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

[Theory] Why the Problem with CV's is Damage Control Party

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
177 posts
183 battles

Theories abound regarding Carriers, their gameplay in World of Warships, and how to revamp them to better fit the game. But last night, I finally reached a conclusion that I've been slowing moving toward for some time:

The Problem with CV's is the nature of the way Damage Control Party works.

What do I mean by that? Well first, DCP instantly repairs all fires, flooding, and disabled modules on your ship. It's a complete "get out of jail free" card that you can play, mitigating everything happening to your ship at once. The downside is that once used, there's a cooldown before it can be used again (except for a certain Russian Battleship). An easy thing to use, it's one of the hardest aspects of the game to use properly. Knowing when you NEED to use DCP and when you should let the fires burn is one of the things that differentiates a good player from a not-so-good player.

Why is this a problem?

Because DCP removes the guarantee of Damage over Time (DoT), Carriers are forced to rely on alpha-damage to affect the game

This has lead us to the point where we have two "Alpha-damage" classes:

  • Battleships which must risk themselves to deal damage

  • Carriers who can alpha strike while only risking their planes

Proposal

Since calling out a problem without a solution is a total [edited] move, I waited to post about this until I had a satisfactory recommendation.

DCP should only be able to heal one thing at a time

Solution 1 (Repairs take time):

  • When you hit the button for DCP, it opens a radial menu (similar to the radial menu for F-commands), allowing you to choose which disability to heal

  • Once chosen, the DCP "works" on that repair, taking time to complete

  • When repair is complete, another repair can be started immediately with no cooldown

Solution 2 (Limited Spare Parts):

  • When you hit the button for DCP, it opens a radial menu (similar to the radial menu for F-commands), allowing you to choose which disability to heal

  • Once chosen, a charge of DCP is applied to that disability

  • A relatively short cooldown (15-30 seconds) period applies

  • Limited charges of DCP per game (10?)

Factors usable for Balancing:

  • Different repairs could take differing amounts of time for Solution 1 (eg. Fires repair faster than flooding)

  • Different ships get different charges of DCP for Solution 2, depending on ship size to reflect crew availability (eg. battleships have more damage control capability than a destroyer)

  • Superintendent gives two (3?) extra DCP charges for Solution 2

  • New Captain skill that allows two repairs to be initiated simultaneously for Solution 1 or 2

  • New Captain skills that improve one repair time over the others (eg. faster flooding repair, but longer fire/module repair) for Solution 1

  • Number of categories of Repair limited to Fire, Flooding, and Modules (or more?)

  • Allow Fire and flooding to stack, while repair only heals one fire or flooding

  • Re-balance Fire/flooding damage

Conclusion

By revamping the DCP, this allows the game to shift Carriers from an "Alpha-damage" class to a class that purely does Damage over time. Initial Alpha damage from HE bombs and torpedoes can be reduced (or possibly eliminated) in favor of the guarantee of applying Fire or flooding. For those of you who play MMORPGs, this is similar to the Necromancer in Everquest or the Warlock in World of Warcraft.

AP bombs could still exist in the game to give carriers some alpha damage, but mixing alpha and DOT damage becomes less desirable, as it makes it easier for the targets to heal.

In regards to other ship types:

  • Battleships doing damage would be largely unaffected by this, as they (mostly) rely on AP damage

  • Cruisers would see some increase in their ability to set fires and keep them burning, but may be affected by the rebalance in how much damage fires do and how many can be set. Their HE alpha damage might have to be nudged up to keep damage in line.

  • Destroyers would also be affected, as their torpedoes could go one of two ways, High alpha with low flood chance, or low alpha to rely on the same DOT damage as carriers. In terms of interesting gameplay, I think differentiating Carrier and destroyer damage would be prefereable by giving DD's High alpha damage torps with a low (25%?) base flood chance.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,149 posts
17,796 battles

you realize good cv players use Dots by attacking In 2 waves, first forcing repair and once dcp is down, 2nd wave hits? for instance with some TB, then use DB for second unrepairable fires? 

 

Giving Midway back the 2nd TB squad was a bit over the top alphawise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
177 posts
183 battles
3 minutes ago, GulvkluderGuld said:

you realize good cv players use Dots by attacking In 2 waves, first forcing repair and once dcp is down, 2nd wave hits? for instance with some TB, then use DB for second unrepairable fires? 

 

Giving Midway back the 2nd TB squad was a bit over the top alphawise.

I do realize this, and perhaps i over-stated the alpha damage thing, but i stand by one thing: people don't complain about being DoT'd by a carrier to death, they complain that a midway put two torp squadrons into their BB and instantly deleted them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,800 posts
6,909 battles
2 minutes ago, WarshipsPodcastEU said:

I do realize this, and perhaps i over-stated the alpha damage thing, but i stand by one thing: people don't complain about being DoT'd by a carrier to death, they complain that a midway put two torp squadrons into their BB and instantly deleted them.

Doesn't have to be T10, happens with any CV that has 2 TB squadrons.

 

Your concept I like, but suspect that it is overly complex to actually do without being hot keyed (the radial menu's tend to be slower than straight keyboard commands which can be vital for something like DCP).

 

Quick clarification question - after hitting the DCP selection, is the chosen fire, flooding, AA battery repair etc instantaneous or on completion of that task?

(there should still be the ability to perma destroy something, as some parts of a ship cannot be repaired/replaced while at sea - and yes I know it is mostly arcade and not simulation, but there are limits to arcadyness :) ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
177 posts
183 battles
1 minute ago, philjd said:

Doesn't have to be T10, happens with any CV that has 2 TB squadrons.

 

Your concept I like, but suspect that it is overly complex to actually do without being hot keyed (the radial menu's tend to be slower than straight keyboard commands which can be vital for something like DCP).

 

Quick clarification question - after hitting the DCP selection, is the chosen fire, flooding, AA battery repair etc instantaneous or on completion of that task?

(there should still be the ability to perma destroy something, as some parts of a ship cannot be repaired/replaced while at sea - and yes I know it is mostly arcade and not simulation, but there are limits to arcadyness :) ).

In my solution 1, it would not be instantaneous

 

in Solution 2 it would =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B0TS]
Beta Tester
1,800 posts
6,909 battles
1 minute ago, WarshipsPodcastEU said:

In my solution 1, it would not be instantaneous

 

in Solution 2 it would =)

Those I read and understood, but there is a difference between stopping DoT, restoring functionality etc immediately while a repair ability is functioning or phasing it out/restoring it over the time taken to complete the repair. I wasn't clear on my understanding of which way either option would work, hence the Q :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
177 posts
183 battles
4 minutes ago, philjd said:

Those I read and understood, but there is a difference between stopping DoT, restoring functionality etc immediately while a repair ability is functioning or phasing it out/restoring it over the time taken to complete the repair. I wasn't clear on my understanding of which way either option would work, hence the Q :)

Ah!

 

In my solution 1, you'd continue to take damage while the repair happened, though that could be tapered off as the damage gets closer to complete. Another way to balance!

 

in solution 2, you'd instantly stop that damage source, and have a CD for the next one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WG Team, WoWs Wiki Team
3,500 posts
13,907 battles

Sounds too complicated. Most players are already overstrained to just press R at the right time :Smile_hiding:

And please don't use black text for those of us that use the Dark Theme.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
13,036 battles

Just a heads-up: that opening post is impossible to read for people using the dark forum theme.

Share this post


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

You might find interesting some of the ideas I have had ... CVs as support class, or DoTs and debuffs ....

But you'd have to bother to dig through the mountains of shitposting I do .... anyways, if you have questions just ask me, it's probably easier if I guide you through those mountains (of shittext).

 

And no, I don't use word for WoWs. Probably should ...

@WarshipsPodcastEU

Anyways, once WG finishes deciding if they want a Quality Poster Initiative or not, it's just a matter of time before you get on it, if you keep with your actual podcasts ... oh I'm going offtopic again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
14,600 posts
20,743 battles

I mean, I do believe testing something like this would be more than worthwhile (regardless of the massive rebalancing effort it would entail not only to CVs, but to the entire game), but considering the ludicrous incompetence of the average player I highly doubt WG will move anywhere close to this direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,928 posts
5,080 battles

Did you ever play "Battlestations: Midway"? That had an excellent damage control interface, where you had a fixed number of "teams" (bigger ships had more) that could each only do one thing at a time. If you had fewer problems than teams, you were fine. If you had more, you would have to prioritise and remember to reassign when a team was done.

 

Anyway, your proposals reminded me of that. I like your ideas, I really do, but as has been stated this game is designed to be super simple and yet still manages to completely stump average players. So... fantastic idea but no hope for implementation.

 

EDIT: Also I'm not entirely sure what problem you're trying to solve, other than the damage control system being unrealistic and overly simplistic. CVs having high Alpha damage isn't a problem, it's what they're supposed to do. Are you suggesting this as a way to stop BBabies complaining?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
177 posts
183 battles
43 minutes ago, KarmaQU_EU said:

 

Anyways, once WG finishes deciding if they want a Quality Poster Initiative or not, it's just a matter of time before you get on it, if you keep with your actual podcasts ... oh I'm going offtopic again.

I'm actually a community contributor for the NA region, as are Kami and Vanessa, I just never looked into getting the flair here. I probably should. But thanks for the kind words =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,197 posts
7,237 battles

This is too complicated, for the player, but also for wargaming, as changing such a core mechanic would force to rebalance too much ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,723 posts
11,324 battles
4 hours ago, WarshipsPodcastEU said:

 

  • Battleships which must risk themselves to deal damage

  • Carriers who can alpha strike while only risking their planes

 

 

BBs will frequently fire on and damage ships with either no chance to get fired back at (either due to cover, or range), or at very little risk of taking damage (due to armour) or for a very low cost in damage taken (due to repair party and amount of total hp).

And "Only" risking permanently losing your weapons isn't something you refer to as "only".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHOCO]
Players
42 posts
5,922 battles

Tbh I think the 12 torp bomber the midway is a bit over the top. I didn't really think that at T10 there was a balance issue between 212 midway and 233 haku, in randoms at least. I do like the idea of having 2 torp squads on midway to allow for cross drops but why not do as fara suggested and make then 3 in size so there are the same amount of planes in the sky anyway. The big issue with CV balance is the question, do you balance with competitive in mind or randoms? WG seems to want to focus on the randoms so there seems to be no reason to give midway a set-up that has 3 fighter squads and some damage waves (whether that happens to be 1 torp squad and 1-2 dive bombers or just 2 dive bombers) an idea to give midway some more alpha strike might be to give it torp squads of 4 so only 8 in the air at once not the full 12 but still more than 6. Then again I don't play CVs so take what I say with a pinch of salt. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FAME]
Beta Tester
803 posts
4,376 battles
18 hours ago, WarshipsPodcastEU said:

Theories abound regarding Carriers, their gameplay in World of Warships, and how to revamp them to better fit the game. But last night, I finally reached a conclusion that I've been slowing moving toward for some time:

The Problem with CV's is the nature of the way Damage Control Party works.

What do I mean by that? Well first, DCP instantly repairs all fires, flooding, and disabled modules on your ship. It's a complete "get out of jail free" card that you can play, mitigating everything happening to your ship at once. The downside is that once used, there's a cooldown before it can be used again (except for a certain Russian Battleship). An easy thing to use, it's one of the hardest aspects of the game to use properly. Knowing when you NEED to use DCP and when you should let the fires burn is one of the things that differentiates a good player from a not-so-good player.

Why is this a problem?

Because DCP removes the guarantee of Damage over Time (DoT), Carriers are forced to rely on alpha-damage to affect the game

This has lead us to the point where we have two "Alpha-damage" classes:

  • Battleships which must risk themselves to deal damage

  • Carriers who can alpha strike while only risking their planes

Proposal

Since calling out a problem without a solution is a total [edited] move, I waited to post about this until I had a satisfactory recommendation.

DCP should only be able to heal one thing at a time

Solution 1 (Repairs take time):

  • When you hit the button for DCP, it opens a radial menu (similar to the radial menu for F-commands), allowing you to choose which disability to heal

  • Once chosen, the DCP "works" on that repair, taking time to complete

  • When repair is complete, another repair can be started immediately with no cooldown

Solution 2 (Limited Spare Parts):

  • When you hit the button for DCP, it opens a radial menu (similar to the radial menu for F-commands), allowing you to choose which disability to heal

  • Once chosen, a charge of DCP is applied to that disability

  • A relatively short cooldown (15-30 seconds) period applies

  • Limited charges of DCP per game (10?)

Factors usable for Balancing:

  • Different repairs could take differing amounts of time for Solution 1 (eg. Fires repair faster than flooding)

  • Different ships get different charges of DCP for Solution 2, depending on ship size to reflect crew availability (eg. battleships have more damage control capability than a destroyer)

  • Superintendent gives two (3?) extra DCP charges for Solution 2

  • New Captain skill that allows two repairs to be initiated simultaneously for Solution 1 or 2

  • New Captain skills that improve one repair time over the others (eg. faster flooding repair, but longer fire/module repair) for Solution 1

  • Number of categories of Repair limited to Fire, Flooding, and Modules (or more?)

  • Allow Fire and flooding to stack, while repair only heals one fire or flooding

  • Re-balance Fire/flooding damage

Conclusion

By revamping the DCP, this allows the game to shift Carriers from an "Alpha-damage" class to a class that purely does Damage over time. Initial Alpha damage from HE bombs and torpedoes can be reduced (or possibly eliminated) in favor of the guarantee of applying Fire or flooding. For those of you who play MMORPGs, this is similar to the Necromancer in Everquest or the Warlock in World of Warcraft.

AP bombs could still exist in the game to give carriers some alpha damage, but mixing alpha and DOT damage becomes less desirable, as it makes it easier for the targets to heal.

In regards to other ship types:

  • Battleships doing damage would be largely unaffected by this, as they (mostly) rely on AP damage

  • Cruisers would see some increase in their ability to set fires and keep them burning, but may be affected by the rebalance in how much damage fires do and how many can be set. Their HE alpha damage might have to be nudged up to keep damage in line.

  • Destroyers would also be affected, as their torpedoes could go one of two ways, High alpha with low flood chance, or low alpha to rely on the same DOT damage as carriers. In terms of interesting gameplay, I think differentiating Carrier and destroyer damage would be prefereable by giving DD's High alpha damage torps with a low (25%?) base flood chance.

Ok so I read through it today when I was a bit less tired, and if I understood it correctly, your point is that CVs are over-reliant on Alpha damage due to the current damage-con system being unable to support more sophisticated DoT models?

And you propose to mainly alter how damage-con works, while pointing out additional factors that may be taken into consideration.

 

I think you might be interested in some stuff I wrote on the same topic (recently too), allow me to point out some important parts for you:

 

1. This post:

Please read only Section 1 for some ideas on changing the DoT system.

 

2. This post:

Where I suggest another CV attack mode which would fit into the logic of a revised  DoT system such as one described in the post above, so CVs are not only known for their alpha damage.

 

3. And the same post as (1), but in a different section, between sections 5 and section 6, under a blue header, was a few CV idea lines which I will re-post here for clarity (so no need to search in the original post for them):

 

And I quote:

<CVs now have a "focus reticle" similar to the arty reticle, where you press a key to cause to shrink and increase strike accuracy, at the expense of using up time and exposing your planes to prolonged AA. The difference between this and arty is that the arty reticle auto-shrinks while here you have to press a key.>

 

<"CV will now be affected by all types of AA instead of all-or-nothing" - As the reticle "shrinks, it simulates planes flying at lower altitude and closer to the ship to strike, thus being closer to the ships' AA, thus being more vulnerable to the AA. If this can be considered as a flat increase in AA damage taken by planes, it means even weak AA becomes strong enough AA if they fly low enough. Thus, " "balanced" against all types of AA".>

 

<"Class not "interesting and cheerful" enough" - CV progression and plane progression are now separate and additional tech trees, and CVs are not mirror-locked by their tier, but by a combination of CV + planes (such as larger hanger warranting higher tier, even if the larger hanger is stuffed with lower tier planes)(though the tiny CVL stuffed with higher tier planes would also be interesting to see though XD)>

 

 

 

The rest of it I did not take care to edit and make readable, so will not force you to read it. But let me know what you think of the points here, and I'd be happy to answer additional questions you may have.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×