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

Upcoming Fix To AA Mechanics

205 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[DAVY]
Players
92 posts
6,941 battles

Alright, so the new hotfix is out and after some testing in training room and random battles, I've gotta say they struck a pretty nice balance between planes lost and surviving. I still do lose a lot of planes when attacking pockets of enemies or AA ship, but at least it's not the AA shredder it was in the previous patch against any T8 and above and I can do multiple passes in certain situations. F-key appears to be worth using again too, when you think you are going to lose a lot of planes if you were to attempt another pass, and so in that kind of situation you conserve planes and recall.
 

I'll be playing a lot of Shokaku from here on. Very nice. :Smile_popcorn:

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
82 posts
4,296 battles

Something has changed.

Continues damage from short / mid range AA seems to be slightly toned down . . very slightly.

Flak bursts have changed as well. They now don't stick to their advertised minimum range and can hit as close as 1.5 km. On top of that, ships that don't even sport long range AA, all of a sudden produce Flak bursts. A Kuma with allegedly 3km AA range, shredded 4 of my Kates in one pass at ~5km.  ( It was the only ship left, no mistake here ) AA can still shoot through solid matter. As we all know, shells from guns can hit islands but Flak is produced out of thin air. Some point of origin, from which the appearance of bursts is calculated, seems to be only fair.
Things that haven't changed:

Only 2/3  planes attack - the whole squadron is prone to damage. 

Damage is spread evenly - Attacking with less than the maximum possible number of planes is not recommendable. 

Different camo of aircraft types. This would make sense if we had different sizes or cruising altitudes . . but since we haven't - it doesn't

Aircraft still can't lock onto a target to obtain it's course or predict a point of impact. Torpedoes are next to useless unless dropped at point blank range.

Due to the aforementioned burst quality, getting up-tiered is a death sentence. I was 1 vs 1 with my Shokaku against an almost dead Conqueror and tried EVERYTHING. Waited until I had a full squadron of Torp/Dive Bombers. With 3 attack planes, I did a spotting drive-by. Sent a full squadron of D-bombers over an island, at the exact right course and hit the attack button before I could even see him. LUCKY - there he was, right in my sight - GREEN  . . and all my planes were gone - just like that. My 9 torpedo bombers couldn't even get closer than 5 km. I daresay that this hotfix made things even worse for CVs.

 

Someone mentioned something about nice balance but if no skill in the world can prevent me from losing planes and only RNGesus decides if I live or die, the mechanic is simply buggered. I can not hide my planes behind islands, I can not hug the white line and stay at 25 km while others are doing the heavy lifting. I have to go close and personal with no armor, no heavy guns, no HP. All I got was solid cover and maneuverability. Both got taken away, replaced by half baked RNG and 2 "Hotfixes" later, I am slowly starting to get a bit annoyed, to be honest.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HPK]
Players
23 posts

I wouldn't call it much of a fix, the big problem of what happens when a T6 CV meets T8 ships is still there, their planes get ravaged and the loss of planes on attacking T8 cruisers and battleships is between 60-80% loss of planes per squadron on attacking a single ship that's alone. It's too much, the carrier can't keep up and lose planes too fast and end being shut down completely. Maybe go the other way on balance.. Change the effectiveness of the ability of the carrier to do damage by reducing the damage output on the planes?

In my opinion T6 CV's shouldn't be meeting T8 ships at all, if you really want to fix the problem, change the MM so that it works like it does in many other games. +/-1 on the highest tier ship in the division, meaning.. If you play a tier 6 ship you can only get matches with ships from tier 5 and 6, or from 6 and 7, never from both 5 and 7, it's either -1 tier, or +1 tier from the highest ranked ship in the division. The only way to get 3 tiers into one match is when a division is made up of ships from two different tiers.

This change to the game would actually fix a few other problems with the game.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
718 posts
14,686 battles

Well of course it dodnt fix anything, did you read that "changelog" it consists of 3 sentences and no changes whatsoever, 5% fraking % decrease?? you can increase it by 5 % for all i care noone notices 5% damn it... FFs you should have just fixed the god damn F key feature and leave aa s it is you all just plain d....

 

edit: i forgot to spam you girls @MrConway

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
119 posts
1,659 battles

Basically, as expected:

The nerf to AA was so minuscule that it is not impacting the issues at all. This patch did nothing, no problems were solved.

The one thing it really showed:

WG rushed the CV rework onto live, hoping to get it out to consoleros asap. This is an under-cooked, half-baked and unfinished piece of junk that needs head back to the PTR/Closed Tests.

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
63 posts
4,140 battles

1. Create a new flooding system for air dropped torpedoes. With the implication that a smaller torpedo will flood fewer compartments. Should hopefully get rid of the situation where RNG allows a carrier to rack up tens of thousands of damage. With two different flood systems, you can individually balance the values as well. Damage per minute, maximum damage, flood time etc. Continuously adjusting the flood chance won't do much as long as there is still a possibility that i can nearly wipe out a Battleship. Two floods is all you need, occurring at two separate drops. Even if it doesn't sink, it's a dreadful experience. Especially for the slower tier 6 Battleships, which cannot reasonably be expected to maneuver away or get closer to a friendly ship to increase AA.

 

2. Make up your mind regarding IJN torpedo bombers. Currently the only thing i hit with any accuracy is stupid Battleships trying to bow tank going reverse or 1/4 speed forward. Even then, certain BBs are in practice only vulnerable to a single air drop. Which brings on the next point. Meanwhile, the IJN dive bombers are blatantly superior vs Battleships compared to their American counterpart. So much so that getting 2 or 3 citadels is not uncommon, provided my aiming is competent. My aiming and skill with the dive bombers make a difference, for torpedo bombers, there is very little i can do if my enemy has the ability to maneuver. Previously i would intentionally drop torpedoes in such a way as to force the enemy to de-accelerate, making the followup attack easier. Now, it's almost impossible to get a followup strike on any target, unless it's -2 tiers and even then only when hes sailing around alone.

 

The whole flak + continuous damage does not make any sense at all, i don't understand. Is the gun firing flak shells OR is it doing continuous damage? Both apparently. Which is fine at tier 4, where the continuous damage takes 20 seconds to kill a single plane. Not so much at tier 8-10 where even the long range. I mean, what is the main intent of the whole flak system to begin with? I thought it was supposed to be the main method in which a ship deal anti aircraft fire, with the continuous damage only being a token amount to prevent carrier airplanes from lingering for minutes on end. If i can dodge 

 

3. Get rid of this short, medium and long range [edited] going on. Assign a range and damage to each gun as it was before, and do try to make sense of it. The Benson A hull has it's 5 inch guns have a range of 0.9km to 5.8km, but the C 5 inch guns has a range of 3.5km to 5.8km. It even has fewer 5 inch guns to accommodate the 40mm Bofors. Why would anyone pick the C hull, which in the past was the superior AA hull. It's the same goddamn gun, yet the presence of the 40mm guns on the ship somehow has an extreme effect on the 5 inch guns effective AA range. The Atlantas 5 inch guns has a range of 1.8km to 5.8km, while the Flint has 3.5km to 5.8km. I'm sure there are more unique ranges to the 5 inch guns if i kept looking. It seems to me you're obsessed with fixing an exploit, where an air group lingers between two anti aircraft ranges. But the exploit doesn't exist, planes are nowhere near agile enough to linger at some arbitrary range.

 

The Neptune has two long range stats? For a total of 4? short, medium, long and long for it's 20mm, 40mm, 113mm and 152mm guns. Why not just assign a range, flak count, flak damage and continuous damage to each of the different guns?

 

76mm guns produce an insane amount of flak bursts, and an insane amount of continuous damage. Why? What does the gun do? Does it fire flak or does it fire direct damage? I thought the whole point of continuous damage on lower caliber weapons was due to how unpractical it would be to model each of the individual projectiles coming out of the 40mm guns, 20mm guns and bellow. But the 76mm guns fires flak, and deals so much damage that any tier 8 air groups within range is shredded in mere seconds, dodging the flak or not. Why would the Minotaur even have 20mm guns? Whats the point? Nothing gets past the 76mm guns anyway. They are as useless as the 6.5-8mm machine guns on some of the tier 3 ships. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,529 posts
11,480 battles
4 hours ago, powerverde said:

New cv system is either under/over balanced whenever u tweak it but it generally sucks because this is a game for ship battles (hint, World of Warships). Keep that way.

Special missions or game modes with cvs, submarines, buffs, magical unicorns and singing fairies are ok if they are optional.

You do realize that aircraft carriers as well as submarines that you also mention are warships, right?

 

4 hours ago, Lieam said:

I do not think it needs fixing, rather the continuous AA is super strong so they never survive. I believe the delay is well put and needed. But the way it stands no plane gets home (even against lone same-tier ship if  you recall within 4-5 km). It is not very playable.

No. The delay is terribly put. The delay should be applied either between an attack and pressing F (so that you can't press the F key right away, just like you can't immediately re-enter attack run or press F before the squadron is done taking off) OR between pressing F and escape (so you'd press F and see a timer starting with planes only blasting off after the timer is done, so that you'd still need to keep your planes alive until then). Planes dying the most and being at their most fragile when out of player control (after the strike or after pressing F) is not a good gameplay mechanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,529 posts
11,480 battles
23 minutes ago, MMKing93 said:

Meanwhile, the IJN dive bombers are blatantly superior vs Battleships compared to their American counterpart. So much so that getting 2 or 3 citadels is not uncommon, provided my aiming is competent.

...you do realize that these citadels, while they give satisfying ribbons, don't really cause all that much damage compared to their American cousins, right? The alpha potential is similar, getting them to achieve that alpha is harder and the advantages are really only two: assuming that you do manage a lot of citadel strikes (normal pens and overpens are ludicrously ineffective) you're dealing hard to heal damage and your alpha isn't further reduced by damage saturation. HE bombers, on the other hand

 - deal their due share of damage even outside the citadel area and regardless of angle of impact

 - cause fires that can drain big health pools pretty well and synergizes with flooding possibilities from torps or follow-up fires from rockets

 - destroy AA, making subsequent attacks easier

I'd say it's... debatable whether AP bombs are actually superior overall.

 

39 minutes ago, MMKing93 said:

The whole flak + continuous damage does not make any sense at all, i don't understand. Is the gun firing flak shells OR is it doing continuous damage? Both apparently. Which is fine at tier 4, where the continuous damage takes 20 seconds to kill a single plane. Not so much at tier 8-10 where even the long range. I mean, what is the main intent of the whole flak system to begin with? I thought it was supposed to be the main method in which a ship deal anti aircraft fire, with the continuous damage only being a token amount to prevent carrier airplanes from lingering for minutes on end. If i can dodge 

If flak+continuous damage baffles you, don't look at dual purpose guns that do continuous damage, spawn flak AND shoot at ships at the same time :Smile_trollface:

And seriously, it's been very clear why WG shifted more towards continuous damage: competent players proved to be very good at flak avoidance, making their planes borderline immune to enemy AA. You could easily perform multiple strikes against heavy AA ships that weren't even alone. On the other side, the bad players were just catching all the flak and their planes ended up simply dropping from the sky without doing anything. Skill of the CV players making the difference is a nice thing, but when the difference is between "borderline godmode" and "loses whole squadrons to DDs without AA build" then the system clearly needed some serious adjustments.

 

44 minutes ago, MMKing93 said:

Why would anyone pick the C hull, which in the past was the superior AA hull.

To sometimes temporarily triple the damage output with defensive fire consumable? I'm not saying that the system is perfect in that context, but C-hull still remains the superior AA hull by far - you're trading the "standard" damage (that is too low to do much even to t6 planes anyway) for the burst damage with def. AA active (that can actually have some effect). The sad reality is that DD AA is very reliant on def. AA consumable and pretty irrelevant without it - so getting it or not makes a lot of difference even if the passive auras change between the hulls isn't very favorable.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
63 posts
4,140 battles

I'm not gonna bring up guns firing at ships, flak shells and continuous at the same time. The player base conceded that years ago when the game was in beta, that the main armament could and would shoot at airplanes with no regard as to which direction they are pointed or if they are even loaded.

 

The continuous damage buff has gone way too far. It's outright unplayable at tier 10 in a T8 carrier. It doesn't matter what i send, only 1 attack run gets past and at best 1/3 of the squad comes back alive, 2/3 if the repair ability is ready. It barely matters what i bomb, cruisers, battleships and even destroyers have the ability to seriously mangle air groups just flying past. Conversely, it's still just as broken when i bomb T6 and a select few T7 ships. Tripple citadel on a Gneisenau? Not really that risky, and not really that hard if hes not in a position to maneuver. Double flooding a Bayern? Childs play.

 

Playing the Shokaku:

T6 - I'm god

T10 - 5+ planes lost per bomb/torpedo hit.

 

Experimenting a bit more with the torpedo aiming, i'm not trying to argue against spread increasing with movement. But there should be some UI element on the aiming lane, how much you can move the mouse either side, and it should be possible to do 2-3 degree adjustments either way without the aim spreading out, but rather tighten a bit slower if you do so. Without the ability to maneuver the bombers however, you get 1 drop then it's back to the carrier. Even if most of the bombers survive, they are far too damaged to drop again.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAVY]
Players
92 posts
6,941 battles

"Unplayable"? That might vary between who you ask. I think you can definitely do some heavy work even as a T8 carrier in T10 MM. Of course those pesky Hindenburgs and their defensive AA protecting T10 BBs were a real pain. Against high tier ships with deadly flak you just have to play conservatively. T10 heavy AA cruisers *are* supposed to be able to repel T8 CV attacks after all, it'd be questionable if that wasn't the case.

Also feels good when you outperform your fellow T10 carriers, just shows how much skill and carefully choosing your opportunities go, and I feel there's still a fair amount left for me to improve.

CVs.jpg

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
718 posts
14,686 battles
5 hours ago, Masa2mune said:

"Unplayable"? That might vary between who you ask. I think you can definitely do some heavy work even as a T8 carrier in T10 MM. Of course those pesky Hindenburgs and their defensive AA protecting T10 BBs were a real pain. Against high tier ships with deadly flak you just have to play conservatively. T10 heavy AA cruisers *are* supposed to be able to repel T8 CV attacks after all, it'd be questionable if that wasn't the case.

Also feels good when you outperform your fellow T10 carriers, just shows how much skill and carefully choosing your opportunities go, and I feel there's still a fair amount left for me to improve.

CVs.jpg

*edited*  

Edited by Jahpero
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks.
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ARYA]
Players
502 posts
12,264 battles

problem is t10 CV is able to do massive damages but t8 CV vs t10 ships is awful and imagine t8 ship vs t10 CV !!!!!!

  • Funny 3
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
164 posts
18,431 battles
On 2/8/2019 at 5:31 PM, I_love_ducks said:

just undo this rework... for everyones sake.. its obiously not ready and its killing your game.

Ehmm... THEIR Game? Who is paying this game and the ppl who work at WG ???

 

btw... I am not paying any more money for this game until... well - not happening

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[META]
[META]
Players
99 posts
13,789 battles

I can only wonder why WG have turned its playerbase into guinea pigs with CV rework .. WG would you pls stop the trial/error runs on humans? after all we only pay you money to not experiment.. :etc_swear:

 

Wiki definition on guinea pig:

" Biological experimentation on domestic guinea pigs has been carried out since the 17th century. The animals were so frequently used as model organisms in the 19th and 20th centuries that the epithet guinea pig came into use to describe a human test subject."

:Smile_facepalm:

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_VV_]
Players
29 posts
5,054 battles

i get the feeling we need an MM update to prioritize +/-1 Tier Matchmaking a lot more. my tier 8 planes get just shredded by lone t10 battleships or AA-cruisers either before i get the drop off, or dont make it out alive the other side. even t10 dds only 2 of 4 attacks can be made before loosing the squad. the difference between tiers is just to much to have a decent game with a 2 tier difference. the balance within the same tier feels good, but the percentage increases in AA damage and planehealth between tiers is too much to make 2tier matchmaking viable.  i would suggest having planehealth and AA damage increase about half as much per tier or as mentioned, having the MM only do 2tier differences if it waited for some time and realy cant finde any other matchups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[_FK_]
Players
55 posts
9,687 battles

most our clan hasn't logged on in weeks. Stop using the live server to flog a dead horse. 

Maybe if you offer incentive to people participating in testing on a TEST server this colossal [edited] ups ruining the game wouldn't happen 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
55 posts
9,162 battles

You have managed to put the tombstone on the CV rework, at least in what regards player perception of the CV rework, an of you as developers offering a half cooked solution without a clear concept in what regards the biggest part of the CV rework: the surface ship AA interaction with the CV as in a game you hope to get 1 CV out of 12 players vs 11 non CV, because you obviously have no idea about dimensioning the AA damage vs squadron hp or its split in base and flak.

 

I was part of the CV pivate test (gave feedback, you ignored I guess, mainly: Succesfully returning damaged planes should go though a partial preparation time, otherwise easy to abuse this artificial hp regeneration as the CV behaves like the typical tower defense attacker, or otherwise over buff AA so #returning planes tends to zero so that CV player cannot abuse this concept flaw, we are now on second point, before wiht 0.8.0 we were on first point) and I really wanted to like the CV rework, but... this is crap. A stock Shokaku thrown  into TX is far from an enjoyable experience when even DD flak from stealth can wipe out the squadron. Attacking with torpedoes at maximum range does not even ensure being able to recover the remainder for a second pass due to the inertia and lack of control after the first release, getting way too close to the target... this is just pitiful. In 0.8.0 CVs were OP af, in both 0.8.0.1 and 0.8.0.2 they are pitiful speccially as bottom tier.

 

Seriously, @MrConway when will you accept that a skill based attack cannot be properly balanced with a pure RNG based defense mechanic??. There is no defense player involvment upon which a bad CV attacker could reflect and learn, and for a superb CV attacker, that tuned-for-average RNG defense will never be enough. The bloody CV rework needed player controlled AA guns to make it feel involving for everyone and at the same time a skill based duel. But no... you had to go for the pure RNG... The best you can aim for is an average AA which can meet the average CV player, and with low enough typical deviation or variance so as not to be perceived as unreliable or inconsistent (and hence frustrating)... this means good CV attackers will always be above the average RNG defense, be impossible to counter (frustration on defenders: the whole player base: alienation), and "snow ball" up the skill, but bad CV players will not be able to learn how to overcome that RNG wall as there is no human player opponent actions upon which to react and learn (and due to player base alienation and lack of skill development feedback: no big input of new CV players)... and there you have, once more, the skill gap.

 

All this is a big sad joke and a HUGE missed opportunity...

 

Revert the changes (just git-revert will do the trick, I am sure), go back to the drawing board and bloody add controlled AA so that the CV to surface ship interaction is properly skill based. Even better, offer a job to iChase, he´ll be much more useful for you as a companny than other CC signings for sure... If you have doubts ask him for "How I would have done the CV rework"
 



BTW your last developer bulletin is pretentious, patronizing, and sad.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
817 posts
10 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

The AA is still insanely overbuffed! This isn’t fixing anything 

That depends what ship you're in. If they reduce AA effectiveness across the board (all ships), what happens then to some other BB ships that still struggling with poor AA trying to stop torp attacks from CV planes getting through every single time. Some BB ships would be even worse off than they are now, which means if you reduce AA (across the board) because some ships are too powerful on AA as a quick easy fix, then sorry but you would have to start looking at increasing other ships (individually) that will suffer from that even further (not already having not good enough AA) to combat CV plane attacks.

 

That alone tells you there is no easy way (quick solution)  to balance this really, not unless they start to fiddle with AA on every single ship on an individual bases.

 

I think they should either take away torp planes from CV use, or at least have torp planes "run out of planes" just like before. Limit them to bombs and rockets having unlimited planes only. The problem with unlimited torp planes is they can kill you too easy if deciding to just keep doing torp runs against a single BB with pretty poor AA. That would help balance things out better and then adjust the AA on some ships seen to be way too powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
718 posts
14,686 battles
16 hours ago, SexyCroat said:

Well of course it dodnt fix anything, did you read that "changelog" it consists of 3 sentences and no changes whatsoever, 5% fraking % decrease?? you can increase it by 5 % for all i care noone notices 5% damn it... FFs you should have just fixed the god damn F key feature and leave aa s it is you all just plain d....

 

edit: i forgot to spam you girls @MrConway

 

i have to quote myself here to spam you, couse no answer yet... @MrConway@Sehales@Sub_Octavian@Tuccy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
7,665 posts
5,838 battles
5 hours ago, MRGTB said:

That depends what ship you're in. If they reduce AA effectiveness across the board (all ships), what happens then to some other BB ships that still struggling with poor AA trying to stop torp attacks from CV planes getting through every single time. Some BB ships would be even worse off than they are now, which means if you reduce AA (across the board) because some ships are too powerful on AA as a quick easy fix, then sorry but you would have to start looking at increasing other ships (individually) that will suffer from that even further (not already having not good enough AA) to combat CV plane attacks.

 

That alone tells you there is no easy way (quick solution)  to balance this really, not unless they start to fiddle with AA on every single ship on an individual bases.

 

I think they should either take away torp planes from CV use, or at least have torp planes "run out of planes" just like before. Limit them to bombs and rockets having unlimited planes only. The problem with unlimited torp planes is they can kill you too easy if deciding to just keep doing torp runs against a single BB with pretty poor AA. That would help balance things out better and then adjust the AA on some ships seen to be way too powerful.

 

Of course it can be balanced but WG oberbuffed AA and says: „fine if your are close to de-planed at the end of the match. That’s what we want“ - which indicates they want you to lose plenty of planes hence the steep increase in brainless constant AA DPS. They don’t want to incentivize you to get good with planes and preserve them. They won’t punish hard to lose planes. They want it all equalized. Skill won’t matter as the constant DPS AA kills your planes no matter what you do. Like automatic cidadels.

 

It‘s really really sad.

 

 

@Ungrim_Baraz agree with the rework should have used manual controlled AA guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
[WG-EU]
WG Staff, Alpha Tester
2,706 posts
2,718 battles
On 2/12/2019 at 1:47 AM, SexyCroat said:

Where te frak is the F key hotfix?? ill keep spamming you girls till someone gives me a straight answer @MrConway @Tuccy @Sehales @Sub_Octavian

 

There is no F-key hotfix coming. We are aware that in many situations the F-key leads to assured squadron death and it is likely that there will be more tweaks to find a middle ground between an F-key that kills or saves the squadron no matter what.

 

We're currently watching all of the numbers closely for each individual ship and will make adjustments if needed.

 

18 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

@MrConway seriously? This is the fix?

 

The AA is still insanely overbuffed! This isn’t fixing anything 

 

Don't hate me for it, but I actually think its OK right now, I was doing fine when playing yesterday at tier 8+ - I understand that lower tiers are different.

 

But we will likely make more changes until we get to a spot that is equally comfortable for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ARYA]
Players
502 posts
12,264 battles

I think best way to balance CV vs AA is +-1 MM for CVs . so a t8 CV doesn't have to face a t10 AA ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×