How much Damage should a CV do per battle? (Test Server)

[SJ_Sailer]

With all the talk about AA and CV damage, here is a question...

How much damage should a CV do to be considered balanced with other ships on average?

Consider the Tier / Consider everyone is new at CV and will get better over time / Consider everyone is playing their best AA builds?

Is 50K damage high for a T10 battle considering these conditions?  Ideally we want a CV to do the same damage as a competent DD  or CA/CL or BB would do.

Thoughts, opinions?

 

Bonus question...What class should be the main target for CVs and what class should be the CV's counter?

[Gavroche_]

Damage is a poor metric of ship performance.

Even if a CV did 200k in trash damage (fire, flooding) I would still say that it is balanced, but if it did ~40k damage to DDs I would say that it's insanely OP.

[BrushWolf]

It varies by tier. An insanely good match in a tier 4 CV isn't even close to average for a tier 10 but with the new system they should perform in a similar manner to the other ship types of their tier.

[1Sherman]

On average, you should be doing damage equivalent to your HP, i.e. if your ship starts out with 50k HP, you should be doing 50k damage per game.

[Slimeball91]

I think its depends on how you define balance.  If you think balance should be based on risk vs. reward, then CVs should average the lowest damage/rewards of all ship types. 

7 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

....but with the new system they should perform in a similar manner to the other ship types of their tier.

There is a really big spread in damage between the ship types.

Just now, 1Sherman said:

On average, you should be doing damage equivalent to your HP, i.e. if your ship starts out with 50k HP, you should be doing 50k damage per game.

That's one way.  Not unreasonable, although it seems a bit simplistic.

[1Sherman]

2 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

 

That's one way.  Not unreasonable, although it seems a bit simplistic.

It's a piece of advice brought over from Tanks and I've seen it quoted on these forums before as well.

[GoaJim]

14 minutes ago, 1Sherman said:

On average, you should be doing damage equivalent to your HP, i.e. if your ship starts out with 50k HP, you should be doing 50k damage per game.

I tend to agree with the concept. Mainly because I average 27-30k in my 15,500 hp Akatsuki.

[DrHolmes52]

Bout tree fiddy

[Crudath]

1 hour ago, SJ_Sailer said:

With all the talk about AA and CV damage, here is a question...

How much damage should a CV do to be considered balanced with other ships on average?

Consider the Tier / Consider everyone is new at CV and will get better over time / Consider everyone is playing their best AA builds?

Is 50K damage high for a T10 battle considering these conditions?  Ideally we want a CV to do the same damage as a competent DD  or CA/CL or BB would do.

Thoughts, opinions?

 

Bonus question...What class should be the main target for CVs and what class should be the CV's counter?

Risk vs Reward is a fundamental principle for balance.

The lowest risk ship, should offer the LOWEST REWARD. Reward doesn't just equate XP and credits, it also equates to lethality and performance.

Current Risk levels per ship type (1 being lowest)
1 - CV/BB
2 - N/A
3 - CA
4 - DD
Current Reward levels per ship type (1 being lowest)
1 - DD
2 - CA
3 - N/A
4 - CV/BB


So obviously the ONLY ship type that is close to balanced atm for Risk vs Reward, are CAs.  

[SJ_Sailer]

1 minute ago, KnyxUDL said:

Risk vs Reward is a fundamental principle for balance.

The lowest risk ship, should offer the LOWEST REWARD. Reward doesn't just equate XP and credits, it also equates to lethality and performance.

Current Risk levels per ship type (1 being lowest)
1 - CV
2 - BB
3 - CA
4 - DD
Current Reward levels per ship type (1 being lowest)
1 - DD
2 - CA
3 - BB
4 - CV


So obviously the ONLY ship type that is close to balanced atm for Risk vs Reward, are CAs.  

That is painfully accurate.

[Crudath]

Just now, SJ_Sailer said:

That is painfully accurate.

I actually had to correct it because the gap between CA and BBs is actually quite large in both risk and reward

[Slimeball91]

Just now, 1Sherman said:

It's a piece of advice brought over from Tanks and I've seen it quoted on these forums before as well.

Yeah, I see the logic behind it.  Its based on zero sum game theory.

[b101uk]

more than one group wants at one extreme, less than the other group wants at the other extreme.

 

Bonus question:

main target: lone ships.

CV's counter: groups of ships.

[SJ_Sailer]

1 minute ago, b101uk said:

main target: lone ships.

CV's counter: groups of ships.

Rather insightful.

[Palladia]

4 minutes ago, b101uk said:

more than one group wants at one extreme, less than the other group wants at the other extreme.

 

Bonus question:

main target: lone ships.

CV's counter: groups of ships.

Disagree.  Moderately.  I don't think CV's should be the ONLY ship type unable to assault a ship just because there are other ships around it.  But I don't think they should be able to do it with impunity,  either.  Its sort of there on test server right now,  so long as DFAA isn't up.  Which is fine,  DFAA does need to operate as a plane stopper.  Right now on the test server if you're extremely careful of flak bursts you can get off twoish drops on grouped ships,  but its going to cost you a chunk of planes to do it.  

 

 

17 minutes ago, KnyxUDL said:

Risk vs Reward is a fundamental principle for balance.

The lowest risk ship, should offer the LOWEST REWARD. Reward doesn't just equate XP and credits, it also equates to lethality and performance.

Current Risk levels per ship type (1 being lowest)
1 - CV/BB
2 - N/A
3 - CA
4 - DD
Current Reward levels per ship type (1 being lowest)
1 - DD
2 - CA
3 - N/A
4 - CV/BB


So obviously the ONLY ship type that is close to balanced atm for Risk vs Reward, are CAs.  

You don't actually play CV's,  I see.  CV's are literally awarded to least of any of the ship classes for doing the exact same things they do.  Yeah,  checked your profile.  You have literally no idea what you are talking about.

[MrDeaf]

31 minutes ago, 1Sherman said:

It's a piece of advice brought over from Tanks and I've seen it quoted on these forums before as well.

I think the WoT metric is useless, because WoT doesn't have tanks that can heal themselves

[SJ_Sailer]

6 minutes ago, Palladia said:

You don't actually play CV's,  I see.  CV's are literally awarded to least of any of the ship classes for doing the exact same things they do.  Yeah,  checked your profile.  You have literally no idea what you are talking about.

Not to brag but I got a 58% WR in Carriers...just don't pay attention to the part where they are only 24 in total at tier 4. 

But he does have a point of CV's taking no risk and getting unusually high rewards.  That is why my DD% is so low and CV% so high.

[mofton]

The game should/does reward the following major activities -

1. Damage, or more accurately percentage of HP depleted, not all HP being equal
2. Plane kills
3. Capping
4. Scouting
5. Tanking

Generally, ships which are good at doing damage are not as good at capping or scouting and vice versa.

At the moment battleships are overall the best at dealing damage, though cruisers are not always far behind, frequently the best at tanking but are very poor at capping, cruisers being better and destroyers far better, and pretty poor at scouting.

Carriers should be among the worst ships at capping and tanking due to playstyle. It seems like they do still get a lot of plane kills, they can scout quite significantly though how much so remains to be seen. That leaves damage.

Given a CV is focused on dealing damage, should still spot more than a battleship and that neither cap frequently, while carriers will tank less (tanking is one of the lowest value rewards) I think somewhere below battleship percentage damage would be reasonable. That could go significantly lower if it turns out they wreck destroyers, 20k on a Gearing is worth 90k on a Yamato after all.

 

TL/DR - in damage numbers I think 'sub BB' would be fair, depending on how good they are at targeting various classes of ships.

[Flashtirade]

100k average if the CV is an ally, 5k or less for a hostile CV

[Crudath]

44 minutes ago, Palladia said:

Disagree.  Moderately.  I don't think CV's should be the ONLY ship type unable to assault a ship just because there are other ships around it.  But I don't think they should be able to do it with impunity,  either.  Its sort of there on test server right now,  so long as DFAA isn't up.  Which is fine,  DFAA does need to operate as a plane stopper.  Right now on the test server if you're extremely careful of flak bursts you can get off twoish drops on grouped ships,  but its going to cost you a chunk of planes to do it.  

 

 

You don't actually play CV's,  I see.  CV's are literally awarded to least of any of the ship classes for doing the exact same things they do.  Yeah,  checked your profile.  You have literally no idea what you are talking about.

I see what you did there. You don't have a coherent argument so you went and looked up my stats. You seem to be under the benighted opinion that subjective experience outweighs objective fact.

CVs are the lowest risk ship in the game, followed by BB. The rework lessens this risk even further with unlimited planes, no major fighter element, and automated consumables.

They are rewarded the most as well. Highest overall damage and kills per match at top tier, and even a great survival rate.


When a CV loses a plane even with limited planes, it respawns. The CV is not hurt nor is it required to return to port. A DD that is killed does not get to respawn. A DD is the most range limited ship in the game. Low risk VS High Risk.  In a game without the archetype (ship) itself being unable to respawn, the reward must be reliable.

The reward CVs currently get, needs to be made very low to match their risk, and the opposite needs to happen to DDs.

[Flashtirade]

4 minutes ago, KnyxUDL said:

The reward CVs currently get, needs to be made very low to match their risk, and the opposite needs to happen to DDs.

CVs already have reduced rewards, in terms of credits and XP. I don't know whether or not that will change with the rework, but I'm guessing it won't.

[Crudath]

1 minute ago, Flashtirade said:

CVs already have reduced rewards, in terms of credits and XP. I don't know whether or not that will change with the rework, but I'm guessing it won't.

for Risk vs Reward, it is not limited to "credits and XP".  Lethality and performance are a huge part of that.

[Fishrokk]

1 hour ago, KnyxUDL said:

Risk vs Reward is a fundamental principle for balance.

The lowest risk ship, should offer the LOWEST REWARD. Reward doesn't just equate XP and credits, it also equates to lethality and performance.

Current Risk levels per ship type (1 being lowest)
1 - CV/BB
2 - N/A
3 - CA
4 - DD
Current Reward levels per ship type (1 being lowest)
1 - DD
2 - CA
3 - N/A
4 - CV/BB


So obviously the ONLY ship type that is close to balanced atm for Risk vs Reward, are CAs.  

I'm not so sure cruisers don't actually have a greater risk than DD's.  On the whole, a DD in a tight spot almost always has a smoke screen available to break line of sight and beat a hasty retreat - an option which is not available to most cruisers in the game.  Cruisers also have citadels and are less prone to large-caliber AP overpenetration.

Not a point I'm going to argue with any vigor, just food for thought.

[xalmgrey]

CV's have more than one role so basing a CV's performance on a single metric just doesn't work. Spotting/Damage isn't paid out as fair either. Spotting is so essential and yet so under rewarded.

[Crudath]

7 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

I'm not so sure cruisers don't actually have a greater risk than DD's.  On the whole, a DD in a tight spot almost always has a smoke screen available to break line of sight and beat a hasty retreat - an option which is not available to most cruisers in the game.  Cruisers also have citadels and are less prone to large-caliber AP overpenetration.

Not a point I'm going to argue with any vigor, just food for thought.

Multiple Cruisers have the ability to fire over islands and still have long range

DDs depend more on concealment, Radar hard counters that.

Smoke is easy to shoot into and hit the unspotted target

Cruiser citadels aren't hit often if they don't broadside, and Cruisers still offer far more protection in the form of HP and armor. Most DDs have worthless armor.

Do Cruisers risk more than they should?  Certainly. Should Cruisers be able to fire over islands or radar through islands? No.

BBs being overpowered is exactly what has and still does increase the risk for CAs beyond acceptable levels when they are in open water.

A big balance issue internally for Cruisers is how Zao is given a free pass just like BBs as a whole in requiring acceptable tradeoffs to balance strengths. The minotaur, for instance is balanced. It adheres to the standards that ALL DDs and most cruisers adhere to. It becomes very squishy and has shorter range guns for a few km more concealment. Zao gets great concealment as well, but is not squishy, has much better armor, range , velocity, and burst damage. On top of that, Zaos current form is already game breaking because it has torps that are better then that of 50% of DDs in the same tier.