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

Simplified Balance: An AA/Flak and Carrier Aircraft Proposal for Tier 8-10

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
78 posts

Goal of the proposed change:

Create a manageable balance between the Tier 8 and 10 Carrier Aircraft and the AA/Flak at Tier 8, 9 and 10. Make it easier to balance the Aircraft and AA/Flak at Tier 8, 9 and 10 by limiting the variations.

 

Reason for the proposed change:

Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft to a degree seem to be still able to inflict crippling damage to Tier 8, Tier 9 and 10 ships, even those that have some of the best AA/Flak in the game. At the same time Tier 8 Carriers mostly play between 55 to 70% of their matches at Tier 10. The AA/Flak concentrations of Tier 9 and 10 ships can be so severe that playing at Tier 9 and 10 is too player unfriendly for Tier 8 Carriers. This proposal is meant to address both issues, in other words to equally help Destroyers, Cruisers, Battleships and Carriers at Tier 8, 9 and 10.

 

Proposed change:

 

  • Decrease the effectiveness of all Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft by lowering the BASE Hit Points of all Tier 10 Aircraft to a maximum of 1200 for Rocket Bombers and 1400 for Torpedo and Dive Bombers. That lowering would include Tier 10 Aircraft on Tier 8 Carriers (including Premium Carriers). These maximum numbers can be raised by Commander Skills and Upgrades like is now also the case but they would still remain CONSIDERABLY below the current Tier 10 Aircraft base Hit Point levels.

 

  • Introduce a NOMINAL and EFFECTIVE AA/Flak Damage Per Second and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships.

 

  • The NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships indicates the theoretical maximum values the ship has. The NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING CAN BE RAISED by Commander Skills and Upgrades.

 

  • The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING level for Tier 9 and 10 ships indicates what effective maximum values the ship can use in combat. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING CANNOT BE RAISED by Commander Skills and Upgrades.

 

  • The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING for Tier 9 and 10 ships would be equal to the NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage CEILING of the highest base AA/Flak rated Tier 8 ship (for example the Tier 8 Battleship MASSACHUSETTS).

 

  • The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling would be used by all Tier 9 and 10 ships till the point is reached where so many AA/Flak mounts of a Tier 9 or 10 ship are destroyed that the NOMINAL CEILING is lower than the EFFECTIVE CEILING. In that case the EFFECTIVE CEILING is no longer used, but the damage reduced NOMINAL CEILING is used instead.

 

It all sounds a lot more difficult than it actually is.

 

Here are two examples of how this works out:

 

  • For the Tier 10 Carrier MIDWAY: the F8F Bearcat Rocket Fighter (Tiny Tims) HP would be lowered from 1660 HP to 1200 HP, the BTD Destroyer Torpedo Bomber HP would be lowered from 2050 HP to 1400 HP, the BTD Destroyer Dive Bomber HP would be from 2160 HP to 1400 HP.

 

  • A Tier 10 MINOTAUR with Commander Skills and Upgrades has a NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling of 100. The EFFECTIVE AA/Flak DPS and Damage ceiling of that MINOTAUR would be only 77 (equal to base of MASSACHUSETTS). So the AA/Flak DPS and Damage would be EFFECTIVELY only at 77 and not at 100. The MINOTAUR would keep that 77 EFFECTIVE ceiling until her AA/Flak mounts would be destroyed to a point where the NOMINAL AA/Flak DPS would be below 77. When the NOMINAL CEILING due to damage drops below the EFFECTIVE CEILING the NOMINAL CEILING is used instead. So if the MINOTAUR loses so many AA/Flak mounts that her NOMINAL CEILING drops from 100 to 56, then the EFFECTIVE CEILING would also drop to 56.

 

It is advisable to combine this "AA/Flak and Carrier Aircraft proposal for Tier 8-10" with the "Fighter Patrol Squadron Consumable proposal" that is described in another topic.

 

 

Edited by Widar_Thule
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,316
[WOLF7]
Members
12,415 posts

Honestly, you should go crowd fund and create your own game, since you seem to want to change this one into something it's not...and never will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
78 posts
40 minutes ago, awiggin said:

Honestly, you should go crowd fund and create your own game, since you seem to want to change this one into something it's not...and never will be.

 

The idea is to balance Tier 8-10 better in terms of AA/Aircraft. This option would make that easier. Do you have a better suggestion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
736
Members
1,123 posts
2,117 battles

I like this but it requires creating a baseline for AA that doesn't exist. And they should have a baseline at every tier for each type of ship. The AA themed ships should get consumables to boost their AA instead of a higher baseline.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
78 posts
35 minutes ago, ruar said:

I like this but it requires creating a baseline for AA that doesn't exist. And they should have a baseline at every tier for each type of ship. The AA themed ships should get consumables to boost their AA instead of a higher baseline.

 

 

With this setup the baseline is MASSACHUSETTS (for example) for AA/Flak for Tier 8-10 and slightly above GRAF ZEPPELIN level for Aircraft HP (for example). That is a lot easier to balance that what we have now. Once that baseline stabilizes, it is easy to work down the Tiers using the same principle. A baby steps approach instead of the sledge hammer approach that we have now.

Edited by Widar_Thule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
736
Members
1,123 posts
2,117 battles
2 minutes ago, Widar_Thule said:

 

With this setup the baseline is MASSACHUSETTS (for example) for AA/Flak for Tier 8-10 and slightly above GRAF ZEPPELIN level for Aircraft HP (for example). That is a lot easier to balance that what we have now. Once that baseline stabilizes, it is easy to work down the Tiers using the same principle. A baby steps approach instead of the sledge hammer approach that we have now.

Agreed. Pick a starting point and adjust accordingly. And the cap of tier 8 to AA with higher tier plane HP adjusted down is a great way to keep balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7,307 posts
3,248 battles

AA numbers wouldn't be necessary if carriers didn't exist 

 

Aside from that, DBs would need more health in general as they stay in AA auras much longer than the other two plane types. Creating theoretical maximum AA values diminishes the quality of AA in general. Flak is a non-issue most of the time. Even at T10, getting blapped by flak can be a death sentence for a squad. Of course, flak is also a low-level skill check, and you could have flak bursts insta-kill entire squads and good players will still get strikes in.

It'll be impossible to balance AA because every ship has it's own AA strength and is an automated defense. Too strong, a CV is useless, too weak and CVs feed the whole game. Just right and it still sucks because the CV will always get a strike in but as a pyrrhic victory.  There is no winning for anyone involved.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,451 posts
6,928 battles

Any class that isn't countered by player skill, can stay hidden for 90% of the match resetting caps and sinking wounded ships without risk, will always be an anomaly in this game because balance isn't the problem.  Carriers were included in this game because of history, yet this game's mechanics have zero to do with history or reality. 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,675 posts
7,848 battles

If you want fighters in a destroyer, wait till WG release something like the Spahkreuzer.

Otherwise just ask your carrier to drop a fighter over your head or ask that Des Memes camping in that island behind you to pop AA whenever necessary. If your teammates are not supporting their DDS they are throwing their game away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
64
[GOSF]
[GOSF]
Members
194 posts
1,127 battles

Honestly, I find this change to be...

 

Unhealthy.

The interactions would be bland, you'd never have to think "Oh maybe he is running a different build than whatever is the norm, he could be running A, B, or X.

 

However, this hamstrings both surface ships and Carriers, as now carriers will be further hamstrung into narrow, unchanging skill sets and Surface ships don't need AA sets do to over-reliability in it's consistency.

 

Then we are in the same issue we were in before, the existence of a Rogue Element NOT changing the state of play for a match majority.

And that's BORING. Whereas a Dive Squad with say, 8 per squad, 2 per element, 2100 HP per plane, and 2 AP bombs on said plane, but with an 80 second Regen per plane? And no Reserves? Now THAT is fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
78 posts
1 hour ago, ruar said:

Agreed. Pick a starting point and adjust accordingly. And the cap of tier 8 to AA with higher tier plane HP adjusted down is a great way to keep balance.

Agreed. It would be both easier to balance for the people in St. Petersburg and the Tier 10 Carriers would still have all the advantages they now have but not the ability to overwhelm Tier 8 and 9 ships.

48 minutes ago, The_first_harbinger said:

If you want fighters in a destroyer, wait till WG release something like the Spahkreuzer.

Otherwise just ask your carrier to drop a fighter over your head or ask that Des Memes camping in that island behind you to pop AA whenever necessary. If your teammates are not supporting their DDS they are throwing their game away.

The Carrier Fighter Squadron is cancelled out by an enemy Fighter Squadron. And a Destroyer commander cannot count on help from anybody in the majority of random battle matches. I have seen it in too many matches, the Destroyer commander goes forward and tries to capture. When in a Carrier I spot and block that Destroyer and that is the end of it. The rest of the enemy fleet hangs back, Cruisers behind island and Battleships far in the rear and complain about their Destroyer commander without giving him any help. No it is better that the Destroyer gets the "Fighter Patrol Squadrons" Consumable that I posted in the other topic. That way he at least for X minutes can go about his business and capture something at match start.

34 minutes ago, SerynFate said:

Honestly, I find this change to be...

 

Unhealthy.

The interactions would be bland, you'd never have to think "Oh maybe he is running a different build than whatever is the norm, he could be running A, B, or X.

 

However, this hamstrings both surface ships and Carriers, as now carriers will be further hamstrung into narrow, unchanging skill sets and Surface ships don't need AA sets do to over-reliability in it's consistency.

 

Then we are in the same issue we were in before, the existence of a Rogue Element NOT changing the state of play for a match majority.

And that's BORING. Whereas a Dive Squad with say, 8 per squad, 2 per element, 2100 HP per plane, and 2 AP bombs on said plane, but with an 80 second Regen per plane? And no Reserves? Now THAT is fun.

You will still have all the builds with all the advantages and disadvantages of them BUT you would have an EFFECTIVE CEILING for AA/Flak that does not shut Tier 8 Carriers out of a Tier 9 and 10 match AND you still have Tier 10 Carriers with a powerful damage potential but with Tier 8 level staying power in terms of Hit Points. All Commander Skills and all Upgrades would still work BUT you would have an upper limit to balance Tier 8, 9 and 10 AA/Flak and Aircraft HP at one manageable level. Which is something that we currently do not have.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
64
[GOSF]
[GOSF]
Members
194 posts
1,127 battles

At that point why up tier?

If I can possibly bully Tier 6s until they quit in sheer anger, rather than ALWAYS having to deal with the best of the best, I'll DO IT, and its not like Enterprise or Kaga is hard to play....

 

This change is also SO ANTI-VI ITS NOT EVEN FUNNY. If you balance VIII vs X, VI will face VIII nonetheless, only they don't have any bonuses. And this'll eventually dribble down to IV as they have to be balanced vs V and III having to conform to the Benchmark against IV as they are set against V which is set against VI which is set against VIII which is set against X.

 

You can't implement this and not have it be a can of worms, sorry to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,504
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,031 posts
17,578 battles

In short, you're looking to cap AA DPS at a moderate amount, and treat all excess AA capacity as an HP buffer toward AA mount loss. That's not the worst idea I've heard in terms of normalizing AA effectiveness, but it does not address ships that have too little DPS, particularly destroyers. It also has the unfortunate side effect of making AA feel very flat across different ship classes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
78 posts
35 minutes ago, SerynFate said:

At that point why up tier?

If I can possibly bully Tier 6s until they quit in sheer anger, rather than ALWAYS having to deal with the best of the best, I'll DO IT, and its not like Enterprise or Kaga is hard to play....

 

This change is also SO ANTI-VI ITS NOT EVEN FUNNY. If you balance VIII vs X, VI will face VIII nonetheless, only they don't have any bonuses. And this'll eventually dribble down to IV as they have to be balanced vs V and III having to conform to the Benchmark against IV as they are set against V which is set against VI which is set against VIII which is set against X.

 

You can't implement this and not have it be a can of worms, sorry to say.

 I do not see why this is "anti" Tier 6. The changes will not effect Tier 6. Tier 6 ships will not lose any bonus whatsoever. Same for Tier 4, also not effected by this change.

The main problem is at Tier 8, 9 and 10. For AA/Flak from a Tier 8 Carrier point of view and in terms of Hit Points of Carrier Aircraft (survivability of enemy Aircraft translates in more damage sustained by ships) from a Tier 8, 9 and 10 ship point of view. The proposal helps both sides and favours none. Only fair.

24 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

In short, you're looking to cap AA DPS at a moderate amount, and treat all excess AA capacity as an HP buffer toward AA mount loss. That's not the worst idea I've heard in terms of normalizing AA effectiveness, but it does not address ships that have too little DPS, particularly destroyers. It also has the unfortunate side effect of making AA feel very flat across different ship classes.

I would not call it a "moderate" amount. The MASSACHUSETTS can do a lot of damage to Tier 8 Carrier Aircraft and remember that all Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft would get downgraded to GRAF ZEPPELIN Hit Point levels, that is a serious downgrade. Their offensive capabilities would remain unchanged however, so Tier 10 Carriers would still have more damage potential than Tier 8 Carriers.

As to the Destroyers, I have a special solution for them which I think is just what they need. And that is a very powerful one. It is a special one-time use Consumable. You can read about it here (I also linked it in the first post and propose to implement both changes at the same time):

   

Edited by Widar_Thule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
243
[TNG]
Members
458 posts
7,287 battles

From the CV-side of things:

As it stands currently, T8 and T10 plane health isn't that far different.  Something in the range of 150-250 health in a general sense.  Also, speeds are increased by a small percentage as well.  Taken collectively, that's a combination of higher health pool and less time spent in the AA auras (zoom)… but it's still not a wildly different plane experience.

Honestly, the largest difference is in the amount of resources the CVs have.  They have higher plane caps (20 on deck instead of 16 or so, etc) and they have access to additional upgrade modules (bonus health on ALL planes vs plane speed increase).

Why do I spell this out?  Because while it's nicer to play T10 in a T10 match, it's not game breaking for CVs. 

You can still strike isolated targets... you can still assist weak flanks at the cost of planes to try and turn the tide.  Also, it's worth remembering that your enemy CV is the same tier as you, so you are fundamentally equal in what you can contribute.  Both CVs are gonna have to think strategically on how to make it work out.  You don't have as many resources to throw at a tough problem, and the strikes you make will do 10-20% less damage in general.

From the Surface-ship side of things:

Dropping T10 AA into a base-line T8-friendly level would be bad game design.  There are folks that literally make their ship choice based on strengths, and T10 strength is fundamentally STRONGER then T8 strength.  The Minotaur example you gave above mentioned some normalizing of 70 damage a second... but the tooltip for the Minotaur shows 1281 DPS.  If Sector Reinforced, that can easily be 2000 DPS.  Minotaurs WRECK planes.  Absolutely, dominantly, and totally.  They CRUSH PLANES... and to throttle that back is to gut a chief characteristic of a ship.

Surface Ships are still adjusting to the newer version of the CV, and part of that is awareness and positioning.  Positioning near a Minotaur means you don't have to worry about a CV.  You just don't.  It would be actively harmful to the playerbase to break with that understanding after months of people learning what is perfectly acceptable game design.

Lastly, capping incoming AA damage would be a poor design.  Gamers may math out that 3 ships reaches the "AA cap" and feel that grouping in more then 3 is "wasteful/sub-optimal"... it would feel wrong.  If 6 ships are sailing side by side... the other team better use the unclaimed map area and force flanking shots, because the CV isn't going to be able to penetrate a hard target like that (and that's ok).  That's a trade players are choosing to make... they are trading map-control for "safety in numbers".  It's a perfectly viable game strategy, though a risky one in a game with broadsides (flanks) causing crippling damage.

Edited by Ahskance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
64
[GOSF]
[GOSF]
Members
194 posts
1,127 battles
6 hours ago, Widar_Thule said:

 I do not see why this is "anti" Tier 6. The changes will not effect Tier 6. Tier 6 ships will not lose any bonus whatsoever. Same for Tier 4, also not effected by this change.

The main problem is at Tier 8, 9 and 10. For AA/Flak from a Tier 8 Carrier point of view and in terms of Hit Points of Carrier Aircraft (survivability of enemy Aircraft translates in more damage sustained by ships) from a Tier 8, 9 and 10 ship point of view. The proposal helps both sides and favours none. Only fair.

I would not call it a "moderate" amount. The MASSACHUSETTS can do a lot of damage to Tier 8 Carrier Aircraft and remember that all Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft would get downgraded to GRAF ZEPPELIN Hit Point levels, that is a serious downgrade. Their offensive capabilities would remain unchanged however, so Tier 10 Carriers would still have more damage potential than Tier 8 Carriers.

As to the Destroyers, I have a special solution for them which I think is just what they need. And that is a very powerful one. It is a special one-time use Consumable. You can read about it here (I also linked it in the first post and propose to implement both changes at ):

 

Which proves you are, and i dont like calling people out on this, but lo and behold, blind to these uncomfortable Realities, if Tier 8 AA is balanced against tier 10, the VIs don't stand a CHANCE unless they are balanced to fight the VIIIs, I mean, Massachusetts at baseline? Really? HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT THAT THING COULD DO PRE-085?! It's by far not an exaggeration to say I was completely immune to tier 6 carriers, even solo, in the Massachusetts.

Tier 6 is already quite the hurdle for New CV players, and this change seeks to smash that balance.

Tiers 6&7s of all classes (let's ignore that stupid "Air Immune Destroyer" concept, they are FINE without it) will be the targets of choice, without debate, without mercy (touch my Hood and I'll spit all my tea on all you love and hold dear) to these Adapting tier 8s.

 

Then we'd have two options, ditch the changes, or make ALL aircraft and ALL AA the same, and only difference being Ordinance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
78 posts
On 7/1/2019 at 11:43 PM, Ahskance said:

From the CV-side of things:

As it stands currently, T8 and T10 plane health isn't that far different.  Something in the range of 150-250 health in a general sense.  Also, speeds are increased by a small percentage as well.  Taken collectively, that's a combination of higher health pool and less time spent in the AA auras (zoom)… but it's still not a wildly different plane experience.

Honestly, the largest difference is in the amount of resources the CVs have.  They have higher plane caps (20 on deck instead of 16 or so, etc) and they have access to additional upgrade modules (bonus health on ALL planes vs plane speed increase).

Why do I spell this out?  Because while it's nicer to play T10 in a T10 match, it's not game breaking for CVs. 

You can still strike isolated targets... you can still assist weak flanks at the cost of planes to try and turn the tide.  Also, it's worth remembering that your enemy CV is the same tier as you, so you are fundamentally equal in what you can contribute.  Both CVs are gonna have to think strategically on how to make it work out.  You don't have as many resources to throw at a tough problem, and the strikes you make will do 10-20% less damage in general.

From the Surface-ship side of things:

Dropping T10 AA into a base-line T8-friendly level would be bad game design.  There are folks that literally make their ship choice based on strengths, and T10 strength is fundamentally STRONGER then T8 strength.  The Minotaur example you gave above mentioned some normalizing of 70 damage a second... but the tooltip for the Minotaur shows 1281 DPS.  If Sector Reinforced, that can easily be 2000 DPS.  Minotaurs WRECK planes.  Absolutely, dominantly, and totally.  They CRUSH PLANES... and to throttle that back is to gut a chief characteristic of a ship.

Surface Ships are still adjusting to the newer version of the CV, and part of that is awareness and positioning.  Positioning near a Minotaur means you don't have to worry about a CV.  You just don't.  It would be actively harmful to the playerbase to break with that understanding after months of people learning what is perfectly acceptable game design.

Lastly, capping incoming AA damage would be a poor design.  Gamers may math out that 3 ships reaches the "AA cap" and feel that grouping in more then 3 is "wasteful/sub-optimal"... it would feel wrong.  If 6 ships are sailing side by side... the other team better use the unclaimed map area and force flanking shots, because the CV isn't going to be able to penetrate a hard target like that (and that's ok).  That's a trade players are choosing to make... they are trading map-control for "safety in numbers".  It's a perfectly viable game strategy, though a risky one in a game with broadsides (flanks) causing crippling damage.

I would not call the difference small.

For the Tier 10 Carrier MIDWAY: the F8F Bearcat Rocket Fighter (Tiny Tims) HP would be lowered from 1660 HP to 1200 HP, the BTD Destroyer Torpedo Bomber HP would be lowered from 2050 HP to 1400 HP, the BTD Destroyer Dive Bomber HP would be from 2160 HP to 1400 HP.

A decrease from 1660 to 1200 HP is a reduction of 28%, from 2050 HP to 1400 HP is a reduction of  32% and from 2160 HP to 1400 HP is a reduction of 36%. That is not small. The new Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft HP values would be just above Tier 8 GRAF ZEPPELIN  HP level and the AA/Flak they would face would be Tier 8 MASSACHUSETTS level, and that ship has the best AA/Flak at Tier 8.

As to the MINOTAUR example you give. With this proposal her NOMINAL AA/Flak CEILING would remain intact, only her EFFECTIVE AA/Flak CEILING would be at 77, until her NOMINAL CEILING falls below that 77 in which case the damage lowered NOMINAL CEILING would be used. Since the enemy Carrier Aircraft would be at Tier 8 HP levels she would have an EFFECTIVE CEILING that would be as powerful as the MASSACHUSETTS which is quite a powerful ship against Tier 8 Aircraft. She would however STOP to be a NO FLY ZONE. And that would be good for the game, because having COMPUTER CONTROLLED AA/Flak that completely cancels out a human being/player in a Carrier is bad for game play for obvious reasons.

AA/Flak damage with this proposal would not be crippled. With 1200/1400/1400 Tier 8 Carrier Aircraft HP levels the Carrier Aircraft would not be "strong" and able to attack three ships that have 77 level AA/Flak. They would have trouble attacking even one ship with 77 level AA/Flak let alone three.

All this proposal does is lower the Tier 10 levels to Tier 8 levels, and in so doing makes balancing easier and eliminates the problem of NO FLY ZONE ships while at the same time eliminate Tier 10 Carrier damage potential by bringing all Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft (including those on Tier 8 Premium Carriers) to about Tier 8 level.

 

On 7/2/2019 at 5:59 AM, SerynFate said:

Which proves you are, and i dont like calling people out on this, but lo and behold, blind to these uncomfortable Realities, if Tier 8 AA is balanced against tier 10, the VIs don't stand a CHANCE unless they are balanced to fight the VIIIs, I mean, Massachusetts at baseline? Really? HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT THAT THING COULD DO PRE-085?! It's by far not an exaggeration to say I was completely immune to tier 6 carriers, even solo, in the Massachusetts.

Tier 6 is already quite the hurdle for New CV players, and this change seeks to smash that balance.

Tiers 6&7s of all classes (let's ignore that stupid "Air Immune Destroyer" concept, they are FINE without it) will be the targets of choice, without debate, without mercy (touch my Hood and I'll spit all my tea on all you love and hold dear) to these Adapting tier 8s.

 

Then we'd have two options, ditch the changes, or make ALL aircraft and ALL AA the same, and only difference being Ordinance

The proposal does not change anything on any surface ship EXCEPT for Tier 9 and 10. Only the AA/Flak of Tier 9 and 10 ships would be effected. Under normal conditions a Tier 6 will never face a Tier 9 or 10 ship so that is no issue. The proposal does involve lowering the HP of Carrier Aircraft on Tier 8 Premium Carriers to 1200/1400/1400. That means that these Carriers will lose more Aircraft when they attack a Tier 6 Aircraft Carrier, so that actually improves things from a Tier 6 Carrier point of view.

About the "Fighter Patrols Squadrons" Consumable we will have to agree to disagree. I think they need it to help them at least capture a point at match start, since I see too many of them not doing that anymore since the Carrier rework started in version 8.0.

As to Tier 6, I feel your plight. Attacking the MASSACHUSETTS with for example the Tier 8 GRAF ZEPPELIN is also costly in terms of Aircraft for little return in actual damage inflicted. I however think in terms of baby steps instead of the sledgehammer. WOWS Development in my opinion cannot tackle the Tier 8-10 Carrier balancing versus Tier 9-10 AA/Flak with the sledgehammer approach that they have been using. If they would use this proposal they could take the first baby step to straighten the important Tier 8-10 out, and work down from there. So Tier 6 and 4 Carrier balancing versus AA/Flak would be baby step number two and three respectively.

As to your proposal to make all Aircraft and all AA/Flak the same would not make sense. I see where you are coming from but I would have to disagree on that proposal. That would mean that ships that have twice as many AA/Flak guns as others all have the same AA/Flak values. Moreover Aircraft also constantly received more and armour and better protection so that too would not make sense.

Edited by Widar_Thule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
243
[TNG]
Members
458 posts
7,287 battles
10 hours ago, Widar_Thule said:

I would not call the difference small.

For the Tier 10 Carrier MIDWAY: the F8F Bearcat Rocket Fighter (Tiny Tims) HP would be lowered from 1660 HP to 1200 HP, the BTD Destroyer Torpedo Bomber HP would be lowered from 2050 HP to 1400 HP, the BTD Destroyer Dive Bomber HP would be from 2160 HP to 1400 HP.

A decrease from 1660 to 1200 HP is a reduction of 28%, from 2050 HP to 1400 HP is a reduction of  32% and from 2160 HP to 1400 HP is a reduction of 36%. That is not small. The new Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft HP values would be just above Tier 8 GRAF ZEPPELIN  HP level and the AA/Flak they would face would be Tier 8 MASSACHUSETTS level, and that ship has the best AA/Flak at Tier 8.

When reviewing the actual numbers, you are correct that it is closer to a 30-35% health difference from T8 planes to T10.  The is a noticeable amount, though I would argue that T8 planes are still viable even in T10 matches within this current patch (8.5 AA changes enabled).

10 hours ago, Widar_Thule said:

As to the MINOTAUR example you give. With this proposal her NOMINAL AA/Flak CEILING would remain intact, only her EFFECTIVE AA/Flak CEILING would be at 77, until her NOMINAL CEILING falls below that 77 in which case the damage lowered NOMINAL CEILING would be used. Since the enemy Carrier Aircraft would be at Tier 8 HP levels she would have an EFFECTIVE CEILING that would be as powerful as the MASSACHUSETTS which is quite a powerful ship against Tier 8 Aircraft. She would however STOP to be a NO FLY ZONE. And that would be good for the game, because having COMPUTER CONTROLLED AA/Flak that completely cancels out a human being/player in a Carrier is bad for game play for obvious reasons.

AA/Flak damage with this proposal would not be crippled. With 1200/1400/1400 Tier 8 Carrier Aircraft HP levels the Carrier Aircraft would not be "strong" and able to attack three ships that have 77 level AA/Flak. They would have trouble attacking even one ship with 77 level AA/Flak let alone three.

Perhaps I misread you initially when you said "AA ceiling would be 77"... did you mean in the ship rating?  Like the measurement bars that say "This ship's artillery rates 89 on a scale of 1 to 100" and such?  If so, I would warn you that those numbers are a general synopsis at best and wildly misleading on the actual capabilities of the ship in regards to AA.

I had initially read you to mean you wanted a 77 dps limit to AA against planes, which you were health balancing to 1400 health each... so 20 seconds or so per plane kill.  When thinking of a Minotaur pushing 2,000 dps (roughly 1 kill a second), that seemed... dramatically out of step with your proposal.

10 hours ago, Widar_Thule said:

All this proposal does is lower the Tier 10 levels to Tier 8 levels, and in so doing makes balancing easier and eliminates the problem of NO FLY ZONE ships while at the same time eliminate Tier 10 Carrier damage potential by bringing all Tier 10 Carrier Aircraft (including those on Tier 8 Premium Carriers) to about Tier 8 level.

I understand your intent is to help, but I do feel this to be a misguided goal.  If you were concerned about a balanced experience, you would probably be more rewarded by looking at a %health damage to planes so that the system could be semi-normalized across all tiers for "balance stability".

As to the "No Fly Zone" ships, I would argue that sailing an AA ship is to want to live the fantasy that you CRUSH planes.  Those ships deliver on that fantasy while having some exploitable weaknesses to balance them.  The CV has a big map to play with and a multifaceted role to cover... it's ok if some problems have ship-only solutions (like capping is a ship-only process).

Edited by Ahskance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
64
[GOSF]
[GOSF]
Members
194 posts
1,127 battles

Wait Wait Wait Wait Wait Wait.

 

So Zao gets Massachusetts AA.....

 

But all Aircraft take massive Nerfs....

Shimakaze gets Massachusetts AA

But all Aircraft are as Fragile as Zeroes.

Ummmmm.....

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×