Low top tier CV population and AA?

[Hauptbahnhof]

Using stats for the last 2 weeks from (https://warships.today/vehicles/eu) we can see the following:

Battles played in the top 3 most popular Battleships: 185k

Battles played in the top 3 most popular Cruisers: 128k

Battles played in the top 3 most popular Destroyers: 115k

Battles played in the top 3 most popular Carriers: 36k

So looking at what's most popular to play overall, it seems only around 12% of all Battles are played in a Carrier. And this doesn't take into account the fact that Cruisers and Destroyers have 4 & 3 trees, so there is way more to pick from.

 

Battles played in tier 10 Battleships: 38k
Battles played in tier 10 Cruisers: 38k

Battles played in tier 10 Destroyers: 33k

Battles played in tier 10 Carriers: 3.7k!

At tier 10 with powerful AA the Carriers are almost extinct... Only around 3% of all Battles at tier 10 are played in a Carrier!

Can anyone guess why tier 10 is overflowing with Yamatos (23k) sitting stationary bow on and Shimakazes (17k) when there are virtually no Carriers around to punish/scout them?


It seems all the nerfs to CVs and buffs to AA have resulted in is making high tier Carriers almost extinct. I think it's time to reduce AA back down so especially high tier games ( but also other tiers ) can have a more healthy mix of ships with more Carriers.

[SV_Kompresor]

Not to be rude but you've said something that everybody already knows, also this is WG we're talking about.... I wouldn't be suprised if they buffed NC's, Iowa's and montana's AA once more

[The_SDM]

You need to remember, this is what people asked for when they yelled for CV nerfs. People forget what CVs bring to the table instead of just damage and punishing camping BBs. Spotting DDs and Torps is sadly unrewarded, which should be changed asap. Shouldn't be to difficult to insert into the games code, just a few lines that checks if a plane spotted a ship, or torp, and counting how long the plane spots it which equals experience. The AA buff was just a lame excuse to pacify the much larger crowd of DD,CA/CL and BB captains who by far outnumber the few CV captains.

[The_SDM]

Not to be rude but you've said something that everybody already knows, also this is WG we're talking about.... I wouldn't be suprised if they buffed NC's, Iowa's and montana's AA once more

 

That would be actually hilarious and sad at the same time.

[pra3y]

Not to be rude but you've said something that everybody already knows, also this is WG we're talking about.... I wouldn't be suprised if they buffed NC's, Iowa's and montana's AA once more

 

Maybe they'll also allow AA ratings to actually go over 100

[Smeggo]

[Redcap375]

Sorry m8, unfortunately its another thread that will fall on deft ears. All the WOWS community knows this but things won't change. I'm a seasoned CV captain and hate playing in top tier, sold it and I've moved on with my cruiser life. AA,consumables and ship planes are madness at that teir. Everyone has one. Put it this way,I have skill 71 in my tier 6 Cleveland. Tier 6 for god sake.

 

Its the clump together and camp tiers. Boring as hell.

 

Tiers 5-8 for me

[Syrchalis]

The funny thing is, you barely see a CV ever in high tier, yet everyone is fully AA specced and has AA consumable. This just shows how bad WG is at design. If with a freaking 3% CV play rate people are still running AA modules and captain skills, then it's clear there is no viable alternative - but not because CVs are a problem (since you will meet them only every 10 games) - but because everyone else is insignificant crap.

[Tomasberkut]

While I do agree that AA on high tiers is in some instances too powerfull I find lower tier carriers... no fun.

 

Seal clubbing T4-6 feels just wrong. Tier 7 is a borderline, especially since the saipan came in to view with better cv commanders and their TX captains and experience.

 

T8+ is where there is most fun. The shokaku, taiho or trollington are so nice to play

 

TX is a strange beast. I recently got the Haku in my hands but there is no one to play with. And people playing TX. .. . . I swear 75% of CV commanders have less than 20 matches in any CV and bought their midway / haku with dublons. It would be nice if they removed the mirror matchmaker and made it so that 1 TX = 2x T8.

 

As for AA specced ships. Running AA spec has almost no negative consequences. AA needs a complete rework from the ground up.

[Syrchalis]

While I do agree that AA on high tiers is in some instances too powerfull I find lower tier carriers... no fun.

 

Seal clubbing T4-6 feels just wrong. Tier 7 is a borderline, especially since the saipan came in to view with better cv commanders and their TX captains and experience.

 

T8+ is where there is most fun. The shokaku, taiho or trollington are so nice to play

 

TX is a strange beast. I recently got the Haku in my hands but there is no one to play with. And people playing TX. .. . . I swear 75% of CV commanders have less than 20 matches in any CV and bought their midway / haku with dublons. It would be nice if they removed the mirror matchmaker and made it so that 1 TX = 2x T8.

 

As for AA specced ships. Running AA spec has almost no negative consequences. AA needs a complete rework from the ground up.

 

Link

Generally speaking, WG could fix all tiers with a few simple number changes. The biggest issue really is that they seem unable to balance numbers at all for carriers. T4-10, everything does basically the same damage. Only US DBs get a significant bonus when we reach the ships they gutted. (Lexi and above). So the difference comes down to just the amount of planes you have. Since DBs are random, do basically no damage and 1 JP DB can do as many fires as 3 US DBs (in theory) we have to look at torpedo bombers - guess what, you never even get more! Just IJN gets a third squad T9+ and only in one setup choice.

For example, why can't a ranger have 2/1/1 like Lexi had before they made it into crap? If it's "too good" then you just have to make the planes slower, their hp lower or reduce the damage of the planes (dps for fighters or less ammo). But we see nothing like that. Everything just scales up linearly or stays a flat value.

[Cadelanne]

 

As for AA specced ships. Running AA spec has almost no negative consequences. AA needs a complete rework from the ground up.

 

You sir are reading my mind (or my posts).

[Phlogistoned]

The funny thing is, you barely see a CV ever in high tier, yet everyone is fully AA specced and has AA consumable. This just shows how bad WG is at design. If with a freaking 3% CV play rate people are still running AA modules and captain skills, then it's clear there is no viable alternative - but not because CVs are a problem (since you will meet them only every 10 games) - but because everyone else is insignificant crap.

Yes, the current situation needs to change.

 

Clearly, being singled out by a CV ('you will die') is such a bad he experience people feel compelled to go  full AA spec.

 

I think a lot of it has to do with the frustration of not being able to shoot back at the CV itself, only its planes. This makes the whole fight lopsided.

[Syrchalis]

Yes, the current situation needs to change.

 

Clearly, being singled out by a CV ('you will die') is such a bad he experience people feel compelled to go  full AA spec.

 

I think a lot of it has to do with the frustration of not being able to shoot back at the CV itself, only its planes. This makes the whole fight lopsided.

 

The problem is not that, but that you have to give up nothing to go full AA spec. The price to pay is just far too small. Imagine every BB had 15km range only and via module you could get 20km - but this module is exclusive with +20% AA range. Use of the AA module would go down like a brick.

 

Captain skills are even worse. Secondaries and AA range are on the same skill - BAD! really bad design WG. CV and DD are the counters to BBs and you give them one skill to screw with both at the same time? The fact there is another AA skill in this row is just insult. Why does AA have to be that insane? Why can't WG make two skills that focus on revealing destroyers or improving secondaries or whatever, why two AA skills?

 

The frustration comes from how much damage a CV strike does, not that you can't shoot back. Faster planes, less damage, faster plane rearm, that's what's needed. So one strike doesn't mean you basically are crippled for the rest of the battle.

[Phlogistoned]

I don't have any of my ships or captains specced for full AA, so I was actually only guessing.

 

I can see how less alpha damage can change things - it would give the player a pretty firm reminder to find a teammate to share AA cover with, but not outright delete them immediately. Though I am not sure that's how it would *actually* play out. People tend to be pretty bad at teamplay, so making the counter to CVs rely on it will just continue the salt.

 

In our example, the player that got 'reminded' the first time may even have sought cover among his CAs, but being slower than them, he was left to fend for himself and got deleted by the second CV strike.

 

Result: Still salty against CVs.

 

Is there any way to get the CV not to attack him again? I think that would be the key to less salt vs CVs.

 

Perhaps if ships' AA got better/more alert if they had already sustained an air attack in this match? The CV could still attack and possibly delete the person in question, but would take more losses doing so, and would be better off attacking another target instead.

 

I think that would make me feel less 'singled out for deletion', and thus be more tolerant of CVs.

 

A quick-and dirty variant of it could probably be implemented easily by giving the target ship a defensive AA consumable for each attack directed at it.

 

With that change, AA could probably be nerfed overall.

[Syrchalis]

It works the other way around though. A good dive bomber hit takes out your AA, so you become MORE vulnerable to another CV strike. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

 

While feeling singled out might be a problem it also makes people - yes even the dumb ones - think "what could I do about it?" And there are enough options. They could then, as reaction to that, specc for AA. Or make sure they aren't alone next time.

 

You can't just break the game by making AA artificially stronger the second strike. Not only would that be abuseable as hell, it would be illogical. If you eat torpedos from a DD because you went a straight line it makes you more vulnerable for another torpedo attack, because you probably don't have DCP anymore for flooding and you can only repair a bit of torpedo damage. Why would people get a free pass against CVs after an attack? I don't get immunity to torpedos after i've been hit, especially not in form of "magically destroying the attacking DD's torpedo launchers" - because that's what AA is to CVs, it destroys your "guns" and "torpedo launchers". AA consumable is a toxic crap that should not be in the game in it's current iteration. The way it is, only CVs may have it, and even there it's stupid.

 

So the only thing you could do is increase CV fire/flooding chances again, reduce alpha damage - because flooding/fire damage can be repaired 100%. So if a CV strikes someone and that person also gets focused by other ships he dies quickly, but if he backs up and heals, he will have barely any HP lost.

[Phlogistoned]

1. It works the other way around though. A good dive bomber hit takes out your AA, so you become MORE vulnerable to another CV strike. And I don't think that's a bad thing.

 

2. While feeling singled out might be a problem it also makes people - yes even the dumb ones - think "what could I do about it?" And there are enough options. They could then, as reaction to that, specc for AA. Or make sure they aren't alone next time.

 

3. You can't just break the game by making AA artificially stronger the second strike. Not only would that be abuseable as hell, it would be illogical. If you eat torpedos from a DD because you went a straight line it makes you more vulnerable for another torpedo attack, because you probably don't have DCP anymore for flooding and you can only repair a bit of torpedo damage. Why would people get a free pass against CVs after an attack? I don't get immunity to torpedos after i've been hit, especially not in form of "magically destroying the attacking DD's torpedo launchers" - because that's what AA is to CVs, it destroys your "guns" and "torpedo launchers". AA consumable is a toxic crap that should not be in the game in it's current iteration. The way it is, only CVs may have it, and even there it's stupid.

 

4. So the only thing you could do is increase CV fire/flooding chances again, reduce alpha damage - because flooding/fire damage can be repaired 100%. So if a CV strikes someone and that person also gets focused by other ships he dies quickly, but if he backs up and heals, he will have barely any HP lost.

1. I know how it works right now, and we seem to be in agreement that a change is needed. This mechanic is focus-inducing. If already hit by CV, you'll get hit again. This is a bad mechanic, as it will just perpetuate the CV hate, for reasons already mentioned.

 

2. Here you are wrong, as can be observed by the current state of the game. One of the first reactions is of course to cry 'CVs OP'. IMO this is even a correct reaction if you can single out and delete a ship at will, without risk of getting deleted yourself. For the next game you will also get people sacrificing their main armament and speccing for AA instead. Many will think of teamplay, but as that is unrealistic in random battles, it is the other responses that will prevail. Exactly as it is now.

 

I hope you can acknowledge that this is a perfectly reasonable response given the situation the non-CV player is faced with.

 

3. Please elaborate on why this would break the game.

 

As for illogical, one can always make up a reason. For example that the AA crews get some additional experience and are more alert in case there is a second attack.

 

What is 'logical' is nice to have, but what is really important is the gameplay, and the enjoyment of ALL parties in the game. It cannot go back to being 'CVs vs Targets', as it used to be. (And it is actually still pretty unbalanced in favor of CVs.)

 

And it was never a 'free pass'. Just that it would potentially be more costly. You're a smart guy. Don't tell me you never baited a cruiser to trigger its AA skill and waited with your attack until it was on cooldown?

 

4. What actually happens is you DB the poor sod, then when he heals the 3 fires you lit with your new and improved fire chance, you torpflood him to death.

 

Somehow I don't feel you're honest in your intentions to change the current situation to something new. You seem more interested in returning the game to the old 'CVs vs Targets', from yore.

 

Edit: Changed an it's to an its and a he to a the. /Edit

 

Edit2 apparently it is my phone that turns its into it's. /Edit2

[Cadelanne]

So your solution is to dumb the game down enough so people don't have to think to be protected from their supposed natural counter ? That's not a good solution. There are many good BB players, that manage to perform very well in almost every game, even if there's a CV. You're talking about it like if at the moment it's impossible to play a battleship if there are CVs. But you're wrong. After looking at your profile I see you're mostly playing around tier 5 and 6, where CVs are really powerfull due to underpowered AA. However when grinding up the tiers, AA get a huge buff and things aren't the same.

[Tomasberkut]

The problem with "cv punishing" is related to the fact that a player makes his error long before the CV attacks him. When I play, I have the minimap set as big as possible on my screen (im not a fan of the M button due to interface problems it makes) and look for lonely ships or smaller clusters.

 

Its like punishing a dog for doing something bad. If you catch him/her chewing on your shoes and say bad dog there is a simple pattern: chewing shoes is bad. If the punishment comes waaay after doing what was actually wrong there is no visible pattern and no place to learn, just confusion.

 

What WG did with AA buffs and damage reduction is that there is that even if a player is doing something wrong instead of being punished by a baseball bat full of sharp rusted nails they get a treat called shooting down planes and more xp.

 

As I said many times before - AA needs a total rework. CV's in general need one too.

 

Assuming that we stay with the aura system which is currently in use there needs to be a system which encourages players to share their AA aura but does not insta kill planes as it does now.

 

My proposition is that ships, excluding ones specced strictly for AA should be unable to shoot down planes in the same fashion they do now. Rather than deleting planes there should be a situation where actually scoring hits with them becomes a challenge.

 

For example: the ships AA aura strenght is a factor which increases the width of the torpedo drop and DB circle. Stacking AA auras causes the initial line to become wider and wider.

 

The defensive fire button makes the situation even tougher for planes, but rather than insta destroing them it causes the torpedos to spread apart / changes the sigma of dive bombers. It should stack with other ships auras.

 

And the last touch would be using fighters to strafe ships. Rather than destroing AA or decreasing DPM it should make it so that the accurancy debuff is stunned for a short amount of time on the attacked side. Attacking a CA can debuff the DF for a moment.

 

And as for AA ships. I have nothing against them, I find them interesting to play against. But there cant be a situation where going full AA has no consequences. You want to have strong AA in a BB ? Thats ok, 15km range, secondaries are crap and the guy aiming your cannons is drunk. You want your stronk Kutuzov to shoot down planes with its dual purpose artillery ? Thats fine with me, but use it for one thing at a time only and angle your ships so that all 12 guns point at my planes. AA DD ? Thats nice, same thing as with the kutuzov.

 

 

[Cadelanne]

The problem with "cv punishing" is related to the fact that a player makes his error long before the CV attacks him. When I play, I have the minimap set as big as possible on my screen (im not a fan of the M button due to interface problems it makes) and look for lonely ships or smaller clusters.

 

Its like punishing a dog for doing something bad. If you catch him/her chewing on your shoes and say bad dog there is a simple pattern: chewing shoes is bad. If the punishment comes waaay after doing what was actually wrong there is no visible pattern and no place to learn, just confusion.

 

What WG did with AA buffs and damage reduction is that there is that even if a player is doing something wrong instead of being punished by a baseball bat full of sharp rusted nails they get a treat called shooting down planes and more xp.

 

As I said many times before - AA needs a total rework. CV's in general need one too.

 

Assuming that we stay with the aura system which is currently in use there needs to be a system which encourages players to share their AA aura but does not insta kill planes as it does now.

 

My proposition is that ships, excluding ones specced strictly for AA should be unable to shoot down planes in the same fashion they do now. Rather than deleting planes there should be a situation where actually scoring hits with them becomes a challenge.

 

For example: the ships AA aura strenght is a factor which increases the width of the torpedo drop and DB circle. Stacking AA auras causes the initial line to become wider and wider.

 

The defensive fire button makes the situation even tougher for planes, but rather than insta destroing them it causes the torpedos to spread apart / changes the sigma of dive bombers. It should stack with other ships auras.

 

And the last touch would be using fighters to strafe ships. Rather than destroing AA or decreasing DPM it should make it so that the accurancy debuff is stunned for a short amount of time on the attacked side. Attacking a CA can debuff the DF for a moment.

 

And as for AA ships. I have nothing against them, I find them interesting to play against. But there cant be a situation where going full AA has no consequences. You want to have strong AA in a BB ? Thats ok, 15km range, secondaries are crap and the guy aiming your cannons is drunk. You want your stronk Kutuzov to shoot down planes with its dual purpose artillery ? Thats fine with me, but use it for one thing at a time only and angle your ships so that all 12 guns point at my planes. AA DD ? Thats nice, same thing as with the kutuzov.

 

 

 

Imho it would be god damn unfair and boring. AA should keep destroying plane as it makes the CV captain pay for his mistakes / strikes, which is fine. Lowering the AA DPS while giving them an accuracy debuff will make everything risk-free for CV, while removing the whole choice-part. Sometimes you can drop even if you know you'll suffer heavy losses, with this sort of accuracy debuff it would be impossible.

 

But I agree that AA should be reworked and that an AA build should have backsides. I also agree that AA mounts should have firing arcs, so there's a play / counterplay mechanic involved.

[Tomasberkut]

As of now there is no choice. There is a AA aura and plane kill per second rate. The only choice is will I sacrifice my planes or look for a better occasion.

 

I am not saying AA should not kill planes. It should but not at the rate it does at the moment. God forbid you have 2x AA NC next to each other, attacking that is impossible in a Shokaku for example. But if the plane kill rate is lower at a accurancy price why not. AA specced ships should kill planes efficiently but at a price of specialisation.

 

The big choice will be - do I want to attack and hit only 2 torps of 12 and then wait for the reload.

[Cadelanne]

Same now, is it worth to lose 10 planes and add 30k damage in a game changing fight, or not ? What I meant is that if AA overlapping drop accuracy too much, this choice will not exist as you'll be sure to not score any hit anyway.

[Phlogistoned]

So your solution is to dumb the game down enough so people don't have to think to be protected from their supposed natural counter ? That's not a good solution. There are many good BB players, that manage to perform very well in almost every game, even if there's a CV. You're talking about it like if at the moment it's impossible to play a battleship if there are CVs. But you're wrong. After looking at your profile I see you're mostly playing around tier 5 and 6, where CVs are really powerfull due to underpowered AA. However when grinding up the tiers, AA get a huge buff and things aren't the same.

I don't really care if I *am* 'dumbing things down', as my main goal is a more enjoyable experience for as many as possible.

 

But I am also curious. Exactly how is my suggestion 'dumbing things down'?

 

It adds an extra element to the CV gameplay since you have to remember which ships you have hit already. It also gives an extra dimension to the 'Target' gameplay, as they have to pick a good moment to trigger the defensive AA.

 

The cost for the CV is extra cognitive load. The cost for the target is less impressive default/automatic AA.

[Syrchalis]

IMO this is even a correct reaction if you can single out and delete a ship at will, without risk of getting deleted yourself.

Then let's make BB and DD OP threads now. BB can oneshot cruiser easily at 20km at start of the game, before CVs even have planes in the air and cruisers can't shoot back. DDs can torp you by hiding behind islands or by staying invisible and you can't shoot back either. Only class that seems to be balanced according to that idea are cruisers, and only those that can't invis-fire.

 

Also if you start with this "you seem to be not interested in balance" [edited]I will instantly stop talking to you. I have a whole blog dedicated to pointing out design flaws that is all about making the game more enjoyable for everyone.

 

Taking 30k flooding/fire damage is much less bad than 15k torpedo damage, because it's just temporarily lost health. Torpedo damage is mostly permanently lost. That's the idea behind that. You as die-hard BB player that doesn't even touch CVs should really know that difference.

 

 

[Cadelanne]

It preserves the target to have to find friendly AA for cover, or to learn to use his WASD hack to force planes maneuvers inside AA range. Which is way harder than to learn when to press a button (in fact people saying that you have to wait planes to be closer are wrong but that's an other topic). Well of course it's still better if he does this, even with your solution, but it's not a need for survival anymore. That's called dumbing things down. Also please, this "extra cognitive load" is nothing. That's an extra flake in a snowstorm.

 

Now if you don't care about dumbing the game down, you'd take into considaration that it's almost alwyas negative for gameplay experience. If you can master everything within 2 hours then it's not really intresting to play this game, not talking about multiplayer.

[Phlogistoned]

1. The problem with "cv punishing" is related to the fact that a player makes his error long before the CV attacks him. When I play, I have the minimap set as big as possible on my screen (im not a fan of the M button due to interface problems it makes) and look for lonely ships or smaller clusters.

 

Its like punishing a dog for doing something bad. If you catch him/her chewing on your shoes and say bad dog there is a simple pattern: chewing shoes is bad. If the punishment comes waaay after doing what was actually wrong there is no visible pattern and no place to learn, just confusion.

 

2. What WG did with AA buffs and damage reduction is that there is that even if a player is doing something wrong instead of being punished by a baseball bat full of sharp rusted nails they get a treat called shooting down planes and more xp.

 

3. As I said many times before - AA needs a total rework. CV's in general need one too.

 

4. Assuming that we stay with the aura system which is currently in use there needs to be a system which encourages players to share their AA aura but does not insta kill planes as it does now.

 

My proposition is that ships, excluding ones specced strictly for AA should be unable to shoot down planes in the same fashion they do now. Rather than deleting planes there should be a situation where actually scoring hits with them becomes a challenge.

 

For example: the ships AA aura strenght is a factor which increases the width of the torpedo drop and DB circle. Stacking AA auras causes the initial line to become wider and wider.

 

The defensive fire button makes the situation even tougher for planes, but rather than insta destroing them it causes the torpedos to spread apart / changes the sigma of dive bombers. It should stack with other ships auras.

 

5. And the last touch would be using fighters to strafe ships. Rather than destroing AA or decreasing DPM it should make it so that the accurancy debuff is stunned for a short amount of time on the attacked side. Attacking a CA can debuff the DF for a moment.

 

6. And as for AA ships. I have nothing against them, I find them interesting to play against. But there cant be a situation where going full AA has no consequences. You want to have strong AA in a BB ? Thats ok, 15km range, secondaries are crap and the guy aiming your cannons is drunk. You want your stronk Kutuzov to shoot down planes with its dual purpose artillery ? Thats fine with me, but use it for one thing at a time only and angle your ships so that all 12 guns point at my planes. AA DD ? Thats nice, same thing as with the kutuzov.

1. Very good points. I hadn't thought of it that way, but it explains a lot.

 

2. Agreed. This solution doesn't solve anything, since it doesn't work to change people's behavior. CVs will still focus-attack and delete the lonely targets and they will still yell CV OP. A successful change needs to turn this into a situation where CVs are just another ship that was shooting at you, not the ship that said 'you will die'.

 

3. Agreed.

 

4. I am VERY sceptical of a system that requires teamwork from random people who may not even have a common language. But I do like the idea of AA making drops less accurate, at the cost of less planes shot down. I think that was more common in WW2 too. Always nice if a mechanic is logical (but gameplay trumps logic!).

 

5. I like giving fighters something more to do.

 

6. Agreed. It is silly that you can trigger your defensive AA and still continue shooting with your DP main battery. I think more can be done here. Maybe remove defensive AA as a consumable and have it as an ability of ships with DP guns instead - you just toggle them between high angle and low angle targets. If the DPS passes your threshold in (4), it would still be able to panic planes, but since AA damage is generally nerfed, it wouldn't necessarily result in many shot down.

 

However, as nice as these mechanics are, I think they are secondary to the problem (1) - the (perceived or actual) powerlessness when being focused by a CV.