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

☆ Manually controlled AA can not work! ♡

46 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[PANEU]
Players
4,550 posts
13,091 battles

Because the current AA model is as accurate as you could ever be forcing a CV to dodge out of the way every few seconds! ☆

A human could never really achieve that kind of predictionary accuracy and even if they could,it would be just the same as the auto aim of current AA and not any harder to dodge. ♡

Since flak is seen well in advance and always gives enough time to dodge,even if the surface ships starts to predict the flightpath of CV planes it would still be easy to react to. ☆

Every "miss" by a human player could be just ignored. ♡

 

And then there is that it takes you out of the battle and makes you turn your camera constantly to track the fast flying planes which will more then likely disorient you. For no gains at all since automatic aim AA is so much more reliable while you can focus on the battle. ☆♡☆

 

No hate please! ♡

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,029 posts
14,528 battles

Most players can’t not sail broadside to bigger ships or even use the WASD keys so I agree. Controlling AA would require more brain power than most of the player base could manage. Hell, I’ll put myself in that category coz I can potato like the best of them on my day.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BABBY]
Players
811 posts
11,970 battles

Well, I for one would hate to see a WT-like approach where be it bombers or ships you point the cursor and all guns available aim and fire perfectly at that spot. Much realism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,665 posts
12,133 battles
29 minutes ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

Because the current AA model is as accurate as you could ever be forcing a CV to dodge out of the way every few seconds! ☆

A human could never really achieve that kind of predictionary accuracy and even if they could,it would be just the same as the auto aim of current AA and not any harder to dodge. ♡

Since flak is seen well in advance and always gives enough time to dodge,even if the surface ships starts to predict the flightpath of CV planes it would still be easy to react to. ☆

Every "miss" by a human player could be just ignored. ♡

 

And then there is that it takes you out of the battle and makes you turn your camera constantly to track the fast flying planes which will more then likely disorient you. For no gains at all since automatic aim AA is so much more reliable while you can focus on the battle. ☆♡☆

 

No hate please! ♡

Automated flak spawns on PREDICTED flight path, which you can easily play around by coming at an angle to the target and then turning towards at last second. With manual flak placement player *could* spawn them closer, if not on top of incoming planes

 

Alternatives to manual AA that could be "skillfully applied by ear breathing potatoes" besides current Sector I can think of would be directional AA. 100% dps/flak available when ship is broadside but (for example) only 25% when bow/stern on. Ideally checking for LoS for each mount would be perfect, but setting firing angles for each and every mount in every ship sounds like perfect penal labor for misbehaving developer:Smile_trollface:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,017 posts
245 battles

Like i said in the other thread before it got shut down just add frigates and corvettes into the game.

 

Yes i know they travelled at really slow speeds but that doesnt mean you can't just give them top speed of 35 knots and a quad turret to defend themselves against surface ships. Maybe give them the ability to repair ships or something idk, i've always wanted a support class kind of ship in game (although if it's last alive it will need either a gun turret(s) or torps to actually kill anything unless the machine guns and autocannons can start fires.)

 

Spoiler

1220532224_puffedup..jpg.6f1830c6db7fd73a543bc2d46368dd61.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PNAVY]
[PNAVY]
Beta Tester
417 posts
8,450 battles

Manual AA worked in Navyfield that well because there was no change in view... just target and guns. Planes where comparativly slower, but player could easily change hight and dodge flak. But then again Battles had more players there and dedicated AA boats where a thing.

 

While i would like to see something like this in WoWs as its own mode... i could see players feeling that they have too much to do with dodging, firing main guns and AA... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
11,225 posts
7,608 battles

Manual AA worked for Battlestations quite well. 

 

If you leave a weaker Auto controlled AA if you want to focus on the surface battle or take manual control for better AA work you give the player a choice where to focus without leaving him defensless 

 

There is no reason that it couldn’t work 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,665 posts
12,133 battles
23 minutes ago, Namuras said:

Manual AA worked in Navyfield that well because there was no change in view... just target and guns. Planes where comparativly slower, but player could easily change hight and dodge flak. But then again Battles had more players there and dedicated AA boats where a thing.

 

While i would like to see something like this in WoWs as its own mode... i could see players feeling that they have too much to do with dodging, firing main guns and AA... 

Whole rework could be started as Operation or special Ranked season(s) with "reworked" ships provided before turning entire server on its head:Smile_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,857 posts
21,228 battles

A form of 'manual' AA that enhances either aim, damage or both would be most welcome for ships that are caught out alone, early or later in a match when teams have thinned out or dispersed. A feature like that would be  a great addition when a surface ship is forced into a 1 on 1 battle with airplanes, especially when it is not in a fight with anything else at that time. Great idea mate! :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PNAVY]
[PNAVY]
Beta Tester
417 posts
8,450 battles
7 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Whole rework could be started as Operation or special Ranked season(s) with "reworked" ships provided before turning entire server on its head:Smile_smile:

There where mutliple TST servers up and PST aswell... but never enough players actually testing. And PST is a s**tshow on its own...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,665 posts
12,133 battles
Just now, Namuras said:

There where mutliple TST servers up and PST aswell... but never enough players actually testing. And PST is a s**tshow on its own...

 

The very example why such large game change should be tested on live, but within limited environment instead some shady server you need to create separate account and redownload entire game, provided you find actual news article about it under pile of "check out new premium sale":Smile_smile:

angtft.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Beta Tester
1,643 posts
7,845 battles
32 minutes ago, Namuras said:

Manual AA worked in Navyfield that well because there was no change in view... just target and guns. Planes where comparativly slower, but player could easily change hight and dodge flak. But then again Battles had more players there and dedicated AA boats where a thing.

 

While i would like to see something like this in WoWs as its own mode... i could see players feeling that they have too much to do with dodging, firing main guns and AA... 

Planes had fuel as well and took time to load before they could take off. Kinda depending on how many planes you loaded on a pilot but well. 

At least in NF good players could defend themselves against good CV players, where potatoes got oneshotted by CV players, whether they used smoke or not.

 

Playing the H44 with both hedgehogs and AA guns was so much fun.

 

 

Navyfield gave both parties the chance to do something about it with skills, where Wargaming is like just keep slaughtering kitties for some RNG luck. Skill? No, that is too difficult for our snowflake playerbase.

 

I also had to cry a little bit when I noticed someone on the forums being happy with the automatic DCP. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PNAVY]
[PNAVY]
Beta Tester
417 posts
8,450 battles
Just now, Panocek said:

The very example why such large game change should be tested on live, but within limited environment instead some shady server you need to create separate account and redownload entire game, provided you find actual news article about it under pile of "check out new premium sale":Smile_smile:

angtft.jpg

True... But the rework as is was finished once it hit the TST server, everything following that is balancing and finetuning. The liveserver has brought issue to light that had been seen on the test server, but i strongly suspect the devs don't really always read the notes submitted by testers and just wanted a wider base for statistics. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PNAVY]
[PNAVY]
Beta Tester
417 posts
8,450 battles
2 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

Navyfield gave both parties the chance to do something about it with skills, where Wargaming is like just keep slaughtering kitties for some RNG luck. Skill? No, that is too difficult for our snowflake playerbase.

 

I also had to cry a little bit when I noticed someone on the forums being happy with the automatic DCP.

Navyfield's system wouldn't work in WoWs tho... and even in NF you traded offense for defense. Want to have AA / ASW? Less engineers and repaircrew. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Beta Tester
1,643 posts
7,845 battles
18 minutes ago, Namuras said:

Navyfield's system wouldn't work in WoWs tho... and even in NF you traded offense for defense. Want to have AA / ASW? Less engineers and repaircrew. 

It wouldn't, but the problem I have with WarGaming is that they are super stubborn. They should have tested the current carriers better, instead they are already selling Premium Carriers like they are done with their job. The rework got some potential, but it still needs some big changes to make it fun for everyone. 

Less engineers/repairmen didn't really matter later in NF, since they introduced such OP sailors, heroes for example which where +14 overall, which made it super easy to hit maximum repair without using an actual repairman. 
Overall the game offered a lot more than WG does now. It is sad that NF2 didn't continue on the success of NF1, which in my eyes should just have been a non buggy, but beautiful NF1. The harbour assaults and harbour defenses were always exciting to play. Having the harbour for a longer time gave the holding clan access to some really powerful ships, aka rentals. 

There is so much more stuff WG can do with those carriers and I believe we have already seen plenty ideas coming by on the forums, of which this is one. Sure, you can't expect from a WoWS player to do multiple things at the same time; like flying your planes and repairing a fire, but come up with something different then...
Here we have someone telling us that manual AA doesn't work. I disagree. There are plenty possibilities to make it work. Is it ideal? Does it fit the game? That is up for WG, but they need to realize that they aren't done yet with the actual gameplay of CVs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PNAVY]
[PNAVY]
Beta Tester
417 posts
8,450 battles
2 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

Less engineers/repairmen didn't really matter later in NF, since they introduced such OP sailors, heroes for example which where +14 overall, which made it super easy to hit maximum repair without using an actual repairman. 
Overall the game offered a lot more than WG does now. It is sad that NF2 didn't continue on the success of NF1, which in my eyes should just have been a non buggy, but beautiful NF1. The harbour assaults and harbour defenses were always exciting to play. Having the harbour for a longer time gave the holding clan access to some really powerful ships, aka rentals.

NF was / became blatant P2W... 

 

I rarely ran anything but engineers... overdrive all day every day. 

3 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

They should have tested the current carriers better, instead they are already selling Premium Carriers like they are done with their job. The rework got some potential, but it still needs some big changes to make it fun for everyone.

WG tested it tho... and they got enough "data" -whatever that means- to release it. And they apparently think it isn't that bad. And neither do i tbh. I like the new carriers. What i don't like is the braindead players not adapting and crying like heavens are falling. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Beta Tester
1,643 posts
7,845 battles
13 minutes ago, Namuras said:

NF was / became blatant P2W... 

 

I rarely ran anything but engineers... overdrive all day every day. 

WG tested it tho... and they got enough "data" -whatever that means- to release it. And they apparently think it isn't that bad. And neither do i tbh. I like the new carriers. What i don't like is the braindead players not adapting and crying like heavens are falling. 

 

NF was p2w, but you also needed to be good to make it work. 

I don't know, when I kill a squadron of planes in my Des Moines and get only spotted seconds later again by a brand new one something fishy is going on. I am not really losing more games than before, it is just that I get salty when I take damage from an average player. 
No the rework isn't that bad, but it isn't great either.

I do like their April fools joke of making carriers start later on. They got a good sense of humor, but still waiting till they introduce something seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PANEU]
Players
4,550 posts
13,091 battles

Let's keep the talk mostly about the manual AA idea please! ♡

What you are discussing about the rework has been said and repeated more then 10 times a day every day since rework. ☆

It's getting old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGP2W]
Beta Tester
1,643 posts
7,845 battles
1 minute ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

Let's keep the talk mostly about the manual AA idea please! ♡

What you are discussing about the rework has been said and repeated more then 10 times a day every day since rework. ☆

It's getting old.

I think manual AA can work. There are many options to make it work. Increase AA range, make planes slower, have the camera automatically follow the squadron you look on to etcetera. 
Is it too difficult for the player base to comprehend, most surely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PANEU]
Players
4,550 posts
13,091 battles

Let's try to make it work without nerfing AA plane speed or buffing AA range further. Suggesting nerfs/ buffs is not the aim here either. This is supposed to be talking about the idea, not adding others to it.

 

If manual controlled flak has the same properties and spawns the same distance away from planes then automatic AA i am sure manually aimed will be very useless and very easy to avoid.

 

But if a player could literally hit the planes with flakclouds (hitscan) the AA would be way to strong. So that is certainly not an option. Adjustments would be needed again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,928 posts
20,096 battles
2 hours ago, L0V3_and_PE4CE said:

Because the current AA model is as accurate as you could ever be forcing a CV to dodge out of the way every few seconds! ☆

A human could never really achieve that kind of predictionary accuracy and even if they could,it would be just the same as the auto aim of current AA and not any harder to dodge. ♡

Here's a hint. If you have two machine guns firing across an open field, do you A) try and fire directly in front of you at individual targets or B) fire both at an angle across the whole sector and create a zone where targets will inevitably be hit if they enter that area? 

 

The answer is B) btw, and that's the key to AA. It's not about careful aiming, it's about having enough ordnance in the air in a particular area (the ones planes will fly through to attack your ship). 

 

The current flak system fails because it still works on A), and so the flak patterns are eminently predictable. Surface ships don't necessarily need more guns or manual trick shots, they do need a choice of defensive dispersion patterns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PNAVY]
[PNAVY]
Beta Tester
417 posts
8,450 battles
5 minutes ago, invicta2012 said:

The answer is B) btw, and that's the key to AA. It's not about careful aiming, it's about having enough ordnance in the air in a particular area (the ones planes will fly through to attack your ship). 

That is what flak currently is doing... they are saturating your expected position with munitions. Players do dodge it tho. 

The continous damage is more akin to dudes manualy aiming "small calibre" AA guns like 50 cals / 20mm and such. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BHSFL]
Players
4,596 posts
17,960 battles

WG made it fully automatic as they do not want players to lose too much focus off the ship to ship tactical situation and battle. If you are busy with aircraft too much you could be sinking to a DD torpedo salvo or a BB full broadside salvo. It kills to not pay attention to enemy ships.

 

Aircraft in contrary only sting, them only capable of sinking ships if they are really low HP and anything could have killed them.  They are only a problem if you allow them to keep stinging multiple times as damage will add up. This is a choice of CAPTAIN SKILLS and a ship module and of playstyle as you will be much safer around other ships.

 

WG further made aircraft less interesting for ship player because their reward is low unless you shoot full CV deck amount of them. Indicating you should not overly pay attention to them.

 

Yet too many players do.......i have been playing other class ships for days now.....0 times have sunk by aircraft. I have been damaged by them, sometimes bad but never SUNK by them. And since my stats always have to be brought up, that must then be an insult to anyone who does get sunk by aircraft.....

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOBS3]
Players
1,017 posts
22,247 battles

The only way I can see this working is to adopt something like Elite Dangerous multi crew.

A second player to 'crew' the AA defence.

This would allow a person to be able to concentrate on air defence.

 

A small ship, corvette, frigate, escort DD are reduced functionality destroyers, aiming to do 1 or 2 tasks of a Fleet Destroyer well and cheaper.

There are several examples already in game. Notably the Black Swan which was an air defence & anti submarine vessel (which has 4" Dual Purpose Turrets, like fitted to the Haida and several other ships as DP secondaries) & the 'much loved and admired' T22.

If you are going to make them 35knts and able to defend against surface ships, then you have reinvented an AA Fleet Destroyer such as Monaghan, Sims and Kidd.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×