New Commander Skills Poll

[__Cobalt__]

Are you happy with the New Commander Skills?

[SuperDare83]

No, but I do not think WG will listen - spreadsheet says no

 

[MementoMori_6030]

I do not use them.

[Procrastes]

Ok, straight off the bat:

 

I think having separate skill trees for separate ship classes is basically a good idea. It makes the skill system a lot more more flexible, which means that it will be much more easy to fix balance issues and adjust for new ships and ship classes in the future. (Whether we would actually want those new ship classes or not, is of course a whole other cookie to argue about.)

 

I have at this time no way to judge what effect the Deadeye skill has, or will have, on overall gameplay. I suspect that not even Wargaming has any clear idea of this at such an early juncture. But my personal belief is that the main effect of the Deadeye skill will not be of a mechanical nature, but rather that it will have a bad influence on player behaviour. Even by its very existence, it can be interpreted as a legitimization of border camping and long range sniping as a viable tactic for battleships. This is not a thing that should be encouraged, in my opinion. The skill itself, however, doesn't have to be all bad - just as long as it is not used as an excuse for passive gameplay. I have it on my main British battleship captain, but that doesn't mean that I won't support my allies or make a push when the time seems right - it just means that I will (hopefully) be at bit more effective at long range gunnery during the opening phase of the battle. In short, I believe that battleship captains who continue to play to the objectives, and who keep close enough to the action to be able to push in and make a difference when the time is right, will continue to do better than their border-camping brethren - irrespective of whether any of them have taken the Deadeye skill or not.

[__Cobalt__]

1 hour ago, Procrastes said:

Ok, straight off the bat:

 

I think having separate skill trees for separate ship classes is basically a good idea. It makes the skill system a lot more more flexible, which means that it will be much more easy to fix balance issues and adjust for new ships and ship classes in the future. (Whether we would actually want those new ship classes or not, is of course a whole other cookie to argue about.)

 

I have at this time no way to judge what effect the Deadeye skill has, or will have, on overall gameplay. I suspect that not even Wargaming has any clear idea of this at such an early juncture. But my personal belief is that the main effect of the Deadeye skill will not be of a mechanical nature, but rather that it will have a bad influence on player behaviour. Even by its very existence, it can be interpreted as a legitimization of border camping and long range sniping as a viable tactic for battleships. This is not a thing that should be encouraged, in my opinion. The skill itself, however, doesn't have to be all bad - just as long as it is not used as an excuse for passive gameplay. I have it on my main British battleship captain, but that doesn't mean that I won't support my allies or make a push when the time seems right - it just means that I will (hopefully) be at bit more effective at long range gunnery during the opening phase of the battle. In short, I believe that battleship captains who continue to play to the objectives, and who keep close enough to the action to be able to push in and make a difference when the time is right, will continue to do better than their border-camping brethren - irrespective of whether any of them have taken the Deadeye skill or not.

I agree and when I started the poll I had not considered the separate ships classes per one commander. I do love it. About Deadeye...we tested it with Several BB's in the training room. The difference was not overly broken. Like you, my concern is the style of play it seems to encourage.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

1 hour ago, DaddyDare said:

No, but I do not think WG will listen - spreadsheet says no

 

 

Damn, sheet.

[Skurfa]

1 hour ago, Procrastes said:

.....

Agree on your points.

 

But to draw BB’s closer to objectives, or at least have some sort of impact on the game, we could do one of two things.

 

1. Base XP and credit gain on the distance from objectives when damage is done or ships sunk, the closer you are, the higher XP and credit gain, the further away..... the lower the gain.

 

2. Remove cap points entirely from the game.

 

None of them are good though.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

Just now, Skurfa said:

Agree on your points.

 

But to draw BB’s closer to objectives, or at least have some sort of impact on the game, we could do one of two things.

 

1. Base XP and credit gain on the distance from objectives when damage is done or ships sunk, the closer you are, the higher XP and credit gain, the further away..... the lower the gain.

 

2. Remove cap points entirely from the game.

 

None of them are good though.

 

1. That is counter-intuitive IMHO, at least as far as I'm concerned because that would place the BB's unnecessarily at risk.

2. Agreed, however, then we would need some other way of simulating 'battle outcomes' other than 'sink all ships'.

[Ashardalon_Dragnipur]

the skills needed a rework

they just messed the new one up worse then the old one was

for BBs nothing changed, you build for tank just like you used to

deadeye did nothing really except make dodging easier for cruisers 

bacon is nice 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

You can not put bacon as possible answers and not expect me to click it. Bacon it is.

[ReportSandoor94]

If deadeye is removed they can remove priority target as well.. Oh and bacon is good.

[Stormhawk_V]

How about sensible and well tested changes to the new system to improve the gameplay and make the rework feel less like a ripoff?

 

Oh wait, I forgot we're talking about WG. Yeah, let's just scrap this turd altogether. Unfortunately this isn't going to happen and no one knows if WG even cares about what they did to their game.

[DFens_666]

2 hours ago, Ashardalon_Dragnipur said:

deadeye did nothing really except make dodging easier for cruisers 

 

 

 

50% hitrate with Georgia and Missouri.... its crazy

Even if its a "nerf" for the average player, then Deadeye still increases the skillgap between players, and we dont need that. Especially in CBs amongst good players it can be quite nasty... the skill just needs to go

 

[Ashardalon_Dragnipur]

tighter spread means dodging is more effective 

bigger damage numbers are vs BBs or people that havnt found the wasd section of their keyboard 

its a meaningless skill, there is just one BB build and it doesnt include deadeye 

[KillStealBoss]

Dead eye bonus should be changed (reduced from +10% to +7%) and the range should be max 18km. Then the number of campers would decrease. 

[Stormhawk_V]

Just now, MacArthur92 said:

Dead eye bonus should be changed (reduced from +10% to +7%) and the range should be max 18km. Then the number of campers would decrease. 

If anything it should be a reload buff when you're spotted. That would be much healthier for the game.

[DFens_666]

11 minutes ago, Ashardalon_Dragnipur said:

tighter spread means dodging is more effective 

bigger damage numbers are vs BBs or people that havnt found the wasd section of their keyboard 

its a meaningless skill, there is just one BB build and it doesnt include deadeye 

 

I guess accounting for people dodging doesnt exist either?

But anyway, we can just agree that WG can remove deadeye. I say, it should go because its bad for the game, you say it doesnt do anything, which means they can just remove it.

[Verblonde]

I voted 'bacon' for the overall thing - I'm still working out what I think (although the cost of the 'extra' two points is bloody obscene).

 

Deadeye I'm certain about though - it should be removed, simply for the negative effect it appears to have had on the meta...

[Yedwy]

Splitting skills per classes is kinda ok-ish, even most skills themselves are acceptable BUT nothing can tarnish the fact this is the money grab of the decade which is clearly visible in the way binding the caps to the ships works, had they allowed each cap to be trained for one ship of each class and bound to it I wouldnt have batted an eye but the way this is in the game now its clearly made solely to promote use of premium ships and special caps and thats just lame to the max TBH, I mean OK I got myself loads of prems over the years and the last supercap I was lacking (Auboyneou or what he is called) i got few weeks back so I am kinda not so bad off there but still the entire ordeal reeks to the heaven and  back... 

[Ocsimano18]

I like the deadeye. It makes some of my favorite ships like Roma and Tirpitz usable, especially in T10 matches. I don’t want this skill to be nerfed because some camper noobs don’t understand that you should not use it at max range.

 

Also,  +1 for making Yamato great again.

[Bindolaf_Werebane]

Deadeye is a toxic skill. It brought out all the Musashis again (and made them even more broken), but, as others have said, it has created the J-line-Bismarck. Come on!

[SeaWolf7]

Ok so after putting my toys back in the pram about the rework i do like and it makes sense, to have different skills for different classes of ships. This ad least is a positive change.

However they do need a lot of tweaking imo. As @Verblonde said the cost of the extra 2 points is just ridiculous, the fact that priority target is now 2 points not 1 is unnecessary and needs to be changed back, cruiser builds are all Offence , no defense options and sacrificing detectability for damage is, in most cases suicidal to squishy boats

 

With such a large choice now available i would have liked WG to have adopted a better time scale in the FREE changes available to players. The first 2 changes would be Free REGARDLESS of a time limit perhaps. I have 54 ships and other people have a lot more, granted i do not play them all BUT i simply do not have the TIME between scraping a living in these very strange times nor do i have now an income to supplement WG continuous cash grab schemes incorporated in there game model (doubloons for reset).

 

As for dead eye i have voted get rid of simply because it has effected the game negatively in playing behavior as anyone who actually plays the game would have realized.

 

8 hours ago, Ashardalon_Dragnipur said:

tighter spread means dodging is more effective 

 

I get what you are saying but not having those occasional stray rounds ( Just to make up the dispersion circumference) does not automatically mean dodge city. How about those with poor rudder shift times or heavier ships such as Heavy cruisers with poor handling as standard? They will suffer more in comparison to light and nimble cruisers like RNL.

[Atorpad]

14 hours ago, DaddyDare said:

No, but I do not think WG will listen - spreadsheet says no

 

That soviet spreadshit.....

[pontacringeoana]

I liked the idea to rework the entire CS system, but the implementation is unfair to players and awful in general

The main problem is that you get less with more "price"

2nd a stealth nerf to some ships with this rework

3rd too much inbalance input in the game too and to much "fog"

 

[NorShii]

I'm gonna go against the people and say that they should keep Dead-Eye in the game, but only as an exclusive skill for German BB commanders. I needn't say why. I'm not pleased that they changed the commander skill point cost without giving a full point refund to every single commander, because some of my commanders now don't have enough points to fully function with my builds.