Class based commander skills for cruisers

[The_Chiv]

I was so happy when I heard WG was gonna do skill trees based on the class of the ship. This has been something I have been asking for since like alpha as the current version lacks any real incentive to creative builds that focused unique playstyles and felt a bit meh. So when I saw the news I was ecstatic, till I got to the cruisers section. 

 

Every class has some great skill choices and some really great build potential, except for cruisers. All three types of cruisers, YES THERE ARE THREE, suffer pretty hard under this new scheme. They are bland and in many cases just copy pasta of the same basic skills we already had. Whats worse is light cruisers like Colbert, Flynn, Atlanta, and Smolensk lose both ROF and range because of this new scheme. Even Super cruisers feel a bit neglected in these new skills. Cruisers should have 3 different trees as each sub class plays completely different then the others and with no unique skills like the cv, bb, and dds have, cruisers will become stagnant and remain cookie cutter.

 

Am I missing something here or is WG dropping the ball?

[Klopirat]

3 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

The biggest issue will come from consumable as no skill adds any to them, but bbs, dds, and even cv's get the skills to increase them.

what about "Provident"?

[The_Chiv]

1 minute ago, Klopirat said:

what about "Provident"?

I some how glossed over that but amended the topic. Point is the cruiser skill tree is bland in comparison to bb, dd, and cv

[HaachamaShipping]

40 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

Whats worse is light cruisers like Colbert, Flynn, Atlanta, and Smolensk lose both ROF and range because of this new scheme.

While they lose RoF, Demoman at least gives them the dpm back, kinda.

[The_Chiv]

13 minutes ago, HaachamaShipping said:

While they lose RoF, Demoman at least gives them the dpm back, kinda.

ok. So lets take Smolensk and run some numbers shall we. We shall assume all shells hit target and pen and use a 60 second time frame to calculate. Under current skill tree this is a 3.6 rof this is 16.6 so 16. so that is 138,240 after pen mitigation. New system you will have a rof of 4.5 a damage of 1980 which will give you a value of 123,522. That is about a 11% loss of DPM. This is without the ROF mod for slot 6 focusing on the range mod for defensive reasons. If you were to keep the ROF mod then you would get like a 3% increase in DPM but you would also be closer to your targets and really 14km from a bb while in a light cruiser that handles on par with the Venizia with way less armor seems a bit bad to me.

[HaachamaShipping]

3 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

ok. So lets take Smolensk and run some numbers shall we. We shall assume all shells hit target and pen and use a 60 second time frame to calculate. Under current skill tree this is a 3.6 rof this is 16.6 so 16. so that is 138,240 after pen mitigation. New system you will have a rof of 4.5 a damage of 1980 which will give you a value of 123,522. That is about a 11% loss of DPM

DPM with BFT is 142.2k. Reload would be 4.05s, shell damage 600.

 

DPM with Demoman is 140.8k. Reload would be 4.5s, shell damage 660.

 

Both cases assume full pens only. The loss is negligible. Taking exactly a minute of firing is like the silliest thing you can do, because the point of dpm is not to showcase what a ship does in one minute, but what its damage output is like over time. Taking measures exactly for one minute just gives you the numbers for the highly unlikely scenario of you being only able to fire for exactly one minute, no more, no less.

 

Not to mention, the reload isn't 3.6s with BFT, it's 4.05, you need reload mod to decrease it further. You can still use reload mod after skill changes.

[Altsak]

18 minutes ago, HaachamaShipping said:

 the point of dpm is not to showcase what a ship does in one minute

 

Damage Per Minute. Literally, just the opposite what you just said.

[The_Chiv]

25 minutes ago, HaachamaShipping said:

DPM with BFT is 142.2k. Reload would be 4.05s, shell damage 600.

 

DPM with Demoman is 140.8k. Reload would be 4.5s, shell damage 660.

 

Both cases assume full pens only. The loss is negligible. Taking exactly a minute of firing is like the silliest thing you can do, because the point of dpm is not to showcase what a ship does in one minute, but what its damage output is like over time. Taking measures exactly for one minute just gives you the numbers for the highly unlikely scenario of you being only able to fire for exactly one minute, no more, no less.

 

Not to mention, the reload isn't 3.6s with BFT, it's 4.05, you need reload mod to decrease it further. You can still use reload mod after skill changes.

Ok I see your mistake. Rather simple one.

60/4.05 is 14.8 You do not factor the fractions into the equation as this would imply a full shot which would not have been shot in the time allotted. of the calculation.

 

it should look something closer to 

BFT/Range mod (1800x16)14-70%=120960

BFT/AFT/ROF mod (1800x16)16-70%= 138240

New scheme

Demoman/range mod (1980x16)x13=123552

Demoman/ROF mod (1980x16)x15=142560

 

now you are right you can still use the reload mod but you are also down to 13.8 range which is way too close for a cruiser that turns like the Venezia and has armor like the Minotaur. Even with all the concealment you would only be able to get down to about 10km. That is pretty brutal to be honest.

 

You are 100% wrong about DPM however, especially when it comes to CL's. Cruisers generally dont tank, they dodge, kite, or camp. Smolensk not a great kite boat, doesnt have the agility of some light cruisers to dodge incoming fire, and has to rely on camping in cover it provides itself. This  means a majority of the time it is not engaging unless it can get to a new source of cover. This makes the amount of damage it can do while in its temporary cover a very important factor.

[The_Chiv]

3 minutes ago, Altsak said:

 

Damage Per Minute. Literally, just the opposite what you just said.

yep. Been that way since DKP was a thing.

[HaachamaShipping]

4 minutes ago, Altsak said:

 

Damage Per Minute. Literally, just the opposite what you just said.

damage per minute is not the same as damage in a minute.

Just now, The_Chiv said:

Ok I see your mistake. Rather simple one.

60/4.05 is 14.8 You do not factor the fractions into the equation as this would imply a full shot which would not have been shot in the time allotted. of the calculation.

That's just silly.

 

It's basically as if I had fuel for 80 km in my car, then go 160 km/h, get stopped and say "No, officer, you see, in an hour I'd only get 80 km, so I'm not violating speed limits of 100 km/h." DPM is a measurement of damage output over time, the way km/h is a measurement for velocity and putting arbitrary time constraints to dismiss fractions is just distorting the measurement.

[The_Chiv]

12 minutes ago, HaachamaShipping said:

damage per minute is not the same as damage in a minute.

That's just silly.

 

It's basically as if I had fuel for 80 km in my car, then go 160 km/h, get stopped and say "No, officer, you see, in an hour I'd only get 80 km, so I'm not violating speed limits of 100 km/h." DPM is a measurement of damage output over time, the way km/h is a measurement for velocity and putting arbitrary time constraints to dismiss fractions is just distorting the measurement.

1. WTF????

2. Your logic is not sound and your justification example does not apply. Yes most use the the fraction when they talk values to show potential power, but tell me this if you have 60 seconds left on the clock are you going to get that fraction? No you are not.

 

Either way you look at it, it is still a 11% decrease over the build I currently use and the only way I can counter that is to lessen my range down to 13.8 which would greatly reduce my survivability and reduce my contribution to the team.

 

 

[Uglesett]

18 minutes ago, HaachamaShipping said:

damage per minute is not the same as damage in a minute.

This.

[HaachamaShipping]

12 minutes ago, The_Chiv said:

1. WTF????

2. Your logic is not sound and your justification example does not apply. Yes most use the the fraction when they talk values to show potential power, but tell me this if you have 60 seconds left on the clock are you going to get that fraction? No you are not.

 

Either way you look at it, it is still a 11% decrease over the build I currently use and the only way I can counter that is to lessen my range down to 13.8 which would greatly reduce my survivability and reduce my contribution to the team.

 

 

It's an 11% decrease if you got only a minute. But if you got 10s you get 10% more now. So you are getting buffed. Arbitrary time limits go both ways.

[eliastion]

1 hour ago, The_Chiv said:

Ok I see your mistake. Rather simple one.

60/4.05 is 14.8 You do not factor the fractions into the equation as this would imply a full shot which would not have been shot in the time allotted. of the calculation.

Yes, I too have a serious problem trying to get to a store 10km away from my house. One time I went at the allowed 50km/h and ended up 40km off in the opposite direction!

Since then I learned my lesson and I either drive at 10km/h or spend some time driving in circles.

 

I thought about trying to change my velocimeter so that it displays speed in meters per second instead, but then I realized that I wouldn't be able to get anywhere in that one second, so my car would've been utterly worthless. So I'm sticking with km/h for now. Although km/15minutes might be a reasonable compromise - having to stop every 15 minutes still would be pretty inconvenient but then again, I don't usually drive long distances, so I think I'll manage.

[The_Chiv]

7 hours ago, HaachamaShipping said:

It's an 11% decrease if you got only a minute. But if you got 10s you get 10% more now. So you are getting buffed. Arbitrary time limits go both ways.

Your argument is flawed.

[Lootboxer]

But you know that Smolensk does not rely as much on dmp as on fire and more hits equals more rng chances.

Flint, Atlanta if base range will not be buffed will be dead.

Supercruisers without BoS and FP will be burning more and longer then any BB.

French cruisers will sitting ducks without last stand.

All is about making life easier for masterraces: BBs and CVs - WG main target customers.

 

 

[MRGTB]

Could be that Wargaming have seen that things have been going too much in favour of long range HE Cruiser spammers. Now see something needed to be done to limit their effectiveness. Although... don't think it effect the likes the Smol as much, which can still install the range module anyway at T9. So can any other T9/T10 cruiser for the most part. It's only really lower tier ships from T8 downwards that don't have the option to install a range module, but have small enough calibre guns to gain distance on AFT skill that will suffer most - IE.. the likes of Atlanta/Flint like you say

 

Honestly, I don't know how anyone could hit anything at full distance with AFT skill used on Atlanta anyway. Unless you're using some kind of aim mod with it.

[The_Chiv]

1 hour ago, MRGTB said:

Could be that Wargaming have seen that things have been going too much in favour of long range HE Cruiser spammers. Now see something needed to be done to limit their effectiveness. Although... don't think it effect the likes the Smol as much, which can still install the range module anyway at T9. So can any other T9/T10 cruiser for the most part. It's only really lower tier ships from T8 downwards that don't have the option to install a range module, but have small enough calibre guns to gain distance on AFT skill that will suffer most - IE.. the likes of Atlanta/Flint like you say

 

Honestly, I don't know how anyone could hit anything at full distance with AFT skill used on Atlanta anyway. Unless you're using some kind of aim mod with it.

There is a massive flaw in limiting the effectiveness of cruisers. Under the new scheme WG is putting a ton of effort into cruisers being aa specialist, but AA is not enjoyable in anyway and the over all effect of these changes will be similar to what we saw when cv rework first came out. PEOPLE WILL STOP PLAYING A CLASS.

 

As for how to rain fire on targets with ships like atl, flint, etc. It is kinda a learned skill after many hours of play and experimentation. Stop light mod helps too.

[eliastion]

4 hours ago, The_Chiv said:

Your argument is flawed.

Flawed how?

I wrote a post where I was poking fun at you, but since that doesn't seem to work on you, let me outline it as clearly as possible: when people talk about "damage per minute" this is not the amount of damage done in exactly one minute. The same logic applies also to things like rate of fire, usually counted in rounds per minute that, for slow guns, usually is expressed as a fraction. If WoWs Wiki informs us that Vermont has rate of fire 1.5 (shots/min) it doesn't mean that the article claims that the battleship in question shoots only half a shell every second shot. Same for real world numbers - if Yamato's main battery is estimated to have a rate of fire of, 1.5-2 shells per minute (numbers taken from Wikipedia article) it does not mean that the lower estimate was made by someone claiming that the guns were firing some half-projectiles...

 

Putting it simply, when anybody talks about "damage per minute", it is about the sustained damage output of a ship/gun. It doesn't refer to any specific minute - because that number would be useless. In extreme case (I don't think we have any such guns in the game, but theoretically speaking) you could have a ship that fires a shell every 90 seconds - depending on the minute, such a ship would have their full salvo worth of damage or 0. Neither of the numbers would be useful for any kind of comparison, wouldn't you say?

 

Now, the arbitrary time limits may come into play when you actually have some specific time frame that is for some reason relevant and want to know how much of a burst damage the ship can pump out within that time span. This may be relevant in various circumstances:

1. How much damage can a Radar ship deal within the span of its Radar activity

2. How much burst damage can a ship with gun reload booster pump out in a specific (short) time frame thanks to said consumable

3. How much damage can a destroyer deal while remaining hidden within its own smoke

...but all these are specific cases where the time limit is meaningful in one way or another.

 

In usual discussion, only two numbers are usually mentioned:

1. The DPM - the sustained damage output over an average minute of shooting, assuming that you keep your guns hot and always shoot immediately on CD

2. Salvo damage - how much hurt you dish out with but a single shot - because in certain situations you either don't expect to get multiple salvoes at all, or you expect to be very busy and have problems with sustaining your fire. Evaluating these is a bit tricky - for example, assuming the same DPM, a gunboat is usually better off with lower salvo damage and better reload, because they can melt targets faster when every second counts, so to speak. For torpedo boats, on the other hand, better salvo damage with worse reload is often considered slightly beneficial - because you tend to avoid being in the fight and you're more likely to be getting some random shots of opportunity here and there, either only getting just one at the time or, perhaps, having too much on your hands (like wiggling your butt to not die) to be realistically able to keep your guns blazing on CD to utilize the reload speed to its fullest.

[The_Chiv]

25 minutes ago, eliastion said:

Flawed how?

I wrote a post where I was poking fun at you, but since that doesn't seem to work on you, let me outline it as clearly as possible: when people talk about "damage per minute" this is not the amount of damage done in exactly one minute. The same logic applies also to things like rate of fire, usually counted in rounds per minute that, for slow guns, usually is expressed as a fraction. If WoWs Wiki informs us that Vermont has rate of fire 1.5 (shots/min) it doesn't mean that the article claims that the battleship in question shoots only half a shell every second shot. Same for real world numbers - if Yamato's main battery is estimated to have a rate of fire of, 1.5-2 shells per minute (numbers taken from Wikipedia article) it does not mean that the lower estimate was made by someone claiming that the guns were firing some half-projectiles...

 

Putting it simply, when anybody talks about "damage per minute", it is about the sustained damage output of a ship/gun. It doesn't refer to any specific minute - because that number would be useless. In extreme case (I don't think we have any such guns in the game, but theoretically speaking) you could have a ship that fires a shell every 90 seconds - depending on the minute, such a ship would have their full salvo worth of damage or 0. Neither of the numbers would be useful for any kind of comparison, wouldn't you say?

 

Now, the arbitrary time limits may come into play when you actually have some specific time frame that is for some reason relevant and want to know how much of a burst damage the ship can pump out within that time span. This may be relevant in various circumstances:

1. How much damage can a Radar ship deal within the span of its Radar activity

2. How much burst damage can a ship with gun reload booster pump out in a specific (short) time frame thanks to said consumable

3. How much damage can a destroyer deal while remaining hidden within its own smoke

...but all these are specific cases where the time limit is meaningful in one way or another.

 

In usual discussion, only two numbers are usually mentioned:

1. The DPM - the sustained damage output over an average minute of shooting, assuming that you keep your guns hot and always shoot immediately on CD

2. Salvo damage - how much hurt you dish out with but a single shot - because in certain situations you either don't expect to get multiple salvoes at all, or you expect to be very busy and have problems with sustaining your fire. Evaluating these is a bit tricky - for example, assuming the same DPM, a gunboat is usually better off with lower salvo damage and better reload, because they can melt targets faster when every second counts, so to speak. For torpedo boats, on the other hand, better salvo damage with worse reload is often considered slightly beneficial - because you tend to avoid being in the fight and you're more likely to be getting some random shots of opportunity here and there, either only getting just one at the time or, perhaps, having too much on your hands (like wiggling your butt to not die) to be realistically able to keep your guns blazing on CD to utilize the reload speed to its fullest.

The quote was to some one else not you. I actively chose to ignore you as you present as a troll and thus I ignored as if your first path of discussion is ridicule you offer nothing to the discussion. As such I chose not to engage and would rather not engage in your circular logic argument that basically boils down to a meters vs feet debate. Have a nice day

[eliastion]

Just now, The_Chiv said:

The quote was to some one else not you. I actively chose to ignore you as you present as a troll and thus I ignored as if your first path of discussion is ridicule you offer nothing to the discussion. As such I chose not to engage and would rather not engage in your circular logic argument that basically boils down to a meters vs feet debate. Have a nice day

At this point you are basically at the level of a guy that makes his own "meanings" for words, then gets corrected by everyone - but still insists that his made-up meanings are correct because they make more sense for him. But that really, REALLY won't help your ability to communicate with anyone, you know?

 

PS: You should probably check what circular reasoning is. Unless you have your own personal definition for that too? Does it go somehow along the lines of "reasoning I can't refute in any meaningful way but still don't like"?

[WWDragon]

I think most of the players have concerns about this, in a way I understand why they are doing it (its not CVs, its subs) but there are plenty of bad ideas because some cruisers would want extra consumables as others dont have such a need yet superintendent doesnt exist anymore, DD have it but then DD have BFT being replaced with Cautious/Fearless that not only cost 4 points instead of 3 but because of the whole conditional (that I really dont like on a principle) it really screws people over because unless you are a smokeless gunboat you end up needing to take both since DD gunfights take place both undetected  and detected, its basicly the same skill twice apparently to fill a required arbitrary number because every tier have 6 choices and some are incredible dumb.

 

The whole thing should be classless ... as it stands the system mostly works, some stuff could be moved or replaced and if the problem is adding new ship types what you think happens when IJN submarines are added and they have scout planes (as they did in reality)? It would be better allowing captains to specialize on specific gameplay decisions that this overall restrictive class system.

 

[Beastofwar]

Reading through LWM detailed preview* of changed captain skills on NA forums it becomes clear WG wants cruisers to :

 

1) depend less on fire chance which is nerfed.

2) fight closer range.  = use AP and torpedoes more which are buffed 

 

At the same time you see high tier BB secondaries considerably nerfed in accuracy ( from 60 % to 35 % ) the most important secondary damage stat. Probably to prevent them tearing apart Cruisers and DD that are now encouraged to fight closer.

 

Back to basics ( low tier tactics ) it seems.....

 

*  https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/225717-mouses-take-on-the-proposed-skill-changes/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[DFens_666]

9 hours ago, MRGTB said:

Could be that Wargaming have seen that things have been going too much in favour of long range HE Cruiser spammers. Now see something needed to be done to limit their effectiveness.

 

That logic is upside down.

Because WG releases more and more very large caliber BBs with good accuracy, Cruisers needed to adapt in either camping behind islands or slinging HE from maxrange, so they have atleast some chance to dodge those BBs. And now Cruisers are supposed to be at fault ?! Certainly one way to cater even more to BBs...

You might not even be able to angle against 1 BB, let alone 5 which are the normal amount of BBs per game.

 

Not that it will get any better, with the release of yet another 457mm caliber BB on TX

[MRGTB]

53 minutes ago, Beastofwar said:

At the same time you see high tier BB secondaries considerably nerfed in accuracy ( from 60 % to 35 % ) the most important secondary damage stat. Probably to prevent them tearing apart Cruisers and DD that are now encouraged to fight closer.

If that happens it's going to make most BBs with good secondary guns no longer worth using. Because the secondary guns won't be much use on any ship, certainly not if dropping from 60 to 35% hit chance.