Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
redneck1776

CV Rework Mythbusting: Infinite Planes, WASD Hack Flack

88 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

30
[FF]
Members
76 posts
2,333 battles

Ok, lets start with the big one...."but infinite planes!"

Let's look at the Midway, she currently in the live build has a hangar capacity of 116. That's 116 individual aircraft she has access to no matter how long or short the match is. If any planes make it back to the deck after an attack then you dont have to deduct that plane from the hangar capacity. But if you do have to bring one up to the deck to replace one that was lost....well then...it can be any type of aircraft, depending on what its replacing. You could very well launch 90+ unique torpedo bombers if you so choose.

Her total possible unique aircraft available in the rework is only possible if a match goes to 20min. And that number is 109, so 6% LESS than is available now. How do we come to that number? Well let's take a look...using captian skills of air supremacy and flight control module we get the following:

Rocket Planes 41 possible per match

21 on deck,

20  @ 60s over 20min

 

Torpedo Bombers 30 possible per match

17 on deck

13 @ 90s over 20min

 

Dive Bombers 38 possible per match

21 on deck

17 @ 68s over 20min

 

This is only using the Midway, I haven't done the numbers for the rest but infinite planes myth: BUSTED

 

WASD Hack Flack, so a fella post a video were hea saying he's immune to the new AA using WASD hacks...humm let's look at that video a bit more closely. Ships are most all stock bots with out upgrades or captian skills...

1st strike using torp bombers, multiple ships in strike area, planes lost 4

2nd strike using rockets, multiple ships in the strike area, planes lost 4

3rd strike using dive bombers, multiple ships in strike area, planes lost 12

4th strike using rockets, multiple ships in strike area, planes lost 2

5th strike using torp bombers, single isolated target, planes lost 3

6th strike using dive bombers, single isolated target, planes lost 5

7th strike using rockets, single isolated target, planes lost 0

8th strike using rockets, single isolated target, planes lost 0

9th strike using torp bombers, single isolated target, planes lost 4

10th strike game ends before enemy contact

 

Post game screen show total losses of 8 rocket planes, 17 torpedo bombers, and 13 dive bombers. There were 4 losses that I missed as the camera angles must not have allows me to see the flight returning to the CV while still taking damage.

So this guy is flying around talking about how he's immune to AA (from bots in stock ships and no captian skills btw) while losing 37% of his strike aircraft? I think that's safe to say.....

WASD Hack Flack immunity myth: BUSTED

Also the time it would have took to fully recover those losses for each aircraft:

Rocket planes 8min

Torpedo bombers 25.5min(never would have recovered them all as only 20min game time possible)

Dive bombers 14.7min

 

Discuss

 

  • Cool 10
  • Boring 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,381 posts
47 battles

Finally something that's not fearmongering and false information spreading about the CV rework.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,661
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,065 posts

Once again, no one is arguing that the rework carriers fill the sky with an infinite number of aircraft.   When you argue against that, you're either failing to understand the point they're making, or just deliberately arguing against a strawman.

 

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
428
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
946 posts
4,442 battles

Midway is tier 10, yes?  What about lower tier ships?  There have been many times that I have seen a CV run out of planes.  The new ones won't do that, will they?

also....

:Smile_popcorn:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
522
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester
1,877 posts
2,645 battles

At this point it doesn't matter what's said here...   I've seen virtually no one change their opinion on this, even after testing and determining from the many videos out there, mostly made by players who were never going to change their opinion.    No doubt a lot of the support for the rework is coming from the "we hate carriers" as is crowd,  thinking any change will help their cause.  I believe in the end when this is balanced the player base will realize that CVs have been somewhat neutered into a constant pestilence instead of a OP death machine?  I figure Uni gamers will find ways to exploit the new mechanics... they always do.  So who knows what the reworked class holds for future until all that is figured out.  Life will go on without broken RTS gameplay in a 1st person shooter.   I expect the game will survive.  There is going to be a lot of salt on forums because the class, everyone loves to hate,  is going to suddenly and dramatically populate all tiers and matches.  some of it likely needing pretty extensive balancing.    Personally,  I'm looking forward to grinding & learning something new without killing my teams chances at a win while I'm doing it.  The forums will go on to the next big change to "kill the game" topic.  Early line has it as ;   "SUBS"    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,661
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,065 posts

Now that I have a moment to actually stop and write this out again...  this is what people are actually referring to when they talk about "infinite aircraft". 

In the old system, if the enemy shoots down X number of planes, the carrier can no longer launch aircraft.  A carrier could be deplaned, it could run out of striking power.    That was the risk that they ran for poor or careless play.   That was the primary risk they faced rather than direct attack from enemy ships in many battles.  That was the counterpart to AA being lost over time on enemy ships.     If a carrier started with 100 aircraft, and lost 50, it then had 50 left. 

In the new system, if the enemy shoots down X number of planes, it doesn't make any difference, the carrier can still keep launching aircraft.  As long as the battle continues, there's nothing that can stop the carrier from launching aircraft.     There's no risk to the carrier itself, and very little if any striking power lost.  (And before someone brings it up, the added delay is a meaningless red herring -- with three different types of bombers, not once in PTS did I have to wait to launch a full squadron after I was done with the last one.  Not once, ever..)     There is no counterpart to AA being lost over time on enemy ships, making the carriers stronger relative to their targets over the course of the battle.  A carrier starts with an indeterminate number of aircraft, and if it loses 50, can still keep launching just as many aircraft.  

The reserve of aircraft is indeterminate and unending, it lasts as long as the battle lasts.    "But there's a time limit" isn't really an argument -- no ship can do anything once the battle is over, the battle is over.  If the battle did go on for hours somehow, the carriers would STILL not run out of aircraft.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 7
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
306
[-S-R-]
Beta Testers
529 posts
3,026 battles

Neither of those things are true.

1) Properly specced and played with reasonable care, carriers do not run out of planes in most circumstances.  Since you cannot usually shoot a carrier until the game is over, the planes being "unlimited" means that they continue to be a threat in a late game scenario despite no risk to their own hull.

2) Regardless of the Notser video, the stated design goal of the devs was that a good player can actively dodge flak.  Whether that is implemented well or properly is up to debate, but the idea that you "never could" is either wrong or incomplete.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,881
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,558 posts
13,442 battles

1. Low-tier carriers on PTS2 replenish planes of all types so fast they literally can not run out of any type unless you deliberately fly planes out to sea and ditch them. Mid-tier carriers can run out of certain plane types, but will always have one of the other types available at full strength. High-tier carriers can lose enough planes that all three squadron types are understrength simultaneously.

However, in terms of game impact, consider that even one plane at 1 HP can permaspot any ship that is not a destroyer (due to the AA ranges always being shorter than the airspotting distance), so it is always true that the CV will be able to project a significant presence through spotting.

2. Players who are actually trying to preserve planes or maintain spotting can already dodge nearly all the flak bursts. They will only get better at this over time, as more tricks become known. I anticipate the dodge rate will approach or reach 100% for skilled CV players. In the meantime, the AA-aiming AI will get 0% better at hitting those players. So, whatever you see on PTS2 videos, you can safely assume is more plane losses than we will see with experienced players in the actual game because the players will improve and the AA will not.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,479 posts

There's a huge difference between 'a carrier CANT run out of planes' and 'a carrier does not usually run out of planes'. 

I've had games in my full AA spec Neptune where I shot down almost the entire enemy carrier complement. 

I've had games in the same ship where a carrier stopped coming to the area of the map I was in because it did not want to lose its torpedo planes to me. 

When I run my AA ships I mow down enemy squadrons down to 1 or 2 planes then stop firing on them. All because I don't want the carrier to be able to launch another whole new full squadron and get it back to my team in a short time.. I want him to fly those planes back wasting time and then re-arm them. 


With the new CV system of unlimited planes the carrier player simply won't give a rat's anus about losing his planes. He will take every shot even if its risky all for the chance of inflicting at least ONE torpedo on my side's BBs. I certainly would. That is rewarded with a quick re-launch of another squadron.. even if its not torpedo (timer at work) he still is rewarded with taking another attack plane squadron up ... and with the new design of rocket planes being super effective vs DDs, dive bombers super effective vs cruiser and torpedo vs battleships all this means is whatever squadron he launches will be catered to going after a specific ship type. CV player will gladly go up in a rocket squadron to take out the DDs and kamikaze them into cruiser AA so he doesn't have to waste time to switch back to the torpedo planes. 

...and with no CV fighters able to go hunt the other CV's planes, the surface ships are nothing more than damage pinhatas for them. 

 

I will tell you right now that when the new CV system comes into play, every game will end up with the same routine:

1- CV players will rush to sail their carriers as far away into the back of the map as they possibly can. 

2- Why #1? Because the first thing the CV will do is fly his planes to SPOT the enemy CV so the battleships can take shots at it and hopefully sink it early. I've taken down CV's in the first minutes of the game with my Yamato because our CV spotted theirs and it was in range. 

3- The battle will then either end up with one side losing their CV early and thus being dominated and ravaged by the other side's CV... or both sides retain their CVs and each side's surface ships are just damage pinhatas for them to enjoy. 

 

No, ships will not sail together for AA protection. The design of the game prohibits that. DDs can not do their job staying close to cruisers or BBs. Cruisers cannot survive BB fire unless they hide behind something. BBs sailing together are easy meat for DD torp spreads and are prime targets for cruisers HE spamming to set them all on triple fires. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,479 posts
Just now, Edgecase said:

1. Low-tier carriers on PTS2 replenish planes of all types so fast they literally can not run out of any type unless you deliberately fly planes out to sea and ditch them. Mid-tier carriers can run out of certain plane types, but will always have one of the other types available at full strength. High-tier carriers can lose enough planes that all three squadron types are understrength simultaneously.

However, in terms of game impact, consider that even one plane at 1 HP can permaspot any ship that is not a destroyer (due to the AA ranges always being shorter than the airspotting distance), so it is always true that the CV will be able to project a significant presence through spotting.

2. Players who are actually trying to preserve planes or maintain spotting can already dodge nearly all the flak bursts. They will only get better at this over time, as more tricks become known. I anticipate the dodge rate will approach or reach 100% for skilled CV players. In the meantime, the AA-aiming AI will get 0% better at hitting those players. So, whatever you see on PTS2 videos, you can safely assume is more plane losses than we will see with experienced players in the actual game because the players will improve and the AA will not.

don't forget the large caliber AA flak literally ceases to fire once planes get into medium range. Thats where the 'aura damage' cannon and MG caliber guns kick in. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,881
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,558 posts
13,442 battles
4 minutes ago, Skyfaller said:

don't forget the large caliber AA flak literally ceases to fire once planes get into medium range. Thats where the 'aura damage' cannon and MG caliber guns kick in. 

I actually think that's a misconception. From what I've seen, the "mid-range" AA damage/flakburst rating takes of a ship includes its long-range weaponry, as I never saw a ship that had a weaker mid-range rating than long-range. I do believe some ships lose flakbursts in the short-range zone, which I assumed was meant to represent guns that could not be elevated far enough, or maybe a munitions switch where applicable.

Also, there IS guaranteed aura damage in the long-range zone as well, it's just really small.

Edited by Edgecase

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,661
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,065 posts
3 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

I actually think that's a misconception. From what I've seen, the "mid-range" AA damage/flakburst rating takes of a ship includes its long-range weaponry, as I never saw a ship that had a weaker mid-range rating than long-range. I do believe some ships lose flakbursts in the short-range zone, which I assumed was meant to represent guns that could not be elevated far enough, or maybe a munitions switch where applicable.

Also, there IS guaranteed aura damage in the long-range zone as well, it's just really small.

I did find ships with MUCH weaker mid-range than long-range "brackets" in the PTS, creating an effective dead-zone between the large AA and the small AA on those ships. 

In general, the "no overlap" setup for AA in the new system is a significant reduction in AA firepower for most ships.  The medium and large AA mounts might need a minimum range, but if they do, it should be 1km, or 1km and 2km respectively, NOT whatever the max range of the next bracket down is. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,100
[HYDRO]
Members
2,236 posts
4,191 battles
9 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

I actually think that's a misconception. From what I've seen, the "mid-range" AA damage/flakburst rating takes of a ship includes its long-range weaponry, as I never saw a ship that had a weaker mid-range rating than long-range. I do believe some ships lose flakbursts in the short-range zone, which I assumed was meant to represent guns that could not be elevated far enough, or maybe a munitions switch where applicable.

Also, there IS guaranteed aura damage in the long-range zone as well, it's just really small.

Does the long range AA however contribute at all to close range? There are some ships like Henri IV or Jean Bart whose minimum AA range is 4.5km. With the current AA mechanics this is positive; it translates to longer effective range and in the case of Jean Bart impressive AA.

I can't help but wonder whether the new AA system will give immunity to any strike squad that's closer to that range. 4.5km isn't a small distance, possibly some of the more maneuverable squads could just stay close or within that range and minimize damage during their attack runs.

Edited by warheart1992

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,881
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,558 posts
13,442 battles
2 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

I did find ships with MUCH weaker mid-range than long-range "brackets" in the PTS, creating an effective dead-zone between the large AA and the small AA on those ships

Can you give me some examples? I'd like to test the practical effects of that arrangement on PTS3 when it comes out -- it could be the case that the mid-range zone is unexploitable (because it's smaller than the turn radius of the planes), or it could be impractical to exploit it because you still have to pass through all 3 zones on your way in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,661
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,065 posts
2 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Does the long range AA however contribute at all to close range? There are some ships like Henri IV or Jean Bart whose minimum AA range is 4.5km. With the current AA mechanics this translates to longer effective range and in the case of Jean Bart impressive AA.

I can't help but wonder whether the new AA system will give immunity to any strike squad that's closer to that range. 4.5km isn't a small distance, possibly some of the more maneuverable squads could just stay close or within that range and minimize damage during their attack runs.

From what's stated in the AA block of the ship's parameters in the PTS, no, the large mounts have a min range equal to the max range of the medium mounts, and the medium mounts have a min range equal to the max range of the small mounts, working inward. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,661
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,065 posts
1 minute ago, Edgecase said:

Can you give me some examples? I'd like to test the practical effects of that arrangement on PTS3 when it comes out -- it could be the case that the mid-range zone is unexploitable (because it's smaller than the turn radius of the planes), or it could be impractical to exploit it because you still have to pass through all 3 zones on your way in.

At work and can't recall them right now, but I want to say maybe it was some of the USN cruisers that stood out as having lower flak and continuous values in the medium bracket than on the large bracket. 

When PTS3 comes out I will do a full sweep and post what I find. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[FF]
Members
76 posts
2,333 battles

Ok your missing the numbers. This new system as it is will punish a CV faster for careless play and diminish his strike power. Sure you can launch without a full squad, but that's the same as it is now. You have less to work with overall,  and far less to work with upfront. If a CV loses 2 torpedo squads back to back then he has to wait 13min for another full squad. If he launches with less his strike power had diminished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,661
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,065 posts
3 minutes ago, redneck1776 said:

Ok your missing the numbers. This new system as it is will punish a CV faster for careless play and diminish his strike power. Sure you can launch without a full squad, but that's the same as it is now. You have less to work with overall,  and far less to work with upfront. If a CV loses 2 torpedo squads back to back then he has to wait 13min for another full squad. If he launches with less his strike power had diminished.

At least as far as I got in PTS, I never lost a full squadron, and what I did lose was fully recovered after I took a different bomber type out for a single run.

And I fully admit that I stink at using the new interface (and always will)... someone who could actually make it work would face a lot less trouble than I did. 

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,153
[SBS]
Members
3,257 posts
2,408 battles
1 hour ago, redneck1776 said:

Her total possible unique aircraft available in the rework is only possible if a match goes to 20min. And that number is 109, so 6% LESS than is available now.

This is the core of your argument, and its why your conclusion is flawed.  You are suggesting the "unlimited" plane capacity of the rework is balanced compared to the current system.  That isn't a logical conclusion because the old system is irrelevant to the balance of the rework. 

2 hours ago, redneck1776 said:

WASD Hack Flack immunity myth: BUSTED

While I think we agree that Notser was overselling the point, his actual point is valid.  Skilled maneuvering greatly reduces the amount of damage your aircraft take from AA.  Suggesting otherwise is just plain dishonest.  That is what you are trying to imply.  If that isn't what you mean to imply then go back and edit your post and make it clear.

1 hour ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

Finally something that's not fearmongering and false information spreading about the CV rework.

You are, as usual, applauding an illogical conclusion, while making false claims about those that disagree with you.  You really should think more about your position, and how you post on the forum. 

50 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

I anticipate the dodge rate will approach or reach 100% for skilled CV players. In the meantime, the AA-aiming AI will get 0% better at hitting those players.

I don't think that is a fair statement.  The AA "aiming" is something WG can (and likely will) adjust.

52 minutes ago, Skyfaller said:

With the new CV system of unlimited planes the carrier player simply won't give a rat's anus about losing his planes. He will take every shot even if its risky all for the chance of inflicting at least ONE torpedo on my side's BBs.

Again, if we are going to fair I don't think that will be true.  Maybe at lower tiers where the regen rate for planes is so low, but not at high tiers.  The regen rate there means you do have to manage your planes to some degree.

7 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

At least as far as I got in PTS, I never lost a full squadron, and what I did lose was fully recovered after I took a different bomber type out for a single run.

That's been my experience as well.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,280
Members
20,784 posts
5,614 battles
2 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Once again, no one is arguing that the rework carriers fill the sky with an infinite number of aircraft.   When you argue against that, you're either failing to understand the point they're making, or just deliberately arguing against a strawman.

 

It's no different than some arguing that a time-limited supply of planes isn't effectively limited.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,881
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,558 posts
13,442 battles
5 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:
1 hour ago, Edgecase said:

I anticipate the dodge rate will approach or reach 100% for skilled CV players. In the meantime, the AA-aiming AI will get 0% better at hitting those players.

I don't think that is a fair statement.  The AA "aiming" is something WG can (and likely will) adjust.

I think you're misreading that. I'm saying that, if the PTS2 system were to go live as-is, players would improve but the AA would remain the same. Of course WG can swoop in and change the whole thing at any time. But without external intervention, we'd see the performance of players vs. the naive AA AI increase over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,661
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,065 posts
28 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

It's no different than some arguing that a time-limited supply of planes isn't effectively limited.....

Everything in a WOWS battle is effectively time-limited, in that the battle ends.  It's a distinction without a difference.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,280
Members
20,784 posts
5,614 battles
53 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

This is the core of your argument, and its why your conclusion is flawed.  You are suggesting the "unlimited" plane capacity of the rework is balanced compared to the current system.  That isn't a logical conclusion because the old system is irrelevant to the balance of the rework.

I disagree. I read it as he is suggesting that the sortie capacity of a post-rework CV is no more than a current one. (ie. dispelling the "but unlimited hangar means you can throw planes away without a care")

I don't see anywhere where he states, or even implies, that balance exists in either state, or mentions it at all. He was clearly making a comparison between current and post-rework, not post re-work and some non-existent ideal.

I don't think anyone is still arguing that the old system was balanced, or that the new one will be, because it isn't now, and it won't be. It's all about how onerous it will be to play with post-rework CVs compared to current ones. And we've been shown that the differences in hangar capacity are not going to be a factor in that.

Edited by Skpstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[FF]
Members
76 posts
2,333 battles
10 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

I disagree. I read it as he is suggesting that the sortie capacity of a post-rework CV is no more than a current one. (ie. dispelling the "but unlimited hangar means you can throw planes away without a care")

I don't see anywhere where he states, or even implies, that balance exists in either state, or mentions it at all. He was clearly making a comparison between current and post-rework, not post re-work and some non-existent ideal.

I don't think anyone is still arguing that the old system was balanced, or that the new one will be. It's all about how onerous it will be to play with post-rework CVs compared to current ones. And we've been shown that the differences in hangar capacity are not going to be a factor in that.

1. That's exactly what I'm sayin. Careless play leads to diminished strike power, and less strike power than current in pure numbers. What the rework does seem do to me is allow the player to better spread out what he does have though.

 

2. Nope never said anything about balance as WG already stated a lot more of that to come even after 8.0 goes live. A lot can and probably will change.

 

3. Nope. The current delete at will in one pass by good CV players is a bit obnoxious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,280
Members
20,784 posts
5,614 battles
21 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Everything in a WOWS battle is effectively time-limited, in that the battle ends.  It's a distinction without a difference.

 

Exactly. The battle is time limited. Therefore, any and all effects of any kind that could last beyond the end of the battle are irrelevant, because there is no "beyond the end of the battle". It's the same reason why it's not a big deal that ships have unlimited ammo, or don't use fuel.

 There is a difference between a theoretical limit and a practical one.

If somebody gave you a choice between a car that was guaranteed to need no servicing ever, and one that was guaranteed to need no servicing for the rest of your life, which would you pick?

Theoretically, you would obviously pick the first car, but practically, it doesn't matter, because either way, that car is going to run for the rest of your life, and no longer.

I mean sure, you can argue from a fantasy point of view, about conditions that cannot exist, I guess.

There is a distinction without a difference though. It's the distinction between current limited hangar capacity and post-rework unlimited hangar capacity.

Edited by Skpstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×