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

Bring back the old AA system

63 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

432
[-NACL]
[-NACL]
Members
1,194 posts
5,362 battles

Nerf cv's or bring back the old AA system on ships. Nuff said...

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,275
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,091 posts
7,978 battles

Not sure why people would want the old AA mechanics back. Of the many downsides that the Rework brought, the AA system is better by far, even if the soft stats are not quite where they should be. You no longer rely on the throw of a dice to shoot down aircraft but instead have consistent AA dealing exactly what it promises. If your AA deals 100 damage per second with a tick rate of 1/second and a plane with 500hp comes in range, after five seconds the plane is down. Under the old system it'd be a 20% chance to shoot down the plane every second. So on average every third time this happened the aircraft would not be shot down after five seconds, because welcome to RNG.

Edited by SireneRacker
  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
119
[KOOKS]
Beta Testers
319 posts
10,692 battles
5 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Not sure why people would want the old AA mechanics back. Of the many downsides that the Rework brought, the AA system is better by far, even if the soft stats are not quite where they should be. You no longer rely on the throw of a dice to shoot down aircraft but instead have consistent AA dealing exactly what it promises. If your AA deals 100 damage per second with a tick rate of 1/second and a plane with 500hp comes in range, after five seconds the plane is down. Under the old system it'd be a 20% chance to shoot down the plane every second. So on average every third time this happened the aircraft would not be shot down after five seconds, because welcome to RNG.

Old AA system was RNG based, but an AA cruiser was an AA cruiser. With the actual system, is FAR more dependant on tier than on ship. An excellent AA cruiser with all the perks but uptiered has nothing to do, a cleveland does almost nothing to tier X planes, and the reverse, a tier VI aircraft carrier cannot approach a lone tier VIII ship... 

And, a lone ship is wrecked. I see many times a carrier attacking a Cleveland, a Mino or a Des Moines and passing the AA bubble and dealing massive damage... something totally incongruent. New AA system forces ships to stay together (not bad) but also bases AA on tier, not ship (theoretically not, actually yes), and make AA cruisers absurd, obsolete, and not worth the invest on modules and skills. 

PLUS the unlimited planes make carriers dont worry about losses, previous system punished idiot attacks, and make carriers conservative (good) and when to attack. New system is noob friendly, but makes attacks reckless and punish ships, not idiot cv skippers. 

The only thing old system needed was to adjust damages and ELIMINATE fighter sweeps, the main point a good CV nullified a bad one. If you let the fighters standard (without the disengage and the ... i dont remember the name, the alt thing) the CVs were more balanced and could play.

The actual system is just noob and console friendly, to attract new players (kids that expend nickels or nothing) but it discourages old, loyal players. And on low tiers like 4 it completely destroys gameplay.

If something, if you wanna hold new system, at least DONT give unlimited planes, give limited ones, so CVs need to be careful about when/who to attack, and that also will balance CVs.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,197
[-K-]
-Members-, WoWS Community Contributors
2,684 posts
12,864 battles
49 minutes ago, Fastwolf66 said:

a cleveland does almost nothing to tier X planes

This is very definitely not true.

50 minutes ago, Fastwolf66 said:

a tier VI aircraft carrier cannot approach a lone tier VIII ship

This is more dependent on the Tier VIII ship in question and their position (and if they have friends nearby).  I've used pre-drops and islands to get easy strikes on a Richelieu with Furious' aircraft (just to cherry pick one example).  Like every other interaction in the game, the player driving the aircraft has a little bit of say here unless the map is Ocean.  

52 minutes ago, Fastwolf66 said:

I see many times a carrier attacking a Cleveland, a Mino or a Des Moines and passing the AA bubble and dealing massive damage... something totally incongruent.

This is only incongruent if you are a veteran of the old system, where certain ships were immune to aircraft.  The new AA system is specifically designed to avoid this.  If the carrier player is willing to accept heavy losses, virtually any ship in the game can be struck at least once.  It's the follow-up strikes from that squadron that are less likely to occur against heavy AA ships and heavy AA builds, because the losses to push home a second or third attack are too extreme to maintain over the course of a match.  

54 minutes ago, Fastwolf66 said:

nd make AA cruisers absurd, obsolete, and not worth the invest on modules and skills. 

This is music to every carrier driver's ears.  Every single CV captain in the game is investing skill points and modules in making his planes harder to kill.  If you aren't investing anything in your AA, he's got a leg up in that particular arms race.  You're doing him a favor.  

57 minutes ago, Fastwolf66 said:

PLUS the unlimited planes make carriers dont worry about losses, previous system punished idiot attacks, and make carriers conservative (good) and when to attack. New system is noob friendly, but makes attacks reckless and punish ships, not idiot cv skippers. 

This is also incorrect.  A carrier player who is reckless and doesn't pay attention to his squadron losses very quickly finds himself without planes on his deck.  Sometimes RNG works against you: a flak burst or two at the wrong time will ruin your day.  Sometimes you get caught in the AA bubble of a ship you didn't know was there.  Sometimes you simply make bad choices with attack angles or hang around in the AA auras too long.  All of these things work against a carrier player, and all of them punish him whether he's an idiot or not.

1 hour ago, Fastwolf66 said:

The only thing old system needed was to adjust damages and ELIMINATE fighter sweeps, the main point a good CV nullified a bad one.

It's interesting that you say this, because this is precisely what the carrier rework did.  It eliminated fighter strafing, lowered the alpha damage of nearly all carriers across the board (AP bombs notwithstanding), and reduced the impact of "my unicum CV wrecks your noob CV" that was commonly found in CV games under the old RTS system.  A CV has far, FAR less impact on a game now than ever before. 

1 hour ago, Fastwolf66 said:

DONT give unlimited planes, give limited ones, so CVs need to be careful about when/who to attack

Carriers already have limited planes.  There is a maximum number of bombers that can be fielded over the course of a full-length (20 minute) game.  Interestingly, in nearly all cases, those numbers are very close to the plane reserves each hull had under the old system.  We can't make that comparison for British CVs, of course, but we absolutely can for American and Japanese carriers.  For example: Enterprise's old loadout was 96 planes, I believe, nearly half of which were fighters (her old config was really an air superiority carrier disguised as a strike one).  New Enterprise's maximum number of planes in a 20 minute match is... 105 (this ticks up to 116 when she's fully buffed with modules and skills and such).  Keep in mind that this assumes she is continually regenerating at least one plane of each type every second of the game... which is mathematically impossible, because she zones in with a full load of planes and it takes several minutes to even run through each squadron type once.  The "unlimited planes" argument is easily disproven by simple math. 

What IS true of the new system is that because a carrier can only put up a few planes at a time - as opposed to dozens and dozens in the RTS system - that it's more difficult for them to be completely exhausted of ALL aircraft.  If you spam the same plane type over and over and over in a game, though, it's very easy to find yourself sucking wind and having to swap aircraft types.  The regen rates simply can't keep up with the losses that AA can generate in the majority of cases.  In my experience, you can generally run back-to-back attacks of the same squadron type once.  After that, you'll have to swap to something else or you'll be sending out partial squadrons (that are then more vulnerable to AA).  Kaga is probably the only exception to this given how many bombers she has on her deck.

1 hour ago, Fastwolf66 said:

And on low tiers like 4 it completely destroys gameplay.

Here we agree.  Tier IV carriers need further adjustment and change, IMHO... or simply remove them completely and start the lines at Tier VI, like they are doing for submarines.  

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,275
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,091 posts
7,978 battles
1 hour ago, Fastwolf66 said:

Old AA system was RNG based, but an AA cruiser was an AA cruiser. With the actual system, is FAR more dependant on tier than on ship. An excellent AA cruiser with all the perks but uptiered has nothing to do, a cleveland does almost nothing to tier X planes, and the reverse, a tier VI aircraft carrier cannot approach a lone tier VIII ship... 

Hence why I said:

7 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

even if the soft stats are not quite where they should be

The system itself is more than fine, it makes AA more consistent and doesn't create scenarios where either the CV gets frustrated by RNG (Kagerou destroying half a Midway squadron) or the ship gets frustrated (Minotaur failing to shoot down significant numbers of aircraft before the drop) because of the RNG. That there is still the need to adjust some numbers further is not at debate here, but the basic principle is so much better than it was before.

 

1 hour ago, Fastwolf66 said:

PLUS the unlimited planes make carriers dont worry about losses, previous system punished idiot attacks, and make carriers conservative (good) and when to attack. New system is noob friendly, but makes attacks reckless and punish ships, not idiot cv skippers. 

If you act recklessly and throw planes into heavy AA without reason you will get effectively deplaned. The restoration of a torpedobomber on Shoukaku takes 72s stock. If you fully spec into it you can cut that down to 65s. So to restore enough aircraft for a single attack run you already need 2m 10s, to completely refill your squadron you need 10m 50s, more than half the duration of a battle.

image.png.bf0c45a8705fa7073387ef6506a372c2.png

This is what effectively deplaned looks like. If you believe that this is not punishment, then I fear it's on you.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,836
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
4,336 posts
16,765 battles
5 hours ago, SeaRaptor00 said:

This is very definitely not true.

This is more dependent on the Tier VIII ship in question and their position (and if they have friends nearby).  I've used pre-drops and islands to get easy strikes on a Richelieu with Furious' aircraft (just to cherry pick one example).  Like every other interaction in the game, the player driving the aircraft has a little bit of say here unless the map is Ocean.  

This is only incongruent if you are a veteran of the old system, where certain ships were immune to aircraft.  The new AA system is specifically designed to avoid this.  If the carrier player is willing to accept heavy losses, virtually any ship in the game can be struck at least once.  It's the follow-up strikes from that squadron that are less likely to occur against heavy AA ships and heavy AA builds, because the losses to push home a second or third attack are too extreme to maintain over the course of a match.  

This is music to every carrier driver's ears.  Every single CV captain in the game is investing skill points and modules in making his planes harder to kill.  If you aren't investing anything in your AA, he's got a leg up in that particular arms race.  You're doing him a favor.  

This is also incorrect.  A carrier player who is reckless and doesn't pay attention to his squadron losses very quickly finds himself without planes on his deck.  Sometimes RNG works against you: a flak burst or two at the wrong time will ruin your day.  Sometimes you get caught in the AA bubble of a ship you didn't know was there.  Sometimes you simply make bad choices with attack angles or hang around in the AA auras too long.  All of these things work against a carrier player, and all of them punish him whether he's an idiot or not.

It's interesting that you say this, because this is precisely what the carrier rework did.  It eliminated fighter strafing, lowered the alpha damage of nearly all carriers across the board (AP bombs notwithstanding), and reduced the impact of "my unicum CV wrecks your noob CV" that was commonly found in CV games under the old RTS system.  A CV has far, FAR less impact on a game now than ever before. 

Carriers already have limited planes.  There is a maximum number of bombers that can be fielded over the course of a full-length (20 minute) game.  Interestingly, in nearly all cases, those numbers are very close to the plane reserves each hull had under the old system.  We can't make that comparison for British CVs, of course, but we absolutely can for American and Japanese carriers.  For example: Enterprise's old loadout was 96 planes, I believe, nearly half of which were fighters (her old config was really an air superiority carrier disguised as a strike one).  New Enterprise's maximum number of planes in a 20 minute match is... 105 (this ticks up to 116 when she's fully buffed with modules and skills and such).  Keep in mind that this assumes she is continually regenerating at least one plane of each type every second of the game... which is mathematically impossible, because she zones in with a full load of planes and it takes several minutes to even run through each squadron type once.  The "unlimited planes" argument is easily disproven by simple math. 

What IS true of the new system is that because a carrier can only put up a few planes at a time - as opposed to dozens and dozens in the RTS system - that it's more difficult for them to be completely exhausted of ALL aircraft.  If you spam the same plane type over and over and over in a game, though, it's very easy to find yourself sucking wind and having to swap aircraft types.  The regen rates simply can't keep up with the losses that AA can generate in the majority of cases.  In my experience, you can generally run back-to-back attacks of the same squadron type once.  After that, you'll have to swap to something else or you'll be sending out partial squadrons (that are then more vulnerable to AA).  Kaga is probably the only exception to this given how many bombers she has on her deck.

Here we agree.  Tier IV carriers need further adjustment and change, IMHO... or simply remove them completely and start the lines at Tier VI, like they are doing for submarines.  


4 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

Hence why I said:

The system itself is more than fine, it makes AA more consistent and doesn't create scenarios where either the CV gets frustrated by RNG (Kagerou destroying half a Midway squadron) or the ship gets frustrated (Minotaur failing to shoot down significant numbers of aircraft before the drop) because of the RNG. That there is still the need to adjust some numbers further is not at debate here, but the basic principle is so much better than it was before.

 

If you act recklessly and throw planes into heavy AA without reason you will get effectively deplaned. The restoration of a torpedobomber on Shoukaku takes 72s stock. If you fully spec into it you can cut that down to 65s. So to restore enough aircraft for a single attack run you already need 2m 10s, to completely refill your squadron you need 10m 50s, more than half the duration of a battle.

image.png.bf0c45a8705fa7073387ef6506a372c2.png

This is what effectively deplaned looks like. If you believe that this is not punishment, then I fear it's on you.

Only problem with the new  AA  system is  90%  of  the  CV's  sit safe in the back doing their damage with few to none of the opposing players having a chance at them this is as has repeatedly been said all about balance and there's nothing balanced about that

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,275
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,091 posts
7,978 battles
7 hours ago, shadowsrmine said:

Only problem with the new  AA  system is  90%  of  the  CV's  sit safe in the back doing their damage with few to none of the opposing players having a chance at them this is as has repeatedly been said all about balance and there's nothing balanced about that

And that has what to do with the AA system? Is there anything about the old AA system that brought the CV players closer to the action?

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,836
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
4,336 posts
16,765 battles
3 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

And that has what to do with the AA system? Is there anything about the old AA system that brought the CV players closer to the action?

At least the players in the other boats had some defense now CV's  can do damage and even sink them and they have little chance doing anything back

 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,836
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
4,336 posts
16,765 battles
3 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

And that has what to do with the AA system? Is there anything about the old AA system that brought the CV players closer to the action?


28 minutes ago, shadowsrmine said:

At least the players in the other boats had some defense now CV's  can do damage and even sink them and they have little chance doing anything back

 

The way it works now the CV is one of the safest ships in the game over  90%  of the time the last ship sunk if even then,All the while sitting in the back safely dealing damage whilst the ships their damaging have no way to damage back until his team is either sunk or moved on to safer a local.Whats fair and balanced about that?

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,275
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,091 posts
7,978 battles
3 hours ago, shadowsrmine said:

At least the players in the other boats had some defense now CV's  can do damage and even sink them and they have little chance doing anything back

I recommend you actually read my comments instead of blindly replying.

On 5/19/2020 at 10:29 AM, SireneRacker said:

Of the many downsides that the Rework brought, the AA system is better by far, even if the soft stats are not quite where they should be.

If you have trouble reading the highlighted portion let me know, I'll try to find a way that even you would understand.

If you want to return to an RNG fest where the dice alone decides how you perform against planes, fine by me. I much prefer a system that is consistent. And that is what this topic is about: AA SYSTEM. Not overall AA performance.

Now, do you have anything to say against the current AA SYSTEM, or will you just repeat arguing something that is not even topic of the discussion? Or continue downvoting me, also fine by me.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,836
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
4,336 posts
16,765 battles
3 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

I recommend you actually read my comments instead of blindly replying.

If you have trouble reading the highlighted portion let me know, I'll try to find a way that even you would understand.

If you want to return to an RNG fest where the dice alone decides how you perform against planes, fine by me. I much prefer a system that is consistent. And that is what this topic is about: AA SYSTEM. Not overall AA performance.

Now, do you have anything to say against the current AA SYSTEM, or will you just repeat arguing something that is not even topic of the discussion? Or continue downvoting me, also fine by me.

So instead you advocate for a ship class that's unbalanced and continues to do all it's damage to opposing ships from where it's safe?That's only vulnerable when it's team is destroyed  or not defending it? That's balanced?🤦🏻‍♂️

Edited by shadowsrmine
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
477
[THREE]
Members
2,454 posts
13,679 battles

Hey

My problem with the CV rework was very simple.  Not so much with CV's themselves but the whole changes to once good AA boats being not so great anymore; we got a 10% Nerf to concealment, we got a Nerf to 20% AA range increase for using AFT, Manual fire AA was removed altogether, we then got sector select which ok big deal, we got a NERF to the AA gun Upgrade module to the point it's no longer viable, we got a NERF to DFAA, and now we have a AA guns description that is almost meaningless as to how effective it is compared to before and this is clearly stated by many of the CC's making video content.  Now we have AA that shoots and does damage to a whole squadron of planes instead of those actually shooting at my ship, really?  Once awesome ships like Des Moines, Minotaur, Atlanta, Flint and so many others are just a fore shadow of their former AA glory.  Then you have (I would say stupidity) of rocket planes which easily chuck 2-6K damage on each pass to any ship they go after including DD's which are hurting already, a cruiser (I recently lost over 6K to my PE in a 2 pass attack) and then you are talking about adding AP rockets??   Does that make any sense in this already CV hated days?  Wargaming keeps talking about balance this, balance that and yet the longer we go, the more unbalanced the game is becoming.  So much so, that a few CC's have commented on the death of BB's and everyone knows that BB's are failing because they suck at over pens, ricochets and even HE on DD's fail to kill them outright (I have commented before on 8 HE shots from my Conqueror, setting 3 immediate fires but didn't dev. struck him and I died to his torps (wth), HE spamming cruisers that take down BB's faster than my big guns can kill him in return.  And now we are looking at Subs, another balancing question.  How long before you take away Hydro or NERF it because German hydro is too strong?  Give the ships back their original stats, capabilities, modules, bonuses before the CV rework.  As for RNG comments on AA; what isn't RNG based in this game which is far less consistent (balanced) today than ever before, and is based solely on a persons skill, tactics, proper aiming.  Wargaming needs to take a serious look at the over pens, ricochets mechanics and update those so BB's, cruisers, will move up to support DD's and work as a team.  One other point I would like to hear from Wargaming:  Why in the last couple of patches has their been so many blow out games, where they aren't even close to "Balanced", is this due in part to matchmaking?  Is there game manipulations going on that the player base doesn't know about?  How many times have you been hitting ships, winning teams and then all of a sudden nobody can hit anything and the game is lost, seems rather questionable?

 

Pete

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,275
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,091 posts
7,978 battles
2 hours ago, shadowsrmine said:

So instead you advocate for a ship class that's unbalanced and continues to do all it's damage to opposing ships from where it's safe?That's only vulnerable when it's team is destroyed  or not defending it? That's balanced?🤦🏻‍♂️

You are really dense, beyond a point that I would consider to be funny. I literally said that the current system still needs work, but you refuse to hear that and instead believe that I said "everything's fine" because you can not accept that the CV rework brought some positive change. Anything CV rework related must be bad, there is simply no other option for you. You are like a god damn child. Grow up.

This is why people can't have civilized talk about CVs, because of people like you who let their emotions cloud their judgement on single game elements, even if said game elements have nothing to do with the problems. There is a long list of crap to fix with CVs, but the removal of RNG in regards to AA mechanics is not among them. A point you have gloriously failed to discuss, and instead talk about god and the world.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,275
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,091 posts
7,978 battles
39 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

As for RNG comments on AA; what isn't RNG based in this game which is far less consistent (balanced) today than ever before, and is based solely on a persons skill, tactics, proper aiming.

There are more alternatives to RNG than just skill, tactics and aiming. Hard coded game mechanics for example. A torpedo that enters hydro range gets spotted, no RNG involved. A ship that sits withing radar range gets radared, no RNG involved. A ship that reaches 0hp gets destroyed, no RNG involved. The new AA mechanics follow the same idea. Before you had hit points and AA dps, but there was no hitpool. All just RNG. Now the plane has an actual hitpool, that can be reduced, and once it reaches zero the plane goes down.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
477
[THREE]
Members
2,454 posts
13,679 battles
21 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

There are more alternatives to RNG than just skill, tactics and aiming. Hard coded game mechanics for example. A torpedo that enters hydro range gets spotted, no RNG involved. A ship that sits withing radar range gets radared, no RNG involved. A ship that reaches 0hp gets destroyed, no RNG involved. The new AA mechanics follow the same idea. Before you had hit points and AA dps, but there was no hitpool. All just RNG. Now the plane has an actual hitpool, that can be reduced, and once it reaches zero the plane goes down.

Hey

Any way you want to break it down.  AA is garbage compared to what it was before the rework, whether it's coded or RNG.  And most people hate it today and you also didn't address any of the other topics I mentioned about items we lost directly due to the CV rework.   I seriously doubt Wargaming will change much simply because they have so much time, money and investment into the CV rework, they will never admit that is not doing as well as they hoped.

 

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,275
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,091 posts
7,978 battles
14 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

AA is garbage compared to what it was before the rework, whether it's coded or RNG

It is no longer at where it was, correct. But the system itself is not to blame. The soft stats are to blame, which I already stated, and I am getting tired of having to repeat it. You could easily have the current system result in entire squadrons getting melted upon touching an AA sector, just like you could have the old system result in ships rarely shooting anything down.

16 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

you also didn't address any of the other topics I mentioned about items we lost directly due to the CV rework

And why should I? This is not a topic about the CV rework, it's about AA systems. Why would I talk about what I think of changes to concealment?

This topic is about two different AA systems, which I will break down just for you:

a. plane has a "hitpool", AA guns have a "dps", every tick you get a percentage to shoot down a plane based on said "hitpool" and "dps", and if you get lucky you shoot down a plane

b. plane has an actual hitpool and AA guns have an actual dps, every tick health is being removed from the hitpool until it reaches 0, resulting in the plane getting shot down

Now, simple question, and without going off topic: Which of these two systems do you prefer?

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
477
[THREE]
Members
2,454 posts
13,679 battles
1 minute ago, SireneRacker said:

It is no longer at where it was, correct. But the system itself is not to blame. The soft stats are to blame, which I already stated, and I am getting tired of having to repeat it. You could easily have the current system result in entire squadrons getting melted upon touching an AA sector, just like you could have the old system result in ships rarely shooting anything down.

And why should I? This is not a topic about the CV rework, it's about AA systems. Why would I talk about what I think of changes to concealment?

This topic is about two different AA systems, which I will break down just for you:

a. plane has a "hitpool", AA guns have a "dps", every tick you get a percentage to shoot down a plane based on said "hitpool" and "dps", and if you get lucky you shoot down a plane

b. plane has an actual hitpool and AA guns have an actual dps, every tick health is being removed from the hitpool until it reaches 0, resulting in the plane getting shot down

Now, simple question, and without going off topic: Which of these two systems do you prefer?

Hey

Are you just a little slow?  It all came about with the CV Rework, so it does apply and it's directly related to how CV's interact with the other ships and the AA on those ships, so concealment, AFT AA range, DFAA, and all those other things I mentioned are very relevant to this conversation.  You mention about "just like you could have the old system result in ships rarely shooting anything down", tell that to the Kidd, Sims, Atlanta, Flint, Des Moines, and most other once well known "no fly zone" ships.  Once again, talk about rocket planes and how stronk they are on DD's and cruisers or anyone with mid level AA.  

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,836
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
4,336 posts
16,765 battles
52 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

You are really dense, beyond a point that I would consider to be funny. I literally said that the current system still needs work, but you refuse to hear that and instead believe that I said "everything's fine" because you can not accept that the CV rework brought Much Negative some positive change. Anything CV rework related must be bad, there is simply no other option for you. You are like a god damn child. Grow up.

This is why people can't have civilized talk about CVs, because of people like you who let their emotions cloud their judgement on single game elements, even if said game elements have nothing to do with the problems. There is a long list of crap to fix with CVs, but the removal of RNG in regards to AA mechanics is not among them. A point you have gloriously failed to discuss, and instead talk about god and the world.

I never brought religion into this you did so I fixed your statement also other erroneous parts of your comment I also corrected some of it to be more accurate.The truth is you  like playing an unbalanced ship class

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,836
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
4,336 posts
16,765 battles
4 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

>>-->>>Are you just a little slow?<<<--<< The answer to this is yes :Smile_sad: It all came about with the CV Rework, so it does apply and it's directly related to how CV's interact with the other ships and the AA on those ships, so concealment, AFT AA range, DFAA, and all those other things I mentioned are very relevant to this conversation.  You mention about "just like you could have the old system result in ships rarely shooting anything down", tell that to the Kidd, Sims, Atlanta, Flint, Des Moines, and most other once well known "no fly zone" ships.  Once again, talk about rocket planes and how stronk they are on DD's and cruisers or anyone with mid level AA.  

Pete

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,275
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,091 posts
7,978 battles
1 minute ago, sasquatch_research said:

Are you just a little slow?  It all came about with the CV Rework, so it does apply and it's directly related to how CV's interact with the other ships and the AA on those ships, so concealment, AFT AA range, DFAA, and all those other things I mentioned are very relevant to this conversation.  

The rework was a large list of changes, and it would be foolish to pretend that you can only have all or none. You could have the new AA system and not touch concealment for example. You could have the new AA system and keep the captain skills unchanged. So you can very much look at the AA system and its mechanics alone and judge them compared to the old one, which I did. And I recommend you do the same.

7 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

You mention about "just like you could have the old system result in ships rarely shooting anything down", tell that to the Kidd, Sims, Atlanta, Flint, Des Moines, and most other once well known "no fly zone" ships.

I said "you could". All a matter of soft stats, and not down to the AA system itself.

6 minutes ago, shadowsrmine said:

I never brought religion into this you did so I fixed your statement also other erroneous parts of your comment I also corrected some of it to be more accurate.The truth is you  like playing an unbalanced ship class

Ah yes, you don't even have an actual argument to make so you resort to this. You are proving my point wonderfully, and are even making up things now (hint: look up when I last played a CV). Keep going.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,836
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
4,336 posts
16,765 battles
2 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

look up when I last played a CV). Keep going.

Why bother you've already shown your bias,In fact consider yourself blocked as either senile and irrelevant or just plain dishonest either way not worth debating

Edited by shadowsrmine
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,275
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,091 posts
7,978 battles
Just now, shadowsrmine said:

Why bother you've already shown your bias

I know you won't, because it'd prove you wrong. And we can't have that now can we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
477
[THREE]
Members
2,454 posts
13,679 battles
23 minutes ago, SireneRacker said:

The rework was a large list of changes, and it would be foolish to pretend that you can only have all or none. You could have the new AA system and not touch concealment for example. You could have the new AA system and keep the captain skills unchanged. So you can very much look at the AA system and its mechanics alone and judge them compared to the old one, which I did. And I recommend you do the same.

I said "you could". All a matter of soft stats, and not down to the AA system itself.

Ah yes, you don't even have an actual argument to make so you resort to this. You are proving my point wonderfully, and are even making up things now (hint: look up when I last played a CV). Keep going.

Hey

The fact remains the CV Rework is not one of Wargaming's better game balances; very few people actually enjoy CV's and I would argue about their popularity today compared to before the rework.  Are they more capable today than before; I would say yes only because they do more damage and that is only due to 2 reasons.  1.  The Nerf's to all things Defensive when it comes to ship AA effectiveness.   2.  The addition of the rocket planes which is damage they didn't have before when it was dive bombers, torp planes only.   The other issue nobody has brought up was the over whelming OP nature right after the CV Rework which prompted a series of rushed patches to correct and I would argue still hasn't corrected in some aspects (DD damage from rocket planes), items like AA guns mod upgrade, DFAA was changed later.  Is there is still OP carrier garbage today?  Play against the Japanese T10 Carrier in clan battles to know that answer, doesn't matter what your in except for the likes of Holland maybe, but any of the older T10 cruisers,  it can be a real killer even with fully kitted AA.


Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,275
[WG-CC]
Privateers, Members
9,091 posts
7,978 battles
23 minutes ago, sasquatch_research said:

Hey

The fact remains the CV Rework is not one of Wargaming's better game balances; very few people actually enjoy CV's and I would argue about their popularity today compared to before the rework.  Are they more capable today than before; I would say yes only because they do more damage and that is only due to 2 reasons.  1.  The Nerf's to all things Defensive when it comes to ship AA effectiveness.   2.  The addition of the rocket planes which is damage they didn't have before when it was dive bombers, torp planes only.   The other issue nobody has brought up was the over whelming OP nature right after the CV Rework which prompted a series of rushed patches to correct and I would argue still hasn't corrected in some aspects (DD damage from rocket planes), items like AA guns mod upgrade, DFAA was changed later.  Is there is still OP carrier garbage today?  Play against the Japanese T10 Carrier in clan battles to know that answer, doesn't matter what your in except for the likes of Holland maybe, but any of the older T10 cruisers,  it can be a real killer even with fully kitted AA.


Pete

I don't disagree with that list of issues. 

I disagree with the opinion that the removal of RNG-based AA was a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[BASIN]
[BASIN]
Members
118 posts
2 hours ago, SireneRacker said:

I know you won't, because it'd prove you wrong. And we can't have that now can we?

I believe everyone who matters has seen and classified what you are now  image.png.6d96fa2823aeb9ca0cefb636c78d5a8f.png   carry on as you already have now that we can see and know you for what you are

Edited by TheGreyDeath
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×