Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
__Helmut_Kohl__

[new AA mechanics] about the non-overlapping auras

106 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
2,384 posts
9,229 battles

If I understood the developers correctly, the different AA auras (short-range, mid-range, long-range) will not be overlapping. 

 

For example Montana: her auras are 2 km/3.5 km/5.2 km. 

Her long-range AA should not work between 0 km and 5.2 km, but instead between 3.5 km and 5.2 km.

 

The developers have said on stream, that ships which don't have any short-range AA, Jean-Bart for example, will not have a "non-AA gap" where the short-range AA would be, but will have their long-range AA effecting the whole area around the ship.

 

Now my questions are:
 

  • Will the same (like Jean-Bart) happen to a ship that does have short-range AA, if that short-range AA gets destroyed ?
    Or will it be left with a "non-AA gap", because the "short-range aura" does still exist in theory and there is no overlapping ?
     
  • If a ship has all but a few of its short-range AA destroyed, will there be no overlapping with the other auras until all of the short-range AA is destroyed ?
    Meaning that destroying the last mount of said short-range AA will effectively be an AA buff ?

 

@MrConway :etc_red_button::crab:

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CMP]
Weekend Tester
460 posts
3,882 battles

That feels a bit silly..... wouldn't mean that you want to get you planes as close as possible to an anemy Atlanta or Wooster to avoid the high dpm long range AA?

Especially after the cruiser in question has taken some HE damage and lost some of the flimsy short range AA ....

 

Feels a bit silly if a good CV play will "oh crap , there's the enemy Wooster ..... quick, speed boost to get close to him so he won't hurt me."

  • Cool 6
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,384 posts
9,229 battles
4 minutes ago, Hummus said:

That feels a bit silly..... wouldn't mean that you want to get you planes as close as possible to an anemy Atlanta or Wooster to avoid the high dpm long range AA?

Especially after the cruiser in question has taken some HE damage and lost some of the flimsy short range AA ....

 

Feels a bit silly if a good CV play will "oh crap , there's the enemy Wooster ..... quick, speed boost to get close to him so he won't hurt me."

 

Indeed. 

 

Maybe Mr.C can clear it up for us.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester
1,279 posts
12,171 battles

To be honest, destruction of AA (or secondaries) is problematic per se as it carries its own set of problems, e.g. devaluating certain captain skills. What good is it to have a fully AA spec'ed Iowa (or similar AA heavy ship) when you can not engage the enemy surface fleet in any meaningful way (except long range sniping) without losing all your benefits with, e.g. one or two Conqueror salvos? Skill points in camouflage or fire prevention are permanent and always active. Points put into destructable AA are not only extremely situational but also often spend in vain. I always found it a little strange that the ships that take the fight to the enemy and getting beat up while being at the front line and the ones who would probably need strong AA the most in case a CV decides to add on top of the ongoing fighting will get the very least out of it.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[5D]
Players
536 posts
20,988 battles

For the few ships that this may affect it will be such a small area that the planes will have to fly in that it won't make a difference as the planes will be constantly moving in a fairly unweidly manner. It is not realistic or beneficial for planes to even try to stay within this aura of no aa. And for those saying destructable aa is unfair, its been like that since the game started and no one complained. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,384 posts
9,229 battles
12 minutes ago, Mr_Snoww said:

For the few ships that this may affect it will be such a small area that the planes will have to fly in that it won't make a difference as the planes will be constantly moving in a fairly unweidly manner. It is not realistic or beneficial for planes to even try to stay within this aura of no aa. 

 

Effectively buffing a ships AA defense (long high-DPS aura) by destroying a part of the AA (short low-DPS aura), would feel silly though. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Beta Tester
1,279 posts
12,171 battles
32 minutes ago, Mr_Snoww said:

And for those saying destructable aa is unfair, its been like that since the game started and no one complained.

It is not unfair but a questionable design decision to couple destructible equipment with captain skills affecting said equipment while keeping in mind the propabilities for this destruction actually happening. If I take increased torpedo reload as a captain skill for a DD or increased AA DPM as a cpatain skill for any CA or BB does not make a big difference. Both skills cost 3 points and will cease to work once the equipment is destroyed, rendering the spend skill points useless. The only difference is the frequency of permanently losing a launcher vs being stripped of AA defense while under constant HE bombardment. Also this is a design issue per se. Do you balance plane HP vs regular AA, captain skill improved AA or battle damaged AA? Note that I am pro destruction of primary and secondary equipment, however said destruction brings its own bag of problems...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
Beta Tester
2,815 posts
5,688 battles
1 hour ago, Hummus said:

That feels a bit silly..... wouldn't mean that you want to get you planes as close as possible to an anemy Atlanta or Wooster to avoid the high dpm long range AA?

Especially after the cruiser in question has taken some HE damage and lost some of the flimsy short range AA ....

 

Feels a bit silly if a good CV play will "oh crap , there's the enemy Wooster ..... quick, speed boost to get close to him so he won't hurt me."

There IS a "dead zone" above the worcester. However the worcester midrange is rather potent, and the midrange starts at 1.9km (IIRC).

 

Theres also the question of what you plan to do when you get there. Sure you can try to fly in a very tight circle above the worcester taking continuous DPS from the short range while similtaniously not actually attacking anything if you want. But that doesnt sound particularly useful. Any other option involves having to fly out through the midrange, which does a lot of damage (800 base dps, 13 flak clouds)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,172 posts
11,013 battles
10 minutes ago, Xevious_Red said:

There IS a "dead zone" above the worcester. However the worcester midrange is rather potent, and the midrange starts at 1.9km (IIRC).

 

Theres also the question of what you plan to do when you get there. Sure you can try to fly in a very tight circle above the worcester taking continuous DPS from the short range while similtaniously not actually attacking anything if you want. But that doesnt sound particularly useful. Any other option involves having to fly out through the midrange, which does a lot of damage (800 base dps, 13 flak clouds)

This does sound a bit like a "please use HE dive bombers against me" situation, though, considering that they both do a lot of anti-AA damage and are the kind of planes that spend their most vulnerable phase (the attack run) almost directly over their target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,498 posts
14,581 battles

Oh yeah, brother @__Helmut_Kohl__ there are many issues with the new AA system to be discussed. TBH, so far and based on what I have read about it - I must admit do not like the new AA system at all.:Smile_amazed:

 

It only contrives to make a simple system that somewhat works doubly complicated for no apparent benefit whatsoever.:cap_wander_2:

 

I usually play DD and Cruiser and there is barely enough time amidst all the firing and maneuvering to prioritize incoming planes on time for the AA to have any effect at all, not to mention now having to keep on switching AA focus from one side to the other every second. Also the new system seems to ensure that in order to maximize AA effectiveness you now have to keep turning in order to show your best broadside target squarely pointing towards those approaching torpedo planes instead of trying to point your bow at them and having a chance at evasive action? This is, of course rather Brilliant! :cap_like:

 

Also, I seem to remember someone mentioning that the planes wioll be much faster from now on, so this leaves even less time for the AA to be targeted at them than before? :cap_rambo:

 

In short, I simply keep failing to see how all this is an improvement?:Smile-angry:

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,384 posts
9,229 battles
1 hour ago, __Helmut_Kohl__ said:

Effectively buffing a ships AA defense (long high-DPS aura) by destroying a part of the AA (short low-DPS aura), would feel silly though. 

 

The more I am thinking about it, the more I keep wondering about the reason why the new AA will not be overlapping in the first place @MrConway.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to understand for players, if 5 km range on AA would mean exactly that, without the need to substract the next shorter aura to calculate the actual effectiveness in battle ? 

 

For example:

  • If you have 5 km long-range and 4.5 km mid-range, the long-range AA will only be effective in a window of 0.5 km.
  • If you have 5 km long-range and 3.5 km mid-range, the long-range AA will be effective in a window of 1.5 km.

 

That doesn't seem really transparent, especially to new players.

 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,577 posts
9,791 battles
1 hour ago, Mr_Snoww said:

And for those saying destructable aa is unfair, its been like that since the game started and no one complained.

17c.png

 

Pretty sure I've seen a couple threads specifically about AA destruction when the RN BBs came around and everyone and their dog was shooting HE at everything, stripping basically every ship of most of their AA and CVs having a field day with it. Conqueror+tier X CV divisions were popular for a while because one HE volley from the former could severely reduce even a Des Moines' AA.

Besides, let's not forget that CV gameplay over the last couple years hasn't exactly been prevalent, so with meeting few CVs where one's destroyed AA would be an issue, of course the frequency of complaining about such will be proportionally low.

 

 

That said, WG has stated they're buffing AA mount health, but who knows if that's enough to make a noticable difference over a full game's length.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
WG Staff
2,426 posts
2,343 battles
2 hours ago, __Helmut_Kohl__ said:

If I understood the developers correctly, the different AA auras (short-range, mid-range, long-range) will not be overlapping. 

 

For example Montana: her auras are 2 km/3.5 km/5.2 km. 

Her long-range AA should not work between 0 km and 5.2 km, but instead between 3.5 km and 5.2 km.

 

The developers have said on stream, that ships which don't have any short-range AA, Jean-Bart for example, will not have a "non-AA gap" where the short-range AA would be, but will have their long-range AA effecting the whole area around the ship.

 

Now my questions are:
 

  • Will the same (like Jean-Bart) happen to a ship that does have short-range AA, if that short-range AA gets destroyed ?
    Or will it be left with a "non-AA gap", because the "short-range aura" does still exist in theory and there is no overlapping ?
     
  •  If a ship has all but a few of its short-range AA destroyed, will there be no overlapping with the other auras until all of the short-range AA is destroyed ?
    Meaning that destroying the last mount of said short-range AA will effectively be an AA buff ?

 

@MrConway :etc_red_button::crab:

 

Took some poking around, but I haz an answer :cap_like:

 

If all AA guns for any particular zone are wiped out, that zone will have no AA fire at all. 

 

This means a ship that loses its dedicated short-range guns would then have a safe zone close to the ship.

 

For Jean-Bart the situation is the same, if she loses all of her medium range AA guns, she will have no short or medium AA at all.

  • Cool 7
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
Beta Tester
2,815 posts
5,688 battles
16 minutes ago, RAHJAILARI said:

TBH, I do not like the new AA system at all.:Smile_amazed:

 

It only contrives to make a simple system that somewhat works doubly complicated for no apparent benefit whatsoever.:cap_wander_2:

 

I usually play DD and Cruiser and there is barely enough time amidst all the firing and maneuvering to prioritize incoming planes on time for the AA to have any effect at all, not to mention now having to keep on switching AA focus from one side to the other every second. Also the new system seems to ensure that in order to maximize AA effectiveness you now have to keep turning in order to show your best broadside target squarely pointing towards those approaching torpedo planes. This is, of course rather Brilliant! :cap_like:

 

Also, I seem to remember someone mentioning that the planes wioll be much faster from now on, so this leaves even less time for the AA to be targeted at them than before? :cap_rambo:

 

In short, I simply keep failing to see how all this is an improvement?:Smile-angry:

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Remap the button to something more convienient (I use spacebar) rather than the slightly awkwardly placed O.

With it remapped I actually find it easier than the old Ctrl Click. (With it mapped to O its horrible though)

 

-If the planes are flying back and forth over you then its not worth swapping zone unless your swap speed is very fast (DD with manual AA). You're better off leaving it 100/100

 

-You dont need to be flat broadside to keep them in a zone. The zone is 180 to one side so you can angle towards/against them and still keep them in the zone for no loss of AA

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,384 posts
9,229 battles
5 minutes ago, MrConway said:

 

Took some poking around, but I haz an answer :cap_like:

 

If all AA guns for any particular zone are wiped out, that zone will have no AA fire at all. 

 

This means a ship that loses its dedicated short-range guns would then have a safe zone close to the ship.

 

For Jean-Bart the situation is the same, if she loses all of her medium range AA guns, she will have no short or medium AA at all.

 

Thx a lot for poking around ! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,172 posts
11,013 battles
1 hour ago, __Helmut_Kohl__ said:

 

The more I am thinking about it, the more I keep wondering about the reason why the new AA will not be overlapping in the first place @MrConway.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to understand for players, if 5 km range on AA would mean exactly that, without the need to substract the next shorter aura to calculate the actual effectiveness in battle ? 

 

For example:

  • If you have 5 km long-range and 4.5 km mid-range, the long-range AA will only be effective in a window of 0.5 km.
  • If you have 5 km long-range and 3.5 km mid-range, the long-range AA will be effective in a window of 1.5 km.

 

That doesn't seem really transparent, especially to new players.

 

It also creates really weird balancing situations. Take Grozovoi and Khabarovsk (I base this on current values that don't directly translate to the post-patch system, but they show the problem):

Grozo:

50 dpm at 5,2 km

82 dpm at 3,5 km

16 dpm at 3,1 km

 

Khaba:

49 dpm at 5,2 km

66 dpm at 3,5 km

14 dpm at 1,2 km

 

It looks like Grozovoi (even without AA consumable) has superior AA, right? But the problem is that, in reality, Grozovoi only has significantly better AA for these 400 meters between 3,1 and 3,5 km and arguably between 0 and 1,2 - but in this range both are worthless. Apart from that...

 - at long range the values are almost identical (50 vs 49)

 - then comes the 400 meters of Grozovoi superiority

 - and then, between 1,2 and 3,1 km Khabarovsk has over four times the dpm Grozovoi has. If the AA consumable worked like it did pre-patch and the DPM directly corresponded to the AA power post-patch, it means that for almost two kilometers (that happen to be more or less the range where the approach for torpedo bombers and rocket planes happens) Khabarovsk has better AA than Grozovoi with AA consumable running?

 

I don't know how these values really translate to the new system, but this just doesn't sound right - Grozovoi is, basically, severely punished by having short-range AA with relatively long range. And that's just one example.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,878 posts
6,022 battles
2 hours ago, Mr_Snoww said:

And for those saying destructable aa is unfair, its been like that since the game started and no one complained. 

 

Only because you didnt saw it or chosed to ignore it, doesnt mean, nobody complained. I did bring that topic up couple of times, so im "living proof" your claim is not true. Not that it would be an argument against discussing the point anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CMP]
Weekend Tester
460 posts
3,882 battles

Is there any chance we're going to get the option to just disable short or mid range AA ??

 

In my Atlanta I would much rather throw all the smaller AA overboard and only use the long range 127 mm guns.....  At least they are protected by turrets so I know they'll work (and I know when they are knocked out)

It would REALLY suck if my AA cruiser has a glaring AA weak zone right overhead after getting a few HE hits ..... 

 

Why the hell would my big guns not shoot at short ranges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
725 posts
2,857 battles

Aa should just overlap, anything else is stupid for numerous reasons, most of which are explained in this thread

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DIKI]
Players
1,157 posts
295 battles
3 hours ago, __Helmut_Kohl__ said:

If I understood the developers correctly, the different AA auras (short-range, mid-range, long-range) will not be overlapping. 

 

For example Montana: her auras are 2 km/3.5 km/5.2 km. 

Her long-range AA should not work between 0 km and 5.2 km, but instead between 3.5 km and 5.2 km.

 

The developers have said on stream, that ships which don't have any short-range AA, Jean-Bart for example, will not have a "non-AA gap" where the short-range AA would be, but will have their long-range AA effecting the whole area around the ship.

 

Now my questions are:
 

  • Will the same (like Jean-Bart) happen to a ship that does have short-range AA, if that short-range AA gets destroyed ?
    Or will it be left with a "non-AA gap", because the "short-range aura" does still exist in theory and there is no overlapping ?
     
  • If a ship has all but a few of its short-range AA destroyed, will there be no overlapping with the other auras until all of the short-range AA is destroyed ?
    Meaning that destroying the last mount of said short-range AA will effectively be an AA buff ?

 

@MrConway :etc_red_button::crab:

yesterday i tested Midway and akizuki got my 30 planes......so pls pls no buffs to AAA in anyway :)

regarding to topic, it will be idiotis to not overlap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,384 posts
9,229 battles
40 minutes ago, eliastion said:

It also creates really weird balancing situations. 

 

Grozo:

50 dpm at 5,2 km

82 dpm at 3,5 km

16 dpm at 3,1 km

(...) 

Grozovoi  only has significantly better AA for these 400 meters between 3,1 and 3,5  km

 

Question is, if there is just no overlapping between "short-, medium- and long-range", or no overlapping between different medium-range auras... 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TS1]
Players
573 posts
7,618 battles

Non-overlapping AA auras is stupid. I'm not sure how universal it is, but don't ships normally have the mid-range AA be the most powerful? In those cases it's a liability to have a good range for your short-range AA since it effectively blocks the more powerful mid-range AA. Also, the short range AA is usually the one that's the easiest to knock out, so not only does the short-range aura block the mid-range aura, it also risks leaving you with a bigger circle of no AA.

 

In short, having better stats for your AA means you have worse AA. :Smile_facepalm:

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,384 posts
9,229 battles
6 minutes ago, Runegrem said:

it's a liability to have a good range for your short-range AA since it effectively blocks the more powerful mid-range AA. Also, the short range AA is usually the one that's the easiest to knock out

 

(...)

 

In short, having better stats for your AA means you have worse AA. :Smile_facepalm:

 

Yeah the whole non-overlapping is really confusing and also doesn't make any sense in terms of authenticity. 

 

Is it already set in stone @MrConway

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×