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

So I've been playing a lot of DDs... ...

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,853
[151ST]
Member
3,003 posts
11,069 battles

Happy New Year Folks!

Hope you all have a safe 2021, or if it's not safe, that you at least come out alive...

Right now we've got the pleasantries out of the way; DDs...

I've been playing DDs lately (thanks to snowflakes). For those who don't know, I generally avoid playing DDs because I find the rewards meagre at best and insulting at worst.

 

Yeah that hasn't changed, at all...

Multiple times in the last couple of days I've single-handedly or working with 1 other player turned games around by doing clever DD things.

All of those times because I didn't just kick back and farm BBs, I came middle of the pack in the XP screen... Two examples below...

shot-21_01_01_09_33.10-0634.thumb.jpg.a00b950957fcfa63816cdd50668db8e0.jpgshot-20_12.31_22_09.34-0831.thumb.jpg.3ec1763837063c1318ff4b3f5bea08a3.jpg

Why am I not top? Damage - both games I scored around 20k damage...

 

How did I (we) influence the outcome?

In the Blyska game myself and the Shira basically ran around and one at a time took out 6 ships that were pushing out cap... We (the two of us) were open-water gunning the Devonshire, New Orleans, Lazo and the two Jian Wei's not to mention a couple of BBs at times...

The Shira managed to get near the top thanks to a couple of early torp hits, thus his damage would have been around 70k.

 

In the Jervis game my allied Lexington positioned so poorly that a Cossack B and Talinn caught her out, Cossack doing the spotting and gunning.

I managed to run across half the map, threaten the Cossack enough to force him into smoke, and cover our Lexington's retreat... In the process with him managing to take down both the Talinn and the Cossack...

The match was a beauty and I may do a vid on it at some point but the question becomes...

 

What's wrong and how do we fix it?

We've known this for a while (and I've done a video on it) but the XP system is screwed and heavily damage biased. So what happens is it doesn't reward 'good' play and only rewards the team as a whole for certain players changing the outcome of the battle.

The simplest and easiest fix is to better reward spotting and assisted damage elements (e.g. forcing a DCP with a fire, or allies getting perma fire damage because of it).

Even potential damage isn't necessarily completely useless, in the case of Blyska and Jervis games I managed to divert fire from allies who couldn't sustain thanks to making myself a threat. For Blyska it was away from Shira (who was low HP) allowing him to in turn use his guns.

For the Jervis game I managed to make myself enough of a threat that Cossack and Talinn focused me, and consistently forced them to shoot me for ages, over shooting the Lexington.

 

Conclusion

XP system is still completely screwed and damage biased and doesn't reward 'good' play. No class is this more obvious than with DDs and it's why I don't play them much. Simply put the rewards for playing well in a DD often don't align with how well you've played and as I don't like being given a pittance for hard work, I'll go play CAs and BBs thanks. In 2020 this was more true than ever and the XP system still needs an overhaul...

At the very least it needs to reward Spotting, Assisted and Potential Damage FAR more.

No I'm not going to link the video... ... You'll have to go find it 😉

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,784
Member
5,167 posts
9,118 battles
55 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

Conclusion

I played one game with Z-44 yesterday, scored a spectacular TWO torpedo hits and several gun hits, totalling in 30k damage. The rest of the battle I could only spot. Timer ran out, we won on point.

When I look back at the credit earning, it's 300k WITHOUT modifier with premium time. It showed 260k credit without premium time. The only credit modifier I had on the ship in that battle was a Zulu signal.

Didn't look at my spotting damage, but I bet it must had been pretty damn high. Probably.

Ignore the XP, I had the 200% bonus XP for first win.

Spoiler

shot-20_12.31_17_18.08-0192.thumb.jpg.b2f7701ed398defe74ab3560151a9f37.jpg

 

The reward system isn't just unfair (more damage dealt = more reward, nothing else comes close), it's a freaking mystery for anyone who wants to understand it.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,076
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,402 posts
11,339 battles

I'm a bit torn on this issue, I do think DD's are under rewarded, but I don't think it's quite as much as @S4pp3R is suggesting.  I actually wrote up a post in almost total agreement to the OP, but on further reflection I think DD rewards aren't as bad as that post makes out.

Let's have a look at what you actually receive XP for (I'll copy this from the WoWs wiki page):

Base XP earnings

  • Frags (enemy kills) award base experience the equivalent of 10% of the target's hit points in damage.
  • Total number of plane kills is tracked and contributes to earnings.  The tier of the aircraft carrier that launched the planes is considered for tier disparity (I believe 30 planes shot down at same tier = 100% ship damage, someone else please confirm or update).
  • Captured rewards base experience "equivalent to 2/3 of a completely destroyed ship".
  • If several ships contribute to a capture, the rewards are divided by each ship's contribution to the capture.
  • The reward for blocking capture is the same as a capture assist dividing by the duration of the enemy's capture.

Spotting and Damage on Spotting

Spotting - detecting a ship that is then damaged by your allies (that could not otherwise see the target) gives the following:

  • BB receives approximately 10% of the reward for full HP damage to the spotted ship.
  • CV receives approximately 20% of the reward for full HP damage to the spotted ship.
  • CR receives approximately 30% of the reward for full HP damage to the spotted ship.
  • DD receives approximately 40% of the reward for full HP damage to the spotted ship.

The spotter must be detecting the target at the moment the shells hit.

The reward is divided by the number of spotters.

Damage-over-time (fire, flood) is not rewarded to spotters.

Detection

Detection - detecting a ship for the first time or detecting one that has been undetected for at least 90 seconds:

  • CV receives 0.75% of XP/Credits of the reward for full HP damage to the detected ship.
  • BB receives 1.50% of XP/Credits of the reward for full HP damage to the detected ship.
  • DD receives 2.00% of XP/Credits of the reward for full HP damage to the detected ship.
  • CR receives 3.25% of XP/Credits of the reward for full HP damage to the detected ship.

The detection of aircraft and torpedoes also generates a small reward.

Other Considerations

  • The more Base Capture and Base Defense points you earn, the better.
  • XP is not awarded for damage to shore installations.
  • Total rewards do not scale linearly. Destroying one cruiser earns full reward. Destroying two cruisers earns about 0.85 x gross reward. For destroying three cruisers, 0.67 x gross reward. (These are estimates; actual scaling is not known.)
  • Diversity of activity is rewarded. For instance, a BB that camps at the back doing one task - shooting at long range - will earn less than the BB that accrues the same damage while shooting and also defending a capture point.
  • Achievements add hefty bonuses to the reward.
  • Finally, the Base XP rewards increase 50% for the winning team.

 

So, as a DD, you're receiving 40% of the damage done for spotting.  You get 66% of a ship in damage for every cap.

Damage is still the primary reward, and this is where DD's suffer, having half the average damage of a same tier BB, and a bit over half the average damage of cruisers and CV's.  They are the most likely ships to cap though, and they will do more spotting, so this does mitigate the damage issue.

I think the system is not too bad.  The suggestion in the OP of an XP bonus if your fire or flood gets DCP'd is a good one, I'd like to see that. 

In terms of rewards at the end of random battles, I think it's perfectly fine.  I don't think it is balanced well enough for the save-a-star function in ranked to work properly however (although I think the main problem with that system is that it promotes the wrong type of game play).

Overall though, I think the system isn't too bad.  If I look at my own stats, I find this:

     

Type                         XP        WR

Battleships           1,881   64.04%

Aircraft carriers   2,330   64.01%

Cruisers                1,704   56.67%

Destroyers            1,945   63.09%

      So my DD XP rewards are actually better than my BB rewards, despite having a lower win rate.  I'm a better DD player than a BB player though, so that makes some sense.  It does show that over my time playing WoWs, I haven't been particularly under rewarded for DD play.  I find it hard to argue that DD's need better rewards because of this, and the outlining of the current XP rewards.  In the OP, I think you were appropriately rewarded for what you did - unfortunately, for as much as you help the team with various contributions, you just have to do an appropriate amount of damage for your class to be rewarded properly.  
         
         

 

Edited by Moggytwo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,853
[151ST]
Member
3,003 posts
11,069 battles
1 hour ago, Moggytwo said:

I think the system is not too bad.  The suggestion in the OP of an XP bonus if your fire or flood gets DCP'd is a good one, I'd like to see that. 

In terms of rewards at the end of random battles, I think it's perfectly fine.  I don't think it is balanced well enough for the save-a-star function in ranked to work properly however (although I think the main problem with that system is that it promotes the wrong type of game play).

I think you've gone a little to far down a data-trap without examining more specifically what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that as a good player, you aren't rewarded for winning and playing well.

I'm saying that the game doesn't really reward 'good' play well enough.

For example:

1 hour ago, Moggytwo said:

Type                         XP        WR

Battleships           1,881   64.04%

Aircraft carriers   2,330   64.01%

Cruisers                1,704   56.67%

Destroyers            1,945   63.09%

Cool, you're a good player, that table is completely beside the point. Hell even if you were to use it as a data point it doesn't have enough information, XP values can be skewed by the tier you play... If you average T8 with CV play but T6 with BB play, those numbers make more sense. But that's beside the point.

 

These two points are far more valid...

1 hour ago, Moggytwo said:

The spotter must be detecting the target at the moment the shells hit.

The reward is divided by the number of spotters.

Why the hell does the spotter need to be detecting the target at the moment of impact? Because code-wise it's easier, only reason. Spotting damage should be applied if the target was spotting at moment of firing or within a window after... But I'm 100% nit-picking.

And the reward is divided by number of spotters ---- this is just ridiculous!

The 5 players who manage to get some spotting damage while sitting at 15 km away - no. Basically the system means that most of the time the person who is actually effectively spotting in a role (not a particular instance) is suffering all the risk for a small sliver of a reward. This is 100% another nit-pick though.

However, this is in my view very demonstrative of the issue with the XP system, all the rest of the stuff you copied is basically moot because you missed one key part:

Tanking and Spotting: The following typically contribute less than 15% of total earned credits and base XP.

My nit-picks and your points are redundant anyways because spotting/tanking totaled is typically 15% of total rewards.

That is NOT incentivising good play, no matter how you view it. We can nit-pick and argue about how much potential damage should be increased but surely you can't admit that potential AND spotting should be so small a percentage?

That is why when there are conditions similar to the ones I wrote about in the OP, we get those sorts of results.

 

BUT, there are lots of things that we need implemented in addition to fixing the ratios and adding in assisted damage from things like forcing DCP. I honestly think it needs an overhaul, a rework, etc...

By all means use the current system as a basis but from a design stand point the ratios and end-state need to be different as far as the ratio of the different contribution types. The averages are ok, the system would just need to be tuned and refined (as the current one has been for years) to get to where we are now.

If they fix it sooner, the easier it is and we can enjoy the benefits for longer...

They have left it long enough and now they are going to run into the AA scaling vs planes issue from the rework all over again... Subs are coming, fix the problem before adding a major complicating factor.

(For those unaware AA scaling up the tiers was too sharp for a long time and was a major issue for both CVs and surface ships even prior to the rework, reworking an entire class when you still have issues with higher tier AA or planes being too strong makes everything much more difficult).

 

I don't mind a devils advocate @Moggytwo but I honestly think if you have another mull over it, you'll realise why you were supporting the idea in the first place.

Edited by S4pp3R
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,784
Member
5,167 posts
9,118 battles
12 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

And the reward is divided by number of spotters ---- this is just ridiculous!

The 5 players who manage to get some spotting damage while sitting at 15 km away - no. 

Exactly.

If I'm a DD and spotted a red ship first, then I alone should get the reward for spotting damage, because anyone else who sees the red ship later is MY doing.

There should be a reward PURELY for keeping an enemy spotted, even if he isn't being attacked by team mates. I keep one or more ships in check for a long time, if my team potates out and don't shoot them, somehow I don't get rewarded then? Even though I keep them in check?

 

Potential damage: it's difficult to point out an exactly number, so I just want some kind of ribbon that scores every 0,5 or 1 million potential damage received.

The problem is, potential damage can occur at any range, regardless of if you are kiting at 18+ km or your secondary guns are blazing away within 10. So if you receive potential damage while you're within 12 km of a visible/spotted enemy ship, you should get increased reward.

 

AA damage: I should be rewarded for dealing a lot of AA damage but not shooting down any aircraft, then a team mate shoots them down shortly afterward.

I personally think AA range should be increased for certain ships.

 

Capture: there should be an algorimth that rewards players for driving out an enemy who's capturing a point. Like, the enemy in cap quickly leaves after I enter that cap. More reward if it's a base cap in Standard Battle.

 

Of course, the most important thing: make all these changes known to all players. Important information that can only be found on the wiki but not the main website is very not good.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,356
[CLAY]
Member
3,007 posts
13,344 battles
1 hour ago, S4pp3R said:

I think you've gone a little to far down a data-trap without examining more specifically what I'm saying.

I'm not saying that as a good player, you aren't rewarded for winning and playing well.

I'm saying that the game doesn't really reward 'good' play well enough.

For example:

Cool, you're a good player, that table is completely beside the point. Hell even if you were to use it as a data point it doesn't have enough information, XP values can be skewed by the tier you play... If you average T8 with CV play but T6 with BB play, those numbers make more sense. But that's beside the point.

 

These two points are far more valid...

Why the hell does the spotter need to be detecting the target at the moment of impact? Because code-wise it's easier, only reason. Spotting damage should be applied if the target was spotting at moment of firing or within a window after... But I'm 100% nit-picking.

And the reward is divided by number of spotters ---- this is just ridiculous!

The 5 players who manage to get some spotting damage while sitting at 15 km away - no. Basically the system means that most of the time the person who is actually effectively spotting in a role (not a particular instance) is suffering all the risk for a small sliver of a reward. This is 100% another nit-pick though.

However, this is in my view very demonstrative of the issue with the XP system, all the rest of the stuff you copied is basically moot because you missed one key part:

Tanking and Spotting: The following typically contribute less than 15% of total earned credits and base XP.

My nit-picks and your points are redundant anyways because spotting/tanking totaled is typically 15% of total rewards.

That is NOT incentivising good play, no matter how you view it. We can nit-pick and argue about how much potential damage should be increased but surely you can't admit that potential AND spotting should be so small a percentage?

That is why when there are conditions similar to the ones I wrote about in the OP, we get those sorts of results.

 

BUT, there are lots of things that we need implemented in addition to fixing the ratios and adding in assisted damage from things like forcing DCP. I honestly think it needs an overhaul, a rework, etc...

By all means use the current system as a basis but from a design stand point the ratios and end-state need to be different as far as the ratio of the different contribution types. The averages are ok, the system would just need to be tuned and refined (as the current one has been for years) to get to where we are now.

If they fix it sooner, the easier it is and we can enjoy the benefits for longer...

They have left it long enough and now they are going to run into the AA scaling vs planes issue from the rework all over again... Subs are coming, fix the problem before adding a major complicating factor.

(For those unaware AA scaling up the tiers was too sharp for a long time and was a major issue for both CVs and surface ships even prior to the rework, reworking an entire class when you still have issues with higher tier AA or planes being too strong makes everything much more difficult).

 

I don't mind a devils advocate @Moggytwo but I honestly think if you have another mull over it, you'll realise why you were supporting the idea in the first place.

I agree. There is so much a ship can do, DDs especially, which is not reflected in rewards.

A single DD can slow down and entire flank's advance, it can force ships to show broadside for allies to hit, it can speed tank, it can screen torpedo's.

I often worry about DD population, some games have only one, others haver none. And I wonder why WG does not do something about it.

I think one of the problem is that gameplay is very different on ASIA than it is on other servers, I think DD populations may be greater on them, so there is no incentive for WG to make any changes just for this server.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,076
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,402 posts
11,339 battles
1 hour ago, S4pp3R said:

Cool, you're a good player, that table is completely beside the point. Hell even if you were to use it as a data point it doesn't have enough information, XP values can be skewed by the tier you play... If you average T8 with CV play but T6 with BB play, those numbers make more sense. But that's beside the point.

I'm not sure if there is much difference between average tier for each class for me personally, I can't see why there would be.  The only exception would be CV's, I never play tier 4 CV, and mostly play tier 10 with some tier 8.  I posted that data not to show my particular level of potatoness, but to demonstrate it is quite clearly possible to get appropriately rewarded for playing DD's. 

1 hour ago, S4pp3R said:

Why the hell does the spotter need to be detecting the target at the moment of impact? Because code-wise it's easier, only reason. Spotting damage should be applied if the target was spotting at moment of firing or within a window after... But I'm 100% nit-picking.

I agree with this, clearly the spotting should be attributed to damage done based on ordnance fired when a particular ship was spotting the target, rather than the ship being spotted as the damage is done.  This is sub-optimal with shells, but is completely broken with torpedoes - if you fire a set of torps at a target that someone else is spotting for you, then the torps likely won't hit for more than a minute, and who knows what is happening with the spotting at that point.  Clearly the ship that was actually spotting when the torps were fired deserves the spotting damage.

What also follows from that point is this: "Damage-over-time (fire, flood) is not rewarded to spotters."  That seems pretty unfair as well, because those fires and floods only happen because the target is spotted to be shot at.

I am 100% on board with fixing these issues, and as you say, it's likely only because they don't want to code it that it hasn't happened yet.  It's not a fair system, they should fix it.

1 hour ago, S4pp3R said:

And the reward is divided by number of spotters ---- this is just ridiculous!

I don't know if I'm on board with this however.  If you're the only one spotting, you should clearly get all the spotting damage XP rewards.  However, if there are five people spotting the target, do you deserve just as much reward as if you were the only one spotting?  I don't think so.  If you stopped spotting, the target would remain spotted, and there would still be four players spotting that target.  Clearly the less players spotting the target, the more valuable your personal spotting becomes, and in this way, I think this is an appropriate rule.

However, I think a change would be useful here.  If you are hard spotting something - ie spotting a ship within it's surface concealment range, then you should receive more reward than if you are only spotting it because it is firing its guns.  Sometimes ships will get hard spotted by a DD, then fire because they are spotted so may as well anyway, then half the team is getting an equal spotting reward, where it was the DD that instigated the spotting.

You can either significantly buff the detection XP bonus (currently a pitiful 2% of a ship's health in equivalent XP for DD's), to something much higher (10-20% perhaps?), or you could have it so that players spotting within surface concealment range gets a double bonus for doing so.  For example if there were three players spotting, one DD within surface concealment plus two other ships outside concealment that are spotting because the target has fired, then you would divide by four, the DD would get two parts, with one part for each of the other ships spotting.  I think this would reflect the appropriate reward for spotting done much better than the current system.

1 hour ago, S4pp3R said:

Tanking and Spotting: The following typically contribute less than 15% of total earned credits and base XP.

My nit-picks and your points are redundant anyways because spotting/tanking totaled is typically 15% of total rewards.

Well, that's 15% overall for all ship types.  For a DD that is spotting extensively and capping, that number would be completely off.  A DD definitely gets more rewards for these things, because they do them a lot more, and that is appropriate.  A BB would likely get much less than 15% for these things, unless they were doing a particularly massive amount of tanking.

I guess I see it as there are definitely areas that could be improved, but the system does give roughly the appropriate amount of XP in most cases, including for DD's.  About the only time I think it gives a completely inadequate amount of XP, is for high tier CV's on a loss.  I remember one particular occasion my div mate in a cruiser did 35k damage and 1 kill while I did 235k damage and 3 kills in my Midway, and we got almost exactly the same amount of XP!  In another game we both got about the same amount of damage in the same ships (I did a few k more, plus did 15k to DD's with a DD kill), and I got 1752XP to my div mates 2418 XP (that was on a win of course).  These are about the only occasions where I really felt there was something off with the XP reward, and this is mainly because they heavily nerfed XP rewards for high tier CV's (with an extra XP penalty on a loss) because of ranked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,076
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,402 posts
11,339 battles
23 minutes ago, Grygus_Triss said:

I agree. There is so much a ship can do, DDs especially, which is not reflected in rewards.

A single DD can slow down and entire flank's advance, it can force ships to show broadside for allies to hit, it can speed tank, it can screen torpedo's.

I often worry about DD population, some games have only one, others haver none. And I wonder why WG does not do something about it.

I think one of the problem is that gameplay is very different on ASIA than it is on other servers, I think DD populations may be greater on them, so there is no incentive for WG to make any changes just for this server.

Well speed tanking for a DD does give potential damage XP, and you do get XP for detecting torpedoes.  These bonuses should likely be buffed, especially detection bonuses across the board, as they are pretty small, and detecting things like torpedoes is extremely valuable.  These bonuses do exist though.

You're right about the DD population.  It is particularly low on SEA (the lowest of all the servers) and even on other servers there aren't enough.  Correspondingly, the BB population is particularly high (well over 40% of battles played at tiers 7-10 are in BB's).  I think this goes back to the great torpedo nerf of 2016, and since then players have got used to having 5 BB's per team in almost every battle.  I think these numbers are absurd however, and have a really negative effect on the way the game plays out.  Imagine a battle with no BB's, and how dynamic that would be.  Cruisers are much more free to flank and maneuvre, and there would be many more holes in the defensive line for DD's to exploit.  I'm not advocating for no BB's here, but less of them would be a very good thing.  Three BB's per battle on average would make for a much more balanced meta.

I also think torp boats in particular are underpowered.  The ship type (torpedo based DD's) that is supposed to be the most direct counter to the class with by far the highest effective health in the game, has the lowest average damage in the game.  There is a pretty significant balance issue for this to be the case.  BB's do not have any natural predators because of this, and there are no immediate threats to a BB.  In a cruiser, a mistake could cost you all or most of your health, and the same thing can happen in a DD.  That is an ever-present threat in the minds of any cruiser or DD player.  Meanwhile BB's simply have very little threat of being deleted by torpedoes.

I would suggest buffing the range of torpedoes across the board (20% would seem appropriate), and the damage done by torpedoes to battleships only by 50% to provide a real threat to them.  I would also do some reload and/or torp detection buffs to particularly underperforming torp DD's to adjust their intra-class balance.

This would provide a real threat to a battleship who makes a mistake in positioning and maneuvering, plus it would likely reduce the battleship population because they would become less comfortable to play.  Meanwhile torp DD's would see an increase in numbers due to being buffed, as would gunboats to counter the torp boats.  All of these things would be very good for the game indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,853
[151ST]
Member
3,003 posts
11,069 battles
3 hours ago, Paladinum said:

Of course, the most important thing: make all these changes known to all players. Important information that can only be found on the wiki but not the main website is very not good.

100% WoWS is REALLY bad at good UX and proper education of game mechanics, a cynic may view it as part of their business model a realist would simply say they don't see much money in explaining systems that CCs generally do for them.

But it's also how the game provides feedback in-game as well. The reason there are so many mods is mostly due to this issue.

3 hours ago, Grygus_Triss said:

I often worry about DD population, some games have only one, others haver none. And I wonder why WG does not do something about it.

I would merely muse it's a reflection of the meta.

At the basics DDs reach is 12-15km max, most of the game is fought at 16-20km. Combine this with things like spotting from planes and radar and map design and you run into 'well it's easier to play other classes'.

Having said that, I have been seeing a lot of DD-intensive matches lately, even at high tiers. I speculate this is due to needing to complete snowflakes. Basically if there is incentive enough, people will play them. Which leads me to...

2 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

The ship type (torpedo based DD's) that is supposed to be the most direct counter to the class with by far the highest effective health in the game, has the lowest average damage in the game.  There is a pretty significant balance issue for this to be the case.  BB's do not have any natural predators because of this, and there are no immediate threats to a BB.  In a cruiser, a mistake could cost you all or most of your health, and the same thing can happen in a DD.  That is an ever-present threat in the minds of any cruiser or DD player.  Meanwhile BB's simply have very little threat of being deleted by torpedoes.

I would suggest buffing the range of torpedoes across the board (20% would seem appropriate), and the damage done by torpedoes to battleships only by 50% to provide a real threat to them.  I would also do some reload and/or torp detection buffs to particularly underperforming torp DD's to adjust their intra-class balance.

A range buff of 20% isn't a bad idea but it's a manifestation of the way the meta has evolved and I'm not sure if it's the right solution. On top of that I don't think stealthy DW-style torps are the answer either.

Giving torpedo boats a bit of love in general would be great. Unfortunately this is one of those lose-lose areas. Torpedoes are the type of damage people hate and any change any direction on the scale/ratio will piss off someone.

A fix to the XP system that rewards non-direct-damage play would go a long way to making up a lot of the shortfall. Fixes to CV spotting could do a lot as well (only map spotted or only reveals for those within LoS of the planes or anything else - there are plenty of ways to do it).

But I much prefer fixes to the XP system... Reward DDs for doing the things they mostly do already, hell all classes should be rewarded in similar ways, fix the whole system and DDs are one of the biggest winners.

3 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

Well, that's 15% overall for all ship types.  For a DD that is spotting extensively and capping, that number would be completely off.  A DD definitely gets more rewards for these things, because they do them a lot more, and that is appropriate.  A BB would likely get much less than 15% for these things, unless they were doing a particularly massive amount of tanking.

I'd love to see where you get raw data on this because I haven't found any. And I don't mean the chart that shows how XP scales for class based on what it is...

For all we know the difference is 10/15/20 for spotting for BB, CA, DD...

That's still a pittance.

 

3 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

I guess I see it as there are definitely areas that could be improved, but the system does give roughly the appropriate amount of XP in most cases, including for DD's. 

I'm not saying the current system isn't functional, I'm saying it's not ideal and it could be way better... Even their sister game (WoT) does this better and it's far from ideal as well.

And I would argue it still doesn't give the appropriate amount of XP... ... The only way you ever get a stupid amount of spotting XP is when you are the only thing that can see the ship... Which is almost never because of the way the system works.

I would say you agree with me but prefer a different rhetoric and tone...

That's fair - but I don't really think it's necessary, lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,076
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,402 posts
11,339 battles
8 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

Giving torpedo boats a bit of love in general would be great. Unfortunately this is one of those lose-lose areas. Torpedoes are the type of damage people hate and any change any direction on the scale/ratio will piss off someone.

Torpedoes are the type of damage that people hate, but if WG bows to this sort of thing, then the game rapidly goes to crap.  It seems the majority of people hate any damage that isn't BB AP or secondaries.  Everything else is unacceptable.  HE spam, torpedoes, any type of CV damage, all things that are unpopular.  For a large segment of the population, unless you're firing BB AP, you're simply not playing the game properly.

The problem is, the more we balance the game around what people find acceptable, the worse the game is.  Torpedoes, HE, CV ordnance, all need to do acceptable damage for those classes to be balanced.  If these classes aren't balanced, the class inter-play doesn't work, and each class can't properly fulfill it's function.  The more this happens, the more the game devolves into a BB slug fest, which might be fun to some, but is not this game!  This is why the weakest sub-type in the game is torp boats - because BB's don't like torpedoes, and long ago argued vociferously enough that they got nerfed, and the game has been the worse for it ever since.

So, simplified, the game should function like this: DD's spot, cap, provide a torp threat, screen for enemy DD's and torpedoes, and provide a gun threat mostly for enemy DD's and BB's.  Cruisers provide counter DD support in terms of radar, hydro, and rapid fire high alpha HE salvos, while giving general gun support (mostly HE) against all classes.  BB's provide high alpha to counter enemy cruisers, general AP damage to all classes, a damage sponge to draw fire away from friendlies, and they are the primary control of the line of battle which in large part dictates which team gets to cap.  CV's provide short duration but targeted spotting, damage and spotting against poorly positioned or high priority DD's, rapid counter damage to the most needed areas, and specific damage pressure to vulnerable ships.

If everything is balanced well the game functions beautifully.  If it isn't we start to get problems.  The problem with high numbers of BB's is the cruisers struggle to fulfill their roles, and particularly tanky and/or particularly long ranged cruisers become prevalent.  Less DD's mean less spotting, and less screening, and an increase in snowballs if a team loses its low number of DD's early.  BB's will tend to be fairly static (unlike most cruisers and DD's), and that gums up the whole meta as well.

An ideal meta is 1 CV, 3 BB's, 4 CA/CL's, 4 DD's.  This provides the best inter-class balance, and +/-1 on all of those would be acceptable.

WG needs to stop pandering to the desires of battleship captains, and balance this game appropriately.  Every battle being at the five BB cap, with hundreds of BB's in the queue, is a sign that something is desperately wrong.

25 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

I'd love to see where you get raw data on this because I haven't found any. And I don't mean the chart that shows how XP scales for class based on what it is...

For all we know the difference is 10/15/20 for spotting for BB, CA, DD...

That's still a pittance. 

Well we can see this quite well if we look at some general stats.  Let's look at the tier 7-10 top 100 players of each class data from maple syrup.  The last time I checked this was September 2020, so I'll use those figures. 

           Type    Damage    Spotting

  • BB        130.2k        24.6k
  • CA        105.0k        30.7k
  • CV        115.9k        97.8k
  • DD          61.0k        56.4k

So what we can see here, in a snapshot of the best players of each class, that DD's definitely earn the most from spotting.  Based on this data, a CV will earn about 87% of the spotting XP a DD will, a cruiser will earn 41%, and a BB will earn 11%.  So compared to BB's, DD's are earning nine times the spotting damage!  This is how it should be of course, but it quite clearly shows that DD's are being rewarded relatively well for their spotting. 

Now looking at the damage and spotting for a DD only, we see that DD's are earning their spotting:damage XP at a ratio of 27:73, so 27% of their total XP from damage and spotting only, comes from the spotting part.  Compare this to a BB which is earning their spotting:damage XP at a ratio of 2:98, or only 2% of their total damage and spotting XP coming from spotting.  This all seems quite reasonable, except that even with the spotting damage, DD's still earn far less overall XP, and that means they have to do on average about two caps per battle to draw even (it's difficult to work out the exact amount of caps because we are talking about damage, and damage is converted to XP at different rates depending on the base health of the ship being damaged).

41 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

I'm not saying the current system isn't functional, I'm saying it's not ideal and it could be way better...

I would say you agree with me but prefer a different rhetoric and tone...

I do definitely agree on some points, there are things that should be changed.  My second post after reflecting on your reply definitely outlined the areas I thought you were on the ball and where I agreed with you.  I'd also love to see some changes happen in this regard.  I don't know if I agree with "XP system is still completely screwed and damage biased and doesn't reward 'good' play" though, because I think it's fundamentally adequate, but then "adequate" is not exactly high praise.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
765
[SMOKE]
Member
2,218 posts
17,119 battles

So what if the game turn out to be Standard instead of Domination or Epic Center, so no cap point to be earn ( or at best only one ) .. for a start, the potential damage received part of the reward really do not translate to how hard one ship tank the enemy , DD had practically no armor to speak of and very low on HP, so a DD  tanking 500K really is not the same as a BB tanking 500K ,, I do not know if you guys read it before but long ago I had voice what I consider need to , had to change , I will just repeat ( somehow )

  • Potential damage taken reward should scale to distance and ship's own HP pool so the closer you take a potential damage ( calculated form the point of launch ) , the lower total HP your ship had, the higher the reward
  • Surface ( eyeball only ) Spotting reward should be rewarded 100% to the one ship that spot the enemy and keep it spotted, only when that single ship venture off and not spotting that said enemy or enemies , then the reward should revert to the shared part and it should be all shared equal among all others disregarding class / distance
  • Active measure spotting ( Hydro, Radar ) should be rewarded a one time bonus ( the spotted banner ), and then the eyeball part shared among all who can eyeball the enemy ship, if the Radar/ Hydro ship avoid eyeballing enemy by hiding behind island then all he/she should get is that one time bonus. Ifnobody can eyeball the enemy ship then nobody got the reward for damage upon spotting even if that enemy still being spotted by Radar / Hydro and enemy ship taking damage
  • Aerial spotting XP , that I would rather wait and see how the suppose to be around spotting distance change come to be before making any comment about it
  • Reward for torp screening / torp spotting should 100% be granted to the one ship that spot the torpedo disregard of the distance the torp is spotted , and all ship then reward  those potential damage taken with the same condition as shells goes ( if the torp get close enough )
  • All Torpedo pretty much need buff in range and detection distance , some need reload buff, and in particular DD's and even more so among them the IJN ; CL should get that too when CA , depends ; and BB , well those BB with torp do not need their torp buffed
  • To give variety - I had suggest DD that had torp ( I think only 1 DD is without torp ) should by default not get just a single torp , it should get 3 different torp setting to choose from, just as player can choose HE/SAP/AP , a default range / default speed / default detection distance ( now on 3 ) , add on top of that a -20% range / +5 knots / +0.2km detection range setting , and a +25% range / -5 knots / -0.2km detection setting ( the numbers just on old DD I calculated before Euro DD, and also last point above  )
  • Royal Navy CL should either get their AP significantly buffed ( ricochet angle ), a new type of shells, and/or they should be provided with way longer reach torpedo ( fast reload , long range , medium alpha value, and middle of the road detection distance )

On top of that the system now simply do not reward and should reward / penalize these

  • Area Denial / Defense , especially DD / CL/ CA doing torpedo spamming / blind firing into areas , it mean they are sacrificing torp damage / time / effort to keep the area neutral or defending a capped area, and thus keep the points and then they had to wait out that long reload to be able to do anything wit torp again and /or reposition to firing their guns
  • Capping time bonus , an Area that's got capped early on not even into 5 min is more valuable than an Area that is capped last 3 minute of the game , so a bonus reward should be rewarded to ship who cap early, say +25% on cap first 5 min of game, +15% up to first 10 min of game and after that no bonus
  • Similar, capping an enemy area should reward bonus above that of a neutral area, a one time +10% reward sounds right
  • Reward for the defending banner should be made so that each and every hit on an enemy inside an area count, not just those that reset the cap counter. Defended banner should grant all such and thus reward for this banner should be lowered to reflect the increased cases, but it should reward defending Capped Area higher than neutral area
  • similar, losing a capped area should penalize the team harder ( POINTS )

Also a change that should be implemented on the mechanics

  • Use of active measure spotting ( Radar , Hydro ) will instantly reveal the signal emitting ship to all enemies within the signal distance ( aka the Radar / Hydro distance )
  • if its enemy firing their guns that lead to them being spotted, nobody should get rewarded for spotting banner or reward , and no further from damage deal upon spotting
Edited by Mechfori

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,853
[151ST]
Member
3,003 posts
11,069 battles
2 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

I don't know if I agree with "XP system is still completely screwed and damage biased and doesn't reward 'good' play" though, because I think it's fundamentally adequate, but then "adequate" is not exactly high praise.

Yeah since when have I ever used weak language? :Smile_trollface:

I still stand by that statement.

Is the XP system functional?

Yes - it functions

If my suggestions were to be implemented; does the XP system need an overhaul?

Yes

Do I think the XP system is an overly complicated system that favours damage instead of teamplay?

Yes

Soooooooo while strong and emotive, yeah I stand by that one but 100% can see how you would disagree.

In my defense if I don't use such strong and emotive language and a punchy writing style supported by facts and analysis, would it be as entertaining to read or engage with? :cap_popcorn:

57 minutes ago, Mechfori said:

Royal Navy CL should either get their AP significantly buffed ( ricochet angle ), a new type of shells,

I broadly liked the rest of your post and didn't really have much more to add but this one I disagree with Mech... Some of the strongest niche ships in the game are RN CLs.

If you can get the aim right, you melt ships. Fiji is one of the strongest ships tier-for-tier in the game and often performs REALLY well even when bottom tier.

Leander does almost as well but has poor range.

Mino is such a monster if you set her up right...

However... ... ... 

Give Commonwealth CLs standard shell types and creeping smoke then we can effectively have both :cap_cool:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,784
Member
5,167 posts
9,118 battles
2 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

Give Commonwealth CLs standard shell types and creeping smoke then we can effectively have both :cap_cool:

A full line of Perth is better than a full line of Mysore.

A full line of Mysore is basically RN CLs with a different smoke (...Mysore has creeping smoke right?).

 

The current SAP on the Pasta CRs is a right direction but weird execution: damage too high, reload too long. I would like to have a HE shell that has all the characteristics of HE shells, but without any fire chance. They cannot gain benefits from anything that buff/change HE shells. For CLs, standard reload is 6 - 7,5s, CAs, 8 - 10s. The ships that can have these shells should also have normal AP shells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
765
[SMOKE]
Member
2,218 posts
17,119 battles

if its HE shell with al the HE character but no fire chance , than likely it need to had quite a bit higher Alpha damage value to compensate ; Problem wit Royal Navy CL is not just the AP only part , its just that if balanced for high tier then its going to be under-performing for mid to low tier, and if balanced for low to mid tier, it will be OP for high tier, and since AP is all they got and WG are not willing to give them log range torp as they do on Yoshino , then thye had to find someway to compensate, and lo behold their solution is a 16 gun Plymouth ... don;t think that really work and iin any case its still a issue for tech tree ships ..

When you put Mino and Worcester side by side , then add all the now capable long range  T10 CB, CA , BB, .. then you know what, its back to square one, the range, you cannot get close enough and you cannot fire far enough , this is so for even the USS CL who could use HE ( and decent if not good fire chance ) ... and this is pretty much the most extreme for DD .. since the got even less armor, less HP, less range. Closing in is suicide unless they had BB / Cruiser close support and I mean CLOSE , not back lane fire cover ( and even that, is almost always questionable ) ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×