Jump to content


Alabama's armor model is already massively in error

Alabama armor model error

  • Please log in to reply
733 replies to this topic

lemekillmister #721 Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:10 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 959
  • Member since:
    07-30-2016

View PostJinxed_Katajainen, on 21 March 2017 - 07:54 PM, said:

 

It's probably even more obvious the difference of trajectory when you edit a real ballistics curve.

This is for Kongo's 36cm guns with Type 91 AP shell.

Top is real, middle is truncated by half, bottom is compressed by half.

 

 

 

That's a 'what if' WoWS was compressed rather than truncated.

 

Thank you.

I'm a spudman, I got eyes all around.

 

 

 


lemekillmister #722 Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:15 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 959
  • Member since:
    07-30-2016

View PostKnightFandragon, on 21 March 2017 - 08:09 PM, said:

That compressed angles looks VERY derpy.  Really, if anything, they need to let us fight at proper full ranges and make it actually somewhat viable.  The whole "gotta end the game now" idea kills good gameplay and ends up setting the stage for all the stupid mechanics we have in game now, like magic fire, super flooding, citadel deletions, hilarious gun ballistic behaviour....

 

Lets base this game more on reality and we would see much better gameplay.  And no, dont go and connect "reality" with "I want a sim". 

 

Apparently, in closed beta development they determined that battles at those ranges on the necessarily larger maps also necessitated or resulted in a long battle duration. They determined that longer battles would be less popular thus resulting a smaller, less profitable or sustainable, player base.  

 

 

Three choices as I see it:

 

1. Follow history, science and engineering 100% faithful to reality. (probably not a reasonable goal)  

 

2. Ignore history, science and engineering completely. (doesn't fit the charter of the game and brand)

 

OR

 

3. Completely define/articulate in specific mathematically quantifiable figures or terms how exactly they will always uniformly simplify, scale and translate reality into the game's scaled version of reality.  This is what I believe is the best choice for this game. 


Edited by lemekillmister, 21 March 2017 - 08:19 PM.

I'm a spudman, I got eyes all around.

 

 

 


Grizley #723 Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:48 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,908
  • Member since:
    12-08-2013

View Postmofton, on 21 March 2017 - 10:46 AM, said:

 

Followed up by one of the most unnecessarily condescending statements ever. Thanks. 

 

Yes, I've watched those games. Yes, they use and abuse the smoke mechanics. Well, having just played through a season of Ranked I'd describe as 'world of smoke' I'd say there can be strong similarities with current game play... Even in Randoms if I can coerce a destroyer into smoking up my battleship I'll do it and it's widely considered a laudable practice worthy of +1-ing the helpful little boat. 

 

Everything camps all the time in those games, and North Carolina does ok. North Carolina still does ok in open water engagements, but new Alabama will have a big comparative advantage in survivability to torpedoes thrown into smoke, or TB attacks or random long range torps. 

 

I am sorry that WG have designed a game which gives massive advantages to the defender and encourages the proliferation of smoke. That's a game design issue. It's not going to be fixed by Alabama. 

 

 

I have seen the Flamu's (who is as black and white as a 1910's movie accompanied by piano) Alabama review. Yes, he disliked it, yes better TDS but worse citadel means it's not really optimized at any range - other reviews seem to have made it workable. Now however it's just a better-than North Carolina. Handier and with better torpedo defenses in exchange for square root of f-all. 

 

To me it doesn't matter if a Premium is the best ship of its type in a tier, if it is too directly comparable to its tree equivalent just better I think that's a problem. Premiums should have history (oops Alabama) and ideally add some variety to gameplay (e.g. Atlanta, Scharnhorst). A premium which is just a better tree ship yet again is not a move in the right direction. Scharnhorst may be arguably different to Gneisenau but at least it's a worthy argument and at least Scharn has radically different guns - better vs. DD, worse vs. BB choices to make. 

 

 

'Don't compare Alabama to North Carolina, that's stupid'... Compares Scharn-Gneis, Kutuzov-Chappy and Molotov-Budy. K.

 

The competitive games aren't just "using and abusing smoke" it's sitting bow in in smoke.  It's both.  You can't afford to be broadside on because of radar, and the players who are in those games punish showing any side very well.  Especially when only 1 ship on the entire team is spotted.  It's also because they're running RPF and using CV to spot, so there are no flank or unspotted torps.  When a torp hits it hits the bow, so torp protection has 0 effect.

 

The Iowa is the most campy of the T9 BBs, why?  Because it can't afford to show even a hint of side to even a CA without being citadeled.  Its only protection is autobounces with the bow.  So if there is a T8 BB with the same terrible Iowa citadel, it will obviously be the most campy of the T8 BBs.  The problem is the Alabama has worse AA and far worse accuracy than the NC, in addition to it having that terrible citadel.  That makes it strictly worse than the NC.  The one advantage, torp reduction, only helps on flanking torps and a bow on camping BB doesn't take many flank torps.  

 

The least campy of the T9s is the FDG.  Because it has a nearly impossible to hit citadel, so it can afford sloppy angles and charging in.  The fact it has lolsecondaries and fairly bad accuracy also encourages it to get close.  Make no mistake though, it's that ability to show some side and not be deleted that really encourages a more mobile playstyle.

 

Way to miss the point on the comparisons.  Look at the ship vs the best ship of their before you bring out the welfare warrior battlecry of "p2w!".   The North Carolina is not good outside a sitting bow on in smoke situation.  The Gnies, Buddy and Chappy are all the best at their tiers.  If you want another example the Indy was flat better than the pre-buff Pepsi but it was still not good compared to the rest of the CA at the tier.  Not p2w.   You can't just buy the Indy and grind that instead of the Pepsi.  Well, technically you can if you play so many games you just freexp past the Pepsi, but you could do the same thing in the Kutuzov or Zao or any of the other good CA.

 

You can't possibly bring up competitive play and then ignore Flamu's review.  Yes, he's a ragekid on twitch, but he knows competitive play.  Most of the other reviews that I've seen are "Eh, it's not really good but I guess it's not terrible." and those are from players who may be good, but don't play competitively.  I have yet to see an Alabama review that says "Hey this ship is really strong, get it before it's nerfed."  Not one.  

 

 



NeoRussia #724 Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:59 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,165
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostLittleWhiteMouse, on 21 March 2017 - 02:11 PM, said:

Worst case scenario:  Your ship is caught broadside on by an Amagi at less than 10km range.  Here's the damage you can expect to take for each tier 8 ship.

 

  • Bismarck / Tirpitz:  4,158 damage per hit, maximum of 41,580 damage.  50% of this damage may be repaired.
  • Amagi, North Carolina, Alabama:  12,600 per hit.  Maximum of 126,000 damage.  Only 10% of this damage may be repaired per citadel hit, 50% for non-citadel hits.

 

It's very difficult to argue against the awesome durability of the German Battleships, even in worst-case scenarious.

 

What? Where are you getting these numbers from? Amagi has a working turtleback too, not to mention you will never see such a high damage salvo from one. 

SirKenshi #725 Posted 21 March 2017 - 08:59 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 600
  • Member since:
    11-25-2015

View PostSub_Octavian, on 21 March 2017 - 04:26 AM, said:

No. Perhaps my English is quite bad, but I am saying that despite of gameplay conventions in game mechanics, "armor-ballistics" system works.

Hey Sub_Octavian!

Sorry for being a bit off-topic here but, as we all are talking about iowa i wanted to mention something: ¿Any chance of having the rudder shift bonuses from the C hull down to the B hull (same case for Izumo)? I think most people just skip the B hull with free xp and go straight up to the C hull and its quite anoying (if you cant afford free xp) to wait till the last hull to get that maneuvrebility buff. I think it make sense to put it on the B hull just like any other ship.

Cheers!



Grizley #726 Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:01 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,908
  • Member since:
    12-08-2013

View PostNeoRussia, on 21 March 2017 - 12:59 PM, said:

 

What? Where are you getting these numbers from? Amagi has a working turtleback too, not to mention you will never see such a high damage salvo from one. 

 

Hence, "Worst case scenario".  

 

Obviously if you're taking 126k damage in a broadside how much you can heal of that is irrelevant.  RNGesus might say you only take two citadels, or even only one.  Odds are pretty good you're taking at least two or three at 10km and it could be as many as 10.



RadDisconnect #727 Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:22 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 84
  • Member since:
    05-10-2015

View PostKnightFandragon, on 21 March 2017 - 07:30 PM, said:

 

They could lose the wings off the NC's citadel, shrinking it ever so slightly more, making it a little harder to hit.  Putting only Belt armor in the way of enemy shells, instead of citadel.  That would allow it to Battleship a little more and worry less about position.  That would allow it to get more damage in, more wins cuz it can affect the battle like it needs to.  Also, they could buff its rudder shift a few seconds.  Also, is it me, or do all those ships sit to high in the water?  Seems like a war laden battleship wouldnt have the water line visible at all like we see in this game. 

 

As for the NC's accuracy, its crap.  The thing doesnt hit for crapunless its at like 10km.  Further then that, it fires long.  Aim at the water line, fire over the other end of the enemy ship....

 

My god, what do you want? You do nothing but rail about how bad USN BBs are, and you don't want anything other than flat buffs to USN BBs. Seriously, are you not satisfied until USN BBs are the best?

I'm working on it.


KnightFandragon #728 Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:26 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,285
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostRadDisconnect, on 21 March 2017 - 09:22 PM, said:

 

My god, what do you want? You do nothing but rail about how bad USN BBs are, and you don't want anything other than flat buffs to USN BBs. Seriously, are you not satisfied until USN BBs are the best?

 

Just a Battleship that has the durability of a battleship from more angles then purely bow on.  One that can turn and not be deleted by citadels.  One where Citadels are rare, not normal....

KaptainKaybe #729 Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:49 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,384
  • Member since:
    08-14-2012

As some have mentioned, our issue with the Alabama was not so much just her Terribad Squishy Citadel of Doom ™ ... it was the fact that it was combined with a bunch of traits that made her favor close range combat. She takes an HP loss, a slight AA loss, and a slight but still noticeable accuracy loss to be more agile and have a thicker torpedo belt. But agility and torpedo belts, combined with that accuracy, favor her closing in on the enemy and contesting caps. But her citadel armor prevented that from happening entirely as it's too easy to get flanked when you're up close. One significant disadvantage cancels out all the advantages she has to balance out the other disadvantages (yes, that line makes sense in my head).

 

Had she kept that dangerous citadel but instead be given 2.1 sigma guns that are a bit less floaty, that would make sense ... more fragile than NC, but more accurate. A USN sniper BB. 

 

At least now, with a waterline citadel, she CAN get in closer to engage in close quarter fights. And in this respect, actually (nearly) challenge Bismarck up close: More fragile citadel (but below the waterline, so incoming damage won't be as monstrous). While Bismarck has the turtleback to resist citadel damage, Alabama has the agility and raw firepower to bow onto a Bismarck, and *stay* bow on with 6 highly penetrating rifles. Don't get me wrong ... Bismarck still has advantage in close quarters due to that amazing armor and those amazing secondaries, but she loses out hard on agility and may not be able to flank the Alabama. It's just that previously, with that horrid citadel, if Alabama even dared show a glimpse of side at close quarters, she'd get wiped off the map in seconds, which makes for a very skittish playstyle. And in terms of dealing with DDs in caps, Bismarck has her Hydro, and Alabama has her agility and torpedo belt, Fair trade, but with Bismarck still winning out a bit because of those monster secondaries (assuming a manual secondaries build).

 

In other words, even with the change, Alabama still won't be king of the hill compared to the other T8s out there, but she will be competitive. And she'll be balanced with the North Carolina that will still be a better ship at longer ranges and playing with stealth builds due to her accuracy advantage.


Edited by KaptainKaybe, 21 March 2017 - 09:50 PM.


Pulicat #730 Posted 22 March 2017 - 04:43 AM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,321
  • Member since:
    07-02-2013

View PostCybrSlydr, on 21 March 2017 - 06:10 AM, said:

 

@iChase

 

Love for you to respond to this one.

 

EDIT:  Here we go, Sub - Ard, here's a pic to help illustrate.

 

Posted Image

 

The goal was never to compress the range. They reduced it to keep an enjoyable distance while also keeping matches from lasting hours.

 


Pillager_Serj #731 Posted 23 March 2017 - 12:36 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 146
  • Member since:
    07-01-2015

View PostNeoRussia, on 21 March 2017 - 08:59 PM, said:

 

What? Where are you getting these numbers from? Amagi has a working turtleback too, not to mention you will never see such a high damage salvo from one. 

 

well, my crowning achievement was 5x citadel hits to a Missouri from my Amagi with a total salvo of over 72,600 dmg. OMG i was screaming. it was such a hard hit that while i didn't one-shot the guy nor scored devastating strike (i should have) is that the next person who hit them got the kill while i was reloading...

TheKrimzonDemon #732 Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:11 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,881
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

View PostTheDreadnought, on 21 March 2017 - 01:50 PM, said:

 

This is fantastic news!

 

My concern with Alabama was that I'm a pretty aggressive BB player and that I might not be able to play that way with her.  With these changes Alabama went from "wait and see" to "absolutely must buy minute #1 it's available!!

 

I'd be happy to host you and the entire team that worked on this at a deck party at our place.  We just bought an industrial lime squeezer. . . we're very serious about our margaritas!

 

Oh sweet mercy, if that cit is better situated, I'll be in heaven with this thing.

Ships that I drive around looking for parking: Way more than I should be allowed to. 85 and counting. Nuff said.


CybrSlydr #733 Posted 23 March 2017 - 01:14 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,967
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View PostPulicat, on 21 March 2017 - 11:43 PM, said:

 

The goal was never to compress the range. They reduced it to keep an enjoyable distance while also keeping matches from lasting hours.

 

It's not my photo - I just grabbed it from the iChase thread so folks who hadn't seen it there could see it here.

CybrSlydr:  The poster you love to hate so you feel better about yourself.

 

World of Warships:  Video Game version of "Who's Line?..." where the rules are made up and the history doesn't matter.

 


KnightFandragon #734 Posted 23 March 2017 - 11:54 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,285
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

https://www.youtube....h?v=ajMn0qKPU3M

 

Its beautiful.  Is that what the Montana and Iowa have to look forward to?  Apply that same thing to the NC and perfection. 







Also tagged with Alabama, armor, model, error

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users