From NA - "Mouse makes a post every week about how crappy AA is in World of Warships: Week One"

[Andrewbassg]

https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/253050-mouse-makes-a-post-every-week-about-how-crappy-aa-is-in-world-of-warships-week-one/

 

 

[JohnMac79]

AA in WOWS:

 

[PeteEarthling]

I would love manual AAA. Like in War Thunder. You know, interaction from player to player. Like it was a PvP game. Oh, wait.

[Panocek]

1 hour ago, PeteEarthling said:

I would love manual AAA. Like in War Thunder. You know, interaction from player to player. Like it was a PvP game. Oh, wait.

With primary purpose of "manually using" anti air being shooting at yoloing torpedo boats, as often enough planes were outside of what was it, 2.5km? range to show lead indicator, while AI could fire at such far away planes just fine

 

Anti air in War Thunder is certainly... cinematic to watch, but staggering difference in effectiveness between time based and proximity fuses is something I'd prefer to not be repeated

[AkerJack]

It is a great idea but if they want to implement this WG must change and fix the MM because they have to equally distribute the AA ships, otherwise we will have trams with heavy AA and untouchable by CVs and the opponents with light or no AA at all.

[Panocek]

2 minutes ago, AkerJack said:

It is a great idea but if they want to implement this WG must change and fix the MM because they have to equally distribute the AA ships, otherwise we will have trams with heavy AA and untouchable by CVs and the opponents with light or no AA at all.

Just like we have balanced radar/gun/torpedoboat distribution? Oh wait...

[AkerJack]

33 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Just like we have balanced radar/gun/torpedoboat distribution? Oh wait...

That's why I wrote "fix and change"

[Panocek]

Just now, AkerJack said:

That's why I wrote "fix and change"

If those didn't happened during 7+ years of game existence, odds are, they won't be fixed now. All part of "random matchmaking"

[ReDiR20]

No buffs to AA please, already hard to play CV. You can check my stats if you dont believe that

[Wulf_Ace]

well we cant buff all AA on all ships that would make CVs out of the game.

but

we could make special ships that have ultra great AA, mostly only cruisers, where they could cover a bit larger area of ships he protects.

but

not every game has a cv in it, so without cv that ship losses its special gimmick.

but

we could make option to choose layout of that cruiser when entering battle, focused aa or some other build without aa.

that could be done...

[Northern_Nightowl]

Vor 54 Minuten, ReDiR20 sagte:

No buffs to AA please, already hard to play CV. You can check my stats if you dont believe that

The main grievance about CV is not about the amount of damage they can deal, you know?

 

It's IMHO about the quite unfair vision advantages they offer (permaspotting). But this factor doesn't really pay off into economics in-game, so it tends surely to get overlooked.

 

Regards, Nightowl

[Capra76]

53 minutes ago, ReDiR20 said:

No buffs to AA please, already hard to play CV. You can check my stats if you dont believe that

 

Why do you think you should be able to master the class in less than 20 games?

[Catpain_Lucifurr]

Changes are needed to the AA mechanic. I love the work of LittleWhiteMouse, however, I have to disagree about this one. Not because it makes the day harder for CVs, but becuase it is not the changes we need to see.

 

Removing the Defensive AA consumable will not do much good, simply making it better is probably the better choice. Further improving some special AA ships also makes sense without the need of redoing everything else.

 

In any event, the real problem is two-fold:

1.) The AA mechanic is (mostly) not based on player skill.

2.) The new mechanics of Russian CVs and super-CVs make AA somewhat redundant.

Fixing nr. 2 is easy, if they just want to. They will never remove the Russian CVs now, but they can change their mechanics so that their one-hit-wonder-squadrons get punished harder for attacking ships with good AA. As long as the power of the fast super-CVs planes are kept under control, living with that kind of strike power can be endured, but making those planes more fragile also will help avoiding braindead charges into enemy lines scoring full hits.

Fixing nr. 1 is extremely hard. I have no idea how to fix that. But maybe, the AA focus areas could be split up into 4 instead of 2 bits: Starboard, port, stern, and bow. If the cooldown for the AA focus would be reduced to, for example 10 seconds, and the effect of AA focus increased, you could argue that a player could actively manoeuvre and defend with more skill against planes. It would still be a pain and lot of clicking, but I don't see much other alternatives except taking direct control of AA guns - see comment below.

Direct Control AA Guns mode: Like "binocular" mode for aiming main guns, give manual control of shooting AA guns to the player. Also, this could be attempted dodged by CV players planes as skilled based counter-play. This COULD work for slow ships like battleships and some cruisers, but losing practical manoeuvrability for some period, or making use of autopilot would otherwise make your ship easy prey to other ships. The latter is a problem caused by spotting. Take away instant model spotting from being spotted by a plane to the team receiving mini map location, and this could actually work. :o 

[Humorpalanta]

Nice 1!

 

I have wanted to do something for a while so... let me join. I will reinstall the game and play nothing but CVs. I am not good at them but I will be! If they don't change this BS then let's go for their money. Let's ruin it for the whales.

[SkollUlfr]

43 minutes ago, Humorpalanta said:

Nice 1!

 

I have wanted to do something for a while so... let me join. I will reinstall the game and play nothing but CVs. I am not good at them but I will be! If they don't change this BS then let's go for their money. Let's ruin it for the whales.

iirc, didnt you complain about being gifted a premium cv from a box? or was that someone else?

[Panocek]

51 minutes ago, Humorpalanta said:

Nice 1!

 

I have wanted to do something for a while so... let me join. I will reinstall the game and play nothing but CVs. I am not good at them but I will be! If they don't change this BS then let's go for their money. Let's ruin it for the whales.

And you better tryhard properly when doing so. If you fail at your task, you might end up proving CVs need a buff, while to molest superships effectively you'd need supercarrier, as their AA package is... fitting for a tier 11 

[SkollUlfr]

19 minutes ago, Panocek said:

And you better tryhard properly when doing so. If you fail at your task, you might end up proving CVs need a buff, while to molest superships effectively you'd need supercarrier, as their AA package is... fitting for a tier 11 

still a win. either demonstrate aa vs cv as painful or provoke wg into making aa vs cv more painful.

[Panocek]

1 minute ago, SkollUlfr said:

still a win. either demonstrate aa vs cv as painful or provoke wg into making aa vs cv more painful.

Or CV damage will plummet, because they will pull off single strike at expense of entire squadron. Thus, CV buff and/or AA nerfs

[Andrewbassg]

4 hours ago, Catpain_Lucifurr said:

In any event, the real problem is two-fold:

1.) The AA mechanic is (mostly) not based on player skill.

2.) The new mechanics of Russian CVs and super-CVs make AA somewhat redundant.

I should add

3) the +/-2 tier Cv MM makes impossible to balance AA

4)The fact that one strike is guaranteed, makes it dishonest.

[thisismalacoda]

132 planes down in a tad over 12 minutes. No fun was had.

 

[Yedwy]

12 hours ago, thisismalacoda said:

132 planes down in a tad over 12 minutes. No fun was had.

 

Of which majority were fighters he dropped for spotting… 

 

I remember meeting a guy in a battle a while back that was smarta**ing in a similar manner in the game chat and boasting how many of my planes he downed right before he realized that you can actually be hit by bombs from a skip bomber even on the “first bar” 2 min later he went into a rage after I pancaked him, it was hilarious btw got +3 karma for that match… 

 

Oh and btw I suck in CVs 

[FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor]

Yeah it would have been really surprising if that women had finally wised up and tried something actually productive that made sense instead of keeping to promote WoWs.

[Andrewbassg]

1 hour ago, FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor said:

Yeah it would have been really surprising if that women had finally wised up and tried something actually productive that made sense instead of keeping to promote WoWs.

I think she did much for the community. Which is in my book, worthy of respect.

[FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor]

Vor 2 Stunden, Andrewbassg sagte:

I think she did much for the community.

As it turns out, the vast majority of that community gives less of a sh|t about current events, peace and justice than the average IKEA customer.

Congratulations!

[thisismalacoda]

Vor 7 Stunden, Yedwy sagte:

Of which majority were fighters he dropped for spotting… 

 

I remember meeting a guy in a battle a while back that was smarta**ing in a similar manner in the game chat and boasting how many of my planes he downed right before he realized that you can actually be hit by bombs from a skip bomber even on the “first bar” 2 min later he went into a rage after I pancaked him, it was hilarious btw got +3 karma for that match… 

 

 

Fighters were not the majority, and little point bragging about a mostly automated system.

 

Just an indication that AA performance is somewhat ok - the Hakuryu certainly didn't come with full squadrons after 7 or 8 minutes - and you can't really finetune it as long as the russians keep their subpar matchmaker. Both a T6 CV in T8 or a T8 CV against T6 experience completely unbalanced AA.

 

So, yeah, CVs aren't fine, but AA levels should not be the main point of contention.