Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Ceesa

The Hidden Problem with CV Balancing

86 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

17
[FTWRK]
Members
55 posts
4,963 battles

I've been on these forums for a while, but no one seems to ever mention what I consider to be the main problem why balancing CVs with non-CVs is so difficult: alpha damage.  For those not aware, and alpha strike is burst damage.  It's the amount of damage you can do all at once, as opposed to damage over time.  CVs in this game have HUGE alphas, being able to more or less one-shot BBs at higher tiers.  

It's the alpha damage that makes people hate CVs.  I don't think anyone would mind eating 1-3 torps if they were out of position, but eating 7-9 seems like an enormous punishment for what was probably not a huge mistake.  

Balancing around alphas while keeping the game fun for both CV and non-CV players is impossible without addressing it.  Increasing AA for ships makes CVs unable to hit anything because all of their planes melt before getting to unload ordinance.  Decreasing the number of planes in the air at a given time (by decreasing squadron count, for example) makes CVs irrelevant as damage dealers.  

What we need is a change that lowers the alpha of CVs without changing the overall damage output.  So here's my proposal: 

1. Don't change the number of planes in squadrons or the number of squadrons in the air (please note I'm not speaking about the USN vs IJN balance, which is a separate issue).

2. Lower the damage dealt by both bombs and torpedoes.  

3. Increase both the turnaround time of squadrons to rearm and refuel AND increase the airspeed of all squadrons significantly.  

 

The goal of these changes is to increase the number of strikes that a CV can unleash, but lower the alpha of each strike.  Now we can again look at what happens if a BB gets out of position.  Now it gets punished by a CV, BUT NOT DELETED.  The BB has time to reposition before the next strike arrives, and the enemy CV can bring fighters closer to cover it.  Everyone is happier: the BB keeps a lot more hp, and the CV still gets off a nice satisfying strike.  Squadron count hasn't changed, so cross drops are still a thing.  The skill needed to land a strike hasn't changed much (though with faster planes you will probably have an easier time getting into position).  

Two unintended consequences of faster planes would be more effective scouting and a higher skill floor and skill cap for CVs, as there would be a greater emphasis on reaction time and map awareness to play them well in an AS configuration.  

 

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,446
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,765 posts
6,944 battles

Everything you suggest perfectly describes the Graf Zeppelin premium (August 2017 version) with the 2/0/3 loadout with HE bombers (excepting rearming and refuel which is reasonably fast). A carrier almost universally hated...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,819
Members
5,574 posts
7,121 battles

Personally, I'd like to see some "testing" on planes that consume fuel, and auto return (or manually stop) when they're low. 

 

It would help in a lot of areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
260 posts
2,729 battles

I don't like this idea and here is why. At high tiers anytime you go to strike a ship, you will lose planes (as you should). However if you decrease alpha and increase the attack speeds, it will result in more planes being lost for no real reason. If you are already going toe to toe with a competent enemy CV it is highly possible that under that scenario, you will quickly start draining even the high tier hangers and reduce their actual usefulness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17
[FTWRK]
Members
55 posts
4,963 battles
Just now, fredbob99705 said:

I don't like this idea and here is why. At high tiers anytime you go to strike a ship, you will lose planes (as you should). However if you decrease alpha and increase the attack speeds, it will result in more planes being lost for no real reason. If you are already going toe to toe with a competent enemy CV it is highly possible that under that scenario, you will quickly start draining even the high tier hangers and reduce their actual usefulness.

I was thinking that the increase in speed would decrease planes lost per strike as you would spend less time in the target's AA bubble.  

 

As for the first GZ, the speeds of the planes were not increased anywhere near what would be necessary.  I was thinking giving an across the board boost of 50% or more.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,268
[RKLES]
Members
7,192 posts
8,931 battles

Part of the problem when considering CV damage output is the fact if you have good AA or at least decent AA anyway, you will not be getting hit with the full CV load out, they will be losing planes on approach.

So instead of the 7-9 torpedo hits you mentioned often they only get 1-4 Torps even into the water much less hitting me since often I turn and their torp pattern is in tatters.

thats the hard part I think for Wargaming is not only does the AA rating vary from ship to ship, it also varies on individual ships based on how much a player has specced for it, plus the fact balancing wise AA gets shot away and players still want to feel they are somewhat protected as long as some AA remains. Then you get to how CVs vary as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
781
[NG-NL]
Members
5,012 posts
8,229 battles

CVs only have such alpha damage as their TB and DB are largely guided missile-carriers. Balanced by the fact AA can evaporate that weapon, the long flight time, land/takeoff animation, pre-planning the attacks, and so on. BBs/CAs/DDs get to attack far more often since MB/secondaries/torps to work with.

 

As a Haku owner, I fail to see how reducing alpha damage and faster plane speed will change anything for the better. Certain players like Taichunger and Katlish (dunno exact spelling, lol) will correctly point out that since planes are much faster, full AA builds will be almost mandatory to withstand a CV sortie, and even then the faster plane speed will make AA seem too weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,268
[RKLES]
Members
7,192 posts
8,931 battles
31 minutes ago, Ceesa said:

I was thinking that the increase in speed would decrease planes lost per strike as you would spend less time in the target's AA bubble.  

 

As for the first GZ, the speeds of the planes were not increased anywhere near what would be necessary.  I was thinking giving an across the board boost of 50% or more.  

If GZ gets Any kind of buffs what so ever then those AP bombs need to be taken away from it because I have felt the impacts of those and lost high HP BBs thanks to 1 or 2 AP bombs hitting them and heard similar stories from other BB Captains. 

Its devastating enough I am considering going full AA build on some BBs to attempt to combat GZ planes because they are way too devastating with those AP bombs if a single bomber gets through to make a hit.

Full AA spec is not my first choice for many of the BBs I use I go fir Secondary build to help protect against DDs and other ships that get too close, so going AA only leaves minimal to moderate secondary power, but that's how bad of a threat GZ is if I am willing to consider GZ a greater threat than DDs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[HINON]
Supertester
7,523 posts
7,578 battles
6 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

If GZ gets Any kind of buffs what so ever then those AP bombs need to be taken away from it because I have felt the impacts of those and lost high HP BBs thanks to 1 or 2 AP bombs hitting them and heard similar stories from other BB Captains. 

Its devastating enough I am considering going full AA build on some BBs to attempt to combat GZ planes because they are way too devastating with those AP bombs if a single bomber gets through to make a hit.

Full AA spec is not my first choice for many of the BBs I use I go fir Secondary build to help protect against DDs and other ships that get too close, so going AA only leaves minimal to moderate secondary power, but that's how bad of a threat GZ is if I am willing to consider GZ a greater threat than DDs...

:Smile_facepalm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
9,434 posts
11,601 battles

first is reduce to skill gap.   this mean getting rid of alt attack.  Currently, there is basically no defense against good players except RNG and CV will still get their drops in.     bad CVer vs good CVer in high tier match is guaranteed loss and bad experince for one team and reduced stat for winning team.   two good CVer is all about which can do more dmg and becomes bad experience for both team except CVer.     as is,  CV  is bad for rest of the players unless you have two bad CVer or no CV.      Only way to change that is to make them equal to other ship and have way to fight back.  current missile armed CV is just not fun for anyone but the CV player.  why I advocate   CV mode where you have 4v4 CV  with rest being AA.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,446
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,765 posts
6,944 battles
6 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

If GZ gets Any kind of buffs what so ever then those AP bombs need to be taken away from it because I have felt the impacts of those and lost high HP BBs thanks to 1 or 2 AP bombs hitting them and heard similar stories from other BB Captains. 

Its devastating enough I am considering going full AA build on some BBs to attempt to combat GZ planes because they are way too devastating with those AP bombs if a single bomber gets through to make a hit.

Full AA spec is not my first choice for many of the BBs I use I go fir Secondary build to help protect against DDs and other ships that get too close, so going AA only leaves minimal to moderate secondary power, but that's how bad of a threat GZ is if I am willing to consider GZ a greater threat than DDs...

Oh but it will be getting buffs, that is guaranteed, and zero nerfs.. as for the AP, they will either be even more devastating (easier to use) or be replaced with DWT (equally devastating). In fact you may see a GZ with 2 x AP squadrons and 3 x DWT but no fighters in a week's time :=)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
864
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
3,856 posts
4,224 battles
1 hour ago, Ceesa said:

3. Increase both the turnaround time of squadrons to rearm and refuel AND increase the airspeed of all squadrons significantly.  

 

The goal of these changes is to increase the number of strikes that a CV can unleash, but lower the alpha of each strike.

I think you mean decrease the turnaround time and increase the airspeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
864
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
3,856 posts
4,224 battles
1 minute ago, centarina said:

first is reduce to skill gap.   this mean getting rid of alt attack.  Currently, there is basically no defense against good players except RNG and CV will still get their drops in. 

No. Sorry, but no. As I've said to others, getting rid of alternate attacks transforms CVs into AS Bogue Point-and-Click. It removes all strategic depth, all skill requirement, and basically makes it so that the only defense against any CV player is RNG, something which you claim is a problem.

 

Frankly, I think they should get rid of automatic drops, and make everything manual-aim. That way, you would be forced to learn the manual drop and git gud rather than have all the skill requirement taken away.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,268
[RKLES]
Members
7,192 posts
8,931 battles
5 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Oh but it will be getting buffs, that is guaranteed, and zero nerfs.. as for the AP, they will either be even more devastating (easier to use) or be replaced with DWT (equally devastating). In fact you may see a GZ with 2 x AP squadrons and 3 x DWT but no fighters in a week's time :=)

Yeah I am definitely getting some full AA Spec Captains ready lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,446
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,765 posts
6,944 battles
5 minutes ago, Carrier_Lexington said:

No. Sorry, but no. As I've said to others, getting rid of alternate attacks transforms CVs into AS Bogue Point-and-Click. It removes all strategic depth, all skill requirement, and basically makes it so that the only defense against any CV player is RNG, something which you claim is a problem.

 

Frankly, I think they should get rid of automatic drops, and make everything manual-aim. That way, you would be forced to learn the manual drop and git gud rather than have all the skill requirement taken away.

If they removed auto drop, I'd want them to randomize torpedo drop patterns and give them a sigma/dispersion rule, because nothing should be entirely predictable. Skill should increase your chances of sucess, not guarantee them. But you may be right, I for one have become very lazy and rarely make the effort to manual alt drop torps or bombs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[JASH]
Members
385 posts
5,245 battles
5 minutes ago, Carrier_Lexington said:

No. Sorry, but no. As I've said to others, getting rid of alternate attacks transforms CVs into AS Bogue Point-and-Click. It removes all strategic depth, all skill requirement, and basically makes it so that the only defense against any CV player is RNG, something which you claim is a problem.

 

Frankly, I think they should get rid of automatic drops, and make everything manual-aim. That way, you would be forced to learn the manual drop and git gud rather than have all the skill requirement taken away.

 

Agreed, getting rid of the manual drop is ridiculous.

 

"Let's dumb down the game mechanic because people suck horribly at it."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,418
[HINON]
Supertester
7,523 posts
7,578 battles
1 minute ago, murf4321 said:

 

Agreed, getting rid of the manual drop is ridiculous.

 

"Let's dumb down the game mechanic because people suck horribly at it."

 

:Smile_great: This. Dumbing down the game is never the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,072 posts
4,045 battles
1 hour ago, Wulfgarn said:

Personally, I'd like to see some "testing" on planes that consume fuel, and auto return (or manually stop) when they're low. 

 

It would help in a lot of areas.

20 minutes of straight flying time is not even going to consume anywhere close to a full tank. The TBF Avenger can fly ~7 hours on a full tank.

Edited by Admiral_Franz_von_Hipper
Ipad derp keyboard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,268
[RKLES]
Members
7,192 posts
8,931 battles
6 minutes ago, renegadestatuz said:

:Smile_great: This. Dumbing down the game is never the answer.

I'd bet a port full of premium ships that Wargaming's idea is that "Dumbing down the game is never often the answer." Especially considering the skill gap between the weekday players and the Weekend, Holidays, and evening players...

Yeah you have a few players that like manual drops, but I know that there is likely a much larger group of players that like auto/ will not be able to learn manual and would rage about it for months if Wargaming removed auto drops from game lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,446
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,765 posts
6,944 battles
19 minutes ago, Admiral_Franz_von_Hipper said:

20 minutes of straight flying time is not even going to consume anywhere close to a full tank. The TBF Avenger can fly ~7 hours on a full tank.

Well a random game compresses real time to ensure battles that would have taken several days to conclude, takes 15 minutes. 7 hours in real life would equate to what, 3 minutes of in game time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
772
[OO7]
[OO7]
Members
1,610 posts
5,940 battles
3 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Well a random game compresses real time to ensure battles that would have taken several days to conclude, takes 15 minutes. 7 hours in real life would equate to what, 3 minutes of in game time?

 

IMG_4809.JPG.42e529cc555da32ff1621f01a0d0332f.JPG

 

48 minutes ago, Admiral_Thrawn_1 said:

If GZ gets Any kind of buffs what so ever then those AP bombs need to be taken away from it because I have felt the impacts of those and lost high HP BBs thanks to 1 or 2 AP bombs hitting them and heard similar stories from other BB Captains. 

Its devastating enough I am considering going full AA build on some BBs to attempt to combat GZ planes because they are way too devastating with those AP bombs if a single bomber gets through to make a hit.

Full AA spec is not my first choice for many of the BBs I use I go fir Secondary build to help protect against DDs and other ships that get too close, so going AA only leaves minimal to moderate secondary power, but that's how bad of a threat GZ is if I am willing to consider GZ a greater threat than DDs...

 

IMG_5796.thumb.PNG.f784f80cd70cd8e29100baf2410d1d74.PNG

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,072 posts
4,045 battles
21 minutes ago, nuttybiscuit said:

Well a random game compresses real time to ensure battles that would have taken several days to conclude, takes 15 minutes. 7 hours in real life would equate to what, 3 minutes of in game time?

If I rek ember correctly, the distances are cut down by a factor of 4, so even that would ensure a flight time of a little less than 2 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,262
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,796 posts
15,175 battles
38 minutes ago, Admiral_Franz_von_Hipper said:

20 minutes of straight flying time is not even going to consume anywhere close to a full tank. The TBF Avenger can fly ~7 hours on a full tank.

von Hipper the Hipper Skipper! haven't seen you in the Forums for a minute; how's it been goin?

What you have said here is absolutely correct, as far as it goes. Because aircraft, especially naval combat aircraft which flew off carriers, didn't always fly with full fuel loads. Pilots used whatever amount of fuel which was needed for the mission, plus a pre-determined safety factor, and this is what they got, leaving behind weight not needed which could be used to carry extra ordinance. So, yeah, while they could fly for 7 hours straight, that would only be if they had taken off with seven hours worth of fuel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,183
[NOVA]
Members
11,026 posts
2 hours ago, Ceesa said:

Two unintended consequences of faster planes would be more effective scouting and a higher skill floor and skill cap for CVs, as there would be a greater emphasis on reaction time and map awareness to play them well in an AS configuration.  

 

Well, there's a stupid idea right there, those are the 2 main problems with CVs.

 

Skill floor so high that it deters new players, skill cap so high that it's ridiculously OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,936 posts
13 minutes ago, Umikami said:

von Hipper the Hipper Skipper! haven't seen you in the Forums for a minute; how's it been goin?

What you have said here is absolutely correct, as far as it goes. Because aircraft, especially naval combat aircraft which flew off carriers, didn't always fly with full fuel loads. Pilots used whatever amount of fuel which was needed for the mission, plus a pre-determined safety factor, and this is what they got, leaving behind weight not needed which could be used to carry extra ordinance. So, yeah, while they could fly for 7 hours straight, that would only be if they had taken off with seven hours worth of fuel.

 

Citation?

 

I haven't read much if any of the actual minutae of ww2 era flight operations so I've  never come across this. 

 

On the flip side, I've never seen anything to indicate that, supplies withstanding, planes sortied with less than full tanks. 

 

Conceptually I can see how an F4U striking an island 10 miles away would sortie with less fuel if it indeed faciliated more ordinance. 

Edited by why_u_heff_to_be_mad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×