Jump to content


AA Change Proposal

AA Game Mechanics Change

  • Please log in to reply
82 replies to this topic

1nv4d3rZ1m #1 Posted 03 January 2016 - 05:41 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester

  • 9,357
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013

I want to say this at the top just because I know someone is going to accuse me of it, this is not an attempt to nerf a class or change balance.  

 

    Carriers are neither fun to play nor to play against for the vast majority of players, my personal opinion is that because the mechanics are over simplified and do not allow much room for people to out play others it is either the carrier is more powerful than its opponent and the only thing keeping the carrier from wrecking is the skill of the CV captain or the carrier does not have a chance. I would like to propose a couple of changes that would give carriers as well as surface ships more options to play against each other and hopefully reduce the all or nothing that is carrier play.

 

Spoiler: I am combining some ideas from others as well as making some modifications of my own. Most of these ideas are focused on increasing the player interaction and avoiding the automatic responses.

 

Based on this AA Mechanics explanation: http://forum.worldof...ical-analysis/ and http://forum.worldof...s-aa-mechanics/

 

AA Aura Arcs

  My understanding of ship AA is that currently each group is a circle around the ship that has a chance to kill an aircraft (Total DPS / Survivability = (X)*100%/sec), a rof, and a range. Each aura can attack one squad and multiple auras can attack one squad as well. Currently there is not really any user input to AA aside from ctrl + click to focus a squad.

 

7Qwz17a.png

Figure 1- current AA auras (please excuse terrible paint)

 This Aura is all around the ship so seems over simplified, unrealistic, and something that could be easily changed to make using AA more player involved. Instead of each AA being a 360-degree aura I propose that guns be given arcs so that the AA fire at some angles (i.e. bow and stern) is weaker than other angles since there are less AA guns that can shoot in those directions. The size of the arcs can be used as a balance factor and/or be based on historical values for the AA fields of fire.

 

YSGx7PR.png

Figure 2- proposed auras with limited arcs

Note: I am not proposing 0 AA at the bow and stern but simply less, my paint skills/time are simply not sufficient

 

This would allow low tier carriers or carriers with weak aircraft to approach ships that would otherwise be immune if the ship was not paying attention. It would also punish planes that try and beat ships around the turn because they would spend a larger amount of time in the broadside AA. Obviously a new balance would have to be found with plane HP where planes would be punished at some angles and not as much in others.  

7GWxCHY.png

Figure 3- Different attack routes available with changed auras


   This change would make positioning and angle more important to ships and give weak carriers a chance, it would also reward people that pay attention. I think this is a good solution for the issue that low tier carriers are pretty much useless against higher tier ships. At least with this change they would be able to attack higher tier ships if they were not paying attention. (which is all a lower tier vessel of any class should expect imo…) This would also allow carriers to get the squad out with lower casualties after the strike if they were paying attention.

 

AA Aura Stacking

  I dont completely understand the specifics of how AA auras interact currently but if I am correct they dont stack at all they simply are all counted separately (i.e. one ship rolls to kill an aircraft then the next separately, each one is rolling for a chance to kill an aircraft separately and what one rolls does not affect the other rolls at all) and AA auras can only attack one squad at a time. I would suggest that AA should be changed so that the amount of ships shooting and the number of attacking squads is part of the calculations. So if you have multiple squads in an aura, the damage is divided between them while allowing a squad to be selected to receive priority and more damage like the current game mechanic. 

 

bTUxjaO.png

Figure 4- Proposed effect of changing Aura stacking

 

  The expected result is that a single ship has a hard time stopping a massed attack by multiple squads even if lower tier (if teaming with lots of squads) while at the same time multiple ships in close proximity with overlapping AA auras have even more powerful AA and would make attacks more difficult even for higher tier carriers. This would encourage ships to group up more and help each other and encourage carriers to attack together as well. It would also give ships with weak AA and weak carriers a chance when they work with teammates.

   With 360 degree auras this would not have been feasible because there would be no opening for carriers to exploit but with limited arcs and some balancing it should be possible for carriers to find holes and get their strikes and allow skill to make more of a difference in the AA war.  

 

AA Consumable

  Player controlled AA and secondaries has been an issue of a lot of debate since alpha, I am not completely sure the best way to bring this but I know that there needs to be more to countering airplanes then simply ctrl + click TBs. I would change the AA consumable on CAs to not just be a button and delete aircraft since that is way too simple and does not allow an opportunity to outplay besides waiting (which could be bad if fighters are inbound). I propose that when the consumable is activated the player also has to select an area of effect (like using repair kits in WOT). This makes it so that cruisers can punish planes that commit to attacks but at the same time does not completely protect the area around the ship but allows the planes to change their attack direction if timed right.

 

Vu3lC9k.png

 Figure 5- Proposed AA consumable areas

   Planes entering the area of an activated consumable would be subjected to panic as well as higher damage levels. If the squad leaves the area they would no longer be subjected to the higher damage level but would be temporarily panicked for a short amount of time (maybe a couple of seconds, more likely an rng value like spotting time in WOT). So don’t drop while in the zone and don’t drop soon after leaving a zone if you want to hit a target.

Dual Purpose Primary Guns

  I also would think that CAs and DDs with dual purpose main batteries should be able to engage air targets or ground targets. Currently the dual purpose guns attack air targets automatically, however it is REAALLY boring to escort another ship and just watch your guns shoot stuff. I think that giving the cruisers and cruisers and DDs (the only ships with dual purpose batteries, no the Yamato does not count) with dual purpose primaries would make escorting more interesting and complex so more people would escort.

 Give the dual purpose guns a third ammo type (air burst, VT, etc) and a new interface for aa mode so when the cruiser or DD selects the AA ammo the interface changes like switching to torpedo mode. Shooting Aircraft is complicated and there would have to be a major change to the interface to make it possible for the average player to hit AA at least some of the time. This would give more use to dual purpose main batteries, especially on US DDs, and CAs, which frankly some of them could use help.

 

Note: this would only be for dual purpose PRIMARIES, secondaries would still be computer controlled in my proposal.

 

Strike Altitude

  I would also like to see this aspect of an older naval warfare game introduced into AA play. The idea is that different weapons are more effective at different altitudes and planes can exchange altitude for Kinetic Energy (i.e. speed). For example, large AA guns can hit higher altitudes than the smaller guns (like the dual purpose 5” on US ships) but smaller guns are more effective against low altitude targets

  The idea with this is that a carrier can choose what altitude their squads fly at, fighters that start at higher altitudes would get a starting bonus from attacking from a higher altitude and AA would be less effective higher up. Fighters would have to climb up to high altitude bombers to intercept them and low altitude aircraft would be harder to detect than high altitude aircraft On the flip side it takes aircraft longer to get to higher altitudes and their attacks are less accurate, TBs wouldn’t even be able to attack except at low altitude and DDs would not be as visible against higher altitude aircraft.

  So this would be another aspect a carrier pilot can use to out play others or get outplayed. A likely scenario is that a player sends in the DBs at high altitude drawing the defending fighters to their altitude to engage, while this is happening the TBS sneak in unopposed because the fighters are out of position. Aircraft fly in three dimensions, the gameplay deserves to reflect that.

 

Conclusion

  Remember this is not advocating a balance change, it is advocating a change to mechanics to avoid the all or nothing. Balancing would have to be done since this does include some major changes, but at this time I am not advocating a balance change, just game mechanic changes. Giving both aircraft and ships ways to outplay each other in situations they would not normally be able to.  I am looking to change the way AA works so low tier carriers are not completely shut out by an automatic AA system and ships with weak AA are not just targets. I am simply presenting my idea for more counter play and looking for feedback. 



Im_The_Seeker2 #2 Posted 03 January 2016 - 05:56 AM

    Captain

  • Banned

  • 4,488
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

As a CV captain I very strongly agree - it's similar to my earlier comprehensive AA rebalance proposal.

 

Especially the AA consumable idea, only I'd break zones 3 and 5 into two or three zones each.

 

Player controlled DP AA guns would require a partial rewrite of how planes are handled in the engine, I don't think that's feasible in the near future but I'd love to see it nonetheless.


Edited by Im_The_Seeker2, 03 January 2016 - 05:58 AM.

 

Former Commander of [KIC]

Current Commander of [KUMA]

"We few, we happy few, we band of brothers..."
Give no quarter, take no quarter.

1nv4d3rZ1m #3 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:02 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester

  • 9,357
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013
Yeah the Controlled AA is definetly a longer term task but I think something needs to be done to make escorting more interesting.

Arzoo #4 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:02 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 418
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
AA functions the way it does to reduce server load. The logic is the simple "if distance < Range then chanceToKill()" because anything more is significantly more computationally expensive. As is, it doesn't even need to track plane hp.

Overall I think AA just has two problems: Divebombers and defensive fire. Divebombers should be much tougher to shoot down than torpedo planes, but in WoWs they are the least likely to even reach their targets since unlike Torpedo bombers they have to pass right over the ship inside the strongest AA.

Defensive Fire could also use some more interactivity, but it also should have stacking penalties for multiple cruisers using it. Also, the US "bonus" needs to be something actually useful. The German Hydrosearch is supercharged in every way, but the US gets literally the same thing the other nations get; after the premium consumable buff you're simply not going to run out of those charges.

PhoenixWright_Desu #5 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:05 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 71
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

This sounds great! 

DD's that have 5in and the Atlanta can be used to escort alot better now. 



1nv4d3rZ1m #6 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:12 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester

  • 9,357
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013

View PostArzoo, on 02 January 2016 - 10:02 PM, said:

AA functions the way it does to reduce server load. The logic is the simple "if distance < Range then chanceToKill()" because anything more is significantly more computationally expensive. As is, it doesn't even need to track plane hp.

Overall I think AA just has two problems: Divebombers and defensive fire. Divebombers should be much tougher to shoot down than torpedo planes, but in WoWs they are the least likely to even reach their targets since unlike Torpedo bombers they have to pass right over the ship inside the strongest AA.

Defensive Fire could also use some more interactivity, but it also should have stacking penalties for multiple cruisers using it. Also, the US "bonus" needs to be something actually useful. The German Hydrosearch is supercharged in every way, but the US gets literally the same thing the other nations get; after the premium consumable buff you're simply not going to run out of those charges.

 

My change to AA would not change the distance part, only add an arc so barely any extra server load. 

 

WIth DBs since you want to attack from the bow or stern anyways this change would increase their survivability dramatically. 

 

The US would get a bigger bonus from the controlled dual purpose guns since many of the cruisers and the majority of the dds have dual purpose main batteries. (mid to high tier DDs and cleveland, atlanta, DM, etc)



AdmiralRayden #7 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:14 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 77
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015
I agree with this proposal. Especially AA shells. However I would like to point out that the BBs in WW1 and WW2 had what they called Type 3 Anti-Aircraft shells. That would also make it necessary to add BBs to the AA shell list. 

 

Now! This is it! Now is the time to choose! Die and be free of pain or live and fight your sorrow! Now is the time to shape your stories! Your fate is in your hands! 

 

-Sir Auron, Final Fantasy X


Carrier_Taiyo #8 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:14 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,624
  • Member since:
    05-16-2013

I like the idea of making AA more complicated to make the game more interesting. Right now, a good portion of the complaints about cv's being frustrating to face against is caused by the oversimplified AA mechanics. iChase put it best when he said "Either you stomp, or you get stomped."

 

Carriers SHOULD be able to deal respectable damage against a target who is tunnel visioned, or not paying attention. But, a target who spots the planes approaching should have more tools to respond with. Likewise, I think the cruiser Y button needs to be reworked so it isn't just a magic "I win" button.

 

Another idea I might like to toss onto the stack would be to change what happens when you ctrl-click on an air squadron. Say, give the AA guns more range, or a greater chance to panic THAT squadron, at the expense of other squads being ignored.


 

 

My name is "Carrier," but I play multiple classes.

 


 


1nv4d3rZ1m #9 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:16 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester

  • 9,357
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013

View PostAdmiralRayden, on 02 January 2016 - 10:14 PM, said:

I agree with this proposal. Especially AA shells. However I would like to point out that the BBs in WW1 and WW2 had what they called Type 3 Anti-Aircraft shells. That would also make it necessary to add BBs to the AA shell list. 

 

I am specifically eliminating BB AA shells for two reasons:

1) AA is a cruiser thing in this game

2) Slow turret traverse and limited elevation angles limited the effectiveness. 

 

That also eliminates a lot of the dual purpose IJN CA dual purpose primaries. 



Kaystonian8283 #10 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:28 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 216
  • Member since:
    11-28-2014
Sounds good to me, but planes would have to change to especially if zones were implemented. An why us simple if u commit to a zone ur AA is useless if cv can alter sides of atk on short notice of entry an I know because I do it consistently with 2 torp bombers so that fire torps on opposite sides for no way out. So if zones are committed so should bombers strikes be committed. An on the subject of torps those thing really need a dedicated drop range of around 2kil because u just can't avoid torps at 1kil or less 

1nv4d3rZ1m #11 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:34 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester

  • 9,357
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013

View PostKaystonian8283, on 02 January 2016 - 10:28 PM, said:

Sounds good to me, but planes would have to change to especially if zones were implemented. An why us simple if u commit to a zone ur AA is useless if cv can alter sides of atk on short notice of entry an I know because I do it consistently with 2 torp bombers so that fire torps on opposite sides for no way out. So if zones are committed so should bombers strikes be committed. An on the subject of torps those thing really need a dedicated drop range of around 2kil because u just can't avoid torps at 1kil or less 

 

The zones are inside the AA range of ships so in the range of where bombers are committed, it becomes a timing game were if the ship hits the consumable to soon the carrier can attack a different direction. 

AdmiralRayden #12 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:34 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 77
  • Member since:
    12-19-2015

View Post1nv4d3rZ1m, on 03 January 2016 - 12:16 AM, said:

 

I am specifically eliminating BB AA shells for two reasons:

1) AA is a cruiser thing in this game

2) Slow turret traverse and limited elevation angles limited the effectiveness. 

 

That also eliminates a lot of the dual purpose IJN CA dual purpose primaries. 

 

I would add it because it would improve equality over ship design. 

1) BBs typically have a longer firing range therefore traverse speed wouldn't be as much of an issue as you believe

2) BBs already have a decent AA capability on their own. (I've actually shot down more planes in my BB than my cruisers)

3) BB AA shells would make them a higher class target therefore making the team start working as a more cohesive unit and would require a more tactical mind as a CV captain to combat. Ergo making a more thoroughly enjoyable game. 

4) Type 3 Shells are't as powerful as their smaller ship counterparts. The RNG gods would still be in play when firing Type 3 shells so their effectiveness would vary based upon random rolls. Which would be an acceptable hindrance. 

5) Type 3 Shells would also make BB captains more responsible as captains and would actually make them stop feeling like crapwhen they are torped by planes because the planes can get right up on a BB, drop their load, and loose maybe 1 plane while taking out a BB in the process. Having Type 3 shells would make the BB captain feel more like he could have done more to protect himself instead of cursing his teammates or even his own maneuverability. 

 

 


 

Now! This is it! Now is the time to choose! Die and be free of pain or live and fight your sorrow! Now is the time to shape your stories! Your fate is in your hands! 

 

-Sir Auron, Final Fantasy X


Takiton #13 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:37 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 66
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Agree... I really like the idea because more player controls for AA would drive additional force multiplieries from CVs and really change the CV meta.

 

An already engaged ship would have more difficulty executing manual AA fire than a passive ship.  A non_engaged target would be a hard target for CVs as they can micro the defense rather than just turning and waiting to hit repair.  Adding defensive complexity (and directed effectiveness) would push CVs to attack and defend frontline targets with the rest of the team.

 

 Similar note... WOT scouting mechanics and downing aircraft also need xp and credit rewards to help drive teamwork behaviors in random battles.


Edited by Takiton, 03 January 2016 - 06:43 AM.


Brutaka1 #14 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:48 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 274
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013
They need to fix AA's immediately, and this is coming from a CV player. I'm tired of going in and having my aircraft come back half alive or dead from one run. It's impossible and not fun to play as a CV anymore.
OS: Windows 10 Pro 64 bit / SSD: Samsung 850 Pro 256GB / HDD: WD Blue 1 TB & WD Blue 320 GB
MoBo: Asus ROG Maximus VIII Hero / Processor: Intel i7 6700k OC 4.6 Ghz / RAM: Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB (2x8GB) DRAM 3200MHz
PSU: Corsair RM850 Watt 80+ Gold Certified / Graphics: Asus GTX 1070 Strix OC

1nv4d3rZ1m #15 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:51 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester

  • 9,357
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013

View PostBrutaka1, on 02 January 2016 - 10:48 PM, said:

They need to fix AA's immediately, and this is coming from a CV player. I'm tired of going in and having my aircraft come back half alive or dead from one run. It's impossible and not fun to play as a CV anymore.

 

Keep in mind this wont suddenly let carriers attack whatever they want, it would just mean that you have the possibility of outplaying ships where before you would be shut out. 

Kaystonian8283 #16 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:52 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 216
  • Member since:
    11-28-2014

View Post1nv4d3rZ1m, on 03 January 2016 - 12:34 AM, said:

 

The zones are inside the AA range of ships so in the range of where bombers are committed, it becomes a timing game were if the ship hits the consumable to soon the carrier can attack a different direction. 

 

ya that's all good then, my main problem is the dedicated torp drop especially in a bb an once in a blue moon with my cl/ca. 

1nv4d3rZ1m #17 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:46 PM

    Vice Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester

  • 9,357
  • Member since:
    08-04-2013

View PostAdmiralRayden, on 02 January 2016 - 10:34 PM, said:

 

I would add it because it would improve equality over ship design. 

1) BBs typically have a longer firing range therefore traverse speed wouldn't be as much of an issue as you believe

2) BBs already have a decent AA capability on their own. (I've actually shot down more planes in my BB than my cruisers)

3) BB AA shells would make them a higher class target therefore making the team start working as a more cohesive unit and would require a more tactical mind as a CV captain to combat. Ergo making a more thoroughly enjoyable game. 

4) Type 3 Shells are't as powerful as their smaller ship counterparts. The RNG gods would still be in play when firing Type 3 shells so their effectiveness would vary based upon random rolls. Which would be an acceptable hindrance. 

5) Type 3 Shells would also make BB captains more responsible as captains and would actually make them stop feeling like crapwhen they are torped by planes because the planes can get right up on a BB, drop their load, and loose maybe 1 plane while taking out a BB in the process. Having Type 3 shells would make the BB captain feel more like he could have done more to protect himself instead of cursing his teammates or even his own maneuverability. 

 

 

 

Sorry I am not going to advocate giving giving the primary batteries of the IJN BBs AA abilites. The ships are already strong enough and the type 3 shell was completely ineffective.

TalonV #18 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:55 PM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • Beta Testers

  • 27,439
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Well to add in planes have GOT to start flying like PLANES, not ufos. Also your plan isn't taking into account really distance, accuracy or speed which can change things up. Also ordinance. Especially DBs not having access to AP bombs.

 

Bunch of stuff to be considered.


 

​This isn't dueling pistols at dawn. This is war. In war you

never want to fight fair. You want to sneak up behind

the enemy, and bash him over the head.


Wo_9 #19 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:56 PM

    Captain

  • Supertester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 5,287
  • Member since:
    03-18-2015

remove rng from AA DPS and let secondary's/AA be controllable.

 

 

oh yea...give Iowa back its quad mounts please. Essex already has 17 quad mounts LOL    


Edited by Wo9, 03 January 2016 - 06:59 PM.

                                                                                                   Missouri, Get!

        TY Rolkasa for the Sig     

  

 

 


PhoenixWright_Desu #20 Posted 03 January 2016 - 06:56 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 71
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostTalonV, on 03 January 2016 - 06:55 PM, said:

Well to add in planes have GOT to start flying like PLANES, not ufos. Also your plan isn't taking into account really distance, accuracy or speed which can change things up. Also ordinance. Especially DBs not having access to AP bombs.

 

Bunch of stuff to be considered.

 

I still dont understand why they drop HE bombs. 





Also tagged with AA, Game Mechanics, Change

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users