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

My Take on the way to fix CVs, and I'd like ideas on how to make it a reality.

18 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

603
[CVRME]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,458 posts
5,606 battles

   Before I start, yes, I am aware there are a billion threads on this already.  However, its mostly just just discussion on how weak or powerful something is.  The goal of this thread is to (hopefully) inspire discussion on the proposed idea I have to balance the most likely forever on-going discussion of CV versus surface ships.

And as always, this is merely my opinion.  I do not believe this the hard truth of things necessarily.

 

The problem:

   Let me start by saying that WG, I believe you will never achieve "balance" in the eyes of both the CV captain nor the captains that must face off against their attack planes.  The fundamental issue is that you are trying to balance a heavily RNG-based system (AA of surface ships) versus the skill of a human-controlled attack (CV players).  As its no secret, players come from all skill levels.  How does one balance the fight between an automated system where it has a set degree of effectiveness that will vary solely based on RNG, versus the skill of a human being?  The answer is: You cannot.  Another "no duh" in this moment should also be "What is very hard for some, is easy for others".  I speak to the idea of a hypothetical situation here:  The idea that WG will eventually find an AA setup that will reasonably fight off the average CV player/the majority of them.  However, the skill difference will always make it so that in this "ideal" situation, the top players will always horribly dominate by comparison when the difficulty is set that high.

So in short... The problem is that counterplay will forever be too powerful, or too weak.  There cannot truly be a system where it has a SET effectiveness that can properly fairly fight off an average player, but also fairly fight off a highly-skilled player.  The inverse is also very much so true here.  If you have it fairly fight off a very skilled player, it also means the difficulty will also likely decimate the average joe.

 

Now, what is the solution you ask?  The idea is simple, and one that I've stated a few times but ultimately what made me decide to try and provide this idea/feedback is due to others in threads lately have echoed the same idea.  This idea is to merely have a Player-controlled AA system.

In my eyes, this is the only surefire way to make both sides (eventually) happy.  However, I am aware warships is especially dependent on the situation for how feasible this is.  WG obviously wants the skill floor to remain somewhat low, to attract as many customers as possible and this could be alot for someone to handle their AA on top of everything else.  However, I feel this is how you truly will fix this eternal tug-of-war in balance.

I forget who said it on the forum, but they said it best.  Paraphrasing this notion, it went something like "In a PVP game, the deciding factor should be the skill being used versus each player".  I believe that in the current system, almost all of the AA system completely rips out the surface ship player skill, and this is the problem.  Not only does the surface player will feel its unfair since they don't have any real control over their own defense, but the CV player will ALSO feel its unfair if its just set too crazily high.  The variable absolutely NEEDS to be the player, not a number on a spreadsheet.  Ultimately, if a CV just blasts a player out of the water due to their skill and the surface player's inability to fire their AA off enough, you won't see anywhere near the degree of complaints.  That's just how a PVP game works, right?  Of course there will be some who will whine, you see it all the time regarding DDs.  But if skill can eventually be cultivated to thwart off the CV completely as well, then in my eyes this is where you can say the point of balance has been achieved.  I would define balance as "An engagement between two ships that is decided on the skill of both or lack thereof, all other factors remaining equal".  (The equal part referring to Tier of the two ships, quality of AA on the surface ship, etc)

I am no game designer, nor will I pretend to have the answer on designing a player-controlled AA system(s) in place needed to achieve this.  However, I believe this criteria needs to be ideally met.

-  AA could be auto with some limited effectiveness, but the true power of AA should be drawn out with player input.  AA will be default on auto until a player assumes control.

-  AA mount types need to have various strengths and weaknesses in application for how strong the types are.  For example, short/medium/long range can have variable fire rates, damage and range (of course), area-of-effect amounts (or none at all), and even ammo amounts for reload.  I know some ships had their ammo belts fed from the interior of the ship, while others where magazine-fed.  This could also be a factor in creating flavor, balance, and Pros/cons.

-  If easy enough to implement, the combination of altitude, range, and type of AA hitting the aircraft should also play a factor in AA effectiveness.  (Perhaps type of aircraft as well should factor in.)

-  And last but not least and what I believe the most important part:  The AA system must not be so over-bearing in its need to be used that it overwhelms the player.  This is in my eyes the largest obstacle to creating a player-controlled AA system, and the complexity, involvement, and implementation would have to be carefully evaluated, tested, and balanced in the variable metrics of AA.

 

So what do you, the player think?  How can a player-controlled AA system be brought to reality feasibly?

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
610
[LUCK]
Members
1,616 posts
21,615 battles
5 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

   Before I start, yes, I am aware there are a billion threads on this already.  However, its mostly just just discussion on how weak or powerful something is.  The goal of this thread is to (hopefully) inspire discussion on the proposed idea I have to balance the most likely forever on-going discussion of CV versus surface ships.

And as always, this is merely my opinion.  I do not believe this the hard truth of things necessarily.

 

The problem:

   Let me start by saying that WG, I believe you will never achieve "balance" in the eyes of both the CV captain nor the captains that must face off against their attack planes.  The fundamental issue is that you are trying to balance a heavily RNG-based system (AA of surface ships) versus the skill of a human-controlled attack (CV players).  As its no secret, players come from all skill levels.  How does one balance the fight between an automated system where it has a set degree of effectiveness that will vary solely based on RNG, versus the skill of a human being?  The answer is: You cannot.  Another "no duh" in this moment should also be "What is very hard for some, is easy for others".  I speak to the idea of a hypothetical situation here:  The idea that WG will eventually find an AA setup that will reasonably fight off the average CV player/the majority of them.  However, the skill difference will always make it so that in this "ideal" situation, the top players will always horribly dominate by comparison when the difficulty is set that high.

So in short... The problem is that counterplay will forever be too powerful, or too weak.  There cannot truly be a system where it has a SET effectiveness that can properly fairly fight off an average player, but also fairly fight off a highly-skilled player.  The inverse is also very much so true here.  If you have it fairly fight off a very skilled player, it also means the difficulty will also likely decimate the average joe.

 

Now, what is the solution you ask?  The idea is simple, and one that I've stated a few times but ultimately what made me decide to try and provide this idea/feedback is due to others in threads lately have echoed the same idea.  This idea is to merely have a Player-controlled AA system.

In my eyes, this is the only surefire way to make both sides (eventually) happy.  However, I am aware warships is especially dependent on the situation for how feasible this is.  WG obviously wants the skill floor to remain somewhat low, to attract as many customers as possible and this could be alot for someone to handle their AA on top of everything else.  However, I feel this is how you truly will fix this eternal tug-of-war in balance.

I forget who said it on the forum, but they said it best.  Paraphrasing this notion, it went something like "In a PVP game, the deciding factor should be the skill being used versus each player".  I believe that in the current system, almost all of the AA system completely rips out the surface ship player skill, and this is the problem.  Not only does the surface player will feel its unfair since they don't have any real control over their own defense, but the CV player will ALSO feel its unfair if its just set too crazily high.  The variable absolutely NEEDS to be the player, not a number on a spreadsheet.  Ultimately, if a CV just blasts a player out of the water due to their skill and the surface player's inability to fire their AA off enough, you won't see anywhere near the degree of complaints.  That's just how a PVP game works, right?  Of course there will be some who will whine, you see it all the time regarding DDs.  But if skill can eventually be cultivated to thwart off the CV completely as well, then in my eyes this is where you can say the point of balance has been achieved.  I would define balance as "An engagement between two ships that is decided on the skill of both or lack thereof, all other factors remaining equal".  (The equal part referring to Tier of the two ships, quality of AA on the surface ship, etc)

I am no game designer, nor will I pretend to have the answer on designing a player-controlled AA system(s) in place needed to achieve this.  However, I believe this criteria needs to be ideally met.

-  AA could be auto with some limited effectiveness, but the true power of AA should be drawn out with player input.

-  AA mount types need to have various strengths and weaknesses in application for how strong the types are.  For example, short/medium/long range can have variable fire rates, damage and range (of course), area-of-effect amounts (or none at all), ranges, or even ammo amounts for reload.  I know some ships had their ammo belts fed from the interior of the ship, while others where magazine-fed.  This could also be a factor in creating flavor, balance, and Pros/cons.

-  If easy enough to implement, the combination of altitude, range, and type of AA hitting the aircraft should also play a factor in AA effectiveness.  (Perhaps type of aircraft as well should factor in.)

-  And last but not least and what I believe the most important part:  The AA system must not be so over-bearing in its need to be used that it overwhelms the player.  This is in my eyes the largest obstacle to creating a player-controlled AA system, and the complexity, involvement, and implementation would have to be carefully evaluated, tested, and balanced in the variable metrics of AA.

 

So what do you, the player think?  

 

 

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/182333-hotfix-0801-what-did-it-accomplish-and-what-did-it-cause/

@Pulicat from earlier today

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[CVRME]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,458 posts
5,606 battles
1 minute ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

Yeah, I just clicked on it now and shares the same notion.  I suppose just one more person that has come to the same conclusion.  Either way, I'd like this thread to talk about the way(s) it could be implemented, the challenges involved, and the practicality of such an idea in world of warships.  That thread mentions this, but is more about feedback on the latest hotfix.  I believe this is worth focusing on solely because it just *might* get WG to consider the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
439
[TDRB]
Members
1,799 posts
6,089 battles
Quote

Now, what is the solution you ask?  The idea is simple, and one that I've stated a few times but ultimately what made me decide to try and provide this idea/feedback is due to others in threads lately have echoed the same idea.  This idea is to merely have a Player-controlled AA system.

Players have enough problems fighting surface ships. Player controlled AA would force a player to choose to defend against air or surface attacks. Against surface attacks you can hide or run but this is impossible against planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
610
[LUCK]
Members
1,616 posts
21,615 battles
3 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

Yeah, I just clicked on it now and shares the same notion.  I suppose just one more person that has come to the same conclusion.  Either way, I'd like this thread to talk about the way(s) it could be implemented, the challenges involved, and the practicality of such an idea in world of warships.  That thread mentions this, but is more about feedback on the latest hotfix.  I believe this is worth focusing on solely because it just *might* get WG to consider the idea.

A few threads posts down on the first page he has an decent solution as well.

Edited by Wye_So_Serious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[CVRME]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,458 posts
5,606 battles
1 minute ago, kgh52 said:

Players have enough problems fighting surface ships. Player controlled AA would force a player to choose to defend against air or surface attacks. Against surface attacks you can hide or run but this is impossible against planes.

I understand that, which is why I mentioned this could become overbearing.  In my eyes however, I don't think there's a better way.  Let me be clear:  I am not a fan of CVs, and alot of the god-complex players it has bred over the years for the game.  I however, want to see the game succeed and be fun for as many as possible.  I'm sure there are other solutions, but I haven't thought of or seen anything better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[-BUI-]
Members
560 posts
2,537 battles
2 minutes ago, kgh52 said:

Players have enough problems fighting surface ships. Player controlled AA would force a player to choose to defend against air or surface attacks. Against surface attacks you can hide or run but this is impossible against planes.

Its my understanding, from both sides of the battle that when you're under aircraft attack you don't really have time to be shooting, unless you ignore the planes entirely.  

OP is 100% correct however that this will never be balanced, it'll always fall under too hard or too easy, too powerful or too weak, there is no middle ground that will be fully acceptable because of the RNG factor involved.   If I play 100% perfect and still lose all my planes because I rolled 0's, that feels terrible to the player, regardless if its the surface ship or the CV.   

I would add a new weapon type that functions like the normal guns but uses some or all of your AA guns, there is a spot in the sky you can aim at to shoot them down faster, this could be on the "4" key.    It would be similar to switching from guns to torps in how it would move and look visually.    You don't even need to make them aim "up" put the circle at "ship level" or something if you wanna make it easier if you want.  SOMETHING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200
[SFOR]
Members
932 posts
6,592 battles

I mention something similar yesterday.

overall the idea is to give the close AA constant dps to AI, and the control of flak to the player. So now instead of having a RNG mechanic which is not fair to both players a new level of skill will implemented in game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,891
[KNMSU]
Members
4,659 posts
5,097 battles

I have trouble remembering to toggle sector defense - I am concerned that an additional layer of involvement will just be too much.

It would be a lot different if WoWs wasn't a torpedo soup, with claustrophobic maps, and a-historic angling. If we were actually forming line ahead and fighting like real ships, swapping to AA would be awesome. But the game is just so focused on constant, fidgety movement and speed alterations - where is the time to toggle to an AA suite? Especially with aircraft zipping around like TIE fighters?

I think the answer is ultimately to tone down carrier impacts - vision radius, flood chances, etc. If we're going to be constantly swarmed with planes like gnats in a bog, then they need to have the aggregate impact of insects.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[CVRME]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,458 posts
5,606 battles
1 minute ago, Battleship_AndreaDoria said:

I have trouble remembering to toggle sector defense - I am concerned that an additional layer of involvement will just be too much.

It would be a lot different if WoWs wasn't a torpedo soup, with claustrophobic maps, and a-historic angling. If we were actually forming line ahead and fighting like real ships, swapping to AA would be awesome. But the game is just so focused on constant, fidgety movement and speed alterations - where is the time to toggle to an AA suite? Especially with aircraft zipping around like TIE fighters?

I think the answer is ultimately to tone down carrier impacts - vision radius, flood chances, etc. If we're going to be constantly swarmed with planes like gnats in a bog, then they need to have the aggregate impact of insects.

 

That's the primary challenge.  Honestly, the game would have to change some in other ways most likely to allow for a player to comfortably use such an AA system on top of regular surface action.

and while your answer could balance CVs... I can almost guarantee you that most CV players would not enjoy that kind of balancing on their gameplay.  ESPECIALLY the ones who played the old RTS system.  Retaining the "fun" of CVs also needs to be considered.  However I'll admit, I have no horse in that race.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,298
[INTEL]
Members
9,241 posts
26,899 battles

WG does not want skill-based AA. With RNG based AA, damage outcomes become very predictable because they are statistically based. It is exactly like a casino from the point of view of the owner who knows that the house has an advantage and that predictable size of that advantage.

Recall that aircraft carriers aren't actually playing the game -- for WG they are just mechanics there to create arbitrary damage. With R&G based AA that damage is far more predictable. 

There is widespread agreement among the players that AA needs to have some meaningful player input. I hope WG listens to the player concerns but since we still have aircraft carriers in the game it is clear they don't care what we think.

This whole situation has many players losing interest in the game. If they had simply awarded players their XP and free premium time while allowing them to suspend collection of statistics, then everyone would have participated wholeheartedly in the Live test.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[CVRME]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,458 posts
5,606 battles
12 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

WG does not want skill-based AA. With RNG based AA, damage outcomes become very predictable because they are statistically based. It is exactly like a casino from the point of view of the owner who knows that the house has an advantage and that predictable size of that advantage.

Recall that aircraft carriers aren't actually playing the game -- for WG they are just mechanics there to create arbitrary damage. With R&G based AA that damage is far more predictable. 

There is widespread agreement among the players that AA needs to have some meaningful player input. I hope WG listens to the player concerns but since we still have aircraft carriers in the game it is clear they don't care what we think.

This whole situation has many players losing interest in the game. If they had simply awarded players their XP and free premium time while allowing them to suspend collection of statistics, then everyone would have participated wholeheartedly in the Live test.

 

I hope you aren't right about all that or WG.  And yes, I am one of those people losing interest.  That being said, instead of complaining I thought I would attempt to start a discussion on how to fix the problem.  Even if WG doesn't want it, perhaps enough pushing will get them to concede over time and get to work on skill-based AA/player-controlled AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,298
[INTEL]
Members
9,241 posts
26,899 battles
13 minutes ago, CaliburxZero said:

I hope you aren't right about all that or WG.  And yes, I am one of those people losing interest.  That being said, instead of complaining I thought I would attempt to start a discussion on how to fix the problem.  Even if WG doesn't want it, perhaps enough pushing will get them to concede over time and get to work on skill-based AA/player-controlled AA.

I hope so. Like you I am losing interest. I used to love this game too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,120 posts
95 battles
1 hour ago, kgh52 said:

Players have enough problems fighting surface ships. Player controlled AA would force a player to choose to defend against air or surface attacks. Against surface attacks you can hide or run but this is impossible against planes.

They have done it in... shhhh.... War Thunder naval forces and it works fine and it does give you a nice sense of accomplishment when you shoot down a player-controlled plane. The EXP gains for this are very lucrative too. In fact I think you get more exp for shooting down aircraft then sinking enemy ship.

The only difference is that in that game you deal with single player-controlled planes rather than squadrons. Not sure how it would work in such a situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
122
[CHBK]
Members
331 posts
2,177 battles
1 hour ago, CaliburxZero said:

   Before I start, yes, I am aware there are a billion threads on this already.  However, its mostly just just discussion on how weak or powerful something is.  The goal of this thread is to (hopefully) inspire discussion on the proposed idea I have to balance the most likely forever on-going discussion of CV versus surface ships.

And as always, this is merely my opinion.  I do not believe this the hard truth of things necessarily.

 

The problem:

   Let me start by saying that WG, I believe you will never achieve "balance" in the eyes of both the CV captain nor the captains that must face off against their attack planes.  The fundamental issue is that you are trying to balance a heavily RNG-based system (AA of surface ships) versus the skill of a human-controlled attack (CV players).  As its no secret, players come from all skill levels.  How does one balance the fight between an automated system where it has a set degree of effectiveness that will vary solely based on RNG, versus the skill of a human being?  The answer is: You cannot.  Another "no duh" in this moment should also be "What is very hard for some, is easy for others".  I speak to the idea of a hypothetical situation here:  The idea that WG will eventually find an AA setup that will reasonably fight off the average CV player/the majority of them.  However, the skill difference will always make it so that in this "ideal" situation, the top players will always horribly dominate by comparison when the difficulty is set that high.

So in short... The problem is that counterplay will forever be too powerful, or too weak.  There cannot truly be a system where it has a SET effectiveness that can properly fairly fight off an average player, but also fairly fight off a highly-skilled player.  The inverse is also very much so true here.  If you have it fairly fight off a very skilled player, it also means the difficulty will also likely decimate the average joe.

 

Now, what is the solution you ask?  The idea is simple, and one that I've stated a few times but ultimately what made me decide to try and provide this idea/feedback is due to others in threads lately have echoed the same idea.  This idea is to merely have a Player-controlled AA system.

In my eyes, this is the only surefire way to make both sides (eventually) happy.  However, I am aware warships is especially dependent on the situation for how feasible this is.  WG obviously wants the skill floor to remain somewhat low, to attract as many customers as possible and this could be alot for someone to handle their AA on top of everything else.  However, I feel this is how you truly will fix this eternal tug-of-war in balance.

I forget who said it on the forum, but they said it best.  Paraphrasing this notion, it went something like "In a PVP game, the deciding factor should be the skill being used versus each player".  I believe that in the current system, almost all of the AA system completely rips out the surface ship player skill, and this is the problem.  Not only does the surface player will feel its unfair since they don't have any real control over their own defense, but the CV player will ALSO feel its unfair if its just set too crazily high.  The variable absolutely NEEDS to be the player, not a number on a spreadsheet.  Ultimately, if a CV just blasts a player out of the water due to their skill and the surface player's inability to fire their AA off enough, you won't see anywhere near the degree of complaints.  That's just how a PVP game works, right?  Of course there will be some who will whine, you see it all the time regarding DDs.  But if skill can eventually be cultivated to thwart off the CV completely as well, then in my eyes this is where you can say the point of balance has been achieved.  I would define balance as "An engagement between two ships that is decided on the skill of both or lack thereof, all other factors remaining equal".  (The equal part referring to Tier of the two ships, quality of AA on the surface ship, etc)

I am no game designer, nor will I pretend to have the answer on designing a player-controlled AA system(s) in place needed to achieve this.  However, I believe this criteria needs to be ideally met.

-  AA could be auto with some limited effectiveness, but the true power of AA should be drawn out with player input.  AA will be default on auto until a player assumes control.

-  AA mount types need to have various strengths and weaknesses in application for how strong the types are.  For example, short/medium/long range can have variable fire rates, damage and range (of course), area-of-effect amounts (or none at all), and even ammo amounts for reload.  I know some ships had their ammo belts fed from the interior of the ship, while others where magazine-fed.  This could also be a factor in creating flavor, balance, and Pros/cons.

-  If easy enough to implement, the combination of altitude, range, and type of AA hitting the aircraft should also play a factor in AA effectiveness.  (Perhaps type of aircraft as well should factor in.)

-  And last but not least and what I believe the most important part:  The AA system must not be so over-bearing in its need to be used that it overwhelms the player.  This is in my eyes the largest obstacle to creating a player-controlled AA system, and the complexity, involvement, and implementation would have to be carefully evaluated, tested, and balanced in the variable metrics of AA.

 

So what do you, the player think?  How can a player-controlled AA system be brought to reality feasibly?

 

 

You should have stopped at they cant balance them in a way to make everyone happy.  Primarily due to laziness of the players.  They dont want to have to re learn how to play their class in a new meta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,152
[SBS]
Members
3,256 posts
2,408 battles

While I like the idea of player controlled AA is does have a very serious problem.  That is the surface ship player has far more on their plate, positioning for incoming air and surface attack, attacking surface ships, and air attacks.  The CV player pretty much is only focusing on attacking that one ship.  The surface ship player is juggling while trying to stop the CV player from hitting you in the balls with a stick.  It will never be a fair fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[PNGYN]
Alpha Tester
1,330 posts
2,134 battles

that's skill for you. i had the same problem when i was playing the rts version of carriers but with practice you'll get good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
603
[CVRME]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,458 posts
5,606 battles
1 hour ago, Slimeball91 said:

While I like the idea of player controlled AA is does have a very serious problem.  That is the surface ship player has far more on their plate, positioning for incoming air and surface attack, attacking surface ships, and air attacks.  The CV player pretty much is only focusing on attacking that one ship.  The surface ship player is juggling while trying to stop the CV player from hitting you in the balls with a stick.  It will never be a fair fight.

the idea is imperfect, and to that degree yes it wouldn't be fair.  That being said, from logical standpoint its the only way you can give Surface ships a balanced experience versus air attacks.  There isn't a good answer to fix this mess, ultimately because Carriers play such a different game and much like history had changed how naval warfare played out so much... the game really did need to be built from the ground up to incorporate planes into the equation.  

In my eyes, this can only end in 3 ways:  Disaster and CV balancing kills off a ton of the playerbase this year, CVs are removed, or WG has to go back to the drawing board and implement a serious change like what I have proposed here.  Knowing WG?  1 is the most likely, with 2 being the close second.  

There's a few voices of reason within the community on this, but I feel the issue of CVs will not be answered with some simple numeric adjustment.  WG didn't do enough game development.  I think the current system is better than the RTS gameplay for a number of reasons but... its far from enough.  Hopefully my idea catches on and it puts some pressure onto pushing WG in this direction.

 

I mean, who would've thought?  You completely gut an entire class and the way it plays, but the counterplay is just a simple RNG and spreadsheet game with the most engaging gameplay is "shift AA power left or right, or deploy fighters" I mean come on WG.  That's lazy.  Its so pathetically simplistic there's very few things that can be tweaked to bring this more into balance.  And without player input, its not like there's many, if any, soft stats to fine-tune this mess outside of flak burst spread and patterns?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×