AA & CV's..This has gotta stop WG

[robihr]

personally I havn't seen any great feats from a higher tier CV player in some time, other then annoying the hell out of DD players by hovering near them with planes.

 

here i corrected this for you

[Spellfire40]

 

Okay, lets go through BBs, shall we?

Kawachi, South Carolina - bad AA

Wyoming, Myogi - adequate AA given that CVs have no reserves at all

Kongo, New York - adequate AA

Fuso - adequate AA

New Mexico - good AA

Colorado - sick AA

Nagato - adequate AA

North Carolina - insanely overpowered AA on stock hull even

Amagi - just adequate AA after the changes, before the focus on long range AA it actually had sick AA too

Izumo - good AA

Iowa - incredibly sick AA on last hull

Montana - best AA in game

Yamato - same as Montana, just missing the very-short-range AA (which does barely any damage after focus on long range AA).

 

There is no BB above T5 that has bad AA anymore. Worst is probably the Fuso by a large margin, the rest can reliably take down a few planes, the USN ones can take down squads before the drop if manuevered properly by the BB captain.

 

The whine about your AA specced CA being useless because there is no CV ... well, maybe there would be more CVs if T6-8 AA wasn't completely imbalanced towards T6-8 planes. It's fine on T9/10 and it's fine on T4/5 (due to low reserves) but T6-8 is nearly unplayable. I even lose squads to freaking Nürnbergs in my SAIPAN! (T9 versus T6).

 

The T4 argument is BS, because if you lose your squad once you dont have any planes left. You can't sealclub because CVs are OP but because players suck. I can sealclub a lot harder in my Kongo or Murmansk than in any T4/5 CV, because I don't get crippled by a small mistake.

 

Proof:

 

 

 

 

I was still complete noob in the Murmansk when I first bought it, that's why it's a bit lower in general - that was at the very start of open beta.

About Fuso AA with AFT vs Ryoyu:

And thats without equiping an AA module 9 of the 11 planes were Torpedobombers. Thats the worst AA by far above 5 if you know what you are doing.

 

About CA and insane AA: What is the best AA in the game worth if no plane gets into range? CV atack BBs so their AA has a effect. CV avoid AA CA like a plague unless they have to atack it to prevent caps or defend agist one geting to Close to the CV even insane CA AA is useless.

 

The only BBs i consider totally OP vs a same Level CV are NC, Iowa, Montana(well i cant really compare here since my best CV is Taiho) and Texas wich is basically imun to air atacks unless it have a Long workover by CA HE Shells. What does near imun BBs mean to gameplay? Well if i can atack a DD and lose 1-2 planes or atack a BB and lose 5-8+ and get the same exp/credits what do you think i atack?

 

[N00b32]

Let's talk about bringing up stats. (Like with the average damage a Hiryu makes compared to a Colorado). The problem here is simple: sites like http://wows-numbers.com/ track all games ever played. In the case of carriers even the old Op games. And that is the problem I have with those stats as an argument. It is like WN8. Just mix up enough numbers and you end with some other numbers that can tell you anything. Just not the current state. 

 

I would suggest discussing with the stats from the last week or last month (you can get them at http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html) rather than discussion carriers with overall stats.

 

Let's take the Hiryu as an example. WoWs-numbers sees an overall winrate of 52,18, while last weeks Hiryu winrate was 49,85. That is a whole different story. So be careful with the stats you quote. 

 

( Same counts btw, for Hiryu vs. Colorad damage, Hiryu has 45275 on average, Colorado 42458.)

 

So please guys, instead of quoting some old data from sites that mix up all games ever played, please consider the current state of the game. And this also counts for DD discussions. And yes, Isokaze does more damage than Hatsuharu and Kamikaze more damage than Kagero (and also Fletcher btw.) in the current state of the game. Just to bring another example why the source of the numbers count. 

[robihr]

Let's talk about bringing up stats. (Like with the average damage a Hiryu makes compared to a Colorado). The problem here is simple: sites like http://wows-numbers.com/ track all games ever played. In the case of carriers even the old Op games. And that is the problem I have with those stats as an argument. It is like WN8. Just mix up enough numbers and you end with some other numbers that can tell you anything. Just not the current state. 

 

I would suggest discussing with the stats from the last week or last month (you can get them at http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html) rather than discussion carriers with overall stats.

 

Let's take the Hiryu as an example. WoWs-numbers sees an overall winrate of 52,18, while last weeks Hiryu winrate was 49,85. That is a whole different story. So be careful with the stats you quote. 

 

( Same counts btw, for Hiryu vs. Colorad damage, Hiryu has 45275 on average, Colorado 42458.)

 

So please guys, instead of quoting some old data from sites that mix up all games ever played, please consider the current state of the game.

 

considering stats i have mentioned that mostly on higher tiers you get more dedicated/better CV players than average BB/CA/DD player. so whole CV population is like comparing stats to top 25% of the BB players. those ppl who bring down stats usually stop playing after they lose all the planes to AA, cause playing CV with mentality of sub average yamato player isnt so forgiving. at least with yamato they get high health pool and can do some damage with guns no matter how bad they are, while with CV they cant.

[Redcap375]

Sometimes you gotta screw stats and just look at gameplay chaps. Look at two groups of tier 8 IJN torp planes trying to sink the same tier BB that doesn't want to be sunk, never mind a tier 10 BB you also come across. There you have it. That's with no support near by for whatever reason, imagin if it did. 

 

You/we are so restricted to what ships to go for above tier 7. DDs are becoming number 1 on the CV hit list. DD captains will hopefully back me up on this as I've been bombed to death by them too. 3 groups of US lex bombers after the bomb damage increase, nasty.

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

Destroyers are too easy to kill for high tier carriers(tier VIII plus) and aircraft hitpoints really needs to be lowered so that DDs can defend themselves. Out of 4 games tonight in Fletcher maxed out for AA setup I was sunk 3 times by enemy carriers focusing their entire strike decks at my ship from which there is no possible way to escape. And also limit carriers to non division play as good carrier divisions have far too much negative impact on the game experience.

 

Carriers are still broken and imho they should be removed from play untill a solution for that class' game mechanics and meta that is satisfactory for all players have been resolved.

[Mayv]

Destroyers are too easy to kill for high tier carriers(tier VIII plus) and aircraft hitpoints really needs to be lowered so that DDs can defend themselves. Out of 4 games tonight in Fletcher maxed out for AA setup I was sunk 3 times by enemy carriers focusing their entire strike decks at my ship from which there is no possible way to escape. And also limit carriers to non division play as good carrier divisions have far too much negative impact on the game experience.

 

Carriers are still broken and imho they should be removed from play untill a solution for that class' game mechanics and meta that is satisfactory for all players have been resolved.

 

Since you have the Fletcher in an AA setup I assume you are using Defensive Fire. In this case it seems more like your fault than CVs being OP.

[Aerroon]

 

I think when it comes to whining its pretty obvious who is whining here, somehow other people manage. At least wait  till the patch hits before starting these kind of end of the world rants. It is likely to do very little difference. Your perception of what good AA on a BB is misguided at best. What you describe as good AA in no way prevents you from making a successful CV run, sure shock horror you might lose a plane on approach but it wont stop you from doing a successful run like a dedicated AA ship. Also are you kidding? Saying that tier 4 BB have adequate AA? Might just as well call Arkansas AA "passable" , out of all the ships you called only Kongo has Adequate AA. Underwhelming at best. Biased much? Montana doesnt have the best AA in the game it cant by very fact that its a BB dont be blinded by raw values on BBs they are pretty meaningless. Also you assume that every one of these BB will spec into anti air? 

Yes.

 

Also, please go play CV before you start spouting this stuff. Clearly you do not play CVs just from what you're saying, so maybe go give it a try. Tell us how great it is to go strike an North Carolina or Iowa in your Hiryuu.

[Panocek]

Yes.

 

Also, please go play CV before you start spouting this stuff. Clearly you do not play CVs just from what you're saying, so maybe go give it a try. Tell us how great it is to go strike an North Carolina or Iowa in your Hiryuu.

 

No wonder my plane count goes up when every Hiryu/Ranger player is hellbent engaging two tiers higher battleship known for AA firepower, while Essex/Taiho guys wait till late game and/or do coordinated strike with everything at once - and from my experience Iowa might be able to shot down entire Essex TB squadron before they deliver payload, but by that time I have 3x6 or 3x7 DB on top of my head, which on manual drop HURT. Not to mention they erase most of AA defenses, making next bombing runs pretty much safe to execute.

[Redcap375]

 

No wonder my plane count goes up when every Hiryu/Ranger player is hellbent engaging two tiers higher battleship known for AA firepower, while Essex/Taiho guys wait till late game and/or do coordinated strike with everything at once - and from my experience Iowa might be able to shot down entire Essex TB squadron before they deliver payload, but by that time I have 3x6 or 3x7 DB on top of my head, which on manual drop HURT. Not to mention they erase most of AA defenses, making next bombing runs pretty much safe to execute.

 

Thats the problem. Half of the games in a Hiryu/Ranger include not one but 5ish tier 8-9 ships. You have already stated that you can blow 2 groups of ESSEX, torp bombers out the sky. What chance does a tier 7 one have? IJN CVS with less per group and weaker planes makes it even worse!! The biggest damage dealers CVs have are torp bombers and they get deleted first. Don't blame them. 

[allufewig]

I love these stories of "OMG a Fuso shot down 8 of my bombers! "Such sick AA everywhere!"

 

Entertaining but useless. The only thing that matters from a balance-perspective are (recent) serverstats. A Fuso shoots down 0,77 planes on average. You can generously quadruple it, for there is no CV in every game. If you want to go in-depth, take a closer look at the stats of the top and bottom-players and watch their developement after changes were introduced.
 

Also WG aims for a lower CV-count by making CVs hard to play, which doesnt necessarily correlate to balancing by numbers. Personally I can see why they do it. "Striking from impunity-classes" are always the ones who generate sh*tloads of frustration for at least one party involved. Making this class OP is dumb as all hell (see CBT/OBT), making it UP is still dumb. For population-control you have to take away incentives to play.
 

Basically if you dont find them fun anymore, switch class. CVs are intended to be niche. When playing with good CV-captains or watching them, it becomes more than obvious that this class is still capable of influencing the battle massively, even if just via "utility"- functions. Thats why I find this constant whining of seemingly intelligent and capable players like Syrchalis and Aerroon so annoying. I understand that you miss this feeling of extreme controll over the battle, but you should start accepting that CVs dont get any special bonuses anymore.
 

[Panocek]

 

Thats the problem. Half of the games in a Hiryu/Ranger include not one but 5ish tier 8-9 ships. You have already stated that you can blow 2 groups of ESSEX, torp bombers out the sky. What chance does a tier 7 one have? IJN CVS with less per group and weaker planes makes it even worse!! The biggest damage dealers CVs have are torp bombers and they get deleted first. Don't blame them. 

 

Essex/Midway lost 2xTB some time ago... And I guess you weren't hit by those 1000lbers yet.

[Praxics]

 

You know what, you're right. I don't have any stats or numbers to back me up. All I have are just the observations I made while playing CV, the same observations I make for the other ship classes I play. I have to point out some stuff though, without the stats or numbers. Firstly in my CVs when I get killed its usually not because some CV sniper/CV killed me, but cause I got sunk by some other class of ship. Believe it or not not all CVs camp at the end of the map and launch planes and attack from a distance. Some actually go close enough to the skirmish line to reduce the time needed for planes to travel, thereby exposing themselves to more danger. Silly right. Don't get me started on how slow a Langly and Bogue is. Even the Wyoming and New York can outrun them. You think no ships can get in range of lower tier CVs like them to kill them off?

 

Also I don't know where you get the stats but from what I got from WoWS Stats & Numbers, a Langley does an average damage of 23,912, a Hosho does 37,451, Imperator does 41,633, Wyoming does 31,585, Arkansas does 34,461 and Myogi does a pitiful 25,612.  A Hipper does 32,729, Mikhail 35,372, Chapayev 39186, Atago 34,024, Mogami 39,155 and finally NO does 31,073. The Langley can only out damage the Myogi. All the tier 8 cruisers have a decent lead over it, although compared to the Hosho they have it bad. Imperator trounces everyone with regards to damage . So maybe we should have the Hosho and Imperator in tier 8 matches since they have clearly shown statistically they can outdamage all those tier 8 cruisers ;)

 

So you say a CV's damage never gets cut in half? I'll use my Hiryu's TB as an example. A Hiryu has 2 squads of TBs, with 4 planes each and a total of 8. Fly near anything at tier 6 and above you are bound to lose 1 or 2 planes. We'll assume it's 2 in this case. Then we spot a target say a lone Nagato (with upgraded hull and knows how to use wasd). While those TBs approach that Nagato, they're exposed to it's AA which among the other tier 7 ships is not that strong but still workable. So at the minimum another 1~2 planes gone. Again we assume 2. So barring your TBs meeting enemy fighters or fly to close to any enemy cruiser or just any group of enemy ships (all which is unrealistic in a normal match), you at the minimum lose 1 plane, maximum 4. Realistically, your planes will all/mostly get shot down while you fly all over the place dodging ship AA and enemy fighters and by the time you reach a potential target you might have lose 1/2 of your 2 squad TB, so your attack power is halfed. This is before we even consider whether or not that targeted ship takes any evasive manoeuvre. Mess up the drop or the enemy is good enough they can dodge all your torps, the torps fail to arm or you only land 1 or 2 torp hits. Then consider that the flooding chance for cv torps has been nerfed, which allow ships to just get away with whatever damage the torps dealt without any flood if RNG does not favour you. The same scenario will apply to DBs as well, with the addition that both IJN and USN rely on RNG for DB attacks landing, although I disagree that that IJN DBs on manual drop rely on RNG. Where you aim is where those bombs will drop, although compared to USN DBs they do way lesser damage and again how many will actually make it through to drop on an enemy ships. Also for the Hiryu you'll get 16 spare planes for the TBs and DBs each. If they all get shot down then tough luck go hide since you can no longer do any damage and your team will lose points if you get sunk. If you're lucky or good enough, end game you'll have strike planes left, but not a full 8 plane strike team, maybe 5 planes in total? I mean you really have to be damm lucky to get a full strike compliment end game. So your damage potential will decrease as a result. Please don't misinterpret halfing or reducing a CV's damage potential as taking away the Midway's 2nd TB squad. Its not that.It's a CV's planes getting shot down that reduces their damage potential which is why my outlook on buffing AA isn't that good since a CV's damage potential is reduced and I think AA has been buffed enough, at least for the low and mid tiers. At high tiers I can't really comment that much since I haven't play high tier CVs that much. I can only say that I've seen a friendly Izumo in a match where there is an enemy Lexington and Taiho, shoot down between 70+~90+ planes (combine enemy CV planes number at 155) and I assume crusiers like Des Moine can melt tier 9/10 planes, which should be the case and not a lone Yamato or Montana bringing down all the enemy planes by themselves. (If the problem is that tier 9/10 CVs are OP than keep those AA buffs to those tier, not trickle it down and make it even tougher for other tier CVs, although given how many tier 9/10 CVs play nowadays it doesn't really matter that much does it since tier 7 CVs can up in tier 8/9 games)

 

Also, although I don't perform that well, I think I know how to drive a BB better than most people. Quite a number of BB players either outright ignore (and leave it to other ships to deal with) or run from a DD, I just push towards them. Not always sunshine, like the time I got caught from a full blast of torps from a shima, but if people pay attention to the minimap and their surroundings, change directions often, you will make it a nightmare for DD players to torp you. At the same time, I spot DDs in my CV and try to kill them, yet when I play DD in a game where there are CVs, those CV captains often don't try to perma spot me or sink me. Every ship class require some skill to play or ability to make use of. If ships are limited by the amount of shells or torpedoes they can bring in per game like in WoT do you think people will not complain about it? The fact that CVs have that limit as well as "shells"  that can be shot down is why I say playing CVs is harder, not considering other factors that I've mentioned in various other post.

 

 

 

I use Warships.Today because it lets me set a time filter.

There I am able to only look at recent 2 weeks stats because then I only see stats of our current patch and not some combined stuff.

2 weeks in order to get played battles back up to reduce error with the law of large numbers.

 

T4 Langley: 33.690

T8 Hipper:   31.602

 

http://warship.today/vehicles/eu

It is ony page 6.

 

A ship shooting down planes and avoiding your torpedo drop is not the same as the AP bug.

It is obviously more akin to a cruiser dodging the BBs shells due its superior manoeuvrability and RNG screwing the BB over even when on target.

Not to mention that this is included in the stats!

Despite cruiser being able to do that the BB still comes out ahead in damage by a long shoot and so does the CV! Why? If you ask me because of their survivability. They live longer and can do more damage therefore.

Do I think Iowa or NC needs more AA? No. If someone needs a little buff on AA it is the IJN ships.

 

 

 

 

[Knight_Rider_23]

WG enough with the AA buffs please.  I am playing with all different tier with every ship class and the CVs have become unplayable because of this.

Redcap375   has a very good point. 

I have stopped playing CV (tier 8 by now) because of crazy AA and I'm playing anything else because of it.

[Syrchalis]

Also WG aims for a lower CV-count by making CVs hard to play

 

Hard to play would mean that you can use superior skills to outplay others. AA is not outplayable. It merely comes down if your enemy is able to press "T" or click a squadron. You yourself are out of the loop, your skill is irrelevant. In other words - this is the opposite of making it hard to play. It reduces the gap between good and bad players because their skill level doesn't matter as much anymore.

 

What they are doing is just making them frustrating and annoying to play. Which - granted - has the same effect and is much easier to do.

[allufewig]

 

Hard to play would mean that you can use superior skills to outplay others. AA is not outplayable. It merely comes down if your enemy is able to press "T" or click a squadron. You yourself are out of the loop, your skill is irrelevant. In other words - this is the opposite of making it hard to play. It reduces the gap between good and bad players because their skill level doesn't matter as much anymore.

 

What they are doing is just making them frustrating and annoying to play. Which - granted - has the same effect and is much easier to do.

 

 

I should have written "less appealing" then. But yes, this is exactly what I mean with taking incentives away.

 

Also in reply to your #136, what would you do to make AA more skillbased? I can understand that it is not satisfying to get a drop denied by rotting potatoe pressing the T button, but even if you redesign "T" to be more like fighter-barrage or something, there still remains the automatic AA. I dont see a way out of this. For dozens of smaller caliber guns you need some sort of auto-function.

 

For ships with too much AA on it, just avoid it until no longer possible. Every class and every ship has counterparts you better leave be. Again, I dont see a need for CVs to be treated like special snowflakes.

[Syrchalis]

Press AA button e.g. "G" . huge cone appears like the torpedo cone for wide spread. In this direction your ship now fires AA. Same for AA consumable. You can change direction only every 15-30seconds, depending on modules and captain skills. Alternatively there is a cooldown where your AA won't fire.

 

Solved.

 

Came up with that in 10seconds and it aint half bad. WG just doesn't want to spend money on new features, because their CEO wouldn't get his several million paycheck every month then. And the developers who get paid minimum wage can't be bothered either (which I can relate to, as I get half of minimum wage as dev). #HowTheWorldWorks

[allufewig]

Halfbaked solution. The DPS on the longrange-AA would have to be ultra-strong as every CV-captain could easily pull out his planes of the cone after the enemy ship has committed to its firing-zone, leaving it 100% defenseless against simple outmaneuvering or attacks with multiple squads. Crossdrops would be unavoidable by means of AA. Skill-involvement still minimal.
 

 

Besides, it is counter-intuitive as hell. AA didnt work that way. No need for too much realism in an arcade-game, but AA stopping to fire at enemy planes in range because they left or didnt enter some arbitrary firingzone? Doesnt sound good.

[Syrchalis]

It's still a whole lot better than what we have right now. If you want to go more realistic, just make AA fire like normal shells and you have to actually hit the planes directly. But let an average potato do that and normal gameplay and he will spend half the game reversing from islands.

[Ishiro32]

I will just leave this here

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/37037-aa-is-unfixable-right-now/page__pid__685786#entry685786

 

Since you started this topic again.

[allufewig]

I dont want to go more realistic (higher caliber AA often had bursting charges and didnt have to hit directly btw), I just dont want to make it even more unrealistic where it can possibly be avoided.

 

Only solution I could bring to the table is to give AA limited firing angles, so it would be for example safer for planes to approch from bow or Stern since less of a ships AA can be adjusted on target. If you are good at mircomanaging stuff, this could reward you with fewer plane losses. As for AA itself, I see no way to make its normal operation much skillbased. The barrage-cone solution could imho generally work for the T-Skill, however.

 

Edit: I mean exactly something like Ishiro wrote.

 

 

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

 

 

I should have written "less appealing" then. But yes, this is exactly what I mean with taking incentives away.

 

Also in reply to your #136, what would you do to make AA more skillbased? I can understand that it is not satisfying to get a drop denied by rotting potatoe pressing the T button, but even if you redesign "T" to be more like fighter-barrage or something, there still remains the automatic AA. I dont see a way out of this. For dozens of smaller caliber guns you need some sort of auto-function.

 

For ships with too much AA on it, just avoid it until no longer possible. Every class and every ship has counterparts you better leave be. Again, I dont see a need for CVs to be treated like special snowflakes.

 

The only way to make AA skill based is to make it player controlled i.e. the player fires it like the main battery however as that will never happen we are stuck with the current completly disembodied and abstract AA system that no one really finds satisfactory or improving the gaming experience.

[Redcap375]

 

Essex/Midway lost 2xTB some time ago... And I guess you weren't hit by those 1000lbers yet.

 

Not at the same time, twice during the battle. Come on m8  

 

 

[allufewig]

 

The only way to make AA skill based is to make it player controlled i.e. the player fires it like the main battery however as that will never happen we are stuck with the current completly disembodied and abstract AA system that no one really finds satisfactory or improving the gaming experience.

 

 

You cannot controll dozens of guns with different calibers, rate of fire and ballistic properties in the way you can controll your main battery. It will not work for obvious reasons.

 

You could implement a "dumbed down" manual AA in whatever form as an optional mode, but removing auto-mode completely would mean de-facto no AA for the lesser skilled 75% of players as they are already overburdened with the main guns.

[Syrchalis]

Exactly and there is the problem. WG won't make AA skill-based because even the TINIEST amount of skill is already too much to ask for. Right now you have to click a squadron to get massive bonuses for AA damage and even that most can't manage to do.

 

So maybe instead of changing the AA mechanic (burden on the DD/CA/BB side) they could give CV players some options to evade AA (burden on the CV side). This will make the hard class even harder, but that wouldn't necessarily hurt it, because if you want easy you don't play CV anyway - and if you do regardless, you're using autodrop and won't bother with whatever one would implement.