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

Mouse makes a post every week about how crappy AA is in World of Warships: Week Four

300 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

231
[BB-C4]
Beta Testers
401 posts
14,418 battles

DFAA has been in such a dire need of a change/buff for so long, I honestly feel like WG has given up on it. Right now all DFAA fire does is allow CVs to pretend their doing the trench run from a new hope. I’d like to see it be useful again and AA in general. If I could build on your second idea:

Turbulence: flying into the DFAA whiles it’s active causes the camera to become shakier the closer it gets to a ship and the amount of explosions and near misses start to buffet the plane. It reduces the planes maneuverability/accuracy to deeper it gets into the the ships AA aura. The more flak explosions a ship generates, the greater the frequency of turbulence on a flight squadron 

Also, I don’t know if you have a schedule to what your talking about week to week, but I look forward to a suggestion about undoing the AA teamwork nerf that WG added(ie the reduction to AA dps for each ship in proximity to each other). Team work should be OP, not even carriers should get special treatment cause the rest of the classes don’t.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,093
[MAUS]
Members
13,698 posts
2 minutes ago, MBT808 said:

 

Also, I don’t know if you have a schedule to what your talking about week to week, but I look forward to a suggestion about undoing the AA teamwork nerf that WG added(ie the reduction to AA dps for each ship in proximity to each other). Team work should be OP, not even carriers should get special treatment cause the rest of the classes don’t.

Apparently that nerf was never applied.   It was bugged from the onset so they undid it and left it as-is.  Which should scare you given how crappy combined AA power is.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
231
[BB-C4]
Beta Testers
401 posts
14,418 battles
Just now, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Apparently that nerf was never applied.   It was bugged from the onset so they undid it and left it as-is.  Which should scare you given how crappy combined AA power is.

I never heard that it failed or I must have missed it. I don’t even remember them scrapping it, just a post saying they were doing it and then never talking about it again. That definitely changes my view on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,093
[MAUS]
Members
13,698 posts
2 minutes ago, MBT808 said:

I never heard that it failed or I must have missed it. I don’t even remember them scrapping it, just a post saying they were doing it and then never talking about it again. That definitely changes my view on that.

It's things like this which point to just how poorly implemented AA is.  It's so bad that even when things are working as designed, players can't help but feel like it's not as effective as it should be.  Food for thought.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,365
[PROJX]
Beta Testers
1,735 posts
6,724 battles

Inb4 the usual suspects accuse LWM of wanting an "I win" button against CVs.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
477
Members
1,267 posts
3,660 battles
1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:
  • Aircraft dropped ordnance cannot be aimed.  While under the influence of DFAA, the aiming reticle for aircraft will not reduce in size.
  • DFAA reduces aircraft agility, slowing their rate of turn and reducing the gains from boost / braking.  This will make flak much more dangerous and effective while also allowing more nimble ships a better chance of Just Dodging™.
  •  DFAA reduces visibility, removing the aiming reticle entirely and mussing up their screen with flak / smoke / oil effects.  Add some juddering in there too.  See Wildstar's "Blind" effect for inspiration.

I like all three of these ideas, but I think I like the first one the most. Feels less "cheap" than the old system where pressing the DFAA button right before the drop would instantly make the planes panic, but it still offers a reduction in drop accuracy. Sounds good to me. 

At least, I'm assuming that's the case. When you say the reticle will not reduce in size, does that mean carriers would get to keep any aiming they might have gotten before the enemy used DFAA?

Edited by Jaek_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,201
[PVE]
Members
12,068 posts
21,313 battles

image.png.2aa85514a57eaa635919bd3ab9387a9c.png

In the older days of CVs I would put defensive AA on a ship and then there would be no CVs in the battle until I changed it to acoustic, it did do something at least back then though. Atlanta with AA was a hoot when there were CVs in a battle back then, remember when CVs feared Atlanta? I never equip def AA now.

Edited by Sovereigndawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
231
[BB-C4]
Beta Testers
401 posts
14,418 battles
21 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

It's things like this which point to just how poorly implemented AA is.  It's so bad that even when things are working as designed, players can't help but feel like it's not as effective as it should be.  Food for thought.

Absolutely. Even solo ships with some of the most powerful AA, I saw a replay where a halland or ostergotland scored 104 planes shot down(almost all attack aircraft). They still lost despite this heroic show of AA power and the enemy CV topped the opposite team for XP. Which is mind boggling that a single ship, doing all that still doesn’t slow down the CV.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,626
[CAAT]
Members
6,313 posts
8,036 battles
19 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

remember when CVs feared Atlanta?

This is the way it SHOULD be. When you see Atlanta, California, Texas, all those AA-specific warships that give up virtually all other stats to supposedly "super-boost" their AA, and with full AA builds, they should be a MASSIVE deterrent against CV players. But they're not, AA builds are a JOKE (ESPECIALLY on battleships) AA is a joke in general, flak is a complete joke (Atlanta/Flint/soon to be San Diego are all crying in a corner) and all those AA-focused ships got snubbed stats-wise because of the changes (REGARDLESS of when the ships actually came out (new or old ships), the AA rework/nerf still affects them badly to this day).

59 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

It's things like this which point to just how poorly implemented AA is.  It's so bad that even when things are working as designed, players can't help but feel like it's not as effective as it should be.  Food for thought.

It's almost hilarious in a sad way really, just how many times we've all said this stuff, we've said to Wargaming that "AA is SO lackluster since the rework/nerf, flak is basically useless" and Wargaming INSISTS on leaving AA/flak alone because I'm going to assume that according to their internal data, "AA is fine as-is", even though in reality(actual ingame performance), it's anything but.

Of course, this isn't the first time there's been discrepancies between Wargaming's internal data and actual ingame performance of mechanics and/or ships. It seems to happen quite frequently, tbh. Wargaming's view of the game =/= Playerbase's view of the game, the majority of the time. and therein lies the frustration when we're inevitably told that "everything is working as intended and balanced" for mechanics and/or ships that WE can see need addressing. It seems according to the internal data, EVERYTHING is "balanced and just fine". But is it really? It's further food for thought.

1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

In practice, DFAA needs to do something that surface ship players can immediately appreciate without unduly punishing CV players.  So instant-kill mechanics are out.  The activation of DFAA should make attempting to drop bombs within its area of influence a lot more difficult.  Instead of dealing more damage, DFAA could:

  1. Aircraft dropped ordnance cannot be aimed.  While under the influence of DFAA, the aiming reticle for aircraft will not reduce in size.
  2. DFAA reduces aircraft agility, slowing their rate of turn and reducing the gains from boost / braking.  This will make flak much more dangerous and effective while also allowing more nimble ships a better chance of Just Dodging™.
  3. DFAA reduces visibility, removing the aiming reticle entirely and mussing up their screen with flak / smoke / oil effects.  Add some juddering in there too.  See Wildstar's "Blind" effect for inspiration.

Also, this sounds pretty decent too, so basically make DFAA not necessarily more powerful, but it makes DFAA almost "placate" a CV squadron. In other words, they have a much harder time targeting you, and therefore would most likely have to retreat. Interesting!

Tbh, I still LOVE your other idea regarding the Long Range AA change (Manual Long Range AA), that should still be applied. At the very least an "AA mode" for Dual Purpose secondaries, complete with anti-air firing arcs and animations.

  • Cool 8
  • Thanks 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[NBNG]
Beta Testers
1,660 posts
5,010 battles
3 hours ago, Sovereigndawg said:

image.png.2aa85514a57eaa635919bd3ab9387a9c.png

In the older days of CVs I would put defensive AA on a ship and then there would be no CVs in the battle until I changed it to acoustic, it did do something at least back then though. Atlanta with AA was a hoot when there were CVs in a battle back then, remember when CVs feared Atlanta? I never equip def AA now.

It wasn’t just the Atlanta. It was US cruisers in general. That was their gimmick. They were AA monsters. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[P_P]
Members
500 posts
14 minutes ago, JSFWRX85 said:

It wasn’t just the Atlanta. It was US cruisers in general. That was their gimmick. They were AA monsters. 

yeah hey, each country has its own gimmick. When wows took that away, the US lines didn't have anything for a few years. Wasn't even worth playing US, smaller guns, slower speed, bad secondarys, bad dispersion  and easy to hit citadels.

AA was the only good thing. Most of the US lines stopped existing for me.

Its gotten a little better since, but imo its not there yet.

edit- US BB's were also pretty good if AA fit

Edited by Retarie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,302
[PAT]
Members
1,258 posts
15,083 battles

At first glance I like option 2 best. Keep the interaction skill-based. If a target just sits there then the CV will still be able to strike them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
206
[P_P]
Members
500 posts
4 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:
  1. Aircraft dropped ordnance cannot be aimed.  While under the influence of DFAA, the aiming reticle for aircraft will not reduce in size.
  2. DFAA reduces aircraft agility, slowing their rate of turn and reducing the gains from boost / braking.  This will make flak much more dangerous and effective while also allowing more nimble ships a better chance of Just Dodging™.
  3. DFAA reduces visibility, removing the aiming reticle entirely and mussing up their screen with flak / smoke / oil effects.  Add some juddering in there too.  See Wildstar's "Blind" effect for inspiration.

 

I like no.1

For the bombers it could double or triple the drop radius.

For torps it could freeze aiming at a 50 or 65 deg dispersion angle

For rockets.. not sure about that one.

skip bombs, similar to torps maybe?

I cant guess how option 2 or 3 would affect things, since I haven't played cv's since the major changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,790
[-THG-]
Members
2,644 posts
8,035 battles

It is not about realism, but about playability.

 

CV interaction with AA is more akin to a minigame where only the CV have some control than anything. 

5 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

DFAA reduces visibility, removing the aiming reticle entirely and mussing up their screen with flak / smoke / oil effects.  Add some juddering in there too.  See Wildstar's "Blind" effect for inspiration

It would be good for the majority of case, but I suspect that the good CV player will barely notice it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,722
[HOP4S]
Members
7,013 posts
35,512 battles
1 minute ago, Karstodes said:

It is not about realism, but about playability.

CV interaction with AA is more akin to a minigame where only the CV have some control than anything. 

It would be good for the majority of case, but I suspect that the good CV player will barely notice it.

Making money centers on "if the game is playable..."  Automatic AA eliminates that complexity and makes an 8 year old a CPT.....  This discussion isn't about 8 year olds playing this game.....and, they do.  It seems if we want AA to be "something more than playable" or, actually playable as in we actually have to think and aim.......just like ASW.  ASW in a mini-game inside of the game.   Everyone is afraid of even taking on the Carrier issues.......

The rub is that Update 8.0 set an "expectation" based on playability and power.  And, to this day, AA is the by-product of that gimmick we are still trying to rectify.........to make the game more playable... 

Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,488
[-TKS-]
Members
1,706 posts
16,775 battles

Good post, all but #2 sound reasonable enough from the CV main perspective :)

Edited by Merc_R_Us
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,503 posts
10,225 battles

I like any of the 3 proposed ideas.

Just for poetic justice, what about DFAA applying STUN on planes? 

  • Funny 4
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,364
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,928 posts
8,973 battles
5 hours ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

In practice, DFAA needs to do something that surface ship players can immediately appreciate without unduly punishing CV players.  So instant-kill mechanics are out.  The activation of DFAA should make attempting to drop bombs within its area of influence a lot more difficult.  Instead of dealing more damage, DFAA could:

  1. Aircraft dropped ordnance cannot be aimed.  While under the influence of DFAA, the aiming reticle for aircraft will not reduce in size.
  2. DFAA reduces aircraft agility, slowing their rate of turn and reducing the gains from boost / braking.  This will make flak much more dangerous and effective while also allowing more nimble ships a better chance of Just Dodging™.
  3. DFAA reduces visibility, removing the aiming reticle entirely and mussing up their screen with flak / smoke / oil effects.  Add some juddering in there too.  See Wildstar's "Blind" effect for inspiration.

Supported.

Isn't number 1 a lot like the RTS effects of DFAA? Anything that brings us closer to the glorious past is welcome. 

My only concern here is that the same arguments will crop up now as they did back then because the targets can't actually SEE the effects of the DFAA. They can't see the reticule blow wide open, won't notice reduced maneuverability, and won't be aware of the reduced visibility. They'll only see the planes pull back, wait for the DFAA to expire, and return, or proceed with a half baked drop that will roll the dice produce some hits, which will lead back to the forum with claims the DFAA did nothing. 

The truth is that a lot of people won't be happy with AA until it makes their ships invulnerable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,456
[WG]
Administrator, WG Staff
6,611 posts
16,549 battles
11 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Just for poetic justice, what about DFAA applying STUN on planes? 

The reaction to Stun Bombs showed players don't like tools which deny Player Agency.  Other rather, a dislike of something which allows Player A to stop Player B's ability to play.

I do think there's enough anger at a CV's "ability to strike from safety" that the community may be willing to overlook that in this case, but an ultimate solution is still one with back-and-forth interaction and decision-making.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
231
[BB-C4]
Beta Testers
401 posts
14,418 battles
15 minutes ago, Ahskance said:

The reaction to Stun Bombs showed players don't like tools which deny Player Agency.  Other rather, a dislike of something which allows Player A to stop Player B's ability to play.

I do think there's enough anger at a CV's "ability to strike from safety" that the community may be willing to overlook that in this case, but an ultimate solution is still one with back-and-forth interaction and decision-making.

I mean, we wouldn’t be here talking if not for our anger at WG failing to address CV-surface ship interaction time and again.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,302
[PAT]
Members
1,258 posts
15,083 battles
27 minutes ago, HyperFish said:

The truth is that a lot of people won't be happy with AA until it makes their ships invulnerable. 

If AA can't neutralize some of the strikes some of the time, in a way controllable by the player, there isn't really any tactical purpose or value to AA. At that point, just remove AA and reduce CV damage to compensate.

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
687
[CUDA]
Members
1,451 posts
13,969 battles

I've never played carriers but watched a replay the other day and saw what carrier players were talking about flying around flak puffs. That's just wrong. Why when you shoot a 16" salvo do the shells go all over the place but when you shoot a 5" AA salvo they appear in the sky in nice even rows? There should be dispersion in all three directions, then the planes wouldn't be able to predict what action will avoid them.

And yes, AA should affect aircraft accuracy. Torpedo planes should not launch in parallel lines, all at the same time like they were bolted together.  

There should also be an abort chance if the flak is too heavy. This would be a bot decision, not player. The squadron would turn around and fly out of the flak cloud at full speed then return control to the player. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[NBNG]
Beta Testers
1,660 posts
5,010 battles

you know what i would take over improved DFAA..... Cyclones actually affecting CVs. Every other class has their spotting range reduced to the point its either blind shoot at mini map targets or brawl. CVs though, they can just go about their business. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×