Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
DFens_666

Idea: Captain skills

31 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[NWP]
Players
4,345 posts
6,233 battles

Giving this some thought lately, and i think it might be a bit more interesting in regards of using skills on captains, but lets explain my idea first.

 

- Make captain skills so that u can level each skill multiple times, why is the benefit at maximum by only one time skilling it? F.e. Expert loader u could invest 1 point for 15% faster shell switching, 2 points for 30% and 3 points for 50%.

- This would ofc need to have more captain skills available, its roughly 4 times as much with the system i think of. Captains level faster, which makes the grind seem less long, even when the endresult stays the same.

- Introduce skill-trees, which means if u want a certain skill, u have to skill other skills before. This cant work for all skills, but some skills could be seperated and they can be skilled seperately on which skill-tree u focus (f.e. CE is one that comes to mind)

 

Just made a quick example for CV skill trees (because seems the easiest to show my idea)

cv.thumb.jpg.e9cf8561726eeddd4cc9e5801e928b61.jpg

 

First skill needs 1-6 skill points to achieve maximum (1 point then 2 points then 3 points to achieve maximum result per skill), second skill needs 2-9 points, third skill 3-12 and forth skill 4-15 points total. F.e. 4 points on AS gives u +1 fighter, 5 points gives extra bomber and 6 points extra Torpedobomber (just an example)

What it makes possible, if u are halfway skilling offensive skills, and u feel the need to get some defense, u can start skilling those a bit to help u on that side.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
721 posts

The average Joe can barely understand the current system, that one would make their head hurt too much.

 

Quote

Huh? I now have to use survival expert in my Conkeror in 3 steps instead of one?

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
WG Team, WoWs Wiki Team
3,499 posts
11,742 battles

I don't really like the idea of skill trees as it means I might have to get some skill I don't want to get a skill I need.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
406 posts
592 battles
49 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Giving this some thought lately, and i think it might be a bit more interesting in regards of using skills on captains, but lets explain my idea first.

 

- Make captain skills so that u can level each skill multiple times, why is the benefit at maximum by only one time skilling it? F.e. Expert loader u could invest 1 point for 15% faster shell switching, 2 points for 30% and 3 points for 50%.

- This would ofc need to have more captain skills available, its roughly 4 times as much with the system i think of. Captains level faster, which makes the grind seem less long, even when the endresult stays the same.

- Introduce skill-trees, which means if u want a certain skill, u have to skill other skills before. This cant work for all skills, but some skills could be seperated and they can be skilled seperately on which skill-tree u focus (f.e. CE is one that comes to mind)

 

Just made a quick example for CV skill trees (because seems the easiest to show my idea)

cv.thumb.jpg.e9cf8561726eeddd4cc9e5801e928b61.jpg

 

First skill needs 1-6 skill points to achieve maximum (1 point then 2 points then 3 points to achieve maximum result per skill), second skill needs 2-9 points, third skill 3-12 and forth skill 4-15 points total. F.e. 4 points on AS gives u +1 fighter, 5 points gives extra bomber and 6 points extra Torpedobomber (just an example)

What it makes possible, if u are halfway skilling offensive skills, and u feel the need to get some defense, u can start skilling those a bit to help u on that side.

 

Hey! The skill levels sound great, I think that would be an awesome addition to the game, but I'm honestly not so sure about the skill tree. This kind of system can get annoying with time and I can explain why. First of all, like someone already mentioned, it would force us to invest points in skills we don't want/need just to get to the one you care about. This looks like a flexible idea, but it's actually not that much, because what we'll get in the end is a predetermined skill tree that everyone needs to use in the same way in order to get the best out of X ship. I personally like individual skills instead of skill trees way more, because they usually allow for a lot more wiggle room and they're also easier to follow for new players - but this is just my opinion as a player. :)

 

Thank you for your suggestions! I'll be forwarding them to our devs.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
4,345 posts
6,233 battles
8 hours ago, Kandly said:

Thank you for your suggestions! I'll be forwarding them to our devs.

 

Nice to hear :cap_like:

 

About the Skill-trees: I know that it seems like its making u take some skills which u wouldnt want - i should have made a whole tree as an example, but didnt have the time earlier since i was going to work. Imo its possible to make like cross-section skills which lets u hop to another skill-tree, or making some skills skill-tree independed as i mentioned CE f.e. since its basicly a skill which many ppl use regardless of ship.

Made a whole skill-tree on how i think it might look like (hope its not too confusing, basicly u can jump around a bit f.e. DD skill u can go from last stand to TA/TAE).

And to get a usefull skill, maybe its not too bad to invest in some less needed skills just to make it not too easy to actually get that skill? Also i think it might help some ppl to know what they actually should skill for their ship. Currently the Attack column captain skills are mainly for CVs/DDs.

cptn skill test.jpg

  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
905 posts
11,126 battles

Now, I do like a lot of the aspects of this idea. For example, it could help out some anemic turret traverse rates ("I don't really need higher tier skills, I'll just speed up my turret even further") or CV skills (after the 11pts of mandatory picks most of them are some weaker quality of life-skills, so I'd just upgrade the "mandatory" ones further), and more diverse options are generally favourable until it can't be abused.

 

...but. To put it simply, let's not fix what isn't broken. Apart from a few minor issues (RPF, or maybe even the auto-SitAw a bit,) I'm content with the current state of the cpt. skills, and after a few changes down the line in the past years I don't really feel like yet another game of "alright, how to respec my ~90 skippers yet again?" I don't yet see how it would worth it right now.

Maybe I'd be more willing to buy something besides the current system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,907 posts
6,244 battles

I'm probaby gonna ger DS'd for mentioning this, what about the 20th point being added (need 1mil xp for it like for the old 19th point..)  :Smile_hiding:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,349 posts
11,263 battles
14 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

- Introduce skill-trees, which means if u want a certain skill, u have to skill other skills before. This cant work for all skills, but some skills could be seperated and they can be skilled seperately on which skill-tree u focus (f.e. CE is one that comes to mind)

You tag your thread with "flexibility" - and then you want f*cking skill trees!?

Skill trees are the exact opposite of flexibility in a skill system. They exist for literally no other reason than to force people to pick skills they don't want to, so that people can't just pick the ones they want and need to accumulate some trash along the way.

 

To use just your example skill tree:

 - people like Adrenaline Rush on all BBs and many DDs, so you make it so that to get it everyone needs to pick a skill that is considered useless by most people for all ships (with the remaining few considering it useless only for most rather than all).

 - anyone with a DD who would want torpedo acceleration is literally forced to take some CV-exclusive skills just to gain access to that one

 - anyone who wants a torp armament expertise (a staple for all torp-focused DDs) and DOESN'T want torpedo acceleration (outright harmful for many DDs) is forced into taking TWO CV-specific skills

 - Air Supremacy is locked behind at least one torpedo-focused skill

 - you can't just increase your AA range (for better def. AA coverage) - to get it you need to commit to a full AA build

 - one of the popular survivability skills for DDs (extra hp per tier) requires investment in either consumable reload speed or specifically repair reload skill

 - IFHE - absolutely mandatory for Akizuki, for example, especially one that wants to hunt DDs - is locked behind expert loader and AND demolition expert (one skill being useless with her RoF and the other useless for the intended specialization in DD hunting)

 

You want to streamline people into a couple viable builds you conceived as "the correct ones", clearly without as much as considering the needs of all the classes (much less specific ships and individula playstyles). This is a rubbish idea. Oh, and you also say things like

4 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Also i think it might help some ppl to know what they actually should skill for their ship.

That's just ridiculous. No, if anything, it will make speccing ships properly HARDER, because currently you have skills, they have their price and the question is what skills you can get within the budget. The only difficulty is assessing what skills are the most useful for your ship and playstyle.

If you introduce the skill tree, suddenly everything gets much more complicated, because you need to think about

 - relative usefulness of various skills (the same difficulty we have now, it does NOT go away)

 - the cost and optimal path of requirements

 - the usefulness of requirement paths for various skills you consider (that you might not really want, but if two skills are similarly useful then you'll pick the one with less useless requirements

 - the possibility of combining requirements (you might prefer two worse skills that share requirement path over a better skill that leaves you with nothing useful you could dig to with remaining points)

 

Currently the question of speccing a ship is the question of which skills are the best relative to their cost. Skill trees would actually make it so that people would pretty much have to sit with a spreadsheet to design their own build if they want a decent one. The only way around that would pretty much be grabbing a ready tree from the web, trusting the author to have done the work.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[H_FAN]
Players
2,002 posts
24,105 battles
7 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Nice to hear :cap_like:

 

About the Skill-trees: I know that it seems like its making u take some skills which u wouldnt want - i should have made a whole tree as an example, but didnt have the time earlier since i was going to work. Imo its possible to make like cross-section skills which lets u hop to another skill-tree, or making some skills skill-tree independed as i mentioned CE f.e. since its basicly a skill which many ppl use regardless of ship.

Made a whole skill-tree on how i think it might look like (hope its not too confusing, basicly u can jump around a bit f.e. DD skill u can go from last stand to TA/TAE).

And to get a usefull skill, maybe its not too bad to invest in some less needed skills just to make it not too easy to actually get that skill? Also i think it might help some ppl to know what they actually should skill for their ship. Currently the Attack column captain skills are mainly for CVs/DDs.

cptn skill test.jpg

are you really serious or trolling, this is a F2P game which the average player have difficulty to master anyway with all the various tricks in how to handle their ships. To complicate things further in the skill tree which are a source as it is for cost (reskilling your boats for various situations).

 

Why do you want to make it more complicated for the majority of the playerbase to satisfy a few players? I think you fail to understand that this is a nichegame. That some skills might be changed or developed is one thing but most players are not that dedicated outside the forums, it is just to follow the usual discussions of the potatoplayer here in the forum. Th game is difficult to grasp as it is, not that it is difficult to start the pure basics in point and click andWASD but to perform well and optimal. I have spent hours upon hours to follow the forums here and I fail to see the benefits for the game as a whole with a more complicated tree.

 

Your figure is that meant to be a manual for the average player? When the average player does hardly look into the manuals and youtube guides whatsover if we are believe all the smart forum threads here.

 

There is no need for WOWs to be overcomplicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles

My ideal skill system would be one based on "stat checks". E.g. similar to RPG games in which skills and abilities which require "X strength or X agility" to learn, and scales with "X and X stat".

 

The key advantage this kind of skill system has over a static "pick a skill for X skill-points" is the scaling effectiveness of skills, allowing for either more specialized builds (fewer skills with greater effect) or more generalized builds (more skills but less individual effect). It is likely the skills featured will be different from the current skills. 

 

Such a system allows for more balancing options and gameplay considerations. For instance, different ships will have different "stat" ratings (just like rpg characters) which will affect their suitability for certain skills, or even change the way these skills interact for that particular class of ship. Different equipment, consumables, even officers (if that is introduced into the game) will affect these "stats", in turn "encouraging" obvious dev-intended build paths, but leaving space for player creativity and personalization.

 

Furthermore, it may even be designed to allow for a variety of passive/active skills, or even skills which are both at the same time depending on how you use it. One is fondly reminded of "Transistor", a game in which skills could be both passive, active, triggered, stat-boosting, or used as modifiers for other skills. Unsurprisingly it is very well-received game. Honestly, a system as flexible as this can go as deep and creative as imagination allows.

 

Of course this is only if the overall game structure of WoWs also scales to such a level of variety and creativity. But a place to start could certainly be in the skill-trees. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
4,345 posts
6,233 battles

@eliastion and @Gnirf:

Ofc this system does not work with only 19 pt cptn - should i have mentioned that? The 2 ideas i just put together, while skill levels were being the first one, which made me think, skill-trees might work after that.

 

7 hours ago, eliastion said:

 - people like Adrenaline Rush on all BBs and many DDs, so you make it so that to get it everyone needs to pick a skill that is considered useless by most people for all ships (with the remaining few considering it useless only for most rather than all).

Yes i know, basicly no other offensiv skill (as id describe) exist in the first row. I was a bit hesitent to make it like that, but did because it was for illustration only. Basicly i wanted to show that i didnt mean u have to commit to one tree. It wasnt so much about if the above-skilltree is 100% correct, but to show how u can work around certain problems.

 

7 hours ago, eliastion said:

 - anyone with a DD who would want torpedo acceleration is literally forced to take some CV-exclusive skills just to gain access to that one

No, the green line was supposed to show last stand -> TA /TAE (either which one u want)

 

7 hours ago, eliastion said:

 - anyone who wants a torp armament expertise (a staple for all torp-focused DDs) and DOESN'T want torpedo acceleration (outright harmful for many DDs) is forced into taking TWO CV-specific skills

Above

 

7 hours ago, eliastion said:

 - Air Supremacy is locked behind at least one torpedo-focused skill

I dont consider it to be bad.

 

7 hours ago, eliastion said:

 - you can't just increase your AA range (for better def. AA coverage) - to get it you need to commit to a full AA build

Yep, was intended. But again, with more cptnskillpoints to spare, combined with each skill having 3 levels, it wouldnt "hurt" to put 3 points (rather than 12 total) into BFT

 

7 hours ago, eliastion said:

 - one of the popular survivability skills for DDs (extra hp per tier) requires investment in either consumable reload speed or specifically repair reload skill

Oh yes good point, i think my 1337 paintskills missed that one after i seperated Last stand because i wanted to properly show that last stand enables TA/TAE

 

7 hours ago, eliastion said:

 - IFHE - absolutely mandatory for Akizuki, for example, especially one that wants to hunt DDs - is locked behind expert loader and AND demolition expert (one skill being useless with her RoF and the other useless for the intended specialization in DD hunting)

Ok, that i forgot.

 

8 hours ago, eliastion said:

 - relative usefulness of various skills (the same difficulty we have now, it does NOT go away)

Not necessarily as i pointed out. If u have more points all together, it enables u to have a more balanced build across the board. Currently u can have either this or the other. With several levels per skill and more points in total, u can skill a bit of both to get some effect from both skills.

 

5 hours ago, Gnirf said:

are you really serious or trolling,

I dont use valuable time for trolling...

 

5 hours ago, Gnirf said:

this is a F2P game which the average player have difficulty to master anyway with all the various tricks in how to handle their ships.

Wanted to say about the dumb player base in general: I dont think that players are necessarly more stupid that in other games. The problem is: in WoWs they get away with it. They dont need to think about anything really, because playing on the most basic level is possible, while knowing all the game mechanics is nigh impossible. Armor values for all ships (overmatch mechanic) torpedo distance for all ships etc... this gets more complicated for every new ship line thats released. Average joe doesnt care about those, but he doesnt even care about the most basic stuff anyway. Seen BBs flagging the Extra Flooding flag (not that it was a BB with torps...).

5 hours ago, Gnirf said:

There is no need for WOWs to be overcomplicated.

Imo it already is. Just that u wont need the knowledge to play it on the most basic level.

 

@KarmaQU_EU

Sounds good, reminds me of synergy effects between skills like in Diablo:cap_cool:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,349 posts
11,263 battles
5 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Ofc this system does not work with only 19 pt cptn - should i have mentioned that? The 2 ideas i just put together, while skill levels were being the first one, which made me think, skill-trees might work after that.

It's not the matter of the number of points. Number of available points can always be adjusted. It's the very idea of forcing people into specific builds (sometimes outright retarded ones) to get one skill they actually want that's the problem.

 

5 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Yes i know, basicly no other offensiv skill (as id describe) exist in the first row. I was a bit hesitent to make it like that, but did because it was for illustration only. Basicly i wanted to show that i didnt mean u have to commit to one tree.

Well, if you wanted to show that people won't be forced to commit to whole trees, then your example kinda suggests something else with things like Air Supremacy being hidden behind torp-only skills, not to mention what is forced on anyone who wants their DD torps to reload faster. Your "illustration" illustrates what a clusterf*ck you get when you try to force people to follow trees - you got a virtual spider web of skills and yet there are so many retarded dependencies that it's not even funny.

 

5 hours ago, DFens_666 said:
Quote

 - relative usefulness of various skills (the same difficulty we have now, it does NOT go away)

Not necessarily as i pointed out. If u have more points all together, it enables u to have a more balanced build across the board. Currently u can have either this or the other. With several levels per skill and more points in total, u can skill a bit of both to get some effect from both skills.

Yes, necessarily. The number of points changes nothing, especially since the available point pool would be determined based on the number and price of skills/skill levels to purchase. No matter how much points you have, this in no way alleviates the basic difficulty of appraising skills' usefulness (relative to cost and usefulness/cost ratio of other skills). And there I was talking about the skill tree system, not about the skill levels, because if you add skill levels, then the problem of appraising skill usefulness not only doesn't go away: it itself gets worse too.

 

Let's say we currently have a skill: +350hp/tier for 3 points, right? So we need to look at other available skills and decide:

 - Is 350hp/tier worth 3 points in our build?

 

Now imagine that we have a new three-level skill with following three levels:

+100hp/tier (3 points)

+100hp/tier (+3 points)

+150hp/tier (+6 points)

 

So, now we have a question

 - Is 100hp/tier worth 3 points in our build?

THEN

 - Is another 100hp/tier worth another 3 points?

and finally, if both were answered with "yes":

 - Is further 150hp/tier worth 6 points on top of that?

 

Result?

Instead of appraising one skill you need to now appraise three of them, because each of these levels is effectively a separate skill to be evaluated.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
4,345 posts
6,233 battles
6 hours ago, eliastion said:

Well, if you wanted to show that people won't be forced to commit to whole trees, then your example kinda suggests something else with things like Air Supremacy being hidden behind torp-only skills, not to mention what is forced on anyone who wants their DD torps to reload faster. Your "illustration" illustrates what a clusterf*ck you get when you try to force people to follow trees - you got a virtual spider web of skills and yet there are so many retarded dependencies that it's not even funny.

 

As u might have seen in my first post, i already did that part, but because i didnt have more time, i was forced to make a quick illustration, which i copy&Pasted into the next picture with little adjustment. How come u didnt wonder that my first picture showed FP as a CV skill? :cap_hmm:

And where did i say this would be the non-plus-ultra version of it? U are argueing about how the skills are arranged basicly, which is no arguement against the idea itself but against the presentation.

 

Quote

Yes, necessarily. The number of points changes nothing, especially since the available point pool would be determined based on the number and price of skills/skill levels to purchase. No matter how much points you have, this in no way alleviates the basic difficulty of appraising skills' usefulness (relative to cost and usefulness/cost ratio of other skills). And there I was talking about the skill tree system, not about the skill levels, because if you add skill levels, then the problem of appraising skill usefulness not only doesn't go away: it itself gets worse too.

 

Let's say we currently have a skill: +350hp/tier for 3 points, right? So we need to look at other available skills and decide:

 - Is 350hp/tier worth 3 points in our build?

 

Now imagine that we have a new three-level skill with following three levels:

+100hp/tier (3 points)

+100hp/tier (+3 points)

+150hp/tier (+6 points)

 

So, now we have a question

 - Is 100hp/tier worth 3 points in our build?

THEN

 - Is another 100hp/tier worth another 3 points?

and finally, if both were answered with "yes":

 - Is further 150hp/tier worth 6 points on top of that?

 

Result?

Instead of appraising one skill you need to now appraise three of them, because each of these levels is effectively a separate skill to be evaluated.

 

No it isnt. If u want a skill locked behind a less usefull (or several less usefull) skill u only have to determine if a) is it worth to invest x points (not more than first level) into this skill or b) in which skill should i invest x points in order to get to my desired skill. If i have more skill points than i need for a specific build (in which i can choose myself if i invest points for all skill to level 3), then the amount of points most certainly do matter, because then it doesnt matter if i pump 3 points into a skill which i dont need that much. Because id have the points to spare anyway.

And your example about the HP skill makes no sense in that regard either. Currently if i play BB/CA/CV this skill is basicly totaly useless, and only an option for DDs. Basicly any other skill is better than this one, even if i currently would have points to spare when i finished my build. If a skill would have 3 levels and a useful skill is locked behind it, i would only need to look at option number one: Is 3 points worth it for 100Hp/Tier in order to unlock the skill i want?

Btw currently i dont see that many option in captain builds either. Cruisers with Caliber below x need IFHE. Many Cruisers benefit from DE. Almost all ships benefit from skills like CE or SI. We could even say the current Meta forces BBs to take FP. For 2pt skills many ppl take EM or AR anyway as first choice, except DDs who usually take LS. Even PT as first row skill is usefull for most ships because: DDs benefit from knowing how many ppl are shooting at them when targeted, CAs also, BBs might take PM but then again i think PT is still better, since BBs have strong armor which prevents module breaking anyway.

 

Oh and about the CV skills: I dont know how u skill your CVs, but since there arent that many CV skills around, i wonder what u take instead of TA/TAE... Since US CVs got stripped of AS/Strike setup, every CV has atleast one TB anyway. So saying AS is locked behind "useless" Torpedo skills is pretty much stupid. And then again its a matter of presentation: AS could aswell be accessable from both CV skill-trees as 4th point skill, since there isnt really a defensive CV skill currently ingame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,232 battles
6 hours ago, eliastion said:

Instead of appraising one skill you need to now appraise three of them, because each of these levels is effectively a separate skill to be evaluated.

 

Not really. But even if - what would be bad in that? Idealy, a system like this wouldnt give you enough points to max out everything usefull to your ship. So you´d have to make a choice, alowing a personal build, a personal style. Right now, I find the captainsskills pretty dumb. In 95% of the cases, the builds are the same and the order you have to take is the same. So, a ship starts to be usefull only with 10+ captain and be straight out better. And always the same, if skilled right. There is no room for personal style.

 

So your example:

 

6 hours ago, eliastion said:

Now imagine that we have a new three-level skill with following three levels:

+100hp/tier (3 points)

+100hp/tier (+3 points)

+150hp/tier (+6 points)

 

So, now we have a question

 - Is 100hp/tier worth 3 points in our build?

THEN

 - Is another 100hp/tier worth another 3 points?

and finally, if both were answered with "yes":

 - Is further 150hp/tier worth 6 points on top of that?

 

lacks the whole picture. Its rather:

 

 - Is another 100hp/tier worth another 3 points? OR do I use the points for an extra TB? or something else.

6 hours ago, eliastion said:

Yes, necessarily. The number of points changes nothing, especially since the available point pool would be determined based on the number and price of skills/skill levels to purchase. No matter how much points you have, this in no way alleviates the basic difficulty of appraising skills' usefulness (relative to cost and usefulness/cost ratio of other skills). And there I was talking about the skill tree system, not about the skill levels, because if you add skill levels, then the problem of appraising skill usefulness not only doesn't go away: it itself gets worse too.

 

Many other games use this pattern btw. And there is nothing wrong with them. Diablo II would be a prime example. Its what made that game so awesome and allowed for tons of variety and different playstyles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,168 posts
9,352 battles

1st level CE -10% concealment

2nd level CE -20% concealment

3rd level CE -30% concealment

 

where do i sign up? :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles
5 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

Many other games use this pattern btw. And there is nothing wrong with them. Diablo II would be a prime example. Its what made that game so awesome and allowed for tons of variety and different playstyles.

I will prefer my Transistor based "stats-checked + passive/active/modifier super-positioned skills" model. Partly because I enjoyed Transistor more than Diablo. But there are things we can learn from Diablo.

 

- While the Diablo model is a good example of a system where you are free to choose whatever skill you want, it does lean a bit heavily on the theorycrafting side and WoWs is more of an action game and less a theorycrafting game. So we don't want the theorycrafting to be the core focus of the game. In Diablo, 95% of your effectiveness comes from effective gear combo, build, enough points, etc. It's a very tasteless grind, and the lower levels are much less viable than the end-game. (contrast Transistor, where having 3 skills is just as workable and playable as having 12, assuming you combo them suitably, even without much theorycrafting). However, it does work for Diablo, and if WoWs becomes so like Diablo, it could theoretically work for WoWs too.

 

- Heavy theorycrafting systems has some innate toxicity when applied to PvP scenarios, take EVE for instance. Deterministic systems allowing direct player-player power disparity to be appplied onto players, not just the in-game assets. The very example of toxicity. We also know how PvP went for Diablo. Also even now, Blizzard does not encourage dps meters in-game, for the nihilistic nature of such systems. This part of their game system is no less close-minded and rigid than WoWs systems of today, and in need of change. It is a core flaw. Diablo is much better a single-player experience, and this may be the weakness of Transistor too.

 

- With a stats-check system, you essentially won't have to make the "next level worth how many points" decision yourself; your "stats" make most it for you. This diverging part of the pressure away from wholly player-decision is my favourite kind of levying system; using systems to counter the pressure of systems, instead of dumping that pressure onto players. Players don't like math, so the systems will do it for them and present to them in visual and intuitive soft-logic form. By further playing-around in such as "soft" system, players can have better "feel" for the gradual changes applied by minor stat changes, consumables and equipment tweaks, instead of having to memorize conclusions from external "builds" and other "maths". This part is what is worth learning from Diablo; their system has very fine gradual and cascading micro-handling. Which is why tweaking around in their system, ever improving and changing your build, and gaining gear to modify your stats (which affect your build), then witnessing and musing what changed from such tweaks yourself, is so heady and intriguing, and fun. 

 

- Furthermore, even some Diablo skills have a semi-modifier purpose. For instance, using a black-hole to group up enemies for a cooldown-based aoe nuke. Freezing enemies to make them vulnerable to a freeze-bonus-damage skill. Some offensive-defensive combos. etc. Except in transistor, you can assign the modifier skills so it happens automatically, allowing for even more concentration of modifiers without you having to custom-manage each one. This improves playability and reduces chance for player error in combo execution of mundane tasks. It also allows for a net higher count of total combo factors, besides just high concentration of factors, due to the streamlined and semi-automated process. Diablo is not very heavy on this chain-skills, and their chains are carefully designed to have a limited length and Diablo is more about the shifting of tones than chain-ing. (described in the lower parts of the bottom-most paragraph)

 

- Diablo II came from an era where A.I. assisted control was not a mainstream function, but nowadays it is not only feasible, but readily workable. There is even a non-trivial amount of signs of players preferring to witness computers perform many mass mundane functions, simulation and spectacle-like, while they make strategic decisions or just watch on, rather than attempt a flawed and limited immersion by trying to work mundane controls themselves. In short, they prefer to witness an asset gain life, and move on its own, to "wow" them. In Diablo, what you can "wow" is limited, be it other players or yourself. It can thus get tiring and futile, and much less than what some players would bother to do for themselves. "Diablo" only works with a certain detachment from the player-but-not-player character players are headily "controlling". This "feel" was inherited from the past eras, just like the Tier 1-10 system was. And it works to a certain extent even though there is no A.I. in that character at all, as when the player casts a mundane function, the character sill appears, through animation, innate timescales, and suitable context, to "cast" or "perform" that action, and the resulting spectacle of carnage satisfies players to a certain extent. It walks a delicate balance of tiring and timely satisfaction. Sometimes too delicate, and as these systems, however fine, are stretched to their limits in the modern era, are still prone to critical failure amidst an increasing array of other possibilities

 

- Thus it is a shifting of definitions; the future era of "passive" skills could be "active" skills only which are not activated by the player, but are assigned and witnessed, e.g. autocast skills in other Blizzard games. And their combined total influence provides a "passive" like holistic effect, which in the past was only "simulated" via stat-modifiers due to hardware and software limitations. While "active" skills are skills which instead of stressing the timely activation and surgical application via conscious player-decisions, now work at a game-design level to clearly shift the balance of control back to the player, temporarily, in another kind of agency-expression than the "passive" skills. Such dynamics and shifting variety prevents the game from becoming stale, and is also an example of what Diablo excels at through both character-mechanics and enemy-mob design. "Stats" and "modifiers" are also increasingly moving away from "checkboxes on a paper list" from the table-top era, as poorly fleshed-out examples which are less viable today to satisfy the appetites of players, to more characterized and lively manifestation of "things". Hp-bars with 10-strength 5-agility and 2-mana on an excel-checklist are no longer quite enough, players demand a character, a story, an environment, suitable supporting mechanics, and enough human touch and contextual depth to immerse themselves in. Players require a much more intertwined, justifiable, lovingly crafted, "unique" environment for immersion, and the whole system and all its mechanics has to work together down to the minute details to support that illusion. This part is also something we can learn from Diablo, how they innately encode their theorycrafting-heavy world to still seem "alive" and immersive for players without getting stale, or overly deterministic. It was always the strength of Blizzard to assign meaning to mundane functions of hp-damage math, be it Starcraft, Diablo, or WoW. These are the real things we should be learning from Diablo, improving on them, and developing our own system uniquely suitable to the context of WoWs.

 

TL:DR

- Theorycrafting heavy systems have danger of distracting from actual gameplay experience, can be weathered via design.

- Theorycrafting heavy systems are more vulnerable to toxicity in multiplayer, a major design point.

- "Systems" themselves however, can help to alleviate theorycrafting pressure from the players, a major objective in design.

- "Modifier" skills and "modifying-skills" based systems, can vastly differ in nature depending on what type of scaling one wishes of them, take heed when designing to ensure balance.

- The core directive of such systems is to provide non player-directly-controlled "spectacle", for the players (including other players) to enjoy their "cause-and-effects". Varying hardware/software improvements simply allow for more advanced "spectacles". "Raise dps by X%" is not very advanced, nowadays.

- The core justification of such systems is still to help build illusion and immersion in a game-world for the players. It is the core justification for any and all systems.

 

- Compare how the Diablo systems versus the WoWs systems perform such directives. 

- Do that for other games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,349 posts
11,263 battles
6 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

Not really. But even if - what would be bad in that? Idealy, a system like this wouldnt give you enough points to max out everything usefull to your ship. So you´d have to make a choice, alowing a personal build, a personal style.

I was responding to a - clearly wrong - claim that the skill tree system would make speccing captains easier. And when OP mixed this back up with skill levels, I explained that this actually makes it even harder.

As for skill levels in general, I didn't really argue against them. What I target is the idea of skill trees that specifically prevent people from making their own personal style builds by forcing them to pick skills they don't want because someone arbitrarily decided that they are necessary for someone who wants some other specific skill.

 

6 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

So your example:

(...)

lacks the whole picture. Its rather:

 

 - Is another 100hp/tier worth another 3 points? OR do I use the points for an extra TB? or something else.

Wat. No, seriously, worth is always relative to situation. Pretty much by definition. If there were no other skills to pick, the question "is it worth 3 points" would be irrelevant in the first place. Any question related to the relationship between value and price always implies comparison with other things that could be potentially acquired instead. So no. My example doesn't lack whole picture, unless you believe I should've created a whole skill list just to show that breaking skills down into - effectively - multiple smaller skills complicates things.

 

6 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

Many other games use this pattern btw.

And this is relevant to OP's claim that the changes would make things easier... how?

 

7 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

And where did i say this would be the non-plus-ultra version of it? U are argueing about how the skills are arranged basicly, which is no arguement against the idea itself but against the presentation.

No, I'm arguing against arranging skills in any way because it will ALWAYS make builds more streamlined and personal, forcing someone elses arbitrary preconceptions. I just use examples provided by you to show how stupid this is. Sure, you can polish the final system, but you end up with one of the two possible results:

 - there will be stupid restrictions where you need to pick skills you consider pretty much (if not completely) dead weight, hence your freedom to build YOUR build based on YOUR decisions is heavily restricted

or

 - you have effectively no constraints, skills are grouped in such a way that to get to a skill you want you'll 99% of the time get there through a path of skills you want anyway (in fact, we pretty much have this right now - after all, to get to t4 you need one t1, one t2 and one t3 skill of your choice ). But introducing new restrictions that effectively don't restrict anything, while it wouldn't break anything, sounds like lots of extra work for nothing

 

7 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

No it isnt.

Keep dreaming. Or, better yet, read my post again. You add new things that need to be considered without removing or simplyfying anything else - your claim that this might make the system easier to grasp is so ridiculous that I don't have the strength to keep arguing with you.

 

7 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Btw currently i dont see that many option in captain builds either. Cruisers with Caliber below x need IFHE. Many Cruisers benefit from DE

Yay, the current system has some must-have and pretty-much-worthless skills that effectively restrict the choice of skills... let's restrict choices explicitly, by introducing skill requirement tree, this will certainly help.

/sarcasm.

 

7 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Oh and about the CV skills: I dont know how u skill your CVs, but since there arent that many CV skills around, i wonder what u take instead of TA/TAE... Since US CVs got stripped of AS/Strike setup, every CV has atleast one TB anyway. So saying AS is locked behind "useless" Torpedo skills is pretty much stupid.

A bit besides the point, but sometimes I meet people who play AS Saipan. So many TBs there :Smile_trollface:

And sure, you can make it so that there are no useless skills along the way, but again:

1. There are situations you'll just overlook (like you forgot about Saipan loadouts here), it's quite unlikely to be able to take everything into account when designing the tree

2. Even if you manage to not overlook anything/adjust the system again and again until finally you get rid of these situations, effectively you still just either restrict players' choices for the sake of restricting them OR create a completely superficial system of restrictions so weak that they could just as well get rid of them, making the whole work on them completely redundant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
4,345 posts
6,233 battles
4 hours ago, eliastion said:

/snip

 

No need to split it up any further:

Basicly we could argue forever, neither of us will change our oppinion about skill-trees, so might aswell stop right there.

 

Stil about the AS Saipan:

Firstoff, he can switch Loadouts with one click, so having captain skills which are valuable for another loadout is not stupid. (less stupid than playing AS)

Second, there are no skills beyond a couple that would benefit an AS Saipan - might aswell take the Torpedo-skills. (Premium CV can use cptn on another CV too...)

 

Oh forgot about "personal" builds:

Like when WG shows BB cptns using Expert Rear Gunner? :Smile_trollface: Sure i could deliberately click on any skill or skill all 1-point-skills to have my personal-build, doesnt make it less stupid and totaly suboptimal.

Basicly every ship has a more or less optimal build currently. The only question is: Do i have points to spare in the end, or do i need to cutback on something? And only then might come personal builds in place, when i have poins to spare. Not even talking about stupid cptn builds here, i guess there are plenty around of those... HP Perk BBs anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,232 battles
4 hours ago, eliastion said:

No, I'm arguing against arranging skills in any way because it will ALWAYS make builds more streamlined and personal, forcing someone elses arbitrary preconceptions.

 

Build me a captain for Minotaur. http://shipcomrade.com/captcalc

I mean, its cool, that Im not forced down a specific line. Gives newbs the chance to skill the Minotaur like this http://shipcomrade.com/captcalc/1010001000100000010000100110000019

4 hours ago, eliastion said:

I was responding to a - clearly wrong - claim that the skill tree system would make speccing captains easier.

your claim that this might make the system easier to grasp is so ridiculous that I don't have the strength to keep arguing with you.

Look above - come again? And dont you "I would never skill a captain for Minotaur like this". You know its stupid, I know its stupid. We dont need to talk about this. But now tell me, that there are 0 captains skilled as stupid as this out there. So, for someone, who doesnt know what he is doing, a tree is BY FAR  the easier way to identify, what he will benefit from - and cant mix in useless skills. Also - when he later, at some point understands, what his ships really need (very common, by advancing in the game, you gain experiance) he will see, which captain skills are needed. Oops, already got that Torpedo Acceleration for your DD and no Last Stand? You are in trouble now.

 

btw - I dont need skill tree myself. And if you dont like it, just say "I dont like it". But dont make up wall-of-text on an insulting level, ridiculing a completly valid idea with arguments, that in reality are none. The end of this topic is not "captain skills will change right away to what is agreed here". You dont need to argue about it, as if your life depends on it.... In the end, its never gonna look like this anyway.

 

@KarmaQU_EU good post. I agree, a system like you present could work very well in wows aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
3,282 posts
10,715 battles

Manual AA 1, Manual AA 2, Manual AA 3 ... just because :cap_book:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,349 posts
11,263 battles
9 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

Build me a captain for Minotaur. http://shipcomrade.com/captcalc

I mean, its cool, that Im not forced down a specific line. Gives newbs the chance to skill the Minotaur like this http://shipcomrade.com/captcalc/1010001000100000010000100110000019

Thing is - it's still you going for the build you want, not someone deciding what you should take if you want skill X. And sure, certain skills being must-have with other lacking in utility for certain ships certainly means that builds will often end up quite similar - but that's down to which skills people consider worthwhile, without anybody else's arbitrary dependencies mixed in.

Oh, and your idea that noobs will turn up with better builds just because of skill tree restrictions is laughable - if anything, they'll be in more risk of f*cking things up. Currently to completely waste a lot of points, the noob needs to fail skill apprisal check (that is: take a skill that's useless for him). With skill trees, it's possible to pick a skill that in and of itself would be useful... but follows a bunch of costly requirements that make the overall investment a huge waste.

 

9 hours ago, ForlornSailor said:

Look above - come again? And dont you "I would never skill a captain for Minotaur like this". You know its stupid, I know its stupid.

...and, as said above - making skills depend on one another won't save anyone from making a build just as stupid. I mean, of course that's assuming that someone building Minotaur like this can handle finding the Battle button in the client, but that's beside the point: making the skill system more complex might have many effects, but preventing people from bad choices will NOT be one of them. Skill trees remove freedom, but they don't reduce the complexity of the process of picking skills.

Not to mention that the actual way to help hapless people build their captains would be not to mix things up by introducing arbitrary skill requirements, but to add a captain-building-tips system that would, in-client, provide recommendation as to which skills are important and which questionable for a ship in question. Maybe even with prompts in some cases "are you sure you want to pick Expert Loader for a ship that can't switch ammo types?".

 

9 hours ago, lup3s said:

Manual AA 1, Manual AA 2, Manual AA 3 ... just because :cap_book:

Well, this isn't a very good argument against skill levels, because

1. Obviously, some skills can only be perks that work entirely or not at all (we in fact do have these two types already, some work at 50% capacity when retraining and others don't work at all)

2. Actually it would be possible to break down Manual AA - the first level would only provide a portion of the full buff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,232 battles
45 minutes ago, eliastion said:

. I mean, of course that's assuming that someone building Minotaur like this can handle finding the Battle button in the client

 

Lol ok, off-topic, but I had to laugh when reading that part AND something came to my mind: What if there would be a math-captcha, before the battle-button appears? Like 12+8 or smth. Maybe we can get rid of those BBabys this way. :Smile_hiding:

45 minutes ago, eliastion said:

Maybe even with prompts in some cases "are you sure you want to pick Expert Loader for a ship that can't switch ammo types?".

 

That would be a good thing actually. Should be implemented either way. Or maybe it should list ships in the description, that benefit from a certain skill. Little steps in the right direction.

 

45 minutes ago, eliastion said:

Oh, and your idea that noobs will turn up with better builds just because of skill tree restrictions is laughable - if anything, they'll be in more risk of f*cking things up.

 

I´d say, there will be players, that [edited]up in the current system, and there will be ppl that [edited]up in the tree system. Some from first group would do somewhat ok in the other system and vice versa. Nothing laughable about that. Actually there are ppl, that dont skill their captain at all. Or they run IFA and PT on T8+ BBs and god knows what else from the 1-point-level cuz I can see they dont have SI, CE or AR. Source: bad twitch streams. So there are examples for ppl that cant handle the current system. Not saying they could handle a skill tree, but they cant [edited]up harder.

 

45 minutes ago, eliastion said:

Thing is - it's still you going for the build you want, not someone deciding what you should take if you want skill X

 

Thats pretty much down to how you design the tree. If you allow horizontal switches, how many different trees there are and so. But w/e I personally am fine with both systems. Actual one is just boring and not challenging. I can see advantages in giving more levels to each skill and thus way more captain points. Has nothing to do with skilltree btw. So one could have faster CE, FP, something for AA but with lower impact. This all-or-nothing, where nowadays anything but a 10-point-captain stinks gets boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RN]
Alpha Tester
920 posts

hmmm interesting idea. i saw this kind of skill tree in "unnamed space shooter" it bring a LOT of diversity but also means you have to

plan more to get what you want out of your skills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,130 posts
2,359 battles

A simpler solution, rather than reworking the entire skill system to allow for multiple skill points to be invested into a single skill, would be to add duplicates of certain skills into the game at different skill point costs. For example, we currently have adrenaline rush for 2 points, but we could also have an otherwise identical adrenaline rush 2 skill for 3 points. The values could quite easily be tweaked for balance to ensure that all versions of a skill would remain somewhat viable, particularly as pretty much every single 1-point skill that could work if duplicated would be outright terrible for 2 points unless the level 2 version has improved values. Players would then have the option of maxing out the skill using 5 points (2+3), just getting the 2 point version or even just getting the 3 point version if there's no other 3 pointers they want and they want 4 point skills.

 

Such a method could quite easily increase the number of skills in the game by 30-50%, while also opening up a bit more build flexibility, all while costing almost zero work on the developer's part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×