Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
anonym_Hf93Jbjm9WjT

AA inflation = inevitable CV squadron HP/size inflation

44 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
4,302 posts

Wholly predictable, but is it a bad thing? If CV players feel more comfortable about plane losses because of larger reserves, and gunboats happy to have more planes to shoot down, everyone is happy, right?

What do you think?

Quote

 

...

Also, the number of hit points of tier IV aircraft carriers' planes was increased per the overall progression, and we made changes in the sizes of the tier IV-VIII aircraft carrier squadrons to balance them with all the AA defense changes.

Сhanges in the sizes of the squadrons

  • British tier IV aircraft carrier Hermes:
    • The number of bombers in the squadron has been increased from 3 to 4;
    • The number of torpedo bombers in the squadron increased from 3 to 4;
    • The number of torpedo bombers and bombers on deck increased from 5 to 6.
  • British tier VI aircraft carrier Furious:
    • The number of stock bombers in the squadron increased from 4 to 6;
    • The number of researchable bombers in the squadron increased from 4 to 6;
    • The number of stock and researchable bombers on deck increased from 6 to 9.
  • Japanese tier IV aircraft carrier Hosho:
    • The number of torpedo bombers in the squadron increased from 3 to 6;
    • The size of the torpedo bombers' attacking flight increased from 1 to 2;
    • The number of torpedo bombers on deck increased from 5 to 9.
  • Japanese tier VI aircraft carrier Ryujo:
    • The number of stock attack aircraft in the squadron increased from 6 to 8;
    • The number of researchable attack aircraft in the squadron was increased from 6 to 8;
    • The number of researchable torpedo bombers on deck increased from 9 to 12;
    • The number of stock bombers on deck increased from 9 to 12.
  • Japanese tier VIII aircraft carrier Shokaku:
    • The number of stock torpedo bombers in the squadron increased from 6 to 8;
    • The number of researchable torpedo bombers in the squadron increased from 8 to 10;
    • The number of stock bombers in the squadron increased from 6 to 9;
    • The size of the stock bombers' attacking flight increased from 2 to 3;
    • The number of researchable torpedo bombers on deck reduced from 16 to 15;
    • The number of stock bombers on deck increased from 9 to 14.
  • American tier IV aircraft carrier Langley:
    • The number of torpedo bombers in the squadron increased from 3 to 6;
    • The size of the torpedo bombers' attacking flight increased from 1 to 2;
    • The number of torpedo bombers on deck increased from 5 to 9.
  • American tier VI aircraft carrier Ranger:
    • The number of researchable torpedo bombers in the squadron increased from 6 to 8;
    • The number of stock bombers in the squadron increased from 6 to 8;
    • The number of stock attack aircraft in the squadron increased from 6 to 8;
    • The number of researchable attack aircraft in the squadron increased from 6 to 8;
    • The size of the stock attack aircraft's attacking flight reduced from 3 to 2.
    • The number of researchable torpedo bombers on deck increased from 9 to 12;
    • The number of stock bombers on deck increased from 9 to 12;
    • The number of stock and researchable attack aircraft on deck increased from 9 to 12.

...


 

I imagine, (though cannot be 100% certain) other t8 CVs (premium and tech tree), will also be revised if this PTS returns satisfactory results.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
210 posts
1,279 battles

They kicked, again, the can down the road

Also why buff now the new system on dds? Why they can get more AA but the alpha of the planes not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,787
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,342 posts
19,563 battles

Some other things to notice about these changes:

  • Reserves were increased, but regeneration rates were not
    • CVs will get deplaned slightly later in the battle, but will not recover any faster once deplaned
  • They did not include Tier X CVs
    • Not getting a buff that everybody else gets is a relative nerf, which is part of the 0.8.7 larger trend of reducing CV- and AA-related tier differences
  • The whole system is in numeric flux right now, as they said they corrected some general bug that was affecting AA damage
    • Sooo... we don't really know where this will land in terms of final performance
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,486
[CAST]
Members
4,996 posts
3,513 battles

If AA is much stronger, then naturally plane health or plane reserves/refresh would need to be buffed in turn if they are taking excess losses. Makes sense.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
12 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

Some other things to notice about these changes:

  • Reserves were increased, but regeneration rates were not
    • CVs will get deplaned slightly later in the battle, but will not recover any faster once deplaned
  • They did not include Tier X CVs
    • Not getting a buff that everybody else gets is a relative nerf, which is part of the 0.8.7 larger trend of reducing CV- and AA-related tier differences
  • The whole system is in numeric flux right now, as they said they corrected some general bug that was affecting AA damage
    • Sooo... we don't really know where this will land in terms of final performance

good points. though i doubt we will have to wait long to see regen rate buffs, on CVs that are not listed here (all t8 prems, Lexington, Implac, the 3 tier 10 cvs)/ If we do have to wait a long time, I guess players will make their feelings known. :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,088
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,030 posts
11,611 battles

Some of these, like the tier 4 CV's not attacking 1 at a time with TB's are good changes, and am fine with. I am however, a bit iffy because some of these I don't see reserve increases at all meaning that they can actually be burned out faster potentially. That said we have no idea where AA is going to land.

Some however I flat out don't like. Such as Ranger going to 8 attack planes, 2 per flight pretty much same as either Ryujo or Shokaku, if not both. Yes the tier 4's get 2 planes per TB flight but they all get 2 planes. A few, if not a lot of these changes feeds back in to one of my overall issues I gave had with the rework since it was pretty much announced - more and more the CV's are just cookie cutter. I'm not playing an American CV - I'm playing a CV painted as an American one, I'm not playing a Japanese CV - just one with IJN markings. Historically inaccurate IJN planes diving with 800kg AP bombs, vs again inaccurate level bombing on UK, vs 1000-2000lb HE DB's on USN doesn't really mix it up much when they attack 2-3 at a time the same as any other. Rockets and TB's have even less "personality" or as they call it "flavour". Why not 2 TB's at tier 4 for USN, 3 for UK and 4 for IJN, or switch UK and IJN? Forget for a moment tier 4 CV's shouldn't have rockets anyway, Maybe UK gets 4, USN 3 and IJN 2. DB's UK gets 1 or 2, IJN 2 or 3, USN 3 or 4. And that's per flight, then put whatever number of flights per squadron. Makes them a bit different, helps put a focus more on lets say Rockets and bombs on USN, torps and bombs on IJN, and Rockets and torps on UK. Give us back odd tiers and put in some more ordnance options like bigger or smaller bombs, AP vs SAP vs HE for bombs, maybe even a couple torp options and were off to the races. Obviously they have HP goals their aiming for just redistribute it over the number of planes. Some actual variety would be nice, as would actual options. Maybe I want to run 500 lb bombs with better accuracy than the 'normal' 1000 lb HE bombs on a USN CV due to a horde of DD's every match, or the newest BB line is out so instead of the already wrongly used AA firecracker, by which I mean normal IJN rockets, I load up the appropriated spin off IJA rocket that was like their version of Tiny Tim, torps, and AP level bombers to hunt me some BB's. New, thinly armoured cruisers - maybe UK with a SAP/AP rocket over HE and a bunch of medium bombs instead of larger groups of small ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
93
[WOLF7]
Members
162 posts
1 hour ago, LoveBote said:

Wholly predictable, but is it a bad thing? If CV players feel more comfortable about plane losses because of larger reserves, and gunboats happy to have more planes to shoot down, everyone is happy, right?

What do you think?

How many planes I do or do not shoot down is of no consequence.  The planes in and of themselves ruin the flow (fun) of the game.  Any battle with a CV in it is a cr*p battle because of their existence.

Edited by gslick
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,763 posts
93 battles
3 minutes ago, gslick said:

How many planes I do or do not shoot down is of no consequence.  The planes in and of themselves ruin the flow (fun) of the game.  Any battle with a CV in it is a cr*p battle because of their existence.

Take your anti-CV whining somewhere else. You anti-CV people have been whining too much.

  • Cool 10
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
333
[GRETA]
[GRETA]
Members
582 posts
17,570 battles

Many of these so called "buffs" only apply to stock planes. The rest affect squadron size and deck reserves, but not the attack size of said squadrons. While the squadrons will survive more under AA fire, the alpha damage of CVs stay the same (except for Hosho and Langley).

Notable changes are:

  1. Huge buffs to T4 carriers, especially Hosho and Langley (seal clubbing will be back, count on it).
  2. +33% to torpedo plane deck reserves for Ryujo and Ranger, +33% attack plane squadron size for Ryujo and Ranger.
  3. Slight buff to Shokaku torpedo squadron, slight nerf to Shokaku torpedo plane deck reserves. (Personally I'm not a fan of the "large squadron, tiny attack flight" design of high tier IJN torpedo squadrons, very inefficient and needlessly exposes mutiple planes to AA fire)
  4. No change to T10 CVs.

While an overall buff, the impact is minimal for high tiers. These buffs seems to solely target players who are just learning to play CV at low tiers, to entice them to move up the lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,431 posts
14,165 battles

I feel they should have dialed back AA power a bit first. It is like they sat around a table and said what is the most complicated way we can help with CV planes losses while avoiding the simple changes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7,307 posts
3,304 battles
3 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

I feel they should have dialed back AA power a bit first.

According to the PT stream, they are. High tiers are getting AA flattened across tiers. The only tiers really getting an AA buff are low tiers and thats only to short range AA. It is being standardized to 1.5km range. It really isn't an issue unless you don't know how to avoid flak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,431 posts
14,165 battles
Just now, 10T0nHammer said:

According to the PT stream, they are. High tiers are getting AA flattened across tiers. The only tiers really getting an AA buff are low tiers and thats only to short range AA. It is being standardized to 1.5km range. It really isn't an issue unless you don't know how to avoid flak.

Yet they are still not addressing AA scaling. A tier 10 match in a tier 8 CV sucked before 8.5 and while this will help it is still going to suck for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7,307 posts
3,304 battles
1 minute ago, BrushWolf said:

Yet they are still not addressing AA scaling. A tier 10 match in a tier 8 CV sucked before 8.5 and while this will help it is still going to suck for them.

That was the idea behind flattening the AA across tiers. They want to tackle the scaling because they admit being a T8 CV in a T10 game is just not fun.

I'm more worried that AA will be flattened too much and T10 CVs will be monsters again.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
627
[POP]
Members
1,084 posts
9,390 battles
33 minutes ago, RyuuohD_NA said:

Take your anti-CV whining somewhere else. You anti-CV people have been whining too much.

This 1000%

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,431 posts
14,165 battles
7 minutes ago, 10T0nHammer said:

That was the idea behind flattening the AA across tiers. They want to tackle the scaling because they admit being a T8 CV in a T10 game is just not fun.

I'm more worried that AA will be flattened too much and T10 CVs will be monsters again.

True but a flattening after a huge AA buff isn't going to do much for the tier 8's. I should hop on the PT and check this I suppose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,465
Members
6,152 posts
9,801 battles

Firstly, this is still testing.

Secondly, AA changes haven't been tested enough vs. mid-lvl CV player skill.

Up in the air how this will go, but seal-clubbing is gonna easily be a problem w/ T4 CVs if they have too much power at their tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,011
[SBS]
Members
5,901 posts

The OP should have started with the source, PTS changes for round two.

9 minutes ago, Reymu said:

Up in the air how this will go, but seal-clubbing is gonna easily be a problem w/ T4 CVs if they have too much power at their tier.

If I had to guess, WG is buffing lower tiers to get more CV players, and they are hoping that increased pop trickles up to the higher tiers.  I'm not sure these buff are enough to cause a seal clubbing problem, but we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,801
[WORX]
Members
10,663 posts
18,555 battles

This just means, the wave of planes will be relentless... Ships with no or little AA will get dumped on continuously.

This doesn't solve for the disproportionate DMG between

  • Small ships with little or no AA VS big ships or ships with decent or strong AA.

Any DD player will detest. I rather be shot at by ships do 900 to 1.3k DMG with a chance to escape, then planes doing 3k-6k of DMG PER PASS...

 

 

  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,431 posts
14,165 battles
2 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

The OP should have started with the source, PTS changes for round two.

If I had to guess, WG is buffing lower tiers to get more CV players, and they are hoping that increased pop trickles up to the higher tiers.  I'm not sure these buff are enough to cause a seal clubbing problem, but we'll see.

I don't see the changes really rewarding seal clubbing but torpedo bombers will be more useful than before in tier 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,268
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,083 posts
7,978 battles
3 hours ago, LoveBote said:

I imagine, (though cannot be 100% certain) other t8 CVs (premium and tech tree), will also be revised if this PTS returns satisfactory results.

Considering GZ‘s story post rework, I am not holding my breath for her. She is now mostly a port decoration, and if I must take her out, I apologize to my team in advance for only bringing half a ship into the fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
834
[PIG]
[PIG]
Members
1,217 posts
5,684 battles
2 hours ago, LoveBote said:

Wholly predictable, but is it a bad thing? If CV players feel more comfortable about plane losses because of larger reserves, and gunboats happy to have more planes to shoot down, everyone is happy, right?

What do you think?

I imagine, (though cannot be 100% certain) other t8 CVs (premium and tech tree), will also be revised if this PTS returns satisfactory results.

Good but ships like Minotaur, Des Moines will destroy squadrons in a few seconds even if there are 20 planes... Even destroyers as Grozovoi do. Even British planes slower but sturdier are des integrated in a few seconds.

The only way to attack is from behind an island, full throttle... Some Flak bursts appear even if plane doesn't have a visual contact.

Other ships however have almost no AA! IJN for ex.

CVs then will concentrate on low AA ships only.

Not less AA, but more balanced AA.

Squadron size, why not let the CV captain build up the size he wants? For the moment we drop rockets, torps, bombs to go scouting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
Just now, SireneRacker said:

Considering GZ‘s story post rework, I am not holding my breath for her. She is now mostly a port decoration, and if I must take her out, I apologize to my team in advance for only bringing half a ship into the fight.

I still take her out, get raged at, come top in my team, though it is a struggle to steer battles to victory in her. But GZ is not the only t8 premium CV, that may be in line for either squadron size buffs, regen changes, or bums wings on deck buffs. We can only wait and see/

(I can't help but feel WG is trolling with the crappy rework GZ nerfs, having trolled with the godlike OP rts GZ v 2.0 buff last year. I am hoping they will get bored with annoying us)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
834
[PIG]
[PIG]
Members
1,217 posts
5,684 battles
1 hour ago, gslick said:

How many planes I do or do not shoot down is of no consequence.  The planes in and of themselves ruin the flow (fun) of the game.  Any battle with a CV in it is a cr*p battle because of their existence.

So now, do the following : Close your eyes and imagine that the planes are flying ships. Problem solved. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
2 minutes ago, franz_von_goltz said:

The only way to attack is from behind an island, full throttle...

vomit comet bombing approaches have always been a required element of rework cv skills, and lot's of fun! In fact, this has been my preferred attack approach, since 8.0.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,787
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
5,342 posts
19,563 battles
15 minutes ago, Navalpride33 said:

This doesn't solve for the disproportionate DMG between

  • Small ships with little or no AA VS big ships or ships with decent or strong AA.

Solving this issue is the literal meaning and point of "flattening".

Right now, there is a "steep" increase between low AA and high AA ships. There is also a steep increase in AA across tiers. 0.8.7 PTS has a total re-do on all AA values on all ships to "flatten" that out, i.e. make the differences smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×