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

Simple solution to CV overload

63 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,508 posts
10,225 battles

Apply balance to the ecosystem...

Oo5wYpc.png

C9gw9ho.png

My greatest achievement this match: kept both my T6 BBs alive and safe from airstrikes... screened for them all match, planes shall not pass :cap_rambo:

WG please provide more dedicated AA ships for support roles. 

  • Cool 6
  • Thanks 2
  • Boring 4
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,778
[RLGN]
Members
19,167 posts
35,208 battles

Planes (mosquitoes,) “RAAAAIIIIDDD!?!”

Dutch cruisers and DDs; “Heh, heh, heh!”

  • Funny 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

My greatest achievement this match: kept both my T6 BBs alive and safe from airstrikes... screened for them all match, planes shall not pass :cap_rambo:

WG please provide more dedicated AA ships for support roles. 

Not gonna lie, I really do enjoy seeing your posts where you fend off the enemy CV and get so excited about it.  It's great to see that you took a situation that was super frustrating for you and turned it into a victory condition to be lauded <3

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
117 posts
25 battles
4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Apply balance to the ecosystem...

My greatest achievement this match: kept both my T6 BBs alive and safe from airstrikes... screened for them all match, planes shall not pass :cap_rambo:

WG please provide more dedicated AA ships for support roles. 

Hmm.. one of these T6 BB had a little impact according to its final score, other one has good AA..

Also which dedicated AA ships do you mean? You shot down only 5 more planes than "Roma" (BB with so called "non existent" AA) and 3 more than "Vladivostok"...

Edited by Joachim_Schepke
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
477
Members
1,267 posts
3,660 battles
4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

WG please provide more dedicated AA ships for support roles. 

Rather, make the ones we have in the game already viable with AA builds, as they used to be. Ships like Kii used to be AA monsters when speced for it, now their AA is a nice little fireworks show. 

  • Cool 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,867
[ARR0W]
Members
6,169 posts
32,942 battles

Love when folks lolderp into flak and through the fat part of AA. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,508 posts
10,225 battles
4 hours ago, Joachim_Schepke said:

Hmm.. one of these T6 BB had a little impact according to its final score, other one has good AA..

Fuso stayed alive and kept its presence "felt" through the match, might have not scored highly but he did his part in helping the team. As you can see neither downed a plane, there's a reason why 2 bottom tier BBs survive a double CV match unmolested.  

4 hours ago, Joachim_Schepke said:

Also which dedicated AA ships do you mean? You shot down only 5 more planes than "Roma" (BB with so called "non existent" AA) and 3 more than "Vladivostok"...

A dedicated AA ship is one whose primary role is AA duty. If the CV choose to focus any ship and attack it repeatedly, it is innevitable such ship will harvest plane kills, even if it doesn't have any extraordinary AA. The difference is a dedicated AA ship is more likely to survive the ordeal and make it more costly for the CV in time and resources. 

The Vlad was spearheading our attack on the other flank, he surely draw a lot of attention but it is decently equiped to tank a lot of damage, his AA is decent. Same with Roma, in the particular case of Roma this match, some of those planes downed were from my own Airstrikes and at least 1 squad of fighters. My own tally was 25 attack planes, only 2 fighters. The difference here is most of those planes were not "aimed" at me.

4 hours ago, Jaek_ said:

Rather, make the ones we have in the game already viable with AA builds, as they used to be. Ships like Kii used to be AA monsters when speced for it, now their AA is a nice little fireworks show. 

Totally agree, it would be nice to have old powerhouses like Atlanta come back to be able to play their historical role.

  • Cool 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
483
[-NACL]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
1,697 posts
28,359 battles
22 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Fuso stayed alive and kept its presence "felt" through the match, might have not scored highly but he did his part in helping the team. As you can see neither downed a plane, there's a reason why 2 bottom tier BBs survive a double CV match unmolested.  

A dedicated AA ship is one whose primary role is AA duty. If the CV choose to focus any ship and attack it repeatedly, it is innevitable such ship will harvest plane kills, even if it doesn't have any extraordinary AA. The difference is a dedicated AA ship is more likely to survive the ordeal and make it more costly for the CV in time and resources. 

The Vlad was spearheading our attack on the other flank, he surely draw a lot of attention but it is decently equiped to tank a lot of damage, his AA is decent. Same with Roma, in the particular case of Roma this match, some of those planes downed were from my own Airstrikes and at least 1 squad of fighters. My own tally was 25 attack planes, only 2 fighters. The difference here is most of those planes were not "aimed" at me.

Totally agree, it would be nice to have old powerhouses like Atlanta come back to be able to play their historical role.

Texarkana, Hotlanta, LoLoRaDo, Gneisanau, even Hood.... Iowa/Monty , Mino, DM... so many AA spec ships used to be good. They literally sold Hotlanta and Texarkana as AA botes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
614
[TORCH]
Members
829 posts
8,354 battles

The problem is that most of that tech tree line isn't worth playing (a lot would argue none of it is) I'm usually not very enthused to have them on my team... with CVs or not...I'd love to have the old school AA boats become a thing again though...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,508 posts
10,225 battles
5 hours ago, Ahskance said:

Not gonna lie, I really do enjoy seeing your posts where you fend off the enemy CV and get so excited about it.  It's great to see that you took a situation that was super frustrating for you and turned it into a victory condition to be lauded <3

Adapt & Overcome is supposed to be the Player's mantra. There's no situation or system that can't be played in your favor by having the proper knowledge and tools. 

I despair at reading how fellow players feel they have no agency at all on certain interactions (like against CVs or Subs), many of my threads are aimed to challenge that paradigm. We do have ways to turn the frustrating interaction into a new potential source of enjoyment... We just need the tools to do it.

Which leads me to a plea: ships like D7P and Bearn provide very specific, specialized and interesting gameplay. It would be very positive imo to have similar playstyle options for every tier bracket.

 

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
515
[-HUGS]
Members
978 posts
13,215 battles

27, pffff
Those Are Rookie Numbers | Know Your Meme


On a side not, I had a few dual CV games as of late and I was able to beat my  personal 79 planes record I was holding with D7P, in Minnesota. I had the chance to spawn in the ideal game, against a team of Kaga + Pobeda (or Chkalov, can't remember). So a lot of weak,  bottom tier planes to smash. That got my record up to 85.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,508 posts
10,225 battles
20 minutes ago, Mr_Argamas said:

27, pffff
Those Are Rookie Numbers | Know Your Meme


On a side not, I had a few dual CV games as of late and I was able to beat my  personal 79 planes record I was holding with D7P, in Minnesota. I had the chance to spawn in the ideal game, against a team of Kaga + Pobeda (or Chkalov, can't remember). So a lot of weak,  bottom tier planes to smash. That got my record up to 85.

 

I'm sitting at 49 planes :Smile_sad:... CVs don't wanna play with me after a while.

Tho, I'm averaging over 14 planes per match in Randoms and almost 16 in Ranked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,628
[CAAT]
Members
6,313 posts
8,036 battles
10 hours ago, Ahskance said:

Not gonna lie, I really do enjoy seeing your posts where you fend off the enemy CV and get so excited about it.  It's great to see that you took a situation that was super frustrating for you and turned it into a victory condition to be lauded <3

See, this is how it SHOULD be, but it's not always like this, because it's just not a meta thing for many players to even consider doing.

4 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

Adapt & Overcome is supposed to be the Player's mantra. There's no situation or system that can't be played in your favor by having the proper knowledge and tools.

This is true, to an extent. However, that's not to say that the current system is "good". Just because you have figured out how to work with the system, does not mean that the system itself is not in need of improvement. And that goes for all game mechanics and ships. Just because you've slogged through game after game (like I have) to FINALLY understand how to play an underperforming ship to an effective level, doesn't mean that the ship itself is "good".

Now, some players complain for the sake of complaining, and I agree with you, that is wrong. Also, you're right, we need MORE tools, not less, to enjoy these kinds of interactions. Which is why I was suggesting the return of AA range mods, as well as a far more simpler addition, the AA attack animation for dual purpose secondaries, to inject that little bit of realism into the game! It really is disappointing just seeing those turrets SIT there.

They should be moving as seen here (note the rotation of the DP mounts):

Yes, even a SIMPLE animation addition will make this game straight up BETTER! We're not even talking about adjusting the AA mechanics yet.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,628
[CAAT]
Members
6,313 posts
8,036 battles
14 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

WG please provide more dedicated AA ships for support roles. 

In addition, please provide MORE tools to allow dedicated AA ships to fulfill their roles better.

....And for gosh sakes, change that DUMB AA Guns Mod 1 (in Slot 3) to something USEFUL!!! XD

Edited by SaiIor_Moon
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
614
[TORCH]
Members
829 posts
8,354 battles

I've shot down 77 in a Pommern of all things(it made very little difference)...and came close to that many more times...but it wasn't because those ships had great tools and AA impact...it was because some CV players are just terrible...so I'm not going to put up any cherry picked games to try and convince anyone otherwise...AA is almost universally horrible

Edited by Almedius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,508 posts
10,225 battles
30 minutes ago, Almedius said:

AA is almost universally horrible

This isn't about AA being good or horrible, but about making the best out of a frustrating situation, turning the table on something that is annoying to you and making it enjoyable. I dislike double CV games, deeply, as many of us do, BUT I won't be "victimized" ... I'll play the game in ways I find enjoyable, even if there's freaking double CVs. If the game is gonna be loaded with planes then I'll just switch my focus to making plane confetti. 

And my experience has been honestly really fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17,311
[WOLF5]
[WOLF5]
Members
38,191 posts
30,943 battles

In the RTS CV days, trying to defend teammates with 6km AA was a joke.  With that range the ships you're escorting literally have to be sitting on your lap to be able to defend with that sort of range.  With the current Rebork-Era AA system being set up into layers of differing ranges, whereas in the RTS era it was just one big AA bubble, it gets even worse.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,508 posts
10,225 battles
47 minutes ago, SaiIor_Moon said:

However, that's not to say that the current system is "good". Just because you have figured out how to work with the system, does not mean that the system itself is not in need of improvement. 

Of course, this is 100% true. 

The system can be very bad in objective terms, yet it doesn't mean there's no way to find some enjoyment playing with it. 

A lot of people in these times are very used to strict manichean conceptions of everything, it is either "good" or "bad" which hardly represent how reality works. 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
515
[-HUGS]
Members
978 posts
13,215 battles
51 minutes ago, Almedius said:

I've shot down 77 in a Pommern of all things(it made very little difference)...and came close to that many more times...but it wasn't because those ships had great tools and AA impact...it was because some CV players are just terrible...so I'm not going to put up any cherry picked games to try and convince anyone otherwise...AA is almost universally horrible

I would argue it's not AA is horrible, at least not always.... But it's that the interaction still almost always feel bad for the surface ship. Everything is pretty much controlled by the game (flak placement, dps, AA mounts destroyed). It leaves you with some consumable options if you have them, priority sector, and "just dodge". So that if your ship isn't really that much of an AA specialized ship and the CV player is competent enough, it can feel very one-sided and unrewarding.

So some players will consider it bad and may never invest into AA builds. Yet... it does have an impact. It's just that unlike an  HP pool that you can directly tap into, an aircraft carrier is losing planes so that he might not have full squadrons to deploy at one point. Thing is, a player will often not see this therefore it can feel like it did nothing at all. The number of ribbons we get from shotting planes down is most often the only visible reward, with nice animations (they're really good actually).

I'm not sure what the ideal solution to a problem like this would look like.... I always advocated that consumables like DFAA and catapult fighters should have more impact, beside dealing damage to airplanes. Modify the aiming speed, or the maneuverability of the plane possibly. And it would be important to do something like that especially for catapult fighters because  they became somewhat obsolete VS russian CVs and tactical squadrons. Yet, a lot of weak AA ships have to rely on them. I kind of wanted to bring that point on the thread that was closed about AA....   

Otherwise, it would feel more rewarding to shoot planes if we could actually see the impact it has on the CV reserves somehow.  Personally, I think that CVs shouldn't get a fixed plane regeneration but rather, a regeneration rate that scale with how empty the reserve is. (the less planes you got, the faster planes are regenerating)   Balanced to ensure that shooting planes can more often be rewarded by seeing the CV pump incomplete squadrons. But as the reserve gets low on planes, a carrier would regenerate planes faster so that they don't run out of them often, as they do now.  The idea is that an aircraft player should be able to play the whole battle, but we want a visible reward for the players, beside ribbons.   This is as close as most surface [edited] will get from hitting an HP bar, in most games.

Oh, and if CVs are allowed to regenerate planes, surface ships should be allowed to repair AA mounts over time too. Getting at the end of the game with a ship that has 80% of the AA mounts destroyed against a CV that was allowed to regenerate planes the whole time doesn't feel fair, IMHO.

Just my 2 cents, sorry if it looks like I hijacked the thread.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
614
[TORCH]
Members
829 posts
8,354 battles
14 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

This isn't about AA being good or horrible, but about making the best out of a frustrating situation, turning the table on something that is annoying to you and making it enjoyable. I dislike double CV games, deeply, as many of us do, BUT I won't be "victimized" ... I'll play the game in ways I find enjoyable, even if there's freaking double CVs. If the game is gonna be loaded with planes then I'll just switch my focus to making plane confetti. 

And my experience has been honestly really fun.

Understood...and I think it's great you find a way to turn it into enjoyment...I'm a bit jealous...The best I can manage is to tolerate it...And honestly it's not that often it ruins the fun for me completely...but it's my least favorite part of the game...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,508 posts
10,225 battles
14 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

In the RTS CV days, trying to defend teammates with 6km AA was a joke.  With that range the ships you're escorting literally have to be sitting on your lap to be able to defend with that sort of range.  With the current Rebork-Era AA system being set up into layers of differing ranges, whereas in the RTS era it was just one big AA bubble, it gets even worse.

I wish I had functional 6km AA, I have to make do with 4km. :Smile_trollface: 

I never saw the point of AA builds in the RTS era because CVs were so scarce the investment really made no sense, it was better to accept you gonna be screwed those few matches and just spec something more useful.  

The present situation for me at least justifies having dedicated AA builds. It is also more challenging as this is not a "passive" effect you generate around you while you do your regular play, now you need to actively position yourself in very specific ways in order to bring your AA role to effect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
614
[TORCH]
Members
829 posts
8,354 battles
43 minutes ago, Mr_Argamas said:

I would argue it's not AA is horrible, at least not always.... But it's that the interaction still almost always feel bad for the surface ship. Everything is pretty much controlled by the game (flak placement, dps, AA mounts destroyed). It leaves you with some consumable options if you have them, priority sector, and "just dodge". So that if your ship isn't really that much of an AA specialized ship and the CV player is competent enough, it can feel very one-sided and unrewarding.

So some players will consider it bad and may never invest into AA builds. Yet... it does have an impact. It's just that unlike an  HP pool that you can directly tap into, an aircraft carrier is losing planes so that he might not have full squadrons to deploy at one point. Thing is, a player will often not see this therefore it can feel like it did nothing at all. The number of ribbons we get from shotting planes down is most often the only visible reward, with nice animations (they're really good actually).

I'm not sure what the ideal solution to a problem like this would look like.... I always advocated that consumables like DFAA and catapult fighters should have more impact, beside dealing damage to airplanes. Modify the aiming speed, or the maneuverability of the plane possibly. And it would be important to do something like that especially for catapult fighters because  they became somewhat obsolete VS russian CVs and tactical squadrons. Yet, a lot of weak AA ships have to rely on them. I kind of wanted to bring that point on the thread that was closed about AA....   

Otherwise, it would feel more rewarding to shoot planes if we could actually see the impact it has on the CV reserves somehow.  Personally, I think that CVs shouldn't get a fixed plane regeneration but rather, a regeneration rate that scale with how empty the reserve is. (the less planes you got, the faster planes are regenerating)   Balanced to ensure that shooting planes can more often be rewarded by seeing the CV pump incomplete squadrons. But as the reserve gets low on planes, a carrier would regenerate planes faster so that they don't run out of them often, as they do now.  The idea is that an aircraft player should be able to play the whole battle, but we want a visible reward for the players, beside ribbons.   This is as close as most surface [edited] will get from hitting an HP bar, in most games.

Oh, and if CVs are allowed to regenerate planes, surface ships should be allowed to repair AA mounts over time too. Getting at the end of the game with a ship that has 80% of the AA mounts destroyed against a CV that was allowed to regenerate planes the whole time doesn't feel fair, IMHO.

Just my 2 cents, sorry if it looks like I hijacked the thread.

Yeah, I can agree with most of that...but in many of my highest plane kill counts the CVs never came close to being deplaned (I would get more satisfaction if they did)...and the biggest impact was that they were attacking me instead of sinking people that couldn't deal with it...Shooting down the planes didn't stop them both from constantly dropping on me the whole match...It just meant they couldn't do endless runs...but they were back on top of me in no time regardless...

Edited by Almedius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,355
[SALVO]
Members
16,508 posts
10,225 battles
25 minutes ago, Almedius said:

Yeah, I can agree with most of that...but in many of my highest plane kill counts the CVs never came close to being deplaned...and the biggest impact was that they were attacking me instead of sinking people that couldn't deal with it...Shooting down the planes didn't stop them both from constantly dropping on me the whole match...It just meant they couldn't do endless runs...but they were back on top of me in no time regardless...

At some point I was very annoyed about CV plane regeneration, we are used to measure the effect in terms of HP, damage, loses... When such loses are meaningless it is natural to think there's no effect on the enemy. 

I like to play on certainty, not chance (as any chess lover does). So I started to consider the AA in terms of what it meant to me, not to the CV. AA means for me basically time, if the CV can drop me only 2 times instead of 3 times because my AA chews a couple extra planes then I'm gaining some extra time, and the CV will lose some of his time. The bottom line to this isn't about me being able to negate CV strikes or deplaning the CV, but to turn the time equation in my favor: Making my HP regeneration time faster then the CV ability to erode my HP, or slowing the HP loss in a way the CV won't have enough time to eliminate me before the match is resolved. Start considering AA in terms of time expenditure and you'll see a measurable impact beyond doubtful plane loses.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
614
[TORCH]
Members
829 posts
8,354 battles
54 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

At some point I was very annoyed about CV plane regeneration, we are used to measure the effect in terms of HP, damage, loses... When such loses are meaningless it is natural to think there's no effect on the enemy. 

I like to play on certainty, not chance (as any chess lover does). So I started to consider the AA in terms of what it meant to me, not to the CV. AA means for me basically time, if the CV can drop me only 2 times instead of 3 times because my AA chews a couple extra planes then I'm gaining some extra time, and the CV will lose some of his time. The bottom line to this isn't about me being able to negate CV strikes or deplaning the CV, but to turn the time equation in my favor: Making my HP regeneration time faster then the CV ability to erode my HP, or slowing the HP loss in a way the CV won't have enough time to eliminate me before the match is resolved. Start considering AA in terms of time expenditure and you'll see a measurable impact beyond doubtful plane loses.

I realize that it makes some impact...In that case it delayed my inevitable death significantly...but it also had a huge negative impact on my own match influence + enjoyment...If I have to use all my meager tools to delay my death my applied firepower and positioning takes a huge hit in effectiveness...and if I don't?...well then I'm just dead and doing nothing...Either way the fun is just elusive to me...and we can chalk that up to double CVs usually...but not always...When I run into a good CV player with matchmaking monitor I'm in trouble if I'm on a potato team...They aren't going to fly into flak or miss drops...They hold most of the cards and influence...any effect I have on them isn't nearly the magnitude of the effect they have on me...If they really want me dead I'm going to be dead...Meanwhile all I can do is shoot down some of their ammo...That is all to explain that even if I shoot down a lot of planes + it has some value...It isn't enough to be satisfying / fun for me...

Edited by Almedius
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
614
[TORCH]
Members
829 posts
8,354 battles

I will admit that having a T6 CV attack me while I'm playing Mass is pretty comical / amusing though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×