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

Reworked (and current) AA skills are a false choice and a bad idea...

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

0
[KAG]
Members
9 posts
9,421 battles

I'm not a frequent reader of topics so may have already been brought up but the new AA skills are presenting players with false (if not bad) choices. When picking skills, I'm guessing most people are looking to maximize value for point spent. So example -- FP for BBs or CE for DDs. Broadly speaking, these are skills that benefit ships in every single game in almost every interaction with any ships (fully aware there are corner case exceptions like a FP build BB vs a British CL).

With the new, reworked AA skills (and even the design of them today to some extent) you're asking players to devote, 2, 3, 4 or more skill points our of their precious and resource constrained 21 points to focus on AA-specific skills that will benefit them only against planes. You know how frequently that happens? Let's for the sake of argument say you see a CV in 75% of your games, that CV is 1 of 12 enemy ships you'll face, and that CV has the option of attacking you or any of your 11 teammates. At best then, you're investing points for an enemy ship that you'll be expected to counter in 7% of your interactions (75% * 1/12). Even still, that CV could opt entirely to not engage with you, so maybe that 7% interaction is closer to 3-5% of your game experience.

So now you're really asking a player to spend 3 or 4 points on a skill that has the potential to benefit them in >50% of their game time and experiences or 5%. The insulting part is that investment in AA doesn't let you dominate those infrequent interactions;, instead you may shoot down 1 or 2 more planes, if that, over the course of a game. So I can either feel that point investment over all my game time, or I can see it for maybe 5% of my game experience, and when I do see my investment in action, it just feels lackluster because you'll still be struck.

 

Either roll up AA skills in to existing "offensive skills" (similar to how BFT functions for DDs today, but make it more applicable to BBs and CAs/CLs) or adjust the return on investment in AA-specific skills...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
894
[REVY]
Members
2,570 posts
13,845 battles
27 minutes ago, Mrtipples said:

I'm not a frequent reader of topics so may have already been brought up but the new AA skills are presenting players with false (if not bad) choices. When picking skills, I'm guessing most people are looking to maximize value for point spent. So example -- FP for BBs or CE for DDs. Broadly speaking, these are skills that benefit ships in every single game in almost every interaction with any ships (fully aware there are corner case exceptions like a FP build BB vs a British CL).

With the new, reworked AA skills (and even the design of them today to some extent) you're asking players to devote, 2, 3, 4 or more skill points our of their precious and resource constrained 21 points to focus on AA-specific skills that will benefit them only against planes. You know how frequently that happens? Let's for the sake of argument say you see a CV in 75% of your games, that CV is 1 of 12 enemy ships you'll face, and that CV has the option of attacking you or any of your 11 teammates. At best then, you're investing points for an enemy ship that you'll be expected to counter in 7% of your interactions (75% * 1/12). Even still, that CV could opt entirely to not engage with you, so maybe that 7% interaction is closer to 3-5% of your game experience.

So now you're really asking a player to spend 3 or 4 points on a skill that has the potential to benefit them in >50% of their game time and experiences or 5%. The insulting part is that investment in AA doesn't let you dominate those infrequent interactions;, instead you may shoot down 1 or 2 more planes, if that, over the course of a game. So I can either feel that point investment over all my game time, or I can see it for maybe 5% of my game experience, and when I do see my investment in action, it just feels lackluster because you'll still be struck.

 

Either roll up AA skills in to existing "offensive skills" (similar to how BFT functions for DDs today, but make it more applicable to BBs and CAs/CLs) or adjust the return on investment in AA-specific skills...

 

Isn't that the same risk you take when flying a signal flag or Camo?

You set up a ship for max XP for both ship and captain and you get deleted early in the battle. The end result is while you did get a boost in XP, it wasn't as much as if you had survived the battle and had a really awesome game to boot. Thus you have 'wasted' the signal flags/camo.

The obvious only difference is the signal flag/camo is only there for one battle, while the Captain retains the same skills.

 

Players have been trying to 'balance' their captains for years going all the way back to the RTS CVs. You either choose the optimal AA build, make a balanced build, or ignore AA boosting altogether. The new rework has only added 2 more points to the captain. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,736
[PQUOD]
[PQUOD]
Members
4,852 posts
17,450 battles

Yeah, AA got nerfed in the multiple hot fixes post 8.0. There are only a handful of ships with meaningful AA. 
Halland

Smaland

Minotaur

AA build Worcester

AA build Kidd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,112
[TARK]
Members
7,331 posts
2,839 battles

Halland and Kidd are only meaningful when compared to other destroyers and the owner can utilize defAA, sectors, and vision control...and he avoids getting hit.

Smaland is not an AA threat.

Minotaur and Worcester are easier to avoid...or you just wait for some HE to whittle down their guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[KAG]
Members
9 posts
9,421 battles

The flags argument isn't completely parallel because you can mount every economic flag you want and they're universally useful, same with camos. And on the combat flags, you're usually not space constrained. There's maybe 8-10 useful ones and you can mount 8. Further, they're highly disposable.

This also isn't a commentary on "what AA ships are viable."

It's a complaint about folks saying "just build in to AA skills if you don't like CVs" when in reality you're asking people to make a choice as say a BB between Basics of Survivability for 3 points, which is useful in reducing fires duration. This by itself is useful in every game as the bulk of ammo thrown around is HE. Orrrr you can spend it on BFT to buff your AA 10% for those games when a CV is present, where the CV represents 1 of the 12 enemies you face, and only in the instances where a CV decides to attack you.

WG would be better off to build generalized "offensive and defensive" skills that benefit all classes. Today only BFT and AFT really do that and those skills only act as "offensive" skills for ships with calibers below 139mm. Everything else gets shafted.

Same thing could be said about a fair chunk of the modules...

Edited by Mrtipples

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,110
[SALVO]
Members
25,838 posts
28,189 battles
1 hour ago, Mrtipples said:

I'm not a frequent reader of topics so may have already been brought up but the new AA skills are presenting players with false (if not bad) choices. When picking skills, I'm guessing most people are looking to maximize value for point spent. So example -- FP for BBs or CE for DDs. Broadly speaking, these are skills that benefit ships in every single game in almost every interaction with any ships (fully aware there are corner case exceptions like a FP build BB vs a British CL).

With the new, reworked AA skills (and even the design of them today to some extent) you're asking players to devote, 2, 3, 4 or more skill points our of their precious and resource constrained 21 points to focus on AA-specific skills that will benefit them only against planes. You know how frequently that happens? Let's for the sake of argument say you see a CV in 75% of your games, that CV is 1 of 12 enemy ships you'll face, and that CV has the option of attacking you or any of your 11 teammates. At best then, you're investing points for an enemy ship that you'll be expected to counter in 7% of your interactions (75% * 1/12). Even still, that CV could opt entirely to not engage with you, so maybe that 7% interaction is closer to 3-5% of your game experience.

So now you're really asking a player to spend 3 or 4 points on a skill that has the potential to benefit them in >50% of their game time and experiences or 5%. The insulting part is that investment in AA doesn't let you dominate those infrequent interactions;, instead you may shoot down 1 or 2 more planes, if that, over the course of a game. So I can either feel that point investment over all my game time, or I can see it for maybe 5% of my game experience, and when I do see my investment in action, it just feels lackluster because you'll still be struck.

 

Either roll up AA skills in to existing "offensive skills" (similar to how BFT functions for DDs today, but make it more applicable to BBs and CAs/CLs) or adjust the return on investment in AA-specific skills...

 

The same is true when you're trying to decide whether or not to mount DefAA, rather than some other consumable.  Or whether to mount some AA  related upgrade module instead of another module.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
894
[REVY]
Members
2,570 posts
13,845 battles

But players have always had a choice on how to build their captains:

Build for AA or don't.

You only have so many points for your captain and you need to chose the skills you feel will serve you best. Building a better, more accurate BB might mean you are weak on the AA side, while building an AA spec BB might make you an AA powerhouse but weak on the main gun side. You can either go one way or the other or a bit of something in between.

You can't get everything available, there simply is not enough Captain points for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
161
[ANKER]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
578 posts
13,190 battles

When one does not admit to a problem that prohibits a class of ships from having meaningful interactions to defend ones self from aircraft then they have to at least pretend to offer a solution for problem that does actually exists. The issue is it offers no true defense or value  in a game with limited captain points.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,162
[EQRN]
Members
2,167 posts
19,125 battles

I used to have AA spec BBs - not after the cv rework.  I won’t have secondary spec BBs after the skill rework, either.  Good job WG for promoting yet another diverse and exciting aspect of gameplay :cap_like:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,900
Members
1,989 posts
52 battles

AA builds are useless because they have practically no impact on AA strength. This has been proven ages ago. You're very late to the party.

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
489
[NSEW]
Members
2,152 posts
11,532 battles
38 minutes ago, FrodoFraggin said:

 I won’t have secondary spec BBs after the skill rework, either.  

So, being the lazy one (not having read the change of the new skills list).  What will happen with the German BBs (Pommern, FDG, GK, Georgia)?

*Yes, Georgia isn't German. What about French BBs?

 

Edited by LowSpeed_US

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,162
[EQRN]
Members
2,167 posts
19,125 battles
1 minute ago, LowSpeed_US said:

So, being the lazy one (not having read the change of the new skills list).  What will happen with the German BBs (Pommern, FDG, GK, Georgia)?

*Yes, Georgia isn't German. What about French BBs?

 

What will happen is they will miss more ships more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
489
[NSEW]
Members
2,152 posts
11,532 battles
5 minutes ago, FrodoFraggin said:

What will happen is they will miss more ships more often.

Ah, so less effective essentially. Thank you.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,818
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
13,724 posts
2 hours ago, Capt_Ahab1776 said:

Yeah, AA got nerfed in the multiple hot fixes post 8.0. There are only a handful of ships with meaningful AA. 
Halland

Smaland

Minotaur

AA build Worcester

AA build Kidd

Top 25 AA ships based on NA plane kill data:

  1. Massachusetts B
  2. Huanghe
  3. Smaland
  4. Massachusetts
  5. Halland
  6. Kidd
  7. Prinz Eitel Friedrich
  8. Enterprise
  9. Rhein
  10. Flint
  11. Minotaur
  12. Petropavlovsk
  13. Alabama
  14. Worcester
  15. Colbert
  16. Stalingrad
  17. Odin
  18. Marceau
  19. Kii
  20. Cheshire
  21. Ohio
  22. Kansas
  23. AL Montpelier
  24. Richelieu
  25. Dallas

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,152
[BONKS]
Members
957 posts
3,796 battles
2 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

Top 25 AA ships based on NA plane kill data:

  1. Massachusetts B
  2. Huanghe
  3. Smaland
  4. Massachusetts
  5. Halland
  6. Kidd
  7. Prinz Eitel Friedrich
  8. Enterprise
  9. Rhein
  10. Flint
  11. Minotaur
  12. Petropavlovsk
  13. Alabama
  14. Worcester
  15. Colbert
  16. Stalingrad
  17. Odin
  18. Marceau
  19. Kii
  20. Cheshire
  21. Ohio
  22. Kansas
  23. AL Montpelier
  24. Richelieu
  25. Dallas

 

18 of those are still fairly easy targets. 1, 6, 8, 9 & 21 are harder because of armour design, because they are also a CV which have best AA in class or ability to hide in long action smoke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,258
[7AES]
Members
2,162 posts
33,445 battles
3 hours ago, Mrtipples said:

I'm not a frequent reader of topics so may have already been brought up but the new AA skills are presenting players with false (if not bad) choices. When picking skills, I'm guessing most people are looking to maximize value for point spent. So example -- FP for BBs or CE for DDs. Broadly speaking, these are skills that benefit ships in every single game in almost every interaction with any ships (fully aware there are corner case exceptions like a FP build BB vs a British CL).

With the new, reworked AA skills (and even the design of them today to some extent) you're asking players to devote, 2, 3, 4 or more skill points our of their precious and resource constrained 21 points to focus on AA-specific skills that will benefit them only against planes. You know how frequently that happens? Let's for the sake of argument say you see a CV in 75% of your games, that CV is 1 of 12 enemy ships you'll face, and that CV has the option of attacking you or any of your 11 teammates. At best then, you're investing points for an enemy ship that you'll be expected to counter in 7% of your interactions (75% * 1/12). Even still, that CV could opt entirely to not engage with you, so maybe that 7% interaction is closer to 3-5% of your game experience.

So now you're really asking a player to spend 3 or 4 points on a skill that has the potential to benefit them in >50% of their game time and experiences or 5%. The insulting part is that investment in AA doesn't let you dominate those infrequent interactions;, instead you may shoot down 1 or 2 more planes, if that, over the course of a game. So I can either feel that point investment over all my game time, or I can see it for maybe 5% of my game experience, and when I do see my investment in action, it just feels lackluster because you'll still be struck.

 

Either roll up AA skills in to existing "offensive skills" (similar to how BFT functions for DDs today, but make it more applicable to BBs and CAs/CLs) or adjust the return on investment in AA-specific skills...

 

All part and parcel of the problem WG created with the CV rework they will now exacerbate with the skill rework.

CV apologists will inevitably babble, yammer and stammer something about something, decidedly from a delusional state of mind, that AA is just fine if not overpowered.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,099
[WOLFG]
Members
31,369 posts
9,649 battles
43 minutes ago, LowSpeed_US said:

Ah, so less effective essentially. Thank you.

 

IIRC, it's also a cheaper skill.

So if you have decent secondaries, but don't want to heavily invest, it might be worth picking up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,827
[A-I-M]
Members
3,586 posts
14,479 battles

You cite the case of a CV player opting not to attack you as a case of irrelevance of an AA build.


IF a CV player opts, however, not to attack you because of your AA capability, that is actually success of the highest degree of an AA build. An attack not made has been100% successfully defended.

Edited by MannyD_of_The_Sea
Spelling
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,522
[NONE]
Members
3,757 posts
44 minutes ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

All part and parcel of the problem WG created with the CV rework they will now exacerbate with the skill rework.

CV apologists will inevitably babble, yammer and stammer something about something, decidedly from a delusional state of mind, that AA is just fine if not overpowered.

Well of course they will! How else can they keep the fake "AA is OP, everybody loves CV's, u guyz r just h8terz!" narrative going?

As a practical matter, I gave up on AA builds as a waste of skill points a long time ago, and the new system does nothing to change my opinion. I'll ignore the AA skills completely until AA is actually effective. I'm not holding my breath.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,711
[ARS]
Beta Testers
5,321 posts
5,803 battles
4 hours ago, Lord_Slayer said:

Isn't that the same risk you take when flying a signal flag or Camo?

You set up a ship for max XP for both ship and captain and you get deleted early in the battle. The end result is while you did get a boost in XP, it wasn't as much as if you had survived the battle and had a really awesome game to boot. Thus you have 'wasted' the signal flags/camo.

The obvious only difference is the signal flag/camo is only there for one battle, while the Captain retains the same skills.

 

Players have been trying to 'balance' their captains for years going all the way back to the RTS CVs. You either choose the optimal AA build, make a balanced build, or ignore AA boosting altogether. The new rework has only added 2 more points to the captain. 

There is no opportunity cost to using the flags.  By using my EXP flag I did not lose the ability to use my higher fire damage or bigger heal flags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,258
[7AES]
Members
2,162 posts
33,445 battles
28 minutes ago, Balon_Greyjoy said:

Well of course they will! How else can they keep the fake "AA is OP, everybody loves CV's, u guyz r just h8terz!" narrative going?

As a practical matter, I gave up on AA builds as a waste of skill points a long time ago, and the new system does nothing to change my opinion. I'll ignore the AA skills completely until AA is actually effective. I'm not holding my breath.

In RTS days, I could spec out AA on every USN cruiser and be a force for good in a CV match. I no longer spec any AA skills as they do nothing/marginal improvement as you've experienced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,493
[KIA-C]
Members
3,583 posts
15,801 battles

During RTS days building for AA was a valid option on certain ship, and even if your ship had bad AA but defensive fire, you could at least make yourself hard to strike under Def AA usage.

 

The CV rework nowadays butchered AA so much to a point you no longer have to wonder whether you build your ship for AA or no. You just run your normal whatever ship build and then hope you don't face a good CV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,736
[PQUOD]
[PQUOD]
Members
4,852 posts
17,450 battles
3 hours ago, Snargfargle said:

Top 25 AA ships based on NA plane kill data:

  1. Massachusetts B
  2. Huanghe
  3. Smaland
  4. Massachusetts
  5. Halland
  6. Kidd
  7. Prinz Eitel Friedrich
  8. Enterprise
  9. Rhein
  10. Flint
  11. Minotaur
  12. Petropavlovsk
  13. Alabama
  14. Worcester
  15. Colbert
  16. Stalingrad
  17. Odin
  18. Marceau
  19. Kii
  20. Cheshire
  21. Ohio
  22. Kansas
  23. AL Montpelier
  24. Richelieu
  25. Dallas

 

This is in order?

 

Just speaking for myself. The Halland is currently the hardest AA to overcome in the game as is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,152
[BONKS]
Members
957 posts
3,796 battles
11 minutes ago, Capt_Ahab1776 said:

This is in order?

 

Just speaking for myself. The Halland is currently the hardest AA to overcome in the game as is.

And yet a Midway can locate and kill one in 3 mins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,736
[PQUOD]
[PQUOD]
Members
4,852 posts
17,450 battles
3 minutes ago, Pay_Your_Torpedo_Tax said:

And yet a Midway can locate and kill one in 3 mins.

Yes, they are not indestructible. Just the hardest to overcome 

 

Bare in mind. I’m talking for the average player. Not a unicum.

Edited by Capt_Ahab1776

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×