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

The Great AA Rebork

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,551
[EGO]
Banned
4,105 posts
16,276 battles

Planes shot down before and after 0.8.7

USN

Ship Before 0.8.7 After 0.8.7 Planes shot down Pre-Rebork
Kidd 7.62 5.72 +33.2%
Montana 5.21 2.72 + 91.5%
Missouri 5.38 3.17 +69.7%
Worcester 6.28 4.12 +52.4%
Des Moines 4.54 3.09 +46.9%
Alaska 5.12 2.82 +81.6%
Alabama 6.79 4.71 +44.2%
Atlanta 5.46 3.46 +57.8%

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/na/ship_20190629.html
http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/na/ship_20191228.html

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
399 posts
7,379 battles
16 minutes ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

Planes shot down before and after 0.8.7

USN

Ship Before 0.8.7 After 0.8.7 Planes shot down Pre-Rebork
Kidd 7.62 5.72 +33.2%
Montana 5.21 2.72 + 91.5%
Missouri 5.38 3.17 +69.7%
Worcester 6.28 4.12 +52.4%
Des Moines 4.54 3.09 +46.9%
Alaska 5.12 2.82 +81.6%
Alabama 6.79 4.71 +44.2%
Atlanta 5.46 3.46 +57.8%

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/na/ship_20190629.html
http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/na/ship_20191228.html

Sad But true...But we need to understand WG needs to make CV players happy by nerfing AA and giving CV's  rockets and AP Bomb.

Let's just move on o7 Happy new year .

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,611
[BONKS]
Members
3,164 posts
52 battles
12 minutes ago, JimmyTheRealPirate said:

Doesn't help us much without some sort of context, I.E. how many planes were launched then vs now.

You can actually just cross check it in the source provided.

For example comparing pre- and post 0.8.7 player count:
Midway: 4745 to 5062
Hakuryu: 2734 to 3195
Audacious: 1576 to 1822

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,551
[EGO]
Banned
4,105 posts
16,276 battles
12 minutes ago, JimmyTheRealPirate said:

Doesn't help us much without some sort of context, I.E. how many planes were launched then vs now.

Size of squadrons were increased.

 

British aircraft carrier  IV Hermes:

The number of bombers in a squadron has been increased from 3 to 4

The number of torpedo bombers in a squadron has been increased from 3 to 4

The number of torpedo bombers and bombers on the deck has been increased from 5 to 6

British aircraft carrier  VI Furious:

The number of stock bombers in a squadron has been increased from 4 to 6

The number of researchable bombers in a squadron has been increased from 4 to 6

The total number of bombers on the deck has been increased from 6 to 9

Japanese aircraft carrier  IV Hōshō:

The number of torpedo bombers in a squadron has been increased from 3 to 6

The size of an attacking torpedo bomber flight has been increased from 1 to 2

The number of torpedo bombers on the deck has been increased from 5 to 9

Japanese aircraft carrier  VI Ryūjō:

The total number of torpedo bombers in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 8

The total number of bombers in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 8

The total number of torpedo bombers on the deck has been increased from 9 to 12

The total number of bombers on the deck has been increased from 9 to 12

Japanese aircraft carrier  VIII Shōkaku:

The number of stock torpedo bombers in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 8

The number of researchable torpedo bombers in a squadron has been increased from 8 to 10

The number of stock bombers in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 9

The size of the attacking flight of stock bombers has been increased from 2 to 3

The number of researchable torpedo bombers on the deck has been decreased from 16 to 15

The number of stock bombers on the deck has been increased from 9 to 14

US aircraft carrier  IV Langley:

The number of torpedo bombers in a squadron has been increased from 3 to 6

The size of an attacking torpedo bomber flight has been increased from 1 to 2

The number of torpedo bombers on the deck has been increased from 5 to 9

US aircraft carrier  VI Ranger:

The number of researchable torpedo bomber in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 8

The number of stock bombers in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 8

The number of stock attack aircraft in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 8

The number of researchable attack aircraft in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 8

The size of an attacking flight of stock attack aircraft has been decreased from 3 to 2

The number of researchable torpedo bombers on the deck has been increased from 9 to 12

The number of stock bombers on the deck has been increased from 9 to 12

The total number of attack aircraft on the deck has been increased from 9 to 12

Additionally, we’ve enhanced the Sight Stabilization skill:

Aiming speed for attack aircraft and torpedo bombers: +7.5%

Aiming speed for bombers: +15%

 

 

 

 

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,437
[-BCO-]
Members
3,026 posts
5,311 battles
33 minutes ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

Size of squadrons were increased.

 

British aircraft carrier  IV Hermes:

The number of bombers in a squadron has been increased from 3 to 4

The number of torpedo bombers in a squadron has been increased from 3 to 4

The number of torpedo bombers and bombers on the deck has been increased from 5 to 6

British aircraft carrier  VI Furious:

The number of stock bombers in a squadron has been increased from 4 to 6

The number of researchable bombers in a squadron has been increased from 4 to 6

The total number of bombers on the deck has been increased from 6 to 9

Japanese aircraft carrier  IV Hōshō:

The number of torpedo bombers in a squadron has been increased from 3 to 6

The size of an attacking torpedo bomber flight has been increased from 1 to 2

The number of torpedo bombers on the deck has been increased from 5 to 9

Japanese aircraft carrier  VI Ryūjō:

The total number of torpedo bombers in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 8

The total number of bombers in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 8

The total number of torpedo bombers on the deck has been increased from 9 to 12

The total number of bombers on the deck has been increased from 9 to 12

Japanese aircraft carrier  VIII Shōkaku:

The number of stock torpedo bombers in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 8

The number of researchable torpedo bombers in a squadron has been increased from 8 to 10

The number of stock bombers in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 9

The size of the attacking flight of stock bombers has been increased from 2 to 3

The number of researchable torpedo bombers on the deck has been decreased from 16 to 15

The number of stock bombers on the deck has been increased from 9 to 14

US aircraft carrier  IV Langley:

The number of torpedo bombers in a squadron has been increased from 3 to 6

The size of an attacking torpedo bomber flight has been increased from 1 to 2

The number of torpedo bombers on the deck has been increased from 5 to 9

US aircraft carrier  VI Ranger:

The number of researchable torpedo bomber in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 8

The number of stock bombers in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 8

The number of stock attack aircraft in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 8

The number of researchable attack aircraft in a squadron has been increased from 6 to 8

The size of an attacking flight of stock attack aircraft has been decreased from 3 to 2

The number of researchable torpedo bombers on the deck has been increased from 9 to 12

The number of stock bombers on the deck has been increased from 9 to 12

The total number of attack aircraft on the deck has been increased from 9 to 12

Additionally, we’ve enhanced the Sight Stabilization skill:

Aiming speed for attack aircraft and torpedo bombers: +7.5%

Aiming speed for bombers: +15%

 

 

 

 

Jesus, this is well beyond funny.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,588
Members
743 posts
20 battles
1 hour ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

Planes shot down before and after 0.8.7

So what you're saying is, after they finished the AA rework in 0.8.7, a patch that significantly nerfed AA power, that ships shot down less planes?

Fascinating stuff...

  • Sad 1
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,361
[SSG]
Alpha Tester
5,281 posts
12,191 battles
43 minutes ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

Planes shot down before and after 0.8.7

USN

Ship Before 0.8.7 After 0.8.7 Planes shot down Pre-Rebork
Kidd 7.62 5.72 +33.2%
Montana 5.21 2.72 + 91.5%
Missouri 5.38 3.17 +69.7%
Worcester 6.28 4.12 +52.4%
Des Moines 4.54 3.09 +46.9%
Alaska 5.12 2.82 +81.6%
Alabama 6.79 4.71 +44.2%
Atlanta 5.46 3.46 +57.8%

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/na/ship_20190629.html
http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/na/ship_20191228.html

 Current Midway has 52 'on deck planes' with a theoretical maximum of less than 100 planes - and that would be if all 3 groups started regenerating at the same time - which they don't. As in a full 20 minute match the lowest regen time you can get is 69 seconds per plane for I believe it's the attack planes (not on the game screen to check) meaning 17 planes can regen, less for the groups with longer times than that - so already some of those are hobbled by the fact they are going to see less planes. 

Also - interesting choice to go with numbers not from today - but a year ago. Montana last quarter was at 3.76 planes shot down, meaning that the decrease from the AA rework for it is only 38%, not 91% currently. Atlanta is at 4.12 for last quarter - a decrease of only 32.5% not 57.8%. Alabama is at 5.4 average - a decrease of only 25.7% not 44.2%. The rest are either close, slightly higher or slightly less, just felt like pointing those couple out. 

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/na/ship_20200926.html

Just as if you start comparing - Arizona AA was buffed, Perth AA was buffed, Lightning, Daring, Leander, Loyang, Anshan, Fushun, most of the Z-class DD's, you go through the list - it had different effects, on different ships. A lot of the ones with high AA came down, others with low AA came up, and then the rest is just chaos because Wargaming isn't great at what they do. 

But then again - how many battles did Montana face a CV? It outplayed all the ones in it's MM 3-1 except Lexington at closer to 2-1. Which were it to average out that's how often it sees carriers, Montana is  currently downing on it's own 7-11 planes per match. Considering the 'average' match time is probably around 10 minutes lets say, then that's 1 ship taking out 7-11 of the theoretical maximum of 87 planes the Midway could generate - but remember the number is lower than that due to 1 group at a time, and not knowing exact attack times and travel times because it takes 10 seconds/square for planes to travel. Or 8-12% of that T.Max plane count to 1/12 ships representing 8%of the team. 

But the again - are those plane counts only attack planes, or all planes. After all the fighter consumable counts towards planes shot down and the various awards. Is the change purely the AA changes around 8.7, or changes in CV player behavior as well to not drop fighters to spot because they just end up feeding easy plane kills and wasting them? What effects do they still have on counts when in game currently, or other ships spotters/fighters downed by the AA? Case in point a video put up here where they down nearly 60 planes in Holland but sees Midway putting out full squadrons still - when around 35 of the planes he downed were in fact Midway fighters. Have CV players made an adjustment to what they do/equip/etc, have non-CV players made an adjustment? This is part of why Wargaming's changes for the last 5+ years regarding CV's alone have failed. They rely purely on numbers - the numbers don't tell you the full story, any good game dev would know that (as well as to why plane losses both to CV and non-CV players matter), numbers without context are meaningless and can be misleading, especially when talking about averages in which 2 extreme number sets can even out to make what looks like a fine number set, but in reality is anything but - case in point Dev's seeing CV damage as 'fine' when even players like me who do play them are pointing out that it's anything but and not even too low but in cases too high - usually in cases where CV is +2. It's like you bring in 20 people, put a blue car and a red car in front of them, and ask which they like better, and when 100% of them pick the blue car saying '100% of people like blue cars' - what if 80% of those people were colour blind - knowingly or not, and didn't know what colour the red car actually was? What if the blue car is a high end Ferrari while the red car is a beat to hell '91 Ford Escort? 

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,336 posts
1 hour ago, Moggytwo said:

So what you're saying is, after they finished the AA rework in 0.8.7, a patch that significantly nerfed AA power, that ships shot down less planes?

Fascinating stuff...

Interesting attempt by the OP to put out-of-context meaningless figures into a post.  The newest data is a year old i.e. from 2019, and the other part is six months older than that.

Why don't we get some Dec 2020 and June 2020 figures, at least.  At least *try* to put up the *appearance* of a non-cherry-picked set of data for a non-pre-set conclusion...rather than the out-of-date [edited] he posted.

 

Edited by Kesh_Lives
  • Cool 1
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36,639
[HINON]
Alpha Tester
26,251 posts
22,540 battles

OP doesn't take into account how many flights per carrier would be attacking at the same time. AA is going to be balanced to have a certain percentage effectiveness. Say, a completely arbitrary plucked-out-of-the-air 40% effectiveness. Of course you're going to shoot down more planes with 40% efficacy when there are three flights of four planes attacking you at the same time than one single flight of six planes.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,464
[BEA5T]
Members
5,504 posts
26,082 battles

The point, even with cherry picked data confirms that our host wanted to sell Carriers and change the meta.......  Mission accomplished.  And, thousands of players changed their spending, time playing and supporting investments....  A large number of players left PVP and migrated to PVE......  Didn't leave the game: simply stopped supporting it inside and especially, outside of the game......  We used to meet at historic ships to talk about the game and history.  Now, well, there is no point in meeting anymore;........the depth of changes ruined what was fun in the game..........and, future changes may just kill what is left.......  And, we're worried about cherry picked data telling us what we already know.........

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,551
[EGO]
Banned
4,105 posts
16,276 battles
2 hours ago, WanderingGhost said:

 

Also - interesting choice to go with numbers not from today - but a year ago. Montana last quarter was at 3.76 planes shot down, meaning that the decrease from the AA rework for it is only 38%, not 91% currently. Atlanta is at 4.12 for last quarter - a decrease of only 32.5% not 57.8%. Alabama is at 5.4 average - a decrease of only 25.7% not 44.2%. The rest are either close, slightly higher or slightly less, just felt like pointing those couple out. 

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/na/ship_20200926.html

Just as if you start comparing - Arizona AA was buffed, Perth AA was buffed, Lightning, Daring, Leander, Loyang, Anshan, Fushun, most of the Z-class DD's, you go through the list - it had different effects, on different ships. A lot of the ones with high AA came down, others with low AA came up, and then the rest is just chaos because Wargaming isn't great at what they do. 

But then again - how many battles did Montana face a CV? It outplayed all the ones in it's MM 3-1 except Lexington at closer to 2-1. Which were it to average out that's how often it sees carriers, Montana is  currently downing on it's own 7-11 planes per match. Considering the 'average' match time is probably around 10 minutes lets say, then that's 1 ship taking out 7-11 of the theoretical maximum of 87 planes the Midway could generate - but remember the number is lower than that due to 1 group at a time, and not knowing exact attack times and travel times because it takes 10 seconds/square for planes to travel. Or 8-12% of that T.Max plane count to 1/12 ships representing 8%of the team. 

I picked the quarter right before and right after to keep the percentage of carrier games as similar as possible.

It would be nice iif the stats for fighters and bombers were available but for these purposes all we need to know is if the ratio changed.

Edited by CaptainTeddybear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,551
[EGO]
Banned
4,105 posts
16,276 battles
2 hours ago, Kesh_Lives said:

Interesting attempt by the OP to put out-of-context meaningless figures into a post.  The newest data is a year old i.e. from 2019, and the other part is six months older than that.

Why don't we get some Dec 2020 and June 2020 figures, at least.  At least *try* to put up the *appearance* of a non-cherry-picked set of data for a non-pre-set conclusion...rather than the out-of-date [edited] he posted.

 

I thought this would be obvious but I picked the Quarters right before and right after 0.8.7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,432
[MIBRA]
Banned
1,424 posts
9,028 battles
35 minutes ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

I thought this would be obvious but I picked the Quarters right before and right after 0.8.7

The only obvious here is the desire to defend the indefensible.

WG has really gone out of their way to help this awful class. It is like they want to create problems they won't be able to deal with later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
616
[GOOF]
Members
856 posts
7,055 battles

So paying long time customers complained that CV was to powerful as was not effective in protecting against them.

    So WG says ok ok we need to buff CV that will make everyone happy.

     Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,783
[DEV_X]
[DEV_X]
Alpha Tester
3,369 posts
28,290 battles

You do have to understand that when a players ship could completely destroy enemy planes, the CV could also dev strike the surface ship. However,  now that damage has been significantly decreased and so has the AA potency.

This all of course led to the deplaning issue. If a player cannot do anything a few minutes into the match due to being out of planes, that's bad game design. That bad game design kept players away from CV. So WG did a rework to try and fix those problems and make them popular.

Here we are two years into it and you're still bringing up how it worked before. Perhaps you'll get some kind if change out if the redundant points brought up but dont be surprised when it doesnt fold out they way you want because you're just asking for things to start working their way backwards. Maybe you'll get your AA buff or whatever, but at what cost? When all the alpha damage from CV armament is doubled because they cant keep planes up it's just going to suck more.

The point is, provide solutions instead if just repeating the same things over and over. Sure, you'll wake up WG, maybe, but their "good idea fairy" is going to wake up with them. They'll "think players want to shoot down more planes. We should buff the damage of the planes than and let them do it Or we can double regeneration rates."

 

Edited by Skuggsja
  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,261
[TMS]
Members
3,878 posts
38,370 battles
1 hour ago, Vasili_One_Bonk_only said:

You have to explain things very simply to CV apologists. 

+1

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,926
[KSC]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,658 posts
14,379 battles
8 hours ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

Planes shot down before and after 0.8.7

USN

Ship Before 0.8.7 After 0.8.7 Planes shot down Pre-Rebork
Kidd 7.62 5.72 +33.2%
Montana 5.21 2.72 + 91.5%
Missouri 5.38 3.17 +69.7%
Worcester 6.28 4.12 +52.4%
Des Moines 4.54 3.09 +46.9%
Alaska 5.12 2.82 +81.6%
Alabama 6.79 4.71 +44.2%
Atlanta 5.46 3.46 +57.8%

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/na/ship_20190629.html
http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/na/ship_20191228.html

Can you do a Planes Shot Down pre 0.8.5 and post 0.8.5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
519 posts
931 battles
38 minutes ago, Ahskance said:

Can you do a Planes Shot Down pre 0.8.5 and post 0.8.5?

Wonder what it would be for every patch in order as they made constant tweeks and still do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,016
[NONE]
Members
4,076 posts
12,606 battles
2 hours ago, WarStore said:

The only obvious here is the desire to defend the indefensible.

WG has really gone out of their way to help this awful class. It is like they want to create problems they won't be able to deal with later.

WG painted themselves into a corner, either by intent (most likely) or sheer stupidity (unlikely but not impossible) from the outset with 8.0. Remember that disruption and frustration are key to their sales strategy.

Everything about CVs and AA that needs to be said has already been said, and it makes no difference one way or the other.  Player opinion doesn't amount to a pinch of snit to WG. They think it's funny when the player base gets their bowels in an uproar. Few and far between are the times when players raised enough stink to get their attention.

The only sensible choice is to either derive whatever entertainment you can (I only play PvE for free) or just quit altogether.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,926
[KSC]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,658 posts
14,379 battles
10 minutes ago, Vasili_One_Bonk_only said:

Wonder what it would be for every patch in order as they made constant tweeks and still do.

More data is always nice.  Mostly, I ask about patch 8.5 because that's when plane losses went from squadron bullet-sponge to guaranteed plane loss, while still maintaining the old AA values started in 0.8.0.  8.5 was pretty rough, though it was a needed change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,783
[DEV_X]
[DEV_X]
Alpha Tester
3,369 posts
28,290 battles
19 minutes ago, Ahskance said:

More data is always nice.  Mostly, I ask about patch 8.5 because that's when plane losses went from squadron bullet-sponge to guaranteed plane loss, while still maintaining the old AA values started in 0.8.0.  8.5 was pretty rough, though it was a needed change.

Sort of off topic but I just finished your talk with Pulicat. I really liked your idea on planes operating in chunks. I'd love to see you build on that and maybe have a discussion on it with someone.

Edited by Skuggsja
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,030
[WOLFG]
Members
34,394 posts
10,706 battles
8 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

You can actually just cross check it in the source provided.

For example comparing pre- and post 0.8.7 player count:
Midway: 4745 to 5062
Hakuryu: 2734 to 3195
Audacious: 1576 to 1822

What was the change in CV damage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,094
[PVE]
Members
7,589 posts
2 hours ago, Ahskance said:

Can you do a Planes Shot Down pre 0.8.5 and post 0.8.5?

I've got that data for you.  For those that might not remember the 8.5 patch made AA stronger.  The result was predictable, CV players played less so the average plane kills went down.  Here are the numbers for average plane kills for the week before 0.8.5 and the first full week after the patch.   Actually, the forum won't let me paste a table from the spreadsheet and I'm not going to take the time to manually make the table here in this post.  Here are the links so you can look at the numbers if you want. 

TL;DR: AA got stronger so CV players played a lot less, and average planes kills went down as a result.

 http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/pastrecords/20190622/na_week/average_class.html

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/pastrecords/20190706/na_week/average_class.html  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
519 posts
931 battles
27 minutes ago, Slimeball91 said:

I've got that data for you.  For those that might not remember the 8.5 patch made AA stronger.  The result was predictable, CV players played less so the average plane kills went down.  Here are the numbers for average plane kills for the week before 0.8.5 and the first full week after the patch.   Actually, the forum won't let me paste a table from the spreadsheet and I'm not going to take the time to manually make the table here in this post.  Here are the links so you can look at the numbers if you want. 

TL;DR: AA got stronger so CV players played a lot less, and average planes kills went down as a result.

 http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/pastrecords/20190622/na_week/average_class.html

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/pastrecords/20190706/na_week/average_class.html  

 

That's the patch I started learning CV's and they were more than fine. Maybe the best AA has been. But alas. WG nerfed it to make it easy for the lowest common denominator. Shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×