The reaction to Stun Bombs showed players don't like tools which deny Player Agency. Other rather, a dislike of something which allows Player A to stop Player B's ability to play.
I do think there's enough anger at a CV's "ability to strike from safety" that the community may be willing to overlook that in this case, but an ultimate solution is still one with back-and-forth interaction and decision-making.
An important part that has to be remembered is that AA stacks Multiplicatively. This is one of the reasons why folks NEED to be using Priority Sector, for instance.
Using a Cruiser with no AA Spec (other than Def AA) as an example:
Base AA: 100% output
+ DFAA(50%): 150% output
+ Priority Sector (50%): 225%
So, a normal Cruiser with no AA skills or upgrades outputs up to 225% of its base Continuous (unavoidable) Damage
-
Compare that to a Cruiser with a full AA spec (6 Commander Skill Points and 1 Slot 6 Upgrade):
Base AA: 100% Output
+ DFAA(50%): 150% Output
+ Priority Sector(75%): 262.5% Output
+ AA Defense Expert (20%): 315% Output
+ Slot 6 Upgrade (15%): 362.15% Output
+ 5% Signal (5%): 380.3% Output
So, a spec'd Cruiser with 6 points in AA skills or upgrades outputs up to 380% of its base Continuous (unavoidable) Damage
-
Removing that +50% is dropping the output by a third. The non-spec'd version is only 150% Output with DFAA. The spec'd version is 253% (down from 380%).
@iDuckman
We'll need to get the wiki updated when able. AA stacks Multiplicatively, not Additively.
Continuous Damage is very capable is shredding planes. It just depends on the platform and the situation.
@ArIskandirfor instance loves his D7P because of the brutal Continuous Damage she has.
It's not worse. It means it multiplies in greater and greater amounts as things stack on top of each other. There's gained value when more things are put together similar to Signal flags. They work together to become greater as a whole.
Note: The Signal Flags add to XP/CommXP/FreeXP in an additive format, but the interaction between XP -> CommXP/FreeXP is made greater by stacking in terms of value. So it's not the same as AA's Multiplication, but I figured it's be an easy reference to make.
No, I said it's unlikely you use a battleship for its AA playstyle. A Destroyer or Cruiser that are a threat to planes can use their movement and detection to displace and block aerial attack routes or travel lanes.
A Battleship is more often focused on other duties like long range shell threat which forces Cruisers to move or be wary.
To the "Hit Rate", Hit Rate modifies the Continuous directly. A Cruiser usually has 90%, so it would mean [Number] x 90% is the actual output number.
My long post you quoted talks of "380% Output", which is just a way of saying it does nearly 4 times as much damage as it would without any AA spec, DFAA, or even using Priority Sector.
-
I already did all this math for you. There's a 7 minute long video which took me some 2 hours to run the math, write it out, and record.
My journey in the California has only 3 points in AA. I take the Priority Sector skill.
I find the +10% skill for 2 points to not be interesting enough to stand out for me compared to other options. California's base AA is already brutal enough.
California's AA has never been nerfed. Ever. Please stop saying this.
She was released after the Rework happened. She was designed with the Rework in mind.
Your graphic would actually be a reduction to California's AA. Are you asking her to be nerfed?
Your picture shows:
120.8 Long Range DPS ... which is 18 dps more than current of 102.8 DPS
159.0 Mid Range DPS ... but she currently has 364 Mid Range DPS
222.2 Short Range DPS ... but she Currently has 343 Short Range DPS
This would all overlap to 502 DPS at Short Range ... but she currently has 718.8 DPS at Short Range.
All these numbers are (for the Current version) are after the Hit Probability is factored in. And they are just base, non-spec'd numbers.
-
I provided a full AA Video about the California's capabilities to SaiIor_Moon back on June 3rd of last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24O2siRICp0
You are completely ignoring flak. Why did you choose to leave that out here?
B-25 bombers do not turn well. They almost always take flak hits from even a few puffs. I don't know if you've tried it yet or not, but it's reality.
I am concerned this statement you made is going to make people think the B-25's are somehow unstoppable. It is a far cry from reality.
Yeah see that's the issue I take here. You are doing that. That's when I am going to step in and correct it.
Flak can be mostly dodged by highly-skilled CV players. This is not a secret. It works in tandem with continuous AA to create a two-layer system for incoming planes to contend with. You may not like the system, but the system is still there. To imply to the people here that the Atlanta's continuous against B-25's is somehow indicative of the sum of the interaction is not right. The Atlanta has the highest flak count of any T7 cruiser and the example you gave is EXACTLY where that flak matters most, yet you left that part out.
I've been enjoying your weekly AA posts as I think they stir up a lot of good discussion. However, I will go on record saying that this post about B-25's is willfully misleading and urge you to reconsider it.
Every single flak hit makes continuous AA that much more effectively at actually removing planes. Full stop.
There will always be times when flak hits don't result in further kills, just as there will be times when even the Erazers of the world take flak and get rekt.
It's missing the forest through the trees that I take exception to.
Can you expand on this? Are you saying a Ranger will be a real and meaningful threat at Tier 10?
I'm not sure I can agree with this. From a straight up Intuitive perspective, that is. Let me explain:
From a CV Perspective:
When attacking a target, planes are damaged and shot down.
When multiple ships are in AA range, more damage is done to the planes and more are shot down.
Planes do get through AA to deal damage to a target, just like in a movie or story.
From a Surface Perspective:
When planes come close, they are damaged and shot down.
When multiple ships are in AA range, more damage is done to the planes and more are shot down.
Planes still get through AA to deal damage to a target, just like in a movie or story.
On a very basic level, the Intuitive concept is there. This is why we see players that huddle up in groups to support each other with AA. It's a natural, instinctive response that indicates an Intuitive grasping of the situation
-
The issue with AA lies more in the complex game formulae.
How much damage getting through is acceptable?
How many attacks should a CV be allowed in [X] amount of time?
Average Match duration is around 13-15 minutes.
How much AA is required to stop an full squadron completely?
How much AA is required to stop a less-than-full squadron completely?
These are NOT Intuitive and require an extensive amount of planning and testing to figure out what can happen, should happen, and will happen.
Right now, the entire purpose of this thread is that AA doesn't feel like it's powerful enough to do [Y]. For some people that's deny full strikes, for others it's deny agency, for others it's enable a highly effective anti-plane playstyle, and others. At the same time, there really are people in this game that feel like current levels of AA are actually too strong... though I am personally inclined to agree that AA is a pain point that would help resolve concerns if addressed successfully.
In RTS, every plane was a threat that constituted part of the "Full Attack", Aside from Hybrids, Tactical Squadrons, and Russian CVs, CV squadrons have more planes than their attacking flight.
While a Hornet may be able to drop 4 Torpedoes against a Tier 10 ship, it will lose multiple planes for the privilege of doing so. It does not go unscathed.
-
Note: Please don't reference the fact that a Heal is available on a 3 minute cooldown as though it was a baseline, normal condition. In the absence of a Heal, multiple or many planes are lost in an attack against a Tier 10 target with capable AA.
This is where the non-Intuitive part is the problem. Ships do not need to huddle in groups of 4+ players. 2 ships is already sufficient protection assuming that have fairly Tier relevant AA. Some highly capable AA ships are quite able to be solo.
-
The issue currently with the 2 ship group is that the plane losses sustained are Sustainable in terms of CV Resources. The ships are protected (though they can expect to take damage), but the CV may not seem measurably diminished from the Plane Attrition in striking them.
If you have a replay, please send it to me. Anytime I can get a replay that clearly shows a problem it can be used as reference material.
Please remember that the damage reduction during an attack only extends to the planes which will be firing. The other planes are not protected and should take damage as normal.
Correct. Tactical Squadrons, Hybrids, and Russian CVs are all single strike and do have that mechanic mattering when they attack.
Pre-dropping down to only the actual striking aircraft can be done on other CVs, but other CVs are designed around using the other planes in the squadron as a buffer to get their attack through. It's very abnormal to pre-drop down only to the last planes as you expect at least 1 plane lost on the attack which is a 33% or more reduction in the strike. That tends to be a net loss of time and plane-to-output, though it is a good last-ditch choice if the situation is dire.
As much of this thread has shown, AA is math. Some ships have good numbers, some bad numbers. It's a game, so it's kinda like the Matrix in how the whole reality works together in one giant ball of math.
It's good to read you noting the weaknesses of the ships you were with as being relevant. Having poor AA should mean the ship has other strengths, and no ship is strong everywhere.
Please understand that I'm on board with the idea that AA being made different/more powerful will resolve a lasting pain point for the community. However, statements like the above are not true.
I can and do perform anti-air oriented play on live stream and discuss the entire situation of what is going on and why I'm doing what I'm doing. I've played 42 games in the California over the past week and I actively want to see Carriers. I know that I will hurt them more than they will hurt me, and I will intentionally bait them with my positioning.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1457673705
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1458748696
Those are two recent California streams. I play Hornet when the California dies before the match ends, so I've played the Hornet about 1 out of 5 California games.
In terms of specifics, I could demonstrate it in a Training Room I suppose. But the live situations are there. I have around a 64%+ Win Rate with her across the recent week.
This is why I believe AA can be made stronger. I've played CV at a high level for years and am aware of what a CV that does not take flak can expect.
That being said, there is a very real difference between Bombing a Yamato twice and losing 3-4 planes and bombing a Montana twice and losing 5-7. The numbers do add up and dead planes are resources that are gone for the rest of the match.
-
For the purpose of this thread, let's try to identify issues instead of restating points. Rather than saying "2-4 planes kills doesn't matter", tell me that amount of planes that you feel SHOULD be lost when attacking a Yamato or Montana. I am aware that you feel it is lower than it should be, but you need to identify where you feel the correct level is.
All opinions here are opinions, but there is no ability to design a solution without knowing what the expectations are. The more understandable and definable they are, the easier it is to design to.
I literally did the math for SaiIor_Moon. I spent a long time on it and gave it in a video presentation format as a kindness to her since she seemed passionate about the ship.
Direct Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24O2siRICp0
-
I've played CVs long enough to know what plane loss means to me as a high-end player. You may hear other high-end CVs look down on my personal take of this, but I literally have played Reworked CVs at a world-class level and been on a team which was #1 in the World at various points in a few CV seasons.
Yes, the California may take damage, but the plane losses I incur while the CV does that damage are extremely weighted in my teams favor as opposed to the enemy CV's favor. I'm experienced in that part of the resource game and see it as a win condition for us.
This is like saying 8 = 10 because 2 isn't big enough to matter. That is a nonsensical argument.
-
Plane Losses add up and more planes of a type means more versatility to use that tool how you see fit. As the number of planes for that tool diminishes, your capabilities and options lessen in its use.
The normal argument is that a CV has more planes than it needs so it never hits the threshold of being diminished. However, that's not true. When the enemy team takes advantages and you are forced to make drops you don't want to, the plane exchange rate changes from "I choose what I lose" to "Whatever hurts the least but still matters". CVs can and do run out of planes depending on the severity of the situation.
I understand his point. I put out a video describing the concept of Regen Rate Pacing in a video I put out over a year ago.
This is a full-form discussion of what amounts of Plane Loss are needed to matter in a long term situation.
Direct Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_K3vls961pk
-
This is why I have repeatedly asked what sort of numbers people are looking for in the CV/Surface Ship interactions. If the baseline plane loss moves from 2 to 4 planes per attack, a CV may run out of planes at the halfway mark as opposed to the end of the match. The question is about what the amount of expected interaction a CV should have.
It could be perfectly fine for a CV to need to throttle back their attack pacing and wait for openings because AA is too powerful and they are limited by it to only half as many strikes as they currently can. This is all a matter of figuring out what needs to be where, and then working to design the concept into a practice that is playable and meshes with the overall game.
Then your preferred amount of plane loss is exceeding 80% of the attacking Squadron on a single attack as a baseline attrition rate.
-
Aside from ships that were not released at the time, a return to 8.5 or 8.6 AA rates would be approximately a doubling of currently existing AA. It's more complex as Long/Medium/Short range AA didn't "layer" like it does now, but a 100% increase in AA would be approximate to your ask.
The entire concept of CVs is based around a usable, exhaustible resource. Yes, there is a "Regen Rate" in our game, but you even made a LWM graphic on one of your reviews which pokes fun at the "CVs have unlimited planes" meme.
-
The resource deals damage in a variable "Damage per Plane (Resource) Loss" ratio. Russian CVs have a high "Damage per Plane Loss" ratio as they can attack from long ranges and avoid stronger, shorter range AA. Other nations have more expected losses, such as with Dive Bombers which bathe in close-range AA in order to make their strikes.
The Resource Rates are literally the key to the system. If we went to a full Tactical Squadron version where there was no resource-attrition and instead only cooldowns, then AA could likely be more arcade-esque in the ability to crew an AA mount and drop multiple planes like in an action game where you fend off hordes of them.
Just to point out, "working as intended" is an odd phrase to use as we literally design our game to be the way that it is. The current AA system is functioning in the way we intended it to be. The reason for this thread, and the hundreds of other threads on this very topic, is because there is a segment of the playerbase that vehemently disagrees with our design choice. That is fine, but please remember that your idea of "Intended" does not match our current intention that is in the game.
-
If 80% of an entire squadron should be the expectation of allowing 3 planes to deal damage, then that's good to know. It seems extreme to me, but it all comes down to what the end goal is. If this cuts the amount of attacks a CV can make in a game by half, perhaps that lesser amount of damage is more in line with what some players would prefer.
I'm highly active in this and other threads so I collect feedback on what people think and how/if those things are possible.
As a serious question, do you have other similar ships that were also able to reach a 67% Win Rate? Was this something you were only able to achieve on the Atlanta? If so, was this only because you were able to completely negate the threat from CVs under the old mechanics?
If I hacked our game-code and made every ship's AA 1,000% more effective, then most if not all planes would be shot down and do no damage. If that happened, the current system would still be the current system, but the expected losses would go from "some" to "all". That system WOULD address the current issue, though I'm not sure if it would "feel" correct in a thematic, movie-like experience sense.
There is an old saying regarding game balance:
Person A: "There's nothing you can do... this can't be balanced :\"
Person B: "If it does 10,000,000 damage, would that be too strong?"
Person A: "Yeah, that'd be way too strong!"
Person B: "If it does 1 damage, would that be too weak?"
Person A: "Yeah, that'd be way too weak!"
Person B: "So, it stands to reason that there is a number between 1 and 10,000,000 where it would be balanced, no?"
It's hard to nail, but it's literally what a Systems Design person does for Game Design. They make a system that interacts in a way that works.
-
"Feel" isn't a metric that translates well into a System Design. "Experience" is probably a better term to use.
Example: "When I'm attacked by planes, I want to feel an experience like I'm under siege and every plane I take down is a stirring victory for me and the crew!"
I'm more concerned about the high-end view of the Ship/CV interactions which is more rooted in the math of the interactions, but I'm open to hearing people try to describe things in a cinematic sense if the issue isn't actually the damage a CV can do to you or the plane losses you can inflict on it.
No worries. Asking a direct question is faster than doing a hunt to find it.
So the AA change alone affected your Atlanta by 10+% Win Rate, while not affecting other AA and non-AA Cruisers? That's... interesting. I'm not sure what to make of that off the top of my head.
If you want to provide more information, please feel free to Direct Message me or start a different thread. Let's not derail this one heavily on a sidebar discussion.
Example and Follow-Up Example:
The purpose of the "1,000%" increase was simply to show that applying numbers to the current system CAN result in what is desired. A situation where a CV can be stopped, whereas the issue currently is that players dislike that a CV cannot be stopped (under reasonable circumstances). I then followed that example with an explainer of what I meant. That if there's a "too low", and a "too high", then there's should be a place in the middle where a balance is found. Currently, it sounds like we may be on the "too low" end of the spectrum, which is why I'm here engaging to collect feedback and ideas.
Me as a Community Manager:
The role I was hired for as a Community Manager was to translate player feedback into a dev-friendly format and vice versa. The reason I ask for numbers is because altering the current system is the easiest ask since it requires the least amount of Dev Time. While a total rework or new system might be desired, that is an ask that is really, really unlikely due to the massive amount of effort it would involve. This is the way I've been successfully doing my work for the past several months and I'll be honest in that I don't know a different way to try and interact. It might be that people expect Community Managers to be more in the vein of soothing or calming tension, but my method is to find pain points and see if resolutions and fixes can be determined. If the pain point goes away, then less pain means a happier community on whole.
My goal is to be direct, but to make sure that I keep my writing accessible enough that everyone reading can follow along. I'm not happy to hear that it is interpreted as condescending. That makes me uncertain if I should continue to engage.
Addressing AA Feedback:
I'm not able to translate what "feel" means. Partially because I'm an emotionless robot, but partially because it's a really subjective concept that's very hard for me to pin down and translate to dev speak. I can understand the requests in terms of a movie or story, though. That is literally a way I've been able to learn about human interaction to overcome Asperger's Syndrome, so if you want to translate it into a scene that I can imagine I can work with that. It's oversharing to say that, but it IS a way that helps me and is why I tend to describe things in story-esque format when I teach concepts.
I understand your analogy, but this game is literally built on players dealing damage to other players. This includes if a surface ship attacks an enemy while being undetected.
For the purposes of moving forward, please assume that Carriers will use Planes to attack enemies while the Carrier is far enough away to be considered safe. This is a design constraint that currently exists, so I'm trying to collect feedback as to how we can make this interaction the best that it can be. Telling me that you dislike this interaction is not able to help me make it better.
Your suggestion of trading 80%+ of an entire squadron to deal a single hit is a way to make it better, as that could mean a real and impactful use of resources that will absolutely affect how a CV can function moving forward. This is feedback that I can use, though I do believe it is far too high in my own estimation.
Your suggestion of having ships with "Strong AA" be effectively unable to be attacked outside of Hail Mary situations is also something I can use. It again seems overly punishing, but it's still something I can use.
I am. This is how I listen. I ask questions and engage with people.
I've repeatedly given the concepts and questions I need answered. I've spoken at length about what and why I need them.
I am very actively sitting alone in the work office building at 12:46am on a day which is not a workday after spending literally hours engaging with this thread. I'm a CV Main and this topic is very important to me. I have spent literally years dealing with CVs being a pain point for the community and I'm actually in a position to try and help alleviate some of that pain.
-
Actual picture of me here in the office at 12:55am.
Currently the main way of skillfully interacting with Planes is through Positioning. I'm not talking about clumping in a ball.
The ideal form of positioning is recognizing the attack lanes a CV would need to use and either blocking them (if possible) with islands or be having your "exposed" side either facing a teammate or significantly away which would cause a large loss of time/detour from the CV in order to make an impactful strike. Currently, this is hampered by long range AA being weak (because flak can be outplayed) and also possibly short on range (because our maps are fairly large).
-
The above being said, what you wrote is still useful. It's good at describing the problem from the surface view in terms of wanting something... tangible to touch as opposed to feeling distanced/removed from the interaction.
My biggest question to you would be "How can you keep Priority Sector, but make it actively interesting to you?"
If you do what you love for work, you aren't working~
I do work too much, but I also moved to a new city and don't know any one or any places around here, so I've got the time to devote to letting out Pain Point pressure. It's really fulfilling when I get stuff addressed that I knew players were concerned about before I was hired.
I understand. It's not the first time I've been told I'm like a wall~ To be fair, I'm here to collect feedback and concepts, not make promises I can't keep.
The result of engaging like this is my taking 15+ hours to mull over everything I read and be able to repeat back pain points in very direct, addressable language.
I already have ideas I can propose, but always happy to hear more.
The biggest roadblock to changes is required amounts of Dev Time. That would likely require animation, sound design, further balance concepting (how much damage do they do? what is the result of manually controlling them?).
If there's a way to use the functionality as it is currently, but tweak it to a place that feels more substantial, that is the easiest way to attempt change. If looking at the incoming planes and pressing the O key repeatedly dealt the Instantaneous Damage repeatedly for instance, that could potentially be an easy transition.
Thanks for the Thank You <3 Honestly <3
-
Our move away from RTS CV was deliberate for a variety of reasons like Accessibility, Balancing Issues, and more. Here's a picture of the slide in a presentation which went over the reasoning.
The actual Summit where it was described why we moved away from RTS CV to the Reworked version is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0PPtIIPIso
I have been a public figure in this community for a well over 2 years. I am acting like myself, because I am myself. You will find my positions are consistent to even before I was hired because I didn't take this job just to parrot talking points.
I am here because I believe this is a genuine Pain Point to work on as a CM as well as a player that has dealt with CV backlash ever since starting my journey with World of Warships.
Multiple squadrons may be fun, but there is an accessibility problem. Managing simultaneous things is very hard and not something everyone can do.
The Reworked "one location" camera concept is much more user friendly and relates to the other ship experiences in our game.
Alright that's enough.
This thread has got out of hand on multiple occasions and I'm putting a stop to it.
Everyone go to sleep.
devtrackers.gg