General AA dilemma / discussion

[1MajorKoenig]

Hi captains,

 

lots has been discussed on CVs since month but I feel that the most controversial point of the whole thing hasn’t seen much attention — and that is in my option the way AA works. And I feel AA was more of an afterthought in the rework design and has almost be neglected by WG.

 

For most players it is largely irrelevant if the CV player plays an RTS thing or attacks in first person. However most people care about what they can do to counter the attacks. And currently the AA is completely AI and number driven meaning = predictable. Which in turn naturally means that experienced CV players will take advantage of that predictability.

 

Now — there was a nice suggestion by @_ReWinD_ which never got much attention in the big pile of general remarks, memes and and ever repeating complaints.
 

And here is what he proposed:

 

1. keep the current AA model as is which will give anyone a basic AA defense no matter what he or she does in the battle
2. replace the current “Sector” mechanic with a player controlled AA model similar to Battlestations Pacific. This would give players who care to focus on varying Threads a tool to improve the effectiveness of their AA at the cost of doing other stuff. Naturally player controlled AA would be less predictable and more effective 

 

To sum it up: if you don’t like additional things to worry about - nothing would change. BUT: if you want to focus on AA in certain situations this model would give you some additional tools. 

 

Please let me know what you think about it

 

 

Impression / from this oldy but goldy game:

[22cm]

17 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

...the way AA works... 

Wait, it works?! 

[1MajorKoenig]

4 minutes ago, 22cm said:

Wait, it works?! 

 you sir are a mean man

 

Joking aside. Yes it works to achieve a balance but as it is predictable (AI) good players can take advantage of that. And I believe that is one of the main issues with the overall perception.

[DFens_666]

I really dont think, WG could pull it off without [edited]it up really bad.

The issue i see is, that it should be better than automatic AA, naturally, since i have to do something myself. So what happens if a CV strikes a group of ships and they all use it? he will just die instantly, and WG wont do that... this means, individual AA still needs to be rather bad to compensate for this.

Also the question is, how well could the CV dodge manual AA? If its still possible, then it might still not do anything against very good CV players, while absolutely murdering bad CV players (essentially the same as now)

So what might happen

- Automatic AA gets nerfed into the ground

- Manual AA is slightly better than current AA, because everything else goes against WGs glorious rework concept.

In the end, it could turn out even worse than current system. Sure, if the CV attacks you 1 minute into the game he might not be able to do much. But if Cruisers and DDs are engaged in a fight, they probably wont have much chance to use their AA. Contrary to BBs, which have a nice window of 30 secs to use AA while guns reload.

[Kathapalt]

There is really nothing that can be done about it.

Either AA is strong enough to matter= cv:s don´t get damage in.

Or AA is like now  that it does nothing = cv:s get damage in.

 

 

[1MajorKoenig]

11 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

I really dont think, WG could pull it off without [edited]it up really bad.

The issue i see is, that it should be better than automatic AA, naturally, since i have to do something myself. So what happens if a CV strikes a group of ships and they all use it? he will just die instantly, and WG wont do that... this means, individual AA still needs to be rather bad to compensate for this.

Also the question is, how well could the CV dodge manual AA? If its still possible, then it might still not do anything against very good CV players, while absolutely murdering bad CV players (essentially the same as now)

So what might happen

- Automatic AA gets nerfed into the ground

- Manual AA is slightly better than current AA, because everything else goes against WGs glorious rework concept.

In the end, it could turn out even worse than current system. Sure, if the CV attacks you 1 minute into the game he might not be able to do much. But if Cruisers and DDs are engaged in a fight, they probably wont have much chance to use their AA. Contrary to BBs, which have a nice window of 30 secs to use AA while guns reload.

I see your point - but it could also be the exact other way around: 

 

maybe blobbing wouldn’t be as much needed anymore as people could do more themselves. You are right though that direct control of AA could not be an auto-win button. But that should be clear in any case.

 

If that would be a common problem a way could be to make attacking of overlapping AA less effective but such things would require testing obviously 

 

8 minutes ago, Kathapalt said:

There is really nothing that can be done about it.

Either AA is strong enough to matter= cv:s don´t get damage in.

Or AA is like now  that it does nothing = cv:s get damage in.

 

 

This is a valid concern as AA can’t result in a complete shut-down in the current concept. Basically the basis is that anyone can damage anyone else to varying costs. 
 

However the approach would need to be that attacking a ship with player controlled AA would be more costly but not impossible 

[Kathapalt]

2 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

This is a valid concern as AA can’t result in a complete shut-down in the current concept. Basically the basis is that anyone can damage anyone else to varying costs. 
 

However the approach would need to be that attacking a ship with player controlled AA would be more costly but not impossible 

This can already be done by increasing the sector reinforcement AA values, to make it punishing.

Problem is that then its against the the WG:s policy of first strike has to do damage, also CV players should learn to avoid it. with goes against the WG policy of CV:s should be easy to play.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

I loved the way Pacific worked, great game. It would be a great solution especially for ships that flank and are attacked while not being involved in a direct combat situation. Being able to use the AA like pacific in those situations would add greatly to the carrier vs. surface gameplay. Problem I see is, WG made it near impossible to balance AA with their redesigned abomintations. The carrier gameplay has become so 1 dimensional, AA changes will disrupt carrier gameplay where it starts to conflict the rework very quickly and break one way or the other.

 

Simplistic controls and managment but very hard target acquisition for carriers is something I can defenitely live with and which would make carriers more interesting to play for me pesonally (prob. need alpha buff in that case), but it will deter a lot of the current carrier players that honestly are pretty bad skillwise. They won't be able to cope with actually having to consider what to attack. They are so used to spamming that we already see the weirdest complaints on this forum about carrier players being upset someone dares to make their attack impossible. We have carrier apologists who constantly bring up the absurd notion that if carriers can't attack 1 or 2 sepcialized AA ships in a match they 'can't attack anything' . WG has created a spoiled group of players that are used to 'resistance is futile'.

 

I'd really prefer carriers get it harder but also get a bit more alpha capacity and will have to be very selective in their attacks. But WG really wants to dumb things down still so willy nilly skilly can (ab)use this class that should be a specialized class after all.

 

So yes, thumbs up from me. But serious doubt WG will ever get back to creating interesting gameplay on whatever they produce :(

[1MajorKoenig]

4 minutes ago, Kathapalt said:

This can already be done by increasing the sector reinforcement AA values, to make it punishing.

Problem is that then its against the the WG:s policy of first strike has to do damage, also CV players should learn to avoid it. with goes against the WG policy of CV:s should be easy to play.

Of course sector enforcement is a try to give players some interaction vs planes but do think this is the best way to do it?

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

4 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Of course sector enforcement is a try to give players some interaction vs planes but do think this is the best way to do it?

Absolutely not. It's awekward, and having AA enhanced on one side is silly, as planes often shoot over to the other side. It's absurd. As you said, an afterthought. The Pacific way is much more interesting.

[DFens_666]

11 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

I see your point - but it could also be the exact other way around: 

 

maybe blobbing wouldn’t be as much needed anymore as people could do more themselves. You are right though that direct control of AA could not be an auto-win button. But that should be clear in any case.

 

If that would be a common problem a way could be to make attacking of overlapping AA less effective but such things would require testing obviously 

 

I think the only way to keep this concept, is by removing the core issue of trading planes for damage. Changes either way will result in CVs being more dominent (less AA) or CVs being shut down (more AA).

So the only way left is make it harder for CVs to be able to deal damage. We need the panic effect of DefAA return somehow. Blob of ships should lower the damage they receive, currently all it does is shut a certain amount of CVs down entirely, while others can still get the same damage in. Only they trade some planes for that damage, which can be a good trade.

Longrange AA is so pathetic, you cant help other ships with AA, so we can forget about that. I think i wrote it once before, blob of ships should disturb the planes, so the reticle wont be as accurate anymore. That would actually help against ANY CV player. Even removing or lowering extra damage from DefAA and trade it for panic effect might actually be worth it. Shooting down 1 or 2 more planes but receving 25k citadel damage doesnt mean anything for my Cruiser.

[1MajorKoenig]

2 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

think the only way to keep this concept, is by removing the core issue of trading planes for damage. Changes either way will result in CVs being more dominent (less AA) or CVs being shut down (more AA).

I don’t agree 100% but I see your point 

 

3 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

the only way left is make it harder for CVs to be able to deal damage. We need the panic effect of DefAA return somehow. Blob of ships should lower the damage they receive, currently all it does is shut a certain amount of CVs down entirely, while others can still get the same damage in. Only they trade some planes for that damage, which can be a good trade.

Longrange AA is so pathetic, you cant help other ships with AA, so we can forget about that. I think i wrote it once before, blob of ships should disturb the planes, so the reticle wont be as accurate anymore. That would actually help against ANY CV player. Even removing or lowering extra damage from DefAA and trade it for panic effect might actually be worth it.

Re-introducing the panic spread is indeed something I would support, mainly to be able to support your allies if you are in an AA ship. 
 

The panic spread on Def AA would even be a simple thing to do within the current mechanics.

 

I’d prefer the Battlestations approach as it gives some more interaction but the panic thread would be a reasonable alternative potentially 

[Maris_Piper]

Anything that gives us a chance to return to being able to at least thinking you can fight back against CV's would be welcome indeed, but the way WG treats this broken class makes me think maybe Mr Khatajaev ordered them into the game personally, I know I've been waiting for cans of CV shine to be available in the premium shop 

[FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor]

Vor 7 Stunden, 1MajorKoenig sagte:

To sum it up: if you don’t like additional things to worry about - nothing would change. BUT: if you want to focus on AA in certain situations this model would give you some additional tools.

• WG clearly does not want any player to have effective tools against CVs. Rather, any changes they ever implement are aimed at protecting CVs and their planes better and better while at best creating the impression that players have counterplay options. They literally said so in St Petersburg at the CC summit and underscored it again and again with every change implemented since then.
• Even if they ever were to implement any such thing, it still would not change the spotting problem.

Zitat

maybe blobbing wouldn’t be as much needed anymore as people could do more themselves.

 

Did you miss the part where WG nerfed blob AA so players cannot protect each other even if they want to? Or do you just ignore it because it doesn't fit your world view?

 

Upshot: Organised player protest against CVs remains the only conceivable path that can ever lead to an improvement of the situation.

Of course.

 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

I like the idea of manual AA; but the question is how to balance that. Will be a good player "immune" to CVs, because he uses the AA well? That would be a bad design, since grouping would be always make them immune to CVs and no CV player would have any chance

[1MajorKoenig]

39 minutes ago, FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor said:

Upshot: Organised player protest against CVs remains the only conceivable path that can ever lead to an improvement of the situation.

Of course.

Promoting breaking the rules or making suggestions like „scale damage with flight time“....  why am I not surprised 

[1MajorKoenig]

30 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I like the idea of manual AA; but the question is how to balance that. Will be a good player "immune" to CVs, because he uses the AA well? That would be a bad design, since grouping would be always make them immune to CVs and no CV player would have any chance

I think “immune” would not work in this game. It is all about how costly an attack is. 

[159Hunter]

Wait, so you are asking WG to implement this. You know, the company that claims that CV players can only fly planes and not be bothered with moving their hull, use their DCP, launch their fighter planes...

But now you are suggesting that surface ships should:

- position their ship

- use consumables wisely

- use main guns to shoot other surface ships

AND

- shoot their AA guns?

Never gonna happen. Way to difficult if WG remains logic.

 

BTW, @Pikkozoikum it's okay for CVs to be able to strike any ship no matter what the player does but god forbit a ship could actually negate a CV attack? 

 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

35 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I like the idea of manual AA; but the question is how to balance that. Will be a good player "immune" to CVs, because he uses the AA well? That would be a bad design, since grouping would be always make them immune to CVs and no CV player would have any chance

Yup, the first omg cvs wont be able to attack anything comment is in. 

[El2aZeR]

7 hours ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

To sum it up: if you don’t like additional things to worry about - nothing would change. BUT: if you want to focus on AA in certain situations this model would give you some additional tools.

 

As I have already stated previously, this is a lot easier said than done and comes with numerous design and gameplay challenges that can have immense effect on pretty much every gameplay aspect of the game far beyond just CV - AA interaction.

 

Whether that will ultimately improve or worsen the game, no idea quite frankly. I do however believe it is well worth testing - though I also believe the playerbase nowadays will be less than receptive to it as the majority of the core players that would have put up with such changes have already left.

[Pikkozoikum]

1 minute ago, 159Hunter said:

BTW, @Pikkozoikum it's okay for CVs to be able to strike any ship no matter what the player does but god forbit a ship could actually negate a CV attack? 

Not again please, we had that a 100 times. It matters what a player does...

Like a surface ships, a CV wants to be able to attack. Imagine you play a surface ship and just because you are good all enemy shells disappear.

 

Also the context have to be understood. We don't have 4 or 5 CVs in each teams, more likely 1 or sometimes 2. So if the AA becomes manual and relying on the skill of the surface ship, then grouping makes CV games impossible. 

 

When you have 3 decent AA players in a team, and the rest goes with the "Idc, I use passive AA", then they would go for 3 groups and the CV will always lose all strikes. That would make the CV useless and unplayable, which is a bad design idea.

Thus you have to balance it, that only groups are able to deny, but then again single players skill doesnt matter or increase CV number, so multiple CVs could attack groups. Then a single good player woudl be able defend against a single bad CV easily, but fail against more than 1 CV

[Pikkozoikum]

10 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Yup, the first omg cvs wont be able to attack anything comment is in. 

yes, because it's common sense, though it's not "omg CVs won't be able to attack", it's just mentioning the fact

 

You can't balance it around 1vs1. Because its a teamgame, but we only have 1 or 2 CVs in each team, thus balancing it around 1vs1 would mean, that it is often unfair 2vs1 or 3vs2, or 5vs1. There are mostly more surface ships, then CVs ;)

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

10 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

yes, because it's common sense, though it's not "omg CVs won't be able to attack", it's just mentioning the fact

 

You can't balance it around 1vs1. Because its a teamgame, but we only have 1 or 2 CVs in each team, thus balancing it around 1vs1 would mean, that it is often unfair 2vs1 or 3vs2, or 5vs1. There are mostly more surface ships, then CVs ;)

It's not a fact 

[FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor]

Vor 27 Minuten, 1MajorKoenig sagte:

Promoting breaking the rules or making suggestions like „scale damage with flight time“....  why am I not surprised 

Rules that prohibit protest are fascistoid and need to be fought, tooth and nail. But do keep crawling up WG's lower intestine and/or ignoring reality at your leisure.

[Pikkozoikum]

6 minutes ago, Europizza said:

It's not a fact 

So, if make AA skill reliable, that 1vs1 between CV and surface is fair, then it's still fair, when 1 CV has only to fight against groups of 2, 3, 4 and 5 ships?

 

-For CV are mostly only "fair" encounters of isolated ships and unfair encounters towards the CV, where ships are grouping

-For Surface ships are fair encounters of 1vs1 and unfair encounters for the CV, where ships group against him.

 

You mostly will always have these combinations and rarely a 2 CVs vs 1 surface ship scenario, so the CV is by default in unfair setting. So it's a fact, unless you don't increase the number of CVs per team

Which I also mentioned

 

Otherwise, proof it. Just saying "it isn't" is not a proof.