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

Rebalance or Refund Texas

67 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,821
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,231 posts
7,972 battles

Given the nature of the current state of the aircraft carrier and anti-aircraft rework, Texas has basically lost its one gimmick which prevented it from being an utterly mediocre ship (which it is in every other respect). With the decrease in max range of all anti-aircraft, Texas now has a maximum range of 3.5 kilometers, down from 5 kilometers. This was already only considered really useful for self-defense, as it lacked the bonuses available from manual fire control for anti-aircraft guns, and the longer base range of said guns. However, Texas was simply in possession of so much raw damage, that this range was sufficient to protect itself and ships in the immediate proximity from air attack by same tier or +1 CVs.

 

This is no longer the case. The 3.5 kilometer range is simply incapable of dealing sufficient damage to enemy aircraft, prior to them having blown over the focused side of the ship, and and leaving the AA zone. The short range of the 40 mm guns is made even worse by the presence of the large number of 20 mm guns, which although having a high raw DPS value, eat a full two kilometers of the 3.5 km reach on the 40 mm guns. With a fully specialized 19 point commander, the module, and flag, my Texas shot down a whopping four aircraft from an enemy Ranger, over a period in which at least nine strikes were oriented at my own ship. Total aircraft damage struggled to just break 11,000, even with active zone swapping and frantic maneuvering to keep the aircraft within range of my T-Rex arms for more than a few seconds at a time. Several ships which attempted to crowd around me (a Marblehead and an Aoba) were picked apart at will. Neither ship possessed the ability to deal meaningful damage to the enemy aircraft, especially the poor Marblehead who, atop having zero access to DFAA, simply has such bad anti-aircraft performance that it essentially does not exist. He shot down zero planes. The Aoba fared slightly better, splashing three.

 

It was not a swift death, to be certain, but we were virtually powerless to stop the attacking aircraft prior to them having done their damage to us. Without fail, another squadron would arrive a few seconds later, and lay into us without reprieve. It was death by a thousand cuts, and for all of our flailing, we were incapable of preventing it. This is something that would not have happened against a tier VI carrier prior to this patch. Texas was far from a no fly zone before, but it was a prickly target which could be assured to deal heavy damage to attacking squadrons should they try their luck. This is simply no longer the case. The carrier player would need to intentionally fly back and forth on the focused side of this ship several times, in order to guarantee losing his squadron. Swift rocket and torpedo strikes leave the zone so quickly that they don’t take meaningful damage for the most part.

 

Aside from the fame of her name, Texas was sold on one gimmick: her anti-aircraft firepower. This gimmick no longer exists in the current state of the game, and the fundamental nature of this ship, a premium ship which was purchased with money in one form or the other, has been altered. The CV players were offered a full refund in experience, dubloons, and credits, as compensation for those who did not enjoy the new mechanics. Texas is equally reliant on a mechanic which changed every bit as much as carrier control, yet no refund or rebalance has been offered.

 

To be certain, I am not claiming the aircraft carriers are overpowered in the current state. Far from it. The simple fact is that AA as a mechanic is now extremely random in its effect. Sometimes it works brilliantly, other times it does nothing. There is no randomness in Texas’s current state, the anti-aircraft simply fails to function as advertised.

 

As I see it, there are three options:

1. Balance/alter the current anti-aircraft mechanic functions, to the point where Texas is brought up to roughly the same level in which it existed prior to the patch. This would most likely be done by proxy, over a period of several months where the ship would simply remain screwed. Not good.

2. Balance/alter Texas herself, by increasing the range of her anti-aircraft guns in particular, and decreasing the amount of time needed to refocus the guns to each side. As Texas possesses no heavy anti-aircraft guns, this seems the most logical in my mind.

3. Offer a refund for the ship and her special camouflage, in the same method in which WG has offered refunds for the premium aircraft carriers. Give a period of time where the player has the choice to claim the dubloons equivalent of the ship and whichever special camouflage he/she has purchased. Extend this offer until a later point, by which time WG believes it will have balanced anti-aircraft and carriers to a satisfactory level. I believe this cutoff is 8.1 for the carriers. Seems fair to me.

 

Thats it really. Other ships like Atlanta have retained their other defining features, such as radar or a huge number of guns for HE spamming at a distance (and unlimited AADF). In my opinion, Texas currently suffers the worst hit to it’s main selling point (apart from it’s name), which is why I wrote this. I don’t hate the carrier rework, or the AA rework on a whole. In fact I find them rather hilarious and the randomness has added some interesting flavor to an otherwise boring game. Love it or hate it, this is my opinion on the matter.

  • Cool 23
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
768
[BNKR]
Members
1,215 posts
1,132 battles

Holy [edited] everyone needs to calm down. They've already said there is more balancing to come. Does nobody read anything? Never mind,  I already know the answer to that. [edited]humans.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,821
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,231 posts
7,972 battles
1 minute ago, RagingxMarmoset said:

Holy [edited] everyone needs to calm down. They've already said there is more balancing to come. Does nobody read anything? Never mind,  I already know the answer to that. [edited]humans.

Thank you for not reading. The option to refund carrier premiums was made for the same reason which I have brought up for Texas, and Texas alone.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
101 posts

Lol isn't this a $9.99 dollar buy.

Kinda like going to Wal-Mart buy a pair of $10shoes and get mad because there not comfortable after a week of wearing them.

Come on this rework has way more important issues atm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,780
[WGA]
Administrator
1,259 posts
508 battles

The meta for most ships changed yesterday and is still settling a little.  I've personally been playing a lot of Texas over the past 24 hours and it's been fun, but experience can certainly vary.  If balance needs to happen, rest assured the team is going to make that happen.  For now we are gathering data on the matches being played and reading your feedback to pass along. 

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 3
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[HAPPY]
Members
51 posts
12,232 battles

Ummmmm...Myself and a Dallas were alone ( I was in Texas).  I killed 22 planes the Dallas killed 24.  We survived against 2 yes TWO Rangers for over 9 minutes.  We eld back 2 BB's and A Emerald and a dd from the cap circle the entire time.  If you kit out the Texas and set your side with the AA and spec the captain full AA build and fly the flag you will kill planes in an absurd fashion.

 

The TEXAS is just fine as is.

 

Just a note in that fight I took ONE torp due to turning (the Texas turns like a dd almost) and making them chase me.  The bombers were another story and did manage several hits.

Edited by BUNNYHUGGERI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,394
[SIM]
Members
3,612 posts
5,746 battles
4 minutes ago, RagingxMarmoset said:

Holy [edited] everyone needs to calm down. They've already said there is more balancing to come. Does nobody read anything? Never mind,  I already know the answer to that. [edited]humans.

Yeah, except this is the live server, so forcing everyone onto what is basically a test environment is rightfully making some people angry. This a game that we invest time and money into, and being told that they're intentionally rolling out unbalanced stuff on the live server so that they can fix it later at some nebulous and ill-defined time is at best misguided, and at worst, incredibly shady.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,655
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
8,061 posts
11,346 battles
1 minute ago, Radar_X said:

The meta for most ships changed yesterday and is still settling a little.  I've personally been playing a lot of Texas over the past 24 hours and it's been fun, but experience can certainly vary.  If balance needs to happen, rest assured the team is going to make that happen.  For now we are gathering data on the matches being played and reading your feedback to pass along. 

Yes GIF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
436
[4HIM]
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
1,478 posts
10,598 battles

My prediction was the the CV salt would not change, because like in WoT, WG doesn't realize when they make a giant boo boo, instead they constantly try and bandage a problem, fixing nothing and satisfying no one.  Your death of a thousand cuts is very appropriate, experienced the same in the PE, a good AA ship...shot down 7 planes (woot??) but lost over half my health and only lived by running away so they CV players went after a closer ship....REMOVE CVs.  Simple and Elegant. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,821
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,231 posts
7,972 battles
11 minutes ago, Radar_X said:

The meta for most ships changed yesterday and is still settling a little.  I've personally been playing a lot of Texas over the past 24 hours and it's been fun, but experience can certainly vary.  If balance needs to happen, rest assured the team is going to make that happen.  For now we are gathering data on the matches being played and reading your feedback to pass along. 

I appreciate it, but Texas is fundamentally reliant on the performance of its anti-aircraft battery, which has been changed drastically for the negative. This was, apart from the name, the primary selling point of the vessel. To see it in particular changed as extremely as it was, with no mention made of it, stings slightly when carrier players were offered a long period in which to decide if they did or did not like the changes which had been made to their premiums. It would be nice if the same hand were extended towards another vessel which was extremely changed by the rework.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,192
[WOLF1]
Members
4,327 posts
2 minutes ago, Morpheous said:

My prediction was the the CV salt would not change, because like in WoT, WG doesn't realize when they make a giant boo boo, instead they constantly try and bandage a problem, fixing nothing and satisfying no one.  Your death of a thousand cuts is very appropriate, experienced the same in the PE, a good AA ship...shot down 7 planes (woot??) but lost over half my health and only lived by running away so they CV players went after a closer ship....REMOVE CVs.  Simple and Elegant. 

Yes, Morpheous, we know you want CVs gone.  I do respect you for not wavering.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,484 posts
9,672 battles
4 minutes ago, BUNNYHUGGERI said:

Ummmmm...Myself and a Dallas were alone ( I was in Texas).  I killed 22 planes the Dallas killed 24.  We survived against 2 yes TWO Rangers for over 9 minutes.  We eld back 2 BB's and A Emerald and a dd from the cap circle the entire time.  If you kit out the Texas and set your side with the AA and spec the captain full AA build and fly the flag you will kill planes in an absurd fashion.

 

The TEXAS is just fine as is.

Which forces players to build AA spec ships. Where is the diversity in that? Should we all spec the same cookie-cutter  build?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,192
[WOLF1]
Members
4,327 posts
1 minute ago, Big_Spud said:

I appreciate it, but Texas is fundamentally reliant on the performance of its anti-aircraft battery, which has been changed drastically for the negative. This was, apart from the name, the primary selling point of the vessel. To see it in particular changed as drastically as it was, with no mention made of it, sting slightly when carrier players were offered a long period in which to decide of they did or did not like the changes which had been made to their premiums. It would be nice if the same hand were extended towards another vessel which was extremely changed by the rework.

And they'll probably change it some more.  That's called tuning.   They're not refunding it yet because they haven't tuned it yet.  Be patient.  Or you can scream like the others, if you must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
771
[TDRB]
Members
2,680 posts
7,736 battles
2 minutes ago, BUNNYHUGGERI said:

Ummmmm...Myself and a Dallas were alone ( I was in Texas).  I killed 22 planes the Dallas killed 24.  We survived against 2 yes TWO Rangers for over 9 minutes.  We eld back 2 BB's and A Emerald and a dd from the cap circle the entire time.  If you kit out the Texas and set your side with the AA and spec the captain full AA build and fly the flag you will kill planes in an absurd fashion.

 

The TEXAS is just fine as is.

Most players don't have over 10,000 battles and 19pt commanders to share among their premiums. I'm not saying the Texas needs rebalancing, my point is it is best to balance with what commander skills most will have available on said ship at T5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[HAPPY]
Members
51 posts
12,232 battles
2 minutes ago, _Rumple_ said:

Which forces players to build AA spec ships. Where is the diversity in that? Should we all spec the same cookie-cutter  build?

NOPE just the TEXAS.  I mean you did not buy it for the incredible sigma...did you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,821
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,231 posts
7,972 battles
3 minutes ago, mavfin87 said:

And they'll probably change it some more.  That's called tuning.   They're not refunding it yet because they haven't tuned it yet.  Be patient.  Or you can scream like the others, if you must.

By the same metric, the carrier premiums and line ships are also being tuned. Yet the opportunity to refund them in their entirety still exists until the point when WG decides that the balancing is “done”.

 

The OP clearly lays out the options, it’s not “screaming” anything.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
768
[BNKR]
Members
1,215 posts
1,132 battles
14 minutes ago, Big_Spud said:

Thank you for not reading. The option to refund carrier premiums was made for the same reason which I have brought up for Texas, and Texas alone.

I read the whole stupid thing, thanks.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,351
[WOLFG]
Members
4,818 posts
2,726 battles
5 minutes ago, Big_Spud said:

By the same metric, the carrier premiums and line ships are also being tuned. Yet the opportunity to refund them in their entirety still exists until the point when WG decides that the balancing is “done”.

 

The OP clearly lays out the options, it’s not “screaming” anything.

The Texas, as you noted is a premium ship.

WG probably wants any balance changes to premiums, especially premiums with AA to only get buffs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,821
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,231 posts
7,972 battles
10 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

The Texas, as you noted is a premium ship.

WG probably wants any balance changes to premiums, especially premiums with AA to only get buffs.

Agreed. I will also say this, I don't dislike the rework overall, and not all AA ships have suffered. Jean Bart is still particularly hilarious, she literally blackens the skies with flak.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
98
[WOLF5]
Beta Testers
410 posts
2,811 battles
48 minutes ago, RagingxMarmoset said:

Holy [edited] everyone needs to calm down. They've already said there is more balancing to come. Does nobody read anything? Never mind,  I already know the answer to that. [edited]humans.

For Every action is a opposite Overreaction

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
265 posts
1 hour ago, lucifier said:

Lol isn't this a $9.99 dollar buy.

Kinda like going to Wal-Mart buy a pair of $10shoes and get mad because there not comfortable after a week of wearing them.

Come on this rework has way more important issues atm.

$9.99 is a lot of money for little deplorable me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,821
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,231 posts
7,972 battles
3 minutes ago, sendit2me30 said:

$9.99 is a lot of money for little deplorable me.

$24 at release, and a lot of people also purchased the Lone Star camo for an additional $15. Fortunately, that money went to the actual Texas.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[O_O]
Members
77 posts
2 hours ago, Radar_X said:

The meta for most ships changed yesterday and is still settling a little.  I've personally been playing a lot of Texas over the past 24 hours and it's been fun, but experience can certainly vary.  If balance needs to happen, rest assured the team is going to make that happen.  For now we are gathering data on the matches being played and reading your feedback to pass along. 

Well said, and I think the truth of the matter is you can probably just toss out the first few days of data as nobody has figured out how they will play with this change yet. Give it a week or more and enough people will have figured out the changes that your stats can be used to come up with some balancing modifications.

Everyone forgets the learning wall they ran into when they started going up tier in this game. And while some are frustrated that the wall has been reset, most will figure out new strategies to handle the wall and move on.

For now, at least, objective one has been accomplished. The queue shows that lots of people are trying out the new CV mechanics.

It seems at the moment the CV players are a bit ahead in taking advantage of the change. If problems are still around in a couple of weeks, tuning will be expected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
108 posts
4,535 battles
2 hours ago, Radar_X said:

If balance needs to happen, rest assured the team is going to make that happen.  For now we are gathering data on the matches being played and reading your feedback to pass along. 

 

I am a co-op player.  I don't see my Texas ever being played considering there are no planes to shoot down at all  (ok, maybe a spotter here and there).

 

(For those that haven't played co-op since the re-work, there are ZERO red CV's in the game now even if there are green CV players.)

Edited by CommodorePerryIPA
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
202
[GT99]
Members
573 posts
7,593 battles
3 hours ago, Big_Spud said:

Given the nature of the current state of the aircraft carrier and anti-aircraft rework, Texas has basically lost its one gimmick which prevented it from being an utterly mediocre ship (which it is in every other respect). With the decrease in max range of all anti-aircraft, Texas now has a maximum range of 3.5 kilometers, down from 5 kilometers. This was already only considered really useful for self-defense, as it lacked the bonuses available from manual fire control for anti-aircraft guns, and the longer base range of said guns. However, Texas was simply in possession of so much raw damage, that this range was sufficient to protect itself and ships in the immediate proximity from air attack by same tier or +1 CVs.

 

This is no longer the case. The 3.5 kilometer range is simply incapable of dealing sufficient damage to enemy aircraft, prior to them having blown over the focused side of the ship, and and leaving the AA zone. The short range of the 40 mm guns is made even worse by the presence of the large number of 20 mm guns, which although having a high raw DPS value, eat a full two kilometers of the 3.5 km reach on the 40 mm guns. With a fully specialized 19 point commander, the module, and flag, my Texas shot down a whopping four aircraft from an enemy Ranger, over a period in which at least nine strikes were oriented at my own ship. Total aircraft damage struggled to just break 11,000, even with active zone swapping and frantic maneuvering to keep the aircraft within range of my T-Rex arms for more than a few seconds at a time. Several ships which attempted to crowd around me (a Marblehead and an Aoba) were picked apart at will. Neither ship possessed the ability to deal meaningful damage to the enemy aircraft, especially the poor Marblehead who, atop having zero access to DFAA, simply has such bad anti-aircraft performance that it essentially does not exist. He shot down zero planes. The Aoba fared slightly better, splashing three.

 

It was not a swift death, to be certain, but we were virtually powerless to stop the attacking aircraft prior to them having done their damage to us. Without fail, another squadron would arrive a few seconds later, and lay into us without reprieve. It was death by a thousand cuts, and for all of our flailing, we were incapable of preventing it. This is something that would not have happened against a tier VI carrier prior to this patch. Texas was far from a no fly zone before, but it was a prickly target which could be assured to deal heavy damage to attacking squadrons should they try their luck. This is simply no longer the case. The carrier player would need to intentionally fly back and forth on the focused side of this ship several times, in order to guarantee losing his squadron. Swift rocket and torpedo strikes leave the zone so quickly that they don’t take meaningful damage for the most part.

 

Aside from the fame of her name, Texas was sold on one gimmick: her anti-aircraft firepower. This gimmick no longer exists in the current state of the game, and the fundamental nature of this ship, a premium ship which was purchased with money in one form or the other, has been altered. The CV players were offered a full refund in experience, dubloons, and credits, as compensation for those who did not enjoy the new mechanics. Texas is equally reliant on a mechanic which changed every bit as much as carrier control, yet no refund or rebalance has been offered.

 

To be certain, I am not claiming the aircraft carriers are overpowered in the current state. Far from it. The simple fact is that AA as a mechanic is now extremely random in its effect. Sometimes it works brilliantly, other times it does nothing. There is no randomness in Texas’s current state, the anti-aircraft simply fails to function as advertised.

 

As I see it, there are three options:

1. Balance/alter the current anti-aircraft mechanic functions, to the point where Texas is brought up to roughly the same level in which it existed prior to the patch. This would most likely be done by proxy, over a period of several months where the ship would simply remain screwed. Not good.

2. Balance/alter Texas herself, by increasing the range of her anti-aircraft guns in particular, and decreasing the amount of time needed to refocus the guns to each side. As Texas possesses no heavy anti-aircraft guns, this seems the most logical in my mind.

3. Offer a refund for the ship and her special camouflage, in the same method in which WG has offered refunds for the premium aircraft carriers. Give a period of time where the player has the choice to claim the dubloons equivalent of the ship and whichever special camouflage he/she has purchased. Extend this offer until a later point, by which time WG believes it will have balanced anti-aircraft and carriers to a satisfactory level. I believe this cutoff is 8.1 for the carriers. Seems fair to me.

 

Thats it really. Other ships like Atlanta have retained their other defining features, such as radar or a huge number of guns for HE spamming at a distance (and unlimited AADF). In my opinion, Texas currently suffers the worst hit to it’s main selling point (apart from it’s name), which is why I wrote this. I don’t hate the carrier rework, or the AA rework on a whole. In fact I find them rather hilarious and the randomness has added some interesting flavor to an otherwise boring game. Love it or hate it, this is my opinion on the matter.

It's not just the Texas, the USN lines are borked AA wise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×