Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'aa'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Community Programs Corner
  • Feedback and Support
    • Support
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Clan and Divisions Hub
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Jabber


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 51 results

  1. Okay, I've really hit my breaking point on people using AA ratings and bringing them up. If you look at the AA ratings, it's such an obscure number with so little meaning you think your AA is one thing yet you slaughter or get slaughtered by planes. So I'm going to give an overly simplified way to get an idea what your going to do to a CV's planes but it will require math on your end (unless I figure out an easy way to do it on a google sheet and/or people are willing to donate cash for the amount of time it will take me to run through every ship, CV, possible setup) Simply put what truly determines if your AA is good is how long planes are in your AA, and how much damage is done every second. It's why Kremlin at tier 10 outperforms Montana at downing planes, and Yamato seems pathetic. longer range is better and obviously, more damage is better, but truth be told you want both. Also, these are a general guideline - not insanely specific numbers (some planes will be faster, slower, more HP, less HP). Tier Speed (km/s) HP per plane 10 .5 km every second 2000 8 .45 km every second 1800 6 .4 km every second 15-1600 4 .35 km every second ~1400 So lets take Benson, tier 8 USN DD and put it against a tier 6 CV. You have the B hull, no flags/skills/modz. Long range is 5.8 km at 77 damage every second, short range is 2 km at 60 damage every second. Tier 6 average is .4 km and 1500 HP on the low end. Your long range AA will fire at them on the way in 14 times at 77 damage, and short range 5 times at 60 - roughly 1378 on the first attack run, just short of knocking a plane down. The C hull while taking away a little from long range and a lot from short range adds 49 DP at 3.5 km, meaning 8 seconds of damage - the overall change being an increase to 1525 - a better chance you down a plane in the first pass. Obviously DFAA (50% more damage) and sectors (varies) increase or decrease these numbers, but that is your rough baseline of what your ship can do against a CV of the tier without you doing anything. For any who want to do all the math for the most specific numbers - aircraft damage = AA Range/([plane speed in knots*2.6854]*1000) * DPS. The first part gets you time in AA, and then you multiply it by DPS number for that range. It's also a good idea of how long till a CV can hit you again - and to track them down by range. The number in the chart are if a CV can maintain maximum speed on planes (usually done on attack runs) - so generally, if a CV is hitting you every 90 seconds and is tier 6 - odds are he's roughly 6-9 grid squares away in the direction of the planes. Basically while there is some map size overlap - takes roughly 10 seconds for plane at a tier to cover a grid square in their tier range at top speed. That little chart is easier, and while not perfect - will give you a far better idea just what your AA can do against a CV than the nonsense port rating ever will.
  2. After a brief search seems the strongest AA at tier 4 is on Giussano, maxing her AA is enough to hurt t4 squadrons badly?
  3. G'day all, Just curious as I have not heard or read about this before...despite archive searching and talking to mates. I assume it is uncommon to shoot down Allied planes though I am curious if it had happened to anyone else or it's more common than expected ? I apologies in advance if this has been covered before. Happy Hunting! o7 cheers Mort
  4. stop maneuvering to sink a CV? I am chasing down an Implacable in my Z-39. The Z-bote has great torps and decent AA but her guns are the slow-firing 150's and they take their good old-fashioned time to turn. When I started the chase both of us were at full health. I am trying my best to survive long enough to put the CV down and a team mate pipes up with IMHO I could NOT stop maneuvering and expect to survive to sink the CV. If the CV was just a bit better none of my maneuvering would have worked , either. I had a bear of a time keeping guns on target but the outcome was inevitable. We had two caps and time to make up the difference unless the CV would've sunk me first. It seems to me that some peeps are clueless to what it takes for a DD to solo-kill a CV that is actively trying to take you out. If only I could put them in my shoes for the moment... This was a great game, BTW. One of those that make you sweat the details!
  5. leo_brzika

    AA fire through the islands

    some of you may notice, the AA fire through the islands is bad for those who play as carrier in the game
  6. PotatoMD

    Massive Fire AA?

    So we all know that MFAA is more or less useless. So can we change it back to Manual AA? It would work like Manual Secondaries: AA does not fire at all unless you set a sector. To compensate, the effect would be strengthened by like 300% and the cooldown for sector reinforcement would be halved. Also, both this skill and manual secondaries shouldn't be 4 point skills, maybe 3 at max. Also, can we have AFT increase AA range again? It doesn't have to be huge, like 5% at most. I feel the issue with this in the past was that AA could stealth fire at planes, but now it seems that AA guns firing gives a bloom like main guns do, so that shouldn't be a problem. It would help ships be able to defend each other from air attacks.
  7. _M_a_r_e_c_h_a_l_

    Problemas Em Pontos De Habilidade

    bom eu estou com um navio IX do Reino unido Mais Eu Destribui Algums Pontos Do Capitão Em Habilidades Como AA mais dai Os Meus Canhões Automaticos E AA não Funcionam Mais. E não Sei Resertar Meus Pontos Se Alguem Puder Me Ajudar Eu Agradeço
  8. During the recent change to Priority Sector, many Cruisers had their AA normalized. For instance, Minotaur AA was cut in half, both in Flak and in Continuous Damage. However, Defensive Fire was altered in a way that makes it EXTREMELY effective now. Defensive Fire increases your Continuous Damage by only 50%. It also increases the firing rate of your Flak by 300%. 300% is a lot. 300% hurts. Why is this useful? Can't CVs just dodge all the Flak? Normally, yes... but when the game has to spawn so much Flak that it runs out of room to put it, it becomes a wall that cannot be dodged. Example: * A Des Moines makes 5 bursts of Flak every 2 seconds. * The Des Moines takes the +2 Flak bursts for a new total of 7 bursts every 2 seconds. * The Des Moines activates Defensive Fire and now generates 28 Flak bursts every 2 seconds. * The Des Moines activates Priority Sector, which ramps up to an additional +35% output of 37 Flak bursts every 2 seconds. As a CV player, you go from clear skies... to a demonic landscape of fire... and everything is dead. 12 planes? Dead. In under a second some times. --- PSA --- This is not a complaint. Defensive Fire is a cooldown and has every right to be powerful during its uptime. This is a Public Service Announcement about why Defensive Fire may not feel strong. If you activate Defensive Fire after planes are too close for Flak cannons... you wasted the cooldown. If you activate Defensive Fire while islands block your Flak from seeing planes, you've wasted the cooldown. If you activate Defensive Fire while not having the +2 Flak mod, you've nerfed the cooldown's effectiveness. If you activate Defensive Fire while ignoring Priority Sector, you've nerfed the cooldown's effectiveness. Note: For the people that use full AA Commander Skills, I'm not sure if that further increases firing rate of Flak or increases the damage done by the explosion (I think it's damage, personally). So no tricked out 19 point anti-plane build are required for this.
  9. So with flak more or less being relagated to long range so carriers can focus on aiming at mid and short range, that seems to leave DDs in a tight spot since you leave AA off until the planes would detect you. And with most DDs, this is less than the range of your flak (assuming you're in a DD that even has long range AA). Am I missing something here?
  10. Capt_Ahab1776

    AA for Dreadnought

    Hello, I had just read a thread about the worst premiums. I read some one had mentioned the Dreadnought as one of the worst. I have the Dreadnought and, very happy to have her, (Thank you WG). I have no plans on selling her as she is very historic and I do have a little bit of a collector bug now and again. I reserve her for exclusively Co-op matches when I do play her. Now with the reintroduction of bot CV's into Co-op. Is there a chance she could be armed with her regular tech tree tier contemporary, Bellerophon's AA? Currently she has none so it is WASD to the rescue. Even with a addition of the Bellerophon's AA it would by no means make her OP. Maybe just make her more viable and a possible Random mode ship?
  11. Right. So I've been away from this game for about a week, first for a largely disappointing trip to Nebraska to see the spawn of my oldest sister (not happy with those kids right now, a pair of right jerks they've turned into), and second because I went back to finish a playthrough of Mass Effect 2 that I'd let collect dust for too long. I've finally gotten around to trying to get back into the swing of things (not that anything's changed in the time I've been gone, just trying to get my 'captain's instinct' back), and I take Musashi out in co-op to help grind out some daily crates and try to get my aim back. Lo and behold, a wild pair of bot Lexingtons appear (one on my incomplete team, and it's twin for the reds). Now I don't expect good play out of bot CVs, but even they should be a reasonable threat to a weak AA ship like Musashi. Instead, I get a nice lovely reminder of how 'balanced' AA still is. I know more changes are on the way, but when an IFHE secondary build Musashi with about 12 triple 25's and a grand total of 6 twin 5 inchers for an AA loadout can single-handedly ruin a Lexington's day (even a poorly played one), something is off to a point that it should never have gotten to. The replay itself can be found at https://replayswows.com/replay/59173#stats.
  12. I made a few tests on the PT server showing the new Anti-Aircraft changes coming for anti aircraft in update 0.8.7. I think the ship's GUI needs more work in identifying when the sector control is working for the AA. You will need to time when to use the sector control and the DFAA now. I hope the video informs what is coming for World of Warships The AA in WoWS feels like it use to pre-CV rework. The AA feels more useful than a noise maker. What do you guys think of the changes?
  13. Basically, it's been a little while since I've played the game and about the same length of time since I cared about what was going on here. The last time I did, the big topic of conversation was that AA had been significantly buffed to the point that CVs were completely useless; Their planes would get shredded like a brick of cheese put to a grader. The reason I ask is because I'm thinking about playing a few matches in the near future and I've generally had fun with the CVs I've bought since the rework went live. I've got a Ranger, a Furious, an Enterprise, and a Zeppelin and I enjoy playing all of them on occasion. However, I may not come back if these ships are in such a position that they can't be competitive and get good damage numbers. As such, I pose to all of you the question in the title. Thank you in advance for whatever helpful answers I may get.
  14. MakersMike

    Air defense question

    I'm pretty new, and I assumed something about planes attacking but now I'm not sure. When planes are attacking my ship, I notice that little airplane figure that I can move around with my mouse. I'm color blind, but I think it's orange. Am I supposed to aim that towards the attacking planes for better chance at shooting them down or what is that for? And is there a button I should push while aiming it or just point it towards the plane? Thanks
  15. I know that "Short range" AA also has an "accuracy" stat but I also know that Flamu is never wrong so I don't know what to think anymore... Somebody in the comments wrote this: ...what development blog?
  16. Just wondering if anyone has heard if there will be a free respec coming up? With upcoming changes to IFHE and the major change to the AA mechanic both being pretty drastic people might have a lot of 3 and 4 point skills that may not feel so valuable any longer. I try to keep up with the announcements but seems like things can show up in 5 differen places so hopefully I just missed it.
  17. Esta prueba de la versión no me deja conforme al jugar con los Portaviones, la cantidad de daño parte de las defensas Anti-Aéreas es excesivo, Pregunta Por que Estandarizar el daño anti-Aéreo en todos los barcos? La quejas antes del Rework a los Portaviones era la misma daño excesivo de las AA. Bueno si van a estandarizar el daño AA por que mejor reintegrar el ataque conjunto de los escuadrones aéreos. El daño AA va de 2k o hasta el derribo completo del escuadrón aéreo
  18. Been running the Kidd recently to be support for my friend who's learning the ropes on Enterprise. The DFAA is crazy good on that thing. I've wiped full Lexington squads from the air in seconds. Never really been able to do well with it before, but now I seem to be finding a niche for it. For anyone doubting it's AA effectiveness, don't worry, she's still an annoying little boat to deal with.
  19. 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.
  20. WanderingGhost

    I promised you a text wall

    As the title says - a text wall follows so the crowd that leaves snooze emotes because TL;DR - leave now unless your WG staff. I downloaded and played 8.5 today, and as I said in the other thread with my preliminary thoughts on what I was seeing from patch notes, WG Staff, and player feedback if it wasn't good or at least not terrible I'd be writing a wall. Well, here comes the wall. As it was, the entire AA system was bad, and in need of work - you have made it even worse. A common statement, by your staffers, is that it is more punishing "for those that loiter in AA, and who aren't dodging". Your team has actively hindered the ability of planes to dodge in attack runs even if we don't care about dialing our aim in. The moment you release ordnance your group gets stuck flying straight to be shot at and the other group you have no control as AA shreds them trying to return to the carrier because of the escape altitude changes. And per again, a staffers statement "it wasn't fair to see a CV have all it's planes return as a surface ship" - It was equally unfair when as a CV we see no planes return even after dropping all our ordnance - because after we lost control of our planes they were obliterated. And it's even worse now with this new system. And what is actually worst about this system - it's not like it gave everything OP AA. No - the DD's are still easy as hell to pick on and other typically weak AA ships, same with under tier - but clearly Worcester decloaking as it's AA guns open fire wasn't OP enough, you had to make it even more lethal. It was mentioned it was like AA "was focusing on a target" - yeah, it feels like the same nonsense that manual AA was under RTS - pathetic on anything not already sporting good long range AA, but OP on anything with good or OP long range AA - OP or straight up brokenly OP. And I'm sorry if this seems to veer at times to "less or not constructive" - but I'm seeing the same mistakes and processes that made RTS a problem being repeated. I'm seeing the same mistakes and blunders. I'm seeing things, that we were told this rework was being shoved down our throats for if we wanted it or not was going to remove or lessen, added back in. That this would be easier to balance for your team - and yet here we are, 5 months in, going in to month 6, of the live release, let alone the other 3-4 from the Beta period, no closer to anything resembling FAIR balance and CV play on the decline AGAIN. Instead of seeing a bunch of planes drop and going "well I must have been hit by flak" - no I'm now seeing that it really was auto cannons ripping my planes apart as I watch the health bars vanish. It's not fair that surface vessels are either launching nerf darts or using freaking PHALANX point defense systems. At this point, the entire rework feels like nothing but half baked, half tested, half implemented ideas. I feel like there is no actual plan in regards to CV's other than churn more out as premiums that shouldn't be (Ark Royal) when the system is still incomplete and in need of massive work and balance but adding yet another x factor (again, Ark Royal) when there should be ZERO new carriers testing till the damned ones we have are balanced. There are a ton of factors to balancing CV's that need to be addressed so for any reading - I am specifically going to focus at the moment on AA and plane losses/replenishment much as damage and a ton of other crap needs work too that I've gone over in other places. The one thing that is not fully related, is that odd tiers need to return for CV's - because there needs to be a smoother progression and adaption for both CV and Non CV players through tiers. 1. AA and planes need a flat rate "average" - What this means, is that regardless of if it's an 'imaginary number' or actually applies to a plane (likely UK or Germany if not one of the other 3 potential national lines) there is a middle road of DPS and Plane HP, lets say 2000 and 10000 respectively, that is considered the 'average' and for "flavour", prefereably based on history, DPS and Plane HP are +/- to that by a maximum of lets say 10%. So IJN and USN being the two extremes the difference in DPS is 1800 vs 2200 and plane HP 9000 vs 11000. That said though, IJN planes would have better agility to dodge Flak, USN have the extra added HP because not as agile, and kinda need it. But this means your average ship, barring ones that actually have next to nothing on AA and are usually premiums, while having weaker or stronger AA, is not as wild and all over the place. 2. Scaling of HP and DPS - tying in to point one - these two things need to scale through tiers and why I have been saying for years now that tiers 4-7 at minimum need their late war outfits of AA, or have some created where none existed. At least to make the numbers make more sense on why it's AA is so close to the next tier up. Which with that said - The worst AA and plane HP of a tier should be no lower than the average of the previous tier, and the best of each should be no higher than the average of the next tier up. So as an example, Lexington vs lets say Amagi is worst AA. Lexintons planes, at most, have HP on par with a typical tier 9 carrier while at worst, Amagi has AA comparable to an average tier 7. Again, this is best and worst case. And even then the gap between tiers on both AA and plane HP should not be that great. Again, the example of tier 8 being 2000 and 10000, 9 and 10 should be lets say 2100/11000 and 2200/12000 while 7-4 is 1900/9000, 1800/8000, 1700/7000, 1600/6000. Those are pure example numbers, I have not mathed them out or the like. 3. Simplicity and Flak - I'm combining these two because they go a bit hand in hand. What do I mean by "Simplicity" - I mean that the system should be frakkin' easy to understand with no 'mystery' numbers. Case in point, the need of someone like LWM or others to explain 'Hit Probability' is actually some random modifier that adjust the tick rate of damage and having things like aircraft armor and all. Your new 'ring' system, while annoying in it's limiting nature, can at least be worked around. Let's take the 'average' USN ship armed with 40 mm bofors, 20 mm Oerlikons, and 5"/38's. The ring of 5/38's should likely have the lowest DPS as the typical RoF was about a shell every 4-5 seconds - and the AA should match this. When they hit the next ring, the 40 mm guns open up, on top of flak, so, whatever DPS is assigned to the 40 mm guns takes over, while flak remains the same (as 40 MM guns DON'T USE FLAK ROUNDS) so in essence 'both' sets are firing. In theory as long as you can seperate when flak bursts occur from constant damage, you could even add the constant DPS of the Flak guns in if they are even given any. The 40 mm bofors has a RoF of 120 RPM for the majority of guns in game - 2 rounds every second. So, every 1 second, damage should be inflicted - unless you want to add a legit chance that the plane 'resists' (avoids) the damage. IE the 'hit probability' if it stayed saying say 90% means there's a 10% chance the DPS doesn't happen, or that in theory if the DPS is 200 per second in that AA, and a plane is there for 10 seconds he only takes 1800 damage not 2000 most likely. Think of it as 'fire chance for planes' but I digress. 20 mm L70's average 4-5 RPS, so damage per gun at the shortest range there should be the equivalent of (4[5]x 20 mm rounds + 2x 40 mm rounds)*number of barrels = DPS per one second tick. or a fixed number subtracting average from Flak's constant. To which getting in to Flak as I say above it should be based around the actual fire rate of the only guns that use them - which is guns of 3" or greater. And there are 2 models that can be used 1 or the other, or both used and depend on the ship - Either Flak bursts all fire at the same time every x seconds, or, Flak bursts are staggered for a more constant bursting. With no random modifires to it - if a ships has a broadside of 8x 5 inch barrels - 8 flak bursts. Operating on a 5 second reload that means 8 every 5 seconds, 4 every 2.5 seconds, or 2 every 1.25 seconds. Something like Atlanta is a bit insane at 14 every 4-5 seconds, a good case of "should be halved" that while it may not make technical sense (unless Wargaming can pair as a rotation of 6 and 8 guns) to 7 every 2-2.5 seconds. And whatever flak bursts the ships have for long range guns - they have the same number at mid range. And Flak should be relatively low damage that is in addition to whatever the base line of the constant DPS is - it should be there to cause players to dodge, obscure view, and punish those that let 13 bursts hit them. But they should not be these insane walls that were seeing that can obliterate planes as they do. To summarize 'simplicity' on the player end - Flak does damage when it hits, either DPS is constant, and you know that you will deal x damage every z seconds the plane is in that AA bubble, or that 'hit probability' if it remains' is not some modifier that isn't what it says, but is in fact just that, a 90% chance the planes are hit by 40 mm rounds, or 40 and 20 mm rounds, or whatever. And that if a ship has G number of guns it fires F number of Flak rounds, at any range. 4. Consistency of modules - Look, with a staggered system, if we assign base numbers and divvy out the damage, a bit harder to keep 20 mm damage consistent, not impossible, but harder. But even if the DPS isn't 100% the same - the damned ranges need to be. It doesn't matter what ship it's a secondary on/AA gun on - if the range of a 5"/38 is 5 km then every BB, cruiser, and CV 5"/38 should have a range of 5 km - and likely a RoF of 12-15 RPM. Ones that are improved closer to 20 RPM likely are a different mod or designation, they all have that near 20 RPM RoF and whatever range those guns get. Were we to lower DPS of AA enough, and not possibly have DD's throwing a fit, I'd argue that the 5"38 guns AA and secondary attack range should be equal to that of any DD with the same gun and further extend the AA ranges (longer in AA range, but less damage per hit). No magic range increases from tier alone or just because. 5. AFT and BFT - BFT needs to be changed that it reduces the time between the flak bursts the same way it reduces secondary firing times. While having no effect on the smaller non DP AA guns. AFT on the other hand, needs to return to a range boost to secondaries and AA both, even the small ones - even if that means the minimum range increases too (tradeoffs). Not adding random flak bursts and what not. 6. 'Secondary', 'AA', and 'Auxiliary' Armament mods - These should not be 3 separate things, never should have been divided up in Beta. I'd personally change it to something along the lines of "Point Defense" or the like as this is more or less what it's improving, but Mod 1 should be as is beyond maybe name change, Mod 2 should return to a single item that buffs Secondary gun range, AA range, and Secodary accuracy, and Mod 3 should be a decrease in reload time of secondary batteries and another reduction to time between flak bursts from these same guns. Destroyers should have a special new module unique to the type, or at least any that has DP main batteries, that while it may not increase accuracy and all increases main battery and AA range (as opposed to Mod 2 as few have secondaries) and the mod 3 slot being RoF and Flak bursts just for primaries, not secondaries. 7. Plane counts or 'on deck' planes - There is no damned reason Lexington should have only 48 planes available. Same with the pathetic numbers on most every other tech tree CV, save maybe the lowest tiers that actually had so few planes. Every carrier should be following the 'Kaga' model - their plane count/reserves match historical numbers. I also believe the planes per flight/squadron should change too, but that's a separate story. "But that takes away Kaga's thing" - shouldn't have been it's 'thing' in the first place. I can think of half a dozen other things to make it different. What it should have, to compensate for weaker planes, is that they replenish faster then it's counterparts that have maybe similar numbers, but better planes. On the reverse end, while it may have 'better' planes, using that term very loosely, Saipan with it's limited maxium plane count, affording far fewer full squadrons should catastrophic losses be incurred, should have a regen timer so that it replenishes planes faster than now, and possibly than normal, so while it can't spam say 3 waves of TB's, it's not waiting as long on any losses to replenish. Which, if we finally get AA balanced right, yes, they aren't taking as many losses to -2 ships, but are still taking losses, and while not slaughtered like now by high tier ships, still heavier losses vs +2 ships, but not enough to become overly problematic unless you really, REALLY screw up and need to learn to play CV better, then these changes to plane counts and regen should be a non-issue. Still leaves CV alpha damage, CV accuracy especially after all the nerfs, return of odd tiers, aircraft speed, skills, control of CV's, historical accuracy in way too many areas, flavour and differentiating ships and lines, plane mobility, spotting, and likely a couple other things I'm forgetting to fix just when it comes to CV's but hey, it'd be a start.
  21. I recently saw a video where someone in the Hakuryu managed to get consistent very high damage with torpedo bombers alone. Seen here, this gave me hope that CVs are not completely useless now and Hakuryu could still do some great damage, so I got it on the public test (once the nerf came out) and my god what a mess. 1. The aim sight. Probably the biggest issue here alongside the catastrophe that is AA, apparently in a situation where they encourage you to swerve around to minimize AA damage, now you cannot even move slightly without the aim sight becoming larger than the map. The spreads are just so horrible now, and the arming time of the torpedoes makes it worse. You will have to drop from miles away where the enemy ship can easily dodge or else just have them bump uselessly into the hull. I don't know why anyone thought this was a good idea. 2. The AA power. Anyone who thinks the AA is underpowered is being dishonest, you cannot even go after a single cruiser, let alone a group of ships, without your squadron being wiped out or severely damaged very quickly. Moving around doesn't even help much, and just worsens your aim. Even destroyers can seriously hurt your squadrons now, and it's not limited to just the good AA ships. Tier 8s, and ships like Yamato known for being CV magnets can really mow down everything in your squadron, and you will only get about one attack run in before the squadron is useless. Honestly a good decrease in AA power would go a long way here. Because currently your squadron is being blown up just from enemy AA looking at them. 3. Restoration time. It's not like the above is compensated for by being able to rapidly send more planes into battle. Planes are destroyed so easily that torpedo bombers will take forever to fully replenish. 4. But what about rockets and dive bombers? Rockets can be quite nice for setting fires, but honestly you aren't gonna get very much long term damage from either. Bombs are too inconsistent and torpedoes have now been made obsolete. 5. "You're just not playing them right" I do not believe the CV should be a ship so difficult that only unicums and effectively play it, for the above reasons, it takes a whole lot of skill to make those attack runs work, which is uncommon. I am no new player, I had lots of experience with the main line Japanese cvs before the rework and have a couple tier tens. 6. People whining about CVs being "overpowered" Look, just because some rockets are hurting or spotting your destroyer or fragile British cruiser doesn't mean the CV is a huge threat to the whole team. As I said, any ship with any kind of competent AA is gonna punish those squadrons hard before they can do any real damage. If people would not stop complaining about the new carriers and actually realize they could be a good ship class if they stopped nerfing them to hell, it would be a much funner class to play now. Am I asking for CVs to be powerhouses with no real threat to them, absolutely not. But I just want these few issues to be fixed so they can just be more enjoyable ships to play. They probably shouldn't be as good as in that video, but they should at least be comfortable and competent enough that a decent player could get 100-200k damage per game and maybe even more in the rare amazing game. I hope the coming patches can address these issues and finally restore balance to the carriers.
  22. (Keep in mind I'm not a DD main) No matter what ship main you are you cant deny that DDs are in a rather bad spot right now between common CVs and Radar. So, I've thought of some ideas that can help the DDs out a bit (these may not be the best but they are better then nothing and Far better then just removing CVs bla bla blah) 1: Give Destroyers the Fighter consumable. This may seem odd to some but this will make a DD have Far better odds of survival when being attacked by Carriers, Some will argue that it makes no sense for a Destroyer to have the fighter consumable when it has no catapults. but to that I would argue that it would work the same way as the Fighter consumable for Planes where they call them in from the Carrier. After all Bombers don't have catapults. This also has the benefit of making it WG doesn't need to make so many Blanket Buffs and Nerfs to AA and planes to try to solve the issue. 2: Give all Higher tier Destroyers a Heal like Cruisers, I'm thinking around USS Kidd Level. This will make it that if a Destroyer gets attacked by aircraft or Radared it can at least get some HP back. Though of course the Destroyers like Khab that are based around their Heal will just have a stronger one. 3: (This is more of a change to all ships then just Destroyers) Manual Control of Large caliber Flak. (flack shells for Destroyers) So this is how i would do it: make it that the AA stays the way it currently is But for most ships there is a "4" Button that makes you take Manual control of the flak AA on the ship you are using. for battleships and cruisers this would be their secondaries. but for destroyers these would be their main guns so they would be a little different. While larger ships will just have control of their secondaries etc the destroyers would need to load "Flak shells" in loading these it would change the camera angle to be better suited for following aircraft and would allow you to lock onto planes like you would a ship, then a Aiming recital would appear (similar to the [edited] SPAA or World of Warplanes recital.) and then you fire Flak shells at the aircraft with lead and all Just like you would shoot a ship. this will Drastically improve AA performance but you would need to actually use your guns so this wont be a good idea when enemy ships are close. the AA would perform the same as it does now if you don't use the flack shells. While the last one is Unlikely i would Strongly advise the other two. If you can think of other things they can do for CVs Let me know of that and your thoughts on these ideas below.
  23. Este poste é uma cópia de outro que acabei de fazer na seção de sugestões do Fórum Inglês, decidi posta aqui também para a fácil divulgação para a comunidade BR. Mudar de Setor AA tem três problemas, mostrar uma HUD enorme que encobre toda a tela (tirando do jogador a consciência situacional da partida enquanto está gerenciando o setor AA), fazer isso ativa automaticamente a AA (o que acaba denunciando a posição do DD caso tenha um esquadrão entre seu ocultamento aéreo e o alcance máximo de AA) e a visualização do Setor Reforçado na bússola de batalha não funciona quando a AA está desligada (obrigando o jogar a abrir aquela HUD enorme apenas para conferir qual lado está reforçado). Dito isso, essas são as sugestões: Definir Comandos Chave para Reforço de cada lado (eliminando o problema da consciência situacional, tecla padrão pode ser "K" e "L"); O gerenciamento de Setor não mais ativa automaticamente as AAs (dando a chance de DDs permanecer furtivos e com o Setor AA direcionado para o lado mais oportuno); O Setor Reforçado sempre aparecerá na bússola, diferenciando de quando a AA está desligada pelo uso da cor Amarelo; Considero as sugestões #1 e #3 as mais importantes, porque suas implementações tornariam o Gerenciamento de Setor AA mais limpo e eficiente... Poste original:
  24. WanderingGhost

    No witty title this time

    I decided to take a bit of a break, from playing the game, from researching stuff to continue working on my CV thread, all of it. I figured I'd start trying to at least get a couple games in, and see 2 news things in the launcher that I knew I should have just ignored, but couldn't. 8.4 testing, and plans for CV's. But no, I had to give in to temptation and look, and then slam my head against a wall a few times. For all the tune changing you did as to why you did this rework one of the more consistent things was this would be "Easier for you to balance". So 4 months in now - why am I seeing the same stupid mistakes and changes as RTS? Nerfing or buffing the wrongs things, screwing things up worse than they are, changes that in no way accomplish what they are supposed to or make gameplay worse, more frustrating or just plain dumb? You wanted CV players to be jumping right in to action and all - so now you add in a delay, like when we had reloads in RTS, so now it's going to be closer to at least 60 seconds before we can do anything fun and engaging. Gee, thanks, and why is this? Oh, because we spot the teams early, something you were made aware of oh 8 MONTHS OR MORE AGO. Well before it bloody went live. And let's really be honest here - what exactly is it REALLY going to change here? Low ball estimate about 80% of the time we all already know where the enemy team ships are going the CV just confirms it. Two brothers most of the time the team in North Spawn goes to C, the team in South goes to A, a couple ships try and delay the lemming train, and some fool rushes the middle way too early. Pick a map and it typically breaks out that one team mostly goes left, the other mostly right, everyone knows where the DD's are between RPF and them trying to cap unless Radar gets used, gunship cruisers are behind the low islands, DD's are behind islands or lurking in waters depending on which DD it is and the BB's are mostly staying in open water because of how far back they are playing and avoiding any place a DD or maybe a torp armed cruiser is hiding. And quite frankly the "better" the players involved in a match the more bloody predictable it all is. Also as a side note when I took a break to actually play it took nearly 90 seconds on Land of Fire to spot any ships flying in a straight line knowing their general direction with Implacable DB's - they really need more time? And then you have the boost changes - did any of your staff actually think through that this was going to impact ability to dodge AA and ability to attack via change in skills and timing and all that will once more add to the skill gap you sought to close? I'm guessing the answer is no. Decreasing the top speed and raising minimum speed lowers the speed range which means less needed compensation for AA meaning your not dodging it like you used to. Now add in ALL the other things you have added to make it more frustrating to use Rockets and and some TB's and makes that even better because we can no longer try to better stabilize things by using just speed and very small movements to dodge as well. Which, that and the changes in closing rates will throw off all the times we have adapted to and have to relearn, again, all that as well as likely have some adapt faster or better than others and once again just add to the skill gap that seems to be ever growing, again, because of these changes. You again accomplish nothing bloody meaningful other than to make CV's more frustrating, one of your claimed points being you wanted CV's to be more east to access and interesting to more players - this does not help. And then you have the HE bomb changes - more RNG added, increased height of drop for increased fall time meaning more skill required and removing one of the last effective ways to deal with the DD your team lets through cause we can't attack it while trying to dodge it's weapons. I'll be first to admit CV vs DD is screwed up but wanna know why my Lexington is curb stomping Fubuki's? BECAUSE IT'S DROPPING 6 1000 LB BOMBS AT A TIME 3 TIMES AT 9200 DAMAGE WHICH TRANSLATES TO OVER 3K ON PENS PER BOMB AND IT'S NOT ONE OF THE MAYBE 7 DD'S THAT ACTUALLY HAS WORTHWHILE AA. It's the same issue with rockets, with torps, with CV ordnance since inception even in freaking RTS it's ing simple damn math. I hit 1/6 of those bombs that's 1/3-1/7 of the DD's HP depending on tier. So yeah, no matter what 3 attacks it's gonna freaking feel it. It's the same issue on Hak TB's, was the same on Midway's, still the same in general in places the alpha damage is too damn high.For just ing once would you stop trying to screw with accuracy and RNG and let us have accurate attack planes that can hit so we feel like we can actually accomplish something, and just nerf the alpha damage, seriously. And won't have much impact on hitting other ships? Your changing the reticle, RNG dispersion and height they drop at - I've had near max aim attacks on cruisers and BB's lined up perfectly, a couple times target was even parked, and had bombs somehow miss. Any change is going to screw that especially against smaller and more agile cruisers. I'd also like to again point out that also the reason they are getting picked on is they tend to be alone and isolated with weak AA while more and more BB's and CA/L are near untouchable especially when out tiered. Then we have priority AA - you want it to be more effective? Because as is many BB's and cruisers especially tier 8+ aren't butchering squadrons hard enough? Having 0/6 planes from Saipan attacking a lone tier 8 French BB because it's AA shoots them down before they reach escape height isn't enough? Or that I can't see some of the heaviest AA ships till I'm basically in their flak clouds - not even counting the ones that have their own smoke generator. Or the DF AA. Or the catapult fighters that can eviscerate a squadron just like the old broken strafe mechanic because you can't deploy fighters to defend AA shreds them before they even basically spawn in. Not to mention this system is still in such disarray, premium CV's still in need of individual work - and you pushed them back out on sale. Right before hitting them with global nerf hammers. I've already seen people call you out on what that looks like. You people shouldn't have released them in the first place, but no apparently greed got the better of you. And no one considered the optics of "hey, were about to release 50 dollar ships then nerf the hell out of them, does this maybe look bad cause were selling them seemingly strong then making them weaker?" New system - same bad decisions, problems ignored, and trying to fix the problem by working around it instead of direct fixes to it. So why is it again we changed from RTS?
  25. the tier 10 cvs are ridiculous. their planes never stop regardless of aa spec or fighters launched. just finished a match the hak singlehandedly kicked eveyones @rses its ridiculous. this needs to be nerfed.
×