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

Grizley #541 Posted 17 March 2017 - 06:15 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,836
  • Member since:
    12-08-2013

I've gone back and read the SubOctavian post again and it sort of makes sense.

 

It's not "USN BBs are balanced".  It's "USN BBs still crush CA".  Ok, true.  But they suffer against BBs, and there are more BBs than CA in the game.  

 

In addition, the grand vision might be that your BBs will go after CA, and the CA will go after DDs and the DDs will go after BBs.   In practice, that doesn't happen because that's not what the ships stats lend themselves too.  

 

Reality looks more like:

 

BBs shoot at CA whenever they can because lolpen.  When there are no CAs, BBs shoot at each other.

CA shoot at anything they can from behind islands or at long range because then they don't get deleted by BBs.

DDs fight other DDs for caps and then spot and sling random torpedos at whatever is out front.*

 

*BBs are rarely what's out front, and then only made in German BBs packing hydro.

 

So, BB vs BB is one of the main metrics a BB is measured by.  All BBs do exceptionally well against CAs that they can fire back at.  All BBs do exceptionally badly against anything they can't fire back at.  Some BBs do exceptionally well vs other BBs, and some don't.  So the main differentiation between the lines is not what range do they fight well at, it's can they handle a BB vs BB fight or not.  At the mid to high tiers, IJN and KM BBs can handle other BBs, USN BBs really can't.  That's all it comes down to.



Big_Spud #542 Posted 17 March 2017 - 06:21 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,074
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postaethervox, on 17 March 2017 - 01:08 PM, said:

#1) This is an arcade game.

#2) The Designers can do whatever they want - historical accuracy be damned.

#3) Isn't WG a Russian biased game company?

#4) Isn't the Alabama a premium ship?

#5) I, personally, don't care about this, at all, since the Alabama is just another 'Lollipop for Suckers'.

 

1. So it is, but some characteristics of ships are based almost without exception on their historical counterpart. This is intentional and is often used as a selling point.

 

2. In most cases yes. However as was mentioned in my answer above, some things are always kept as close to real life as they can manage within the confines of the game.

 

3. Sometimes.

 

4. How does this effect anything.

 

5. Then why did you come here and make a post about it?


-Because finding more ways to buff Nagato is always a top priority.

 

No stats, because posting with purple numbers makes your opinion worthless for some reason.


Pillager_Serj #543 Posted 18 March 2017 - 04:13 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 146
  • Member since:
    07-01-2015

View PostSub_Octavian, on 15 March 2017 - 11:13 AM, said:

Hello again, guys!

So I made some research on the subject and brought fresh info for you.

Iowa/Missouri and Montana citadel

 

As I answered on reddit, we are considering the community-proposed changes to Iowa and Montana citadel. The statement that we would be happy to cooperate and make them more comfortable in BB-BB combat is still relevant, but at the same time we should be careful not to buff them outside the class, where their effeciency is absolutely normal. This is why we are working on new citadel placement prototype for them, and will make the final decision only after we have some solid evidence that it will not break balance. So, I guess it is "work in progress" for now.

 

Alabama citadel

 

Alabama, on the other hand, is a new ship and was tested in relevant meta, with all knowledge and known community concerns in mind. And we see that combination of her qualities, specs and layout makes her solid good ship. Lowering her citadel has no balance reasons and is qurrently out of question. It is obvious it is a mutual interest for devs and players to release a fine, well-balanced ship. Alabama will make such ship, and she does not need opague last minute changes.

 

Alabama armor tapering

 

So the plate that is discussed indeed has tapering, we know that. Problem is, we don't have any solid proof of thickness distribution, like we have for some other ships. So we cannot model this plate with high accuracy. What we could do it to make it up like this: 

 

 

Such "slicing" would reflect the tapering with at least some degree of historical accuracy. However, our tests indicated that it would not make any impact on ship survivability. While any additional details for armor model increase server load. Of course slicing that single plate won't make any server lags by itself, but every complication of sever model contributes. So we try to avoid unnecessary details that do not affect player experience for the sake of optimization.

 

This is why we decided to leave average thickness for this plate - we don't have 100% data, and it does not influence ship performance.

 

And this honestly makes statements "already massively in error", "what the hell have you done WG", "armor model essentially "skips" over a huge chunk of the primary belt armor" and "be open to citpens through her belt from 8" cruiser guns as far away as 14km" way too dramatic (at the very least). No, good folks, this is not true. That plate is not historically accurate, and this is pretty much it.

 

On this one one, when you have the information, what do you guys think? Do you think it is important to reflect tapering at least for some degree like in my example (274/168/60)? Please share your thoughts, and we will see what we can do. We are as always open to discussion and thankful for your input.

Cheers!

 

Hello Sub! Thank you for taking the time to look over this Matter. I really appreciate it, and believe the OP has some well-founded reasoning to the current stance.

 

While perhaps somewhat over-dramatic, I think the fact remains, as has been seen in this game as well as in real life with industries like automobile production, is that closed, limited testing even by the most hardened of developers or engineers, may still come up short when attempting to discover/correct/exploit design concerns. In fact, I would say the Matter concerning the Citadel Height of the Iowa/Missouri & Montana Highlight this very issue. Statistically speaking, (and my own experience in the Missou) are the weakest, most susceptible to Citadel penetrations of any BB in this game at any tier, and even rival some of the laughably easy Citpens from mid-tier cruisers. Because of this effect, you/the Dev team are seriously talking about correcting the citadel height on those ships.

 

Now, given consideration to that, and leaving the current citadel position on the Alabama alone may or may not draw the same problem. However, I believe banding the armor to the scenario that you have marked to be a fine solution, and should prove satisfactory for the majority of people who are interested in purchasing this ship, and will probably lean a few of those sitting on the fence from a "not sure" to a "will buy" situation. (Lowering the citadel would magnify this further, but considering that's already a hard "no" this should be acceptable) 

 

Bottom line;  I like the currently proposed armor bands (310/274/168/60) and intend to purchase this ship upon release, especially given the attention to which this is being addressed. Thank YOU!



iDuckman #544 Posted 18 March 2017 - 05:26 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 269
  • Member since:
    01-08-2017

View PostSub_Octavian, on 15 March 2017 - 05:13 AM, said:

Such "slicing" would reflect the tapering with at least some degree of historical accuracy. However, our tests indicated that it would not make any impact on ship survivability.

...

This is why we decided to leave average thickness for this plate - we don't have 100% data, and it does not influence ship performance.

 

Thanks for your reply.  I would like to better understand the bolded statements above. 

 

What sort of "tests"?  A straight numerical analysis is possible, though probably tedious. A good statistical sample would be enlightening, but a half hour of shooting up a training room would not, IMHO.

 

In the current configuration, a quantum hit below the artificially short main belt on the current tall, "averaged" lower belt would encounter artificially thin armor some fraction of the time (fraction depends on the actual taper) and artificially thick armor at the inverse rate.  Do you mean that the net effect of the higher and lower hits below the main belt is zero because the statistical armor thickness encountered is the average?  A reasonable start, but that conclusion would require some understanding of the effects of a penetration at each location.  Not easy.

 

But there's another way to look at it: The designers did taper the plate, indicating that for a random distribution a lower hit would be less troublesome than a higher hit.  That's pretty good testimony that the effects of the higher and lower hits is not equivalent.  Thus we cannot conclude that the statistical net effect is zero.

 

Is the more realistic slicing worth it?  Maybe not.  I guess I could live with an averaged thickness.

 

But I do have a major concern that the main belt is too short vertically.  Both drawings indicate that the main belt should extend well below the waterline at full thickness.  What is your reasoning for ending the main belt well above the waterline?


 

 



KnightFandragon #545 Posted 18 March 2017 - 05:47 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,232
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
 

View PostiDuckman, on 18 March 2017 - 05:26 PM, said:

 

Thanks for your reply.  I would like to better understand the bolded statements above. 

 

What sort of "tests"?  A straight numerical analysis is possible, though probably tedious. A good statistical sample would be enlightening, but a half hour of shooting up a training room would not, IMHO.

 

In the current configuration, a quantum hit below the artificially short main belt on the current tall, "averaged" lower belt would encounter artificially thin armor some fraction of the time (fraction depends on the actual taper) and artificially thick armor at the inverse rate.  Do you mean that the net effect of the higher and lower hits below the main belt is zero because the statistical armor thickness encountered is the average?  A reasonable start, but that conclusion would require some understanding of the effects of a penetration at each location.  Not easy.

 

But there's another way to look at it: The designers did taper the plate, indicating that for a random distribution a lower hit would be less troublesome than a higher hit.  That's pretty good testimony that the effects of the higher and lower hits is not equivalent.  Thus we cannot conclude that the statistical net effect is zero.

 

Is the more realistic slicing worth it?  Maybe not.  I guess I could live with an averaged thickness.

 

But I do have a major concern that the main belt is too short vertically.  Both drawings indicate that the main belt should extend well below the waterline at full thickness.  What is your reasoning for ending the main belt well above the waterline?


 

 

 

They say that cuz the Citadel will be far more impacting on the survival of the ship then an underwater armor band.  Even if they upped that armor, the citadel will still kill the ship. 

Edited by KnightFandragon, 18 March 2017 - 05:47 PM.


iDuckman #546 Posted 18 March 2017 - 07:43 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 269
  • Member since:
    01-08-2017

As I understand it, penetration below the main belt IS a citadel hit.  Unless you are contending that hits on the main belt penetrate at the same rate as hits below it, then your logic doesn't follow.  Fewer pens => fewer citadels == a bit more survivability.

 

OTOH, behind S_O's words seems to be the principle that WG doesn't want the ship to be more survivable...

 



KnightFandragon #547 Posted 19 March 2017 - 04:36 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,232
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostiDuckman, on 18 March 2017 - 07:43 PM, said:

As I understand it, penetration below the main belt IS a citadel hit.  Unless you are contending that hits on the main belt penetrate at the same rate as hits below it, then your logic doesn't follow.  Fewer pens => fewer citadels == a bit more survivability.

 

OTOH, behind S_O's words seems to be the principle that WG doesn't want the ship to be more survivable...

 

 

Yeah, no one wants the USN ships to actually be good, tough, playable Battleships.  They want them to be Citadel farming stat padder, meta [edited]only [edited]ships made of glass with blunderbuss accuracy. 

 

WG is relying on the "famous" of this ship to get suckers to buy it.  Anyone who actually expects to be buying aBATTLESHIP, will be disappointed.  Im not gunna fall for that trap. 

 


Edited by KnightFandragon, 19 March 2017 - 04:37 AM.


RivertheRoyal #548 Posted 19 March 2017 - 04:40 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,510
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View PostKnightFandragon, on 18 March 2017 - 11:36 PM, said:

 

Yeah, no one wants the USN ships to actually be good, tough, playable Battleships.  They want them to be Citadel farming stat padder, meta [edited]only [edited]ships made of glass with blunderbuss accuracy. 

 

WG is relying on the "famous" of this ship to get suckers to buy it.  Anyone who actually expects to be buying aBATTLESHIP, will be disappointed.  Im not gunna fall for that trap. 

 

 

I am! :P
River's Guide on Writing a Good Post—Required reading for some.
I assume I'm wrong until proven right. Doesn't mean I'm always wrong though. Cause, I'm very good at proving myself right.
Have a tiny Ryuujou.

Sub_Octavian #549 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:48 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Developers

  • 183
  • Member since:
    07-01-2016

Hello good folks! Thank you so much for LOTS of feedback here. As you may have noticed, we are also conducting additional production test of Alabama over weekend with our ST team. We plan to introduce a couple of tweaks based on all data and feedback we receive and make sure that the ship is absolutely enjoyable and worthy upon her release. As I already said, your input is greatly valued, and we're working to make the best of it.

Please keep an eye for the news, and see you soon. Cheers :great:



CybrSlydr #550 Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:36 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,948
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View PostSub_Octavian, on 20 March 2017 - 05:48 AM, said:

Hello good folks! Thank you so much for LOTS of feedback here. As you may have noticed, we are also conducting additional production test of Alabama over weekend with our ST team. We plan to introduce a couple of tweaks based on all data and feedback we receive and make sure that the ship is absolutely enjoyable and worthy upon her release. As I already said, your input is greatly valued, and we're working to make the best of it.

Please keep an eye for the news, and see you soon. Cheers :great:

 

Thank you Sub - appreciate the feedback!

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.

 


renegadestatuz #551 Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:56 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,417
  • Member since:
    07-03-2013

View PostCybrSlydr, on 20 March 2017 - 07:36 AM, said:

 

Thank you Sub - appreciate the feedback!

 

Must've been why I saw an abundance of STs out with their Bama's this weekend.  I'm glad Sub was paying attention to the thread though :)


dark.png

TheDreadnought #552 Posted 20 March 2017 - 01:29 PM

    Ensign

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,004
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSub_Octavian, on 20 March 2017 - 10:48 AM, said:

Hello good folks! Thank you so much for LOTS of feedback here. As you may have noticed, we are also conducting additional production test of Alabama over weekend with our ST team. We plan to introduce a couple of tweaks based on all data and feedback we receive and make sure that the ship is absolutely enjoyable and worthy upon her release. As I already said, your input is greatly valued, and we're working to make the best of it.

Please keep an eye for the news, and see you soon. Cheers :great:

 

That's great to hear!  Thanks for the update, and can't wait to hear the news!  :)

CybrSlydr #553 Posted 20 March 2017 - 01:36 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers

  • 1,948
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View Postrenegadestatuz, on 20 March 2017 - 07:56 AM, said:

 

Must've been why I saw an abundance of STs out with their Bama's this weekend.  I'm glad Sub was paying attention to the thread though :)

 

I was wondering what prompted LWM to provide an addendum to her review - I figured they had them out for a second going-over.

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.

 


renegadestatuz #554 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:12 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,417
  • Member since:
    07-03-2013

View PostCybrSlydr, on 20 March 2017 - 08:36 AM, said:

 

I was wondering what prompted LWM to provide an addendum to her review - I figured they had them out for a second going-over.

 

I believe this weekend was actually the 4th time they had the STs testing her. In the patch notes for the last PTS we had it stated that she was going in for a 3rd round of testing for the STs I believe. Meaning they've really been putting the STs to work for her.


dark.png

MorbidGamer #555 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:52 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,043
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSub_Octavian, on 20 March 2017 - 05:48 AM, said:

Hello good folks! Thank you so much for LOTS of feedback here. As you may have noticed, we are also conducting additional production test of Alabama over weekend with our ST team. We plan to introduce a couple of tweaks based on all data and feedback we receive and make sure that the ship is absolutely enjoyable and worthy upon her release. As I already said, your input is greatly valued, and we're working to make the best of it.

Please keep an eye for the news, and see you soon. Cheers :great:

 

So now that it's changing... What's changed? since all the reviews are now obsolete. 

iDuckman #556 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:54 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 269
  • Member since:
    01-08-2017

I suppose we'll know when they get her finalized.

 



Big_Spud #557 Posted 20 March 2017 - 03:14 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,074
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSub_Octavian, on 20 March 2017 - 05:48 AM, said:

Hello good folks! Thank you so much for LOTS of feedback here. As you may have noticed, we are also conducting additional production test of Alabama over weekend with our ST team. We plan to introduce a couple of tweaks based on all data and feedback we receive and make sure that the ship is absolutely enjoyable and worthy upon her release. As I already said, your input is greatly valued, and we're working to make the best of it.

Please keep an eye for the news, and see you soon. Cheers :great:

 

Thank you very much for even looking into it to begin with. It's always nice to know that some people care enough to actually pay attention to the community. Look forward to seeing what changes have been made!

-Because finding more ways to buff Nagato is always a top priority.

 

No stats, because posting with purple numbers makes your opinion worthless for some reason.


LittleWhiteMouse #558 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:05 PM

    Captain

  • WoWS Community Contributors
  • Members
    Beta Testers

  • 5,339
  • Member since:
    01-04-2013
I haven't been made aware of any changes.  The Alabama I've played has been the same version throughout (from review til now).

renegadestatuz #559 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:07 PM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,417
  • Member since:
    07-03-2013

View PostLittleWhiteMouse, on 20 March 2017 - 11:05 AM, said:

I haven't been made aware of any changes.  The Alabama I've played has been the same version throughout (from review til now).

 

Octavian said that they plan on tweaking her with the data they've collected from the weekend from y'all, not that they already changed/tweaked her and had y'all testing the tweaked version.


dark.png

LittleWhiteMouse #560 Posted 20 March 2017 - 04:11 PM

    Captain

  • WoWS Community Contributors
  • Members
    Beta Testers

  • 5,339
  • Member since:
    01-04-2013

View Postrenegadestatuz, on 20 March 2017 - 11:07 AM, said:

 

Octavian said that they plan on tweaking her with the data they've collected from the weekend from y'all, not that they already changed/tweaked her and had y'all testing the tweaked version.

 

As someone who has extensively played (and loved) the current version, I'm worried that some of the elements I've come to love about Alabama might change.  People may get the (frankly unnecessary) citadel drop only to sacrifice stuff which makes her great, like her ability to throw the ship and guns about while being able to maintain speed in a turn.  Here's hoping any changes preserve her strong points and that it's just a flat out buff.





Also tagged with Alabama, armor, model, error

4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users