Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
vrok60

Arkansas Needs AA - Who agrees

Who thinks Arkansas needs AA?  

56 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Arkansas have AA capability?

    • Yes
      35
    • No
      21

57 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Beta Tester
12 posts
720 battles

I think the Arkansas needs AA.  I mean there is no way the Yanks would put to sea against planes without it regardless of the ships age.

Edited by vrok60

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
12 posts
720 battles

Anything is possible.   They can change it if they want to.  Its pretty much a gimped ship with out it.

 

As far as being a premium WG have made lots of changes in the past to premium tanks.  You really think ships will be different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
982 posts

I think it will get "some sort" of AA "eventually". 

 

Until then, or until it get's excluded from CV battles, my Arkansas is perma-parked in port and is currently serving as a floating casino.  :trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,888 posts
9,936 battles

Anything is possible.   They can change it if they want to.  Its pretty much a gimped ship with out it.

 

As far as being a premium WG have made lots of changes in the past to premium tanks.  You really think ships will be different?

 

I don't think is much difference from the tank, But this is not like T26E3 that is buy-able, This is like a little prize they give away for free, So u have to compare it with KV-220T :D:D:D

 

(sorry if misspelling some tank name kinda forget about it lol)    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
982 posts

 

I don't think is much difference from the tank, But this is not like T26E3 that is buy-able, This is like a little prize they give away for free, So u have to compare it with KV-220T :D:D:D

 

(sorry if misspelling some tank name kinda forget about it lol)    

 

Good point.

 

However, the KV-220 Beta Test freebie was eventually put out (waaaay too often in my opinion making the BT not so special) as a regular premium tank. It just didn't have the BT name & markings. To this day, they both have the exact same stats so I think it's save to assume any nerfs/buffs the premium version got the Beta Test version got as well. I have no idea where to confirm my theory but I think it holds water until proven otherwise. 

 

For the same reason I expect to see the Arkansas to be on sale sometime in the mid to distant future. There will be lots of non-CBT players who will pay $$$$ to have one.

 

Of course, everything I just said has nothing to do with whether Arkansas will ever get AA guns or not.

Edited by Krieg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CLAY]
Alpha Tester
976 posts
5,738 battles

From what I heard (can't for the life of me remember where) there will be no buffs.....it's a gift, don't like? it sell it.

I love it in PvE, not so sure I like in the real world (PvP)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
982 posts

From what I heard (can't for the life of me remember where) there will be no buffs.....it's a gift, don't like? it sell it.

I love it in PvE, not so sure I like in the real world (PvP)

 

Agreed, at this point in time it is exactly that. In fact, I think it will be like that for a very long time. However, if it's later introduced as a purchasable premium ship, I'm sure the freebie will get the same buffs/nerfs as the paid for one.

 

EDIT: clarity.

 

Edited by Krieg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
773 posts
796 battles

Agree but not possible :D:D:D 

 

Of course it is possible.  However, given WG's record of flatly refusing to acknowledge major stuff-ups in the past getting the 1925 hull is highly improbable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

Trouble is if they start giving AA worth a damn to this particular BB, surely all the others would have a reasonable expectation to get some as well? As would CAs.

 

 

WG appears to have decided to balance lower tier CVs by limiting their potential through the numbers and performances of their strike planes, NOT by the capacity of their targets to do anything about them.

It's not how I'd have done it, because it inevitable creates the impression for any player on the receiving end that they are simply a target.

As Halken and DaNoob have pointed out, it's arguable that a CVs performance at that level isn't really all that off the charts. Thus it's not a strictly factual criticism of them.

But that doesn't alter the somewhat unpleasant psychological aspect of getting a kicking when your only real options are to attempt to dodge OR hope the CV(s) go for someone else AS I said, I'd be fine with giving the planes somewhat better stats and all ships likely to encounter CVs some form of USEFUL AA as compensation as I think that might achieve the same numbers but mitigate somewhat the feeling of being a target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
982 posts

Trouble is if they start giving AA worth a damn to this particular BB, surely all the others would have a reasonable expectation to get some as well? As would CAs.

 

 

WG appears to have decided to balance lower tier CVs by limiting their potential through the numbers and performances of their strike planes, NOT by the capacity of their targets to do anything about them.

It's not how I'd have done it, because it inevitable creates the impression for any player on the receiving end that they are simply a target.

As Halken and DaNoob have pointed out, it's arguable that a CVs performance at that level isn't really all that off the charts. Thus it's not a strictly factual criticism of them.

But that doesn't alter the somewhat unpleasant psychological aspect of getting a kicking when your only real options are to attempt to dodge OR hope the CV(s) go for someone else AS I said, I'd be fine with giving the planes somewhat better stats and all ships likely to encounter CVs some form of USEFUL AA as compensation as I think that might achieve the same numbers but mitigate somewhat the feeling of being a target.

 

Great post mate! +1 (again lol)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
181 posts
905 battles

Trouble is if they start giving AA worth a damn to this particular BB, surely all the others would have a reasonable expectation to get some as well? As would CAs.

 

 

WG appears to have decided to balance lower tier CVs by limiting their potential through the numbers and performances of their strike planes, NOT by the capacity of their targets to do anything about them.

It's not how I'd have done it, because it inevitable creates the impression for any player on the receiving end that they are simply a target.

As Halken and DaNoob have pointed out, it's arguable that a CVs performance at that level isn't really all that off the charts. Thus it's not a strictly factual criticism of them.

But that doesn't alter the somewhat unpleasant psychological aspect of getting a kicking when your only real options are to attempt to dodge OR hope the CV(s) go for someone else AS I said, I'd be fine with giving the planes somewhat better stats and all ships likely to encounter CVs some form of USEFUL AA as compensation as I think that might achieve the same numbers but mitigate somewhat the feeling of being a target.

 

it's true. carriers at that tier are not exactly the most devestating weapons at sea. Whilst the US didnt set sail without some form of air escort in later periods of war we do have to remember that in this game we're pitting ships from world war 1 and later into battles with each other. It's quite litterally putting two different war styles into the one game, which whilst is quite fun can be disappointing and a let down by way of ships with hulls and layouts dating before the modernisation of air craft and the adoption of many of the air craft doctrin of ww2 are at a sever dis-advantage when they come accross an enemy carrier. 

 

whilst this in itself is a problem, it's not a complete game breaking problem since even at tier IV most ships WITH AA are not exactly the masters of clearing the skies anyways and the planes of that tier are not exactly mustangs and what not raining death from above down on us willy nilly. 

 

it balances out I feel quite a bit. The battleships or dreadnaughts of the time facing off against the ugliest and wallowing of carriers means they're very close together in time anyways so they could expect to see each other in a theatre of war at some point and I'd fully expect the dreadnaught of ww1 who had a principle threat of other dreadnaughts to be utterly decimated by the tricky torpedo carrying air craft carrier that it hadnt actually been designed to defend against.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
771 posts
1,374 battles

If Arkansas had even the 1925 hull upgrade i would play it (Wyoming gets the 1942 hull upgrade). all ill say about arkansas. 

Edited by Fear_the_Reaper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

 

it's true. carriers at that tier are not exactly the most devestating weapons at sea. Whilst the US didnt set sail without some form of air escort in later periods of war we do have to remember that in this game we're pitting ships from world war 1 and later into battles with each other. It's quite litterally putting two different war styles into the one game, which whilst is quite fun can be disappointing and a let down by way of ships with hulls and layouts dating before the modernisation of air craft and the adoption of many of the air craft doctrin of ww2 are at a sever dis-advantage when they come accross an enemy carrier.

 

whilst this in itself is a problem, it's not a complete game breaking problem since even at tier IV most ships WITH AA are not exactly the masters of clearing the skies anyways and the planes of that tier are not exactly mustangs and what not raining death from above down on us willy nilly.

 

it balances out I feel quite a bit. The battleships or dreadnaughts of the time facing off against the ugliest and wallowing of carriers means they're very close together in time anyways so they could expect to see each other in a theatre of war at some point and I'd fully expect the dreadnaught of ww1 who had a principle threat of other dreadnaughts to be utterly decimated by the tricky torpedo carrying air craft carrier that it hadnt actually been designed to defend against.

 

 

 

While that is all true, the problem you've left out is the psychological effect of believing you are being attacked game after game by something about which you can essentially do nothing.

 

Which is why I suggested some sort of 'effective' AA.

 

It's not that you need to in fact shoot down a load of planes, it's that it might make some people at least less likely to feel helpless even if the balancing applied to the planes as compensation for now facing some AA meant the net numbers don't change in any meaningful way.

 

I believe the greatest numbers of complaints about CVs at low tiers are being driven by that psychological effect, not objective numbers.

 

So why not address that feeling of helplessness in a way that makes people feel they aren't so helpless IF the net effectiveness of CVs isn't altered in any meaningful way compared with now?

 

Seems a sensible thing to do IMO.

 

In fact it seems so obvious that I'm surprised the devs didn't even think of it. I figure it's important to get into the minds of players beyond the simple statistics, and being hit by things that sit safely on the other side of the map while you do a max of 16-18kt is bound to annoy people, doubly so when they can't even shoot at the planes coming from that safe opponent.

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
773 posts
796 battles

CVs should not be finishing battles with multiple full strength squadrons.  The devs don't get this or they don't care but either way they just keep making bad decision after bad decision.  WoWS isn't quite a WoWP-level disaster but the devs seem intent on destroying it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
317 posts
953 battles

It need more top speed than it is now. Have a game that was draw against last enemy battleship who was AFK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
982 posts

It just needs a few token AA guns, like most ships of it's tier, so we can all move on to another topic :sceptic:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
181 posts
905 battles

 

 

While that is all true, the problem you've left out is the psychological effect of believing you are being attacked game after game by something about which you can essentially do nothing.

 

Which is why I suggested some sort of 'effective' AA.

 

It's not that you need to in fact shoot down a load of planes, it's that it might make some people at least less likely to feel helpless even if the balancing applied to the planes as compensation for now facing some AA meant the net numbers don't change in any meaningful way.

 

I believe the greatest numbers of complaints about CVs at low tiers are being driven by that psychological effect, not objective numbers.

 

So why not address that feeling of helplessness in a way that makes people feel they aren't so helpless IF the net effectiveness of CVs isn't altered in any meaningful way compared with now?

 

Seems a sensible thing to do IMO.

 

In fact it seems so obvious that I'm surprised the devs didn't even think of it. I figure it's important to get into the minds of players beyond the simple statistics, and being hit by things that sit safely on the other side of the map while you do a max of 16-18kt is bound to annoy people, doubly so when they can't even shoot at the planes coming from that safe opponent.

 

thats actually quite good. I hadnt considered it from that angle at all but that's mainly because for me I accept if I take my arkansas out I'll be absolutely useless for AA and if I get hit then thats how the cookie crumbles but thats my own personality showing through there and forcing me to do my damndest to ensure no matter the ship I'm in those pesky torpedo squadrons dont get to near me or I'm aware of their positions.

 

how ever in the arkansas that's still a bit fruitless when you turn like a barge in mud with a horny whale mounting the deck......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

 

thats actually quite good. I hadnt considered it from that angle at all but that's mainly because for me I accept if I take my arkansas out I'll be absolutely useless for AA and if I get hit then thats how the cookie crumbles but thats my own personality showing through there and forcing me to do my damndest to ensure no matter the ship I'm in those pesky torpedo squadrons dont get to near me or I'm aware of their positions.

 

how ever in the arkansas that's still a bit fruitless when you turn like a barge in mud with a horny whale mounting the deck......

 

 

I have exactly the same view. Adding some AA would be purely for giving the impression you're not entirely helpless, that's all. As I said, I think putting people in that situation as their first exposure AGAINST CVs is poor game design and could readily be adjusted to preserve the relative balance but limiting the 'psychological' effect.

 

 

And that effect is important; who remembers their first games in WoT when suddenly they reached tier 4 and the absurd 'scout MM' that applied on the way to iconic vehicles like the T-34 and PzIV/Tiger? It was a case of 'WTF??? What do I do to tier 8s???'. Just dumb putting genuine newbs into a role that is the most difficult in the game, namely a scout.

 

 

WG seems to have a tin ear for such things, sadly, and it's entirely avoidable. But it's their game; if they think it'll help the game's reputation having a bunch of slow targets with zero AA v TBs over and over, who am I to tell them they're wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,063 posts
531 battles

People complaining about a free premium ship, which was rewarded to them for their help in the cbt.

 

Should have just given everyone a premium katori I reckon.

Edited by Halken_Sky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×