What kind of damage return would you feel is necessary if it requires the time and attention of the player?
If the normal AA kills 2 planes on approaching a ship:
What would the expected plane loss be if the Manual Skill was used?
What would it be if it was ignored due to other things happening?
I appreciate the explanation here, but I'm still curious to know your thoughts on Ashkance's original question:
What kind of damage return would you feel is necessary if it requires the time and attention of the player?
If the normal AA kills 2 planes on approaching a ship:
What would the expected plane loss be if the Manual Skill was used?
What would it be if it was ignored due to other things happening?
"Pretty damn high" is the closest I think we got to specifics. Can you help us understand better your parameters using actual plane loss as your metric, please?
Of course, but I'm asking for you to lay out some examples for us so that we can better understand the landscape that you are proposing
You're just requesting an animation? The AA mounts firing animation was recently added to the game. As for Secondary Mounts dynamically firing at either ships or planes, that may involve more complex code-work (for a correct-looking animation).
As you mention, Dual Purpose mounts are factored into AA Damage/Capabilities. They may not be animated, but they do matter and contribute.
California was released AFTER the Rework. She was designed with the Rework in mind.
There was never a "loss of power" for her as her power is the same as she was released with.
The old CV system was different than the current. It's very important to remember that different systems can mean entirely different interactions, numbers, possibilities and more.
-
The current CV system is designed around repeated interactions. A loss of 2 planes per attack may not feel impactful, but you are removing resources that do not come back.
Note: Yes, the term "Regen" is used for planes. A better word would be "Release" as the planes exist but are withheld from the player until X time interval.
The resources are Released to player control. They are denied until their point of release, one resource (plane) at a time.
Raising the "Plane-Loss per Attack" to 3 or more is often an outpacing of the resource release timings. This actively whittles down and restricts what a CV can do, though there is a resource buffer which allows losses to be sustained for a time.
-
The biggest question about AA is going to be "What level of resource drain should be an acceptable, non-AA ship baseline?"
A ship with strong AA seems to bring down about 25% or more of a squadron.
2+ planes against a Squadron of 8 or 9
3+ planes against a Squadron of 12
Using that concept, and knowing that having a second ship adding damage will increase the amount of Planes-Loss Per Attack, what -should- a Strong AA Ship expect as a norm?
I enjoyed Oklahoma a lot :\ She's a rough customer to deal with because she's hard to citadel, heals well, and her secondaries go over 26mm with IFHE. She punches up nicely.
I played her on stream and leaderboarded her. Sadly, I didn't realize I only needed 20 battles and instead went to 30. Some post 20 games were under my metric, so I lost position because of that.
This is where much of the "Pro-CV" and "Anti-CV" split occurs. 25% of a squadron in Plane Losses is already significant. More AA is not required. Planes will get through, but that's an understood thing. Players damage other Players and no Armor stops Fires or Torps.
For a ship with less power in their AA, that can put them at significant risk of repeated strikes and not causing attrition above the "Regen (earlier I called this "Release") Rate". Those ships would need to pay more attention to AA buddies and map positioning that blocks least-time approaches with obstacles or allies. It's a weakness that's designed into the ship, so it's expected to be factored into the play of the ship.
-
Much of debate is about wanting to be able to stop damage, or make being damaged in an AA specialized ship cost a LOT of planes. The question is what those numbers need to be so they feel impactful and important.
More AA and More Plane Kills means having to look at what a CV is expected to do and then alter the CV to be able to achieve that metric despite the new system (or decide on a new/different metric to be a norm).
I can't agree with you that this is an absolute thing. Yes, there are forum posts on it, but there are also forum posts about people that enjoy using their AA or foiling attempted CV strikes. There are two sides to this discussion, though I do believe there is more frustration than there is acceptance. Hence our current discussion on the topic of AA.
In terms of the system which was designed and implemented, yes. The numbers and actual results do fall within values of other ships.
CVs tend to hover around battleship values in damage the last time I checked, but they are unique in that they use a resource system to deal that damage. Also, if they don't have enough resources to break-through the AA of a target/group, they are unable to do any damage at all.
It could be that this damage is too high, which is something important to know. If so, what damage is acceptable for a CV? Half a Battleship's worth in damage? A third? Two-thirds?
When designing AA, a big part of the decision-making is going to have to factor in what a CV is expected to do/contribute.
The purpose of your thread is to help make AA better for everyone. I've given a few metrics of things that will need to be answered if there is a chance to reach that place.
Firstly:
The biggest question about AA is going to be "What level of resource drain should be an acceptable, non-AA ship baseline?"
A ship with strong AA seems to bring down about 25% or more of a squadron.
2+ planes against a Squadron of 8 or 9
3+ planes against a Squadron of 12
Using that concept, and knowing that having a second ship adding damage will increase the amount of Planes-Loss Per Attack, what -should- a Strong AA Ship expect as a norm?
and Secondly:
In terms of the system which was designed and implemented, yes. The numbers and actual results do fall within values of other ships.
CVs tend to hover around battleship values in damage the last time I checked, but they are unique in that they use a resource system to deal that damage. Also, if they don't have enough resources to break-through the AA of a target/group, they are unable to do any damage at all.
It could be that this damage is too high, which is something important to know. If so, what damage is acceptable for a CV? Half a Battleship's worth in damage? A third? Two-thirds?
When designing AA, a big part of the decision-making is going to have to factor in what a CV is expected to do/contribute.
These are questioned that need to be answered.
-
What % of a Squadron do you feel a Strong AA Ship should shootdown per attempted attack by the CV? How much should the fact that AA can layer together be accounted for?
also
What amount of damage should a CV be expected to contribute in a match? Should the CV instead be expected to contribute other things instead?
@LittleWhiteMouse
The current CV system is designed around Resource use/loss. As such, this is the mechanic by which is can be tuned. The questions I offered are the feedback I need because they relate directly to that concept.
-
Some players don't like when I reference other game systems, but I cannot personally think of another way to frame the CV concept to help further this discussion:
In other games, there are spell-casters. They often are ranged in nature and provide a variety of utility-based options as well as the ability to deal damage.
Spell casters are often limited by "Mana" which is a slow regenerating resource.
Each spell used will have an amount of Mana used and a Casting time.
Some utility spells don't cost mana, but will cost time.
CVs use a system which is similar to that concept:
Damage dealing uses an amount of slow regenerating resource (Planes), though it is dynamic in that the player attacked governs the amount of resources lost (by choice of ship, spec, consumable option, and position relative to allies).
There is a significant "Casting Time" is the sense that Planes have often a significant distance to travel to a target or area from the hull.
Spotting will not necessarily cost Planes, but will cost time on station or consumables
-
The purpose of all this is to show why the questions I asked are important.
How many resources should be used per attack/interaction?
What should the damage expectation be for this concept/system? What other expectations should there be in lieu of direct damage?
Everything here matters. There's no expectation of a solution, but I do need to know what players want. General answers like, "I don't like this, make it better" or "It should be stronger" is something I can understand as a person talking to another person... but if I mention those things and it results in 10% more AA than it's not going to represent the finished product that is being requested.
My goal is to draw out answers and specifics. The more defined information I have, the easier it is to communicate exactly what is wanted. It might not happen, but if I have a firm concept that I can understand and represent then I can get behind that and push it as hard as I can.
Remember, there are thousands of players. My job is to represent aggregate thought that may have nothing to do with my own thoughts, so the more interactions I have the better. It's the job.
This entire thread is about increasing player agency. Stun Bombs were HATED because they decreased player agency (as well as it being weird to imagine "stunning" a ship). This concern was highlighted during the Stun Bomb discussion we had on this forum and was a big part in why Stun Bombs were dropped.
Player agency is important.
So, the questions I asked are directly relating to what a player would need to do in order to feel agency enough to enjoy the interaction.
-
These questions (in distilled form) were:
How many resources should be used per attack/interaction?
What should the damage expectation be for this concept/system? What other expectations should there be in lieu of direct damage?
To repeat the long form version of the questions I asked:
-
I didn't play during RTS time. I was one of the players that joined in earnest post-rework because I gave it a try and grew fascinated with the game. Played every day for months.
I've watched videos and had discussions about the RTS version, though. There was a large introduction to the 2019 CV Summit video which described why we moved away from them that does go over many of the issues.
-
I'll go over both replays later today and see if there's anything I can add or offer.
I did an Anti-CV Tactics Replay Review for both of these replays. I'll link them below.
Direct Link: https://youtu.be/kasZh0UNOD8
Direct Link: https://youtu.be/m2PL3iZOZC4
Once again, please keep it friendly folks.
This is a passionate topic for many, but ripping into each other isn't going fix it.
devtrackers.gg