Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Yesman1337

DFAA Mini Rework Idea (AA/Secondary's/Dual Purpose Guns)

39 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

79
[EQV]
Members
140 posts
1,378 battles

My idea is for well almost every ship to get DFAA but wait hold on it would have some fundamental changes. Upon activation any dual purpose armaments are trained towards the sky ceasing and firing upon sea fairing vessels. This would in turn vastly increase your AA damage output by putting up more flak however you would lose some surface fire power. For ships whos main battery is dual purpose it would not let you fire them while you are in this mode. It would take 2 seconds to switch between modes so that you cant just spam it back and forth. It would make AA a more interactive part of the fight while giving captains actual choices to make in combat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[SGSS]
Members
5,560 posts
1 hour ago, Yesman1337 said:

My idea is for well almost every ship to get DFAA but wait hold on it would have some fundamental changes. Upon activation any dual purpose armaments are trained towards the sky ceasing and firing upon sea fairing vessels. This would in turn vastly increase your AA damage output by putting up more flak however you would lose some surface fire power. For ships whos main battery is dual purpose it would not let you fire them while you are in this mode. It would take 2 seconds to switch between modes so that you cant just spam it back and forth. It would make AA a more interactive part of the fight while giving captains actual choices to make in combat. 

Yeaa another hate CV post because I don't play CV therefore it would not bother me.

Why dont you give the CV the ability to zoom in or to lock on.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,493
Members
2,289 posts
52 battles

Sounds like a terrible trade off since flak is 100% avoidable.

Unless you mean that this also increases DPS.

 

3 minutes ago, jags_domain said:

Yeaa another hate CV post because I don't play CV therefore it would not bother me.

He does play CVs tho?

Could it possibly be that whether someone has CV experience or not doesn't actually matter to CV apologists?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[SGSS]
Members
5,560 posts
Just now, El2aZeR said:

Sounds like a terrible trade off since flak is 100% avoidable.

Unless you mean that this also increases DPS.

 

He does play CVs tho?

Could it possibly be that whether someone has CV experience or not doesn't actually matter to CV apologists?

Before the cap rework every other post is a whine about planes.  And its been happing for years.

So heaaa. Justified

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,493
Members
2,289 posts
52 battles
25 minutes ago, jags_domain said:

Before the cap rework every other post is a whine about planes.  And its been happing for years.

So heaaa. Justified

So it truly doesn't matter whether someone has CV experience, only whether someone has the "correct opinion".

Thank you for clarifying that. Truly the reputation that CV apologists hold is well deserved.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[SGSS]
Members
5,560 posts
10 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

So it truly doesn't matter whether someone has CV experience, only whether someone has the "correct opinion".

Thank you for clarifying that. Truly the reputation that CV apologists hold is well deserved.

More like tired of the you suck and the problem with everything so lets nerf everything.

Its the same song for hears.

Your logic how dare someone defend something they like.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,118 posts
1,595 battles
3 hours ago, Yesman1337 said:

Upon activation any dual purpose armaments are trained towards the sky ceasing and firing upon sea fairing vessels. This would in turn vastly increase your AA damage output by putting up more flak however you would lose some surface fire power.

wut?

So your idea for DFAA is that you'll STOP shooting at aircraft? If you meant to say DEACTIVATION it would make more sense but I'm confused. :cap_wander:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,493
Members
2,289 posts
52 battles
7 hours ago, jags_domain said:

More like tired of the you suck and the problem with everything so lets nerf everything.

Imagine thinking that skill has any relevance in surface ship - CV interaction.

 

7 hours ago, jags_domain said:

Your logic how dare someone defend something they like.

By that "logic" someone could also like murder but that doesn't make it a good thing, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22
[FIDD]
Members
30 posts
5,694 battles
9 hours ago, jags_domain said:

More like tired of the you suck and the problem with everything so lets nerf everything.

Its the same song for hears.

Your logic how dare someone defend something they like.

Imaginr being that ignorant of both the subject and of whom are saying that crap to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[EQV]
Members
140 posts
1,378 battles
14 hours ago, jags_domain said:

Yeaa another hate CV post because I don't play CV therefore it would not bother me.

Why dont you give the CV the ability to zoom in or to lock on.

 

I play CV the most out of any class asides from BB's. My first and only tier 8 at the moment is the Implacable so yes I'm totally a CV hater despite the fact its one of the main lines I grinded. This right here is why this game is in such a bad state no one wants to discuss or talk. Its nothing but name calling with out as much as second thought because it makes you look like a fool. While in the meantime genuine suggestions are glossed over because of all the childishness of people who don't bother to take a second look or think critically about anything other than their own main class of ships and how they are so put upon.

I have in the past suggested as well plenty of mini reworks and ideas for CV's as well to give them more control of their aircraft as a counter. They would be allowed to control altitude not have the aircraft fly at a pre determined height. Obviously to keep things a little unique they would have ranges in which they could go such as the German DB's would still be able to fly the highest. The trade off for flying higher would be lower AA damage but less accurate drops and vice versa for flying lower.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[EQV]
Members
140 posts
1,378 battles
12 hours ago, black_hull4 said:

wut?

So your idea for DFAA is that you'll STOP shooting at aircraft? If you meant to say DEACTIVATION it would make more sense but I'm confused. :cap_wander:

No no your dual purpose armament would stop shooting surface ships and turn into more AA mounts increasing flak and DPS output. You can choose whether to have your dual purpose guns fire at ships or aircraft. Sorry if I wrote it confusingly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,470
[BNKR]
[BNKR]
Members
2,802 posts
2,663 battles
14 hours ago, jags_domain said:

Yeaa another hate CV post because I don't play CV therefore it would not bother me.

Why dont you give the CV the ability to zoom in or to lock on.

 

How is any of what he said a hate CV post?

 

Moron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[EQV]
Members
140 posts
1,378 battles
14 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Sounds like a terrible trade off since flak is 100% avoidable.

Unless you mean that this also increases DPS.

 

He does play CVs tho?

Could it possibly be that whether someone has CV experience or not doesn't actually matter to CV apologists?

Yes I meant a DPS increase as well as flak sorry for the bad wording. I figure it would be a fair trade off for not being able to have them fire at enemy ships for the time being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
646
[P-V-E]
Members
1,649 posts
13 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

So it truly doesn't matter whether someone has CV experience, only whether someone has the "correct opinion".

correct

 

but your statement of

14 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

Sounds like a terrible trade off since flak is 100% avoidable.

is somewhat erroneous, as flack is not 100% avoidable 100% of the time with 100% of all CV aircraft in 100% of all attacks the aircraft will make.

 

ergo I put it to you that the "correct opinion" is NOT that "flak is 100% avoidable" even for someone at your level yet alone the masses that are far from your level, and as far as evidence of this one only needs look at your youtube channel at some of your videos where you are clearly being hit by this supposed 100% avoidable flack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,836
[SALVO]
Members
3,000 posts
7,003 battles

SKILL SHOTS! 

 

I want flak to be manually controlled by skill shots if the player chooses to use them, if not then flak happens the auto way.  Skill shot should be a bubble aimed at the sky,  with lead times and all that.    To mitigate CVs should get access to Priority Target . So that if they pick priority target they can tell if a captain is manually aiming his flak. 

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,981
[SIM]
Members
5,744 posts
9,263 battles

Nope, you already have an AA DPS boost mechanic in the priority sector feature. Giving every ship DFAA just cheapens that consumable and the importance of a ship’s AA rating, even with the proposed inability to attack surface ships while using it. 

Besides, it’s 2021. Carriers aren’t the problem anymore my dude, it’s all Deadeye now :Smile_trollface:

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[EQV]
Members
140 posts
1,378 battles
10 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

Nope, you already have an AA DPS boost mechanic in the priority sector feature. Giving every ship DFAA just cheapens that consumable and the importance of a ship’s AA rating, even with the proposed inability to attack surface ships while using it. 

Besides, it’s 2021. Carriers aren’t the problem anymore my dude, it’s all Deadeye now :Smile_trollface:

I could've sworn I wrote this but it seems my comment went missing or I just thought I wrote it but Ill say it again. It would not be a consumable it would function more akin to a toggle with a 2 second delay between switching firing modes. The consumable as a whole would be done away with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,836
[SALVO]
Members
3,000 posts
7,003 battles
18 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

Nope, you already have an AA DPS boost mechanic in the priority sector feature. Giving every ship DFAA just cheapens that consumable and the importance of a ship’s AA rating, even with the proposed inability to attack surface ships while using it. 

HHAHAHAHAHA   Yes keep pointing at what amounts to NOTHING saying its something.   LOL this line " cheapens the importance of AA rating"   AA rating is meaningless, its useless.  AA does nothing but give CVs the ability to attack all day long with no drawbacks.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,746
[WG]
Administrator, Developers, Community Department, WG Staff, In AlfaTesters
4,494 posts
14,963 battles
17 hours ago, Yesman1337 said:

My idea is for well almost every ship to get DFAA but wait hold on it would have some fundamental changes. Upon activation any dual purpose armaments are trained towards the sky ceasing and firing upon sea fairing vessels. This would in turn vastly increase your AA damage output by putting up more flak however you would lose some surface fire power. For ships whos main battery is dual purpose it would not let you fire them while you are in this mode. It would take 2 seconds to switch between modes so that you cant just spam it back and forth. It would make AA a more interactive part of the fight while giving captains actual choices to make in combat. 

I think AA overall, just needs to be looked at. But I don't know that I like the idea of a "cool down" for the main battery being dual purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[EQV]
Members
140 posts
1,378 battles
3 minutes ago, Hapa_Fodder said:

I think AA overall, just needs to be looked at. But I don't know that I like the idea of a "cool down" for the main battery being dual purpose.

No its not a cooldown just a mechanic to prevent people from spamming back and forth between it and being able to do both rapidly. It is a 2 second delay before it switches to the mode you want it. think of it as the crews retraining the guns on to their new targets. Or think of it as them taking time to de-elevate the guns and load the proper ammunition etc. Not a cooldown as theoretically you can spam back and forth between them. Just there will be a delay before they start firing.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,129
[SALVO]
Members
6,634 posts
5,231 battles
1 hour ago, eviltane said:

SKILL SHOTS! 

 

I want flak to be manually controlled by skill shots if the player chooses to use them, if not then flak happens the auto way.  Skill shot should be a bubble aimed at the sky,  with lead times and all that.    To mitigate CVs should get access to Priority Target . So that if they pick priority target they can tell if a captain is manually aiming his flak. 

I subscribe to this idea :cap_rambo:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[EQV]
Members
140 posts
1,378 battles
10 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

I subscribe to this idea :cap_rambo:

 

I had made a lengthy post about this a while back but it did not get much attention other than people accusing me of CV hate etc. It gave the option of manual control of AA while giving CV players control of altitude to allow them to have more wiggle room when dodging flak. (Fly higher to take less AA damage and dodge flak but get less accurate drops and vice versa) But I doubt WG will ever implement any change of that caliber so I came up with this more reasonable idea.

 

My more lengthy and in depth rework idea.

Edited by Yesman1337

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,129
[SALVO]
Members
6,634 posts
5,231 battles
3 minutes ago, Yesman1337 said:

I had made a lengthy post about this a while back but it did not get much attention other than people accusing me of CV hate etc. It gave the option of manual control of AA while giving CV players control of altitude to allow them to have more wiggle room when dodging flak. (Fly higher to take less AA damage and dodge flak but get less accurate drops and vice versa) But I doubt WG will ever implement any change of that caliber so I came up with this more reasonable idea.

The altitude thing looks troublesome. I would love for planes to be able to control altitude, but I think that will fall in the category of needless overcomplication of gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[EQV]
Members
140 posts
1,378 battles
1 minute ago, ArIskandir said:

The altitude thing looks troublesome. I would love for planes to be able to control altitude, but I think that will fall in the category of needless overcomplication of gameplay.

I don't think it would be as I described in my more in depth post around few months back it would function the same way submarines would except well in reverse. Subs went deeper to dodge depth charges so to aircraft would fly higher to avoid flak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,493
Members
2,289 posts
52 battles
4 hours ago, Yesman1337 said:

Yes I meant a DPS increase as well as flak sorry for the bad wording. I figure it would be a fair trade off for not being able to have them fire at enemy ships for the time being.

Ahh.

Then I question why you won't just straight up buff AA? For most ships the 2ndaries are of no use against other surface ships anyway and it would be a severe hindrance for ships with DP guns as their primary armament.

 

3 hours ago, b101uk said:

is somewhat erroneous, as flack is not 100% avoidable 100% of the time with 100% of all CV aircraft in 100% of all attacks the aircraft will make.

 

ergo I put it to you that the "correct opinion" is NOT that "flak is 100% avoidable" even for someone at your level yet alone the masses that are far from your level, and as far as evidence of this one only needs look at your youtube channel at some of your videos where you are clearly being hit by this supposed 100% avoidable flack.

Unless you're playing FDR or Ark flak is in fact 100% avoidable due to it being completely static in behavior. That is not opinion, that is fact.

I am not infallible and sometimes I deliberately hit flak when I know it is not going to matter or I value a faster strike execution. I also have videos where I don't hit a single flak cloud all match long so your supposed proof kinda works against you.
Point is you can only hit flak when you make a mistake. Play flawlessly and you will always be able to avoid it.

Edited by El2aZeR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×