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

Big_Spud #41 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:44 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,339
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postissm, on 12 March 2017 - 09:33 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.

 

If you read the OP you would know that they can do much better quality armor tapering simulation than what Alabama currently has, even in other ships that share the exact same armor scheme. This tells me that a mistake was made somewhere along the line. Maybe Boris the intern got to do the model for this one. That doesn't somehow excuse the poor quality of work though, nor does it make it correct when viewed in comparison with the rest of the ships in the game.
.- ..- - .. ... - .. -.-. / ... -.-. .-. . . -.-. .... .. -. --.

issm #42 Posted 13 March 2017 - 02:58 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

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

View PostBig_Spud, on 12 March 2017 - 09:44 PM, said:

If you read the OP you would know that they can do much better quality armor tapering simulation than what Alabama currently has, even in other ships that share the exact same armor scheme. This tells me that a mistake was made somewhere along the line. Maybe Boris the intern got to do the model for this one. That doesn't somehow excuse the poor quality of work though, nor does it make it correct when viewed in comparison with the rest of the ships in the game.

 

It tells you it's an error? It tells me it's a deliberate decision made to emphasise Alabama's weakness or main battery shots relative to North Carolina.

 

You know, the same reason she's not getting the "corrected" citadel that Iowa, Missouri, and Montana supposedly are (and buffin Missouri is a disgusting decision on top of that).

 

If gameplay stats from testing indicates that the ship is too squishy, and needs a slight armor buff: Great.

 

If gameplay testing indicates she's fine, which, given WG is deciding against lowering her cit, then no change should be made.

 

Simple as that.


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

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


Big_Spud #43 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:05 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,339
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postissm, on 12 March 2017 - 09:58 PM, said:

 

It tells you it's an error? It tells me it's a deliberate decision made to emphasise Alabama's weakness or main battery shots relative to North Carolina.

 

You know, the same reason she's not getting the "corrected" citadel that Iowa, Missouri, and Montana supposedly are (and buffin Missouri is a disgusting decision on top of that).

 

If gameplay stats from testing indicates that the ship is too squishy, and needs a slight armor buff: Great.

 

If gameplay testing indicates she's fine, which, given WG is deciding against lowering her cit, then no change should be made.

 

Simple as that.

 

As has been noted in the past, gameplay testing has not been particularly relevant when it comes to the specific modeling of belt armor and other surfaces of great thickness. Extremity armor, perhaps. Bomb deck armor, sometimes. 

 

But belt armor? Not once has it ever been increased or decreased from the actual historical ship they are using as a reference point. In fact, they often seem to tout the accuracy of their armor modeling, such as the New Orleans magazine incident, in which many members of the dev staff and community spent hours and hours going through dozens of historical references and microfilm diagrams to find the correct layout, which the ship ingame was later changed to.

 

A few other cases like this was the missing 10 inches of armor over Nagatos magazines that was added after it was found to be missing. Another was the forward bulkhead of Arizona missing 5 inches of armor, which was also added back in after it was found missing shortly after release. Or perhaps the lower belt thickness on Bismarck or Tirpitz, which was also changed recently for purely historical reasons.

 

WG has an easily traceable history of fixing armor model errors if its clear that there are indeed errors. This is one such case. Sorry to rain on your tirade.


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

Naughtius_Maximus #44 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:14 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,923
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

I mean they should probably garbage something else in exchange of robbing cruisers their ability to "citpen" (so you claim) the Alabama.

 

0% fire resist? There is no historical proof there for you to whine about, so why not? Can't just whine for buffs, especially for a premium. If you want us to care you need to drop a significant if not crippling nerf. Ability to citpen is a pretty huge deal and should be properly compensated.


Edited by Naughtius_Maximus, 13 March 2017 - 03:16 AM.


Big_Spud #45 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:16 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,339
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostNaughtius_Maximus, on 12 March 2017 - 10:14 PM, said:

I mean they should probably garbage something else in exchange of robbing cruisers their ability to "citpen" (so you claim) the Alabama.

 

0% fire resist?

 

For the average player, the high Iowa-style citadel, huge unarmored superstructure, bad secondaries and slow shell speed will probably be enough of a balancing factor. Its not idiot proof like the Germans are, just one mistake is enough to get you deleted.
.- ..- - .. ... - .. -.-. / ... -.-. .-. . . -.-. .... .. -. --.

Naughtius_Maximus #46 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:18 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,923
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostBig_Spud, on 12 March 2017 - 07:16 PM, said:

 

For the average player, the high Iowa-style citadel, bad secondaries and slow shell speed will probably be enough of a balancing factor. Its not idiot proof like the Germans are, just one mistake is enough to get you deleted.

 

No that was balance BEFORE the armor whine. Meaning WG thinks it is balanced as is.

 

If you want a buff, especially for a premium and Especially regarding something as big as cit pens, you need something as big as that (0 fire resist.)

 

You need tradeoffs when arguing for buffs on a tested for balance ship. Triply so with a premium.

 

If you do not have a corresponding nerf I would not have any reason to follow this.

 

Unless you are asking for a.....universal nerf of some kind :hiding:.


Edited by Naughtius_Maximus, 13 March 2017 - 03:31 AM.


Big_Spud #47 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:20 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,339
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostNaughtius_Maximus, on 12 March 2017 - 10:18 PM, said:

 

No that was balance BEFORE the armor whine. Meaning WG thinks it is balanced as is.

 

If you want a buff, especially for a premium and Especially regarding something as big as cit pens, you need something as big as that.

 

Hang on, what are you implying here? The ship is still vulnerable to citpens, massively so even with this proposed armor fix. This isn't removing vulnerability to citpens from other battleships or something, it would just be removing that vulnerability to CRUISERS getting citpens at long range (even a Pensacola's gun can punch through that 184mm section out to almost 15km as it stands), something that no other high tier battleship (not even Amagi) has to deal with regularly. The ship is vulnerable because WG modeled the belt armor too thinly, that's all that's happening here.
.- ..- - .. ... - .. -.-. / ... -.-. .-. . . -.-. .... .. -. --.

Naughtius_Maximus #48 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:23 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,923
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostBig_Spud, on 12 March 2017 - 07:20 PM, said:

 

Hang on, what are you implying here? The ship is still vulnerable to citpens, massively so even with this proposed armor fix. This isn't removing vulnerability to citpens from other battleships or something.

 

WG has it balanced as it is now. If you up the armor for zero compensating nerfs and it gets released, it'll just be a Nikolai That is OP as hell. And subsequently nobody gets to buy 3 months into the game.

 

Suggest a huge nerf to the "citpen 15km away by cruisers." Because as it is supposedly balanced as is, removing that feature would massively hurt the cruiser class for zero redeeming benefits.

 

Fire resistance nerf/removal would be a pretty fair compensation, really.


Edited by Naughtius_Maximus, 13 March 2017 - 03:24 AM.


Big_Spud #49 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:31 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,339
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostNaughtius_Maximus, on 12 March 2017 - 10:23 PM, said:

 

WG has it balanced as it is now. If you up the armor for zero compensating nerfs and it gets released, it'll just be a Nikolai That is OP as hell. And subsequently nobody gets to buy 3 months into the game.

 

Suggest a huge nerf to the "citpen 15km away by cruisers." Because as it is supposedly balanced as is, removing that feature would massively hurt the cruiser class for zero redeeming benefits.

 

Fire resistance nerf/removal would be a pretty fair compensation, really.

 

Dude what.
.- ..- - .. ... - .. -.-. / ... -.-. .-. . . -.-. .... .. -. --.

Naughtius_Maximus #50 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:34 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,923
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostBig_Spud, on 12 March 2017 - 07:31 PM, said:

 

Dude what.

 

What do you mean what. The ship is balanced as it is now. Or at least WG is balancing with all the current ship in mind.

 

You are asking for buffs with zero compensating nerfs. To a premium. Of course no one would take you seriously.

 

You need to pair your buff suggestion with a nerf. And since more armor affects the cruisers the most, I would personally suggest dumpstering the fire resistance. Though of course if you can suggest something about as big, go ahead.



Taichunger #51 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:34 AM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,409
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015

View PostBig_Spud, on 13 March 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

 

....Sorry to rain on your tirade.

 

I am so stealing this line. 


----------

Still needed: (1) a NO CV button for the MM (2) Remove Shatter (3) a button for demounting all flags (4) the icon in the status bar to signal someone wants to div/chat with you


Big_Spud #52 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:35 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,339
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostNaughtius_Maximus, on 12 March 2017 - 10:34 PM, said:

 

What do you mean what. The ship is balanced as it is now. Or at least WG is balancing with all the current ship in mind.

 

You are asking for buffs with zero compensating nerfs. To a premium. Of course no one would take you seriously.

 

You need to pair your buff suggestion with a nerf. And since more armor affects the cruisers the most, I would personally suggest dumpstering the fire resistance. Though of course if you can suggest something about as big, go ahead.

 

Why though, that hasn't been the case in any other example of an armor fix ingame, regardless of class.
.- ..- - .. ... - .. -.-. / ... -.-. .-. . . -.-. .... .. -. --.

Naughtius_Maximus #53 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:37 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,923
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Because they were established ships that were underperforming (for BBs, still overperforming as a whole.)

 

Also they are not premiums.



issm #54 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:39 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

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

View PostBig_Spud, on 12 March 2017 - 10:35 PM, said:

Why though, that hasn't been the case in any other example of an armor fix ingame, regardless of class.

 

Most of the previous armour fixes have been to generally underperforming ships, i.e. the USN cruisers, no?

 

Maximus summaries my opinion fairly well.

 

WG evidently considers Alabama balanced, given they aren't lowering the cit.

 

As such, she shouldn't be buffed away from the current state.

 

ESPECIALLY not over historical nonsense.


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

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


Big_Spud #55 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:40 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,339
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostNaughtius_Maximus, on 12 March 2017 - 10:37 PM, said:

Because they were established ships that were underperforming (for BBs, still overperforming as a whole.)

 

Also they are not premiums.

 

Fixes were applied to Warspite (being lowered so that its armor actually worked), as well as Arizona (shortly after release it was found that the frontal bulkhead was missing 5 inches of armor), and Nagato (which was missing 10 inches of armor along its entire frontal magazine spaces). None of these fixes were coincided by a nerf to any other aspect of the ship, nor were any of them performing poorly before the fixes were applied. WG has been clear on this before: if there is a massive glaring issue, they will fix it.

 

Block Quote

 

Most of the previous armour fixes have been to generally underperforming ships, i.e. the USN cruisers, no?

 

Maximus summaries my opinion fairly well.

 

WG evidently considers Alabama balanced, given they aren't lowering the cit.

 

As such, she shouldn't be buffed away from the current state.

 

ESPECIALLY not over historical nonsense.

 

ONCE AGAIN, this has nothing to do with the heightened citadel. It is specifically referencing the lower section of the main belt armor, which is of incorrect thickness on all accounts, even when compared to other ships ingame that utilize the exact same scheme.

 

Whats more is that you're wrong. Multiple rather large fixes have been applied to battleships as well, as was previously stated. Apart from extremity/bomb deck thickness, all armor surfaces are based off of what the ship actually had. Once again, just because you cannot accept this fact, doesn't somehow invalidate it.

 


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

mofton #56 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:41 AM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,037
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

View PostBig_Spud, on 12 March 2017 - 07:20 PM, said:

(even a Pensacola's gun can punch through that 184mm section out to almost 15km as it stands)

 

Do we know what the 'armor value' of various distances of shell travel through water is and how that's modeled?

light.png

Iowanna be a rockstar - Salmon - Ctrl-Click-Schiffe - Le Dunkerque - Grand Old Lady - ~5 Mil in IJN Scrap

Gearings of Poor - Trashcan - Biscuit-tweaker - Tachi-Ali-Baba - Not-quite-Minekaze - Zit-23 - Shinbone - Your-a-gnome

Dakka Moines - AbSchorring - Dakka-Dakka-taur


Naughtius_Maximus #57 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:42 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,923
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postissm, on 12 March 2017 - 07:39 PM, said:

 

Most of the previous armour fixes have been to generally underperforming ships, i.e. the USN cruisers, no?

 

Maximus summaries my opinion fairly well.

 

WG evidently considers Alabama balanced, given they aren't lowering the cit.

 

As such, she shouldn't be buffed away from the current state.

 

ESPECIALLY not over historical nonsense.

 

Or if they are dumpster them in a stat not covered by historical nonsense.

 

Fire chance being one of them. Or dispersion.



issm #58 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:44 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

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

View PostBig_Spud, on 12 March 2017 - 10:40 PM, said:

Fixes were applied to Warspite (being lowered so that its armor actually worked), as well as Arizona (shortly after release it was found that the frontal bulkhead was missing 5 inches of armor), and Nagato (which was missing 10 inches of armor along its entire frontal magazine spaces). None of these fixes were coincided by a nerf to any other aspect of the ship, nor were any of them performing poorly before the fixes were applied.

 

And none of those should have ever happened.

 

ESPECIALLY Warspite and Arizona.


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

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet


Excield #59 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:44 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,926
  • Member since:
    12-29-2015

OP, nicely done!

 

So they averaged out the thickness of all those layers, and in turn made the whole area more vulnerable than it needs to be, huh.

 

The citadel height issue aside, this is pretty bad, because it compounds the issue. They should DEFINITELY thicken that 184mm plate section... To maybe 305mm. That would make angling more effective, as it should be.

 

Wargaming, please notice this!



Big_Spud #60 Posted 13 March 2017 - 03:47 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,339
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postissm, on 12 March 2017 - 10:44 PM, said:

 

And none of those should have ever happened.

 

ESPECIALLY Warspite and Arizona.

 

You don't even have a point to argue anymore, you're being a contrarian purely for the sole purpose of being a contrarian.
.- ..- - .. ... - .. -.-. / ... -.-. .-. . . -.-. .... .. -. --.





Also tagged with Alabama, armor, model, error

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users