Jump to content

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Developers
9 posts

Today, additional AA changes will be made on the public test server. The functioning of the AA zones will be changed and the AA defense plus aircraft parameters will be balanced. 
These complex changes are aimed at:

  • Improving the AA defense balance, considering the changes in previous versions;
  • Making the confrontation of ships with a gap of one and two tiers more convenient and make non-top players life easier (both when playing against aircraft carriers and for them).

In the version 0.8.0, the AA Defense was divided into three non-crossing zones (short-range, mid-range and long-range) to emphasize unique features of each ship's AA Defense. However, its side effects have sometimes led to irrational situations.

In Update 0.8.7 we have changed the AA zones in a way that they now overlap and supplement each other: short-range air defense zone now can't be less than 1,5 km, while a mid-range zone and long-range zone will start at a distance of 100m from the ship and end at the same distance from the ship as before, but can't be smaller than 2,5 rm and 4 km accordingly. This way we will eliminate the flaws of old mechanics. To compensate for the increased constant AA damage from the crossing of AA zones, the damage to each zone will be reduced.

Together with the AA zones, the spawning radius of explosions will be changed. Now they will begin to appear on the border of the long-range zone and end at 3.5 km from the ship. This will allow the aircraft carrier commander to focus on dogging explosions while approaching the enemy and after reaching 3,5 km mark - to aim correctly and choose correct lead for a successful attack.

WG_WoWS_SPB_Infographic_AA_Zone_Work_1920_EN.thumb.jpg.ee4554c37165fdcefcf13dd37416166e.jpg

Updated the progression of planes and AA characteristics as the tier of ships increases. Now the number of aircraft Hit Points and AA damage of ships tier IV-X will change more smoothly from tier to tier. Thus, playing for aviation and against it will not so much depend on the gap in the tier of ships. As well as this change will decrease the gap in effectiveness between ships with weak and powerful AA Defense.

Along with the change in the progression of air defense and overlapping zones, we have also changed the parameters of consumable "Defensive AA Fire" for all classes. From now on the continuous damage bonus is equal 50% instead of 100% and 200%, but the damage in explosions is now increased from 100% and 200% to 300%. For the cruiser Stalingrad, the bonus to continuous damage will be 25%, because the duration of the consumable is 60 seconds, instead of the standard 40 seconds. The continuous damage bonus is now decreased due to the new air defense mechanics and due to the summing of one ship's damage zones - considering old values this gain would be extremely effective and leave no chance for the squadron to break through to the target or escape from AA zones. The values of consumable for destroyers is now equated to other classes because after progression changing, the characteristics of AA in ships with a weak configuration was strengthened and the effectiveness of destroyers with good air defense under "Defensive AA Fire" exceeded the power of cruisers and battleships. For example, the AA effectiveness of Grozovoi with activated consumable exceeded the effectiveness of the air defense of the battleship Kremlin. Instead of a reduced bonus to continuous damage, the damage caused by explosions will be increased. Now when the aircraft enters explosions during the action of " Defensive AA Fire " it is almost guaranteed to be destroyed. Please recall, that explosions with activated consumable are highlighted in red.

To balance the overall damage obtained by aircraft considering all AA Defense buffs, we have decreased the return height of the planes after an attack, so planes that performed attack and return to carrier become immune to damage earlier. This way, more aircraft will be able to get back to the aircraft carrier, while this parameter will remain the same for "F" button to avoid spamming. In addition to that, Sight stabilization skill has been enhanced to achieve even faster aiming.

We will need additional time to proceed with more exact adjustments. Going further, a decision on whether or not any specific changes will be included in the release version will be taken based on the results of the Public test. We welcome your detailed feedback and appreciate your participation in testing.

Please note that the information in the Development Blog is preliminary.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
592
[NGA]
Members
1,863 posts
9,724 battles

Oh this just what we need, another buff to AA. Seriously Wargaming, we get that you're feeling a little sensitive over what happened to the floating scrap bucket you named Admiral Kuznetsov, but this is taking it to the extreme.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 2
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,754
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,063 posts

TL;DR Carriers, out of the pool. Everyone else, in the pool. 

1 hour ago, Weikath said:

To balance the overall damage obtained by aircraft considering all AA Defense buffs, we have decreased the return height of the planes after an attack, so planes that performed attack and return to carrier become immune to damage earlier. This way, more aircraft will be able to get back to the aircraft carrier, while this parameter will remain the same for "F" button to avoid spamming. In addition to that, Sight stabilization skill has been enhanced to achieve even faster aiming.

Plus... news bulletin... for those of you who didn't take this particular SKILL (once again) you're screwed. 

What I'd like to know is why you do not adjust the AIRCRAFT instead of the COMMANDER SKILL? 

I'm sure the response is, from a Dev POV, it's easier.

When again is the free respec coming? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
414
[KNCOL]
[KNCOL]
Members
531 posts
1,593 battles
6 minutes ago, Herr_Reitz said:

 

When again is the free respec coming? 

In our Hope's and dreams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
422
[K0]
Members
1,693 posts
6,711 battles

I'm okay with these changes, people have been complaining about non-stacking AA for awhile and this seems like a sensible approach to that. I'm interested in what the max ranges of each zone would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,223
[SBS]
Members
4,596 posts
2,408 battles

I think people are jumping to the conclusion that the overlapping AA changes will be a net buff.  WG said the continuous damage will be nerfed, and flak will only be at long range where it is 100% dodgeable.  I'm not sure this is a buff.

I don't like the change to defensive fire.  Flak can be dodged, and DFAA was what gave DD AA some teeth.  Yeah, nerfing DD AA is just what we need.

  • Boring 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,313
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
4,927 posts
15,754 battles

Any projection of how hard or easy planes will be to shoot down after a numbers reboot of this magnitude is pure speculation. Going to have to actually test this one.

Which means, can you give it to CC/ST/CST instead of PST? We can't test crap on that server because it takes 5 minutes to get a 3v3 with 2 CVs on each team.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
206 posts
1,139 battles

Why dont just move part of the dps to the falk instead of the consumable?

Aiming doest matter if i lost the whole squadron trying to make the second pass, you still dont get it, its the magic energy field know as dps that needs adjustements or the hp of the planes, imo its not that hard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,754
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,063 posts
3 hours ago, Weikath said:

this change will decrease the gap in effectiveness between ships with weak and powerful AA Defense.

Do you realize what you are stating there?

In essence, we don't want there to be a gap in effectiveness between ships with weak and powerful AA defense. Decreasing the gap will

1. increase the effectiveness of AA defense for ships with weak AA OR

2. decrease the effectiveness of AA defense for ships with strong AA

There's no other way to decrease the gap between the two. So funny., 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,554
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,420 posts
10,203 battles

It's taken 4 years too long for this step in the right direction, but props for finally listening on it.

That said -

31 minutes ago, Weikath said:

the damage in explosions is now increased from 100% and 200% to 300%

This straight needs to go away, especially with the other changes with Man AA and sectors and all. 95% of the time ships like Atlanta and Wor that can devastate with AA, especially flak, can see my planes before I can see their ship. By the time I see them and the time it takes for the ship to render I'm already getting blasted by flak, usually with it seems DF-AA popped right before I see it. These ships need no more buff to that AA straight up. Or at the very least reverse the spotting changes made months ago that made no damn sense on cruisers and BB's - it was fair for DD's and CV's given CV inability to manually steer the ship and all and the fact DD's are too easily picked on by DD's. Also I have to insist if this standard is being maintained - any ship using AA in a smoke screen, or at minimum any ship in a smokescreen that triggers def AA in a smoke screen - be spotted in said smokescreen. It was one thing when it was removed years ago when USN DB's in RTS had accuracy on par with GZ in RTS for the DB's (pre nerfs) but bigger bombs, DD's still had citadels are HE bombs punched in to (so actual max damage that deleted them), and AA on most ships, but especially DD's, was actually a joke. Those days are long gone as are the needs for this mechanic.

42 minutes ago, Weikath said:

In addition to that, Sight stabilization skill has been enhanced to achieve even faster aiming.

Do not increase the efficiency of this skill - undo the nerfs to rockets and torps ability to aim in and all that have been done since 8.0. Only if undoing those is not enough should this skill be tweaked. If rockets and torps are fine after they are unnerfed and DB's have an issue than simply adjust aim time for DB's.

Also, I will keep saying this till you do it - rework the damn ordnance damage. I get as is the damage of 5" rockets is on par with a 5" shell some were made from, but we have way more accurate firing that is basically equivalent of a damned Gearing or 3 firing Salvo's every few seconds at a DD. Higher accuracy and volume FFAR's, HVAR's and RP-3's need to have lower damage. Only larger, less numerical and less accurate systems should have damage as high as they do (if you were using the correct rocket and model the IJN equivalent to Germany's 21 cm rocket and systems like Tiny Tim). Granted these should generally be balanced around intended target anyway IE: HVAR/FFAR and similar systems - DD's, RP-3's (sttandard 6" warhead version) and similar systems - CL, German 21 cm and similar systems - CA/BC, Tiny Tim and similar systems - BB/BC. Same with bombs except that one is I think off the top of my head roughly 250 lbs or less - DD, roughly 500 lbs - CL, roughly 1000 lbs CA, and the 1600+ lb club BB's. Similar to rockets these are things that'd generally have more volume and accuracy smaller they are. Torps is slightly different as most are relatively the same. Just a matter of changing drop patterns and damage. So if we go back to something akin to the old RTS days USN puts six in the water at a time, regardless of tier, but they have lower damage and a tight grouping - they have a easier time hitting a more agile target like say CL's, maybe DD's, but to inflict any real damage vs bigger ships really have to hammer them with every one hitting, while conversely even if IJN drops double that overall the RTS style wide gaps mean that the while DD's should easily evade the 4 torps and likely CL's the big BB's are the best target and what they are meant for with their higher damage per torp and overall. Which would bring back something every line has that CV's have been sorely missing since the rework went live - a preferred target type. American CV's armed with groups with HVAR's, 500-1000 lb bombs and low damage/tight group torps could be a solid anti-cruiser ship while IJN using larger 21 cm equivalent rockets, higher damage but larger gap torps, and either historically accurate SAP bombs of around 500+ lbs on DB's or the 1600 lb AP/HE bombs dropped from level flight (none of their DB's could dive with the 800 kg bombs outside of kamikaze configurations save MAYBE the B7A that should be the tier 10 top plane anyway). Which even with the full lines returned with odd tiers included (because options in ordnance can give you the 'diversity' your dev team claimed to lack between tiers, besides just more planes/reserves) also leaves the ability that the 3 nations with sufficient material for 2 full lines with odd tiers and evens only CVL/medium CV lines (USN, IJN, UK) have options by using different ordnance and numbers of plane types to alter what they attack and how to create different options for them and have 2 generally unique lines, like say the USN second line leaning more heavily on rockets and bombs, using 2000 lb AP bombs and heavier rockets to be more like IJN save it can dive with them but it's own twists elsewhere or just gives a normally IJN player a reason to play a USN CV line. 

1 hour ago, Weikath said:

Please recall, that explosions with activated consumable are highlighted in red.

I will say this, for the millionth time-

NOT ALL OF US CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STANDARD ORANGE AND RED EXPLOSIONS.

It's not even an issue that can be fixed with colour-blind settings. It's not like my dad's friend where red looks green and all. In my case it's that basically, I can't see the full spectrum of colour properly - say there are 10 shades between a certain blue and black - I may only see 6-7 of them. I often can not tell some things called 'Navy Blue' from black. I have posted on this forum multiple times I can not see team chat, at all, unless I put it against an island because it for me generally blends in to the ocean or sky - hell some maps the colouration I can't see the red text for enemy names and all. 

Fine if I'm a minority here that can't tell the difference even under ideal circumstances - but with how much flak these ships are throwing that is on par at times with a squadron or fleet not a single freaking ship you really expect anyone to ID the colour of explosions while desperately trying to dodge the flak of the Worcester that just decloaked while firing basically. Let alone Aanyone that has trouble discerning the colour as is.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,958 posts
4,918 battles

Here's some numbers on what this means from the current PTS patch.

Midway Top Fighter: 1590 HP, 176 knots

Midway Top TB: 2040 HP, 131 knots

Zao(0.8.6):

385 DPS, 0.1-1.9km 85%

210 DPS, 1.9-3.5km, 6 bursts 90%

192.5 DPS, 3.5-5.8km, 6 bursts 90%

Zao(0.8.7 PTS):

206.5 DPS, 0.1-2.5km 85%

234.5 DPS, 0.1-3.5km 90%

206.5 DPS, 0.1-5.8km 90%

5 flak bursts, 3.5-5.8km 90%

Montana(0.8.6):

910 DPS, 0.1-1.5km 70%

717.5 DPS, 1.5-3.5km, 12 bursts 75%

280 DPS, 3.5-6.0km, 8 bursts 75%

Montana(0.8.7 PTS):

381.5 DPS, 0.1-2km 70%

521.5 DPS, 0.1-3.5km 75%

178.5 DPS, 0.1-6km 75%

6 flak bursts, 3.5-6km 75%

 

Basically, strong AA ships became slightly weaker, while weak AA ships became significantly stronger. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
474
[KAPPA]
Members
1,683 posts
6,531 battles

Woo! Finally you won't be met with a CL surprise in CVs! Well, okay, you will, but it will have less painful lead confetti.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
244
[UMP]
Members
253 posts
4,300 battles

Poorgaming really has no clue what they're doing. You know how we made AA overpowered? Let's do more of that. Then more. Then more. 

The worst part is, there's no going back for them at this point. If they undid what they've done people who've gotten so used to OP AA will have a fit. They've ruined CVs. All of their balances are just more nails in the coffin. They got your money, now they're done with you.

Unfortunately that business style has consequences. Will be interesting to see the long term effects.

I haven't played this game since 8.5 dropped, and this still makes me angry.

Time to move on with my life. I'll check back in a year.

Good luck to everyone out there, it's been a ride.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
367
[POP]
Members
480 posts
5,869 battles

Still waiting to hear when they are buffing hangar size and plane regeneration for the Saipan.   If you are going to keep buffing AA at least you could give me more planes to feed to it.

Oh and by the way, how is it that a ship sitting in smoke with no radar, no hydro,  no spotters and who is unable to see massive surface ships to shoot at them is able to see planes and shoot them down?

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
196
[NNC]
Members
1,171 posts
17,022 battles

I would like to see a system in place where all 3 AA auras work differently. there is no way mid range AA on a ship can focus just 1 plane.

long range AA should be flak. Mid range AA hitting all like old system. Short range AA can focus down individual planes. makes sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
196
[NNC]
Members
1,171 posts
17,022 battles
On 8/2/2019 at 4:00 PM, Aetreus said:

Here's some numbers on what this means from the current PTS patch.

Midway Top Fighter: 1590 HP, 176 knots

Midway Top TB: 2040 HP, 131 knots

Zao(0.8.6):

385 DPS, 0.1-1.9km 85%

210 DPS, 1.9-3.5km, 6 bursts 90%

192.5 DPS, 3.5-5.8km, 6 bursts 90%

Zao(0.8.7 PTS):

206.5 DPS, 0.1-2.5km 85%

234.5 DPS, 0.1-3.5km 90%

206.5 DPS, 0.1-5.8km 90%

5 flak bursts, 3.5-5.8km 90%

Montana(0.8.6):

910 DPS, 0.1-1.5km 70%

717.5 DPS, 1.5-3.5km, 12 bursts 75%

280 DPS, 3.5-6.0km, 8 bursts 75%

Montana(0.8.7 PTS):

381.5 DPS, 0.1-2km 70%

521.5 DPS, 0.1-3.5km 75%

178.5 DPS, 0.1-6km 75%

6 flak bursts, 3.5-6km 75%

 

Basically, strong AA ships became slightly weaker, while weak AA ships became significantly stronger. 

if you add up montys aa it is effectively unchanged the new AA still looks too strong.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,754
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
11,063 posts
14 hours ago, HallaSnackbar said:

Still waiting to hear when they are buffing hangar size and plane regeneration for the Saipan.   If you are going to keep buffing AA at least you could give me more planes to feed to it.

Oh and by the way, how is it that a ship sitting in smoke with no radar, no hydro,  no spotters and who is unable to see massive surface ships to shoot at them is able to see planes and shoot them down?

Better yet... those who do this are using their main batteries in AA(A) mode... so where's the associated gun bloom? 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[KAPPA]
Members
1,025 posts
6,254 battles

This does sound like a step in the right direction to me. It's clear there WILL be tweaking needed, but that's what testing is for.  On one hand, it was silly to have AA zones be mutually exclusive when the ranges were supposed to overlap, especially on the mid range and close range guns, but I am as always worried about how strong the constant DPS will be. As it stands, the only CVs I can run effectively right now are pretty much Lexington, Enterprise, and Kaga, everything else tends to get shredded too quickly and is too slow to regen to match the losses, especially in the fast paced action of co-op. Lexington is pushing it a bit, but her hitting power helps make up the difference in her slower regen and shallower reserves compared to Enterprise and Kaga.  I do think the long range AA constant DPS zone should stop once you get within a certain range of a ship, as most guns used for the purpose would likely have some issues tracking targets that get too close, but like I said, some tweaking will be needed.

I see also someone here mentioned issues with telling the red flak bursts from the normal ones. I check this place quite often and read through the update notes and this is the first I've even heard of the flak bursts from an activated defensive AA being a different color from normal ones, let alone seen it. I'm not even color blind and I've never seen the difference. I think that previous poster is right in saying that you should look into making the difference more obvious, based on that.

Edited by CaptHarlock_222
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,418 posts
509 battles

the easiest and most simple way to fix all of this nonsense is to just REMOVE CVs from the game... there will NEVER be anymore issues with AA... EVER...

 

 

yHKbBAr.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,405
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
8,355 posts
21,664 battles

I don't care what they do with AA as long as it can be automated. I give exactly no craps about aircraft, just want to click on the planes and let the computer play AA gunner. Not interested in dealing with them, not interested in interacting with them, let the computer do the work. This isn't hard, it is what computers do best. We are what, six months into the "rework", it is getting old. The whole thing smells of failure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
103
[GETH]
Members
223 posts
3,945 battles

Wouldn't it be better if we combined both the old AA work with the new mechanics? Such as:

* Continuous damage and range (both minimum and maximum) are determined by each individual weapon (as it used to be prior to 0.8.0)
* Flak bursts are also determined by each weapon individually. So the amount of flak bursts would be determined by the amount of guns, with those flak bursts having a set value. Could be that Bofors flak bursts would deal 750 damage and each single Bofors contributes 0.1 flak bursts, so if there are 26 single Bofors, then 3 flak bursts would be created (due to rounding up).
* Different kinds of Flak bursts can therefore happen. Large caliber weapons will make larger flak bursts which deal more damage, while smaller caliber weapons are smaller bursts with smaller damage.

An example of how this would look with the Algerie:
6x2 25mm/60 doing X continuous damage between 2.5km and 0.5km
4x2 37mm/70 doing Y continuous damage and putting out 2 small flak bursts dealing D damage between 3.5km and 1km
6x2 100mm/45 doing Z continuous damage and putting out 3 medium flak bursts dealing K damage between 5km and 1.5km

With the minimum range and all being determined by the mount's elevation characteristics and such.

Would look amazing as well to see different flak burst sizes along with all the little pew-pews. That way we get the best of both worlds and it becomes kinda understandable how each weapon adds damage to the aura, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12
[L0B0S]
Members
46 posts
13,144 battles

Why did you make these changes to the CV? to be able to put them on consoles? Why did people complain about many AAs in tier Altos and that the tier 8 CVs could barely get close? Well if 3 des moines were 1 minotaur and 1 Wooster on each side, crazy, most players note that they were playing American cruseros, All they had to do was balance the entry of those cruseros in the MM, enough with 2 of each On the other hand, over time the planes disappear from the hangar and the cv ran out of planes.

if it was to play on consoles, what they have to do is the same balance as before, now the game loses all logic, minotaurs that can be attacked with the cv even having the best AA in the game, before that it was unthinkable to be able to attack, in these moments even a tirpitz can knock you down a whole squad, any ship knocks you down the planes if this is going to do so with the little damage that the cv does, then increase the recharging of the planes in the hangar of anything it serves to take care of the planes if we will always be without playing 5 m or more. 

Ha and the Premium CVs like Graff Zepelin gives shame, his glory passed from the best wing worse cv, I prefer to invest my money in a game of 60 dollars that is complete and not in a pixel ship that will frustrate me and it will be nothing Funny, I am sorry WG for the hard words, but it is the truth, of course "you are already riding on the donkey" and it only remains to support so that this is much better for both parties. That is why it is necessary for your developers to play and take part of the players' fruition, so that we understand.

In my case I play DD and I can defend myself against the CVs, I don't have any problems the CV has always been able to hunt the DD so if I die it will be because of my own inexperience, not because they are OP, and I also play CV so I understand both parts, but The cv has always taken the worst. peace! :fish_viking:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×