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

Does Potential Damage Count In Score?

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,240
[SQUAD]
Members
2,136 posts
12,290 battles

Just wondering if potential damage is counted when calculating score, and if so,  what weight is it given?

 

tans!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,554
[ARGSY]
Members
18,363 posts
12,799 battles

It does, but the weighting is unknown - it is one of those formulae that we would all like to know but which WG probably isn't all that keen to reveal. 

The best thing they did in one of the updates this year was to make the number visible to all, a great help when trying to achieve tasks or missions that require a certain amount. Likewise spotting damage.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
95 posts
133 battles
13 minutes ago, Elo_J_Fudpucker said:

Just wondering if potential damage is counted when calculating score, and if so,  what weight is it given?

It "is" rewarded with XP and credits. Just that the "reward" is poor and hardly worth putting your ship in danger, unless it is required as part of a task.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
707 posts
4,742 battles

What is the community opinion on rewarding BB's more heavily for potential damage? Would it encourage them to get more involved and tank more damage? I've had games where I took fire from 5-6 ships for several minutes which resulting in my sinking, but enabled the rest of my team to cap and sweep the red team. It would be nice to be rewarded for that kind of thing.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,240
[SQUAD]
Members
2,136 posts
12,290 battles
7 minutes ago, Jiggiwatt said:

What is the community opinion on rewarding BB's more heavily for potential damage? Would it encourage them to get more involved and tank more damage? I've had games where I took fire from 5-6 ships for several minutes which resulting in my sinking, but enabled the rest of my team to cap and sweep the red team. It would be nice to be rewarded for that kind of thing.

Does this not count when a DD or CL is able to draw 1.6mil in PD, just becasue the shots are on DDs or CLs should not make them less valuable, yes??

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
707 posts
4,742 battles
6 minutes ago, Elo_J_Fudpucker said:

Does this not count when a DD or CL is able to draw 1.6mil in PD, just becasue the shots are on DDs or CLs should not make them less valuable, yes??

No, but the idea here is to encourage BB's to draw fire away from squishier DD's and CL/CA's. Try to break up the camping meta at higher tiers.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Community Department
3,294 posts
1,296 battles
6 hours ago, Elo_J_Fudpucker said:

Just wondering if potential damage is counted when calculating score, and if so,  what weight is it given?

 

tans!

Potential damage is taken into account when calculating the total amount of credits and experience per battle.
Players in any case receive credits and experience for the damage made to enemy ships, the destruction of ships or aircrafts, taking caps or their protection.

But profitability for performing other tasks depends on their priority for each class of the ship - below the tasks are listed in order of importance:

Aircraft Carriers - damage dealt by allies using your ship's line of sight, detection;
Battleships - potential damage;
Cruisers - potential damage, damage dealt by allies using your ship's line of sight, detection.
Destroyers - damage dealt by allies using your ship's line of sight, detection, potential damage.

We don't plan to open certain numbers not to turn postbattle statistics into a number of pages with calculations. 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,040 posts
7,052 battles
38 minutes ago, Jiggiwatt said:

What is the community opinion on rewarding BB's more heavily for potential damage? Would it encourage them to get more involved and tank more damage? I've had games where I took fire from 5-6 ships for several minutes which resulting in my sinking, but enabled the rest of my team to cap and sweep the red team. It would be nice to be rewarded for that kind of thing.

Honestly, I think it should be weighted in the other direction. If a cruiser or DD gets a really high potential damage number, then they should be better rewarded for achieving that. Those ships are not meant to take hits or sustained fire, battleships by game design are.

From a design standpoint, it doesn't quite make sense to reward a class well for something they were designed to do. Usually, tasks that were not meant to be preformed by a certain class are well rewarded for accomplishing a feat that is, by design, difficult for them to achieve.

 

If not that, then it should be an even weighting because the higher rewards don't encourage battleships to get in closer and trade HP. It just better rewards one group for less effort while the other groups have to work at least twice as hard to achieve the same gain.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,100 posts
9,864 battles
1 hour ago, 13Assassins said:

It "is" rewarded with XP and credits. Just that the "reward" is poor and hardly worth putting your ship in danger, unless it is required as part of a task.

Unless the reward is the 50% win bonus because the enemy is busy bouncing shots off of you instead of killing your teammates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,240
[SQUAD]
Members
2,136 posts
12,290 battles
59 minutes ago, GhostSwordsman said:

Honestly, I think it should be weighted in the other direction. If a cruiser or DD gets a really high potential damage number, then they should be better rewarded for achieving that. Those ships are not meant to take hits or sustained fire, battleships by game design are.


I agree with this... here is why... I attracted 1.8mil in a battle the other day. In order to attract that attention, I had to be close in to the shooters, otherwise I'd just disappear. I was making repeated stabs into their ranks with my dd, would get spotted and run away. I managed to attract all that attention *and* survive by using the WASD hacks on an elite level.  1.8m is a crap-ton of potential damage, and shots that for the most part missed.   Is this not more valuable than a BB taking the same as these shots at me were not at the big guns, so they must have been able to concentrate on other targets... yes?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,010 posts
10,189 battles
2 hours ago, Jiggiwatt said:

What is the community opinion on rewarding BB's more heavily for potential damage? Would it encourage them to get more involved and tank more damage? I've had games where I took fire from 5-6 ships for several minutes which resulting in my sinking, but enabled the rest of my team to cap and sweep the red team. It would be nice to be rewarded for that kind of thing.

I did something similar to this the other day in my Montana on the map Tears.

Quite literally, and this was in ranked, a Yamato, two Montana's and a G.K.. I was the proverbial "tip of the spear".

For whatever reason the two Montana's decided to hang in the back and try to take pop shots at me while I was mainly bow tanking. The G.K. and I were mainly in a secondary fight and at the time, iirc, the Yamato was bow on, so I had HE loaded and would alternate. 

However, the Yamato tried to pinch my flank, so I switched to AP while maintaining my proximity to the G.K. and angling a bit more towards the Yamato, but not exposing my broadside to the G.K..

After the Yamato died, I think the G.K. went down, I died and one of their Montana's died within seconds of my death, leaving them with one battleship to our three.

All in all, I had a damage output of 183k and a potential of 3.2 or 3.4 million.

 

Personally, the fact that we won and I had fun brawling like that was enough of a reward for me. Sorry, I just don't think I need a shiny medal strapped to my ship every time it performs "x, y, z" job it's suited for. 

Just my humble opinion though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,240
[SQUAD]
Members
2,136 posts
12,290 battles
5 minutes ago, BURN_Miner said:

Personally, the fact that we won and I had fun brawling like that was enough of a reward for me. Sorry, I just don't think I need a shiny medal strapped to my ship every time it performs "x, y, z" job it's suited for. 

This is not about medals, but fair reward in XP and Silver for the contribution to the battle.

The question is... is potential damage fairly rewarded. I have this same concern for smoke use for other team mates, as well as the issue of magic radar that sees through islands.... these are fairness issues for me, it isn't about chest beating medals.. .thnx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,010 posts
10,189 battles
Just now, Elo_J_Fudpucker said:

This is not about medals, but fair reward in XP and Silver for the contribution to the battle.

The question is... is potential damage fairly rewarded. I have this same concern for smoke use for other team mates, as well as the issue of magic radar that sees through islands.... these are fairness issues for me, it isn't about chest beating medals.. .thnx

And it is, read the reds reply... 

Battleships are the most rewarded ship type when it comes to potential damage in the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,240
[SQUAD]
Members
2,136 posts
12,290 battles
2 minutes ago, BURN_Miner said:

And it is, read the reds reply... 

Battleships are the most rewarded ship type when it comes to potential damage in the game.

I would counter that rating system with the point that Potential Damage is as or more import for a DD and any other aspect of what they do. It is far more difficult for a smaller ship to obtain those huge numbers than it is a target the size of a city block that can be seen for 10's of kms.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,010 posts
10,189 battles
13 minutes ago, Elo_J_Fudpucker said:

I would counter that rating system with the point that Potential Damage is as or more import for a DD and any other aspect of what they do. It is far more difficult for a smaller ship to obtain those huge numbers than it is a target the size of a city block that can be seen for 10's of kms.

 

Think of the context of the ship.

Which ship is supposed to take damage?

A) A Battleship

B) A Destroyer

Answer is obvious, it's "A" the Battleship. However, before the reverse logic of how hard it is for another ship to achieve or maintain the potential damage is, let's ask this.

How often would a Battleship be able to cap a point before a Destroyer?

Or how about this.

Which ship is most likely to have more spotting points in any given match:

A) A Battleship

B) Destroyer

Those two are again obvious in that the Destroyer comes out ahead.

 

With that in mind, which is now easier to obtain?

A) Getting more Potential Damage than a Battleship in a Destroyer

B) Out capping and/or out Spotting a Destroyer in a Battleship

 

This is probably why each ship type is properly rewarded for doing what the ship is built to do rather than going against it's grain. Trying to predict an xp system based on what a ship wasn't built to do would be tremendously difficult to balance with regards to new players to unicums.

 

Edit: To clarify the bold. I'm not saying either one is easier than the other, merely stating each are difficult to achieve and out of the norm.

 

Edited by BURN_Miner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
707 posts
4,742 battles
1 hour ago, BURN_Miner said:

I did something similar to this the other day in my Montana on the map Tears.

Quite literally, and this was in ranked, a Yamato, two Montana's and a G.K.. I was the proverbial "tip of the spear".

For whatever reason the two Montana's decided to hang in the back and try to take pop shots at me while I was mainly bow tanking. The G.K. and I were mainly in a secondary fight and at the time, iirc, the Yamato was bow on, so I had HE loaded and would alternate. 

However, the Yamato tried to pinch my flank, so I switched to AP while maintaining my proximity to the G.K. and angling a bit more towards the Yamato, but not exposing my broadside to the G.K..

After the Yamato died, I think the G.K. went down, I died and one of their Montana's died within seconds of my death, leaving them with one battleship to our three.

All in all, I had a damage output of 183k and a potential of 3.2 or 3.4 million.

 

Personally, the fact that we won and I had fun brawling like that was enough of a reward for me. Sorry, I just don't think I need a shiny medal strapped to my ship every time it performs "x, y, z" job it's suited for. 

Just my humble opinion though.

 

2 hours ago, GhostSwordsman said:

Honestly, I think it should be weighted in the other direction. If a cruiser or DD gets a really high potential damage number, then they should be better rewarded for achieving that. Those ships are not meant to take hits or sustained fire, battleships by game design are.

From a design standpoint, it doesn't quite make sense to reward a class well for something they were designed to do. Usually, tasks that were not meant to be preformed by a certain class are well rewarded for accomplishing a feat that is, by design, difficult for them to achieve.

 

If not that, then it should be an even weighting because the higher rewards don't encourage battleships to get in closer and trade HP. It just better rewards one group for less effort while the other groups have to work at least twice as hard to achieve the same gain.

 

My angle here isn't that I'm trying to reward BB players for just happening to do their job, but instead offer incentives for them to do their job in the first place. Very similar, but there's an important difference. Sure, it's equally useful for a cruiser or DD to receive a lot of attention and dodge incoming fire, but they're not the ones hanging back in relative safety while their team gets obliterated by an enemy team that actually positioned themselves properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,010 posts
10,189 battles
1 hour ago, Jiggiwatt said:

 

 

My angle here isn't that I'm trying to reward BB players for just happening to do their job, but instead offer incentives for them to do their job in the first place. Very similar, but there's an important difference. Sure, it's equally useful for a cruiser or DD to receive a lot of attention and dodge incoming fire, but they're not the ones hanging back in relative safety while their team gets obliterated by an enemy team that actually positioned themselves properly.

Wouldn't the incentive be, more xp, more credits, etc.?

See, the guy above wasn't arguing for more medals, etc., but you and others are. There seems to be a split on this debate as to what should be rewarded and why. All the while, "if" players played the ship types as they were intended to a better extent, they would see those rewards in a better light.

EDIT: For instance, it's like (and I will use myself as an example):

1) If I have a derp game in a Montana, IE: 50k damage, 1 million or less potential for "whatever" reason. I see a breakeven or even a loss in credits, even with a premium account.

However

2) If I have a normal, my average or better game, I will see a profit in both credits and experience despite my "average damage" being below server average by 4k. Why? Because I am near the front of the pack and taking damage, having higher potential.

 

Is this not enough incentive to play to a ships strengths? After all, people used to routinely complain about Tier 8+ economy and to an extent, still do. Play to a ships strengths, forgo the "I want to play it this way all the time" (sniping in a G.K.) or (tanking in a Gearing) and you will see a profit. Why the need for "more", well I still have yet to see what I would consider a valid reason. I don't want to sound harsh, but it sounds like someone asking for a a raise for just pushing a single button within the first year of employment, in other words, they showed up and pushed a button, therefore they should get more.

Edited by BURN_Miner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
707 posts
4,742 battles
17 minutes ago, BURN_Miner said:

Wouldn't the incentive be, more xp, more credits, etc.?

See, the guy above wasn't arguing for more medals, etc., but you and others are. There seems to be a split on this debate as to what should be rewarded and why. All the while, "if" players played the ship types as they were intended to a better extent, they would see those rewards in a better light.

EDIT: For instance, it's like (and I will use myself as an example):

1) If I have a derp game in a Montana, IE: 50k damage, 1 million or less potential for "whatever" reason. I see a breakeven or even a loss in credits, even with a premium account.

However

2) If I have a normal, my average or better game, I will see a profit in both credits and experience despite my "average damage" being below server average by 4k. Why? Because I am near the front of the pack and taking damage, having higher potential.

 

Is this not enough incentive to play to a ships strengths? After all, people used to routinely complain about Tier 8+ economy and to an extent, still do. Play to a ships strengths, forgo the "I want to play it this way all the time" (sniping in a G.K.) or (tanking in a Gearing) and you will see a profit. Why the need for "more", well I still have yet to see what I would consider a valid reason. I don't want to sound harsh, but it sounds like someone asking for a a raise for just pushing a single button within the first year of employment, in other words, they showed up and pushed a button, therefore they should get more.

I'm more arguing for an increase in the amount of credits or XP for potential damage, although now that you mention it perhaps it makes more sense to include an award with flags. Something along the lines of Dreadnought, but based on potential damage not actual damage.

I don't get to play much these days and when I do, it's mostly lower tier. So maybe the camping meta at high tiers isn't as big of an issue anymore, or this idea is just flat out terrible and won't have any kind of impact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,010 posts
10,189 battles
41 minutes ago, Jiggiwatt said:

I'm more arguing for an increase in the amount of credits or XP for potential damage, although now that you mention it perhaps it makes more sense to include an award with flags. Something along the lines of Dreadnought, but based on potential damage not actual damage.

I don't get to play much these days and when I do, it's mostly lower tier. So maybe the camping meta at high tiers isn't as big of an issue anymore, or this idea is just flat out terrible and won't have any kind of impact. 

I can see both points to be honest. Some people will say that the camping issue is a Battleship only issue, whereas I look at it as a player issue due to the fact that I've seen every ship type perform way outside of their "norms". For instance the sniping G.K., torp boat Benson that refuses to even contest a cap because "RL" or Radio Location to them, doubles as "radar". Or cruisers that, well I think just hit "W" at the beginning of the match and go straight into the cap to die, no movement with "A" or "D", just straight forward and then when all of the above die, they all rage about "no support".

Which, in my humble opinion, is what I think that is all about. The aftermath of their deaths just so they can be upset at anyone and everyone. Because the camping issue, despite popular believe isn't a Battleship issue and logic states this. All anyone has to do is look up the person who is camping and they will see a plethora of other ship types with the same type of play style and their stats will back up my statement. They don't suddenly change just because of the Battleship they que'd.

I just look at it as, it is what it is and if people don't want to hemorrhage credits in the higher tiers, they will adhere to their ship type. Because even without a premium account, you can still profit at Tier 10 and the painful days of the economy being based off of displacement (this is why the repair bills were extremely high 2 years ago) are long gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
648
[WOLF5]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
2,845 posts
42,438 battles
5 hours ago, GhostSwordsman said:

Honestly, I think it should be weighted in the other direction. If a cruiser or DD gets a really high potential damage number, then they should be better rewarded for achieving that. Those ships are not meant to take hits or sustained fire, battleships by game design are.

From a design standpoint, it doesn't quite make sense to reward a class well for something they were designed to do. Usually, tasks that were not meant to be preformed by a certain class are well rewarded for accomplishing a feat that is, by design, difficult for them to achieve.

 

If not that, then it should be an even weighting because the higher rewards don't encourage battleships to get in closer and trade HP. It just better rewards one group for less effort while the other groups have to work at least twice as hard to achieve the same gain.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot.

So you believe that DDs should get little XP for spotting and capping, while BBs should get alot of XP for spotting and capping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,040 posts
7,052 battles
1 hour ago, Patton5150 said:

So you believe that DDs should get little XP for spotting and capping, while BBs should get alot of XP for spotting and capping?

Considering that they already get :etc_swear: all for spotting, what would the difference be?

 

Edit: @Patton5150

But in general, yes, BBs should be rewarded more for successfully capping a base. It's naturally harder for them to do so because of their large concealment ratings and because they're not very maneuverable and easy to hit, so easy resets.

Of course, this shouldn't imply, and doesn't meant that if one class/group gets a positive multiplier that the others get a negative one. For example, DDs could get a x1 multiplier for capping, CLs would get a x1.2, CAs x1.4, BBs x1.5, CVs x2. Conversely, BBs would have a x1 potential damage multiplier, CAs and CLs x1.3, and DDs x1.5. (I'd consider it harder to cap in a heavy cruiser vs light, but when it comes to 'tanking' damage a cruiser is a cruiser) Don't know if CVs should have a potential damage multiplier. But you can see the trend that I'm suggesting.

Edited by GhostSwordsman
added some constructiveness to the response

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×