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

Ships vs. planes... finding a way forward

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

402
Members
768 posts
1,178 battles

Starting with the premise that WG is not going to greatly alter the theme of carrier planes and we are going to be dealing with planes attacking ships for a very long time.  Based on that assumption the question becomes, what can be done in order to get as close to balanced as possible?  In this case balance means ship captains and carrier pilots both predominantly have more fun than frustration in a match.

 

I'll start with surface ships as I'm more familiar with them and lean more towards their style of play.  What can be done so that surface ships have a way of taking momentum away from planes in a fight?  By momentum I mean things like using radar to flush out a DD, using an island to avoid incoming fire from a BB, or using concealment to open up on the broadside of a target.  Things that shift the advantage away from your opponent and give it to you for a period of time.

How do surface ships take momentum away from planes?

AA doesn't seem to be the answer.  It's just too much of a blunt instrument when something requiring skill is needed in order to shift momentum.  Even fortifying AA to one side or another doesn't shift momentum as much as it's just an active defense with no real ability to gain a position of advantage.  Momentum still rests in the carrier pilots hands and how he chooses to proceed with the fight.  Then there is the question of whether or not AA brings balanced fun for both sides.  If AA is strong enough to take momentum away from pilots then it's also strong enough to prevent pilots from making any attacks thus removing their fun.  If AA is week enough that planes still maintain momentum then surface ships are targets waiting to be farmed and removing their fun.  I don't see a way AA can actually bring balance. 

So what would give surface ships an advantage?  The more I think about it there more I feel there is nothing currently in the game that can work without modification.  Having a smoke screen that deploys over ships instead of on them would be one way to deny LOS to planes and force them to launch attacks using mini-map icons similar to ships shooting at obscured targets. 

Another option would be map targeted fighter squadrons (and I like this one more now that I thought about it some).  This would allow ships to preemptively place fighters in areas in an attempt to deny the area to CV planes.  So I go to the map, click an area, get an ellipse that I can stretch and rotate, and fighters come in from off map and take up patrol.  These consumables would need to be several squadrons strong, move in a patrol pattern, and actually be able to catch up and kill CV planes.  Do away with the ship launched float plane concept and instead simply call in off map support.  The float plane can still be present but use it for support options rather than as a fighter.  This would kind of be like having a flying island that would let ships move around while carrier planes are denied from that area for a time.  Maybe even have the fighters fight each other so that AA ships can help their side clear an area that was interdicted.

 

Next up is the carrier side of the equation.

What should be altered on carriers to make them more fun?  Assuming carriers are going to be balanced so ships are able to defend themselves and create no-fly areas then what is done for carriers to make sure they still have something to do other than fly in circles waiting for consumables to expire?

First I think we really need to look at how to add variety to carriers.  Rockets, DBs, and torps is just boring.  At least with surface ships you have to worry about angling, positioning, who to shoot, where to shoot, and several other aspects of the fight which makes each battle different and unique.  Planes just fly around looking for a way to drop some ordnance on the enemy.  Occasionally flying around and spotting makes more sense than making attack runs, but that's about it for variety.  

I'm still stuck on the idea of support consumables or squadrons as being the answer for carrier fun.  The skies will probably be deadlier so that surface ships are closer to level ground when it comes to combat ability between ships and planes.  This means pilots are going to be waiting around more for that next flight to regenerate so they can take off again.  In order to provide other options I think have smoke screens, heal drops, and capture point planes are the best answer.  These could be used in several ways and provide much more thought and depth to being a carrier pilot.  Someone who's not very good at making attacks could be very skilled at dropping heals and laying down smoke.  Having skills and modules which boost healing and smokescreens instead of boosting damage would only increase the variety and customization of carriers.  

I also think there should be some way for carriers to conduct limited strong attacks.  Even if it's just a one time consumable air strike that AI planes conduct.  Something like calling in off screen medium or heavy bombers to conduct a bombing run on a targeted area.  Ships could still shoot down some of these planes as a counter, but it would take quick reactions.  Maybe have a flare drop at the epicenter of the strike and people have to pay attention if they want to spare themselves some strong damage.  

 

 

Finally, some general adjustments that should be made in order to make the plane vs. ship experience less reliant on RNG.

First, AA strength needs to be looked at tier by tier.  For example the average AA strength of tier 4 could be 30.  At tier 10 the average strength could be 70.  AA power would then be +, - eight to ten points from that average rating.  So there could still be strong and weak AA ships but it's a measured difference and can be balanced up and down the tiers.  

Since AA is such a large part of the balance equation it would have to be included in the MM algorithm.  If there is a role for strong AA ships in the match then the teams need to have similar numbers of strong AA as much as possible.  Maybe an overall AA rating for each team and the MM has to stay within 5% of that rating.

AA ships need to have more flair than non-AA ships.  They should have innately longer range for their AA instead of having increased damage.  Keep the damage consistent through the entire AA bubble but extending it out means AA ships have more influence in the air battle at the cost of some of their naval combat abilities.

Have more varieties of rocket, TB, and DB modules for each carrier.  While each carrier can have it's own personal theme the different nations should have multiple options for pilots to pick and choose their playstyle.  Some might prefer speed at the cost of some damage.  Some may prefer damage at the cost of armor.  There is so much variety in ship trees and nations that it's easy for a ship captain to try a new hull and get a new gaming experience.  Carrier pilots are kind of locked in to the same thing over and over and there just doesn't exist that much room for multiple tech trees and a wide variety of hulls.  Instead there is plenty of room for squadron variety for pilots to choose.  There could even be premium squadrons that offer something unique like firefighting rockets or cannon mounts that have a higher incapacitation rate for secondaries and AA mounts.  There is a lot of room for more plane options and it's very easy to monetize this one.  

 

 

Anyway, just some thoughts I had since reading the plans for carriers.  I don't think WG is able to see clearly on this issue and I'd love to be able to find some workable options they could adopt instead of just waiting for them to stumble around until they either drive more people away or actually figure out a solution.

 

Edited by ruar
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
573
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
1,548 posts
5,075 battles
46 minutes ago, ruar said:

Anyway, just some thoughts I had since reading the plans for carriers.  I don't think WG is able to see clearly on this issue and I'd love to be able to find some workable options they could adopt instead of just waiting for them to stumble around until they either drive more people away or actually figure out a solution.

I read the announcement as mostly ham fisted damage control.  

"Once again, we remind you that this is a preliminary and possibly incomplete list of changes that are planned to be implemented in the game." 

I'd imagine the possibly incomplete part has to do with spotting.  It is interesting that they put the AI stuff in there as you predicted.  My incompetence meter shot up a few notches with that one but I suppose they have to have some sort of CV AI for the ops stuff no matter what.

They are still in CV selling mode though so I don't think these updates reflect anything beyond that.  Throwing both sides a bone or two and leaving out the controversial part until a later date after they've sold a few more CVs.

It's just WG being WG.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
402
Members
768 posts
1,178 battles
6 minutes ago, CommodoreKang said:

I read the announcement as mostly ham fisted damage control.  

"Once again, we remind you that this is a preliminary and possibly incomplete list of changes that are planned to be implemented in the game." 

I'd imagine the possibly incomplete part has to do with spotting.  It is interesting that they put the AI stuff in there as you predicted.  My incompetence meter shot up a few notches with that one but I suppose they have to have some sort of CV AI for the ops stuff no matter what.

They are still in CV selling mode though so I don't think these updates reflect anything beyond that.  Throwing both sides a bone or two and leaving out the controversial part until a later date after they've sold a few more CVs.

It's just WG being WG.

I figure having planes in co-op gives them a controlled area to test AA changes.  Random is dependent on pilot movements which yields mixed results.  In co-op the AI planes can be told to act in specific ways so they can see how effective AA is and adjust up or down based on that data.  

 

And yeah, when I saw all the tap dance wording it told me they don't really know what to do which is the motive for this post.  I was hoping we'd see an actual change towards balance but they are locked in on the current course,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
573
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
1,548 posts
5,075 battles
5 minutes ago, ruar said:

And yeah, when I saw all the tap dance wording it told me they don't really know what to do which is the motive for this post.  I was hoping we'd see an actual change towards balance but they are locked in on the current course,

The cooling nerf and the HEDB show some signs of actual game development design work.   Everything else should have been (and probably were) in the plan from the beginning.  Including the "possibly incomplete" spotting change.

Glass half WG?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
920
[H_]
Members
1,933 posts

A way forward:  Give Destroyers that were designed as AA radar pickets their AA radar.   The IJN Akizuki was designed with radar as a radar picket ship as were her tech tree cousins...  Give them 8K AA radar and "any ship" in the AA active on radar AA exclusion zone get's the AA values increased as long as the radar is on.....  Just like ship radar, once it is "on", it gives all ships a "distance lock" for their AA systems....  And, early warning.

That zone would show up on the mini map....  So, if you took three Akizuki's out as an AA division, they could "chain their radar" and lock up a large area of map allowing for tactical efforts with maximum AA values....   Carriers would have to avoid those areas for a long time.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
573
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
1,548 posts
5,075 battles
5 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

A way forward:  Give Destroyers that were designed as AA radar pickets their AA radar.   The IJN Akizuki was designed with radar as a radar picket ship as were her tech tree cousins...  Give them 8K AA radar and "any ship" in the AA active on radar AA exclusion zone get's the AA values increased as long as the radar is on.....  Just like ship radar, once it is "on", it gives all ships a "distance lock" for their AA systems....  And, early warning.

That zone would show up on the mini map....  So, if you took three Akizuki's out as an AA division, they could "chain their radar" and lock up a large area of map allowing for tactical efforts with maximum AA values....   Carriers would have to avoid those areas for a long time.....

The anti-blob self nerfing AA logic was supposed to limit the use of group coordination and so forth to hinder a CV's ability to eat its food.  

At some point, WG will have to put in hard AA but, at this point, I think they are fine letting it ride as a barely tolerable excuse for something to watch happen while the CV kills you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
402
Members
768 posts
1,178 battles

I was really hoping this thread would get more conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
573
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
1,548 posts
5,075 battles
41 minutes ago, ruar said:

I was really hoping this thread would get more conversation.

So what sort of time frame are you thinking with these type of changes? 

I'd imagine the plan up til 0.9.0 is pretty much baked in.  We're talking Order 227 levels of commitment here. From there, I think it's a wide open world.  But up until that point, I think we're in "not one step back" territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
726
[SIDE]
Members
2,099 posts
21 hours ago, Asym_KS said:

A way forward:  Give Destroyers that were designed as AA radar pickets their AA radar.   The IJN Akizuki was designed with radar as a radar picket ship as were her tech tree cousins...  Give them 8K AA radar and "any ship" in the AA active on radar AA exclusion zone get's the AA values increased as long as the radar is on.....  Just like ship radar, once it is "on", it gives all ships a "distance lock" for their AA systems....  And, early warning.

That zone would show up on the mini map....  So, if you took three Akizuki's out as an AA division, they could "chain their radar" and lock up a large area of map allowing for tactical efforts with maximum AA values....   Carriers would have to avoid those areas for a long time.....

Not a bad idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
726
[SIDE]
Members
2,099 posts
1 hour ago, ruar said:

I was really hoping this thread would get more conversation.

Lots of concurrent cv rage threads . Could be a sign that player base is adjusting or maybe is simply going through a bit of rage fatigue. That said, there are still some good discussions taking place amidst a lot of noise and some good original ideas are still being presented. Asym, in another thread I think ( can’t remember cuz they all sound the same), surmised that AA picket ships like aki could chain AA radar and act as early warning ships w potent AA weaponry. Original, possibly workable and presented in reasonable context. Was a good post from someone I don’t often agree with but still pay creedence  to.

Anywya, lots of these more or less similar threads flooding the forum generating angst and noise. This might have been a good one if it came a couple weeks ago. Who knows, maybe traffic will pick back up again.

Edited by thebigblue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
132
[ICOP]
[ICOP]
Members
271 posts
6,017 battles

Opt out feature.  There is so few that don't want CV's after all.  I'll wait in que.  LOL

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
573
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
1,548 posts
5,075 battles
Just now, Ramagar_RoK said:

Opt out feature.  There is so few that don't want CV's after all.  I'll wait in que.  LOL

That's the cheapest and trolliest way to fix this whole thing.  That's why I'm betting on it.   I think @ruar is of the opinion that's a no go and hence the brainstorming and such.  He could be right.  You should never count on logic to get in the way of WG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
132
[ICOP]
[ICOP]
Members
271 posts
6,017 battles

Possibly.  But the thing the game should be enjoyable for all.  Right now it just seems very one sided on the "enjoyment" level.  Arty and the spotting mechanism in WOT drove me away.  I fear this is going down that same, dare I say, crappy path.  At least in WOT radio limited spot sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
573
[SI-YC]
Beta Testers
1,548 posts
5,075 battles
3 minutes ago, Ramagar_RoK said:

Possibly.  But the thing the game should be enjoyable for all.  Right now it just seems very one sided on the "enjoyment" level.  Arty and the spotting mechanism in WOT drove me away.  I fear this is going down that same, dare I say, crappy path.  At least in WOT radio limited spot sharing.

I completely agree.  I could go on but I've derailed the OPs thread enough that I'll just leave it at that.  I think we'll either get what you and I are looking for or they'll have to do something like what @ruar is talking about.  Something. 

They can't leave the status quo with the CVs as top of the ship class totem pole.  That's a game ender for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
826
[STAR]
Members
3,303 posts
8,120 battles

IMO, WG needs to:

1- Rework the AA system;

2- Put a limit of range/time to planes; 

 

1- Rework the AA system. AA is always going to be frustrating to one of the sides, if AA is too strong, CVs get wrecked. If AA is too weak, ships get wrecked. The current AA system is one sided, its player controled planes vs AI AA.  The least WG can do is to allow us to be skill vs skill, so at lead the better player gets out on top, so is something like skill vs skill. 

 

2- As of now, planes can spot/strike anywhere on the map. Put a limit of range and or time, also put some "air terrain". Positioning is a huge part of ship vs ship gameplay, the ship with better positioning has a advantage. Planes pretty much ignore this as they can reach and strike anywhere on the map. By limiting planes, you might work to bring them in line with other ships. Make it so planes can only reach a "X" distance or stay in air for "Y" amount of time (fuel maybe???) and they need to go around islands, not over, like ships need. 

 

*CVs would need to be rebalanced, maybe increasse the dmg or replenishment rate or in other ways. 

** I dont think WG i going to do this, they want to keep the game as simple/easy as possible. Most of the ideas to balance CVs would make CVs and the game harder/complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
402
Members
768 posts
1,178 battles
1 hour ago, Xlap said:

IMO, WG needs to:

1- Rework the AA system;

2- Put a limit of range/time to planes; 

 

1- Rework the AA system. AA is always going to be frustrating to one of the sides, if AA is too strong, CVs get wrecked. If AA is too weak, ships get wrecked. The current AA system is one sided, its player controled planes vs AI AA.  The least WG can do is to allow us to be skill vs skill, so at lead the better player gets out on top, so is something like skill vs skill. 

 

2- As of now, planes can spot/strike anywhere on the map. Put a limit of range and or time, also put some "air terrain". Positioning is a huge part of ship vs ship gameplay, the ship with better positioning has a advantage. Planes pretty much ignore this as they can reach and strike anywhere on the map. By limiting planes, you might work to bring them in line with other ships. Make it so planes can only reach a "X" distance or stay in air for "Y" amount of time (fuel maybe???) and they need to go around islands, not over, like ships need. 

 

*CVs would need to be rebalanced, maybe increasse the dmg or replenishment rate or in other ways. 

** I dont think WG i going to do this, they want to keep the game as simple/easy as possible. Most of the ideas to balance CVs would make CVs and the game harder/complex.

Manual AA has its own issues. 

 

Sky terrain could be clouds maybe. Planes could fly through but not able to see so all attacks would be blind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
826
[STAR]
Members
3,303 posts
8,120 battles
1 hour ago, ruar said:

Manual AA has its own issues. 

Yep, i undestand this, but at the same time its the only way to bring some balance to AA vs planes, to make something that is fair (or close to) for both sides. 

1 hour ago, ruar said:

Sky terrain could be clouds maybe. Planes could fly through but not able to see so all attacks would be blind.

Could be, anything to limit how and where planes can go and strike/spot. All ships (but CVs) need to deal with this, in fact is one of the major things in ship vs ship combat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
402
Members
768 posts
1,178 battles
4 hours ago, Xlap said:

Yep, i undestand this, but at the same time its the only way to bring some balance to AA vs planes, to make something that is fair (or close to) for both sides. 

Could be, anything to limit how and where planes can go and strike/spot. All ships (but CVs) need to deal with this, in fact is one of the major things in ship vs ship combat. 

Manual AA isn't really worth it IMO.  The sector option isn't horrible, but I think they should have four ways to make adjustments instead of just two.  That way a ship going bow on can also improve it's frontal or rear arcs as well.  AA is just too difficult to balance as it is with it being AI, adding in player skill will make it impossible to strike some kind of unhappy medium between ships and planes.  They really need to move away from AA as being the defining defense and use some of the items I mentioned in my OP.

 

Did you read my earlier comments about having a fighter screen that could be called in and render an area too dangerous for carrier planes to operate?  I think that would be an engaging and useful method to give ships a way to dictate to planes.  I also really like the idea of clouds as well but not sure how they would impact graphics requirements.  At least they should be easy to put in as smoke screens in the sky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[SF-A]
Beta Testers
347 posts
11,322 battles

A good first step toward a more fair balance would be unlimited DF and fighters, with reduce cooldown cycles, and cumulative plane damage in each squadron. CVs could do lots of surface ship damage when they focus, but the surface ships would not loose most of their AA defenses before the match is half over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,897 posts
8,225 battles

Read a history book. The advent of the carrier spelled the end of the surface combatant. Most of the major naval engagements of WWII were dominated by air power. By the late 40's even the mighty battleship was reduced to AA escort and shore bombardment platform.

This game was, up until 8.0, about surface combatants with aircraft performing a secondary supportive role. Now the game is about aircraft with surface combatants playing a secondary supportive role.

Something here is not like the others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
676 posts
On 5/6/2019 at 9:58 PM, ruar said:

Starting with the premise that WG is not going to greatly alter the theme of carrier planes and we are going to be dealing with planes attacking ships for a very long time.  Based on that assumption the question becomes, what can be done in order to get as close to balanced as possible?  In this case balance means ship captains and carrier pilots both predominantly have more fun than frustration in a match.

{snip}

Anyway, just some thoughts I had since reading the plans for carriers.  I don't think WG is able to see clearly on this issue and I'd love to be able to find some workable options they could adopt instead of just waiting for them to stumble around until they either drive more people away or actually figure out a solution.

The underlying problem is that CV play is essentially a different game grafted on top of a surface warship game.  I can see elements that would be desirable in an aircraft game and WG went in that direction with the FPS approach to CV play, a simple interface, and decent graphics - even DoT damage fits the ever-busy play style.  Unfortunately, other players essentially get nothing from CV play except being the live drivers of target drones.  There is simply no thrill in hiding (with other players or in smoke), switching AI-directed AA between sides of the ship, or dodging incoming ordnance.

I have serious doubts that aircraft in the game can ever be more than one-sided.  Any active defensive participation by surface warship players would require new mechanics and a substantially new interface.  Even if WG could create such an environment, it would be at odds with the surface warfare environment, with players engaged in one or the other, but not both at the same time.  The best we can hope for is an aircraft environment that does not detract too much from the surface warship environment.

I continue to believe that eliminating shared spotting by aircraft would be the best way to compartmentalize aircraft play.  Let the planes have reasonable detection ranges again and some more alpha bite to their weapons, but let their game be played out more in its own setting.  Let planes fly toward enemies detected by warships or vice-versa. 

  • Cool 1

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.

×