Leaderboard

That's what worries me, unfortunately some want to be spoon fed these choices/options instead of having the option thinking for themselves. It's all in the name of balance of course, but you get 5 different people and end up with 6 different ideas of what balanced is.

You can't fix stupid. If a game is online multiplayer and they can't figure out how to look up WoWs guides on the internet, that's on them. For example, not having concealment on battleships will not discourage the type of players who will try sniping from the back or base camping.

first and foremost. i don't think that the current set of captain skills is sufficient or perfectly suited to fulfill our (especially my) needs. We need at three skills per row and we need more captains to add build variety. just to be clear. next thing is balancing. Balancing will be needed but a DD Captain will always be better on a DD, than a CV Captain. I think that is perfectly clear. if we have 15 skills to choose from and all of those skills are viable for (let's say) DDs, it would be a better situation than we have on PC, where most of the 32 skills are fillers (from the perspective of your class). variety within a captains skill tree would be a leap forward in making this a better system than the one on PC. with new captains, more variety would be added on top. remember - the current Captains and skills are not the be all, end all. More is to come but instead of looking at it with a positive attitude, people are crying for the Incredibly flawed PC skill tree. That skill tree is so imbalanced, that people would "storm the castle" when they would have to seriously test it on console. but for some people its easier to cry "dumb down" while making their pitch forks ready, instead of actually lookong at the skills, trees and captains and give propper feedback. i say: "let them work" and we give constructive feedback on what we want and how what we expect the system to look like at release and in a year.

I think there is no possibility for it. But i hope someday we'll see cross play between consoles. That's enough for me and for game it self.

@KaLeuWillenbrock I realize you said your done, but I will end my part with this. I provide honest feedback and opinions along with suggestions from my point of view, it's not bashing. Even my 10 year old thinks it's been dumbed down( he played pc as well )I'm not going to be an echo chamber for the sake of it. I know not being a yes man will cost me in the end, always does, not to worried tho. A pleasure as always.

Not everyone who registered got a closed beta code. I think it was a random drawing iirc. There will be other closed beta sessions so don't give up.

@KaLeuWillenbrock I don't want a carbon copy, but I would like the best aspects carried over. Limiting player choice I do not think is a good direction to go. As far as balance its been made clear what is perceived the majority wants is what will happen, which is all well and good if it's two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner and your one of the wolves, less so if your the sheep. I don't believe that having 5 captains or 50 with pretermined skill set options is a good thing if none are viable to the players that want to use them. I'll ask again seeing you ignored it last time. If a player finds none of the captains in a given nation they want to play suitable to their playstyle what options does that player have? I will remind you it's not different it's a scaled down version. Maybe if they did not " borrow" so heavily you could consider it different. But jiggling around a few tech trees and eliminating player choices does not really qualify it as being its own entity. I'm still testing because despite its faults( and no game is perfect, except star citizen) I still have fun playing and testing it. I know I'm in the minority opinion on just about everything but I can live with it lol. Last thing they need is a bunch of yes men( not saying you are) and there are plenty of them. If PC version was still an option, I would play it over this version because I like the options it gives. I can still have fun here but I don't see myself spending on premiums like I would there. And if Naval action devs ever got their heads on straight I would hook up my PC on my ceiling if I had too to play it.

But with limited skills there is even less alternative. So if out of all the commanders for a nation a player don't find any with skill set choices they want, what's there options? Either choose a class or nation they are not interested in?

imo, it is exactly why i like the skill trees and why they are good - better than the set of skills on PC. you have to decide between survivability or offense. You can't build the perfect destroyer. If one nation could build the perfect DD commander, the game would become incredibly imbalanced and we would end up in the same situation, the PC is suffering in. cookie cutter builds, you have to skill (if you want to win), because there is no alternative. we need three skills per row, to have alternatives for different playstyles though.

But don't get caught in the trap that because it's different it will automatically be better.

But yet the majority will still use the same captains with the same skill sets. You could have 20 different commanders, all with different predetermined skills and yet if only 4 are really viable then the other 16 are just filler to give the illusion of options. If you needed to go off-road in a vehicle and you had 5 choices to use, say a 4x4 suv, a Honda civic, a Yugo, an Aerostar( minivan) and a VW bug. Which would you choose? Sure you have 5 options but only one real viable choice. The same will happen here. Besides we don't know how many of those new skills will be for carriers or duplicates.

@KaLeuWillenbrock this will not stop cookie cutter captain builds, no more than the PC does. Everyone will gravitate to what works. The thinking this will add more choice or better balance things is just an illusion.

Progression/upgrade system from PC. When you have children saying the current one is too simple it's a bad thing.