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

USS Arky B and a AA compromise

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

955
[SMLSK]
Beta Testers
1,335 posts
1,977 battles

So let me start this off stating, I don't want AA put on the USS Arkansas Beta. I think the lack of AA helps separate her from the Wyoming and adding it would not make her unique enough. Now that that's out of the way let's continue.

 

The USS Arkansas Beta was a great gift to us beta testers, and was a great little nod to a ship not made for WW2 but served through it nonetheless.

 

However the truth is the lack of AA hurts. It's nice if an enemy CV doesn't know you don't have AA but once they do, or if they already know, you are a prime Target. Yes you can eurobeat your way around torps and bombs but that only goes so far. The reality is you are a prime Target and easy XP for any carrier who knows what you are about. I believe something should be done but should align with the concept of the Arkansas Beta and how it was put into the game.

 

My suggestion/compromise is allow the USS Arkansas Beta the option to have either reconassaince planes or fighter planes.

 

The Arkansas in game has the plane consumable and the Arkansas in real life had 3 floatplanes it used off a catapult. It's no unrealistic to believe it could carry a fighter plane like other higher tiered ships do.

 

It would align with her having all the tier 10 module options at her tier 4 state and would provide a intermittent but not constant AA protection.

 

These are the reasons I think this is a reasonable request:

- would provide unique AA protection for her tier

- would be a consumable that would be gone after so many uses in a game

- makes it an ability that needs to be used strategically because of its temporary nature

- can be gotten around by carriers and provides a new skill based experience

- allows the Arkansas Beta player to not have to rely on needing ships near by to provide AA cover

- keeps the Arkansas unique compared to the Wyoming

- would not break the ship or it's play style

 

I understand this has been a dead horse that has been beaten to a pulp. However I think there is a viable option in there somewhere that would allow for this to be a thing. I rarely see the Arkansas Beta in game anymore and I'm 99% sure it is because of the AA issue. These are just my thoughts and you are welcome to agree or disagree.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
164
[LOIN]
Supertester
810 posts

Given that it has a 6.8 km secondary range as a tier 4 and it has tier 10 upgrades available. Doesn't really need it.

  • Cool 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
13,990 posts
5,814 battles
16 minutes ago, otakuben said:

I rarely see the Arkansas Beta in game anymore and I'm 99% sure it is because of the AA issue. 

Nah. You rarely see Ark Betas and Iwakis nowadays because they were given out once to a small group of people, almost 4 years ago. And natural attrition is shrinking the pool of people who have her, and are still active in the game.

People come, and people leave for other things, games, and hobbies. That's just the circle of life in MMOs. Iwaki and Ark B will only get rarer as time goes on, regardless of their AA.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,133
[ARS]
Beta Testers
4,631 posts
4,997 battles

Tier IV CVs tickle.  It isn't a big deal.  I have an Arkansas Beta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
955
[SMLSK]
Beta Testers
1,335 posts
1,977 battles
8 minutes ago, Starfleet1701 said:

Given that it has a 6.8 km secondary range as a tier 4 and it has tier 10 upgrades available. Doesn't really need it.

Secondaries don't do anything against AA.

 

4 minutes ago, Super_Dreadnought said:

Nah. You rarely see Ark Betas and Iwakis nowadays because they were given out once to a small group of people, almost 4 years ago. And natural attrition is shrinking the pool of people who have her, and are still active in the game.

People come, and people leave for other things, games, and hobbies. That's just the circle of life in MMOs. Iwaki and Ark B will only get rarer as time goes on, regardless of their AA.

That's very possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
955
[SMLSK]
Beta Testers
1,335 posts
1,977 battles
1 minute ago, Helstrem said:

Tier IV CVs tickle.  It isn't a big deal.  I have an Arkansas Beta.

They might tickle but they do that literally unopposed. It's like saying its ok that you can't stop someone stabbing you with a needle because it's just a needle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,737
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,546 posts
3 minutes ago, otakuben said:

They might tickle but they do that literally unopposed. It's like saying its ok that you can't stop someone stabbing you with a needle because it's just a needle.

Any AA they give it would have to be basically pointless.  Ship balance has to remain and other than no AA, it is a very good ship already.

When specced for secondaries and if you get in close, it's a monster.

As it was a beta gift and few active players still have it, I would expect no changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,739 posts
10,757 battles
24 minutes ago, otakuben said:

So let me start this off stating, I don't want AA put on the USS Arkansas Beta. I think the lack of AA helps separate her from the Wyoming and adding it would not make her unique enough. Now that that's out of the way let's continue.

 

 The USS Arkansas Beta was a great gift to us beta testers, and was a great little nod to a ship not made for WW2 but served through it nonetheless.

 

However the truth is the lack of AA hurts. It's nice if an enemy CV doesn't know you don't have AA but once they do, or if they already know, you are a prime Target. Yes you can eurobeat your way around torps and bombs but that only goes so far. The reality is you are a prime Target and easy XP for any carrier who knows what you are about. I believe something should be done but should align with the concept of the Arkansas Beta and how it was put into the game.

 

 My suggestion/compromise is allow the USS Arkansas Beta the option to have either reconassaince planes or fighter planes.

 

The Arkansas in game has the plane consumable and the Arkansas in real life had 3 floatplanes it used off a catapult. It's no unrealistic to believe it could carry a fighter plane like other higher tiered ships do.

 

It would align with her having all the tier 10 module options at her tier 4 state and would provide a intermittent but not constant AA protection.

 

These are the reasons I think this is a reasonable request:

- would provide unique AA protection for her tier

- would be a consumable that would be gone after so many uses in a game

- makes it an ability that needs to be used strategically because of its temporary nature

- can be gotten around by carriers and provides a new skill based experience

- allows the Arkansas Beta player to not have to rely on needing ships near by to provide AA cover

- keeps the Arkansas unique compared to the Wyoming

- would not break the ship or it's play style

 

I understand this has been a dead horse that has been beaten to a pulp. However I think there is a viable option in there somewhere that would allow for this to be a thing. I rarely see the Arkansas Beta in game anymore and I'm 99% sure it is because of the AA issue. These are just my thoughts and you are welcome to agree or disagree.

Disagree. Don't change Ark Beta. Just remove CVs.

  • Cool 2
  • Confused 1
  • Boring 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
955
[SMLSK]
Beta Testers
1,335 posts
1,977 battles
9 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

Any AA they give it would have to be basically pointless.  Ship balance has to remain and other than no AA, it is a very good ship already.

When specced for secondaries and if you get in close, it's a monster.

As it was a beta gift and few active players still have it, I would expect no changes.

Did you read my original suggestion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
955
[SMLSK]
Beta Testers
1,335 posts
1,977 battles
10 minutes ago, Pytheas said:

Disagree. Don't change Ark Beta. Just remove CVs.

Not my HMS Furious ;_;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,737
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,546 posts
18 minutes ago, otakuben said:

Did you read my original suggestion?

Yes.

Where the source of AA comes from doesn't make a difference in this context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
955
[SMLSK]
Beta Testers
1,335 posts
1,977 battles
2 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

Yes.

Where the source of AA comes from doesn't make a difference in this context.

Except it does make a difference but ok whatever you say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,737
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,546 posts
3 minutes ago, otakuben said:

Except it does make a difference but ok whatever you say.

You are basically saying "I don't want the ship to have AA added, but I think the ship should have some AA added".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
955
[SMLSK]
Beta Testers
1,335 posts
1,977 battles
2 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

You are basically saying "I don't want the ship to have AA added, but I think the ship should should have some AA added".

I'm saying I don't want the ship to have AA in the same sense as the Wyoming but rather give it the fighter AA which is more skill based, limited, and lends to the tier 10 options the ship was given. There is a huge difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
300 posts
1,432 battles

I have an Ark Beta and don't think it NEEDS AA.  The lack of AA is really the ship's only weakness, which is part of what makes it unique.   All those upgrade slots and great secondaries really let you make use of any commander you put in there.  You can spec for main guns, survivability, or secondaries, or a combination.  

I think any AA defense at all would make it borderline OP, even as rare as the ship is anymore.  You would have to reduce the number of upgrade slots and/or neuter the secondaries to make it fair, and honestly I'd rather have the unique Ark B as-is, rather than water her down to add some piddling AA ability.  

 

Edit:  I've had my share of games where I found myself alone toward the end and the enemy CV could hover over me the entire time, whittling me down to nothing.  They can take their sweet time lining up torpedos and bombs with zero AA to chip at them.  It SUCKS, but my point still stands.  Keep the current trade offs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,737
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,546 posts
8 minutes ago, otakuben said:

I'm saying I don't want the ship to have AA in the same sense as the Wyoming but rather give it the fighter AA which is more skill based, limited, and lends to the tier 10 options the ship was given. There is a huge difference.

Right, the ship though is otherwise very strong.  It's complete lack of AA is one of the few weaknesses that it has.  Adding any form of AA would be a balance issue.

A compromise, as your title says, means that both sides gain something and both sides lose something.  Neither "side" of the issue get everything they want.  In order to have a compromise in this case, the ship would need to give up something that it already has.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,189
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers
3,176 posts
9,512 battles

There was a time when tier 4 could face against tier 6 and that even includes the tier 6 CVs way back then.

 

The Arkansas Beta was released and balanced when it could face tier 6 CVs.

As of now it can only see tier 4 CVs and the rework made the tier 4 even less potent in terms of alpha strike so in other words the Arkansas Beta actually got buffed in a way when the rework happened.

  • Cool 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
955
[SMLSK]
Beta Testers
1,335 posts
1,977 battles
13 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

Right, the ship though is otherwise very strong.  It's complete lack of AA is one of the few weaknesses that it has.  Adding any form of AA would be a balance issue.

A compromise, as your title says, means that both sides gain something and both sides lose something.  Neither "side" of the issue get everything they want.  In order to have a compromise in this case, the ship would need to give up something that it already has.

 

The compromise is between those who want straight AA and those who say it doesn't need it. The fighter consumable is the middle ground. It is a type of AA but not strict consistent AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,737
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,546 posts
4 minutes ago, otakuben said:

The compromise is between those who want straight AA and those who say it doesn't need it. The fighter consumable is the middle ground. It is a type of AA but not strict consistent AA.

Ok.  That isn't a compromise though.  That's just adding AA to a ship that doesn't have AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
955
[SMLSK]
Beta Testers
1,335 posts
1,977 battles
2 minutes ago, Burnsy said:

Ok.  That isn't a compromise though.  That's just adding AA to a ship that doesn't have AA.

Yes it is a compromise since neither is getting exactly what they want and instead would get a middle ground. It's not just adding AA. Adding strict AA would give it constant defence against aircraft. Giving it the fighter consumable would give it a temporary, intermittent AA defence that has to be used sparingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,737
[A-D-F]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,546 posts
5 minutes ago, otakuben said:

Yes it is a compromise since neither is getting exactly what they want and instead would get a middle ground. It's not just adding AA. Adding strict AA would give it constant defence against aircraft. Giving it the fighter consumable would give it a temporary, intermittent AA defence that has to be used sparingly.

This is like saying I want you to give me a million dollars but instead you can just give me half a million dollars. 

That isn't a compromise, you didn't give up anything you already had.  That is just asking for something. 

Asking for something is fine, but I don't think the ship needs AA added. It would be unbalanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
955
[SMLSK]
Beta Testers
1,335 posts
1,977 battles
Just now, Burnsy said:

This is like saying I want you to give me a million dollars but instead you can just give half a million dollars.

That isn't a compromise, you didn't give up anything you already had in trade.  That is just asking for something.

Ok you are really not understanding where the compromise is. If the choice is Arkansas gets AA or Arkansas stays without AA the compromise would be a middle ground between the two. The thing does not have to already exist for it to come to a compromise. Both sides will have given up something in their argument in this instance. The one side would no longer have a Arkansas without AA capabilities and the other will not have gained full AA capabilities. It's not complicated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,846
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
26,430 posts
14,165 battles
1 hour ago, Super_Dreadnought said:

Nah. You rarely see Ark Betas and Iwakis nowadays because they were given out once to a small group of people, almost 4 years ago. And natural attrition is shrinking the pool of people who have her, and are still active in the game.

People come, and people leave for other things, games, and hobbies. That's just the circle of life in MMOs. Iwaki and Ark B will only get rarer as time goes on, regardless of their AA.

This and most missions require tier 5 and up.

On the lack of AA it wasn't much of a problem when CV's made squadron drops. If you made them blow the drop they went home to reload but with the new system you can blow one attack there are more passes and eventually they will get one on target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×