Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Skyspartan

My Theory why AA fails to be effective or useful

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

230
[RAIN]
Members
240 posts
5,949 battles

In some cases the CV on single tier matches feel overwhelming (Ex. all tier 8)

first off most people these days expect their AA to be good when they are using Stock AA...or in other words not trying to spec into it so they can be effective against Aircraft carriers. its like complaining having bad concealment when you spec all your upgrades into something else.

( you can't spec your stats in all directions)

one of the issues is upgrades.

 Impractical Upgrades: you cant really spec into AA without giving up Ship to Ship combat effectiveness with is like the most common engagement to happen. and CVs aren't guaranteed in every match or will target you

Aircraft Tankyness: then all Aircraft carrier commanders Mandatory spec for Aircraft survivability, this includes HP,Armor,Speed and regeneration stats

(Graf Zeppelin meme build exempt)  it like the only way to spec CVs.

Unintentional upgrade use: any AA spec upgrades are usually used by Secondary Spec Ships like the German battleships who are often always under fire or on fire, therefore lose AA guns rapidly

Engagement Advantage: CV as a class can mostly choose their engagements so why would they bother engaging a ship that counters it?

Tips for better effectiveness :  i believe the proper AA formation is to have your ships spread out but with long-mid range AA over laping ships so the flak can hit Aircraft that are doing bombing runs ( aircraft are actually more vulnerable in their attack run because they wont dodge flak) overlaping with your short range AA will actually help the CV

Dodging: you hear this alot but you do this on the daily basis against any ship with guns and torps so its not any different with mitigating damage from CVs

(just because you still got hit by the CV doesn't mean it didn't work,  you cant dodge all Shells and torps 100% of the time.)

For the record CVs dont have Unlimited planes or best AA, actually they have the Best Fighter protection which is more lethal the AA since it guarantees aircraft shot down 

What i think we can do to improve this?

Look i don't have an answer to this nor is it an easy fix my only idea is maybe build up more on fighters so CVs can actually have a real threat from the air to consider.

the more you look into this you realize their are alot of small and large factors that add up to CV's seemingly overwhelming effectiveness in certain scenarios   

this is actually more complicated and i am not going to bother testing out the CV Commander skills With and without the essentials VS AA with or without AA upgrades

 

 i would like to read your ideas and thoughts about weather i hit the nail on this issue or made a damn fool of myself.

Yes i enjoy playing all classes

 

  • Cool 2
  • Confused 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
955
[KAPPA]
Members
3,021 posts
7,790 battles

I'd honestly change one thing, and I feel it'd do the trick as a base. Might even need to buff CVs after! It's that potent!

Make AA mounts regen when destroyed. Either that, or just have them not be destroyed at all.

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,993
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,922 posts
11,400 battles

Your over complicating it. Yes, there is mostly one CV captain build - I've run both with and without certain survival upgrades to deal with AA - the difference is negligible. CV's will attack a Worcester that is alone but counters them where there is a snowballs chance in hell they get through vs 5 more mediocre ships where even attacking the furthest out one means flak hits while attacking it from the others. 

The one point I agree on is to sum up two points you have the entire existence of AA builds - simply put AA should be AA. Anything that impacts AA guns should impact secondaries as well due to overlap (BB's, CV's, most CA/L) or main battery (DD's, CL's like Atlanta and Minotaur albeit Mino needs some nerfing which I say as a Mino owner). IE AAGM 2 and SBM 2 should go back to AAM 2 (Auxiliary Armament mod 2) and DD/select CL should have a special version of the main battery accuracy upgrade. AFT and BFT are fine as is, the slot 6 AA improvement needs to go away because only two tiers really get it, and it inflames the true problem of CV's -math.

The problem is not that planes are tanky - that would indicate planes need a nerf but as is there are ships and scenario's that absolutely rip through planes, nerfing their HP/resistance only makes that worse, the problem is that AA is too weak. 

The current AA system was built around the original rework AA - one in which small caliber guns, that have no business firing flak rounds both for balance and history, had flak rounds. those AA bursts caused way more damage - enough to make a lot of things very broken. Problem is that wen they removed that - they failed to adequately increase the constant DPS to compensate, a great example is Atlanta - a ship that I've said for years needed some AA nerfing somehow (again, I own one) but now needs a serious AA buff. Her short range AA terrible DPS, and planes in it for 4 seconds won't notice, and long range is too low as well. I don't have the game up and wiki doesn't have the numbers but I want to say it takes roughly 100 points or more to constant dps of long range guns (her selling point was always powerful long range aa) to actually bring her back up. Forget flak - flak should be avoidable extra damage, like a citadel hit for planes. And because it mostly is - it's why you see skilled CV players seemingly ignore some ships AA, to say nothing of tier 3-7 who many ships have truly pathetic AA. Many of which the AA setups they have - namely USN and IJN as worst offenders - date back to the games earliest days when tier 7 CV's still used biplanes (and while the German CV's apparently do that now - which I take massive issues with, everything else is using mid-late war planes on tier 8 CV's and 6 uses early-mid war planes). Planes faster and with more HP than the originals, and the new AA DPS still reflect these old, outdated setups. Last check Colorado's s based on I think a 1930's upgrade if not 1920's - when Ranger is operating F4F that came out years after it, if not more than a decade. 

 

Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on these numbers, I'll adjust the numbers. Kongo long AA is what, maybe 100 DPS? At 4.5 km. Short range is maybe 50 at 2.5 km? At a speed of 160 knots dodging all two bursts (really should be 3) The initial attack run is 10 seconds in the outer band, 6 seconds in the short. All told that's 1300 damage - most planes baseline at tier 6 that aren't fighters are 1600 or more. Lets say follow up attacks are 10 seconds in the inner band - 150 total per second - 1500 damage - not even enough to take out a second plane. Meanwhile reverse side that same tier 6 CV seeing a tier 8 see's ships that deal 3200+ on the initial attack run and more flak to dodge - loses 2/9 off the bat, anymore attacks mans possibly 50% or higher losses. Cant nerf the plane, or that becomes worse.

They need to buff AA DPS over time on most ships, nerf it on a few others. Solves 70% of the issues with CV gameplay. Actually made a spreadsheet a year or so ago adapting several lines to more historical AA on ships, AA being more logical in progression and ease of planning (more barrels/turrets = more DPS on a consistent predictable increase so 40 mm on one USN ship is not magically better/worse than on the other) with a slight tweak to aircraft HP to realign it to also have a proper progression and smooth out losses between tiers - so that -2 CV i not decimated by the higher tier AA but lower tier is not food for +2 CV's.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[TNG]
Members
501 posts
8,009 battles
4 hours ago, Skyspartan said:

<snip>

You have to step back from the realistic situation and recognize the designers are building a game.

Because it's a historical concept game, they added planes.  Following concepts, that leads to AA bubbles as defense.  So you now have the Offense and Defense concepts (number tweaking follows)

Single ship AA is NOT designed to entirely ward off enemy planes.  Why?  For two reasons.

Reason A)

Being unable to interact with another player given the tools you are provided is frustrating.  If a ship is consistently able to turn away nearly all air attacks, it creates a problematic situation where one player (the CV) can not interact with another player to any reasonable extent.

A surface ship based example would be a battleship that is coated in 200mm armor and does not burn.  In specific and likely infrequent occurrences, another player would be able to cause damage via AP shells that can penetrate.  But if the target is angled, or if the gun caliber is low enough in general as to merely shatter from any reasonable distance, then a player has effectively lost the ability to interact (which is frustrating).

Inevitably, there will be those that say "I can't interact with the CV hull while endless waves of planes come to kill me".  However, the CV only has planes to use, and your ship IS interacting with those planes (even if it's ineffectively).

Reason B)

AA bubbles overlap.  If one ship is near invulnerable while sailing alone, then their bubble can shield/make invulnerable all those near them.  This is an appealing concept in other games where party-members use their collective abilities to overcome obstacles such as a "tank" using special abilities to soak damage from a teammate or to negate damage outright to allow the group on whole to live.

This is a debatable point of whether such a ship SHOULD exist.  I would argue that the Holland is effectively a support class which does fit the role, provided it sails with other ships to extend it's supportive protection to them.

Because AA overlaps, the developers have chosen to make most single ship AA able to be penetrated with basic rates of attrition.  They have made two ships sailing in formation (double damage AA bubble) cause a strong rate of attrition that is survivable the a CV's resources if dealt with well and sparingly.  They have made three or more ships sailing in formation cause an unsustainable rate of attrition that will kill planes MUCH faster than they can be regen'd and run the CV out of resources in a rather short period of time.

"AA has no skill.  It's just AI")

It is the choice of positioning that stops the "AA has no skill" argument.  Choosing to sail in formation with other teammates, or working with other teammates to make coordinated movements (or just lemming-training with other ships because woo) MAKES stronger AA because of the overlapping nature of it.  Just like sending two ships to a flank means twice the damage potential... sending two ships in formation means twice the AA potential.

-------------

TLDR:  CVs are supposed to strike targets.  It's part of the class fantasy/role.  AA is tuned to make single ships be consistently easy to strike repeatedly, paired ships consistently strikable on a single pass, and groups of ships into hard targets that are resource bleeds if attacked.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[TNG]
Members
501 posts
8,009 battles
19 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on these numbers, I'll adjust the numbers. Kongo long AA is what, maybe 100 DPS? At 4.5 km. Short range is maybe 50 at 2.5 km? At a speed of 160 knots dodging all two bursts (really should be 3) The initial attack run is 10 seconds in the outer band, 6 seconds in the short. All told that's 1300 damage - most planes baseline at tier 6 that aren't fighters are 1600 or more. Lets say follow up attacks are 10 seconds in the inner band - 150 total per second - 1500 damage - not even enough to take out a second plane. Meanwhile reverse side that same tier 6 CV seeing a tier 8 see's ships that deal 3200+ on the initial attack run and more flak to dodge - loses 2/9 off the bat, anymore attacks mans possibly 50% or higher losses. Cant nerf the plane, or that becomes worse.

One thing you have to keep perspective on is that Tier 4 is the first time a new player can experience CV gameplay.  As such, AA in the 3-5 range is very gentle in general to allow players to approach a new class and learn the mechanics.

While it can be frustrating to know you are going into a fight with subpar defenses, every game has a learning curve and has to allow players to climb it.

Tier 4 CV play is SLOW and LOW DAMAGE.  The AA is incredible weak to allow players to make multiple passes (even against grouped ships) as they learn how to attack and try to deal damage.  When the damage connects, it is very low for the situation.  (Note:  Hosho and Langley were updated with 2 torp drops around patch 8.4-8.7, which significantly unbalanced the tier because the damage potential of landing both torps from skilled play.  The change should be reverted, or the damage of the torps lowered significantly)

Tier 6 play is PACED and MODERATE DAMAGE.  The AA is stronger, but still forgiving.  Some grouped ships make pose a significant threat, but many in the tier range are still gentle enough to allow mistakes and misplays while flying through unnecessary AA to approach targets.

Tier 8 is fully formed gameplay, and Tier 10 is sped up gameplay with more flak, strongest AA, largest numbers, etc...

-----

It is obnoxious when Tier 4 CVs fight Tier 6 opponents.  And when Tier 6 CVs fight Tier 8 opponents.  But, each team has a similar Tier CV, so it's "fair" in that sense.  And referencing the learning curve, it allows weaker CVs to experience bouts of "faster/harder" gameplay around 30-40% of the time (whatever the matchmaker is currently tuned to) so they know what to expect if they continue to higher tiered CV-play.

Edited by Ahskance
  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,788
[SYN]
Members
15,719 posts
12,778 battles

There is nothing to "theorize" about why AA is useless.

It's because WG specifically nerfed AA, thrice in fact, to coddle CV players that don't have enough brains to go around AI controlled flak bursts.

First they nerfed AA bubble overlapping, so that nothing overlaps anymore and you have some [edited] AA rings that do jack crap.

Then they nerfed any AA range increasing skills and mods, so you no longer had any range to overlap your AA with other ships.

Then they normalized nerfed AA DPS overall, despite it being weak enough already, making historically strong AA ships worthless.

 

Not that there wasn't an issue with how AA and airplane HP/armor/speed scaled going up the tiers.
And, oh look, they nerfed AA tier scaling to not be so drastic, but kept the problematic airplane HP/armor/speed scaling, making it so that bottom tier CV can do just fine in the match, while a top tier CV will decimate ships.

It's so dumb

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 4
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
26 posts
70 battles

Too hard to balance.  just remove CVs and Subs.

Edited by Pebcac
  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,993
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,922 posts
11,400 battles
1 hour ago, Ahskance said:

One thing you have to keep perspective on is that Tier 4 is the first time a new player can experience CV gameplay.  As such, AA in the 3-5 range is very gentle in general to allow players to approach a new class and learn the mechanics.

While it can be frustrating to know you are going into a fight with subpar defenses, every game has a learning curve and has to allow players to climb it.

Tier 4 CV play is SLOW and LOW DAMAGE.  The AA is incredible weak to allow players to make multiple passes (even against grouped ships) as they learn how to attack and try to deal damage.  When the damage connects, it is very low for the situation.  (Note:  Hosho and Langley were updated with 2 torp drops around patch 8.4-8.7, which significantly unbalanced the tier because the damage potential of landing both torps from skilled play.  The change should be reverted, or the damage of the torps lowered significantly)

Tier 6 play is PACED and MODERATE DAMAGE.  The AA is stronger, but still forgiving.  Some grouped ships make pose a significant threat, but many in the tier range are still gentle enough to allow mistakes and misplays while flying through unnecessary AA to approach targets.

Tier 8 is fully formed gameplay, and Tier 10 is sped up gameplay with more flak, strongest AA, largest numbers, etc...

-----

It is obnoxious when Tier 4 CVs fight Tier 6 opponents.  And when Tier 6 CVs fight Tier 8 opponents.  But, each team has a similar Tier CV, so it's "fair" in that sense.  And referencing the learning curve, it allows weaker CVs to experience bouts of "faster/harder" gameplay around 30-40% of the time (whatever the matchmaker is currently tuned to) so they know what to expect if they continue to higher tiered CV-play.

I do keep that in perspective. 

I have my game client open this time.

Cruiser St Louis - tier III USN: 21 DPS at 1.5 km. The cruising speed of T4M's off Langley are 88 knots. That's 6 seconds in AA if not using boost. That's 126 damage. The T4M, at base hp, is 1550 points. You could give it 10x more powerful AA and it still wouldn't Shoot a plane down first pass, maybe only get 1-2 overall out of 6 - if the CV player decided to not use their boost.

Cruiser Guissano - Tier 4 Italy: Forces those T4M's to use boost, at least has flak for maybe something, 4.6 range at 46 DPS and 2 km at 70. 1064 damage in the initial pass. Once again, gets 1, maybe 2 planes. 

Tier 4 BB Orion - 1722 damage initial pass - something they may actually have to be afraid of. 

Wyoming - closer to 2000 once you have the B hull

How about a BB that isn't from the two best AA nations. Myogi - it'll do about 1000.

Many of the DD's have worse AA than St. Louis. Were not talking in many cases 'sub par' AA - were talking out right bad AA. AA that allows neither player to properly prepare for the coming tiers. With how little time is spent in 1 and 2, to say nothing of the fact DD and BB players don't start till 2 and 3 respectively, 3 and 4 is still learning for them as well, where as back when they still gave us tier 5 CV's tier 5 was still learning for everyone but more about the specifics of a line because tier 5 is where national 'flavour' starts to actually kick in, now more just DD, CA/L and BB. But now - no one is learning things they need to - CV players learn DB's are ineffective, torps are king, and only BBs maybe have the AA to stand up to you - as opposed to cruisers which are the actual counter to CV planes classes and that planes regen almost as fast as I throw them, and flak isn't a bother. Non CV learns CV OP with unlimited planes and whatever else before they get sent to the bottom of the sea. 

Tier 4 CV is not slow paced - the planes are slower but the maps are smaller - if anything it's more fast paced between the fact planes can actually get around a bit faster even on cruise and the fact your going to be spotted and have red ships baring down on you far sooner. Only thing adding 'pace to 6, 8, and 10 is tendency for steam rolls and all the flak they are ill trained for in tier 4 and suddenly shown when tier 6 see' 8 and certain ships. 

And not everyone playing Tier 4 is a rookie, especially when new lines come out. Some camp there padding stats, some go there to get away from some of the [edited] in 6-10 CV's, some start new lines, etc. 

As for damage, haven't played Langley in a year, would have likely done better remembering how bad bombs are on it and having skills on the captain -

shot-20_07.19_07_13.58-0531.thumb.jpg.d74e1e63213f6543b275c9ae4f93c636.jpg

Is that low? Sure I'm not a noob, with how long you get trapped in tier 4 with the lack of tier 5's, especially when you have new lines and people can't/won't free xp how many are?

Sure - two t6 CV's in an 8 game is fair, same as putting two football teams on the field and both QB's are playing with a broken arm. But it's the same as if one team is a bunch of 6th graders and the other is the Philadelphia Eagles - It's 'fair' on the base level but it's not balanced. Fair and balanced aren't the same thing. Sure, there's going to be a learning curve - there shouldn't be a performance one. There shouldn't be a jump from 'oh I take like no losses' to 'WTH WHY DO I HAVE NO PLANES LEFT?!?!?!" It shouldn't be in one tier you get to actually play the game and attack ships another your at the whims of MM to if you get to attack ships or spend 9 minutes as a glorified spotter plane. 

Tier 4, game one - CV players should be learning to manage losses, that Cruisers should be last on their list to attack, etc. The rest should be learning how to deal with a CV that they can actually down planes against and inflict losses. If CV's have an average of 60k damage it shouldn't be because all the +2 games are 100k damage while all their -2 games are 20k damage it should be because maybe one is 80 the other 70. Having that disparity only discourages higher tier play - making it more stay lower tier, meaning the balance issues and beatings are that much worse. It's literally Game Design 101, I know, I took the course. And people at Wargaming should understand that. The fact that the gameplay shifts from active to passive at high tiers doesn't help either. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,746
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
14,553 posts

If CVs really need a starter mode, then give them a PVE training environment.

Other players are not there to serve as training targets.

ANY ship that can face CVs should be able to inflict losses on CV aircraft, even if that means ahistorical AA suite refits on some ships.

 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26
[_I_]
Members
14 posts
1 hour ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Other players are not there to serve as training targets.

Oh yes they are. By intentional design. Glorious People's CV Rework must not fail, comrades!

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,746
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
14,553 posts
3 minutes ago, Sui_Generis said:

Oh yes they are. By intentional design. Glorious People's CV Rework must not fail, comrades!

Even if it was an intentional design decision, doesn't matter.

Other players are not there to serve as training targets. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,123
[SALVO]
Members
3,347 posts
3,274 battles
6 hours ago, Ahskance said:

You have to step back from the realistic situation and recognize the designers are building a game.

Because it's a historical concept game, they added planes.  Following concepts, that leads to AA bubbles as defense.  So you now have the Offense and Defense concepts (number tweaking follows)

Single ship AA is NOT designed to entirely ward off enemy planes.  Why?  For two reasons.

Reason A)

Being unable to interact with another player given the tools you are provided is frustrating.  If a ship is consistently able to turn away nearly all air attacks, it creates a problematic situation where one player (the CV) can not interact with another player to any reasonable extent.

A surface ship based example would be a battleship that is coated in 200mm armor and does not burn.  In specific and likely infrequent occurrences, another player would be able to cause damage via AP shells that can penetrate.  But if the target is angled, or if the gun caliber is low enough in general as to merely shatter from any reasonable distance, then a player has effectively lost the ability to interact (which is frustrating).

Inevitably, there will be those that say "I can't interact with the CV hull while endless waves of planes come to kill me".  However, the CV only has planes to use, and your ship IS interacting with those planes (even if it's ineffectively).

Reason B)

AA bubbles overlap.  If one ship is near invulnerable while sailing alone, then their bubble can shield/make invulnerable all those near them.  This is an appealing concept in other games where party-members use their collective abilities to overcome obstacles such as a "tank" using special abilities to soak damage from a teammate or to negate damage outright to allow the group on whole to live.

This is a debatable point of whether such a ship SHOULD exist.  I would argue that the Holland is effectively a support class which does fit the role, provided it sails with other ships to extend it's supportive protection to them.

Because AA overlaps, the developers have chosen to make most single ship AA able to be penetrated with basic rates of attrition.  They have made two ships sailing in formation (double damage AA bubble) cause a strong rate of attrition that is survivable the a CV's resources if dealt with well and sparingly.  They have made three or more ships sailing in formation cause an unsustainable rate of attrition that will kill planes MUCH faster than they can be regen'd and run the CV out of resources in a rather short period of time.

"AA has no skill.  It's just AI")

It is the choice of positioning that stops the "AA has no skill" argument.  Choosing to sail in formation with other teammates, or working with other teammates to make coordinated movements (or just lemming-training with other ships because woo) MAKES stronger AA because of the overlapping nature of it.  Just like sending two ships to a flank means twice the damage potential... sending two ships in formation means twice the AA potential.

-------------

TLDR:  CVs are supposed to strike targets.  It's part of the class fantasy/role.  AA is tuned to make single ships be consistently easy to strike repeatedly, paired ships consistently strikable on a single pass, and groups of ships into hard targets that are resource bleeds if attacked.

On Reason A. Being unable to interact with other players.

Being severely hard countered by other ships is a staple of the game. Most ships under certain circunstances have guaranteed trip back to port if caught by its nemesis. Think of typical cases like slow and short ranged cruisers trying to engage fast battleships, deep water torpedo boats trying to engage DD gunboats, BBs trying to engage stalking DDs, etc. Why shoulds CVs must abide by a different standard?. There are ships you don't mess with because they kill you, period. (Unless circunstances are in your favor). Why this can't be applied to CVs? Why do they have to be a munchkin class that can't be perfectly countered by a single specific ships with a specific build?.

On Reason B. AA bubble overlap.

While it works as a concept, it doesn't consider the current design of maps and game modes that forces the players to break formation in order to take objectives or cover. Positioning is determined by terrain and enemy deployment, keeping positioning relative to your team mates is a hindrance in the current environment.

If relative position to your team mates is going to be the relevant factor while deploying, the environment (maps and game mode) must be adequated accordingly.

6 hours ago, Ahskance said:

One thing you have to keep perspective on is that Tier 4 is the first time a new player can experience CV gameplay.  As such, AA in the 3-5 range is very gentle in general to allow players to approach a new class and learn the mechanics.

While it can be frustrating to know you are going into a fight with subpar defenses, every game has a learning curve and has to allow players to climb it.

Tier 4 CV play is SLOW and LOW DAMAGE.  The AA is incredible weak to allow players to make multiple passes (even against grouped ships) as they learn how to attack and try to deal damage.  When the damage connects, it is very low for the situation.  (Note:  Hosho and Langley were updated with 2 torp drops around patch 8.4-8.7, which significantly unbalanced the tier because the damage potential of landing both torps from skilled play.  The change should be reverted, or the damage of the torps lowered significantly)

Tier 6 play is PACED and MODERATE DAMAGE.  The AA is stronger, but still forgiving.  Some grouped ships make pose a significant threat, but many in the tier range are still gentle enough to allow mistakes and misplays while flying through unnecessary AA to approach targets.

Tier 8 is fully formed gameplay, and Tier 10 is sped up gameplay with more flak, strongest AA, largest numbers, etc...

-----

It is obnoxious when Tier 4 CVs fight Tier 6 opponents.  And when Tier 6 CVs fight Tier 8 opponents.  But, each team has a similar Tier CV, so it's "fair" in that sense.  And referencing the learning curve, it allows weaker CVs to experience bouts of "faster/harder" gameplay around 30-40% of the time (whatever the matchmaker is currently tuned to) so they know what to expect if they continue to higher tiered CV-play.

You can't balance a tier thinking about it as a training ground for a unit class. The most obvious reason (and not considering "fair game") is you don't have only trainees playing the tier. The tiers are open for anyone regardless of skill or experience. As KilljoyCutter said before, a special PvE scenario for training CVs would be the optimal solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
955
[KAPPA]
Members
3,021 posts
7,790 battles
5 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

If CVs really need a starter mode, then give them a PVE training environment.

Other players are not there to serve as training targets.

ANY ship that can face CVs should be able to inflict losses on CV aircraft, even if that means ahistorical AA suite refits on some ships.

 

 

Then low tier BBs should largely not be a thing, as they are often just targets to every ship, not just CVs, rather than legitimate threats. They are typically so inaccurate that they often reward HE spamming far more than AP usage. Even against broadside targets, especially considering that they can cit a good number of cruisers with HE at this tier. Sure, there are exceptions, but the fact of the matter is that it's these ships that teach those poor souls that spam HE in every BB they touch to do just that.

And low tier DDs would need high tier torp reload times, as they are honestly scarier than high tier DDs, and much scarier than low tier CVs. Any low tier DD that gets used by a skilled player, and doubly so with a trained commander, is near on unstoppable outside of CV matches. People talk of how ships should be balanced for the top players, and low tier DDs honestly are. But that balance involves those CVs.

Honestly, the only ships all that balanced at low tier are the cruisers, and even then Danae, Kuma and Yubari's armor are so bad it's practically a crime. Langley can cit the latter two with he bombs, and even rockets can cit the former. That needs fixing badly more than anything else in low tier.

It's not till you hit mid-tier at T5 that this really starts to change all that much, which is in part due to the matchmaking spread going all the way to T7.

Fact of the matter is that low tier really isn't balanced in general, and it's not the CVs that are the biggest imbalance. They are just the most noticeable one due to being easy mode at that tier. The actual newbie CVs generally aren't even a real threat. Honestly, Houshou should not have gotten a second torp per salvo at full damage. If not for that, low tier CVs were balanced, even before the flood rework that gimped the one thing CV torps can (rarely) rely on to deal high damage.

The biggest thing I had an issue with in low tier CVs was the single launch torps, but not due to them doing low damage. No CV should single fire torps, and this is because CV torps work considerably different when you launch just 1 torp. Half the damage of their torps and give them 2. That was all that was needed. But noooo, now we have that monster Houshou that they repeatedly try to balance by making her less easy to use, not less effective, just making things harder for newbies.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[TNG]
Members
501 posts
8,009 battles
4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

You can't balance a tier thinking about it as a training ground for a unit class. The most obvious reason (and not considering "fair game") is you don't have only trainees playing the tier. The tiers are open for anyone regardless of skill or experience. As KilljoyCutter said before, a special PvE scenario for training CVs would be the optimal solution.

6 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

If CVs really need a starter mode, then give them a PVE training environment.

Other players are not there to serve as training targets.

ANY ship that can face CVs should be able to inflict losses on CV aircraft, even if that means ahistorical AA suite refits on some ships.

Personally, I played probably 100 battles in Co-Op after my friend showed me the rework.  I thought the rework looked cool while I was at his house, so I downloaded the game to try it.  I felt it would be jerkish of me to join PvP games while I had no idea what to do, so I trained for days in Co-Op working to get the mechanics right.

Game Designers have no reasonable expectation of people acting like me.

Some folks in this game ONLY play Co-Op.  They may play a few random games over their account life, but for personal reason they will stop and never enjoy the PvP situation.  Likewise, there are players that ONLY play Random battle, because they would never be interested in fighting unintelligent bots.  The game designers know this, and you have to work with what you have.

Some games DO have "Play X number of battles before you can join the big boy queue", and the game could require players to play 20 or 50 matches of Co-Op in a CV before they are allowed to bring it to Randoms... but you have to realize that's a hurdle that will automatically turn off a percentage of your players.  While those that dislike CVs might feel that's an excellent result as it would lower the player-base, the actual game designers WANT people to play their game and interact with the tools and classes and mechanics provided.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
276
[TNG]
Members
501 posts
8,009 battles
5 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

On Reason A. Being unable to interact with other players.

Being severely hard countered by other ships is a staple of the game. Most ships under certain circumstances have guaranteed trip back to port if caught by its nemesis. Think of typical cases like slow and short ranged cruisers trying to engage fast battleships, deep water torpedo boats trying to engage DD gunboats, BBs trying to engage stalking DDs, etc. Why should CVs must abide by a different standard?. There are ships you don't mess with because they kill you, period. (Unless circumstances are in your favor). Why this can't be applied to CVs? Why do they have to be a munchkin class that can't be perfectly countered by a single specific ships with a specific build?.

In the examples you gave, a single ship is at a disadvantage to another ship and will likely lose the 1v1.  The answer is to utilize your teammates to help, so you avoid those losing situations and win fights.

Battleships need other ships to help screen torps and keep tabs on stealthy enemy locations.
Torpedo Destroyers need other ships to back them up when they detect the Gunboat Destroyer so the enemy can be safely out-gunned.

I think your argument is  that CVs are good at 1v1'ing ALL classes/ships.  For the most part, this is basically true.  However, nearly ALL classes/ships have some form of AA (even if it's ineffective) that can be layered with other teammates.  Even just one teammate makes for a significant boost in their combined AA bubble, and both ships can use Priority Sector for guaranteed damage.  The damage is front-loaded (use while the planes are still new and undamaged for best result) and helps result in a kill or two that prevents a follow-up strike.

As I said before, the Holland/EU Destroyer line seems to be a first attempt at an specialized Anti-Air class.  Some cruisers filled the role previous to 8.7's Priority Sector rework, but the additional of the Priority Sector damage caused the developers to feel they could lighten the continuous damage and flak mini-game.  The new DD line bucks that trend and allows for an unseen enemy to allow planes to fly into it's grasp before lighting off its AA like a spider tackling prey.
 

5 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

On Reason B. AA bubble overlap.

While it works as a concept, it doesn't consider the current design of maps and game modes that forces the players to break formation in order to take objectives or cover. Positioning is determined by terrain and enemy deployment, keeping positioning relative to your team mates is a hindrance in the current environment.

If relative position to your team mates is going to be the relevant factor while deploying, the environment (maps and game mode) must be adapted accordingly.

Current game design theory tries to introduce "decisions". 

Do you shoot the cruiser that's broadside, or the destroyer that's only briefly detected?  Do you spend twice the time sailing safely on the outside of a flank, or do you charge directly into a situation where you might have enemies on both of your sides?  Similarly, when it is a good idea to sail alone to claim more map presence when there is an enemy CV?

These are seen by designers to be the hard calls that players have to make one after another so you can build your story-like experience.  Because live players make incredibly diverse and... well, random (at times) decisions on whole, it leads to a constantly new-feeling situation to make hard choices in.  That feeling of a living game retains an audience long term.

If this game were a player-vs-AI specialized game where the devs could isolate "this section of the map HAS to be changed.  Planes dominate this section EVERY time", then they could absolutely alter the map to reduce that issue.  Some devs would instead prefer to leave in the problematic sections so players can have their bad experiences and learn to avoid that section and find other routes that work better.  It's about game experience, and even bad experiences for the player can sometimes result in end-game highs when they achieve victory despite being in bad situations.

I might recommend you try a more coordinated situation of Clan Battles and try to game theory out how to take/hold objectives and how to weather the enemy fire/planes and such.  You have a better chance of a real, organized situation in Clan Battles. 

In Random Battle play?  The very nature of the randomized game is part of the appeal.  It's GOOD that you have to stick with your AA buddy... until they die or bail on you.  It makes the experience (even if it's one that makes you angry) memorable.

Edited by Ahskance
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
235
[SPTR]
Members
3,767 posts
767 battles
6 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

Other players are not there to serve as training targets.

I'll keep that in mind when someone takes BBs into random instead of going co-op after having just unlocked them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
26 posts
70 battles
20 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

edit

 Sure I'm not a noob, with how long you get trapped in tier 4 with the lack of tier 5's, especially when you have new lines and people can't/won't free xp how many are?

edit

Are you aware WG changed the XP grind to get past tier 4 quicker?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,502
Members
1,159 posts
33 battles
On 7/19/2020 at 6:02 AM, Skyspartan said:

first off most people these days expect their AA to be good when they are using Stock AA...or in other words not trying to spec into it so they can be effective against Aircraft carriers.

Wrong. AA builds have a negligible, if any effect on AA effectiveness. This is because most AA skills/upgrades are percentage based buffs and buffing 0 by 100% is still 0.

It has already been proven mathematically, in tests in controlled environments as well as actual matches.

 

On 7/19/2020 at 6:02 AM, Skyspartan said:

i believe the proper AA formation is to have your ships spread out but with long-mid range AA over laping ships so the flak can hit Aircraft that are doing bombing runs ( aircraft are actually more vulnerable in their attack run because they wont dodge flak) overlaping with your short range AA will actually help the CV

Aircraft are not only capable of avoiding flak during an attack run without maneuvering and thus no accuracy loss, the attack run itself can give the squad complete immunity to flak.

Thus the entire premise of your post is null and void. AA isn't ineffective because no one bothers to specialize nor group up. It is ineffective because it is pathetic in strength.

 

On 7/19/2020 at 10:42 AM, Ahskance said:

Being unable to interact with another player given the tools you are provided is frustrating.  If a ship is consistently able to turn away nearly all air attacks, it creates a problematic situation where one player (the CV) can not interact with another player to any reasonable extent.

This is ironically also why AA in general is ineffective even when grouped. If it actually were effective, such as it kinda was during 0.8.5, no one would bother to play reworked CVs. And they didn't.

Hence why the rework concept is fundamentally flawed. Either the CV player is frustrated and cannot do anything, or the surface ship player is frustrated and cannot do anything. Neither will ever enter in a fair competition.

 

On 7/19/2020 at 10:42 AM, Ahskance said:

They have made two ships sailing in formation (double damage AA bubble) cause a strong rate of attrition that is survivable the a CV's resources if dealt with well and sparingly.  They have made three or more ships sailing in formation cause an unsustainable rate of attrition that will kill planes MUCH faster than they can be regen'd and run the CV out of resources in a rather short period of time.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, no.

First of all, three ships sitting in a single grid is widely considered a bad idea due to a variety of reasons. If they aren't sitting in a single grid then the amount of AA cover they're giving each other is thoroughly insufficient as almost all long range AA is equal to or weaker than Shimakaze total AA is. Inevitably that means you'll only deal with marginally more AA than you would striking the single ship alone. This also means to attain equivalent AA strength to a single ship using long range AA only, one needs to be within range of at least 4 other ships, if not more.

And even if they are sitting in a single grid, the rate of attrition it causes is fairly negligible as the amount of planes a typical CV fields is far too high. There are also means to mitigate losses while still maintaining high damage potential.

 

On 7/19/2020 at 10:53 AM, Ahskance said:

It is obnoxious when Tier 4 CVs fight Tier 6 opponents.

T4 CVs cannot fight T6 opponents unless fail div.

T4 planes are also capable of going up against T8 opponents without trouble as Ark Royal demonstrates.

Oh look, it's a T8 "AA DD".

unknown.png

Desktop_Screenshot_2020.png

Those 8 planes he got via using sector + DFAA were surely worth getting killed for and caused much attrition. /s

Being bottom tier in a T6 CV is about as balanced as the rework gets. Even then it is often hilariously lopsided however.

 

13 hours ago, Ahskance said:

The new DD line bucks that trend and allows for an unseen enemy to allow planes to fly into it's grasp before lighting off its AA like a spider tackling prey.

EU DD AA is pathetic up until T10. Halland has decent enough AA with DFAA on but still gets murdered even when grouped up.

Here are two Hallands who tried to stick together:

WG9ju04.png

Note the amount of AA mounts destroyed. Halland only has 7 of those not counting her main battery, but her main battery provides only a negligible amount of AA. Make ~2 successful passes on a Halland and it has no AA left to speak of.

And again, 25 planes in total for 2 DDs killed of which not all were strike planes either. I think I paid like 10 rockets and 5 DBs or so for it. Such attrition. Much wow.

 

13 hours ago, Ahskance said:

Current game design theory tries to introduce "decisions". 

Yeah, for CVs this "decision" comes down to "this guy is now dead, he just doesn't know it yet".

For the surface ship it is "I hope this CV is incompetent".

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,746
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
14,553 posts

Exaggeration and hyperbole don't help anyone's case, no matter how passionate they are... never mind thinly veiled condescension and derision. 

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26
[SIX]
Beta Testers
91 posts
13,096 battles

Interesting discussion. Of course, there are only a bajillion threads like this, but the more the merrier. I have nothing to add--I suck horribly at CVs, and the only ones I have are the free IV and VI British and German ones I got via missions. I take them into co-op once in a while to fiddle with them, and I find that I am totally inept. Hat off to the good CV drivers--from my perspective I certainly do not agree that playing one effectively is easy.

Getting singled out in a match by a CV is frustrating. Is it more frustrating than getting focused by a Smolensk (did you know that when a Smolensk sinks, and angel gets its wings?)? I am not sure, really. Depending on the ship I'm in, and the gun arcs, spotting, and all that, I may or may not be able to whack the little island humping pest. So I'm not really concerned about that aspect of the CV argument. There's always something that is going to harass you.

I guess for me, it comes down to a couple of things. One, CVs in my opinion don't really fit the basic structure of the game, which is pretty much an arcade version of stylized surface combat. None of the classes really act in a historical manner, based on the extremely limited historical experience of large-scale surface engagements between capital ships in the 20th century. But they interact in interesting ways, a sort of rock-paper-scissors relationship when all the planets align. CVs have the same disruptive effect they had historically (a bit of irony here perhaps), in that they don't fit the paradigm. The original RTS-style system even had gameplay that was radically different from the FPS-derived surface mechanics. The rework did a good job of bringing CV mechanics closer to the rest of the game mechanics, but IMO it exacerbated the disruptive impact of the class. It doesn't fit neatly into the hard-counter logic, it stretches the historical/realism framework even further than it already is (and it's pretty far into fantasy land right now, not that I mind really), and while it creates some interesting options it doesn't interact really well with the existing module/upgrade structure. Hence the back and forth on modules, AA rules, captain abilities, all that. It's a system struggling to adapt to things well beyond its design parameters.

That leads me to the  second thing that comes to mind when thinking about CVs. They are conceptually awkward, especially for players not in CVs. Opposing ships you kill, or damage enough to drive them to their self-imposed exile on the J line or whatever. With CVs, even if the system is working well and the damage done to you is in the proper proportion to the tier and the situation, it doesn't feel like you are doing anything much. In the old system at least, if you killed planes, you killed planes. They were gone; you saw the connection between your actions and the results. That system had numerous issues, to be sure, but at least it was more coherent. Now, even if you are effective in managing your anti-aircraft tools, the results are only meaningful in a spreadsheet way. There is no visceral or emotional or intuitive pay off. You take X amount of damage which your AA mitigated from Y by a value of Z. Whether you dodged, or set your priority sector correctly, or used DFAA at the right time is unclear and disconnected from what you see and feel happening. In short, your agency seems irrelevant, even when the system is, technically, working. 

tl;dr, I'm more interested in adjusting things so both CV and non-CV players feel that their actions matter, and that there are cause and effect relationships that are satisfying even when RNGesus hates you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,993
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,922 posts
11,400 battles
3 hours ago, Pebcac said:

Are you aware WG changed the XP grind to get past tier 4 quicker?

When - when the rework happened? Yeah, see - they actually only removed the B hull and upgrade planes XP from the total needed to get to each tier - What it takes to go from 4-6 is the same as 4-5 and 5-6 if you didn't need to upgrade the tier 5 - I did the math way back when it happened. 71,000 (B hull plus Ranger far as USN goes) instead of roughly 86-90k. My - such a generous offer especially when a match like the one I posted gets less than 1k XP and tier 4 is semi-protected. 189,000 in Ranger to get Lexington (unless you use stock planes the entire grind) and 411,000 to get to Midway from Lex (same deal and not getting the extra attack planes). Look at any line and while XP values are different for different classes and nations - you'd start to see the same pattern if you went from even to even with no odd tier. That basically you get the same kinda numbers if you just go straight from say 8-10, keeping the xp for the tier 9 unlock, but remove the upgrades it'd have.

And that incremental power increase as well in step in learning is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,746
[CMFRT]
[CMFRT]
Members
14,553 posts
20 minutes ago, WanderingGhost said:

When - when the rework happened?

No, they just announced that they're reducing the XP total to get to tier VI.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,993
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,922 posts
11,400 battles
23 hours ago, KilljoyCutter said:

If CVs really need a starter mode, then give them a PVE training environment.

Other players are not there to serve as training targets.

ANY ship that can face CVs should be able to inflict losses on CV aircraft, even if that means ahistorical AA suite refits on some ships.

 

 

They honestly need a training demo like WoWp had for ground attack planes and all, and tanks implemented at some point. Because yeah - other players should not be targets. The number of ships  I would say should have 'no ability to inflict losses' is small - Arkansas Beta (it has no AA), the Kami clones, and maybe 1-2 others that I own and think are fine, all of which are premiums at low tier and frankly lack in weaknesses other tan by air attack. 

But no - even as the guy screaming 'we should make this that, and those historical' even I'm all about basically giving every tier 3 and 4 fake upgrades to AA (because most never made it to stages they really got any), most of the historical tier 5-7 have AA suites that are not used in game (weaker fake ones) hat are historical and vastly more powerful, such as Kongo with various upgrades through to 1944. Assuming no hits by flak bursts, I'd say 30/40/50% losses were fair - 30% vs lower tier ships, 40 vs same, 50 vs higher. With a bit of play room for various factors to have some +/-. Weaker ships still inflict meaningful losses, higher tier ships don't outright obliterate planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,993
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
4,922 posts
11,400 battles
2 minutes ago, KilljoyCutter said:

No, they just announced that they're reducing the XP total to get to tier VI.  

 

Where - cause I haven't seen anything anywhere that says that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
836
[KIA-A]
Beta Testers
3,410 posts
5,648 battles
On 7/19/2020 at 5:58 AM, MrDeaf said:

There is nothing to "theorize" about why AA is useless.

It's because WG specifically nerfed AA, thrice in fact, to coddle CV players that don't have enough brains to go around AI controlled flak bursts.

First they nerfed AA bubble overlapping, so that nothing overlaps anymore and you have some [edited] AA rings that do jack crap.

Then they nerfed any AA range increasing skills and mods, so you no longer had any range to overlap your AA with other ships.

Then they normalized nerfed AA DPS overall, despite it being weak enough already, making historically strong AA ships worthless.

 

Not that there wasn't an issue with how AA and airplane HP/armor/speed scaled going up the tiers.
And, oh look, they nerfed AA tier scaling to not be so drastic, but kept the problematic airplane HP/armor/speed scaling, making it so that bottom tier CV can do just fine in the match, while a top tier CV will decimate ships.

It's so dumb

Adding to this, there is literally no way to mitigate damage. Even if you shoot planes down another from that flight just replaces it during the attack run. Making AA in a short term case effectively useless. If you shoot down 9 planes in a single run, and the CV has 12, you're still taking damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×