Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
xeg0r

Observations on missing layers of AA fire on some ships

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

16
[LODGE]
Members
42 posts
8,745 battles

So I noticed that some ships which have excellent mid range AA but zero close range AA have the mid range continue to function all the way in to the ship - which gives them a significant advantage over other ships which have close range fire - simply because the flak puff continue to work all the way in, and the average close range AA is less than the mid range AA which is replacing it. This isn't always a benefit unless the layer of fire which gains more use has higher than average DPS or good flak output. Missing long range is always a bad thing.

Examples of ships which are missing one layer of fire and arguably benefit from doing so:
 

  • Akizuki/Kitakaze A (missing mid which means the excellent long range fire has a longer time to engage incoming -planes)
  • Salem (amazing mid range activae and passive AA values and zero close range so it just keeps firing)
  • Republique (similar to Salem)
  • Henri (again missing close range)
  • Conqueror (missing close range)
  • Z52 (missing close range)

IMO this is an example of some testing/planning which was overlooked and shifts things in favor of overlapping layers of AA fire (I hope this is implemented)... If some ships can do Mid range AA all the way in to 0.1km,  then all ships should be able to.

Edited by xeg0r
words wrong order
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,176
[CMFRT]
Members
8,452 posts
6 minutes ago, xeg0r said:

So I noticed that some ships which have excellent mid range AA but zero close range AA have the mid range continue to function all the way in to the ship - which gives them a significant advantage over other ships which have close range fire - simply because the flak puff continue to work all the way in, and the close range AA is less than on some of these ships. This isn't always a benefit unless the layer of fire which gains more use has higher than average DPS or good flak output. Missing long range is always a bad thing.

Examples of ships which benefit from missing one layer of fire and arguably benefit from doing so:
 

  • Akizuki/Kitakaze A (missing mid which means the excellent long range fire has a longer time to engage incoming -planes)
  • Salem (amazing mid range activae and passive AA values and zero close range so it just keeps firing)
  • Republique (similar to Salem)
  • Henri (again missing close range)
  • Conqueror (missing close range)
  • Z52 (missing close range)

IMO this is an example of some testing/planning which was overlooked and shifts things in favor of overlapping layers of AA fire (I hope this is implemented)... If some ships can do Mid range AA all the way in to 0.1km,  then all ships should be able to.

For certain.  Chappy has this as well.

It just depends on how each gun was classified by WG, and what guns a ship has. 

It's clear that very little if any thought was given to the impact the new system would actually have on the AA efficacy of each ship, relative to its peers or in comparison to its efficacy under the old system. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[INR]
Members
1,224 posts
4,060 battles
9 minutes ago, xeg0r said:

So I noticed that some ships which have excellent mid range AA but zero close range AA have the mid range continue to function all the way in to the ship - which gives them a significant advantage over other ships which have close range fire - simply because the flak puff continue to work all the way in, and the close range AA is less than on some of these ships. This isn't always a benefit unless the layer of fire which gains more use has higher than average DPS or good flak output. Missing long range is always a bad thing.

Examples of ships which are missing one layer of fire and arguably benefit from doing so:
 

  • Akizuki/Kitakaze A (missing mid which means the excellent long range fire has a longer time to engage incoming -planes)
  • Salem (amazing mid range activae and passive AA values and zero close range so it just keeps firing)
  • Republique (similar to Salem)
  • Henri (again missing close range)
  • Conqueror (missing close range)
  • Z52 (missing close range)

IMO this is an example of some testing/planning which was overlooked and shifts things in favor of overlapping layers of AA fire (I hope this is implemented)... If some ships can do Mid range AA all the way in to 0.1km,  then all ships should be able to.

The majority of IJN CAs benefit as well, from Furutaka to Mogami. They only have 127mms and 25mms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,275
[ARS]
Beta Testers
3,347 posts
3,227 battles

This is something Sub-Octavian said they will address.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[LODGE]
Members
42 posts
8,745 battles

Where do I find a list of things they said they will address (so I know what to look forward to)?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,176
[CMFRT]
Members
8,452 posts
9 minutes ago, WuYixiang said:

The majority of IJN CAs benefit as well, from Furutaka to Mogami. They only have 127mms and 25mms.

This is not a benefit.   The 25mm are classed as "short range", and the long range AA mounts on those cruisers are set up to be very lackluster in the new system.

 

7 minutes ago, Helstrem said:

This is something Sub-Octavian said they will address.

They've known about it for months, they've had access to far longer than we have. 

"We'll fix it" is nothing but empty words.

 

 

Edited by KilljoyCutter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,049
[PSP]
Members
9,761 posts
22 minutes ago, xeg0r said:

So I noticed that some ships which have excellent mid range AA but zero close range AA have the mid range continue to function all the way in to the ship -

Good find. I was wondering why the Akizuki/Kitakaze bunch were decimating my planes so badly while ships like the Gearing weren't so much.

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[LODGE]
Members
42 posts
8,745 battles

If they rehash AA values per ship so that they are based n the actual guns installed, and then allow overlapping layers, and remove the instant recall F key, I think it could go a long way towards improving the current state of the rework (which is OK but could be much better).

This wouild give the AA ships back their mojo (like Atlanta) and remove the unintentional? advantage given to ships missing short range AA.

Edited by xeg0r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,275
[ARS]
Beta Testers
3,347 posts
3,227 battles
35 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

They've known about it for months, they've had access to far longer than we have. 

"We'll fix it" is nothing but empty words.

 

 

If you say so.

I've worked in software development and they don't sound like empty words to me.  They sound like words from a team that had a lot of pressure to get something released and had to budget their resources and now that it is released can start addressing the known and revealed issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,315
[RKLES]
Members
10,314 posts
12,000 battles
44 minutes ago, xeg0r said:

So I noticed that some ships which have excellent mid range AA but zero close range AA have the mid range continue to function all the way in to the ship - which gives them a significant advantage over other ships which have close range fire - simply because the flak puff continue to work all the way in, and the average close range AA is less than the mid range AA which is replacing it. This isn't always a benefit unless the layer of fire which gains more use has higher than average DPS or good flak output. Missing long range is always a bad thing.

Examples of ships which are missing one layer of fire and arguably benefit from doing so:
 

  • Akizuki/Kitakaze A (missing mid which means the excellent long range fire has a longer time to engage incoming -planes)
  • Salem (amazing mid range activae and passive AA values and zero close range so it just keeps firing)
  • Republique (similar to Salem)
  • Henri (again missing close range)
  • Conqueror (missing close range)
  • Z52 (missing close range)

IMO this is an example of some testing/planning which was overlooked and shifts things in favor of overlapping layers of AA fire (I hope this is implemented)... If some ships can do Mid range AA all the way in to 0.1km,  then all ships should be able to.

Happened in real life WWII as well. Some ships could have powerful short range, mid range, or long range AA firepower, but not always all 3. And even on ships that had all three AA zones, they might still have gaps in it, getting full AA protection was the challenge after all.

And even today ships will have essentially long range AA in terms of missiles and short range AA in terms of those auto defense chain guns that can shoot down incoming missiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,176
[CMFRT]
Members
8,452 posts
10 hours ago, Helstrem said:

If you say so.

I've worked in software development and they don't sound like empty words to me.  They sound like words from a team that had a lot of pressure to get something released and had to budget their resources and now that it is released can start addressing the known and revealed issues.

 

Then the blame simply shifts to whatever corporate stooge forced them to release the patch when it was clearly still a rough draft and work in progress.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,771
[TARK]
Members
3,657 posts
1,543 battles
11 hours ago, xeg0r said:

If they rehash AA values per ship so that they are based n the actual guns installed, and then allow overlapping layers, and remove the instant recall F key, I think it could go a long way towards improving the current state of the rework (which is OK but could be much better).

This wouild give the AA ships back their mojo (like Atlanta) and remove the unintentional? advantage given to ships missing short range AA.

I agree with all this except removal of the recall key...

...because that is actually the 'return control to the ship' key and is very necessary for times when sailing the ship is required.

I'd be ok with increasing the time the planes take to get to altitude after pressing the key...but the player MUST be allowed to return his control to the ship immediately. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,275
[ARS]
Beta Testers
3,347 posts
3,227 battles
4 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

 

Then the blame simply shifts to whatever corporate stooge forced them to release the patch when it was clearly still a rough draft and work in progress.

 

That is orthogonal to my point.  You stated they are empty words, implying that they aren't actually going to follow through.  If, as is likely, it was a suit that set the "get it out the door" date then their words switch from something they aren't going to implement to something that they are going to do but just didn't have time to address before.

That is a significant difference, even if it doesn't fix the problem instantly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
78
[WOLF7]
Members
226 posts
5,206 battles
15 hours ago, xeg0r said:

So I noticed that some ships which have excellent mid range AA but zero close range AA have the mid range continue to function all the way in to the ship - which gives them a significant advantage over other ships which have close range fire - simply because the flak puff continue to work all the way in, and the average close range AA is less than the mid range AA which is replacing it. This isn't always a benefit unless the layer of fire which gains more use has higher than average DPS or good flak output. Missing long range is always a bad thing.

Examples of ships which are missing one layer of fire and arguably benefit from doing so:
 

  • Akizuki/Kitakaze A (missing mid which means the excellent long range fire has a longer time to engage incoming -planes)
  • Salem (amazing mid range activae and passive AA values and zero close range so it just keeps firing)
  • Republique (similar to Salem)
  • Henri (again missing close range)
  • Conqueror (missing close range)
  • Z52 (missing close range)

IMO this is an example of some testing/planning which was overlooked and shifts things in favor of overlapping layers of AA fire (I hope this is implemented)... If some ships can do Mid range AA all the way in to 0.1km,  then all ships should be able to.

That is why I killed more planes in my Atago than in Cleveland and Atlanta together. Kutuzov also doenst have short range, didnt kill much planes but with It but did a Ton of damage to a Midway planes, that are supposed to be tougher planes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[LODGE]
Members
42 posts
8,745 battles
7 hours ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

I agree with all this except removal of the recall key...

...because that is actually the 'return control to the ship' key and is very necessary for times when sailing the ship is required.

I'd be ok with increasing the time the planes take to get to altitude after pressing the key...but the player MUST be allowed to return his control to the ship immediately. 

Yeah adding a delay and cooldown on recall would work, to at least give the poor sucker who activated his DFAA and fighters a chance to do some damage before the planes disappear. There needs to be some penalty to the CV for attacking an AA bubble only to nope out at the last second.

I have been seeing good CV players abuse this by dropping torps at max range then instantly F'ing out to heal the planes and come back to repeat the same thing. Spaces out the DoT so they can stack floods etc, and minimizes the lost planes because all are full health once they have rearmed at the CV.

Edited by xeg0r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,771
[TARK]
Members
3,657 posts
1,543 battles
1 minute ago, xeg0r said:

Yeah adding a delay and cooldown on recall would work, to at least give the poo sucker who activated his DFAA and fighters a chance to do some damage before the planes disappear. There needs to be some penalty to the CV for attacking an AA bubble only to nope out at the last second.

I have been seeing good CV players abuse this by dropping torps at max range then instantly F'ing out to heal the planes and come back to repeat the same thing. Spaces out the DoT so they can stack floods etc, and minimizes the lost planes because all are full health once they have rearmed at the CV.

Which CVs have torps with range greater than 4km?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[LODGE]
Members
42 posts
8,745 battles
2 hours ago, Helstrem said:

That is orthogonal to my point.  You stated they are empty words, implying that they aren't actually going to follow through.  If, as is likely, it was a suit that set the "get it out the door" date then their words switch from something they aren't going to implement to something that they are going to do but just didn't have time to address before.

That is a significant difference, even if it doesn't fix the problem instantly.

Work in software QA myself - this is probably exactly what happened. I kinda feel sorry for the devs as they will be very aware of the dissatisfaction aimed their way. But they can only really do what the PO and scrum masters etc. have assigned them...

Maybe they should have introduced a 'CV rework event mode' ala every other event mode (like space combat) they have used thus far, to do their user acceptance testing (post beta).

Hope they do this in the future - PTS etc needs to be easier to access in order for them to get things more accurate data to base changes on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[LODGE]
Members
42 posts
8,745 battles
23 minutes ago, Daniel_Allan_Clark said:

Which CVs have torps with range greater than 4km?

Not sure where you got the 4km figure from or why you mention it - I was meaning that CV drop at max range of their torps, which for some is enough that the torps aren't spotted on drop. 

They may not be dropping beyond AA range, but by hitting F once dropped at their max range, they are able to minimize time spent in the AA bubble and hence reduce damage taken and losses significantly. They also gain the advantage of surprise in that you don't see the torps drop and know which angle they are headed (e.g which way did they anticipate your turn) - people are calling this cheesing the F key.

Also the Hak can straight up do stealth drops in a 1.9km window, which is apparently hard to pull off.

Edited by xeg0r
added hak info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,771
[TARK]
Members
3,657 posts
1,543 battles
18 minutes ago, xeg0r said:

Not sure where you got the 4km figure from or why you mention it - I was meaning that CV drop at max range of their torps, which for some is enough that the torps aren't spotted on drop. 

They may not be dropping beyond AA range, but by hitting F once dropped at their max range, they are able to minimize time spent in the AA bubble and hence reduce damage taken and losses significantly. They also gain the advantage of surprise in that you don't see the torps drop and know which angle they are headed (e.g which way did they anticipate your turn) - people are calling this cheesing the F key.

Also the Hak can straight up do stealth drops in a 1.9km window, which is apparently hard to pull off.

My point is for you to figure out how many ships can actually drop torps without entering a midrange AA bubble and have a chance of hitting anything with them...you certainly cant do what you describe at tier IV.

My point is that your point doesnt apply to all CVs and fixes should therefore focus on CV specific properties and not whole class mechanics. 

Edited by Daniel_Allan_Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[LODGE]
Members
42 posts
8,745 battles

F button cheese applies to all tiers. Some benefit more than others, but all tiers can abuse the feature.

The F button means they only have to spend just enough time to drop their load inside the AA bubble, then they vanish.
Without F button they have to then exit the bubble which means more damage and higher chance to hit flak.

Edited by xeg0r

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,771
[TARK]
Members
3,657 posts
1,543 battles
7 minutes ago, xeg0r said:

F button cheese applies to all tiers. Some benefit more than others, but all tiers can abuse the feature.

The F button means they only have to spend just enough time to drop their load inside the AA bubble, then they vanish.
Without F button they have to then exit the bubble which means more damage and higher chance to hit flak.

Working as designed.

Your AA doesnt extend to space. Why would planes stick around in your AA bubble after dropping payload? Particularly when they wont be useful after exiting the bubble?

The fix is simple. Increase the time needed to gain the safe altitude.

Your 'fix' is just to shoot down more planes...except you wont because the CV just wont attack you, like the old days...and then WG will buff the CV planes so that they CAN survive your AA...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[LODGE]
Members
42 posts
8,745 battles

I agreed with you earlier statement... not sure why you keep trying to argue with me when I am agreeing with you. We are pretty much saying the same thing in different ways. I am simply saying the F key recall INSTANT recall needs to be either removed or adjusted so that it can't be cheesed.

Your most recent proposal pretty much matches what I have suggested - add a delay to the recall, and cool down so it cannot be repeated ad infinitum. 

As for your statement about AA not going to space - 6km AA bubble = 18k ft, which takes most ww2 vintage planes a few minutes at the very least to reach, especially torpedo bombers which must drop within a specific altitude and speed envelope (they don't retains any energy like dive bombers).

The SDB Dauntless (used post-Midway) climbs at 1700 ft/minute to a service ceiling of 25k ft... so climbing from pretty much 100 to 18k ft out of AA range would take a very long time - your rate of climb also depends on air density which decreases as you gain altitude. This means you fly out of range before you climb out of range - approx 2 minutes @ 320km/h to clear the 12km wide AA bubble. Even at the compressed speeds and distances seen in this game, it takes at least a few seconds to cross an AA bubble.

I also play flight sims, and half of the challenge is surviving the AA on the way out after dropping your load. I get that this arcade, and needs to balance fun and accuracy. No issue there. 

My overall point here is that F-cheese is not balanced - a common consensus on most of the board. I am sure this will be addressed in the next patch.

Also, regarding your flippant "working as designed" - show me the documentation which states this is the outcome intended when designing and implementing this functionality and I will agree with you. We, as customers, without access to said documentation and requirements, stories and bugs etc, can not possibly know whether it is 'working as intended'. And even if it is 'working as designed' does not mean the design is sound...

Edited by xeg0r
added time to cross AA bubble at 200mph

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.

×