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

Refund for AA themed ships Atlanta and Texas?

135 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

844
[-ARP-]
Members
716 posts
14,371 battles

As they are absolutely harmed in the next patch, a refund would be nice to offer.

Texas being the biggest hit to a ships with the neutering of AA.

 

Edited by Cit_the_bed
  • Cool 6
  • Boring 1
  • Angry 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,913
[WOLF3]
Members
22,417 posts
20,527 battles

Give it time.  Personally, I think the version of AA they have in the current CV Rework is a 100% sh*tshow, castration of this mechanic, they have under 1 month to get this sh*t right.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
844
[-ARP-]
Members
716 posts
14,371 battles

I don't pay hundreds of dollars a year to f#$%#ng  to be a beta tester.

  • Cool 9
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,228 posts
4,969 battles
4 minutes ago, Cit_the_bed said:

I don't pay hundreds of dollars a year to f#$%#ng  to be a beta tester.

That's exactly what you do.

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
864
[PVE]
Beta Testers
2,643 posts
7,278 battles
1 hour ago, Cit_the_bed said:

As they are absolutely harmed in the next patch, a refund would be nice to offer.

Texas being the biggest hit to a ships with the neutering of manual AA.

 

Manual Fire Control for AA Armament 

+100% to average damage per second of AA guns with a caliber exceeding 85mm against a designated target.

 

Texas' AA defense

20 mm Oerlikon Mk              444 х 1 pcs.
 
76.2 mm/50 Mk22 mod.2   10 х 1 pcs.
 
40 mm Bofors Mk2               10 х 4 pcs.
 

 

 

pp,550x550.jpg

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 8
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,463 posts
86 battles

Oh please, save your kneejerk whining.

Next thing you know, the "AA problem" will be remedied, and you'll now whine about getting back your Atlanta and Texas

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,577
[SYN]
Members
15,451 posts
12,778 battles

Actually, I thought they went back to the old AA mechanics, where having lots of mid range and short range was actually better than long range.

So Texas is unaffected, but Atlanta is pretty useless

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
240
[WOLFB]
Members
917 posts
29,281 battles

Bad AA along with the unlimited planes and 3 cv per match may well be the Camel that breaks the games back!!

It will be an entirely different game if they really get 3 cv per game that can stay over target with lite aa and pound the other class ships,

Yes I played PT and I don't like the change to AA.....

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,577
[SYN]
Members
15,451 posts
12,778 battles

If CVs get unlimited hangar capacity, then I think AA mounts should never break and DFAA should be unlimited

  • Cool 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,329
[ARGSY]
Members
15,108 posts
9,874 battles
3 hours ago, Cit_the_bed said:

As they are absolutely harmed in the next patch, a refund would be nice to offer.

Texas being the biggest hit to a ships with the neutering of AA.

 

First: as others have pointed out, MFCAA does not affect Texas's major strength in that area - but I see you edited your post to omit the thing they called you out for.

Second: Atlanta's primary notoriety, and the reason a lot of people buy her, lies in the effect and capabilities of her surface-to-surface gunfire, not her AA capabilities (as good as they are). So WG are unlikely to offer a refund on that.

Third: I bought Texas because the Aigle marathon offered a 30-plane-kill mission for Tier 5 ships and I thought she might come in handy down the road. You can imagine my dismay when the Indianapolis Marathon demanded Tier 6 ships or better for the identical task. But I didn't come here whining about it and demanding my money back. So I don't think WG will be any more sympathetic to your plight.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,147
Members
2,486 posts
4,169 battles
7 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

If CVs get unlimited hangar capacity, then I think AA mounts should never break and DFAA should be unlimited

Eh,  the problem with this is that losing planes has a stacking effect that causes that squadron to be out of the action longer the more planes you shoot down.  An AA heavy CA or CL would be able to constantly and consistently shut down a CV by their lonesome and completely prevent a CV from dealing any damage.  I am sure that sounds good to some people here but that's bad for gameplay all around.  Especially when you can put multiple of those ships in close proximity.

There are...many problems with the current AA system.  Lower AA is needed because there are fewer planes,  so people are shooting down less planes, so it feels like they are doing less,  so it feels like AA isn't as effective.  Further due to the way AA works now,  its hard to tell if you are even having any effect when a squadron is overhead with multiple ships attempting to shoot it down.  Further,  since planes peel off after an attack run there are less opportunities to shoot planes,  and we're already talking about squadrons that start off at SIX strong and never go any higher then twelve.

I do think AA is a bit low at the moment.  Not as low as people seem to be screaming due to the many,  MANY changes this system made.  But I did a match in a fully AA specced and modded Buffalo with an enemy Hakuryu on the enemy team.  150% sector AA,  kept the Hak's squadrons in my strong sector, no AA blown off,  not a single plane shot down.  BUT here is the thing,  that's not indicative of my AA performence.  The issue was the Hakuryu I was defending got all the plane kills.  We literally wiped out every single plane the enemy Hak sent at us, I could see my AA having an effect,  the damage from flak bursts was apparent,  but the Hak was just dealing more AA damage then I was.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
177
[WOLF5]
Beta Testers
529 posts
3,313 battles

So these guns they have that shoot ships still work just fine. If you only bought said ships for the ability to shoot planes down then maybe you were a bit foolish.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
900
[4HIM]
Members
2,721 posts
9,487 battles

If you think ships like Texas and Atlanta will get hammered, how about those with garbage AA?  The Gallant (T6) has worse AA than the Campbeltown at T3.  And those rocket attacks are near un-dodgeable.  So other than playing it in Dynamo, a lot of DD's are just going to rust in port.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,913
[WOLF3]
Members
22,417 posts
20,527 battles
6 minutes ago, AzureTerra said:

So these guns they have that shoot ships still work just fine. If you only bought said ships for the ability to shoot planes down then maybe you were a bit foolish.

When these CV Revamp Carriers are running rampant on your ship doing multiple attack runs with the same squadrons, and you have zero means on stopping that, we'll see who looks foolish.

But anyways.  Right now the difference between the AA of Imperator Nikolai and Des Moines is zero.  AA in the Revamp cannot stop nor slow down the freebie attack runs Carriers get.

4 minutes ago, ZARDOZ_II said:

If you think ships like Texas and Atlanta will get hammered, how about those with garbage AA?  The Gallant (T6) has worse AA than the Campbeltown at T3.  And those rocket attacks are near un-dodgeable.  So other than playing it in Dynamo, a lot of DD's are just going to rust in port.  

If DM, Montana don't stand a chance, I guess in a weird way, Musashi's poor AA is irrelevant :Smile_teethhappy:

"You can't have Bad AA if no AA is effective to begin with!"

Image result for black man think gif

"What's the difference in AA Capability between a AA Build Montana and a Survival Build Tirpitz?"

"No difference at all!" :Smile_teethhappy:

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway
  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,247
Alpha Tester
4,156 posts
8,061 battles

Texas will be fine, since IIRC the 20mm Oerlikon counts as short-ranged AA which gets to be quite powerful.

It's Japanese ships which will suffer in the new AA system, since the Japanese 25mm is considered a mid-range gun thus gets crappy burst damage instead of continuous DPS, and BFT won't work on it anymore.  And Japanese ships gets TONS of 25mm and almost no short-range guns outside of certain ships like Kongo with 13.2mm, and their best long-range AA gun, the 100mm, only become relevant in the Akizuki line or in tier 9/10 ships.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
10,267 posts
4,608 battles
2 hours ago, Vader_Sama said:

Manual Fire Control for AA Armament 

+100% to average damage per second of AA guns with a caliber exceeding 85mm against a designated target.

 

Texas' AA defense

20 mm Oerlikon Mk              444 х 1 pcs.
 
76.2 mm/50 Mk22 mod.2   10 х 1 pcs.
 
40 mm Bofors Mk2               10 х 4 pcs.
 

 

 

pp,550x550.jpg

I'm just as confuzzled. Have a +1.

Did someone cit the bed while trying to do math?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23
[SIX]
Beta Testers
81 posts
11,894 battles

Historically anti-aircraft gunnery success wasn't judged on how many planes got shot down, but on how it affected the ability of the attackers to press home their attacks and effectively engage the target. Flak was primarily meant to disrupt and disperse the enemy, with actual kills being something of a bonus in many cases. As long as your AA forces the enemy to stand off, miss you, or otherwise become ineffective, it's a win, except of course for silly missions and stuff where you actually and somewhat ahistorically have to kill a bunch of planes.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,744
[PVE]
Members
9,984 posts
18,179 battles
53 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

When these CV Revamp Carriers are running rampant on your ship doing multiple attack runs with the same squadrons, and you have zero means on stopping that, we'll see who looks foolish.

So much this. I am so tempted to keep a list of those who keep saying we are overreacting and such. Man I can't wait for them to get hammered by never ending attacks, CV's with a never ending supply of planes, and AA that can't even begin to defend your ship. Can't wait for these folks to flood the forums and start complaining so I can "remind them" how things are fine and balanced, WG will fix it if it is not, you are overreacting, etc...

  • Cool 12
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,400
[WAIFU]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
13,753 posts
5,814 battles

It's a global rework and not a direct nerf to certain ships, so there will be no refunds.

It's not like we haven't seen this before. Direct nerfs and changes to premiums, such as the smoke firing penalty for Kutusov, and the upcoming changes to premium CVs warrant a doubloon refund. Indirect nerfs which may result from global gameplay changes get nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,744
[PVE]
Members
9,984 posts
18,179 battles
14 minutes ago, TANSTAAFL said:

Historically anti-aircraft gunnery success wasn't judged on how many planes got shot down, but on how it affected the ability of the attackers to press home their attacks and effectively engage the target. Flak was primarily meant to disrupt and disperse the enemy, with actual kills being something of a bonus in many cases. As long as your AA forces the enemy to stand off, miss you, or otherwise become ineffective, it's a win, except of course for silly missions and stuff where you actually and somewhat ahistorically have to kill a bunch of planes.

Historically a CV could run out of planes or at least have it's numbers vastly reduced through losses (they couldn't build new planes on the ship), a DD didn't have an endless supply of torpedoes, ships had limited ammo (although generally enough for a 20 minute game), a BB AP shell hitting a DD would tear a hole big enough to drive a Volkswagen through not to mention take out all kinds of machinery and such inside the hull being destroyed and the flooding it would cause but in game it is a small scratch to the DD, ships weren't easily and routinely destroyed by small gun HE shells and fire, etc... Since when does IRL matter in this game? I generally advocate for a little more realism myself but there is nothing realistic about how CV's will work so how can anyone think realistic AA would be good or is balanced?

But, going with your ^^^ above. AA has almost NO affect in anyway with this rework. You struggle to shoot down planes (ok that's historical) but it doesn't disrupt or scatter an attack either. So not only will people struggle to shoot down planes but the AA doesn't even slow the planes up. So how does what you posted apply? AA has been neutered to the point of being totally inconsequential and useless. Non CV's are going to be at the mercy of the CV's now with no way to defend against repeated attacks from the CV that will never run out of planes. It is broken beyond all measure. Common sense should show people this.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
177
[WOLF5]
Beta Testers
529 posts
3,313 battles
1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

When these CV Revamp Carriers are running rampant on your ship doing multiple attack runs with the same squadrons, and you have zero means on stopping that, we'll see who looks foolish.

If you bought a given ship only for its AA capability  then yes you a fool but not one that is deserving of a refund because a mechanic has changed. If CV are going to run rampart over everyone with or without AA then that's a thing that needs to be looked at but not anything that warrants refunds for ships that do actually do stuff not involving planes ~ Texas and Atlanta still sink ships fine. 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
[UNNAT]
Members
543 posts
5,131 battles
1 hour ago, Seraphil said:

Texas will be fine, since IIRC the 20mm Oerlikon counts as short-ranged AA which gets to be quite powerful.

It's Japanese ships which will suffer in the new AA system, since the Japanese 25mm is considered a mid-range gun thus gets crappy burst damage instead of continuous DPS, and BFT won't work on it anymore.  And Japanese ships gets TONS of 25mm and almost no short-range guns outside of certain ships like Kongo with 13.2mm, and their best long-range AA gun, the 100mm, only become relevant in the Akizuki line or in tier 9/10 ships.

The way AA works on the rework right now is all AA guns do continuous DPS. Mid and long range make flak clouds in addition to that. All AA guns only work within their own range bracket, there is no overlapping of AA gun ranges. The continuous DPS also has a chance to miss each tic of damage and ultimately ends up being useless. What shoots down planes is flak clouds. That means short range AA is completely worthless. All flak clouds, even IJN ones do significant damage to planes. As a result the most important stat to look at is how many flak clouds a ship makes and how little short range AA they have. Ships like the Repubilque that have no short range AA are now the best AA boats. Boats like the Montana or Gearing which make few flak clouds and have short range AA are now worthless. Atalanta and Texas will almost certainly have a significant short range bubble which means they have a massive blind spot 2-3km out. Atlanta will probably still have decent AA(relative to other ships) but Texas is probably screwed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,463 posts
86 battles
51 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

So much this. I am so tempted to keep a list of those who keep saying we are overreacting and such. Man I can't wait for them to get hammered by never ending attacks, CV's with a never ending supply of planes, and AA that can't even begin to defend your ship. Can't wait for these folks to flood the forums and start complaining so I can "remind them" how things are fine and balanced, WG will fix it if it is not, you are overreacting, etc...

And then the devs will fix the immediate problems that's apparent after 0.8.0 rolls out in one or two patches, and then we'll laugh at all the "sky is falling" kneejerk whiners

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,744
[PVE]
Members
9,984 posts
18,179 battles
9 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

And then the devs will fix the immediate problems that's apparent after 0.8.0 rolls out in one or two patches, and then we'll laugh at all the "sky is falling" kneejerk whiners

LOL you think WG is capable of balancing things? Since when? The fact they are actually letting this abomination go through as is speaks volumes.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×