Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Zoom1

Anti -  Aircraft buffs

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

0
[SSN]
Member
14 posts
4,271 battles

Whats up with AA these days, can't hold a postion without being bombed to death by CVs.

Had some matches where CVs chased my Des Moines throughout the map. Its hard to fight against other ships while a CV is focused on you,  specially Hellkuryu .😤😤

Edited by Zoom1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
522
[MD]
[MD]
Member
564 posts
2,901 battles

Did i have to copy paste my reasoning?

"It is working as intended.

I think WG deliberately makes planes able to get a first strike reliably, because the fact is you're only controlling a single, specific squadron*. Thing is that if your only squadron get shot down after flying that far, then there would be no damage whatsoever dealt by CV**.

Besides, i believe it is historical that Flak is the deadly killer, not those Bofors, and Flak can be dodged too IRL.***"

* Because there are  only one controllable, you cannot cross drop like RTS, requires more effort than just point and click, and also need strategic approach.

** This is the biggest reason. If AA was pre-RTS level with the immense K/D ratio, this one squadron would be shot down by practically something that have below average firepower. So by that, without this necessary reduction, carriers are going to be deplaned easily and be useless, not cooperative with team. Even if the carrier player are good (which to be honest, most aren't), that would sacrifice way too much time going back and forth.

** Correction, intermediate caliber weapon are responsible for majority of US Navy kill, around 700 achieved with Bofors 40 mm compared to 350~ on 127 mm with VT fuse. So even then after you dodge those monstrous flak bubble (a lot of people still struggle with that), the continuous DPS from 76, 43, 40, 37, 25, and 20 mm gun will hurt a lot.

Edited by Earl_of_Arland
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,568
[TLS]
Member
3,931 posts
19,971 battles

Nerf AA plz. I no longer enjoy playing my up cv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
190
[NZAUS]
Beta Tester
298 posts
8,273 battles
14 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Nerf AA plz. I no longer enjoy playing my up cv.

Don't get us started on the  Saipan. 

WG need to nerf and buff  AA  before submarines take all their attention.  Because the depth charges vs guided torps and DDs vs Subs and BBS having no defence will make WG forget about CVs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
522
[MD]
[MD]
Member
564 posts
2,901 battles
Just now, Tagnbag said:

Don't get us started on the  Saipan.

Don't talk about that ship again. Don't.

Don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,568
[TLS]
Member
3,931 posts
19,971 battles
8 minutes ago, Earl_of_Arland said:

Don't talk about that ship again. Don't.

Don't.

Let's not even get started about the incoming Radarpocalypse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1
[1AN-W]
[1AN-W]
Member
2 posts
4,181 battles

and for the love of god please stop with the 2 CV game at the low tiers. I literally don't play them anymore. It's just stupid and impossible specially with DDs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
678
[SALT]
Member
2,016 posts
10,542 battles

it used to be always 6 CV at low tier you know 🤣

Edited by humusz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,882
[REPOI]
[REPOI]
Member
6,322 posts
26,029 battles
1 hour ago, pbotton said:

and for the love of god please stop with the 2 CV game at the low tiers. I literally don't play them anymore. It's just stupid and impossible specially with DDs 

that's what happens when they nerfed higher tier CVs, a lot of players just went back to low tiers where they can seal club with impunity without worrying about AA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[SSN]
Member
14 posts
4,271 battles
4 hours ago, Earl_of_Arland said:

Did i have to copy paste my reasoning?

"It is working as intended.

I think WG deliberately makes planes able to get a first strike reliably, because the fact is you're only controlling a single, specific squadron*. Thing is that if your only squadron get shot down after flying that far, then there would be no damage whatsoever dealt by CV**.

Besides, i believe it is historical that Flak is the deadly killer, not those Bofors, and Flak can be dodged too IRL.***"

* Because there are  only one controllable, you cannot cross drop like RTS, requires more effort than just point and click, and also need strategic approach.

** This is the biggest reason. If AA was pre-RTS level with the immense K/D ratio, this one squadron would be shot down by practically something that have below average firepower. So by that, without this necessary reduction, carriers are going to be deplaned easily and be useless, not cooperative with team. Even if the carrier player are good (which to be honest, most aren't), that would sacrifice way too much time going back and forth.

** Correction, intermediate caliber weapon are responsible for majority of US Navy kill, around 700 achieved with Bofors 40 mm compared to 350~ on 127 mm with VT fuse. So even then after you dodge those monstrous flak bubble (a lot of people still struggle with that), the continuous DPS from 76, 43, 40, 37, 25, and 20 mm gun will hurt a lot.

Oooh, they are having more than one realiable strike for sure. 😅😅

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
522
[MD]
[MD]
Member
564 posts
2,901 battles
1 hour ago, Zoom1 said:

Oooh, they are having more than one realiable strike for sure. 😅😅

That's most likely the player are good at evading flak bubbles, which is the major damage dealer for aircraft in game. And i'm fine with that, since it's no different to angling and dodging for surface ships against shells or torpedoes.

AA is good enough i observe, but what's problematic is akin to Rocket attack planes. Other loads like bombs and torpedoes generally deal big damage, but could be countered by dodging. Rockets i believe are there for the opposite, being more consistent and easier to hit and supposedly lower damage. But rockets are dealing a bit too much, and that is what should be nerfed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,282
[LBAS]
[LBAS]
Modder, Member
6,550 posts
40,129 battles

The old days, T6 CV throw all planes available on the deck(3 to 5 squadrons ~ 18-20 planes) to strike 1 ship and lost some planes

Today 1 single squadron(4 to 8 planes) fly through a flank and strike 1 ship and lost 1 plane

there is no balance, its just stupid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,262
[151ST]
Member
2,342 posts
9,873 battles
12 hours ago, Zoom1 said:

Whats up with AA these days, can't hold a postion without being bombed to death by CVs.

Had some matches where CVs chased my Des Moines throughout the map. Its hard to fight against other ships while a CV is focused on you,  specially Hellkuryu .😤😤

There are two separate questions here; two sliders so to speak.

One is plane damage : difficulty to play

The other is AA effectiveness : plane damage

There are then two elements that WG have barely considered; spotting and effectiveness vs different classes and one they probably never thought about at all psychological impact.

So the whole purpose of the AA rework was to make CVs easier to play so more people can pick them up and be effective to some degree. They achieved this, I don't think anyone would argue otherwise...

The cost was in plane damage. If you make something easy to play, you need to make damage less easy to get but some damage be very easy to get.

Because the damage system is now what it is, they needed to adjust AA effectiveness.

Honestly, many players have forgotten how utterly devastating a good CV could be but it was usually a quick death, so the psychological impact was less.

Now it's death by a thousand cuts, apart from the occasional big chunk taken by AP DBs. This is far more annoying and impacts the player on a psychological level more, leaving more of an impression for less of an 'issue'.

The root issue for CVs isn't damage or AA, it's their ability to spot so effectively and to be effective in dealing damage to all ship classes. I have posted about this many times but basically; rock-paper-scissors games rely on being effective against some things and not being effective against others. By being able to spot and damage Destroyers and flankers so effectively, Aircraft Carriers break the basic rules that World of Warships is based on. This is not new, WG have been doing this since release. Releasing ships at a tier without radar but giving them radar; Belfast/Atlanta. Releasing ships that counter their counter; Missouri (DDs), High tier MN DDs (CL/As).

I have a script collecting dust on this issue for my Un-Eff-It series, but the above is the basic core summary.

If you want to buff AA damage then you are going to need to buff CV damage potential as well, and that means that while your DM or Mino can shred planes again, a ship somewhere is going to basically become food.

DDs at the moment have a hard time against CVs if they don't know how to play in those conditions. Flankers have a hard time trying to make any plays happen for similar reasons... Both are primary contenders for being even more of a food source to CVs if you want to go down the route of 'buff AA'.

I'm sorry but thems the facts.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
981
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,273 posts
10,832 battles
4 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

So the whole purpose of the AA rework was to make CVs easier to play so more people can pick them up and be effective to some degree. They achieved this, I don't think anyone would argue otherwise...

The CV rework and AA rework are too different things.  There was an AA rework that went along with the CV rework, but it was then reworked again in 0.8.7, which is what I would be thinking of if someone said "AA rework".

4 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

Honestly, many players have forgotten how utterly devastating a good CV could be but it was usually a quick death, so the psychological impact was less.

Now it's death by a thousand cuts, apart from the occasional big chunk taken by AP DBs. This is far more annoying and impacts the player on a psychological level more, leaving more of an impression for less of an 'issue'.

You may be right on this point, in that I've heard this quite a few times since the CV rework: "I'd rather just be deleted in one go than have the planes come back over and over again and whittle me down slowly."  This attitude boggles my mind, I just can't even fathom it, but clearly it's a thing.  You have so much time and agency that you can put into winning the game for your team in the current system, even if you are under constant plane attack.  Being deleted with little ability to stop it on your part has to be one of the most frustrating things that has ever existed in this game, yet some prefer that.  I suspect it is partly to do with the time that has passed since the CV rework - it's always hard to remember what happened a couple of years ago when compared with the freshness of recent memories.

Note I'm not saying you're wrong - quite the contrary, this is clearly how a portion of the player base think - I just can't reconcile it personally.

4 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

The root issue for CVs isn't damage or AA, it's their ability to spot so effectively and to be effective in dealing damage to all ship classes. I have posted about this many times but basically; rock-paper-scissors games rely on being effective against some things and not being effective against others. By being able to spot and damage Destroyers and flankers so effectively, Aircraft Carriers break the basic rules that World of Warships is based on. This is not new, WG have been doing this since release. Releasing ships at a tier without radar but giving them radar; Belfast/Atlanta. Releasing ships that counter their counter; Missouri (DDs), High tier MN DDs (CL/As).

WoWs hasn't been rock-paper-scissors since beta.  They've long since thrown out that system.  Look at DD's, the ship type supposed to counter the highest health ship type in the game in BB's - they have by far the lowest average damage in the game.  If they were genuinely a BB counter, then they would have the highest average damage by a good margin.  In actuality, it is only focused fire from all ship types that can kill a BB.

CV's are for the most part equally effective against all ship types, although attacking a mobile cruiser in a CV is difficult.  However, CV's are most definitely not equally effective at dealing damage to all ships in a battle.  The reason for this is individual AA, positioning, grouping of ships etc.  So in a vacuum they may be able to attack any class, but in an actual battle they are most definitely limited in their target selection.  This is perfectly reasonable, and one of their main balance points.

On the topic at hand, AA is fine - it lets the first attack through on most occasions, but will only let through follow up attacks in low AA situations.  It provides a time limit to any encounter so that a CV can not just fly around lining up perfect drops with impunity.  It provides consequences to poor decision making by the CV.  It very much informs the target choices of a CV captain.

This seems like good balance to me, and it certainly feels very well balanced from both sides while playing the game.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
154
[ANZAF]
Member
385 posts
5,613 battles
1 hour ago, Moggytwo said:

WoWs hasn't been rock-paper-scissors since beta.  They've long since thrown out that system.  Look at DD's, the ship type supposed to counter the highest health ship type in the game in BB's - they have by far the lowest average damage in the game.  If they were genuinely a BB counter, then they would have the highest average damage by a good margin.  In actuality, it is only focused fire from all ship types that can kill a BB.

CV's are for the most part equally effective against all ship types, although attacking a mobile cruiser in a CV is difficult.  However, CV's are most definitely not equally effective at dealing damage to all ships in a battle.  The reason for this is individual AA, positioning, grouping of ships etc.  So in a vacuum they may be able to attack any class, but in an actual battle they are most definitely limited in their target selection.  This is perfectly reasonable, and one of their main balance points.

I reckon a couple of other variables feed into why DD damage might be low in comparison.

DDs have a number of other roles they are required to do which takes away from just doing damage. Capping, spotting and screening all take away opportunities to deal damage.

Generally DDs have to be close to or within radar coverage to get shots on BBs, again limits the damage potential unless the ally team has driven off supporting cruisers. 

Teamwork (or otherwise) is probably the key variable for me in this. BBs often target other BBs in the race for damage, which is the main metric on how game rewards are distributed. My two recently played BBs (Musashi and Alsace) have significantly lower damage (12 to 20k less than server average) for my WR in them (both close to 60%). My recent playstyle is to shoot cruisers as soon as any are spotted to drive them away from my DDs.   

I think that CVs are pretty balanced at the moment. Its unpleasant to be targeted by one, and very when its a higher tier. Lower tiers are worse because of the very limited AA range on some ships to defend against the inevitable 2 CVs each game. Having some ability to heal is important as well, being targeted in the Ostergotland is not nearly as unpleasant as being targeted in the Yugamo. In fact i pretty much want those T8 CVs to target me for as long as possible because it is soaking up their capacity to be somewhere else.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,262
[151ST]
Member
2,342 posts
9,873 battles
8 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

The CV rework and AA rework are too different things... ....

I was tired, I had just got up and was about to get ready for work, I meant CV rework...

As for mobile cruisers I disagree, it's tricky to land torps sometimes but otherwise the only wings that are hard are Carpet Bombers but maybe that's just me.

CVs in general don't struggle to punish flankers from what I've seen/done...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,568
[TLS]
Member
3,931 posts
19,971 battles
22 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

CVs in general don't struggle to punish flankers from what I've seen/done...

They don't struggle because the planes survive better. The thing is that CVs will pick on the easy target especially when XP is primarily determined by farming damage. The concept of a CV is to punish the poorly defending thing sitting far away from the AA. *cough*snipingbb*cough* That is why RTS worked better. You thread your planes through instantly delete that "hah!youcan'ttouchme" fool and show him the error of his ways. What we have now is punishing the poor dd that is doing its supposed job.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
981
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
1,273 posts
10,832 battles
1 hour ago, S4pp3R said:

As for mobile cruisers I disagree, it's tricky to land torps sometimes but otherwise the only wings that are hard are Carpet Bombers but maybe that's just me.

CVs in general don't struggle to punish flankers from what I've seen/done...

It depends on the CV I guess, a Haku certainly struggles with it.  The rockets do negligible damage to a cruiser once they are saturated even when you hit the majority of them.  Landing torps when you've got two with a long arm distance on a highly maneuverable cruiser is extremely difficult against any competent captain, and any competent cruiser will be fully 90° to your attack path by the time you get a DB drop off, which means your chance of landing a citadel is low, and the chance of landing multiple is negligible.

A good Haku vs a good DM or Venezia in open water is an exercise in frustration for the CV.

In a Midway you'd be much better off, the rockets hit a lot harder, and the DB reticle is much less narrow with more bombs dropped and less bloom when adjusting aim mid drop, so you've got much more chance of getting reliable damage with them.

Edited by Moggytwo
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
659
[SMOKE]
Member
1,820 posts
15,620 battles

So a DD suppose to stayt inside AA and yet are required to go out and scteen scout and spot ... Is this a bit self contradicting ; basically when you see an AA ship like Akizuki or Des Moines get bombed with them maneuveting sectoring and yet the whole squad can still put in all the attsck waves and in the end even with teammate around these so call AA ships can only down a couple of planes then you know AA is not working ... Simple as that .. Right now the simple fact is WG made it easy gor CV player to deal their damage but they fail to provide the same to surface ship to fire back at CV and that the adk for working and effective AA is in no sense unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[SSN]
Member
14 posts
4,271 battles

I dont know about you all but losing 3/4 th of my DM health to Hakuryu AP bombs is not fine with me, its like waiting to be slaughtered and i cant fight back. 😓

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[SSN]
Member
14 posts
4,271 battles
3 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

It depends on the CV I guess, a Haku certainly struggles with it.  The rockets do negligible damage to a cruiser once they are saturated even when you hit the majority of them.  Landing torps when you've got two with a long arm distance on a highly maneuverable cruiser is extremely difficult against any competent captain, and any competent cruiser will be fully 90° to your attack path by the time you get a DB drop off, which means your chance of landing a citadel is low, and the chance of landing multiple is negligible.

A good Haku vs a good DM or Venezia in open water is an exercise in frustration for the CV.

In a Midway you'd be much better off, the rockets hit a lot harder, and the DB reticle is much less narrow with more bombs dropped and less bloom when adjusting aim mid drop, so you've got much more chance of getting reliable damage with them.

Venezia maybe with its insane manueverability 😆 , not DM everybody want a piece of it when you hit open waters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,034
[MRI]
Member
3,443 posts
14,839 battles
16 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

WoWs hasn't been rock-paper-scissors since beta.  They've long since thrown out that system.  Look at DD's, the ship type supposed to counter the highest health ship type in the game in BB's - they have by far the lowest average damage in the game.

I would say DDs have the lowest average damage because torps are pretty unreliable as a main source of damage. And DDs are likely to attack and kill other DDs first and foremost, since they are at the front and are usually what is spotting the other DD in the first place.

But otherwise I agree with you, WoWs hasn't been rock-paper-scissors since goodness knows how long, especially when you have cruisers burning down BBs with long range HE spam, or gunboat DDs outgunning some cruisers. Meanwhile torp DDs cannot be countered until they are spotted, at which point everything counters them.

8 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

CVs in general don't struggle to punish flankers from what I've seen/done...

I agree with Moggy here. It depends on the CV and the target in question.

Unless they are a Halland or some other AA monster, a DD flanking by its lonesome self is easily punished by a CV. Same goes for BBs, though that can take a very long time to the point it may not be worth the time investment.

However, a  cruiser in open water who is actively dodging and not  being distracted is extremely hard to hit with torps, especially Haku torps due to their long arming distance. You can try torping from straight such that the cruiser is forced to sail straight ahead, then circling around to try and hit him in a good old hammer and anvil attack, but a good cruiser would just slow down to let the first set of torps pass. AP bombs against an actively dodging target is extremely RNG reliant as a good cruiser would position themselves as perpendicular as possible to your drop. Midway fares better due to its more powerful rockets and HE bombs are less of an RNG fest.

Honestly I never found myself being prevented from flanking in a cruiser by a CV. Between DFAA and Catapult fighters, I can shoot down enough planes to make the enemy CV think twice about attacking me. Sure he may get 1 torp hit on me, but is 6k damage worth losing almost their entire squadron? AP bombs are a threat, but as mentioned earlier they are an RNG fest since I am actively dodging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
659
[SMOKE]
Member
1,820 posts
15,620 battles
13 minutes ago, Thyaliad said:

I would say DDs have the lowest average damage because torps are pretty unreliable as a main source of damage. And DDs are likely to attack and kill other DDs first and foremost, since they are at the front and are usually what is spotting the other DD in the first place.

...

 

I will sum it up in one sentence the class is simply not furnished with consistent, effective and efficient mean to go on offensive and as well defend itself both where all other class had it , both ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
671
[LBAS]
Member
4,719 posts
10,713 battles

Don't think that your gun can save you

shot-20.06.20_11.05.11-0645.jpg

shot-20.06.20_11.05.52-0341.jpg

shot-20.06.20_11.06.02-0249.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×