Jump to content
YabbaCoe

PT 0.10.0 - Commander Skills Update

145 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WG]
WG Staff
6,103 posts
4,486 battles

World of Warships is constantly evolving. New mechanics and ships with unique gameplay appear in the game on a regular basis. To ensure that Commander skills correspond to the current state of the game, we're carrying out a large-scale update by adding new skills and changing the old ones. Changing the Commander skill system will make it more flexible and convenient, and give you a choice between several effective loadout options instead of one ultimate go-to option. This will enable you to customize your ship to more precisely suit your playstyle. In addition to updating the Commander skills, we've revamped the interface and made it more comfortable to use the Commander system, as well as retrain and level up Commanders.

Skills

  • Each Commander now has separate skill sections for each ship type. Skill points in each section are distributed independently of each other.

WG_SPB_WoWs_screenshots_perks_cruiser_EN_1920x1080.jpg

  • The skill section corresponding to the chosen ship type is active in battle.
  • As skills have become more specialized and their total number has increased, the maximum possible number of Commander skill points has increased from 19 to 21.

WG_SPB_WoWs_screenshots_commander_EN_4_1920x1080.jpg

Elite Commander XP

  • Commanders who don't have the maximum number of skill points will additionally bring you Elite Commander XP in the amount of 5% of the Commander XP gained.
  • For Commanders with 21 skill points, any XP earned is converted into Elite XP; the additional 5% is not credited.
  • When dismissing a Commander, you can convert some of their Commander XP into Elite XP:
    • Up to 25% of the Commander XP, at the cost of 10 credits for 1 XP.
    • Up to 50% of the Commander XP, at the cost of 1 doubloon for 150 XP.

 

For example, if a Commander has 10,000 XP, then upon dismissing this Commander, you can receive up to 2,500 XP for 25,000 credits; or up to 4,950 XP for 33 doubloons.

WG_SPB_WoWs_screenshots_commander_EN_1_1920x1080.jpg

Retraining and Specialization

  • The ability to accelerate Commander retraining in exchange for credits has been removed, but the amount of XP required for retraining has been halved.
  • Skills will not work until the Commander's retraining is complete.
  • Each skill section is reset separately from the others.
  • A Commander without a specialization for a ship can't be assigned to that ship without retraining. This rule doesn't apply to Premium and special ships.

WG_SPB_WoWs_screenshots_commander_EN_2_1920x1080.jpg

Other Changes

The cost and number of skills for recruited Commanders will change so that, if necessary, a player will be able to recruit a Commander with more skill points.

  • Commander without skills: recruited free of charge.
  • Commander with 6 skill points: available for 900,000 credits.
  • Commander with 10 skill points: available for 1,750 doubloons.

You can enter battle playing a ship without an assigned Commander. In this case, you will not earn Commander XP.

WG_SPB_WoWs_screenshots_commander_EN_3_1920x1080.jpg

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7 posts
1,824 battles

why was the battleship's peleng removed ? I play at random , it's the only thing that doesn't make me completely helpless !!! return the peleng for the battleships !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[VLOOT]
Players
332 posts
20,656 battles

Changing the Commander skill system will make it more flexible and convenient, and give you a choice between several effective loadout options instead of one ultimate go-to option. This will enable you to customize your ship to more precisely suit your playstyle. 

I have 250+ ships and 70 captains on 19.

 

You don't use multiple set outs on a ship UNLESS you know in advance who you are going to encounter, otherwise, you create the ship so it functions best according to its stats. Massa is not going to be long-range firestarter and the conquerer is never going to be a brawler.

 

I LOVE my secondary built ships allowing me to finish a DD as my main gun take on a cruiser. The fact my secondary ships are less accurate makes them NON-secondary ships. So my Massa, Tirp, Georgia and GK will be less fun, it's nice it can now focus on multiple ships, but if there are too many ships, you fucked up.

The power of the secondaries is that focus and finish/damage 1 ship as you focus on something else with the main guns is what makes them AWEsome and extremely fun to play. Or when you are reloading take care of the pesky DD very well.

 

For me it means:

- CV area nuisance, I was against them and you pushed them in (game became less fun)

- Spam ships, more and more  and more and more of them (again less and less and less fun)

and now, you are going to [edited]up my fav. the ship, every day I play my Massa and now you are going to nerv its effectiveness. A ship I bought for its playstyle....

 

It's like buying a sportcar, the garage does the annuals service, tells me they updated the software so I now have apple play (even though I don't use it) and oh yeah, your HP of the engine went from 250 to 200... so you drive more smoothly. Like I would buy another car there......

 

WG seriously???

 

  • Cool 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4 posts
8,815 battles

Why aren't we allowed to assign a captain to multiple tech tree ships? Like you made a big song and dance about how each class has its own skills now, and how each captain has a different section for each class, but you can't actually take advantage of that unless you have premium/special ships, which is more or less the same system we have now...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,068 posts
15,102 battles

It's interesting that the UI allows you to select a bunch of skills (starting with the top row as it is now) and pay the cost at the end. That should help with quick captain building in the future, but initially it was a bit confusing as, after the first four skills, I had later selected another skill on the fourth row intending to Master it but didn't have the required skill points. Because another skill in the third row was also selected at the same time and the UI assumed I wanted to Master both at once.

image.png.d0a46afe49734fa1df5c8f0c9530591d.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
28 posts
7,164 battles

Well on the testserver I tested secondary builds, at ranges over 7km, you will only get hits if you are lucky, at 5-7km you get some hits and at 5km your secondaries start to be consistent. Also you now need 21 points to get the secondary build that needs 18 points at the moment.image.thumb.png.ffb45c638d2ce5dd30663763c60b695b.pngimage.png.ca475a8f61052a9a161f658892bc1760.png

 

Also the tank build now costs 21 points instead of 19 and turret traverse has to be left out.

image.png.465407322759f51a0e58801d7de4d2b7.pngimage.thumb.png.31a2d93feb10ad7be7105539662bfc40.png

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOHOU]
Players
195 posts
4,291 battles

New ui looks nice in the skill, played bbs mostly  that accuracy skill is badass together with the artillery plotting room 2  you can get actually pretty nice salvos

Sadly with the skills now as it is brawling bbs are totally crap now well at least you have some decent dispersion on german bbs now when you spec accuracy skills. Also i like that you can select your skills and then finalize your selection like a skill planner .

Turret rotation speed change is totally bad now , on yamato you can literally see people inside tower handcranking it xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
28 posts
7,164 battles
6 minutes ago, Cirno9999 said:

New ui looks nice in the skill, played bbs mostly  that accuracy skill is badass together with the artillery plotting room 2  you can get actually pretty nice salvos

Sadly with the skills now as it is brawling bbs are totally crap now well at least you have some decent dispersion on german bbs now when you spec accuracy skills. Also i like that you can select your skills and then finalize your selection like a skill planner .

Turret rotation speed change is totally bad now , on yamato you can literally see people inside tower handcranking it xD

Well as tradeoff for Yamatos turret traverse kremlin can reach 25 seconds and Scharnhorst 18.1 seconds(with turret traverse module).

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LUSOS]
Players
372 posts
21,789 battles

wow, WG, wow.

Are you guys on drugs?

Its better to have all captain skills reseted as this update goes live, or everyone will go ballistics on you guys...

Why are we having the captain's skill already choosen, but not the same has we had before???
This is a blatant use of force to make everyone use doobloons to make their captains usable again????


 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
150 posts

Am I right in thinking they screwed up AFT? It's now 10% instead of 20%?

The renaming of skills that have not changed is just dumb. As is the reordering in the UI. If it ain't broken don't fix it.

I don't like skills that besides costing you precious points, also cost you in ability. Who wants to sacrifice concealment (for example) unless it's something extremely major?

I hope they tweak this some more. It's not ready yet, or maybe it's me. Did they say how long we get a grace period to readjust?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
96 posts
6,205 battles

So in the devblog you stated that you want to enable and encourage a wider variety of builds with this rework. Then why do all indicators point at the rework probably doing the exact opposite!?

 

Because this is my biggest problem with this rework. I understand where you are coming from by stating that in the current system there is too little variety, of both competitive and just-for-fun builds I understand. I find the basic idea of splitting up the skill trees for the different ship classes in order to reduce the number of completely useless skills in each one of them not bad, although the reworked system directly goes on to fall into the one big pitfall present that is the strength of the old system being its flexibility and wide range of skills to choose from. Though that split-up gives a lot of room for fine-tuning and balancing, such as moving IFHE to two points for BBs, which is a positive. And while I somewhat share the viewpoint that something that's not broken doesn't need fixing and that there are more pressing issues to work on, I'd nevertheless be happy about a well-designed rework (which this isn't) even of a working system like the commander skills making the system even better and more smooth (which this doesn't do).

 

Unfortunately, the actual rework itself does the exact opposite of your self-proclaimed goals: The choice and design of skills in the new system limit the competitive builds even more: Yes, you're giving different playstyles different skills,  but by doing so and due to the fact that there are still some skills that are just utter garbage, you're very tightly restricting the "optimal" build for different playstyles exactly because of that design philosophy of giving different playstyles their tailor-made skills. Meanwhile you're killing the quirkier just-for-fun builds through the class restriction because now each class only keeps more or less the skill subset that are "sensible" and "usable"; no more throwing in a mainly BB-focused skill in my cruiser build for fun. And on top of that especially the re-designed cruiser skill tree completely fails to acknowledge the wide span that is the cruiser class in-game, from Atlanta to Ägir, focusing its skills mostly on the "standard" Zao- or Des Moines-style model of a cruiser while throwing stuff besides the norm under the bus. Similarly, BB lines like the germans or french that profited from stuff like the very simple design of SI giving them extra hydro and motor boost charges also are indirectly nerfed by the more battleship-focused redesign.

 

The possibilites to give actual variety are there though. Just some simple ideas off the top of my head: The biggest reason why DD builds look so similar is the fact that most DD lines get borderline unplayable in high-tier without CE, or in other words: The skill is way too strong for DDs. So why not remove or significantly nerf it so that there is an actual choice whether to take it or not, or at least not (nearly) all DD lines take it by default? Some BBs have actual utility on consumables for themselves or their team, such as Missouri's radar, Bourgogne' engine boost and reload booster, the germans' hydro or the upcoming italian's exhaust smoke. So while I can understand why you chose to split the additional Repair Party and Damage Con from the old SI, why not design an additional skill that gives +1 to each consumable except RP and DC that those ships can choose? Similarly for cruisers , why not split the "recon" consumables hydro and radar from the other consumables in a similar way, giving the option to improve one or both subset of consumables depedingon ship and preference? Why not put tankiness skills in the cruiser skill tree, up to grabs for each cruiser wanting to improve survivability and at the same time restoring the tankiness of supercruisers?

 

That's not talking about some numbers being off, because those can be fixed relatively easily, and I agree that this kind of fine-tuning probably is best to do on the live server. But underlying design flaws are much, much hader to fix after the fact, and of those I unfortunately see a whole lot. Which is really sad, because as I stated above, I really liked your design goals and I think that the basic idea of the rework could have led to a great game update, but as it stands we are looking at a second, though hopefullly not as long-term devastating, CV rework: Great design premises, but miserably failed execution.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BMD]
[BMD]
Players
557 posts
18,537 battles

Well @YabbaCoe will you explain where all my elite commander XP i had on my Asashio (2,2 mill) have gone on on the PTS ??

And another thing you (WG) have said that on the Atlanta the 13,3 km gun range would be welded into the ship but on  PTS it is 11,1 km gun range

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOHOU]
Players
195 posts
4,291 battles
4 hours ago, powerverde said:

Is this a new feature?
All commander XP will add Elite XP even if captain is not maxxed out?

image.png.789e60b7aec25a2f580c5a7c9a9f0b9d.png

Yep it has been posted in the notes somewhere so you get like 5% conversion each battle to commander xp

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG]
WG Staff
6,103 posts
4,486 battles
Před 5 hodinami powerverde řekl/a:

Is this a new feature?
All commander XP will add Elite XP even if captain is not maxxed out?

image.png.789e60b7aec25a2f580c5a7c9a9f0b9d.png

as i mentioned in this very thread:

Elite Commander XP

  • Commanders who don't have the maximum number of skill points will additionally bring you Elite Commander XP in the amount of 5% of the Commander XP gained. 
Před 1 hodinou Cammo1962 řekl/a:

Well @YabbaCoe will you explain where all my elite commander XP i had on my Asashio (2,2 mill) have gone on on the PTS ??

And another thing you (WG) have said that on the Atlanta the 13,3 km gun range would be welded into the ship but on  PTS it is 11,1 km gun range

 

Elite commander XP is not assigned with a ship, you probably had just ship's XP over there. Also, on last PT you had those 2,2 mill XP on Asashio, but now it is gone?

Yes, we said, that Atlanta will be buffed with release of 0.10.0, but when we don't really specify, that those will be already effective on PT, changes are implemented to live version.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
2,381 posts
4,220 battles
9 hours ago, aler1x said:

So in the devblog you stated that you want to enable and encourage a wider variety of builds with this rework. Then why do all indicators point at the rework probably doing the exact opposite!?

 

Because this is my biggest problem with this rework. I understand where you are coming from by stating that in the current system there is too little variety, of both competitive and just-for-fun builds I understand. I find the basic idea of splitting up the skill trees for the different ship classes in order to reduce the number of completely useless skills in each one of them not bad, although the reworked system directly goes on to fall into the one big pitfall present that is the strength of the old system being its flexibility and wide range of skills to choose from. Though that split-up gives a lot of room for fine-tuning and balancing, such as moving IFHE to two points for BBs, which is a positive. And while I somewhat share the viewpoint that something that's not broken doesn't need fixing and that there are more pressing issues to work on, I'd nevertheless be happy about a well-designed rework (which this isn't) even of a working system like the commander skills making the system even better and more smooth (which this doesn't do).

 

Unfortunately, the actual rework itself does the exact opposite of your self-proclaimed goals: The choice and design of skills in the new system limit the competitive builds even more: Yes, you're giving different playstyles different skills,  but by doing so and due to the fact that there are still some skills that are just utter garbage, you're very tightly restricting the "optimal" build for different playstyles exactly because of that design philosophy of giving different playstyles their tailor-made skills. Meanwhile you're killing the quirkier just-for-fun builds through the class restriction because now each class only keeps more or less the skill subset that are "sensible" and "usable"; no more throwing in a mainly BB-focused skill in my cruiser build for fun. And on top of that especially the re-designed cruiser skill tree completely fails to acknowledge the wide span that is the cruiser class in-game, from Atlanta to Ägir, focusing its skills mostly on the "standard" Zao- or Des Moines-style model of a cruiser while throwing stuff besides the norm under the bus. Similarly, BB lines like the germans or french that profited from stuff like the very simple design of SI giving them extra hydro and motor boost charges also are indirectly nerfed by the more battleship-focused redesign.

 

The possibilites to give actual variety are there though. Just some simple ideas of the top of my head: The biggest reason why DD builds look so similar is the fact that most DD lines get borderline unplayable in high-tier without CE, or in other words: The skill is way too strong for DDs. So why not remove or significantly nerf it so that there is an actual choice whether to take it or not, or at lest not (nearly) all DD lines take it by default? Some BBs have actual utility on consumables for themselves or their team, such as Missouri's radar, Bourgogne' engine boost and reload booster, the germans' hydro or the upcoming italian's exhaust smoke. So while I can understand why you chose to split the additional Repair Party and Damage Con from the old SI, why not design an additional skill that gives +1 to each consumable except RP and DC that those ships can choose? Similarly for cruisers , why not split the "recon" consumables hydro and radar from the other consumables in a similar way, giving the option to improve one or both subset of consumables depedingon ship and preference? Why not put tankiness skills in the cruiser skill tree, up to grabs for each cruiser wanting to improve survivability and at the same time restoring the tankiness of supercruisers?

 

That's not talking about some numbers being off, because those can be fixed relatively easily, and I agree that this kind of fine-tuning probably is best to do on the live server. But underlying design flaws are much, much hader to fix after the fact, and of those I unfortunately see a whole lot. Which is really sad, because as I stated above, I really liked your design goals and I think that the basic idea of the rework could have led to a great game update, but as it stands we are looking at a second, though hopefullly not as long-term devastating, CV rework: Great design premises, but miserably failed execution.

Concealment is important for all classes except CVs. so CE is one of the most important skills. The only ships that don't take it are the ones that have concealment so bad they won't get competitive even with CE (ruskie DDs mainly). For DDs you take CE always or if you gain other effectivity outside concealment (IFHE/AFT for Harugumo or Grozovoi).

 

The main problem with the build variability theory is:

 

Why would I train OTHER nations lines of same class if my current one offers the same or almost the same by simply changing loadout and captain ? National pride ? The whole idea is completely wrong from that point of view. If I can replace one nation with the other by changing the loadout for the current, I have NO REASON to try the other one ...

 

Variety comes from available ships as well as from captains ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
96 posts
6,205 battles
Vor 29 Minuten, Hugh_Ruka sagte:

Concealment is important for all classes except CVs. so CE is one of the most important skills. The only ships that don't take it are the ones that have concealment so bad they won't get competitive even with CE (ruskie DDs mainly). For DDs you take CE always or if you gain other effectivity outside concealment (IFHE/AFT for Harugumo or Grozovoi).

Correct, I'd say, CE is all-around one of the best and strongest captain skills availlable. But although it is a percentage-based buff, since DDs ( f course excluding the long-range gunboats you also mentioned) are so dependent on their concealment while for other classes it is mostly a secondary (yet still important) stat, DDs benefit more from the - in absolute numbers - smaller buff they get and will take CE every day of the week and as their first 4-point skill, to the point where not having it on a DD from T7 upwards severely hampers the playability of that ship instead of being a nuisance like it (mostly) is on other classes. But you're right, whether you have CE or not is one of the biggest and most direct influences a captain has on your game, so while I specifically cited the DD CE, also because I wanted to come up with a DD example, the other classes' CE would in my opinion also be eligible for a nerf.

 

Vor 36 Minuten, Hugh_Ruka sagte:

The main problem with the build variability theory is:

 

Why would I train OTHER nations lines of same class if my current one offers the same or almost the same by simply changing loadout and captain ? National pride ? The whole idea is completely wrong from that point of view. If I can replace one nation with the other by changing the loadout for the current, I have NO REASON to try the other one ...

 

Variety comes from available ships as well as from captains ....

Of course captain skills should not completely nullify the strenghts and weaknesses of ships. But I don't think that you'll come to the point where you just have to retrain your commander on your, say, british BB and you'll effectively have, say, a german BB: Base stats are still too different and too influential, as are stuff like gu caliber, shell performance and consumables loadout. The main idea, as I understood, was that you should be able to decide whether you want to play a secondary build or a survivability build on your Bismarck, or whether you want to counteract her long-range weakness or build her for stealth and surprise, just to name some ideas. And on the basic idea I can go with that, since no matter the commander skills a Yamato will never become as good of a brawler as a Großer Kurfürst or a Worcester won't gain smoke, thus preserving the uniqueness of ships. The problem lies with the fact that that goal, in my opinion, has been missed by a country mile since the proposed rework offers even less flexibility and variability than the old system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
2,381 posts
4,220 battles
5 minutes ago, aler1x said:

Correct, I'd say, CE is all-around one of the best and strongest captain skills availlable. But although it is a percentage-based buff, since DDs ( f course excluding the long-range gunboats you also mentioned) are so dependent on their concealment while for other classes it is mostly a secondary (yet still important) stat, DDs benefit more from the - in absolute numbers - smaller buff they get and will take CE every day of the week and as their first 4-point skill, to the point where not having it on a DD from T7 upwards severely hampers the playability of that ship instead of being a nuisance like it (mostly) is on other classes. But you're right, whether you have CE or not is one of the biggest and most direct influences a captain has on your game, so while I specifically cited the DD CE, also because I wanted to come up with a DD example, the other classes' CE would in my opinion also be eligible for a nerf.

 

Of course captain skills should not completely nullify the strenghts and weaknesses of ships. But I don't think that you'll come to the point where you just have to retrain your commander on your, say, british BB and you'll effectively have, say, a german BB: Base stats are still too different and too influential, as are stuff like gu caliber, shell performance and consumables loadout. The main idea, as I understood, was that you should be able to decide whether you want to play a secondary build or a survivability build on your Bismarck, or whether you want to counteract her long-range weakness or build her for stealth and surprise, just to name some ideas. And on the basic idea I can go with that, since no matter the commander skills a Yamato will never become as good of a brawler as a Großer Kurfürst or a Worcester won't gain smoke, thus preserving the uniqueness of ships. The problem lies with the fact that that goal, in my opinion, has been missed by a country mile since the proposed rework offers even less flexibility and variability than the old system.

The main trait for DDs is low detection (with some exceptions) so CE is a requirement. Since there are no class specific team bonuses to amplify individual classes availability (except CVs that are unique) there is no tradeoff to such a skill unless the stat is already totally out of whack for a class. Just have a look at the popularity of Legendary DD upgrades that trade concealment for something else: They are really unpopular.

 

As for the nation differences and skill loadouts: as an example take a Shimakaze vs a Gearing. The main difference or advantage of he Shima can be to a huge extend changed with the LM for the Gearing. Both ships are then almost equivalent with the Gearing having the edge on smokes and survivability (overall utility is better) thus you can substitute the Shima with a Gearing+LM in many ways. That is what I meant. Of course you cannot change the armor scheme with skills, that is a rigid ship property. However taking similar ships into consideration, if the skills and modules enable you to get to 90% of the other, there's no reason to grind for the other one.

 

Build variability goes in 2 main paths: 1. amplify the strength or 2. mitigate a weakness. It's up to WG to decide what skills are available to do both. If a ship is so weak in a critical area that no skills will help, then the available configuration are reduced. Also the ship still has to function in the primary role of that class. As an example take the meme GZ secondary builds where the players took those ships into the heat of the battle. They ceased to fulfill their primary role of CV. Similar a Khabarovsk is not able to perform the primary DD role thus it is not usable as a DD and hence its popularity and why it does not use the established main class skill - CE.

 

All in all, if they want to promote build variety, the way they are doing it now is not it. The implementation goes against the stated goals. We'll end up with another CV rework situation, this time it will affect a critical portion of the game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CPC]
[CPC]
Quality Poster
2,305 posts
7,723 battles

My opinion on the new commander system :

  • the interface to select skill is much better, being able to see the effect of a skill on the ship is a big improvment
  • I like some new skills (like the one that buff secondary reload and main battery reload if enemy is within secondary range) but overall this new skill tree is a mess
  • in particular cruisers are totally f**ked
  • the new skill tree does little to promote diversity in commander builds : you still have gunboat or torpedoboat for DD, tanking or secondary for BB, basically only 1 build for CV as it has always been
  • 1.2 million XP to get from 19 to 21 points is just a scam !! WG please admit all your economy (either credits, XP, free XP or elite XP) is broken, rework it for good instead of putting a higher price on anything ...
  • WG simply forgot about special and legendary commanders with this rework : some have lost a special skill with no compensation, others have seen their special skills go down to tier 1. People will be mad to see that commanders they have paid a huge price in coal for will be downgraded ..

 

Please WG, don't do it !!

 

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×