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 #21 Posted 13 March 2017 - 01:59 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,399
  • Member since:
    07-30-2016

View PostRevolutionBlues, on 13 March 2017 - 01:50 AM, said:

 

I get the point. I just don't give a fuck.

 

Your reply isn't convincing. 

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

 

 

 


Xwing_Red1 #22 Posted 13 March 2017 - 01:59 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 668
  • Member since:
    01-13-2013

Just rename it as "South Dakota"....

 

Problem solved :trollface:



issm #23 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:05 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,844
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View PostDerKrampus, on 12 March 2017 - 08:42 PM, said:

Who the hell cares?

 

Deal with it, or don't comment.

 

There.  Now we've contributed equally to the discussion.

 

Sure, you want an actual argument?

 

GAME.

 

REAL LIFE.

 

DIFFERENT.

 

If balance dictate Alabama doesn't get that extra strip of 305mm armor, then that's what the game is.

 

By all appearances, WG's way of balancing Alabama as "NC but better" is to make it more vulnerable to main battery cit pens.

 

This armour model is consistent with that apparent goal.


Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


Shadowrigger1 #24 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:05 AM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,506
  • Member since:
    07-02-2013
Good catch Spud.. Keep those eyes out on all the new ships.. your analysis is always spot on.  They half [edited]too much when it comes to making correct armor modeling.  You'd think by now they would realize people are going to dissect everything they do.  Do it right the first time.

Big_Spud #25 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:09 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,346
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postissm, on 12 March 2017 - 09:05 PM, said:

 

Sure, you want an actual argument?

 

GAME.

 

REAL LIFE.

 

DIFFERENT.

 

If balance dictate Alabama doesn't get that extra strip of 305mm armor, then that's what the game is.

 

By all appearances, WG's way of balancing Alabama as "NC but better" is to make it more vulnerable to main battery cit pens.

 

This armour model is consistent with that apparent goal.

 

Or they screwed up the armor model by accident, as they have in many other ships.

 

But no, lets just accept likely mistakes and never talk about anything because you think its pointless as it doesn't play into one of your agendas.

 

Your attempt of stiffening discussion you don't like doesn't help anything at all.


.- ..- - .. ... - .. -.-. / ... -.-. .-. . . -.-. .... .. -. --.

DerKrampus #26 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:10 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 952
  • Member since:
    07-01-2015

View Postissm, on 13 March 2017 - 02:05 AM, said:

 

Sure, you want an actual argument?

 

GAME.

 

REAL LIFE.

 

DIFFERENT.

 

If balance dictate Alabama doesn't get that extra strip of 305mm armor, then that's what the game is.

 

By all appearances, WG's way of balancing Alabama as "NC but better" is to make it more vulnerable to main battery cit pens.

 

This armour model is consistent with that apparent goal.

 

#TRIGGERED?

 


issm #27 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:11 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,844
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View PostShadowrigger1, on 12 March 2017 - 09:05 PM, said:

Good catch Spud.. Keep those eyes out on all the new ships.. your analysis is always spot on.  They half [edited]too much when it comes to making correct armor modeling.  You'd think by now they would realize people are going to dissect everything they do.  Do it right the first time.

 

How about no?

 

No more history nerds injecting their nonsense into the game.

 

Balance and make changes as a game. Not as a goddamn simulator.


Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


Hangoverhomey #28 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:12 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,267
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostDerKrampus, on 12 March 2017 - 07:10 PM, said:

 

wrong post, my bad.


Edited by Hangoverhomey, 13 March 2017 - 02:15 AM.


Shadowrigger1 #29 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:13 AM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,506
  • Member since:
    07-02-2013

View Postissm, on 13 March 2017 - 02:11 AM, said:

 

How about no?

 

No more history nerds injecting their nonsense into the game.

 

Balance and make changes as a game. Not as a goddamn simulator.

 

Move along,  you're comment is noted, you have nothing left to add .

Edited by Shadowrigger1, 13 March 2017 - 02:14 AM.


issm #30 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:14 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,844
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View PostBig_Spud, on 12 March 2017 - 09:09 PM, said:

Or they screwed up the armor model by accident, as they have in many other ships.

 

But no, lets just accept likely mistakes and never talk about anything because you think its pointless as it doesn't play into one of your agendas.

 

Your attempt of stiffening discussion you don't like doesn't help anything at all.

 

Is the error resulting in gameplay issues?

 

If no, i doesn't matter.

 

If yes, argue based on the gameplay.

 

View PostDerKrampus, on 12 March 2017 - 09:10 PM, said:

#TRIGGERED?

 

By people injecting irrelevancies into a fantasy world? Yes.


Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


issm #31 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:15 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,844
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View PostShadowrigger1, on 12 March 2017 - 09:13 PM, said:

Move along little boy,  you're comment is noted, you have nothing left to add .

 

How about no?

 

People whining "but muh realism" is the root of 90% of my gripes with this game.

 

So no, I'm not letting this go.

 

Demonstrate a gameplay reason why this needs to be changed, or GTFO.


Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


Big_Spud #32 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:22 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,346
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postissm, on 12 March 2017 - 09:15 PM, said:

 

How about no?

 

People whining "but muh realism" is the root of 90% of my gripes with this game.

 

So no, I'm not letting this go.

 

Demonstrate a gameplay reason why this needs to be changed, or GTFO.

 

As a rule, WG generally doesn't change belt/deck/bulkhead/turret/barbette armor values from historical values. When there is a significant deviance from the norm established on 99% of the other ships in the game, its fair to assume that an error has occurred. It's not my fault that you are incapable of seeing this and are on a vendetta to scream and cry about people attempting to provide proof through historical fact for modeling errors, even though WG has said time and time again that they have made simple mistakes when it has been brought to their attention, and solved them.

 

But please, keep missing the point and yelling obscenities. I'm sure that will be effective at swaying peoples opinions.


.- ..- - .. ... - .. -.-. / ... -.-. .-. . . -.-. .... .. -. --.

_RC1138 #33 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:29 AM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,182
  • Member since:
    03-22-2015
This is why I wanted the NC to be dropped to T7. Then the Bama could be made to actually be better than the NC rather than a more brittle but dancier version.
Never argue with a gun, it may argue back...

Battleship_Constitution #34 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:30 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 431
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
yall cried about not getting the ship. yall now cry that its not correct. News flash when the fix the Mo, Iowa and Monty the bama will NOT get the same fix. Well deserved for the ship

Big_Spud #35 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:32 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,346
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostBattleship_Constitution, on 12 March 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

yall cried about not getting the ship. yall now cry that its not correct. News flash when the fix the Mo, Iowa and Monty the bama will NOT get the same fix. Well deserved for the ship

 

This isn't about the citadel height, read the OP before posting nonsense.
.- ..- - .. ... - .. -.-. / ... -.-. .-. . . -.-. .... .. -. --.

issm #36 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:33 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,844
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

View PostBig_Spud, on 12 March 2017 - 09:22 PM, said:

As a rule, WG generally doesn't change belt/deck/bulkhead/turret/barbette armor values from historical values. When there is a significant deviance from the norm established on 99% of the other ships in the game, its fair to assume that an error has occurred. It's not my fault that you are incapable of seeing this and are on a vendetta to scream and cry about people attempting to provide proof for modeling errors.

 

But please, keep missing the point and yelling obscenities. I'm sure that will be effective at swaying peoples opinions.

 

Except... they didn't change the armor values.

 

You even admitted as much.

 

WG doesn't do tapered armor, so they average out a tapered section and apply a flat value across the board.

 

They did it to Alabama, as they do for ALL ships.

 

You're sitting here whining that the sections for Alabama's averaging wasn't finely partitioned enough.

 

Prove that this impacts gameplay enough to matter, or GTFO.


Edited by issm, 13 March 2017 - 02:34 AM.

Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


Kitsunelegend #37 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:35 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 5,080
  • Member since:
    09-19-2014

View Postissm, on 12 March 2017 - 10:33 PM, said:

 

Except... they didn't change the armor values.

 

You even admitted as much.

 

WG doesn't do tapered armor, so they average out a tapered section and apply a flat value across the board.

 

They did it to Alabama, as they do for ALL ships.

 

You're sitting here whining that the sections for Alabama's averaging wasn't finely partitioned enough.

 

Prove that this impacts gameplay enough to matter, or GTFO.

 

I'm guessing you didn't read the OP? Cause its clearly stated that WG did exactly what we're asking for to the Bayern. Theres even a pretty picture that shows it as well.

 

All we're asking for is consistency in the game. Nothing more.


Edited by Kitsunelegend, 13 March 2017 - 02:36 AM.

I is potato incarnate. I taste good with bacon. Fear my potato-yness! >=D

Bacon and coffee pleases teh kitsune -w- 

<a data-cke-saved-href='http://i.imgur.com/t3oH4sk.png' href='http://i.imgur.com/t3oH4sk.png' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/t3oH4sk.png</a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/t...t3oH4sk.png</a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/t...4sk.png</a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/t...png</a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/t.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/t.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'><a href='http://i.imgur.com/t.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://i.imgur.com/t.../a></a></a></a></a>

[Battleships:] Mikasa, South Carolina, Ishizuchi, Arkansas BetaImperator Nikolai I, TexasWarspite, Arizona, Dunkerque, New Mexico, Gneisenau, Scharnhorst, North Carolina, Alabama, Bismarck, Tirpitz, Iowa [Cruisers:] Erie, Albany, Emden, Aurora, Oleg, St Louis, KatoriYubari, Konigsburg, Marblehead, Omaha, Murmansk, ClevelandMolotov, Perth, Duca D'Aosta, Atlanta, Atago, Indianapolis, Prinz Eugen, Mikhail Kutuzov [Carriers:] Saipan [Destroyers:] Tachibana, SmithWickes, Clemson, Isokaze, Lo YangCampbeltownBlyskawicaSimsAnshan

Arpeggio ships: ARP Kongou, ARP Kirishima, ARP Hiei, ARP Ashigara, ARP Nachi, ARP Takao


Mavairo #38 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:38 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,325
  • Member since:
    04-03-2015
Not exactly surprised, and this certainly explains the durability concerns (even more so than the tall citadel.) that so many of the reviewers have had. 

crzyhawk #39 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:38 AM

    Admiral

  • Members
  • Beta Testers

  • 10,859
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

View PostIJN_Hyuga, on 12 March 2017 - 07:02 PM, said:

 

Actually, I think this is a pretty relevant thread.

 

Canadatron just wants to cause crap because he thinks people who got fired up about unavailability for something are somehow entitled.  He doesnt care about the ship so it doesn't matter to him that exclusivity is bad.


CybrSlydr #40 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:42 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,081
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013
Outstanding catch, Spud - just ignore Issm.

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.

 






Also tagged with Alabama, armor, model, error

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users