Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
KilljoyCutter

AA concerns in the 0.8.0 "rework" PTS

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,778
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,745 posts

@Gneisenau013@Sub_Octavian@Boyarsky

Saw the reddit post addressing concerns about the state of AA in the PTS, and noting that problems on testing hurt perception of the rework.

So, in the spirit of that outreach, here's where I am on the AA in the PTS for 0.8.0:

 

1) AFT no longer boosts AA range. This is a huge nerf to this skill, despite the small bonus to damage it now gives AA. The ability to push the ranges farther out is a major aspect of improving AA for a ship, forcing the enemy aircraft to spend more time in "the bubble" during any attack run and allowing the ship to provide meaningful cover for teammates. A range boost also means that the CV player can't memorize and know the AA range of every ship, making the approach to any ship more of a calculated risk -- and the reworked CVs need a bit more "calculated risk" in their mix. 

AFT needs to boost AA range as it does in the current live version -- increasing the max range of AA guns on the ship by 20%. 

 

2) AA range bands do not appear to overlap -- the wording in the "ship parameters" AA section makes it appear that the guns simply stop firing once the enemy aircraft cross into the max range of the next "size" down.  This is going to hit some ships very hard, as currently they rely on the stacking of damage as enemy aircraft fly deeper into "the bubble" for their AA to be effective. It also renders some AA guns almost pointless -- see, the 0.2km thick "shell" affected by the Hindenberg's 105mm DP guns before the 55mm take over at 5.0km. 

If there's a need for minimum ranges, implement a 1km min range for "medium" AA mounts across the board, and a 1km or 2km min range for the "large" AA / DP mounts across the board. This will resolve the issues without eliminating the min ranges entirely.

 

Thank you for your time reading this post, and any consideration of my points here. 

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2 posts
657 battles

The fact AA bubbles don't overlap is honestly illogical and just further borks the attempts of ships to defend against air attacks. It's like the planes cross a magical line and the guns are polite enough to tag out with the next bubble. I'm sorry, but the closer a plane gets to the ship the more danger it needs to face. If it makes it to the final 'bubble' all guns need to be lighting into it. As it stands these changes are going to render a lot of ships that had the 'AA Boat' as their gimmick, utterly useless. I would -not- want to be an Atlanta owner after this goes live.

I'd also agree with OP on the 'Calculated Risk' thing, because as it stands CVs face no risk from just throwing planes at a target. I've tried it in PT, you can in about fifteen seconds dump all your torps/bombs and have another squadron taking off to head for another salvo. Even if one gets shot down it means you just have to switch to a different squad 'till the planes regenerate. Every other class runs risks for attack runs, why not CV?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
81
[KRAK]
[KRAK]
Members
1,068 posts
12,670 battles

Will there be a captain respec for non-cv players?

Alternatively, is everything being prepared so that previous captain skill choices are still the best overall skills to have ?

In PTS, you can play around with those parameters without penalty or cost.

Should everyone play PTS to know what to do with their fleet at 0.8.0  ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,172
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,983 posts
4,264 battles

I do not disagree with this...   Having loaded the PTS this weekend and playing a dozen or so games AA is more borked than it has been in any of the previous tests..   I will note that pretty much all I continue to see are bots to play against?   No way to know what type of captains skills,  upgrades or consumables may be in use..Overall playing AA from an surface ship or against it from a carrier attacking is not really giving any feedback of what exactly i'm playing against or how it is working... just no determination as to depth of play there in regards to how to use it or how it is being used against me?    As much as I want to say this is not ready for primetime, (i'm certain at this point it is not)  I just don't know how we are going to know whats going on with it until we can get in games full of live players with varying use of perks & upgrades to it.   Toothless AA and no depth of play, appearance and feel to it runs the risk of turning what already runs the risk of being a  pretty mindless task of flying and attacking ships with planes into a very very boring mundane repeatable exercise.     AA needs to be something that is a challenge to overcome and fly around, having to plan attacks or completely avoid ships with strong AA grouped together...you know strategy. .  I also think the timers for rearming plane squadrons needs to be adjusted so there is more penalty for flagrant suiciding of planes .     i just don't feel the penalty at this point for doing this.   it also really hurts depth of play for the class.    

 

Also upvote for posting something except the same ol sky is falling visceral reactionary neg spam.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
496
[SFBG]
Members
1,617 posts
8,760 battles
3 minutes ago, Ericson38 said:

Should everyone play PTS to know what to do with their fleet at 0.8.0  ?

Yes.

It's amazing the amount of salty coming from players who won't even try the new mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,535
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,397 posts
10,167 battles
26 minutes ago, Aluminum_Salmon2 said:

Even if one gets shot down it means you just have to switch to a different squad 'till the planes regenerate. Every other class runs risks for attack runs, why not CV?

Because the problem is that the planes of a CV is effectively it's turrets - and they've essentially removed a CV's with this rework, or made them usable only one at a time. So while in old concept it was PERCEIVED as CV's having "no risk", they in fat had a higher risk of their unarmoured turrets being knocked out, leaving them with only secondary guns. On top of even if they didn't have them knocked out yet unlike BB's - some of which still out damage even Midway and Hak, if anything sets them on fire, they lose the ability to attack and defend themselves, and 1 fire is 24% of the ships HP, CV's are by far easier to spot after tier 6 and other disadvantages that others that have never played CV's past tier 6 tend to not comprehend, helped create this mess. 

Now the risk is we have no ability to dodge while attacking - were sitting ducks more than we previously were and 100% reliant on the team for defense. There are better ways to handle "unlimited planes" that you have a limited supply as now, and get no refills till you've run out and even then it takes time before resupplied, meaning 2, 4, 6 minutes with no planes if you act foolishly. But this is what they have settled on. I'm a CV player and even I don't like the system for how it works. I dislike the rework for what it does to gameplay overall and history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,778
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,745 posts
15 minutes ago, OtterWolf said:

Yes.

It's amazing the amount of salty coming from players who won't even try the new mode.

Plenty of objections coming from those of us who HAVE tried the new mode too.

But that's for another thread, this is just about fixing AA in the rework, please.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,177
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
6,253 posts
9,621 battles
4 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

2) AA range bands do not appear to overlap -- the wording in the "ship parameters" AA section makes it appear that the guns simply stop firing once the enemy aircraft cross into the max range of the next "size" down.  This is going to hit some ships very hard, as currently they rely on the stacking of damage as enemy aircraft fly deeper into "the bubble" for their AA to be effective. It also renders some AA guns almost pointless -- see, the 0.2km thick "shell" affected by the Hindenberg's 105mm DP guns before the 55mm take over at 5.0km. 

If there's a need for minimum ranges, implement a 1km min range for "medium" AA mounts across the board, and a 1km or 2km min range for the "large" AA / DP mounts across the board. This will resolve the issues without eliminating the min ranges entirely.

i have a pic here to support that "long range" AA(secondarys) can still be shooting with mid-range and maybe even short range

5_inch_turrets_aboard_USS_Massachusetts_

now i dont know what degree of elevation that is, but ive been told its about 85 degrees, and yes, i know, balance comes before realism, im just posting this to show that its possible for the long range AA, which was mostly secondaries afaik, can still fire at closer ranges

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,778
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,745 posts

Two more items I'd like to bring up:

3)  With unlimited planes for the CVs, AP mounts should probably repair / regenerate over time on their own, or be restored by use of the DCP consumable.   Otherwise, carriers will be able to operate with impunity later in battles. 

4)  I greatly prefer the old long-duration single-plane catapult fighter to what's in the PTS.   Others' mileage may vary.  Not only does it tie up enemy planes, it also functions as a secondary scouting aircraft, which has its own utility aside from the defensive role it plays. 

Edited by KilljoyCutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52
[FYL]
Alpha Tester
158 posts
14,444 battles
3 hours ago, tcbaker777 said:

i have a pic here to support that "long range" AA(secondarys) can still be shooting with mid-range and maybe even short range

5_inch_turrets_aboard_USS_Massachusetts_

now i dont know what degree of elevation that is, but ive been told its about 85 degrees, and yes, i know, balance comes before realism, im just posting this to show that its possible for the long range AA, which was mostly secondaries afaik, can still fire at closer ranges

Note that most aa guns never HIT a target, they are dependant on the shell EXPLODING via time fuse to cause FLAK. The weapon pointing up in your pic would likely be targeting a high flyover, not an attacking torpedo bomber in close. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,650
[TARK]
Members
3,334 posts
1,490 battles
4 hours ago, TheGill said:

Note that most aa guns never HIT a target, they are dependant on the shell EXPLODING via time fuse to cause FLAK. The weapon pointing up in your pic would likely be targeting a high flyover, not an attacking torpedo bomber in close. 

That high flyover is still within the up close bubble...so you are in agreement with the OP, that heavy and medium AA weaponery should have lower minimum range...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
662
[CVA16]
Members
3,705 posts
12,049 battles

So what would this bubble concept do to ships that only or mostly have mid to long range AA?

Realistically, the larger guns were probably not effective at close range. Shells had a minimum arming range to prevent doing damage to your own ship. They mostly could not train fast enough to track close in targets either (i.e. French triple and quad secondaries) But the game already has DP guns doing AA and surface combat at the same time, so adding all the AA rings as you get closer is a comparatively minor deviation from reality.

Edited by Sabot_100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,650
[TARK]
Members
3,334 posts
1,490 battles
6 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

So what would this bubble concept do to ships that only or mostly have mid to long range AA?

Realistically, the larger guns were probably not effective at close range. Shells had a minimum arming range to prevent doing damage to your own ship. They mostly could not train fast enough to track close in targets either (i.e. French triple and quad secondaries) But the game already has DP guns doing AA and surface combat at the same time, so adding all the AA rings as you get closer is a comparatively minor deviation from reality.

I'm less interested in realism and more interested in how this plays out in game.

Flak bursts are the biggest damage output of the AA, and having the medium sized guns being able to fire flak down to 150 meters from the ship should, in theory, be much more effective than the small constant DPS of the small caliber weapons...especially since the area in the small gun AA bubble (<2.5 km) should be the period where the enemy planes are most predictable and least apt to dodge because they are trying to release the ordinance.

If my theory is correct, ships without small AA guns...(i.e. medium AA guns that have minimum range of the small AA guns) should significantly outperform ships with a 'traditional' three-tiered AA defense system.

Surely WG has sufficient data from the PTS to be able to determine if the theory is correct...and may already have done so considering they have discussed adjusting this in the last communication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,778
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,745 posts
9 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

So what would this bubble concept do to ships that only or mostly have mid to long range AA?

Realistically, the larger guns were probably not effective at close range. Shells had a minimum arming range to prevent doing damage to your own ship. They mostly could not train fast enough to track close in targets either (i.e. French triple and quad secondaries) But the game already has DP guns doing AA and surface combat at the same time, so adding all the AA rings as you get closer is a comparatively minor deviation from reality.

Note that I did suggest a minimum range for the medium and heavy guns.

The key difference is that it should not be set to the max range of the next lower size as a default, but rather to a universal number such as 1km for both, or 1km for medium and 2km for heavy.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
[REVY]
Members
402 posts
6,071 battles
20 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

3)  With unlimited planes for the CVs, AP mounts should probably repair / regenerate over time on their own, or be restored by use of the DCP consumable.

Here we go again... Why not have main batteries become fixable once broken too.

Edited by KelesK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,778
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,745 posts
1 minute ago, KelesK said:

Here we go again...

So, vague snide comment with no actual detail or argument presented. 

So I'll give your comment consideration equal to the amount of productive content it contains.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
662
[CVA16]
Members
3,705 posts
12,049 battles
19 minutes ago, KelesK said:

Why not have main batteries become fixable once broken too.

In game they mostly are. How often are your main guns damaged vs knocked out? You can usually repair them. Right now all secondaries are either working, or permanently dead. Often these are the same guns mounted as main guns on DDs and CLs (poster child-Atlanta). Why not have a way to recover at least some of the knocked out mounts. Say, every time you hit repair there is a 25% chance that each  "destroyed" secondary/AA mount is fixed. Or you automatically repair 25% of the destroyed mounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,778
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,745 posts
13 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

In game they mostly are. How often are your main guns damaged vs knocked out? You can usually repair them. Right now all secondaries are either working, or permanently dead. Often these are the same guns mounted as main guns on DDs and CLs (poster child-Atlanta). Why not have a way to recover at least some of the knocked out mounts. Say, every time you hit repair there is a 25% chance that each  "destroyed" secondary/AA mount is fixed. Or you automatically repair 25% of the destroyed mounts.

I can't even remember the last time I permanently lost a main turret.  It's been months, I think.  Functionally, it never happens, they're always repairable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
[REVY]
Members
402 posts
6,071 battles
6 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

In game they mostly are. How often are your main guns damaged vs knocked out? You can usually repair them. Right now all secondaries are either working, or permanently dead. Often these are the same guns mounted as main guns on DDs and CLs (poster child-Atlanta). Why not have a way to recover at least some of the knocked out mounts. Say, every time you hit repair there is a 25% chance that each  "destroyed" secondary/AA mount is fixed. Or you automatically repair 25% of the destroyed mounts.

CV's have been asking for a reliable method to control the ship. Here we have people wanting regenerative AA guns. It's not a joke anymore.

You have genuine frustration from actual CV players about not even being able to control the ship without it driving backwards, zig-zagging and hitting islands. Then in comes some bright spark who just wants to make a bad situation worse because they might have to actually use some semblance of strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
662
[CVA16]
Members
3,705 posts
12,049 battles
26 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I can't even remember the last time I permanently lost a main turret.  It's been months, I think.  Functionally, it never happens, they're always repairable

You obviously don't drive French BBs:cap_haloween:. Even there it isn't every game but I do have turrets damaged in most games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,778
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
7,745 posts
1 minute ago, Sabot_100 said:

You obviously don't drive French BBs:cap_haloween:. Even there it isn't every game but I do have turrets damaged in most games.

I'm up to Lyon. 

So far, losing turrets -- having them destroyed, not damaged -- is no more common than with any other ship I've played in the game. 

I'm not calling for AA mounts to be immune to all damage... I'm calling for them to somehow be as restorable as the aircraft they're intended to defend against.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
662
[CVA16]
Members
3,705 posts
12,049 battles
27 minutes ago, KelesK said:

CV's have been asking for a reliable method to control the ship.

Not a CV playeror even a fan, but I will agree with you there. Just something where the unit not controlled goes on autopilot. CV continues to the next waypoint. Planes either orbit where they are or continue on their last heading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
662
[CVA16]
Members
3,705 posts
12,049 battles
2 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I'm not calling for AA mounts to be immune to all damage... I'm calling for them to somehow be as restorable as the aircraft they're intended to defend against.

All restorable would be too much. They should be easier to destroy than the main guns. Just the fact that several HE volleys can completely strip away all your AA permenantly is a bit much. Assume your DC is cannibalizing parts from destroyed mounts to put some back into action. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
210
[REVY]
Members
402 posts
6,071 battles
8 hours ago, Sabot_100 said:

 All restorable would be too much. They should be easier to destroy than the main guns. Just the fact that several HE volleys can completely strip away all your AA permenantly is a bit much. Assume your DC is cannibalizing parts from destroyed mounts to put some back into action. 

The dual purpose mounts are usually fairly hardy which is why I disagree with small calibre AA mounts being restorable. Not to mention it's them which does the damage. >.<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2 posts
657 battles
On 1/2/2019 at 10:00 AM, WanderingGhost said:

Because the problem is that the planes of a CV is effectively it's turrets - and they've essentially removed a CV's with this rework, or made them usable only one at a time. So while in old concept it was PERCEIVED as CV's having "no risk", they in fat had a higher risk of their unarmoured turrets being knocked out, leaving them with only secondary guns. On top of even if they didn't have them knocked out yet unlike BB's - some of which still out damage even Midway and Hak, if anything sets them on fire, they lose the ability to attack and defend themselves, and 1 fire is 24% of the ships HP, CV's are by far easier to spot after tier 6 and other disadvantages that others that have never played CV's past tier 6 tend to not comprehend, helped create this mess. 

Now the risk is we have no ability to dodge while attacking - were sitting ducks more than we previously were and 100% reliant on the team for defense. There are better ways to handle "unlimited planes" that you have a limited supply as now, and get no refills till you've run out and even then it takes time before resupplied, meaning 2, 4, 6 minutes with no planes if you act foolishly. But this is what they have settled on. I'm a CV player and even I don't like the system for how it works. I dislike the rework for what it does to gameplay overall and history. 

That's actually very helpful insight. I hadn't noticed that particular aspect of the new 'rework' while testing, so thank you for pointing that out. I must admit, in the current system my main experience with CV guns is usually when I encounter a Lex and it tears me a new one when I go in for a torp run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×