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

CV idea number 12345 - damage scaling

49 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SHAFT]
Players
11,091 posts
9,479 battles

Yes i know i know, CV thread, but thats just a dump for complains :Smile_hiding:

There might be hope someone from WG sees this, and could be interested (yes, im dreaming again :fish_aqua:)

 

Back to the idea:

What is one big difference when it comes to CVs and other surface ships, or more precise guns and planes?

Guns get more inaccurate the further you are away from a target. So essentially, the damage is scaled down the longer the distance is, influenced by dispersion and armor. Dispersion can influence from 0 to max damage, alltho the latter is ofc highly unlikely. Armor can even make a very good salvo bad, as it might shatter on the thick armor.

Planes? dont have that. They fly from one corner to the other and can inflict maxdamage without too many issues, atleast not much outside of the CVs influence, except a bit RNG with drops.

 

So my idea would be, to scale the damage down based on distance between hull <-> target. Thats kinda what normal ships have aswell, just in a different way. And since they are inherintly different, having different mechanics for balancing might be necessary.

Ill just use some values to make it clear. Also you need a cap on both ends, f.e. within x km you deal full damage, and over y km you will not lose more damage.

F.e. for every km further apart, you could lose 7% damage, starting after 10km. If you go even further apart damage could be capped at 33%.

 

Here leet-paintskills to showcase what i mean :cap_cool:

CV1.thumb.jpg.a56f66a9c81f074e4ccb144e8097cec1.jpg

 

There are many benefits to this imo:

- CVs taking more active roles, trying to go closer will deal more damage than a CV, which reverses into the mapborder

- Blapping a ship at start would become harder or outright impossible. 10k hits on DDs would result in ~3.3k, which would make it easier for DDs, or any class for that matter.

- Could make CVs less interesting for CBs.

- Killing off weak ships further to the back becomes harder / less useful than attacking ships closer to you.

- Obviously WG will never change spotting mechanics, so lowering damage without actually touching the alpha damage could be a way to make a difference.

 

Just some general things:

- Dont get focused on the values - i just used them as examples. If you like the idea, but not the values, it doesnt help saying "BUT only 33% is WAAAY too low".

- T4 is not equal to T10. Hightier maps are bigger, so for lowtiers you cant use same values as for T10.

- CV spawns could be moved further back, so they could choose which way to go, while giving the surface ships a bigger buffer to approach caps. (does anyone know what distance CVs spawn from caps / enemy ships roughly? obviously there is a difference in maps like Tears of the Desert is furthest apart)

- Might need some other tweaks here and there ofc.

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MUMMY]
Players
569 posts
10,106 battles
33 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Yes i know i know, CV thread, but thats just a dump for complains :Smile_hiding:

 

AKA the WG "Memory Hole" thread.

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,090 posts
17,533 battles
41 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

- CVs taking more active roles, trying to go closer will deal more damage than a CV

Are you sure you've thought this through?

MVR dont exactly need buffs, and next up in randoms will be random yahoos yoloing their full secondary Graf Zeps into caps to max damage out.

 

Seriously though, I'm not a fan of band-aid fixes because WG refuses to deal with the real issue which is AA being garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CKBK]
Players
455 posts
25,041 battles

I wonder how long for this thread to get locked 

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
618 posts
1,927 battles
10 minutes ago, GulvkluderGuld said:

<edit> random yahoos yoloing their full secondary Graf Zeps into caps to max damage out.

</edit>

Too late, already done it, epicentre too.:cap_cool:

 

It was fun......:cap_rambo:

 

My team didn't think so, though......:Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MIAO]
Players
1,507 posts
7,110 battles
12 minuti fa, OM40 ha scritto:

I wonder how long for this thread to get locked 

as much as it will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MIAO]
Players
1,507 posts
7,110 battles
1 ora fa, DFens_666 ha scritto:

- Blapping a ship at start would become harder or outright impossible. 10k hits on DDs would result in ~3.3k, which would make it easier for DDs, or any class for that matter.

this is interesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles

Two points:

  • There is an already a severe drawback to flying across the map to strike things, which is flight times. It's why pushing into CVs that are competent basically maximises their dpm.
  • The issue with CVs isn't the high damage averages, as much as how much they defy everything surrounding that. Don't you like being forced into choosing between dodging plane torps/AP rockets/bombs and broadsiding the enemy team? Don't you like getting exposed in front of the enemy team and having to dodge all the fire and planes? How about the CVs ability to just pick whatever target it wants and nuke it, especially the high value ships that are further forward, even if they are covered by allies otherwise? A good part of the reason MvR is so strong and Audacious is so crap is also that an MvR has so many means to screw over people in otherwise good positions with AP bombs and rockets, while an Audacious has likely the least impactful bomb drops that do an ok amount of damage, but if you even just bomb slightly diagonal, it's mostly wasted. Not that it still can be an absolute b**** with torps.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
Players
460 posts
4,263 battles

There is a penalty for flying far away and dealing damage and its called TIME! And CVs do try to get close to have more TIME, its other thing that most CVs dont do that.

 

So yeah lets with this idea, you would nerf them into oblivion.

 

And NO they dont fly from one corner to another and deal max damage, there are planes down, there are rng drops, etc.

 

I am sick of this CV nerf threads. They are in game and they are not leaving, but you can leave if you dont like the game, thats what I do when I dont like the game!

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,879 posts
19,386 battles

It's always interesting to read these constructive suggestions for trying to improve the issues caused by the re work but sadly nothing will come of it, WG are not interested in fixing things and sadly the thread will be locked soon enough. 

 

Still I hope the OP does copy his suggestion to the main CV thread just to preserve the idea  and it's not lost. 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
14,456 posts
20,571 battles
2 hours ago, Wulf_Ace said:

There is a penalty for flying far away and dealing damage and its called TIME!

 

Not much of a penalty really given that you've probably won/lost a match already anyway if you have to attack a target so far away that it takes you over 30-40 seconds to reach it.

As such saying that CVs get a time penalty, especially since the opening post describes typical CV engagement distances rather than extreme ones, is at best intellectually dishonest.

 

2 hours ago, Wulf_Ace said:

So yeah lets with this idea, you would nerf them into oblivion.

 

People would like to see nerfs to a blatantly overpowered and broken class? Seems like a rather reasonable thing, no?

 

2 hours ago, Wulf_Ace said:

And NO they dont fly from one corner to another and deal max damage, there are planes down, there are rng drops, etc.

 

Yes, they do.

Planes shot down are of little to no consequence in the long run due to how laughably weak AA currently is as well as how massive CV reserves are in comparison and merely serve to limit your theoretical damage potential to the realistic practical one. As such your max damage is no longer your theoretical but your practical damage potential.

CVs have the best reliability in the entire game and thus are the most independent from RNG by far. Likewise RNG can also work in your favor on a bad drop, so really I fail to see your point here.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
672 posts

I remember the AA guns system from NavyField.... there you had to control the guns yourself, and if you were good at it, you could practically keep aircraft away from your ship. Or you could set your ship up as AA and simply support others.

 

I don't remember people really complained about that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
2,991 posts
17,341 battles
6 hours ago, Wulf_Ace said:

I am sick of this CV nerf threads. They are in game and they are not leaving, but you can leave if you dont like the game, thats what I do when I dont like the game!

According to this "logic" any ship that makes it into the game shouldn't get nerfed (or buffed for that matter)...

 

@DFens_666 interesting idea, when I read the title I thought your were going with damage scaling in relation to the class a CV was attacking.

This one is nice as well. One minor thing, I know you said not to get bogged down on numbers, but I will add one point.

Your lower limit should be the CV's detection range + X km (where detection range = best attainable detection range with skills, upgrades and camo?). Setting a fixed lower limit, without any relation to the detection range,  wouldn't affect all CVs in the same way.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Beta Tester
1,424 posts
7,051 battles

I like the idea.

Since carriers already have acces to special game mechanics, because the class itself is overpowered.

  1. AP bombs and AP rockets can reset cap points without hitting.

  2. 5 second fire duration.

  3. Cannot detonate.

  4. Automatic damage control party.

  5. Lowered flooding damage.

  6. Access to improved fighters.

  7. Missing player versus player mechanic.

  8. Can strike anywhere on the map with precision

  9. First strike always goes through

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LADA]
Players
618 posts
9,048 battles

Genuinely good idea that could actually work.

 

Of course the above qualities more or less guarantee that WG won't adopt it - CVs being in A FiNe StaTe.

 

image.png.454b6ad98b5029a606643b9b02989bae.png

  • Funny 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,091 posts
9,479 battles
12 hours ago, GulvkluderGuld said:

Are you sure you've thought this through?

MVR dont exactly need buffs, and next up in randoms will be random yahoos yoloing their full secondary Graf Zeps into caps to max damage out.

 

Seriously though, I'm not a fan of band-aid fixes because WG refuses to deal with the real issue which is AA being garbage.

Well, Mrconway just said, yoloing with the CV is against the rules. Also i doubt most players would actually play that way, seeing that many of them dont want to get too close, so they can play for the longest possible time.

I fail to see, why MvR would get a buff out of that?

 

The issue with AA is, that its entirely up to the CV if its good or bad. For many CV players, AA is already too strong due to Flak. For those who can dodge flak... its mostly useless.

 

11 hours ago, HaachamaShipping said:

Two points:

  • There is an already a severe drawback to flying across the map to strike things, which is flight times. It's why pushing into CVs that are competent basically maximises their dpm.
  • The issue with CVs isn't the high damage averages, as much as how much they defy everything surrounding that. Don't you like being forced into choosing between dodging plane torps/AP rockets/bombs and broadsiding the enemy team? Don't you like getting exposed in front of the enemy team and having to dodge all the fire and planes? How about the CVs ability to just pick whatever target it wants and nuke it, especially the high value ships that are further forward, even if they are covered by allies otherwise? A good part of the reason MvR is so strong and Audacious is so crap is also that an MvR has so many means to screw over people in otherwise good positions with AP bombs and rockets, while an Audacious has likely the least impactful bomb drops that do an ok amount of damage, but if you even just bomb slightly diagonal, it's mostly wasted. Not that it still can be an absolute b**** with torps. 

 

 

1. So nothing changes does it? Currently, if you push against the CV, you make it easier for him. Since he woudnt gain any more damage with this change, it would still be the same issue with pushing into a CV. But as long as this doesnt happen, aka especially early game, its a huge bonus for surface ships.

2. Exactly my point. So you do have to choose, because a) CV can create crossfire and b) damage you can receive is absurdly high. When playing BB, and i have to decide to dodge a torp and show broadside, or take one more torp, i rather take the latter option. So this idea alleviates this problem. When you receive much less damage, you can decide i rather take the damage from the CV than show broadside to the enemy BB.

May not be perfect, but i doubt there is a way to force CVs to not create crossfire on their own. Or WG would actually need to remove AP rockets and torps would become kinda useless.

 

10 hours ago, Wulf_Ace said:

There is a penalty for flying far away and dealing damage and its called TIME! And CVs do try to get close to have more TIME, its other thing that most CVs dont do that.

 

So yeah lets with this idea, you would nerf them into oblivion.

 

And NO they dont fly from one corner to another and deal max damage, there are planes down, there are rng drops, etc.

 

I am sick of this CV nerf threads. They are in game and they are not leaving, but you can leave if you dont like the game, thats what I do when I dont like the game!

 

- Ever seen a ship shoot from one corner to the other? Me neither... Its because its impossible for them. Yet, its totaly fine for a CV. Also they have the easiest time reaching their potential max damage thanks to little RNG involved in their drops. Compared to massive RNG on BB side, which can get you very little even at reasonable engagement ranges.

- So if you go closer (apparently?) why does it matter for you? Let the border humpers rot there and deal pitiful damage, they deserve it.

- Neither did i say that i want to remove CVs, nor that i hate the game. CVs are OP/broken, WG is incapable to balance CVs properly, maybe if they see an idea worth implementing, something might happen.

 

10 hours ago, lovelacebeer said:

It's always interesting to read these constructive suggestions for trying to improve the issues caused by the re work but sadly nothing will come of it, WG are not interested in fixing things and sadly the thread will be locked soon enough. 

 

Still I hope the OP does copy his suggestion to the main CV thread just to preserve the idea  and it's not lost. 

Ill do that when they close this one.

 

4 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

Your lower limit should be the CV's detection range + X km (where detection range = best attainable detection range with skills, upgrades and camo?). Setting a fixed lower limit, without any relation to the detection range,  wouldn't affect all CVs in the same way.

That sounds reasonable. Atleast no artificial values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
10 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

1. So nothing changes does it? Currently, if you push against the CV, you make it easier for him. Since he woudnt gain any more damage with this change, it would still be the same issue with pushing into a CV. But as long as this doesnt happen, aka especially early game, its a huge bonus for surface ships.

2. Exactly my point. So you do have to choose, because a) CV can create crossfire and b) damage you can receive is absurdly high. When playing BB, and i have to decide to dodge a torp and show broadside, or take one more torp, i rather take the latter option. So this idea alleviates this problem. When you receive much less damage, you can decide i rather take the damage from the CV than show broadside to the enemy BB.

May not be perfect, but i doubt there is a way to force CVs to not create crossfire on their own. Or WG would actually need to remove AP rockets and torps would become kinda useless.

If you want to fix CV, fix the fundamental way AA works. As long as a CV is free to set up cross fires, it's terrible. And it doesn't matter whether the damage gets nerfed. If you have to fly a solid minute to a target with your squad and then get 10-20k out of a good torp drop, the damage output isn't the issue. But the main issue is, good CVs can mostly ignore the AA and just fly their attacks however they want. As to getting rid of AP rockets, note that AP rockets was often a joke made prior to their introduction because anyone with any idea how to CV would have told you that AP rockets have all the potential to be either absolute trash or absolute bonkers OP, but likely no middle ground. Just like AP bombs, AP rockets were a terrible idea and just intensify the issues already present.

 

Will anything of that happen? Haha, no, because that'd lead to a notable drop in CV presence, which was "fixed" fast last time it happened by nerfing all AA into the ground. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,091 posts
9,479 battles
4 minutes ago, HaachamaShipping said:

Will anything of that happen? Haha, no, because that'd lead to a notable drop in CV presence, which was "fixed" fast last time it happened by nerfing all AA into the ground. 

 

Thats why, the only possible way to not make CV numbers plummet is to make them as easy as possible to play, while reducing the game impact aswell. Give them the illusion that they can do something, while in reality it makes little to no difference.

You cant have a high impact class like CVs and make them so easy to play. Imagine if DDs would be as easy to play as CVs. Like, DDs cant engage other DDs, to dodge radar just wiggle around and make it easier to hit torps. Then lets scale the damage so they roughly have the same as CVs now.

I can already see the forum flooded with hate threads :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
3 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

Thats why, the only possible way to not make CV numbers plummet is to make them as easy as possible to play, while reducing the game impact aswell. Give them the illusion that they can do something, while in reality it makes little to no difference.

CV players who are incompetent are a nuisance only due to excessive spotting. That wouldn't change. Competent CV players meanwhile usually play the class because of how good it is, not because they like just flying around in planes. Nerf the impact and they won't fall for the illusion. There's a reason why ships like Hermes, Indomitable and most RN CVs are left on the sidelines, because a large part of the CV players can't be bothered to play this class without being the most powerful ship in the game. Nerf the class and the CV population dies and so far this has not been a thing WG is willing to allow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,091 posts
9,479 battles
4 minutes ago, HaachamaShipping said:

CV players who are incompetent are a nuisance only due to excessive spotting. That wouldn't change. Competent CV players meanwhile usually play the class because of how good it is, not because they like just flying around in planes. Nerf the impact and they won't fall for the illusion. There's a reason why ships like Hermes, Indomitable and most RN CVs are left on the sidelines, because a large part of the CV players can't be bothered to play this class without being the most powerful ship in the game. Nerf the class and the CV population dies and so far this has not been a thing WG is willing to allow.

 

How many really good CV players are there? Few hundred? Even if they would stop playing as a result of lowering game impact, they surely would not matter to WG.

When WG buffed AA, did @El2aZeR stop playing? No, i dont think so. It was average/bad players, who suddenly couldnt get anything done anymore. I agree, if you lower game impact you will eventually lose a certain amount of CV players, but they might only play CVs because they feel the need to play it to not get constantly sh*t on by other CVs. At the same time, you might encourage more bad players to play CVs, who currently are incapable of getting anything done because they die to flak.

 

Let CVs be the noob-class, where the lowskill players can derp around without interfering too much with other players. If buffing AA makes those people quit, going the opposite direction could solve the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
10,231 posts
7,164 battles
15 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Yes i know i know, CV thread, but thats just a dump for complains :Smile_hiding:

There might be hope someone from WG sees this, and could be interested (yes, im dreaming again :fish_aqua:)

 

Back to the idea:

What is one big difference when it comes to CVs and other surface ships, or more precise guns and planes?

Guns get more inaccurate the further you are away from a target. So essentially, the damage is scaled down the longer the distance is, influenced by dispersion and armor. Dispersion can influence from 0 to max damage, alltho the latter is ofc highly unlikely. Armor can even make a very good salvo bad, as it might shatter on the thick armor.

Planes? dont have that. They fly from one corner to the other and can inflict maxdamage without too many issues, atleast not much outside of the CVs influence, except a bit RNG with drops.

 

So my idea would be, to scale the damage down based on distance between hull <-> target. Thats kinda what normal ships have aswell, just in a different way. And since they are inherintly different, having different mechanics for balancing might be necessary.

Ill just use some values to make it clear. Also you need a cap on both ends, f.e. within x km you deal full damage, and over y km you will not lose more damage.

F.e. for every km further apart, you could lose 7% damage, starting after 10km. If you go even further apart damage could be capped at 33%.

 

Here leet-paintskills to showcase what i mean :cap_cool:

CV1.thumb.jpg.a56f66a9c81f074e4ccb144e8097cec1.jpg

 

There are many benefits to this imo:

- CVs taking more active roles, trying to go closer will deal more damage than a CV, which reverses into the mapborder

- Blapping a ship at start would become harder or outright impossible. 10k hits on DDs would result in ~3.3k, which would make it easier for DDs, or any class for that matter.

- Could make CVs less interesting for CBs.

- Killing off weak ships further to the back becomes harder / less useful than attacking ships closer to you.

- Obviously WG will never change spotting mechanics, so lowering damage without actually touching the alpha damage could be a way to make a difference.

 

Just some general things:

- Dont get focused on the values - i just used them as examples. If you like the idea, but not the values, it doesnt help saying "BUT only 33% is WAAAY too low".

- T4 is not equal to T10. Hightier maps are bigger, so for lowtiers you cant use same values as for T10.

- CV spawns could be moved further back, so they could choose which way to go, while giving the surface ships a bigger buffer to approach caps. (does anyone know what distance CVs spawn from caps / enemy ships roughly? obviously there is a difference in maps like Tears of the Desert is furthest apart)

- Might need some other tweaks here and there ofc.


OMG :Smile_facepalm:

 

Let‘s pretend we haven’t read it and close it silently 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,456 posts
9,251 battles
9 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

How many really good CV players are there? Few hundred? Even if they would stop playing as a result of lowering game impact, they surely would not matter to WG.

When WG buffed AA, did @El2aZeR stop playing? No, i dont think so. It was average/bad players, who suddenly couldnt get anything done anymore. I agree, if you lower game impact you will eventually lose a certain amount of CV players, but they might only play CVs because they feel the need to play it to not get constantly sh*t on by other CVs. At the same time, you might encourage more bad players to play CVs, who currently are incapable of getting anything done because they die to flak.

 

Let CVs be the noob-class, where the lowskill players can derp around without interfering too much with other players. If buffing AA makes those people quit, going the opposite direction could solve the problem.

If CVs are so low impact that you don't need to mind them, why would people who play CVs now because they feel they need to to not be suffering continue to play them?

 

And sure, there aren't many CV players... but they have the most CV games. CVs are a class played by very few people. If the tryhards drop it, because they don't see a point in it and the ones who felt forced to play it to stay ontop of the game drop it, that's a very significant part of the people playing CV.

 

And enough bad players exist that already settle for minimal results. Those'd stay. But they already accomplish nothing.

 

Feel free to pretend that there's a way around this mess, but there isn't. Unless WG faces the reality that rework was a failure and CVs need to be scrapped or again reworked from the ground up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,090 posts
17,533 battles
2 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

Well, Mrconway just said, yoloing with the CV is against the rules. Also i doubt most players would actually play that way, seeing that many of them dont want to get too close, so they can play for the longest possible time.

I fail to see, why MvR would get a buff out of that?

You're probably right that most wouldnt get too close, but I think lots more would try to maximize their damage (leading to a fair amount getting overextended)

MVR has good secondaries so at best a minor buff.

2 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

The issue with AA is, that its entirely up to the CV if its good or bad. For many CV players, AA is already too strong due to Flak. For those who can dodge flak... its mostly useless.

In that case, fix AA mechanics and scrap the idea of flak altogether. Atm CVs will always get a strike off no matter how powerful AA they face. It's my main gripe with them.

We used to only have continous AA damage that stacked if ships grouped up and made striking the blob a suicide mission for litte results.

It is the only decent solution, and if there is no flak, then the CV vegetables get punished gradually rather than instantly. Those capable of learning will heed the lesson and find easier targets. 

If they want, WG can experiment with other minigames of skill like making plane maneuverability worse to create a different minigame of maneuver and counter maneuvering.

 

I think if damage and impact is lowered on top of increased flight times to the point where CVs are ineffective at taking out key targets, then better players will stop playing them.

 

11 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Not much of a penalty really given that you've probably won/lost a match already anyway if you have to attack a target so far away that it takes you over 30-40 seconds to reach it.

As such saying that CVs get a time penalty, especially since the opening post describes typical CV engagement distances rather than extreme ones, is at best intellectually dishonest.

Not that i generally disagree with you, but sinking a crossfiring Stalingrad og BB in the corner can often be worth the extra effort

Especially in lemming situations where the friendly blob of ships get stuck on a single red ship. The same logic may sometimes apply to eliminating key targets in competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
14,456 posts
20,571 battles
1 hour ago, GulvkluderGuld said:

Not that i generally disagree with you, but sinking a crossfiring Stalingrad og BB in the corner can often be worth the extra effort

Especially in lemming situations where the friendly blob of ships get stuck on a single red ship. The same logic may sometimes apply to eliminating key targets in competitive.

 

Sure but then you're not really "penalized by time" for it, are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×