Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
clowlock

My fix for AA mechanics.

13 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
1,430 posts
3,437 battles

So since the current AA mechanics are broken ill leave my 2 cents.

Instead of doing DPS/survivability of the squadron each plane should have individual health and each AA barrel should do a set amount of damage, but rather this time with a hit chance.

Let's say a 20mm cannon does 20 damage per hit with a 50% chance to hit and it's shooting at a plane with 100 survivability then it would take 5 hits to bring it down and every second it's got a 50% chance to hit, if you wanna throw in more RNG we could also add something like a crit hit, where the game does:  damage on the AA barrel/plane survivability and that's the chance for a crit hit which instantly destroys the plane, the chance increases when the plane is hit but isn't counted as a crit, since the plane loses survivability (20 points in this case) the new math would be 20/80 and so on until the plane takes a crit hit or gets shot down. (Im not good at explaining things :P)

Edited by clowlock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
841 posts
4,880 battles
Here's why that isn't likely to happen. That would add a huge amount of calculations that the server would need to keep track of to each game. Every ship (unless turned off) fires AA automatically. Every time a plane gets into range, the game would need to start doing the math for each individual gun on every individual ship within range of every individual plane then repeat the calculation every second that the plane is in range. Although I admit that I would like to see something better, It would bog down the game.
Edited by FleetAdmiral_Assassin
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,645 battles

Here's why that isn't likely to happen. That would add a huge amount of calculations that the server would need to keep track of to each game. Every ship (unless turned off) fires AA automatically. Every time a plane gets into range, the game would need to start doing the math for each individual gun on every individual ship within range of every individual plane then repeat the calculation every second that the plane is in range. Although I admit that I would like to see something better, It would bog down the game.

 

Don't use red. Red is for moderators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,719 posts
4,106 battles

Here's why that isn't likely to happen. That would add a huge amount of calculations that the server would need to keep track of to each game. Every ship (unless turned off) fires AA automatically. Every time a plane gets into range, the game would need to start doing the math for each individual gun on every individual ship within range of every individual plane then repeat the calculation every second that the plane is in range. Although I admit that I would like to see something better, It would bog down the game.

 

Red is for Moderators, you should probably change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,645 battles

I'd also like to say I am not a fan at all of this AA mechanic change. Basically, all this does it reinvent the wheel and get people AA that takes more server resources to calculate, and is quite possibly worse than the existing AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,344 posts
3,206 battles

How about this? Each squad has a single health value. As that health value drops below key values, a plane goes down. For IJN- Full health, four planes. 75% health, 3 planes, etc. You're keeping up with the same number of values per squad as you are now: Squad health, instead of # of planes left.

 

Each AA aura applies its listed DPS against a squad's health. You can even add in a small amount of RNG variance (+/- 10% listed DPS each check) to mix things up, without resulting in idiotic all-or-nothing outliers like you get now. No more stupid situations where a lone DD instantly shoots down several planes, and no more stupid situations where a 100 / 100 AA Lexington fails to shoot down any of the several squads attacking her. Same amount of work for the server (possibly even less), with much more consistent and satisfying results and gameplay.

Edited by Frenotx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,430 posts
3,437 battles

This is ignoring server load.

Wargame can do it why can't WoWs? then again they're different game engines and different companies.

I'd say if WG tried they could do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,344 posts
3,206 battles

This is ignoring server load.

Wargame can do it why can't WoWs? then again they're different game engines and different companies.

I'd say if WG tried they could do it.

 

 Did you look at the solution I proposed above your post? It would be the same, or even less, server load than the current AA implementation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,860
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
24,800 posts
3,956 battles

How about this? Each squad has a single health value. As that health value drops below key values, a plane goes down. For IJN- Full health, four planes. 75% health, 3 planes, etc. You're keeping up with the same number of values per squad as you are now: Squad health, instead of # of planes left.

 

Each AA aura applies its listed DPS against a squad's health. You can even add in a small amount of RNG variance (+/- 10% listed DPS each check) to mix things up, without resulting in idiotic all-or-nothing outliers like you get now. No more stupid situations where a lone DD instantly shoots down several planes, and no more stupid situations where a 100 / 100 AA Lexington fails to shoot down any of the several squads attacking her. Same amount of work for the server (possibly even less), with much more consistent and satisfying results and gameplay.

 

I have proposed this before. People say it is bad. For reasons.

 

No specific reasons. Just reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,367
[HINON]
[HINON]
Beta Testers
5,913 posts
5,645 battles

This is ignoring server load.

Wargame can do it why can't WoWs? then again they're different game engines and different companies.

I'd say if WG tried they could do it.

 

I don't understand how adding extra work can be done and ignore load. Load is a measure of stress sometime is under due to the amount of work it is doing. I guess you could just pretend there isn't more load caused by more work... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,430 posts
3,437 battles

 

I don't understand how adding extra work can be done and ignore load. Load is a measure of stress sometime is under due to the amount of work it is doing. I guess you could just pretend there isn't more load caused by more work... 

 

Misunderstood, read again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
11,026 posts
30,669 battles

I don't understand how adding extra work can be done and ignore load. Load is a measure of stress sometime is under due to the amount of work it is doing. I guess you could just pretend there isn't more load caused by more work... 

 

It's not strictly adding work, it's replacing one form of work with another. There would be some extra storage space required if planes are going to have persistent health, and dealing with persistent health on top of RNG rolls would probably be somewhat more work for the computer.......but modern computers can handle quite a bit.

 

In any case, the servers are handling less than half the load they're capable of, given the massive population drops we've been seeing. I'm sure the tiny extra load from the 10 CV players won't hurt.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,489
[NG-NL]
Members
7,291 posts
13,080 battles

If it doesn't make AA more vicious. US ship AA is lethal enough as is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×