander skill system was implemented with the idea of giving players options. However the method of giving players options doesn’t really work, commander skills is a grid of skills that you pick when you have enough levels, leading to a basically endless amount of combinations. At first glance this probably seems appealing, however what we have is deeply flawed.

My Issue

Firstly, each decision is not equal and likely will never be. It’s just such a huge thing to try to balance all at once, it’s unrealistic to think it can be done, especially when there are other priorities. For example concealment expert is basically required on every build, because it simply allows you to be shot at less. Then there is priority target/ incoming fire, and so on. You’ve got high value skills and low value skills mixed together, obviously you would try to have as many high value skills as you can, which limits the actual choices you have to a handful.

Secondly, there are predetermined builds in the system that take up multiple skills. It kind of defeats the purpose of giving so many options when you have these select few builds that aren’t mentioned in game to tailor. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it is needlessly confusing and even goes against the goal here, it is an obstacle when it doesn’t need to be one.

My Solution

Now at first I wasn’t sure what was off about the system, but then I saw how other games handled player choice, or I started to get into DnD and saw where it succeeded where WoWs doesn’t.

My proposed solution is to allow a commander to specialize in a specific part of the ship, or be a jack of all trades with a predetermined path put out directly in front of you. This will be the major decision point of what you do with your commander. Commander level ups will be a mixture of major and minor skills based on what they are specialized as, along with being based on ship class. Level ups may improve a previous skill or give the user a choice of around 3 skills to tailor the build.

The builds themselves could be a creative as the devs want, one could be a mix of main guns and stealth, and another could be cranking secondaries to 11. They would obviously need a noticeable impact on any ship, though a Montana wouldn’t have as strong of a secondary build as a GK, the point would be that it’s possible and reasonably effective.

Conclusion

I feel going down the predetermined build route would give us what we already have but without the needless complexity that perhaps harms the accessibility of WoWs. I also feel that these would be much easier to balance than a grid as they are their own entity, you can justify a gun spam build not having stealth because of how much damage they pump out, and so on. You also give minor skills some spotlight when they would be overlooked as they couldn’t compete in the previous system.

I’m curious to what other thoughts are, as this is a WIP idea.

He's how I see this issue:   I like what you said above.  Although, the concept won't work....

First off, the Skill Tree Change has nothing to do with CPT skills in the first place.......it is a facade to placate the customers.....i.e.:  "Give them choices to enhance the playing experience" is the mantra; but, in reality, what is really going on is the devaluation of the Game Economy to make the game itself less player revenue positive.....   This is an old video game tactic.  And, it has been used several times in other games. Example later.

Think about this:  you have to spend more to qualify a ship CPT at 21 point.  Of those 21 points, what were the "increases in ship effectiveness" from where we were???  Let's see:  Turrets now are slower;  Secondaries are less effective no matter what you spend or do;  Increased accuracy has been removed because it actually was increasing per game earning (and, the overall effects are supposed to be player revenue negative !): and, the rest of the skills just seem to be less effective than what they were before the change???    As I have mentioned several times before, this Skill Tree Change is the final corporate change once the game has reached a Mature Game Status.

Overall,

we'll spend more to earn less and will have to "buy-use" more to break even or progress slower.....

Here's a sample from another game:

image.thumb.png.8f7078e9bd9e2ebf4e7b6530b0516e39.png

image.thumb.png.4b96132339c93e8327a120fa4898dfd9.png

Each vehicle in this game ^^^^ now has 91 modes they can choose from to customize that vehicle.  In this game's skill tree change, each module tells you what increased value you are getting.   And, you only can choose 91.  In reality, the vehicle you had BEFORE this Skill Tree Change was 130 modules....>!!!!  So, no matter what you did, you never could reconfigure that vehicle back to where it was BEFORE the Skill Tree Change; AND, that new vehicles now earns "less per game value" because the Vehicle is "x%" less effective.....   This game ^^^^^ used this skill tree change to hide the devaluation of the entire game's economy.   This game ^^^^^ is now a ghost town and was recently sold..... 

If you doubt this:  consider the Yamato from three years ago and today.   Here's the sequence:  after a preliminary "drawing change" that actually expanded the hit box geometry under the guise of making the animation better (ouch).......; then, the Skill Tree Change where Secondaries and Grease the Gears made the ship 30% less effective; and, when trying to configure that once great ship as a long range and "danger close" brawler, I can't get her anywhere near what she was earning before the change..... 

Same with the game above: the Vehicle I took these screen shots from was considered one of the best competitive mode long range killers........after their STC, it was never used again in competitions because it was 30% less effective.... AND, as you wanted as a suggestion above, to specifically reconfigure the vehicle for specific mission, simply doesn't work because our host has insured that it can't....!  Over all, the vehicle in that other game and my Yamato are in the same space:  about 30% less effective and revenue negative.....  And that, is the goal.........make them spend more to earn less, forcing them to buy.....or, lose value.

Moral of the story:  history repeats itself.

My solution:  Give us the 130 skill points and let us own the vehicle or ship we bought, as effective as it was day one, and, let's make every ship that way !  Make the game more lethal and let skill and tactics determine earning value....not gimmicks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
779 posts
6,054 battles

idealy all skills should be equaly valuable but for some reason WG is strugling to create more than 1 good choice with maybe 1 or 2 meme  choices like secondary or lighthouse builds.

it dosent take a genius to realise that skills like super heavy AP or outnumbered are noobtraps, some of them are easy to fix like replacing super heavy AP fire/flooding penalty with -20% to initial shell speed. That would be a pretty nice buff for brawlers that will benefit from the extra damage aswell as AP being less likely to overpen

something that i find realy anoying about the new skills is that we are stuck with class skills  when ships despite being of the same class play very diferent, i think it would help a lot if ships could choose wich class skill tree they want to use

for instance:

cruisers with guns of over 152mm get to pick between cruiser or BB skills

cruisers with guns of 152mm or lower get to pick between DDs or cruiser skills

BBs get to pick between cruiser or BB skills

DDs get to pick between DDs or cruiser skills

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
1,684 posts
2 hours ago, eMercody_Viveleny said:

As you already know, the commander skill system was implemented with the idea of giving players options. However the method of giving players options doesn’t really work, commander skills is a grid of skills that you pick when you have enough levels, leading to a basically endless amount of combinations. At first glance this probably seems appealing, however what we have is deeply flawed.

 

My Issue

 

Firstly, each decision is not equal and likely will never be. It’s just such a huge thing to try to balance all at once, it’s unrealistic to think it can be done, especially when there are other priorities. For example concealment expert is basically required on every build, because it simply allows you to be shot at less. Then there is priority target/ incoming fire, and so on. You’ve got high value skills and low value skills mixed together, obviously you would try to have as many high value skills as you can, which limits the actual choices you have to a handful.

 

Secondly, there are predetermined builds in the system that take up multiple skills. It kind of defeats the purpose of giving so many options when you have these select few builds that aren’t mentioned in game to tailor. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it is needlessly confusing and even goes against the goal here, it is an obstacle when it doesn’t need to be one.

 

My Solution

 

Now at first I wasn’t sure what was off about the system, but then I saw how other games handled player choice, or I started to get into DnD and saw where it succeeded where WoWs doesn’t.

 

My proposed solution is to allow a commander to specialize in a specific part of the ship, or be a jack of all trades with a predetermined path put out directly in front of you. This will be the major decision point of what you do with your commander. Commander level ups will be a mixture of major and minor skills based on what they are specialized as, along with being based on ship class. Level ups may improve a previous skill or give the user a choice of around 3 skills to tailor the build.

 

The builds themselves could be a creative as the devs want, one could be a mix of main guns and stealth, and another could be cranking secondaries to 11. They would obviously need a noticeable impact on any ship, though a Montana wouldn’t have as strong of a secondary build as a GK, the point would be that it’s possible and reasonably effective.

 

Conclusion

 

I feel going down the predetermined build route would give us what we already have but without the needless complexity that perhaps harms the accessibility of WoWs. I also feel that these would be much easier to balance than a grid as they are their own entity, you can justify a gun spam build not having stealth because of how much damage they pump out, and so on. You also give minor skills some spotlight when they would be overlooked as they couldn’t compete in the previous system.

 

I’m curious to what other thoughts are, as this is a WIP idea.

My Issue is the skills changes were NEVER asked for.

Sure some asked for more skills to choose from but not what we got.

I have 12 commanders @ 21 points and three quickly moving up.

It is sad considering I had 18 - 19 pointers before this forced change.

With the Commander changes and the Nerfs to so many well used skills and the conditional skills IMHO just stopped all meaningful progress a player could have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,811
[PVE]
Members
8,795 posts
25,076 battles
39 minutes ago, pepe_trueno said:

idealy all skills should be equaly valuable but for some reason WG is strugling to create more than 1 good choice with maybe 1 or 2 meme  choices like secondary or lighthouse builds.

it dosent take a genius to realise that skills like super heavy AP or outnumbered are noobtraps, some of them are easy to fix like replacing super heavy AP fire/flooding penalty with -20% to initial shell speed. That would be a pretty nice buff for brawlers that will benefit from the extra damage aswell as AP being less likely to overpen

something that i find realy anoying about the new skills is that we are stuck with class skills  when ships despite being of the same class play very diferent, i think it would help a lot if ships could choose wich class skill tree they want to use

for instance:

cruisers with guns of over 152mm get to pick between cruiser or BB skills

cruisers with guns of 152mm or lower get to pick between DDs or cruiser skills

BBs get to pick between cruiser or BB skills

DDs get to pick between DDs or cruiser skills

Good suggestions (don't think it will ever happen...but good suggestions anyway)...

& I hate to be a grammar Nazi...but for better clarification you should change "class" to "type"...as class refers to a group of the same type of ships (such as the T9 Pan Asian Chung Mu DD being a Fletcher class DD).

DDs/Cruisers/BBs/CVs are different types...classes are groups of the same type of ship named after the lead ship in the class.

Musashi being a Yamato class & Tirpitz being a Bismarck class for example.

Some CVs were named after cruiser or BB class ships because they were retrofits of those classes of those types of ships (aka originally built as the cruiser or BB & later retrofitted w/a flight deck)...but generally ship classes are usually of the same type.

Oh...& 152 (specifically...being the guns on most light cruisers) should get to choose between DD & cruiser...above 152 should get the BB/cruiser options...although Mogami would appreciate it if you bumped it up to 155s & let them get the DD's AFT/BFT equivalent (not to mention the Fearless Brawler) options also...like it used to have (AFT & BFT anyway...not the FB) way back in the good old days (which unfortunately was before my time...man that would have been fun).

Edited by IfYouSeeKhaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,129
[FOXY]
Members
2,564 posts
7,685 battles
36 minutes ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

Good suggestions (don't think it will ever happen...but good suggestions anyway)...

& I hate to be a grammar Nazi...but for better clarification you should change "class" to "type"...as class refers to a group of the same type of ships (such as the T9 Pan Asian Chung Mu DD being a Fletcher class DD).

DDs/Cruisers/BBs/CVs are different types...classes are groups of the same type of ship named after the lead ship in the class.

Musashi being a Yamato class & Tirpitz being a Bismarck class for example.

Some CVs were named after cruiser or BB class ships because they were retrofits of those classes of those types of ships (aka originally built as the cruiser or BB & later retrofitted w/a flight deck)...but generally ship classes are usually of the same type.

Oh...& 152 (specifically...being the guns on most light cruisers) should get to choose between DD & cruiser...above 152 should get the BB/cruiser options...although Mogami would appreciate it if you bumped it up to 155s & let them get the DD's AFT/BFT equivalent (not to mention the Fearless Brawler) options also...like it used to have (AFT & BFT anyway...not the FB) way back in the good old days (which unfortunately was before my time...man that would have been fun).

Ehhhhh...

I play so many MMOs i see no difference between calling BB/CV/CA/DDs/SS classes and calling an Archer a class. When it cames to game terms i throw realism out the door. Yes Fletchers are a Class of destroyers, but destroyers are a class of ships in the game.

It would be nice if Light cruisers, and supercruisers could choose between Cruisers or Battleship skills though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,889
[SALVO]
Members
26,560 posts
31,201 battles
1 hour ago, Nikolay_Kuznetsov_ said:

My Issue is the skills changes were NEVER asked for.

This is pretty much irrelevant to me.  There's lots of stuff that's unasked for and yet people end up liking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Banned
1,684 posts
11 minutes ago, Crucis said:

This is pretty much irrelevant to me.  There's lots of stuff that's unasked for and yet people end up liking.

If you like it then OK not my concern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,477 posts
4,779 battles

It would be interesting if picking a set of specific skills unlocked a 5th skill. For example,

  • Picking all the secondary skills unlocks a 5th skills that unnurfs the secondary's and maybe more.
  • Selecting a set of consumable related skills unlocks a 5th skill that restores a charge when all charges are used.
  • Selecting all vision related skills like vigilance and incoming fire alert could unlocked a 5th skill that further extends the range or hydro and radar by 1km maybe. 

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.

×