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

Massive Fire AA?

28 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

380
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
785 posts
4,952 battles

So we all know that MFAA is more or less useless. So can we change it back to Manual AA? It would work like Manual Secondaries: AA does not fire at all unless you set a sector. To compensate, the effect would be strengthened by like 300% and the cooldown for sector reinforcement would be halved.

Also, both this skill and manual secondaries shouldn't be 4 point skills, maybe 3 at max.

Also, can we have AFT increase AA range again? It doesn't have to be huge, like 5% at most. I feel the issue with this in the past was that AA could stealth fire at planes, but now it seems that AA guns firing gives a bloom like main guns do, so that shouldn't be a problem. It would help ships be able to defend each other from air attacks.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
785 posts
4,952 battles
1 minute ago, LastSamurai714 said:

They are done with CV’s and AA.  It will fall on deaf ears.

I highly doubt they are done with balancing AA. It's a continual process. Maybe they are done with the mechanics of CVs, but that won't prevent them from reworking captain skills or AA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,604
[SALVO]
Members
4,522 posts
20,809 battles
On 1/28/2020 at 3:18 PM, Femennenly said:

Heyo, I'm going to break your post down a little so I can respond a little easier.

1 - Yes, this factor is no longer present on such a large scale. Naturally the 5-10% who are extremely good at any class will also hold great influence on a game, however, the impact of a single player in a CV has been reduced significantly.

2 - This is simply not true. While yes, the rework from patch 0.8.0-0.8.5 or so was rough in terms of balance. Since 0.8.5 and even more so since 0.8.7, changes have been minimal and isolated to particular CVs, in terms of sentiment and data, we are happy with their current balance excluding certain edge case ships which we're monitoring and internally looking at. I will state, balance is subjective, and an unfortunate fact of human nature is we often focus on how things impact us alone, and don't consider the opposite factors. From this unbias standpoint, we are rather happy with the current interaction with CVs and other classes, and vice-versa. In comparison to the aforementioned time period, the number and degree of anti-cv/etc threads has reduced significantly. You're never going to make everyone happy, but we can see that the volume of complaints reduced significantly. This is also reflected in the statistics we monitor regarding CV play numbers and their impact on classes.

3- Subjective statement, this cannot be verified by fact. We've looked for it.

4 - Have you forgotten when CVs could take a DD out in one run, or knock 80-100k off a battleship at TX with 3x4 torp planes? Because I certainly remember it. There are definitely methods that a DD player can adapt to reduce the impact of a CV on their gameplay. The game has changed, so players also need to change they way they approach combat situations.

5 - Without seeing a replay of how this game played out, I wouldn't be able to digest this situation and determine whats happening.

Fem, 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,104
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,266 battles
20 minutes ago, PotatoMD said:

I highly doubt they are done with balancing AA. It's a continual process. Maybe they are done with the mechanics of CVs, but that won't prevent them from reworking captain skills or AA

Wow, are YOU ever an optimist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
785 posts
4,952 battles
5 minutes ago, Umikami said:

Wow, are YOU ever an optimist!

I wouldn't say so. i don't see the glass half full, or half empty for that matter. I just see a glass with liquid in it.

Anyways, I see the "interaction" between planes and ships as the mechanical side, as in how the planes attack and how AA works with the sector reinforcement. What isn't included in that is the fine tuning aspects of AA due to modules, consumables, and yes, captain skills. So there still is possibility for change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
317
[USCG]
Members
707 posts
21,921 battles

All I know is that AA seemed to work VERY WELL during my last T8 match in my Ark Royal... I was lucky to get one torp/Bomb run off per group. 
Yes, I know, just dodge...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,447
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
27,451 posts
14,821 battles

Massive AA is ironically useful on ships with weak AA and actually reduces DPS on ships with good AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
380
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
785 posts
4,952 battles
14 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Massive AA is ironically useful on ships with weak AA and actually reduces DPS on ships with good AA.

The problem is it still isn't good. The initial burst is too small to justify the massive amount points needed to get the skill. Changing it to be more consistent is the first step. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,160
[SBS]
Members
6,123 posts
8 minutes ago, PotatoMD said:
24 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Massive AA is ironically useful on ships with weak AA and actually reduces DPS on ships with good AA.

The problem is it still isn't good. The initial burst is too small to justify the massive amount points needed to get the skill. Changing it to be more consistent is the first step. 

You're right.  The only ships with that little AA are low tier, and for the love of god do not take massive fire AA skill in low tiers, because you'll never be able to shoot down a single plane even with this stupid skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,057
[SALVO]
Members
25,798 posts
28,042 battles
1 hour ago, PotatoMD said:

So we all know that MFAA is more or less useless. So can we change it back to Manual AA? It would work like Manual Secondaries: AA does not fire at all unless you set a sector. To compensate, the effect would be strengthened by like 300% and the cooldown for sector reinforcement would be halved.

Also, both this skill and manual secondaries shouldn't be 4 point skills, maybe 3 at max.

Also, can we have AFT increase AA range again? It doesn't have to be huge, like 5% at most. I feel the issue with this in the past was that AA could stealth fire at planes, but now it seems that AA guns firing gives a bloom like main guns do, so that shouldn't be a problem. It would help ships be able to defend each other from air attacks.

MFAA is a skill meant to be used by ships with weak AA to give them something in that regard.  It's not meant to be a skill for stronger AA ships.

Honestly, though, MFAA seems rather silly to me.  There's no realistic basis for a skill that can create "massive AA" on a ship that barely has any AA at all.

I'd rather that MFAA (or whatever it was called) was a skill that was more generally useful.  Perhaps a skill that reduced the sector cooldown time.  At the same time, remember that BFT already gives a +10% bonus to continuous AA damage, and AFT gives a +15% damage per second within flak bursts, so you don't really need to take MFAA to enhance your AA.  You can go for BFT and/or AFT instead.  Also note that secondary build BBs are probably going to have one or both of those skills for their secondary guns, which will also have the effect of increasing their AA capabilities.  (Think GK or Massachusetts for two examples of this.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,342
[S0L0]
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
4,734 posts
7,251 battles

3 Points is too much, perhaps as a 2 or for sure 1,  I could see placing this on some lower tier ships with AA issues, maybe Musashi?...  But 4 points....  Not worth it on any ship.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,705
[WOLF9]
Wiki Lead
15,133 posts
4,766 battles
2 hours ago, LastSamurai714 said:

They are done with CV’s and AA.  It will fall on deaf ears.

WG has said that reworks of the MAAF and Adrenalin Rush skills for planes is somewhere in the pipeline.  Yeah, okay, that doesn't mean much, but they are aware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,685
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
16,938 posts

MFAA is, as far as I can tell, a complete waste of 4 points on any ship.   It would probably be a waste of 2 points.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,479
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
12,324 posts
10,458 battles
3 hours ago, LastSamurai714 said:

They are done with CV’s and AA.  It will fall on deaf ears.

You think they are and maybe they'd like to think it's done, but they are literally getting an earful day in and day out from Community Contributors like myself, Flambass, MrMacavity and ViirtualSenpai about the horrid state of AA and rocket aircraft.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
710
[NUWES]
Members
3,283 posts
11,849 battles
46 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

WG has said that reworks of the MAAF and Adrenalin Rush skills for planes is somewhere in the pipeline.  Yeah, okay, that doesn't mean much, but they are aware.

I agree. They are reworking all the modules now. I suspect that eye captain skills will be getting a rework as a whole afterwards. They are already looking at IFHE again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,402 posts
11,390 battles
1 minute ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

You think they are and maybe they'd like to think it's done, but they are literally getting an earful day in and day out from Community Contributors like myself, Flambass, MrMacavity and ViirtualSenpai about the horrid state of AA and rocket aircraft.

Thank you and please keep at it. 

In the thread that Femennenly was quoted from before, I responded to her on a constructive point by point basis.  Others that are seasoned CV players themselves also responded, probably because her statements have a fair amount of objectionable statements.  She has been silent.  Of course, a few trolls tried to muddy up things, but the bottom line is saying the state of AA and relationship of CV to DD is all fine and dandy is a losing argument. 

WG may not want to change things, and I understand they may be sick of it, but if the chorus stays at it, it will be hard to ignore forever.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
314
[TRU]
Members
711 posts
20,529 battles
2 hours ago, cgbosn4 said:

All I know is that AA seemed to work VERY WELL during my last T8 match in my Ark Royal... I was lucky to get one torp/Bomb run off per group. 
Yes, I know, just dodge...

Those are some slow, undertiered planes.  Been in those shoes and that is not enjoyable.  The shoe is on the other foot if you are in that tier 5 DD and the Ark finds you.  

#justdodge

LOL good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,705
[WOLF9]
Wiki Lead
15,133 posts
4,766 battles
6 minutes ago, YouSatInGum said:

Of course, a few trolls tried to muddy up things, but the bottom line is saying the state of AA and relationship of CV to DD is all fine and dandy is a losing argument. 

One that she didn't make.  IIRC, she said that the public complaints about them have been declining, and it's true.  What that means in terms of future changes is .. nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,479
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
12,324 posts
10,458 battles
1 minute ago, YouSatInGum said:

Thank you and please keep at it. 

In the thread that Femennenly was quoted from before, I responded to her on a constructive point by point basis.  Others that are seasoned CV players themselves also responded, probably because her statements have a fair amount of objectionable statements.  She has been silent.  Of course, a few trolls tried to muddy up things, but the bottom line is saying the state of AA and relationship of CV to DD is all fine and dandy is a losing argument. 

WG may not want to change things, and I understand they may be sick of it, but if the chorus stays at it, it will be hard to ignore forever.

The complication here is that the numbers (which, let's remember, are very important to Wargaming) are at a point that they're happy with.  That must be kept in mind and that must be acknowledged.  Propositions which seek to upset those numbers aren't going to be heeded, so that's not where the CC arguments have been focused.  Instead, they're aimed at addressing two main areas of contention:

  1. The alpha strike ability of rockets is too good against destroyers.  We're not worried about the total damage carriers can do to destroyers, just their potential to chunk destroyers for well over half their health in a single attack run.  We're advocating that a damage cap per attack run be fixed onto destroyers -- something like a max of 33% or 25% of their health per attack run. Whether this is managed by an artificial damage cap, reducing the damage rockets themselves do or simply reducing the amount of damage rockets can do to destroyers in some fashion we leave up to Wargaming.
  2. Anti-aircraft firepower feels like warmed over butts.  Even when anti-aircraft firepower is effective, it doesn't feel good.  There's no ownership of AA kills.  Focus fire looks and feels terrible, even if it is generating some good numbers.  Defensive AA Fire is a joke of a consumable, providing very little in the way of defensive feedback.  The interaction between surface ships and aircraft, even if it's generating the numbers Wargaming wants, even if some ships have particularly good AA firepower, is a hot mess.  Gone is the sense of "if I do X, then my AA gets better".  Largely absent is the feeling that "Y ship is good at shooting down planes".  Anti-aircraft ships, as a role, have been one of the many casualties of the CV rework and Wargaming is throwing away a tremendous opportunity by ignoring that lack.
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,160
[SBS]
Members
6,123 posts
3 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

One that she didn't make.  IIRC, she said that the public complaints about them have been declining, and it's true.  What that means in terms of future changes is .. nothing.

She said WG was happy with the current state of CV balance/interactions.  I think you can understand why that sounds a lot like there are no changes coming.

5 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

The alpha strike ability of rockets is too good against destroyers.  We're not worried about the total damage carriers can do to destroyers, just their potential to chunk destroyers for well over half their health in a single attack run.  We're advocating that a damage cap per attack run be fixed onto destroyers -- something like a max of 33% or 25% of their health per attack run. Whether this is managed by an artificial damage cap, reducing the damage rockets themselves do or simply reducing the amount of damage rockets can do to destroyers in some fashion we leave up to Wargaming.

Do you mean one attack, or do you mean several runs from the same squadron?  Its sounds like you mean just one pass/attack.  I think 50% hits from rockets is a rarity, and I don't think I've ever seen it in one attack short of a det.  Even with a 25-33% cap that would leave DDs being hit for 50-66% in many cases since two strikes are common.  I don't see that as any real improvement. 

11 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Anti-aircraft firepower feels like warmed over butts.  Even when anti-aircraft firepower is effective, it doesn't feel good.  There's no ownership of AA kills.  Focus fire looks and feels terrible, even if it is generating some good numbers.  Defensive AA Fire is a joke of a consumable, providing very little in the way of defensive feedback.  The interaction between surface ships and aircraft, even if it's generating the numbers Wargaming wants, even if some ships have particularly good AA firepower, is a hot mess.  Gone is the sense of "if I do X, then my AA gets better".  Largely absent is the feeling that "Y ship is good at shooting down planes".  Anti-aircraft ships, as a role, have been one of the many casualties of the CV rework and Wargaming is throwing away a tremendous opportunity by ignoring that lack.

I don't know what to say about feelz.  AA feels bad because we're all used to be able to position ourselves in place that gives us a chance to control the circumstances immediately surrounding us.  Our positioning is largely irrelevant to air attack and AA doesn't give us our control back.  That's why it feels bad.  If AA stopped air attacks in their track it would feel good.  The problem is that would only move the problem to the other side, not solve it.  Good luck with whatever you guys are trying to accomplish in this front.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40,479
[WG-CC]
WoWS Community Contributors
12,324 posts
10,458 battles
47 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

Do you mean one attack, or do you mean several runs from the same squadron?  Its sounds like you mean just one pass/attack.  I think 50% hits from rockets is a rarity, and I don't think I've ever seen it in one attack short of a det.  Even with a 25-33% cap that would leave DDs being hit for 50-66% in many cases since two strikes are common.  I don't see that as any real improvement. 

Yes, a single attack run by an attack flight.  A squadron could make multiple passes and still do tons of damage.  Our aim is simply to reduce alpha from a single pass.  The guilty parties right now are tier 8+ CVs -- most notably American and British CVs.  Max Damage per attack run:

  • Enterprise:  627 damage per hit, 11,286 damage maximum (18 hits)
  • Lexington HVAR:  660 damage per hit, 15,840 damage maximum (24 hits)
  • Lexington & Saipan Tiny Tims:  1,782 damage per hit, 10,692 damage maximum (6 hits).
  • Implacable:  776 damage per hit, 15,510 damage maximum (20 hits)
  • Midway HVAR: 660 damage per hit, 19,800 damage maximum (30 hits)
  • Midway Tiny Tims:  1,782 damage per hit, 16,038 damage maximum (9 hits)
  • Audacious:  776 damage per hit, 32,592 damage maximum (42 hits)

The RNG nature of rocket attacks does make the upper limits unlikely, however as tiers climb the threshold of just how many need to hit in order to thoroughly gut a destroyer becomes easier and easier to reach. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,685
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
16,938 posts
2 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

You think they are and maybe they'd like to think it's done, but they are literally getting an earful day in and day out from Community Contributors like myself, Flambass, MrMacavity and ViirtualSenpai about the horrid state of AA and rocket aircraft.

Well in case I haven't made enough of a stink over the last year on these subjects, a few things I'd throw in about AA:

  • The tier to tier scaling of both AA damage and aircraft HP is still too steep.  A tier 8 carrier's aircraft or surface ship can laugh at its tier 6 "opposite" but will be devoured by its tier 10 "opposite". 
  • The lowest-efficacy AA ships are just too bad at it, the floor for AA needs to come up even if it means some ahistorical loadouts... given the other ways they laugh at historical aspects, a few extra AA guns or making a few more guns DP shouldn't be a big deal...
  • Low-tier ships need a serious second look when it comes to AA, from ships that don't have AA at all, to ships like Wyoming that had their AA torqued by all the changes back and forth (hell, just make those 3" guns "large mounts" and DP both, heh).
  • AFT should still do something for range, having variable AA range between different instances of the same ship would increase the uncertainty for the carrier's player, and up the risk factor.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,725 posts
11,839 battles
2 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

The complication here is that the numbers (which, let's remember, are very important to Wargaming) are at a point that they're happy with.  That must be kept in mind and that must be acknowledged.  Propositions which seek to upset those numbers aren't going to be heeded, so that's not where the CC arguments have been focused.  Instead, they're aimed at addressing two main areas of contention:

  1. The alpha strike ability of rockets is too good against destroyers.  We're not worried about the total damage carriers can do to destroyers, just their potential to chunk destroyers for well over half their health in a single attack run.  We're advocating that a damage cap per attack run be fixed onto destroyers -- something like a max of 33% or 25% of their health per attack run. Whether this is managed by an artificial damage cap, reducing the damage rockets themselves do or simply reducing the amount of damage rockets can do to destroyers in some fashion we leave up to Wargaming.

Increase rockets TTT(time to target).   Increasing the time it takes rockets to leave the planes and hit their target will require more lead, give more time for the person being attacked.  The change would benefit the smaller and nimble ships than the larger and clumsier ships.  The change would increase the skill needed to use them properly.(another common complaint)  It allows more counterplay as you have more time to turn, slow/speed up, smoke, etc,.  Constant adjustments to get the target back in your sights will make the aim worse, if not keep it from getting smaller.  Of course this has to be done correctly.  Too little of a change and the outcome is the same.  Too long and rockets become useless. 

 

and i agree about DFAA.  Give its old ability of making the drop less accurate back.(longer aim time, or perhaps changing minimum bloom level of the drop)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×