Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
S4pp3R

CV Rework Feedback-Balance

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

235
[151ST]
Member
1,026 posts
4,669 battles

My current CV Rework Rework (WiP)

Preface

Numbers are obviously subject to balancing requirements, what I have detailed is an IDEA and as such should be very much subject to change.

Premise

The current iteration of the CV rework is boring and 1-dimensional. We need something that has a little more gusto and dynamism. So I'm proposing changes based on:

  • The action-based system will not change significantly
  • AA needs to be relevant
  • CVs need strike potential
  • Easy enough to learn, hard enough to master

Conditions

  • Reduce ‘dot’ damage done by CVs, significantly reduce chance of fire/flood to roughly once every 2 drops.
  • Reduce damage of each attack run a bit, so that ‘maximum’ theoretical damage output of 2 wings doing their 2 attack runs is 75% of a ships HP. Which I would guess should be 2 AP DB wings v BB.
  •  Limit number of attack runs for planes to 2 or 3.
  • For each aircraft in a wing shot down, reduce damage output but a %, eg 2% or 4% per plane or something (obviously change as needed).
  • Add ability to have 2 flights in the air at the same time.

Two Flights

I am proposing a 2-flight or 2-squadron system. Basically the you have 2 flights of your choosing, any combination. The key to that combination is the balance against different targets of rockets/DB/TBs.

Why have two flights? Basically I find one flight boring and the gameplay is exceptionally repetitive and stale. So the trick is to have two flights, giving the player far more choice and allowing combination attacks and CVs to actually have some mastery involved. The trick is balancing the damage.

 

How would Two Flights work?

Basically you would be able to switch between which flight is active, the active one you would control and possibly be able to set course. Either way you would definitely be able to have the second flight follow your main one around, my initial estimate would be 5 km (as always subject to change). Essentially my proposal functions around being able to do 2 attack runs per flight with a maximum potential (perfect) damage of %75 of BB HP at tier. Obviously 0 DOTs for that 'max' damage combination.

 

DOT Damage

DOT or Damage Over Time damage is the damage cause by fires and floods. The more DOT damage you add, the more painful the game becomes. IMO warships has pushed DOT damage a bit too far lately (RN BBs anyone?).

DOT damage should be a risk-reward thing, not an ‘expected’. Chance of Fire/Flood should be reduced to the point that it happens ‘sometimes’ and that if you are choosing aircraft for that feature, it feels like it’s worth it but not mandatory. Potential DOT damage should scale with real damage, the better chance you have of DOT damage, the less the real damage the wing can inflict.

 

Aircraft Damage

So the biggest issue people have with CVs (currently) is the strike potential, being able to essentially ‘1-shot’ you.

So I’ll use AP DB v BB as a damage metric. Perfect hit, perfect RNG (ignore detonations here), 2 wings should never be able to 1-shot a BB. So let’s just put a random limit and say no more than 75% damage and talk about this in terms of a T10 BB.

100k HP

2 wings (AP DB), a total of 4 runs, 5 bombs per drop.

75% - 75k HP max damage

4 runs, 18750 per run

3750 max damage per bomb at T10.

You’d be looking at a ‘good’ 4 runs by 2 sqns being 30-40k damage on a T10 BB. (That would be max possible damage by any combo.)

 

This is just me brain-storming, but I think you can see where this is going. Basically the amount of damage will need to be effectively scaled to AA.

For using HE DBs, Rockets or TBs, you are shifting the damage metric from raw damage to a bit of DOT or what it’s effective against.

  • TBs – I would expect 2 wings with a total of 4 runs to inflict 1 flooding.
  • Rockets – good v DDs, do little damage to other ships but decent fire chance, I would expect 2 wings with 4 runs to inflict 2 fires on non-DDs reliably but do almost 0 damage on CA/BBs.
  • HE DBs – less fire chance than Rockets but more penetrating power, perhaps has enough pen to cita CLs? Effective v DDs, harder to land, effective against CAs but less so than v CLs.
  • AP DBs – Can cita BBs and some CAs, good against ‘heavily’ armoured targets. 0 DOT

 

Damage reduction

Now you would need to balance this properly with AA but the idea is that as you lose aircraft within your wing, your maximum damage output is reduced. Doing damage to the different aircraft wings therefore actually means something. I’ll touch on this a bit more in the AA section. You could even apply a ‘max’ damage reduction (say 30%).

 

Number of attack runs

You have to limit this, there has to be a reason outside of AA to go back to your CV. There again needs to be that risk-reward to committing to an attack run.

 

Why the detail?

Now your two Flight choices matter… You balance things like TBs and HE DBs fire/flood and actual damage to make it a worthwhile choice to go AP DBs OR the TB/HE option when targeting CAs. Due to BB torp reduction, AP DBs are you best bet against BBs, unless you are lucky enough to get a flooding (‘lucky’ enough), you now have a risk-reward system.

Maybe you go 1 AP DB and 1 TB so that you are pretty good against CAs and ok v BBs? Or maybe one of the BBs has insane short range AA so you want the TBs so you don’t lose as much damage?

 

AA – How to make it work?

Easy, you don’t want to completely destroy each flight after their 2 runs (maybe 3) but you want AA to do something.

As mentioned earlier, apply a damage reduction to each plane in the flight that’s destroyed.

In balancing it, they need to have some basic conditions to balance it to. For example:

  • No one ship should ever be able to wipe out an aircraft wing in… 3 drops or 5 passes.
  • No two ships should ever be able to wipe out an aircraft wing in 2 drops, 4 passes.
  • Etc.

 You basically want to make it so that 90%+, CV players will get 2 drops off with both flights and then need to return to base against a concerted AA effort, say 3 ships, 1-2 of which have good AA.

 AA beasts? Well obviously they’re going to need to actually balance AA for starters. But if there are issues with how quick planes are getting shredded against AA Monsters, instead of adding aircraft HP (making them imba for other ships) simply add a cool-down between plane destruction. For example, 5-10s. So at minimum it takes 50-100s to take down a 10-plane wing of aircraft but while this cooldown is in effect, the next tier of damage reduction is applied. (So while the cool-down for the first aircraft being downed is active, 4% reduction in damage as opposed to 2%).

 DFAA? Easy, simply make it apply a damage reduction, either max (30%?) or possibly even greater if that’s needed, 50%.

 

Spotting

Basically I see spotting as eliminated from CV play outside of the 'active' squadron. Basically either have it so that the AA attack range is the spotted range or do something interesting... ...

Make is so that aircraft only spot in a similar fashion to Cyclones, quasi-visible on the minimap.

 

Conclusion

So the whole idea is to have a bit of variety and combination (2 Flights active) and at the same time keep the core action-based reworked system. In furtherance of this is a shift away from DOTs and from either aircraft or AA being OP. You also want the risk v reward system to be worth it. A concentrated AA effort? Well maybe you only get the 2 attack runs per flight, not 3? Or maybe the damage reduction is making it not worth dropping on those targets due to DFAA?

Maybe the AA escort around BBs is too much, need to switch to HE DBs to take out the CLs?

Maybe the concentration of camping ships is so high that 2xTBs will land just about every torp?

Basically my changes would allow anyone to jump in and have fun with CVs, while a good player could use the choices available and skill in managing multiple flights to maximise their contribution. By using the damage reduction system and clearly defining which planes are effective against which ships, a balance can easily be found.

 

Thoughts from the floor?

Edited by S4pp3R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LNA]
Member
1,696 posts
10,543 battles
24 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

@legionary2099, @Robby_Hermanto

This is what I was talking about

Okay so ill state how i see it :

First and foremost , the idea of being able to deal a ton of damage can be mitigated simply by prolonging the penalty downtime for each aircraft shot down, no need for complex changes.

AA damage should increase progressively the longer you stay in the bubble  and start out low ( panic level ) , to prevent CV from cheesing people out but not keep them from being attacked completely. Obviously , ships with good AA will have better increase rate , leaving you with less time to safely attack.

I do not support 2 control concept, because frankly it create the multiple me everywhere problem. Instead , FT as a limited ammo plane with much longer cool down that can be selected. So CV can use FT when it desperately need to do so and not all the time. The idea here is that FT is very limitedly available and you need to pick your time switching to it in order not to waste your damage potential. How FT interact would be a new mechanic , this takes time and frankly i doubt they can do it with the amount of fixes currently needed.

I suggest a homing mechanic , you launch your FT , homing it toward a hostile plane group and choose to attack. AI take care of the rest and you go back to control your strike planes. No need to create more interaction , the FT will attack the selected squadron until out of ammo/plane or intercepted by another FT. Then it will automatically go back and be on cool down till next use ( longer cool down that strikes so you cant use it willy nilly ).

For attacking groups , distribution is right now changeable , its not that big of a deal and remember that most of your opponent right now are bots. Bots arent smart at tricky maneuvers and positioning , but humans do. I doubt you can get such impressive numbers if you face an experienced captains in full PvP.

Also , cattle herding , with CV being quite a menace even though they cant one shot you now , they can herd surface ships like sheeps , creating big mobs with impregnable air defence. It happened in with CV in Ranked battle and force them to be totally useless and go for more FTs than strikes.

 

 

Edited by legionary2099

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
235
[151ST]
Member
1,026 posts
4,669 battles
8 hours ago, legionary2099 said:

Okay so ill state how i see it :

First and foremost , the idea of being able to deal a ton of damage can be mitigated simply by prolonging the penalty downtime for each aircraft shot down, no need for complex changes.

AA damage should increase progressively the longer you stay in the bubble  and start out low ( panic level ) , to prevent CV from cheesing people out but not keep them from being attacked completely. Obviously , ships with good AA will have better increase rate , leaving you with less time to safely attack.

I do not support 2 control concept, because frankly it create the multiple me everywhere problem. Instead , FT as a limited ammo plane with much longer cool down that can be selected. So CV can use FT when it desperately need to do so and not all the time. The idea here is that FT is very limitedly available and you need to pick your time switching to it in order not to waste your damage potential. How FT interact would be a new mechanic , this takes time and frankly i doubt they can do it with the amount of fixes currently needed.

I suggest a homing mechanic , you launch your FT , homing it toward a hostile plane group and choose to attack. AI take care of the rest and you go back to control your strike planes. No need to create more interaction , the FT will attack the selected squadron until out of ammo/plane or intercepted by another FT. Then it will automatically go back and be on cool down till next use ( longer cool down that strikes so you cant use it willy nilly ).

For attacking groups , distribution is right now changeable , its not that big of a deal and remember that most of your opponent right now are bots. Bots arent smart at tricky maneuvers and positioning , but humans do. I doubt you can get such impressive numbers if you face an experienced captains in full PvP.

Also , cattle herding , with CV being quite a menace even though they cant one shot you now , they can herd surface ships like sheeps , creating big mobs with impregnable air defence. It happened in with CV in Ranked battle and force them to be totally useless and go for more FTs than strikes.

 

 

I can see where you are going with this, however I don't see how this solves the stale gameplay. Other than that good points.

I wasn't criticising big damage numbers, however when I floated this with my clan there was a lot of talk about the damage metrics, so I amended the overall post to provide some context.

The big point I want to make with this is that it's so repetitive and stale as it stands with the rework.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
345 posts
3,750 battles

Haven't played the current CV rework beta but i think they should add credit cost for each plane you use. This would make CV players hesitate just yoloing their planes to any target. Unlimited planes just doesn't make sense so just give them some consequence for losing too much planes by paying more credits.

Once this CV rework comes to live, they should add an option where you can set if MM will put you in a game with CV or not. This will show how much of the playerbase wants to fight against the new broken damage farming CV meta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
235
[151ST]
Member
1,026 posts
4,669 battles
1 hour ago, tsuenwan said:

Is there anyway to do Kamikaze attacks?

Nope

But at the moment you just keep doing drops until your planes are shot down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
461 posts
8,519 battles

I got to play the mode very briefly. I played the T6 CVs and BBs. The planes felt a bit sluggish to handle at first, but after you get a grip on them it's easy to drop most targets. The AA didn't feel very threatening, flak often felt like it wasn't shooting at you. Losing planes basically meant very little, you get your planes back very fast.

It was very easy to stack DOT effects on a ship, even if you only got a single fire/flood on a ship you could get planes out fast enough (due to planes engine boost) to put more damage over time effects. In summary it's pretty easy to flood/burn a ship to death.

Not being able to directly control the CV was a pain in the butt, you can't dodge or manage damage control at all. This often results in needlessly dying. This meant that your CV is particularly vulnerable to being sniped, with little defensive recourse. We really need direct control.

This brings me to the fighters as a consumable thing. Largely they aren't that useful in this form. I'd rather be able to set a patrol point that I could move so I could have them defend my CV or friends. I'm ok with them returning to the CV after a while (to fuel/rearm), but would rather be limited by available planes over a consumable that I can run out of. Perhaps the CV should scramble fighters to defend itself when it's under attack by planes.

From the perspective of a BB, even very maneuverable ships like New Mexico and Fuso find it difficult to dodge torpedo bombers. AA is totally RNG, you might shoot them all down or none at all, either way another squad can come fairly quickly. I found it may actually be better to not dodge at all, as torps are more likely to hit your torpedo belt reducing damage and flood chance. Being able to focus AA on one side wasn't that useful as you ended up with a weak side, planes often attack from one side, fly over then attack from the other.

The rework will probably work out ok, but it definitely needs quite a bit more work before going live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
235
[151ST]
Member
1,026 posts
4,669 battles
4 hours ago, Sparcie said:

I got to play the mode very briefly. I played the T6 CVs and BBs. The planes felt a bit sluggish to handle at first, but after you get a grip on them it's easy to drop most targets. The AA didn't feel very threatening, flak often felt like it wasn't shooting at you. Losing planes basically meant very little, you get your planes back very fast.

It was very easy to stack DOT effects on a ship, even if you only got a single fire/flood on a ship you could get planes out fast enough (due to planes engine boost) to put more damage over time effects. In summary it's pretty easy to flood/burn a ship to death.

Not being able to directly control the CV was a pain in the butt, you can't dodge or manage damage control at all. This often results in needlessly dying. This meant that your CV is particularly vulnerable to being sniped, with little defensive recourse. We really need direct control.

This brings me to the fighters as a consumable thing. Largely they aren't that useful in this form. I'd rather be able to set a patrol point that I could move so I could have them defend my CV or friends. I'm ok with them returning to the CV after a while (to fuel/rearm), but would rather be limited by available planes over a consumable that I can run out of. Perhaps the CV should scramble fighters to defend itself when it's under attack by planes.

 blurb

Agreed, what do you think of my suggestion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
41 posts
2,867 battles

I think that mixing the old and new CV mechanics would be beneficial to all, since historically speaking, CVs in real life had to juggle multiple squadrons at the same time.

Controls:

There would be a key-bind that can automatically switch between the old and new mechanics, though there would be an additional key-bind so that the player can switch to gain control of one particular squadron. This way, players of all skill levels could choose which mode to use depending on the situation at hand.

AA:

The AA should stay at its current iteration(by that I mean what is in the game right now, not in the Test Server). 

Planes:

DB and TB planes should stay as such. However, the fighter squadron should remain and therefore be merged with the MB(Missile Bombers(?)) so that the squadron can still do its intended purpose while also giving it the means to damage ships when necessary.

Also, US planes should have more health than their IJN counterparts. Not by much, but just enough so that one can notice which squadron which carrier is heading towards them.

 

This is just my thoughts. It was something I thought for a long time when the CV rework teaser was released.

-cellum95

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
461 posts
8,519 battles
4 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

Agreed, what do you think of my suggestion?

I can see where you're going with it, but I don't know how it would play out. It might work out ok, but it's kinda taking a sledge hammer to kill a fly approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×