Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
exray0

Ship AA strength

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

231
Members
311 posts
3,437 battles

Could the numbers in game accurately reflect how effective ships are VS aircraft? I feel like right now they don't. 

For instance, the Kidd has an AA rating of 45, Massachusetts is 77, and the Des Moines is 73. I'm pretty sure that those numbers don't represent their respective effectiveness against aircraft at all. What the heck is that supposed to mean? 

 

 

 

 

Edited by exray0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
231
Members
311 posts
3,437 battles
12 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

The ratings werent that meaningful before the rework.

Fair but now that there’s a CV in a lot more matches it seems like it would be important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[INR]
Members
1,224 posts
4,060 battles
11 minutes ago, exray0 said:

Fair but now that there’s a CV in a lot more matches it seems like it would be important.

AA is so RNG-based right now, it's practically impossible to pull meaningful numbers, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
231
Members
311 posts
3,437 battles
2 minutes ago, WuYixiang said:

AA is so RNG-based right now, it's practically impossible to pull meaningful numbers, imo.

How about a poor/average/good/great scale then? I don’t know anything would be better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,089
[EGO]
Members
3,478 posts
48 minutes ago, exray0 said:

How about a poor/average/good/great scale then? I don’t know anything would be better.

Good - Minotaur

Average - Worcester

Poor - everything else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
391
[ODIN]
Members
1,321 posts
3,206 battles

It's going to be extremely difficult to represent AA threat with a single number. With a given ship potentially facing aircraft from several different tiers, different squad types needing different approach patterns / drop distances, and the the difference between strong self-defence AA and strong team-support AA (a ship can have one, both, or neither), trying to sum it all up in one number is basically impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
65
[-GOD-]
[-GOD-]
Members
347 posts
16 minutes ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

Good - Minotaur

Average - Worcester

Poor - everything else

Actually that last should be "Poor - Cleveland/Atlanta , followed by  Totalshit - everything else

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
65
[-GOD-]
[-GOD-]
Members
347 posts

Actually the numbers don't mean crap sense they nerfed aa and made RNGesus the gunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
231
Members
311 posts
3,437 battles
2 hours ago, Frenotx said:

It's going to be extremely difficult to represent AA threat with a single number. With a given ship potentially facing aircraft from several different tiers, different squad types needing different approach patterns / drop distances, and the the difference between strong self-defence AA and strong team-support AA (a ship can have one, both, or neither), trying to sum it all up in one number is basically impossible.

So then do more than one number. Long story short, what we have now is insufficient if we have to live with CVs in every game.

Do a top down view and show the rings with the DPS and then an overall grade or something. It would be useful to know that the DM has good flak burst but poor continuous AA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
395
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
2,470 posts
9,498 battles
3 hours ago, WuYixiang said:

AA is so RNG-based right now, it's practically impossible to pull meaningful numbers, imo.

You have to watch unicorn CV streamers to understand. CVs drivers can bait and sprint past AA burst like they weren't even there. This was intentional by WG or so they claimed.

However, there is a hit percentage on AA mounts. I believe if WG unified the damage and range if AA mounts, AA would be much more predictable and scalable up thr tiers than they currently are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
391
[ODIN]
Members
1,321 posts
3,206 battles
54 minutes ago, exray0 said:

So then do more than one number. Long story short, what we have now is insufficient if we have to live with CVs in every game.

Do a top down view and show the rings with the DPS and then an overall grade or something. It would be useful to know that the DM has good flak burst but poor continuous AA. 

You can expand the AA category, and look at all the detailed numbers there. You can see the ranges of all the auras, and the damage done by their flak puffs and continuous DPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
391
[ODIN]
Members
1,321 posts
3,206 battles
42 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

You have to watch unicorn CV streamers to understand. CVs drivers can bait and sprint past AA burst like they weren't even there. This was intentional by WG or so they claimed.

However, there is a hit percentage on AA mounts. I believe if WG unified the damage and range if AA mounts, AA would be much more predictable and scalable up thr tiers than they currently are.

The hit chances and tick rates are high enough for the continuous DPS for the damage output to be very consistent. Honestly I'm not entirely sure why WG included hit rates at all, since at the rates and frequencies they chose they're basically just modifiers to the DPS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
395
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
2,470 posts
9,498 battles
11 hours ago, Frenotx said:

The hit chances and tick rates are high enough for the continuous DPS for the damage output to be very consistent. Honestly I'm not entirely sure why WG included hit rates at all, since at the rates and frequencies they chose they're basically just modifiers to the DPS.

Perhaps to open the door for cross tier aa balance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
391
[ODIN]
Members
1,321 posts
3,206 battles
1 hour ago, Crokodone said:

Perhaps to open the door for cross tier aa balance.

Possibly. I feel like they could have left them all at 100% and instead just adjusted the DPS up and down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
395
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
2,470 posts
9,498 battles
43 minutes ago, Frenotx said:

Possibly. I feel like they could have left them all at 100% and instead just adjusted the DPS up and down.

Yes, but in doing that they would have boxed themselves into an unbalanced and hard to scale AA system; same as the one we have now but worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
637
[MIA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,480 posts
8,156 battles

DD AA has additional modifiers. AA accuracy is 100%, the AA benefits more from captain skills, sector management has a bigger boost and DF is better. As for how effective it is, in my experience anything with the right captain skills will drain a CV of planes, even something with poor AA like a Bismarck VS T10 CVs. It won't be enough to stop yourself getting struck, but if you survive you'll deplane the CV as all of the retreating planes will be shot down. 

17 hours ago, WuYixiang said:

AA is so RNG-based right now, it's practically impossible to pull meaningful numbers, imo.

AA is one of the few mechanics in the game that has almost no RNG elements to it. Even with DDs having 100% accuracy it doesn't change other than how you swerve to avoid it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
391
[ODIN]
Members
1,321 posts
3,206 battles
47 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Yes, but in doing that they would have boxed themselves into an unbalanced and hard to scale AA system; same as the one we have now but worse.

How so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
395
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
2,470 posts
9,498 battles
3 minutes ago, Frenotx said:

How so?

Technically we're r already in that situation with the AA damage based on individual ships instead of the mounts. It makes AA unpredictable and more so in port. If WG scaled AA only by hit rate instead of temper with AA damage per boat, it would allow for an easier balance against aircraft and balance with aircraft.

Example, most t6 cruisers that supposedly have t10 mountings can't deal with t8 CVs because the damage they have are suited for t4. If WG left the damage alone and just gave an AA Mount 25% accuracy but left the t10 damage then the squadron woupd only get blotted if the CV driver was unfortunate, new or careless (wrong use of engine boost.)

This way WG could scale AA without the use of consumables or even scale the ship accuracy against higher and lower tier aircraft as balance required.

Unfortunately with the system we have now, AA is either strong against one tier and weak against the other and its creating a commotion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
391
[ODIN]
Members
1,321 posts
3,206 battles
10 minutes ago, Crokodone said:

Technically we're r already in that situation with the AA damage based on individual ships instead of the mounts. It makes AA unpredictable and more so in port. If WG scaled AA only by hit rate instead of temper with AA damage per boat, it would allow for an easier balance against aircraft and balance with aircraft.

Example, most t6 cruisers that supposedly have t10 mountings can't deal with t8 CVs because the damage they have are suited for t4. If WG left the damage alone and just gave an AA Mount 25% accuracy but left the t10 damage then the squadron woupd only get blotted if the CV driver was unfortunate, new or careless (wrong use of engine boost.)

This way WG could scale AA without the use of consumables or even scale the ship accuracy against higher and lower tier aircraft as balance required.

Unfortunately with the system we have now, AA is either strong against one tier and weak against the other and its creating a commotion.

Accuracy would have been a great way to scale a given mount's DPS up and down through the tiers / across ships as needed, so that they could keep the mount's paper DPS fixed. Since they didn't seem interested in keeping a given mount's DPS consistent from ship to ship though, the accuracy just feels redundant to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
382
[INR]
Members
1,224 posts
4,060 battles
49 minutes ago, NeoRussia said:

AA is one of the few mechanics in the game that has almost no RNG elements to it. Even with DDs having 100% accuracy it doesn't change other than how you swerve to avoid it. 

RNG on flak placement, which planes get hit, whether continuous damage ticks on the planes you need them to... etc. "no RNG," indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
395
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
2,470 posts
9,498 battles
1 minute ago, Frenotx said:

Accuracy would have been a great way to scale a given mount's DPS up and down through the tiers / across ships as needed, so that they could keep the mount's paper DPS fixed. Since they didn't seem interested in keeping a given mount's DPS consistent from ship to ship though, the accuracy just feels redundant to me.

Its a new system and WG are human after all. They need time to sift through the overload of feedback.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
826
[STAR]
Members
3,303 posts
8,120 battles

What "ship AA strenght"? The rating number you see doesnt mean anything. 

 

You AA strenght depends on how good or bad the enemy CV is. Bad CV players get wrecked by AA good CV players just ignore your AA like some useless fireworks.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×