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

CV Rework AA Dev blog

16 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[BHW]
Players
905 posts
2,537 battles

So at the end of the 0.8.0.1 hotfix article was tacked on this link:

 

https://medium.com/@devblogwows/107c18eac84

 

After reading it I have to confess I am at a loss of words. What f...ng cre..n came up with that convoluted and complicated mess of a game mechanic ?????

 

Seriously, hit chance on constant DPS so that the actual DPS is REDUCED ??? It's freaking CONSTANT DPS !!! Can't you just reduce the DPS and don't bother with a hit chance ? If it needs a hit chance then at least make it random in the hit chance spread like you did with the flak bursts. The description does not talk about a spread on a Gauss curve like the flak bursts do.

Oh and the flak bursts ? Have you seriously devised a mechanic that when translated to main battery guns makes the a portion of the main guns basically not fire for what ever reason ?

 

One last nail, the flak bursts are spread over all squadrons in range. So when there are 2 CVs attacking me and my long range AA does 4 bursts per volley, each gets 2 bursts which is laughable ... In that scenario we NEED to select the priority target for out AA !!!

 

---------------------------------------

 

I seriously hope the article is mistranslated from Russian. What it describes is not an interesting or engaging game mechanic. It is still heavily RNG based, the only difference is that NOW it is ineffective at shooting down planes.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,626 posts
14,584 battles

To simplify the game for CVs they made the AA more complicated by an order of magnitude.:Smile_facepalm:

 

Quote

Lack of minimal firing range interrupted with creating proper AA support specs, so that the ships could cover their allies properly, but would not be invulnerable at closer range;

No they didn't. What were they smoking when they wrote that? Pre-0.8.0 AA builds were easy to understand and setup. I'm at a loss.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,904 posts
8,764 battles
49 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

So at the end of the 0.8.0.1 hotfix article was tacked on this link:

 

https://medium.com/@devblogwows/107c18eac84

 

After reading it I have to confess I am at a loss of words. What f...ng cre..n came up with that convoluted and complicated mess of a game mechanic ?????

 

Seriously, hit chance on constant DPS so that the actual DPS is REDUCED ??? It's freaking CONSTANT DPS !!! Can't you just reduce the DPS and don't bother with a hit chance ? If it needs a hit chance then at least make it random in the hit chance spread like you did with the flak bursts. The description does not talk about a spread on a Gauss curve like the flak bursts do.

Oh and the flak bursts ? Have you seriously devised a mechanic that when translated to main battery guns makes the a portion of the main guns basically not fire for what ever reason ?

 

One last nail, the flak bursts are spread over all squadrons in range. So when there are 2 CVs attacking me and my long range AA does 4 bursts per volley, each gets 2 bursts which is laughable ... In that scenario we NEED to select the priority target for out AA !!!

 

---------------------------------------

 

I seriously hope the article is mistranslated from Russian. What it describes is not an interesting or engaging game mechanic. It is still heavily RNG based, the only difference is that NOW it is ineffective at shooting down planes.

Wild theory for "accuracy" being multiplier for dps is dps is, like in pre 0.8.0 times, based roughly per mount type and amount, so with accuracy you can bring down effectiveness of ship for which you don't want too much dakka. Which is somewhat easier than adding/removing AA mounts

 

Baltimore for example have about 23.5dps per quad Bofors, in line with North Carolina 23.3dps, with difference presumably coming from rounding displayed value, while effective value is 240.5dps for the Balti and 248.5dps for NC

 

3 minutes ago, Darth_Glorious said:

They buffed AA continous DPS but gave planes an artificial armour of - 30% AA DPS when they are in attack mode :cap_haloween:

Perfectly in line with IJN torpedo bonkers, which happen to have long ready to drop time, good speed and concealment:cap_tea:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHW]
Players
905 posts
2,537 battles
8 hours ago, Panocek said:

Wild theory for "accuracy" being multiplier for dps is dps is, like in pre 0.8.0 times, based roughly per mount type and amount, so with accuracy you can bring down effectiveness of ship for which you don't want too much dakka. Which is somewhat easier than adding/removing AA mounts

 

Baltimore for example have about 23.5dps per quad Bofors, in line with North Carolina 23.3dps, with difference presumably coming from rounding displayed value, while effective value is 240.5dps for the Balti and 248.5dps for NC

 

 

 

I guess you have not noticed but the amount of AA mounts in a respective category has NO correlation what so ever to the DPS they put out. The only deciding factor is ship tier. Just compare Z-39 and Z-23 ...

 

Also there is just an overall DPS stat on long/mid/short range aura, no longer do we have DPS per gun ... so hit chance makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TROLL]
Beta Tester
113 posts
4,772 battles

To all of you complaining at AA this is how it works AA EXPLAINED DEVBLOGWOWS 

- If you so dont understand or think its overly complicated then i suggest you educate yourself so you dont look like a fool.

- If you dont want to read all this and understand it, then you are simply not interested enough and shouldnt complain either

 

Before more of you start coming with idiotic accusations against WG i think you should learn the game before complaining.

- Start choosing the right talents

- Start using the sector system

- Start speccing your ship accordingly to your strength and weaknesses

- Start adjusting your playstyle according to the new CV rework. By that i dont mean only against the CV but other ships aswell. Because the meta has changed and things are quite different now.

 

There is no doubt that this patch require each and one of us to decide on a tactical plan how to attack each battle depending on the map.

With so early spotting from a CV there shouldnt even be a problem for people to make up their mind of how they want their tactic to play out.

 

Example:

The day of early destroyer rush into cap is gone, instead you need to hang back and wait for an opportunity, flank and threat ships with torpedos or guns.

Another element is actually denying the enemy destroyer the capping point by hanging back and torping, radar, hydro or plain spotting.

 

No doubt there is required more skill, tactical analysis after the 0.8.0 patch and back to the first point, if you dont care evolving your playstyle or step up your game. Dont whine at the forum. Alot of you make a fool out of yourselfs for crying about this. 

 

- Dodging rockets is possible

- dodging torps is possible

- avoiding detection is still possible until the planes have scanned each km of the whole map (RPF isnt priority on CV commander because you sacrfice too much plane HP) and after the hotfix the planes will even be shredded further.

- Then there is the element of getting spotted and fired upon from ships which is basicly not any different from before the rework, and if you then get radared because you smoked up ? then you are so far overextended that you should revise your tactic next time and learn from your mistakes.

 

 

Im no white knight in shining armor. I too feel there something that WG could have done different or things that i do not agree with. But hey, acting like a cry baby only develops more negative wibes and quite frankly im getting tired of it. 

 

So lets all focus on criticism that are valid and helping WG balancing this. Its not going away and its here to stay.

 

sry for my bad english. 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,544 posts
7,934 battles
8 minutes ago, UltraViking said:

????????????? Dodging rockets is possible ?????????avoiding detection?????flank and threat ships????????Gun on a Shimmy??????? strength and weaknesses

Image result for say WHAT! picture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,914 posts
9,576 battles
18 minutes ago, UltraViking said:

But hey, acting like a cry baby only develops more negative wibes and quite frankly im getting tired of it. 

 

So lets all focus on criticism that are valid and helping WG balancing this. Its not going away and its here to stay.

I dont think they can make these AA mechanics work. They are realistic and would work if ships sailed in a fleet and didn't have the in game objectives of taking caps, etc. But we have those objectives, and the game should be developed towards an entertaining contest within those bounds. 

 

If CV resources are near infinite then shooting their planes down is pointless and the non CV will always lose. They can tweak shootdown AA values all they wish, they will not create a balanced contest or enjoyable experience relying on that alone. 

 

What they need to do is to give players the means to debuff CV attacks so that they miss and /or cause less damage. That means being able to summon fighter cover that scatters rocket planes/ panics torp bombers, and have semi auto AA boosts capable of doing the same. Every ship has to have access to this at some time during the game. It should be limited (fighters are supplied by the cv, so losing that is a major problem, boosts can run out) and fair, but it's not too difficult to balance. If the players have the tools to defend themselves then it's up to them to do it well : things like CV torp damage could be buffed so that the dozy and potato plays get punished... Just like in the rest of the game. 

 

18 minutes ago, UltraViking said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TROLL]
Beta Tester
113 posts
4,772 battles
1 hour ago, invicta2012 said:

I dont think they can make these AA mechanics work. They are realistic and would work if ships sailed in a fleet and didn't have the in game objectives of taking caps, etc. But we have those objectives, and the game should be developed towards an entertaining contest within those bounds. 

 

If CV resources are near infinite then shooting their planes down is pointless and the non CV will always lose. They can tweak shootdown AA values all they wish, they will not create a balanced contest or enjoyable experience relying on that alone. 

 

What they need to do is to give players the means to debuff CV attacks so that they miss and /or cause less damage. That means being able to summon fighter cover that scatters rocket planes/ panics torp bombers, and have semi auto AA boosts capable of doing the same. Every ship has to have access to this at some time during the game. It should be limited (fighters are supplied by the cv, so losing that is a major problem, boosts can run out) and fair, but it's not too difficult to balance. If the players have the tools to defend themselves then it's up to them to do it well : things like CV torp damage could be buffed so that the dozy and potato plays get punished... Just like in the rest of the game. 

 

 

1. Ok, lets be clear. the infinite plane thing is a meme not even worth mentioning because it takes about 11 minutes of a match to regenerate 1 full squad on T10. The only thing that has made repeating strike possible is the god mode return F key. Because even tho you can regenerate unlimited planes you still only got 20 min of fights which lets regenerate 3 planes per minute ( 1 from each squad as long as you are missing ones)

So midway has a total of 60 ish total planes on deck and I would have to lose more than 3 planes per minute. which is pretty realistic without the use of Godmode factor (F) and i agree I actually think we don't need it. 

 

2. Why don't these mechanics work ? Explain how they don't work? seem to work fine by me ? Try it in a training room and you will see.

 

3. Agree Fighter Consumable needs rework. it needs to be more aggressive and a bigger circle that over more. TBH they aren't that useful atm.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
7,523 posts
5,766 battles
2 minutes ago, UltraViking said:

1. Ok, lets be clear. the infinite plane thing is a meme not even worth mentioning because it takes about 11 minutes of a match to regenerate 1 full squad on T10. The only thing that has made repeating strike possible is the god mode return F key. Because even tho you can regenerate unlimited planes you still only got 20 min of fights which lets regenerate 3 planes per minute ( 1 from each squad as long as you are missing ones)

So midway has a total of 60 ish total planes on deck and I would have to lose more than 3 planes per minute. which is pretty realistic without the use of Godmode factor (F) and i agree I actually think we don't need it. 

 

2. Why don't these mechanics work ? Explain how they don't work? seem to work fine by me ? Try it in a training room and you will see.

 

3. Agree Fighter Consumable needs rework. it needs to be more aggressive and a bigger circle that over more. TBH they aren't that useful atm.

 

A big yes on toast.

 

Good to see that no all guys here handed in their brains at the front desk the day the rework landed 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,914 posts
9,576 battles
4 hours ago, UltraViking said:

1. Ok, lets be clear. the infinite plane thing is a meme not even worth mentioning because it takes about 11 minutes of a match to regenerate 1 full squad on T10. The only thing that has made repeating strike possible is the god mode return F key. Because even tho you can regenerate unlimited planes you still only got 20 min of fights which lets regenerate 3 planes per minute ( 1 from each squad as long as you are missing ones)

So midway has a total of 60 ish total planes on deck and I would have to lose more than 3 planes per minute. which is pretty realistic without the use of Godmode factor (F) and i agree I actually think we don't need it. 

A CV has more resources available to it than any other game class. They don't get dev struck in the first five minutes or citadelled to death the second they open fire. So far all we've seen is people abusing the F key to be ultra aggressive, and now they're derping because AA is too strong. So what if you lose a squadron, though: you can just back off and play the vulture.... do some spotting, keep the DDs in hand, pick off the low-health DD or cruiser. You've still got stacks of planes, stacks of HP. And the longer you stay in the game, the more chances you have to be decisive. 

 

4 hours ago, UltraViking said:

Why don't these mechanics work ? Explain how they don't work? seem to work fine by me ? Try it in a training room and you will see.

The RTS system was balanced by a low frequency of high-damage attacks which were mitigated mostly by dodging and partly by AA. Small, faster and more manoeuvrable ships held the advantage in evading attacks, cruisers specialised in AA defence, BBs had a good combination of health, protection/damage reduction and AA.

 

The new system has a high-frequency of mid-damage attacks which are designed to be mostly repelled by AA. In fairness to CV players, AA itself has been changed so it doesn't often prevent the attack, but causes a loss of resource on the exit. That changes the game balance significantly. Destroyers suffer most as their physical size means they have less AA to repel/mitigate attacks and lower HP to absorb damage; their resource pool depletes much, much faster than that of the CV. That can't be balanced through changes in AA efficacy or attack damage - the range in values is just too big.  The DD needs to be given back its stealth and dodging capabilities, not asked to be a soak tank, a role it physically cannot fulfil. 

 

4 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

3. Agree Fighter Consumable needs rework. it needs to be more aggressive and a bigger circle that over more. TBH they aren't that useful atm.

After 1942, very few ships were asked to go to a particular place without air cover. The Royal Navy learned why the hard way. If we have realistic AA/CV mechanics we will get realistic outcomes, and to make the game enjoyable real-world solutions also need to be available.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
7,523 posts
5,766 battles
10 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

A CV has more resources available to it than any other game class. They don't get dev struck in the first five minutes or citadelled to death the second they open fire. So far all we've seen is people abusing the F key to be ultra aggressive, and now they're derping because AA is too strong. So what if you lose a squadron, though: you can just back off and play the vulture.... do some spotting, keep the DDs in hand, pick off the low-health DD or cruiser. You've still got stacks of planes, stacks of HP. And the longer you stay in the game, the more chances you have to be decisive. 

 

The RTS system was balanced by a low frequency of high-damage attacks which were mitigated mostly by dodging and partly by AA. Small, faster and more manoeuvrable ships held the advantage in evading attacks, cruisers specialised in AA defence, BBs had a good combination of health, protection/damage reduction and AA.

 

The new system has a high-frequency of mid-damage attacks which are designed to be mostly repelled by AA. In fairness to CV players, AA itself has been changed so it doesn't often prevent the attack, but causes a loss of resource on the exit. That changes the game balance significantly. Destroyers suffer most as their physical size means they have less AA to repel/mitigate attacks and lower HP to absorb damage; their resource pool depletes much, much faster than that of the CV. That can't be balanced through changes in AA efficacy or attack damage - the range in values is just too big.  The DD needs to be given back its stealth and dodging capabilities, not asked to be a soak tank, a role it physically cannot fulfil. 

 

After 1942, very few ships were asked to go to a particular place without air cover. The Royal Navy learned why the hard way. If we have realistic AA/CV mechanics we will get realistic outcomes, and to make the game enjoyable real-world solutions also need to be available.

 

Well not all real life tactics and things translate well into the game. What is your proposal for the fighters? That’s the part I like the least in the new rework 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TROLL]
Beta Tester
113 posts
4,772 battles
37 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

A CV has more resources available to it than any other game class. They don't get dev struck in the first five minutes or citadelled to death the second they open fire. So far all we've seen is people abusing the F key to be ultra aggressive, and now they're derping because AA is too strong. So what if you lose a squadron, though: you can just back off and play the vulture.... do some spotting, keep the DDs in hand, pick off the low-health DD or cruiser. You've still got stacks of planes, stacks of HP. And the longer you stay in the game, the more chances you have to be decisive. 

 

 

1. I dont see how you mean they got stacks of planes basicly you almost got 2 squadrons per type so 2 rockets, 2 torp and 2 bomber squadrons(which takes 1 min to regen 1 plane). After the hotfix you have to change the CV playstyle. you cant loiter around dds now, even them will eat your planes. Especially at tiers below X. using F key now inside AA zone just auto kills the rest of the squad because of two things.

a: they use more time to get to godmode altitude

b: they fly in a set speed which the flak calculates and insta gib them

you actually have to fly away outside the AA manually then return them in order to save them

 

I dont complain at this Hotfix, i welcome it and i think it was needed. AA is harsh but a good player can find alternative methods to survive and contribute.

Playing carrier is being decisive and not a main dmg dealer right now. Haku got nerfed bad and it needed it. Imo CV should be harder to play than other classes just because they have a high impact potential on the game.

 

You say we can just loiter around and kill low hp targets ? well what is the alternative? from my understanding of your comments it sounds like anything a CV does is unfair. 

If a CV wants to keep a dd permaspotted and lose planes then that CV team will probably lose. just because its more important that he utilizes his threat potential and Deny caps, torp flanks, and spot for its team. 

 

For some reason alot of poster in this topic is basicly sour because they get killed by a CV... i mean so when you get tripple citadeled by a yama thats unfair too? 

 

Regarding Haku: The nerf was needed, but i think the torpedo speed was abit too much maybe set it to 45 or bump it to 50 again with 2km arming. Atm you are just dropping sea mines. 

The aiming nerf is more on point and it doesnt let the Haku spam anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×