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

Buff or Nerf AA?

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

82
Members
100 posts
4,594 battles

First off, I came back to the game because of the CV rework and I am really enjoying it.  I loved RTS but hated the dog fighting so I eventually left the game because I am a potato in the other classes.

The reason people want AA buffed is the same reason people want it nerfed.  The F key spam.

Damage to planes works this way, each plane starts green, yellow, red, dead.  It starts on Plane 1, goes to 2, goes to 3 and eventually back to 1.

Lets say I leave my ship with 6 planes.  After the first run, 2 planes will return after they drop their ordnance.  That will leave me 4 planes for the next run.  Problem becomes damage.  Those 4 planes were damaged in the first run.  I only shoot with 2 but the whole damn group follows.  So now I have 2 Yellow and 2 Red planes.  Red isn't going to make it and there is a good chance the rest of the squadron could be gone.  So we make a judgment call on whether to do a second run or F key.

Since we are only required to spawn destroyed aircraft if we let the squadron die we could be 7 minutes replacing it so hit F key and let them fly back in 60 seconds and have them again. 

As you get closer to the carrier the more it seems like I am sending wave after wave after wave.  I want AA nerfed so I can do more runs.  Others want it beefed up because of the constant spam of planes.  In essence the exact same reason.

If the idea was to have us do multiple runs then it has to be more advantageous for us.  One thing to remember though, I am not F key spamming then I am doing multiple runs.  I highly doubt WG is going to make changes that will drastically reduce how much you see us.

 

As for the spotting/DD problem.  If they want to go back to the old way then nerf our spotting ability.  If they have decided that they are ok with it and expect DD players to adapt then I guess that is there prerogative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
597
[NOBS]
Members
1,014 posts
7,502 battles
8 minutes ago, Caine said:

First off, I came back to the game because of the CV rework and I am really enjoying it.  I loved RTS but hated the dog fighting so I eventually left the game because I am a potato in the other classes.

The reason people want AA buffed is the same reason people want it nerfed.  The F key spam.

Damage to planes works this way, each plane starts green, yellow, red, dead.  It starts on Plane 1, goes to 2, goes to 3 and eventually back to 1.

Lets say I leave my ship with 6 planes.  After the first run, 2 planes will return after they drop their ordnance.  That will leave me 4 planes for the next run.  Problem becomes damage.  Those 4 planes were damaged in the first run.  I only shoot with 2 but the whole damn group follows.  So now I have 2 Yellow and 2 Red planes.  Red isn't going to make it and there is a good chance the rest of the squadron could be gone.  So we make a judgment call on whether to do a second run or F key.

Since we are only required to spawn destroyed aircraft if we let the squadron die we could be 7 minutes replacing it so hit F key and let them fly back in 60 seconds and have them again. 

As you get closer to the carrier the more it seems like I am sending wave after wave after wave.  I want AA nerfed so I can do more runs.  Others want it beefed up because of the constant spam of planes.  In essence the exact same reason.

If the idea was to have us do multiple runs then it has to be more advantageous for us.  One thing to remember though, I am not F key spamming then I am doing multiple runs.  I highly doubt WG is going to make changes that will drastically reduce how much you see us.

 

As for the spotting/DD problem.  If they want to go back to the old way then nerf our spotting ability.  If they have decided that they are ok with it and expect DD players to adapt then I guess that is there prerogative.

Up until last night I thought aa needed a Nerf, then in battle last night cv's were sinking 6 and 7 boats a battle. Once the aa boats start dropping there is nothing the fleet can do to slow down the never ending attacks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,165
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
3,922 posts
9,028 battles

Answer is the same as in RTS because AA is broken the same way it was in RTS - both.

At minimum tiers 4-7 need to have later hull upgrades that have more AA mounts that evens out how much AA ships have between tiers 4-10 so there's an easier, logical transition. And tier 10 needs it dialed down some. 

Aircraft HP needs a similar realignment to even out HP that will allow a tier 6 CV vs tier 4 to have an edge, but not be near untouchable. But a 6 CV vs 8 doesn't at times just get slaughtered. 

Slot 6 AA damage mod needs to be removed as it causes too many issues trying to balance CV's. 

AFT and AAGM II need to go back to range buffs (or more AAGM and SBM II need to go back to AAM II buffing both AA and secondary range 20%)

Only guns 70 mm and up should be firing flak in the first place, and needs to be a thing. 

Depending on ship the flak burst count should be either equal to the number of 70 mm+ guns per salvo, or in cases like Atlanta, with insane numbers, partial salvo's at a reduced interval. Examples. CO has I think 4-5 DP guns per side that can shoot at planes - so it has 4-5 bursts every salvo. Lets say it's standard RoF so 4-5 every 5 seconds. Atlanta has 14 guns per side, so, while I would prefer 8/6, for simplicitities sake lets say it gets 7 bursts, but instead of 5 seconds it's 7 every 2.5 seconds. 

Flak bursts need their damage reduced, heavily.

Continuous damage needs to be tweaked to be the bigger thing - sheer volume of fire, with Flak being a punishment for the careless, but not something to be fully ignored. With the shift to constant DPS vs planes means that even when we dodge flak the ship is still doing something meaningful to us. 

 

And that doesn't even get into tweaks to CV's themselves. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[ICOP]
[ICOP]
Members
105 posts
5,260 battles

The fix needs to be AI flys the planes and not the player.  If AA is based on AI no matter what they do a human will best an AI.  Planes should be given orders then released to go do that mission then return ON THEIR OWN.  I am shocked this was play tested because right now if you are a DD or a BB you are screwed.  DD especially.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[PIZZA]
Members
778 posts
8,930 battles

It does not matter - there are always "F" key! Magical F key makes planes immortal! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[DRAH]
Members
129 posts
4,404 battles

Really it's not a case of buff or nurf AA but redesign the AA system. Right now we have a bunch of systems that look good on paper but which completely fail in game.

First up we have the sector system which on anything other than a DD is far to slow to change, distracts the player from manouvering or attacking and doesn't actually increase effectivness enough to do more than set and forget on the side the enemy probably comes from.

Secondly WG completely misjudged how easy it is for players to completely avoid the flak bursts that represent 90% of the threat to planes and as a result aura damage is pitifully low. Until they realise that the flak burst mechanic is not working as intended (and never will against good players) and move almost all the damage to the auras the AA problem is going to continue. Excessive torp range on the Hakaryu bombers is also a major contributor to this issue at Tier 10 as they can stealth torp from outside of detection range let alone AA range. Again I think this needs to be removed given how fast they can recycle aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
347 posts
4,266 battles

Pretty sure the upcoming hot fix will fix both of those issues.

AA will be buffed to normal gunfire, and nerfed for RNG Flak clouds. F keying will activate some sort of non-immunity timer for the squadron.

Facebook Developer Blog

Edited by Hydra_360ci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82
Members
100 posts
4,594 battles
2 minutes ago, Hydra_360ci said:

 F keying will come with some sort of penalty.

 

I believe the planes will take time to reach the height to head back so still take some damage

I'm going to call it and say there will be the too far/not far enough posts once it is in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
128
[FORM]
[FORM]
Members
347 posts
4,376 battles
52 minutes ago, Caine said:

The reason people want AA buffed is the same reason people want it nerfed.  The F key spam... I want AA nerfed so I can do more runs. 

Nope, that's not accurate for "people" it is accurate for you.

I want AA tweaked so it is less extreme. When I'm one of my T8 CVs and I'm the top tier in the match, I can attack almost anyone without concern about if I can or can't get in to attack them. Even the most AA setup ship will take a pair of torps. Sure I have to be smart about picking at the edge of a really strong fleet, but generally I can do whatever I want. But when I'm bottom tier in a T10 match, it is a totally different story. I can't think of attacking someone setup with AA, and the fleets will chew up my fresh squadron before I can get off a shot. Heck, just a pair of good AA ships will eat anything I throw at them without ever getting a scratch.

And that is why this person wants AA buffed and nerfed... I want it all smoothed out.

Frankly the F key is the only thing that allows me to use CVs at all when I'm bottom tier. Otherwise within the first few minutes, the CV just becomes a scout and defensive fighter launcher... with no real offensive capability. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
305 posts
879 battles

Who are these people who are able to dodge flak bursts?

 

Every time I try, either in Randoms or even in training rooms, if I evade one burst then the next one explodes right in the middle of my formation. THEN when I make my runs, the attack is wildly inaccurate due to maneuvering.

 

Still more fun than RTS, though

 

Note: This is in a Ranger.  I understand that tier 4 CV play and Tier 10 CV play are apparently wildly differerent from 6/8.

Edited by BitPlayerCOH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
558
[SOV]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,682 posts
6,777 battles

Wargaming is already taking a step in the right direction. Having so much damage tied to flak makes AA feel like a feast or famine mechanic, good CV players avoid it while CV players still learning the mechanic blunder into it. They are looking to balance flak and continuous AA damage. The 'F' key is issue is also being looked into. After we get the numbers for these changes and get a chance to to try them out while paint a better picture of the direction AA needs to go. 

The one thing I didn't see that was being addressed and is going to become a very glaring problem is the tier gap between the CV/planes and the surface ship. +/- 2 can cause a massive swing in the favor of one or the other, which is also skewing the results people are seeing. 

Share this post


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

This is all academic anyway. When you have matchmaking that literally puts you in battle with HALF the tiers....balance is impossible. Tier 8 CV battles against tiers 6,7,8,9 and 10. How the hell can you balance aircraft vs AA across 5 tiers? You dont. Even my Seattle with only matches against t8 and t10 CV vary from one extreme to the other. 59 planes downed wiping full squads against 2 t8s one match...then 5 planes the next with two t10s. In the tier 8cv as top tier t6 might as well have spit wads. Same ship bottom tier...I can spot and that's about it. Damage wise....laughable at best. Squads evaporate way to fast. 

 

Edit. I suppose one idea would be a captian skill that increases damage resistance of planes for tier gap, and and also enhances aa damage of AA for tier gap...but that would be mandatory skill and should be baked in. Otherwise +/-1 matchmaking will be the only way to balance. Anything else without addressing this first is worse than trying to slap duct tape on the side wall of a slashed tire and expecting it to hold air. Contrary to what we like to say down south...there are somethings that are so broke even duct tape, bailing wire, and wd40 cant fix.

Edited by redneck1776

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,225
[SYN]
Members
14,847 posts
11,306 battles

There are several points where it needs to be changed

TLDR: Limit bombers and AA power to T8

AA Inflation through tiers vs. Bomber inflation through tiers

There is a huge difference in AA between T6 and T8, which makes most T8 ships untouchable by T6 CVs. In T8-T10, T8CVs will have a hard time with T10AA.  Conversely,  from the CV side, a T8 CV can completely dominate T6 ships, and a T10 CV can even outpace T10 AA.
The CV game at T4 is decently balanced and this seems to be caused by the bombers being really slow. This is such a huge problem, that the game feels more like WoT, where, unless you have a derp gun, your bottom tier tank cannot even scratch the paint of a top tier medium tank. WoWs can be rough in bottom tiers, but at least you can deal damage if you can aim.

From a historical standpoint, aircraft development far outpaced AA development and the AA systems on ships could no longer keep up with the ever faster aircraft. The 152mm the Royal Navy, 152mm/47 DP of USN, 76mm of the allies, even these ever powerful AA guns in WoWs were designed against existing aircraft. Many ships at T10 do not even feature a circa 1946 modernized AA armament upgrade, yet the bombers flying in the air are circa 1946. What is more, many nations did not even bother to upgrade the AA on their ships by adding better AA guns and switched over to missiles, because it was clear to them that guns were no longer effective.

From a tactical standpoint, Destroyers were fielded in large numbers, in a circle formation, to protect larger ships. The idea was to use multiple fields of overlapping AA to protect the middle. The problem with WoWs, is that singular DDs might have the torpedo capabilities of a fleet, but their AA is not scaled to that and easily succumb on their own. And then, should you try and field a sizeable number of DDs, now you have the issue with torpedo soup and not having enough slots on the team.

Factoring in the above, I posit that it is reasonable to have a hard limit of bombers at T8, but also limit AA effectiveness at T8 as well. The T10 CVs before the rework got certain aircraft nerfed to only be T8, so I do not see why this cannot be repeated. If the inflation of AA and bomber power can be reigned in, then maybe the CV rework wouldn't be so [edited] up at T8+.

Edited by MrDeaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36
[IHW]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
213 posts

im starting to think that they should just gut the whole thing and reverse it all back to the way it was before and then come back 6 months or a year and attempt this again.

 

edit: of course that dosent mean anything we did in the past week just the cv mechanics itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
905
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,594 posts
2,415 battles
1 hour ago, redneck1776 said:

This is all academic anyway. When you have matchmaking that literally puts you in battle with HALF the tiers....balance is impossible. Tier 8 CV battles against tiers 6,7,8,9 and 10. How the hell can you balance aircraft vs AA across 5 tiers? You dont. Even my Seattle with only matches against t8 and t10 CV vary from one extreme to the other. 59 planes downed wiping full squads against 2 t8s one match...then 5 planes the next with two t10s. In the tier 8cv as top tier t6 might as well have spit wads. Same ship bottom tier...I can spot and that's about it. Damage wise....laughable at best. Squads evaporate way to fast. 

 

Edit. I suppose one idea would be a captian skill that increases damage resistance of planes for tier gap, and and also enhances aa damage of AA for tier gap...but that would be mandatory skill and should be baked in. Otherwise +/-1 matchmaking will be the only way to balance. Anything else without addressing this first is worse than trying to slap duct tape on the side wall of a slashed tire and expecting it to hold air. Contrary to what we like to say down south...there are somethings that are so broke even duct tape, bailing wire, and wd40 cant fix.

Nonsense.  Tier VIII surface ships work in all those tiers without being broken.  The AA DPS and plane HP simply need to scale at a more reasonable rate so that Tier VI AA isn't hopeless against Tier VIII aircraft in the same way that a Dallas isn't hopeless against a Cleveland and that Tier VIII aircraft aren't absolutely doomed against Tier X AA as a Cleveland can hurt and even sink a Worcester.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[FF]
Members
76 posts
2,333 battles
1 hour ago, Helstrem said:

Nonsense.  Tier VIII surface ships work in all those tiers without being broken.  The AA DPS and plane HP simply need to scale at a more reasonable rate so that Tier VI AA isn't hopeless against Tier VIII aircraft in the same way that a Dallas isn't hopeless against a Cleveland and that Tier VIII aircraft aren't absolutely doomed against Tier X AA as a Cleveland can hurt and even sink a Worcester.

Dallas and Cleveland both have 152mm rifles, one has 2 more of them, and 2second less reload....one has 16mm plate the other has 25mm plate, matter of fact how many of the cruisers keep the same caliber from tier 6-10? sure some changes in the details in a couple of barrels and reload times, plating, and hp. But now look at the different AA of those ships.

now lets look at the AA suites shall we...

Dallas           14 20mm, 12 40mm, and 6 127mm

Cleveland     46 20mm, 28 40mm, and 12 127mm

Worcester 24 20mm, 24 76.2mm, and 12 152mm

 

humm...and your telling me you can balancing AA vs aircraft can be done without +/-1 MM for CVs?

 

Better yet come to a training room and show me that tier 8 planes arnt doomed against that Worcester AA and i cant have my way with you in the Dallas.

I mean you have actually flown tier 8 planes into tier 10 AA in the last week with those statements right?

Edited by redneck1776
cause hooked on phonix didnt work for me :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
905
[ARS]
Beta Testers
2,594 posts
2,415 battles
39 minutes ago, redneck1776 said:

Dallas and Cleveland both have 152mm rifles, one has 2 more of them, and 2second less reload....one has 16mm plate the other has 25mm plate, matter of fact how many of the cruisers keep the same caliber from tier 6-10? sure some changes in the details in a couple of barrels and reload times, plating, and hp. But now look at the different AA of those ships.

now lets look at the AA suites shall we...

Dallas           14 20mm, 12 40mm, and 6 127mm

Cleveland     46 20mm, 28 40mm, and 12 127mm

Worcester 24 20mm, 24 76.2mm, and 12 152mm

 

humm...and your telling me you can balancing AA vs aircraft can be done without +/-1 MM for CVs?

 

Better yet come to a training room and show me that tier 8 planes arnt doomed against that Worcester AA and i cant have my way with you in the Dallas.

I mean you have actually flown tier 8 planes into tier 10 AA in the last week with those statements right?

You misunderstood what I was saying.  Currently Tier VIII planes are doomed against a Worcester and Tier VIII planes can have their way with a Dallas.  That is because AA DPS and plane health scales up much too rapidly.

Example if:

Dallas AA: 100DPS
Helena AA: 115DPS
Cleveland AA: 130DPS
Seattle AA: 145DPS
Worcester AA: 160DPS

Tier VI Airplane health: 500
Tier VIII Airplane Health: 650
Tier X Airplane Health: 800

If they values were flatter in growth, as my example numbers are, a Tier VIII Airplane would not be invulnerable to Dallas, though it would be noticeably better than the Tier VI Airplanes, while at the same time not being helpless against Tier X AA DPS.

Would the values have to be pretty much gamed in while ignoring the actual AA guns on the ships?  Yes, I expect so.  Would the gameplay experience be better for it?  I think so.

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.

×