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

Why does AA inflate by 400% between T7 and T8?

33 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,225
[SYN]
Members
14,849 posts
11,307 battles

I mean, check for yourselves.

Spoiler

shot-19_02.07_17_34.47-0132.thumb.jpg.91456c4b8448ff7c1d205c90d36bbe65.jpgshot-19_02.07_17_35.33-0975.thumb.jpg.bd0032d24904c6652aab046dd7843e8d.jpgshot-19_02.07_17_35.52-0950.thumb.jpg.3734fc12d410a726e97ef54c6823ef4b.jpgshot-19_02.07_17_41.07-0524.thumb.jpg.60fa697d0d7fe95e977e7a422e4c3e99.jpg

 

It's no wonder Atlanta AA isn't as good as it was before.

It literally does a quarter of what it should be capable of, simply because T7 ships must be lacking GFCS and timed fuses or something.

Conversely, it's no wonder T6 CVs cannot even touch T8 ships.
Even the ships with the weakest AA still do 400% more damage per puff and the puffs become extremely punishing to the T6 CV player.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
651 posts
5,656 battles
8 minutes ago, MrDeaf said:

I mean, check for yourselves.

  Reveal hidden contents

shot-19_02.07_17_34.47-0132.thumb.jpg.91456c4b8448ff7c1d205c90d36bbe65.jpgshot-19_02.07_17_35.33-0975.thumb.jpg.bd0032d24904c6652aab046dd7843e8d.jpgshot-19_02.07_17_35.52-0950.thumb.jpg.3734fc12d410a726e97ef54c6823ef4b.jpgshot-19_02.07_17_41.07-0524.thumb.jpg.60fa697d0d7fe95e977e7a422e4c3e99.jpg

 

It's no wonder Atlanta AA isn't as good as it was before.

It literally does a quarter of what it should be capable of, simply because T7 ships must be lacking GFCS and timed fuses or something.

Conversely, it's no wonder T6 CVs cannot even touch T8 ships.
Even the ships with the weakest AA still do 400% more damage per puff and the puffs become extremely punishing to the T6 CV player.

Unless WG is planning +/-1 MM for CV this really has no purpose and should just be undone alongside the "constant damage" buff. It turns CV / ship play from maneuvering and skill to simply who has the bigger number. It's like adding overmatch to every ship.

What kills me most is that Sims, which has 4 fletcher (Kidd) guns, but does 1/4th the flak damage. What happened to Sims having "special" AA when it's just as bad as a Mahan now?

A whole week of crying on the forum by people who never learned how to adapt to the rework meta ended up in a shoddy, rushed patch with entirely predictable results.

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,225
[SYN]
Members
14,849 posts
11,307 battles

You say ±1 MM, but T7 ships will still get shat on by T8 CVs.

Even if you lower T8 AA down to T7 levels, that then still causes the same issue to crop up at T9, where the T9 ships will have insane AA compared to T8 ships.

 

If it were me, I would cap aircraft to T8, so then you wouldn't need this crazy number inflation that would make Zimbabwe dollars look like child's play.

Edited by MrDeaf
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,589
[SIM]
Members
3,011 posts
4,795 battles

They need to eliminate all of their artificial scaling plateaus for ship stats. AA values from 6-8 should curve somewhat evenly, they should never just jump because of crossing some arbitrary threshold.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,660
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,061 posts

I was going to post about this myself.

Instead of smoothing out the AA and aircraft scale, they've made an EVEN BIGGER mess out of it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,017
[DRACS]
Members
4,061 posts

Yeah, that is all levels of weird.

AA has always been balanced around the fact that higher tier ships simply have more AA mounts, higher calibre mounts, and sometimes higher rate of fire (like how Bofors are better than pom poms) Artificially limiting AA power like this makes no sense and is extremely unintuitive. If I see two exact same mounts on a different ships, I expect the stats to be the same. Wargaming already added a hit % chance to AA. They can just tweak that.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,125 posts
5,952 battles

Well, I guess this explains why the stock aircraft on the T8 CVs are so terrible even when top tier.

I agree, WG needs to back away from the tier dependent scaling. It makes it an awful experience when uptiered for the CV, and an awful experience for the surface ships when the CV is top tier.

Playing a few games in Shoukaku today, getting uptiered in her is not fun at all. Hard to break 30k damage usually, most of the game is spent flying around doing diddly squat because entering any ship's AA aura causes too many planes to go yellow, even before flak bursts and even before choosing to strike. I get that Haku was overtuned and literally OP. But the other CVs were actually just fine, in my opinion(T6 and T8 CVs). Now it's just miserable if you get into a T9 or T10 heavy game. You have absolutely zero influence. Heck even T8 can give you a run for your money, but I personally consider that balanced. A T8 CV shouldn't have impunity against equal tier ships.

I find the real sad part is it seems the general consensus in game is that CVs are now "balanced", despite them being pretty close to unplayable for the CV driver. They're certainly not fun and much more of a chore now when facing higher tier AA.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[-IRS-]
[-IRS-]
Beta Testers
127 posts
3,018 battles

I feel like the problem is that WG decided to just make up numbers for each ship based on tier, national flavor, ect. instead of actually basing it off of the actual AA guns it has. Take the Benson as a perfect example:

B Hull:

2x1 12.7mm (24 DPS divided by 2 mounts = 12 DPS per mount)

4x1 20mm Oerlikon Mk4

5x1 127mm/38 Mk30 mod. 0

Result: 

Short: 100 DPS, 90% hit

Long: 3 flack, 1540 flack damage, 84 DPS, 95% hit

 

C Hull:

4x1 20mm Oerlikon Mk4 (76 DPS divided by 4 mounts = 19 DPS per mount)

2x2 40mm Bofors Mk1

4x1 127mm/38 Mk30 mod. 0

Result:

Short: 76 DPS hit (Okay, you lost the 12.7mm so some DPS loss. Makes sense)

Medium: 1 flack, 980 flack damage, 54 DPS

Long: 3 flack, 1610 flack damage, 75 DPS hit (So you lost 1/5 of your long range AA guns but retain 90% of your DPS with no loss of flack bursts and an *increase* in flack damage despite having *less of the exact same gun*)

 

vs

 

Sims

4x1 12.7mm

2x1 20mm Oerlikon Mk4

4x1 127mm/38 Mk30 mod. 0

Result:

Short: 95 DPS (so you have 2 less 20mm which should equal 38 less DPS but instead only equals 5...)

Long: 2 flack, 441 flack damage, 74 DPS (You have the *exact same guns as the Benson C Hull* but get 33% less flack, 27% flack damage, and 1 less DPS)

 

 

 

In short: AA numbers are completely made up and have nothing to do with what mounts you have or how the *exact same mounts* perform on a different ship.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[NSEW]
Members
708 posts
9,056 battles

So..how does one expect the elusive "balance" that we all strive for. When figuratively, the number are arbitrarily used. 

 

Forgive my lack of research. However, what was the reason that they did away with odd numbered Carriers? as well as just keeping to available tiers now?

Perhaps, there is an oversight somewhere...

1 hour ago, GhostSwordsman said:

Playing a few games in Shoukaku today, getting uptiered in her is not fun at all.

Have you tried the fake attack run, nap of the ocean flying? I read some where that method prevents most AA flaks. Just a suggestion for you try next time.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,660
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
4,061 posts
3 minutes ago, Imperial_Magnate said:

I feel like the problem is that WG decided to just make up numbers for each ship based on tier, national flavor, ect. instead of actually basing it off of the actual AA guns it has. Take the Benson as a perfect example:

B Hull:

2x1 12.7mm (24 DPS divided by 2 mounts = 12 DPS per mount)

4x1 20mm Oerlikon Mk4

5x1 127mm/38 Mk30 mod. 0

Result: 

Short: 100 DPS, 90% hit

Long: 3 flack, 1540 flack damage, 84 DPS, 95% hit

 

C Hull:

4x1 20mm Oerlikon Mk4 (76 DPS divided by 4 mounts = 19 DPS per mount)

2x2 40mm Bofors Mk1

4x1 127mm/38 Mk30 mod. 0

Result:

Short: 76 DPS hit (Okay, you lost the 12.7mm so some DPS loss. Makes sense)

Medium: 1 flack, 980 flack damage, 54 DPS

Long: 3 flack, 1610 flack damage, 75 DPS hit (So you lost 1/5 of your long range AA guns but retain 90% of your DPS with no loss of flack bursts and an *increase* in flack damage despite having *less of the exact same gun*)

 

vs

 

Sims

4x1 12.7mm

2x1 20mm Oerlikon Mk4

4x1 127mm/38 Mk30 mod. 0

Result:

Short: 95 DPS (so you have 2 less 20mm which should equal 38 less DPS but instead only equals 5...)

Long: 2 flack, 441 flack damage, 74 DPS (You have the *exact same guns as the Benson C Hull* but get 33% less flack, 27% flack damage, and 1 less DPS)

 

In short: AA numbers are completely made up and have nothing to do with what mounts you have or how the *exact same mounts* perform on a different ship.

 

True in some cases, then it turns around and has massive gaps in some ship's AA because of the guns that are mounted -- see Tirpitz and the giant gap in its AA in the medium range bracket.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[DAB]
Members
1,995 posts
6,846 battles
2 hours ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

Because Tier 8 has to fight Tier 10 CV's.

They will neveer be able to balance this without +1/-1 matchmaking.

Or, god forbid, introducing any semblance of player control and skill into AA mechanics. The whole reason +/-2 worked in the first place here (unlike in other WG games) is because a T8 ship can damage and tank a T10 just as effectively if they outplay them. Sure, there are blatant advantages in being top tier, but good sailing and teamplay trumps everything else. We're long past the days of horrible balance where ships have so little range that they can get outspotted by DDs and melted from outside their range by cruisers.

Edited by awildseaking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
388 posts
5,189 battles
14 minutes ago, LowSpeed_US said:

Forgive my lack of research. However, what was the reason that they did away with odd numbered Carriers? as well as just keeping to available tiers now?

They said that in the new, single-squadron-direct-control style there could not be enough differentiation/improvement going up through every tier.  As you go up in tier you get more planes in a squadron, more planes in a flight, more bombs/torps/rockets.  It seems that they felt they could not make a smooth increment in the improvements if they had to do it every tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,464 posts
7,267 battles
2 hours ago, KaptainKaybe said:

Yeah, that is all levels of weird.

AA has always been balanced around the fact that higher tier ships simply have more AA mounts, higher calibre mounts, and sometimes higher rate of fire (like how Bofors are better than pom poms) Artificially limiting AA power like this makes no sense and is extremely unintuitive. If I see two exact same mounts on a different ships, I expect the stats to be the same. Wargaming already added a hit % chance to AA. They can just tweak that.

Pretty much this.  Usually I can see the reasoning behind WG's decisions, even if I don't agree with them.  I did quite the double take when I say the new numbers.

I think that hit % is a stat they should really start tweaking more.  According to the last we heard, it modifies continuous damage and average number of flak bursts.  Right now it's low at lower tiers and goes up incrementally.  Cruisers end with 95% accuracy for long range and 90% for shorter at tier 10.  DDs have 100%.  I think this could be used on a ship to ship basis instead of using it as a blanket to artificially nerf the lower tier AA.  Then they can modify lower tier plane HP to compensate.  I think that'd go a long way to smoothing out the AA powercurve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100
[NSEW]
Members
708 posts
9,056 battles
15 minutes ago, Mono_De_Mantequilla said:

They said that in the new, single-squadron-direct-control style there could not be enough differentiation/improvement going up through every tier.  As you go up in tier you get more planes in a squadron, more planes in a flight, more bombs/torps/rockets.  It seems that they felt they could not make a smooth increment in the improvements if they had to do it every tier.

Ah, thank you for the explanation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[SALTY]
Members
339 posts
5,476 battles
3 hours ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

Because Tier 8 has to fight Tier 10 CV's.

They will neveer be able to balance this without +1/-1 matchmaking.

This isn't as large a problem anymore due to regenerating planes and the lack of direct fighter interactions

 

What will be a problem for WG is players getting T6 carriers and then getting absolutely murdered when they get put into T8 matches. It's already frustrating the hell out of me, I can't imagine what a less experienced player would think of such balance.

AA is completely removed from surface combat so there's no reason for them to have such spikes at a given tier. They could theoretically program the AA curve to be whatever they want it to be and it wouldn't impact surface combat, only interactions with CVs. Why this hasn't dawned on them is beyond me.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[SALTY]
Members
339 posts
5,476 battles

I think they translated the old DPS values into their new system but did not balance them afterward. That's how you end up with such a power spike.

Makes sense now why I can't strike anything in a T6 as bottom tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
183
[DANKY]
Members
689 posts
1,940 battles
1 hour ago, Imperial_Magnate said:

I feel like the problem is that WG decided to just make up numbers for each ship based on tier, national flavor, ect. instead of actually basing it off of the actual AA guns it has. Take the Benson as a perfect example:

B Hull:

2x1 12.7mm (24 DPS divided by 2 mounts = 12 DPS per mount)

4x1 20mm Oerlikon Mk4

5x1 127mm/38 Mk30 mod. 0

Result: 

Short: 100 DPS, 90% hit

Long: 3 flack, 1540 flack damage, 84 DPS, 95% hit

 

C Hull:

4x1 20mm Oerlikon Mk4 (76 DPS divided by 4 mounts = 19 DPS per mount)

2x2 40mm Bofors Mk1

4x1 127mm/38 Mk30 mod. 0

Result:

Short: 76 DPS hit (Okay, you lost the 12.7mm so some DPS loss. Makes sense)

Medium: 1 flack, 980 flack damage, 54 DPS

Long: 3 flack, 1610 flack damage, 75 DPS hit (So you lost 1/5 of your long range AA guns but retain 90% of your DPS with no loss of flack bursts and an *increase* in flack damage despite having *less of the exact same gun*)

 

vs

 

Sims

4x1 12.7mm

2x1 20mm Oerlikon Mk4

4x1 127mm/38 Mk30 mod. 0

Result:

Short: 95 DPS (so you have 2 less 20mm which should equal 38 less DPS but instead only equals 5...)

Long: 2 flack, 441 flack damage, 74 DPS (You have the *exact same guns as the Benson C Hull* but get 33% less flack, 27% flack damage, and 1 less DPS)

 

 

 

In short: AA numbers are completely made up and have nothing to do with what mounts you have or how the *exact same mounts* perform on a different ship.

^^ this. This seems completely ridiculous to me and really needs addressed. The #, type, and vintage of guns should determine a ship’s AA threat. 

Edited by Eugenie_101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
222
[90THD]
[90THD]
Members
2,903 posts
2,239 battles

It is indeed interesting when Cleveland's 6 twin 127mm/38 has 4.5 time the base flak burst damage of the Atlanta's 8 twin 128mm/39. (nevermind that Cleveland has a solid Medium AA aura as well)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
166
[SALTY]
Members
339 posts
5,476 battles

These values don't even make sense. T8 US planes have roughly about 35% more HP than their T6 IJN counterparts. This is, not coincidentally, about the difference in the constant DPS number but the flakk is just arbitrarily 4x more lethal. What the hell? Keeping in mind that the T8 ship is spewing out a lot more clouds as well.

edit: the medium range numbers are similarly broken, did someone just fat finger some math?

Edited by harikari25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,776 posts
11,753 battles

Also the flak numbers are high because they are avoidable. The continuous numbers actually don't increase all that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
222
[90THD]
[90THD]
Members
2,903 posts
2,239 battles
Just now, CaptainTeddybear said:

Also the flak numbers are high because they are avoidable. The continuous numbers actually don't increase all that much.

you never ran a bottom tiered T6 carrier against T8 ships have you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[DAB]
Members
1,995 posts
6,846 battles
26 minutes ago, harikari25 said:

I think they translated the old DPS values into their new system but did not balance them afterward. That's how you end up with such a power spike.

Makes sense now why I can't strike anything in a T6 as bottom tier.

To be fair, you couldn't strike anything in a T6 as bottom tier before either. None of the CVs fared well as bottom tier. One of the reasons WG came up with unlimited planes is because CVs often found themselves in situations where they couldn't attack anyone or became instantly deplaned if they were forced to attack a strong opponent at some point.

Share this post


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

They said that in the new, single-squadron-direct-control style there could not be enough differentiation/improvement going up through every tier.  As you go up in tier you get more planes in a squadron, more planes in a flight, more bombs/torps/rockets.  It seems that they felt they could not make a smooth increment in the improvements if they had to do it every tier.

WG's explanation don't seem to fit.  It's much easier to have a smooth transition with more increments than fewer.  The reason WG removed odd tiers was to make sure CVs always got matches with short queue times, and it increases the chances of having more then one CV per team in as many matches as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×