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

PT, time between plane attacks

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WG]
WG Staff, Administrator, Community, WG Team
4,544 posts
3,839 battles

New settings for the minimum time between plane attacks will be tested on the 0.9.2 Public test. 

 

  • The minimum time between attacks for bomber squadrons except Indomitable increased depending on the Tier and specific aircraft carrier;
  • British bombers except Indomitable have their acceleration time and acceleration coefficient right after they drop their bombs increased, meaning they will accelerate to a higher speed directly after a drop. This will make it easier to conduct the next attack.

 

These changes will fix the situation where it was possible to bypass enemy AA defenses by using the temporary invulnerability state directly after the previous attack.

 

Please note that the information in the Development Blog is preliminary and subject to change.

  • Cool 3
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,017 posts
11,809 battles

How come slingshot is no longer "high skill ceiling, working as intended":cap_tea:

  • Funny 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,083 posts
13,359 battles
2 minutes ago, Panocek said:

How come slingshot is no longer "high skill ceiling, working as intended":cap_tea:

Apparently we've reached the threshold in The Mighty Spreadsheet between, "only a few players are using it" and "too many players are using it".

Anyway, after a whole year of deny finally an attempt at fixing this exploit.  It does not bode well to IFHE rework, does it?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,017 posts
11,809 battles
1 minute ago, DariusJacek said:

Apparently we've reached the threshold in The Mighty Spreadsheet between, "only a few players are using it" and "too many players are using it".

Anyway, after a whole year of deny finally an attempt at fixing this exploit.  It does not bode well to IFHE rework, does it?

Maybe someone for lols swapped calendars in the office with 2019 ones, so dev team somehow realized "we need to fix that bug asap".

 

3 minutes ago, DariusJacek said:

It does not bode well to IFHE rework, does it?

But it bodes well for Daring, so I can have 2s reload, 7 smokes and ability to touch DDs/BB superstructure

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,083 posts
13,359 battles
1 minute ago, Panocek said:

Maybe someone for lols swapped calendars in the office with 2019 ones, so dev team somehow realized "we need to fix that bug asap".

 

But it bodes well for Daring, so I can have 2s reload, 7 smokes and ability to touch DDs/BB superstructure

I am close to Daring :cap_rambo:, enjoying a lot Jutland nowadays (even if they nerfed her, I've never played pre nerf version) so i don't care:cap_haloween:she is best T9 DD now IMHO with CVs around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,017 posts
11,809 battles
1 minute ago, DariusJacek said:

I am close to Daring :cap_rambo:, enjoying a lot Jutland nowadays (even if they nerfed her, I've never played pre nerf version) so i don't care:cap_haloween:she is best T9 DD now IMHO with CVs around.

Then you're in for a treat with Daring. Concealment and speed kinda sucks against Shimas tho.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,695 posts
6,862 battles

Slingshot was silly to begin with. It’s generally ok to remove it.

 

However - let’s see what the implications are. More time between attacks also means a difference for normal attacks 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,017 posts
11,809 battles
1 minute ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Slingshot was silly to begin with. It’s generally ok to remove it.

 

However - let’s see what the implications are. More time between attacks also means a difference for normal attacks 

If its around 10s, then change is purely to deny slingshot. Won't do anything about squadron doing 2nd pass.

 

If post attack delay is increased to 20-30s, then you're literally forced to do accelerated bailout after one run, obliterating reason for multiple attack wings existence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,521 posts
13,775 battles

This exploit has interfered with CV balance for long enough. I hope this change is effective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,695 posts
6,862 battles
5 minutes ago, Panocek said:

If its around 10s, then change is purely to deny slingshot. Won't do anything about squadron doing 2nd pass.

 

If post attack delay is increased to 20-30s, then you're literally forced to do accelerated bailout after one run, obliterating reason for multiple attack wings existence

 

How so? A lot f times (especially earlier game) I try to line up multiple targets to perform multiple strikes with almost no time in between. Doesn’t sound like this would work anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
10,017 posts
11,809 battles
1 minute ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

 

How so? A lot f times (especially earlier game) I try to line up multiple targets to perform multiple strikes with almost no time in between. Doesn’t sound like this would work anymore?

currently you have what, 3? 5? seconds between ending one attack and starting another + attack prepping time. With delay between attacks increased to 10s (guessing), "multiple targets" would have to be spread apart further. Which may or may not result with you having to artificially lengthen your journey through space and time to next target "because timer isn't down yet"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MAS-X]
Players
383 posts
9,132 battles

So many changes in the .9.2

Probably too many to test all in once :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,022 posts
11,826 battles

I think bpmbers would on average already be the most lost aircraft (aircraft lost vs aircraft that used their payload is a good measure for this)

.

Also, you really need to stop nerfing CVs based on the top 10-100 player performance, or at least nerf AA accordingly

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
13,895 posts
19,717 battles

Frankly I would like to know the exact values rather than a vague "we've generally increased this" before making any judgement.

 

As for the change to RN bombers, isn't that actually a nerf? Currently you can quite comfortably turn around and reengage almost immediately. If you accelerate them further away that means reengaging takes longer which is bad, no?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UAC]
Players
659 posts
2,215 battles

Just make it one squadron as a whole makes an attack and get over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ST-EU]
Players
156 posts
4,302 battles
6 minuti fa, El2aZeR ha scritto:

As for the change to RN bombers, isn't that actually a nerf? Currently you can quite comfortably turn around and reengage almost immediately. If you accelerate them further away that means reengaging takes longer which is bad, no?

Wouldn't it make you reach only the further AA aura range so, maybe, decrease the AA damage you take while turning (example, turning outside of the mid range aura)? I'm not sure how it is now but it could be. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG]
WG Staff, Administrator, Community, WG Team
4,544 posts
3,839 battles
1 hour ago, El2aZeR said:

Frankly I would like to know the exact values rather than a vague "we've generally increased this" before making any judgement.

 

As for the change to RN bombers, isn't that actually a nerf? Currently you can quite comfortably turn around and reengage almost immediately. If you accelerate them further away that means reengaging takes longer which is bad, no?

You'll be able to test them in public test, and the values also do changes depending on the tier of the carrier.

 

Here are the values which will be present during the public test

 

US, Japanese, German:
Tier 4: 5 → 7.5 s
Tier 6: 5 → 8 s
Tier 8: 5 → 8.5 s
Tier 10 & Saipan: 5 → 9 s

 

British:
Tier 4 & Ark Royal: 5 → 7 s
Tier 6: 5 → 7.5 s
Tier 8: 5 → 8 s
Tier 10: 5 → 8.5 s

 

Acceleration time increased from 4 to 4.5, acceleration coefficient from 2 to 2.5

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,022 posts
11,826 battles
2 minutes ago, Tanatoy said:

You'll be able to test them in public test, and the values also do changes depending on the tier of the carrier.

 

Here are the values which will be present during the public test

 

US, Japanese, German:
Tier 4: 5 → 7.5 s
Tier 6: 5 → 8 s
Tier 8: 5 → 8.5 s
Tier 10 & Saipan: 5 → 9 s

 

British:
Tier 4 & Ark Royal: 5 → 7 s
Tier 6: 5 → 7.5 s
Tier 8: 5 → 8 s
Tier 10: 5 → 8.5 s

 

Acceleration time increased from 4 to 4.5, acceleration coefficient from 2 to 2.5

Thats some hefty nerfing right there. nearly double the time between two drops for a Saipan or Midway- so instead of passing roughly 5km between to targets, you go to 9km- making it nearly impossible to hit two targets in a row. That already costs a lot of aircraft now, will be impossible after change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[1FA]
Players
269 posts
16,345 battles

Shouldn't the premium ships be exempted from direct stats nerfing by some WG policy?

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GURKA]
Players
5,262 posts
10,663 battles
12 minutes ago, Yamashiro42 said:

Shouldn't the premium ships be exempted from direct stats nerfing by some WG policy?

Guess that doesn'T count, when you change the a mechanic or value for a whole ship type. Imagine you would change, that BBs get now all Torpedos, should the premiums then not also get the change? Or with Submarines all DDs get Depth Charges, then the premiums have to get this change as well. Here we change the attack of all Carriers, that has to effect all CVs

 

Another example, imagine you would change only values. All planes get a huge HP Nerf from 100% down to 5%. Like 2k hp to 500 hp. But also the AA dmg get lowered from 100% to 5%. If this only effects silver ships, then the prems would become broken^^ In such cases you have to change every ship.

 

I could imagine that this policy counts more for single prems, not the whole line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,521 posts
13,775 battles
30 minutes ago, Yamashiro42 said:

Shouldn't the premium ships be exempted from direct stats nerfing by some WG policy?

Class wide nerfs dont count.

 

3 hours ago, Filipin00 said:

Just make it one squadron as a whole makes an attack and get over it.

That would be stupidly powerful. The squad being broken up into multiple attacks and taking extended amounts of time is what allows AA to actually mitigate some of the damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TORAZ]
Beta Tester
13,895 posts
19,717 battles

I believe changes up to and including T8s are going to be marginal. Slingshot will most likely still be a viable tool for them.

On T10 the extra 4s will probably affect Haku quite harshly as she has the longest slingshot distance and the most fragile DBs thus needs to reengage faster. Not sure if Midway really cares much.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,521 posts
13,775 battles
2 hours ago, Tanatoy said:

You'll be able to test them in public test, and the values also do changes depending on the tier of the carrier.

 

Here are the values which will be present during the public test

 

US, Japanese, German:
Tier 4: 5 → 7.5 s
Tier 6: 5 → 8 s
Tier 8: 5 → 8.5 s
Tier 10 & Saipan: 5 → 9 s

 

British:
Tier 4 & Ark Royal: 5 → 7 s
Tier 6: 5 → 7.5 s
Tier 8: 5 → 8 s
Tier 10: 5 → 8.5 s

 

Acceleration time increased from 4 to 4.5, acceleration coefficient from 2 to 2.5

So there are no changes to the actual invincibility window?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UAC]
Players
659 posts
2,215 battles
57 minutes ago, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

Class wide nerfs dont count.

 

That would be stupidly powerful. The squad being broken up into multiple attacks and taking extended amounts of time is what allows AA to actually mitigate some of the damage.

You're right. Idk, I'm not smart about this whole CV vs surface ship interaction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CKBK]
Players
25 posts
30,378 battles

Only 90% of the playerbase hate CVs, all nerfs is welcome. Unbelivable that AA mod1 is removed and moved to the most used slot at tier 9-10... Idk how you figured out that its to much AA in the game, big joke. 

Share this post


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

×