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 Five

207 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

9,911
[WORX]
Members
16,975 posts
22,074 battles

Make AA DEFENSE Great Again... I'm Navalpride33... And I support and endorse, any change to fair (Bipartisan) AA Defense. 

Fair AA defense for all...

Spoiler

I've been advocating for change since 0.8.0 series destroyed the AA mechanic... As you can see... I do a bad job at advocating.

 

Edited by Navalpride33
  • Cool 3
  • Funny 2
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,847
[WOLFC]
Members
6,079 posts
17,215 battles
10 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

didn't matter if it was found on Chung Mu, a tier X destroyer

Tier IX? Also, Puerto Rico is tier X, not tier IX.

I would like to see a return to uniform range/damage per gun type, though. In anticipation of the counterarguments about this being a balancing factor that you alluded to, even a system halfway between what we used to have and what currently exists would be an improvement, such as having the AA specs of guns be consistent at each tier.

Edited by Nevermore135
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,691
[HOP4S]
Members
6,983 posts
35,369 battles
11 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

I've been double-challenged.

Not only was I initially challenged to post discussions about the sorry state of AA power in World of Warships, these threads have a habit of getting locked for being non-constructive.  So let's address that with the following points.

  • This series is not meant to be inflammatory.
  • These suggestions are serious.
  • The goal is not to disparage or punish CVs or people who enjoy playing them.
  • The goal is to improve the interaction between surface ships and aircraft by giving surface ship players more agency when under air attack.

The present AA system is designed as an obstacle for CVs to overcome.  If a CV player mismanages their air groups, they risk running out of individual plane types. It is not designed to protect surface ships.  The skill floor to overcome the dangers of AA is very low while the ability to reduce damage to any degree compromises the efficiency of surface ship's positioning and battle influence.  There is no active defence surface ship players can undertake to guarantee safety for themselves or allies.  In summary:  AA mechanics in World of Warships suck.  They've been designed not to protect surface ships, but to act as an obstacle for aircraft carriers to mitigate. Because of this, surface ships don't interact with aircraft -- they are simply victimized by them.  This is not fun.  This is poorly designed.  I would like to see it changed.

The Proposal

 

Facilitate understanding of AA and Flak in port.  It's not designed to be clear currently.

  • Get rid if accuracy.  It's not needed, for one -- sustained AA DPS isn't a credible threat to CVs.  For another, it doesn't even affect "accuracy" -- it affects rate of fire.  Yeah, go figure that one out.  This causes weird shenanigans for battleships with 0.41s pulsing fire on short-range batteries clipping and losing shots when attack craft enter their 0.1km dead-zone.  "Oh, your guns pulse and do 286 damage per tick?  Yeah, sucks to be you if you lost one of those pulses because it clipped into the dead-zone, sucker."
  • Uniform gun damage per mount type.  This is much easier to understand.  It also might prompt players to get excited about how many guns their ship has.
  • Uniform gun range per mount type.  This mostly done already, but there are a few odd ducks when you get 40mm Bofors mixed with 76.2mm/50s on higher tiered ships, or Bofors paired with pom poms, etc.  We had this before.  We can have it again.

I'd like to go so far as to suggest that flak get standardized too, but that's a whole other can of worms. 

Mouse out.

I agree.  This simply makes sense.  No two ships, depending on when they are represented in the game, should have the same values.  A WW1 refit for WW2 in 1942 was now where near the AAA platform after a refit in 1944 and on.  The Iowa class ships were refitted several times into the 1980.....

The game should be no different. 

My suggestion agrees with your: era specific values.  My personal suggestion would be to allow AA designed and fitted ships be able to act the part of what their real life hulls did in WW2.  AA ships to include the IJN's DD line with the radar they had in WW2.....

Well said and I appreciate the work that went into ^^^^^.

Edited by Asym_KS
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
605
[SALV0]
Members
584 posts
2,566 battles

It's too bad posts keep getting deleted or hidden or simply locked in these threads.

 Unfortunately it's an problem that WG has tried to sweep underneath the rug over the years.  This causes frustration anger and downright disappointment with a lot of players. 

 We'll see how far this one goes but it shows that WG to me doesn't really care about the players.  The people in charge have no clue.   They don't want reasonable arguments for what they input into this game. They just want Positive input so discussion are very one sided and don't really tell the tale.

Edited by goldenpollywog
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,040
[MAUS]
Members
13,687 posts
5 minutes ago, Nevermore135 said:

Tier IX? Also, Puerto Rico is tier X, not tier IX.

I would like to see a return to uniform range/damage per gun type, though. In anticipation of the counterarguments about this being a balancing factor that you alluded to, even a system halfway between what we used to have and what currently exists would be an improvement, such as having the AA specs of guns be consistent at each tier.

Thank you, there's going to be typos aplenty.  Lemme fix.

And while I would love to see Wargaming do a complete rebalance of AA -- babysteps.  It would be a huge win if they just made AA values uniform on a per mount basis.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
545
[ICOP]
[ICOP]
Members
686 posts

I would also make some of the captain skills/and flags do both AA and secondary buffs.  Having a flag/skill for just AA is so pointless.  Ships that spec secondary/AA should be able to be effective and make sense.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
693
[WK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,924 posts
23,627 battles

Yeah, never made sense to me that two of the exact same gun that use the exact same shell would have different values because they are on different ships.  Can't keep going as this will derail, but the point is made.  A quad mount bofors on a destroyer will not magically do 100% more damage than one on a battleship.  Standardize plix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
605
[SALV0]
Members
584 posts
2,566 battles

 really a joke about how they've done the AA system I mean give it a standard.

 If you want to tweak aircraft fine but the AA values should be the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,653
[CLUMP]
Members
2,861 posts
3,004 battles

If you are going to buff AA give CVs infinite planes wargaming buff their damage also :fish_cute_2: Go crazy make fighters better but again you need to give CVs infinite planes and damage buffs :Smile_trollface: I am like if ships have infinite shells and torps why can't CVs have infinite planes :fish_haloween:

U83WhSb.gif

Edited by LastRemnant
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
353
[DAKK]
Members
762 posts
18,222 battles

I think what gets me most is how there's seemingly no logic here. From the same AA mount, Pensacola (T6) has better continuous AA than New Orleans (T7), which has better continuous AA than Baltimore (T8), which has better continuous AA than Alaska (T9), which has better continuous AA than Puerto Rico (T10). 

 

If you asked anyone in game who wasn't an expert on this, wouldn't they predict the exact opposite?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,653
[CLUMP]
Members
2,861 posts
3,004 battles
3 minutes ago, TheOmegaDuck said:

I think what gets me most is how there's seemingly no logic here. From the same AA mount, Pensacola (T6) has better continuous AA than New Orleans (T7), which has better continuous AA than Baltimore (T8), which has better continuous AA than Alaska (T9), which has better continuous AA than Puerto Rico (T10). 

 

If you asked anyone in game who wasn't an expert on this, wouldn't they predict the exact opposite?

 

What I find interesting is that tiny ships like Halland have better AA than mega-ships like Yamato and Satsuma :Smile_teethhappy:  But that's just me :Smile_hiding:

Edited by LastRemnant
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,040
[MAUS]
Members
13,687 posts
2 minutes ago, TheOmegaDuck said:

I think what gets me most is how there's seemingly no logic here. From the same AA mount, Pensacola (T6) has better continuous AA than New Orleans (T7), which has better continuous AA than Baltimore (T8), which has better continuous AA than Alaska (T9), which has better continuous AA than Puerto Rico (T10). 

 

If you asked anyone in game who wasn't an expert on this, wouldn't they predict the exact opposite?

And just in case you thought there was an obvious pattern, Indianapolis (tier VII) has more than Pensacola (tier VI). 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,261
[SALVO]
Members
16,411 posts
10,178 battles
31 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

The Proposal

Facilitate understanding of AA and Flak in port.  It's not designed to be clear currently.

  • Get rid if accuracy.  It's not needed, for one -- sustained AA DPS isn't a credible threat to CVs.  For another, it doesn't even affect "accuracy" -- it affects rate of fire.  Yeah, go figure that one out.  This causes weird shenanigans for battleships with 0.41s pulsing fire on short-range batteries clipping and losing shots when attack craft enter their 0.1km dead-zone.  "Oh, your guns pulse and do 286 damage per tick?  Yeah, sucks to be you if you lost one of those pulses because it clipped into the dead-zone, sucker."
  • Uniform gun damage per mount type.  This is much easier to understand.  It also might prompt players to get excited about how many guns their ship has.
  • Uniform gun range per mount type.  This mostly done already, but there are a few odd ducks when you get 40mm Bofors mixed with 76.2mm/50s on higher tiered ships, or Bofors paired with pom poms, etc.  We had this before.  We can have it again.

Yes please, uniform values per gun mount  help even in terms of game immersion (eat my Bofors daka you flying scum :cap_rambo:)

Now, wouldn't you consider to introduce a modifier value to simulate the Fire Director of the ship? For example the modifier could help bridge the Tech Gap between lets say a T6 ship and a T10 ship, without messing up with the base AA value of the mount. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
167
[NAV]
Members
403 posts
13,523 battles

 

9 minutes ago, TheOmegaDuck said:

I think what gets me most is how there's seemingly no logic here. From the same AA mount, Pensacola (T6) has better continuous AA than New Orleans (T7), which has better continuous AA than Baltimore (T8), which has better continuous AA than Alaska (T9), which has better continuous AA than Puerto Rico (T10). 

 

If you asked anyone in game who wasn't an expert on this, wouldn't they predict the exact opposite?

Good gravy.

 

Look, even CV Players should want this uniformity.

I would not want to have to memorize whether every single ship is a "good" AA platform because the physical properties are irrelevant.  It's bad enough already that you can't generalize across class+nation.  Being able to map out "oh, SHIP X has got the 100mm turrets - better stay away with my BF109s but maybe the Spearfish on my Implacable could handle it" would be a fantastic step forward for understanding and planning carrier interactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44
[SOUS]
Members
47 posts
7,128 battles

What would you like the end result to be? I see lots of suggestions for technical changes, but I'm unclear on how you think AA will be "good." You continually complain about AA and how horrible it is (and I don't disagree, even as a sometimes-CV player). But what's the end goal? Did you describe it in Week 1 of this? 

Are you interested in paper planes, so if you have a good AA ship you have a chance to take out all the planes in an enemy squadron before it can attack you? If so:

  • What counter will CVs have? If you increase the regular dps of AA then a CV wouldn't be able to get near some ships, ever. 
  • Will all CVs have infinite planes, like the Soviet line, to compensate for significantly increased losses?

If I'm misunderstanding, which is entirely possible, please explain what the end result of your suggestions should be. I'm trying to understand, but maybe I haven't been reading your posts long enough to get it. 

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,040
[MAUS]
Members
13,687 posts
17 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Now, wouldn't you consider to introduce a modifier value to simulate the Fire Director of the ship? For example the modifier could help bridge the Tech Gap between lets say a T6 ship and a T10 ship, without messing up with the base AA value of the mount. 

That should be an upgrade or commander skill, frankly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52,040
[MAUS]
Members
13,687 posts
Just now, Vuppe137 said:

What would you like the end result to be? I see lots of suggestions for technical changes, but I'm unclear on how you think AA will be "good." You continually complain about AA and how horrible it is (and I don't disagree, even as a sometimes-CV player). But what's the end goal? Did you describe it in Week 1 of this? 

Are you interested in paper planes, so if you have a good AA ship you have a chance to take out all the planes in an enemy squadron before it can attack you? If so:

  • What counter will CVs have? If you increase the regular dps of AA then a CV wouldn't be able to get near some ships, ever. 
  • Will all CVs have infinite planes, like the Soviet line, to compensate for significantly increased losses?

If I'm misunderstanding, which is entirely possible, please explain what the end result of your suggestions should be. I'm trying to understand, but maybe I haven't been reading your posts long enough to get it. 

If I was in charge (and I'm not, nor should I be), I'd want to see agency for surface ships -- more than the present Just Dodge™ meme.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44
[SOUS]
Members
47 posts
7,128 battles
1 minute ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

If I was in charge (and I'm not, nor should I be), I'd want to see agency for surface ships -- more than the present Just Dodge™ meme.

"Agency" how? 

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,261
[SALVO]
Members
16,411 posts
10,178 battles
5 minutes ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

That should be an upgrade or commander skill, frankly.

As a module upgrade could be interesting, AA Fire Director Mk II or something like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
167
[NAV]
Members
403 posts
13,523 battles
27 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Yes please, uniform values per gun mount  help even in terms of game immersion (eat my Bofors daka you flying scum :cap_rambo:)

Now, wouldn't you consider to introduce a modifier value to simulate the Fire Director of the ship? For example the modifier could help bridge the Tech Gap between lets say a T6 ship and a T10 ship, without messing up with the base AA value of the mount. 

That seems to be basically in  line with module upgrades in general.  When going Hull A to Hull B your rudder shift is cut in half or you trim 2s off your main battery reload or your turrets suddenly spin faster; it's all justifiable by "they electrified various manual-hydraulic-pnuematic pumps-hoists-motors-whatevers in a mid-30's refit."  Main battery increase range with a new director module is a given.

With the baseline of "you still have 20 double 40mm mounts" ... sure.  The confusion of all the values shifting on upgrade will be offset by the fact that guns have similar numbers ship-to-ship, probably even more so than main battery since the AA mounts are so heavily shared across lines and even nations.  Possibly you'd want to combine main battery and secondary director upgrades into one module to avoid overloading the upgrade screen experience.


Hull A --
381 mm/42 Mk.I on a Mk.I mount --- Firing range 17.5
40 mm/39 Vickers QF Mk.VIII on a Mk.VII mount4 х 4 pcs.. . . Average Damage per Second51.6 . . . Firing Range2.49 km.


Hull B --
381 mm/42 Mk.I on a Mk.I mount --- Firing range 17.5
40 mm/39 Vickers QF Mk.VIII on a Mk.VII mount4 х 4 pcs.. . . Average Damage per Second51.6 . . . Firing Range2.49 km.

102 mm/45 QF Mk.V on an HA Mk.III mount6 х 1 pcs.
. . . Average Damage per Second16.8 
. . . Firing Range3.51 km.

 

Director B -- (upgrade independently of Hulls)
381 mm/42 Mk.I on a Mk.I mount --- Firing range 19.2 (^10%)
40 mm/39 Vickers QF Mk.VIII on a Mk.VII mount4 х 4 pcs.. . . Average Damage per Second51.6 . . . Firing Range 3.11km (^25%).
( If you have Hull B, then also...)

 

102 mm/45 QF Mk.V on an HA Mk.III mount6 х 1 pcs.
. . . Average Damage per Second16.8 
. . . Firing Range 4.3 km. (^25%)
Edited by BadDecisionDino

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,854
[ARR0W]
Members
6,139 posts
32,876 battles

Glad to see you’re back and in great form. 
 

I’ve been raging over Bofors ever since the Great Dissembling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,954
[ARGSY]
Members
31,039 posts
29,264 battles

Just push for the US CL in the supership line to be a Cleveland-class Terrier conversion and be done with it. You know you want to. :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,899
[WOLF9]
Wiki Lead, Privateers
18,969 posts
5,224 battles
1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Uniform Performance Per AA Gun-Type

Sorry, I disagree with this one.  In principle, the less homogeneity the better, so long as it's reasonable.  IMO WoWs has already gone too far in this direction.  For instance, in the USN lines that all use the ubiquitous 127"/38 DP, the contribution to the aura (hit %) used to increase as the AA fire control systems improved (in other words, by tier), especially with the introduction of radar and VT fusing.  (Not enough, IMO, but the flavor was there.)  For some reason they abandoned that.  Now all those guns have the same effective DpS. 

[I use paper values.  If you achieved your Bofors values through testing then I defer.]

IMO, range should also increase with improving FCS. 

1 hour ago, LittleWhiteMouse said:

Get rid of accuracy. 

How else to model the fire control systems?  Just .. don't?  Base everything on the caliber? 


You observations re: inconsistency I very much agree with.

 

Edited by iDuckman
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×