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

Madwolf05 #581 Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:58 PM

    Commander

  • Alpha Tester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 3,686
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostYamatoA150, on 20 March 2017 - 03:28 PM, said:

 

Not really, considering there was a non-ST entry for Alabama discovered at the same time.  NA just whined over a ship with limited-exclusivity duration for STs.

 

The Alabama was originally meant for Super Testers only, and it was said so by WGing.

 

Somehow, in all of their wisdom, they didn't seem to realize making one of the most popular American Battleships an exclusive for Super Testers would be a big deal and cause all kinds of outrage. Now in their infinite wisdom they don't think that leaving her with a nerfed citadel won't cause all kinds of outrage.

 

To basically sum up WGing so far:

WGing: If we make another double standard, and improperly place the citadel and armor on the most famous USN Battleships in history, the Iowa Class, and miss-match a weaker version of the Montana together, no one could possibly be upset.

NA Community: *Pitch Forks*

WGing: I don't understand what went wrong!

 

Dec 2016

WGing: If we only let Super Testers have a massively popular Americans Battleship, no one could possibly be upset.

NA Community: *Pitch Forks*

WGing: I don't understand what went wrong!

 

2017

WGing: if we give the Alabama improper armor and a citadel after we said we're looking into fixing them on the Iowa, Montana, and Missouri, there is no possible way anyone could be upset.

NA Community: *Pitch Forks*

WGing: I don't understand what went wrong!


Check out my Twitch Channel: HERE

 

CPU: Intel i7 3770K, MB: ASUS Maximus V, RAM: 16GB, GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7900


Sub_Octavian #582 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:01 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Developers

  • 193
  • Member since:
    07-01-2016

View PostLittleWhiteMouse, on 20 March 2017 - 04:11 PM, said:

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.

Don't worry, guys, no nerfs.
Actually, it won't hurt if you know - the torpedo bulkhead Big_Spud mentioned is tapered as we proposed (we saw you mostly liked the idea). We also double checked the possibility to lower the citadel space down to engine deck (as done on NC) and eventually, decided to give it a try. It actually may stack well with good rudder shift and bring more CQ tactics to the ship. If it does not make ship OP, gives more players option not to bow-on and makes you happier about the ship..why not? We will check this, and if everything is OK, that will be her final state for release. The changes are taking effect in 0.6.2.2.



Airbane425 #583 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:02 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 76
  • Member since:
    08-14-2014

View PostSub_Octavian, on 20 March 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

Don't worry, guys, no nerfs.
Actually, it won't hurt if you know - the torpedo bulkhead Big_Spud mentioned is tapered as we proposed (we saw you mostly liked the idea). We also double checked the possibility to lower the citadel space down to engine deck (as done on NC) and eventually, decided to give it a try. It actually may stack well with good rudder shift and bring more CQ tactics to the ship. If it does not make ship OP, gives more players option not to bow-on and makes you happier about the ship..why not? We will check this, and if everything is OK, that will be ship final state for release.

 

:honoring::great: Thank you!!

YamatoA150 #584 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:07 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 4,312
  • Member since:
    03-29-2015

View PostSub_Octavian, on 20 March 2017 - 03:01 PM, said:

Don't worry, guys, no nerfs.
Actually, it won't hurt if you know - the torpedo bulkhead Big_Spud mentioned is tapered as we proposed (we saw you mostly liked the idea). We also double checked the possibility to lower the citadel space down to engine deck (as done on NC) and eventually, decided to give it a try. It actually may stack well with good rudder shift and bring more CQ tactics to the ship. If it does not make ship OP, gives more players option not to bow-on and makes you happier about the ship..why not? We will check this, and if everything is OK, that will be her final state for release. The changes are taking effect in 0.6.2.2.

 

I hope this also shakes up the high tier BB meta in general.  It'd be great to have back some actual maneuverability in the middle to high tiers.

My massive list of suggestions (Updated 05/17/2016).  Feel free to constructively debate and discuss.

Remember remember the 17th of September, the Tirpitz; which cost a lot.  Some say it's a fortune, and that it's extortion; but the price will never be forgot.

 

"I call her the Sandman.  She tells other tier 3 ships, "Hush now.  Only dreams," as she murders them."LittleWhiteMouse on Konig Albert - 08/30/2016


Madwolf05 #585 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:08 PM

    Commander

  • Alpha Tester
  • In AlfaTesters
    Beta Testers

  • 3,686
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSub_Octavian, on 20 March 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

Don't worry, guys, no nerfs.
Actually, it won't hurt if you know - the torpedo bulkhead Big_Spud mentioned is tapered as we proposed (we saw you mostly liked the idea). We also double checked the possibility to lower the citadel space down to engine deck (as done on NC) and eventually, decided to give it a try. It actually may stack well with good rudder shift and bring more CQ tactics to the ship. If it does not make ship OP, gives more players option not to bow-on and makes you happier about the ship..why not? We will check this, and if everything is OK, that will be her final state for release. The changes are taking effect in 0.6.2.2.

 

Awesome news.

 

I try not to be salty about this stuff, and obviously it's not working, but I just feel like the same exact choices that upset people the last time are being made all over again. I just don't think it's that difficult to start each ship from a standardized baseline (ie, historically accurate armor, citadel, HP, reload, turning circle, AA, etc.) and then balance the soft stats from there.  That's really the source of my frustration is all of this.

 

It just seems un-necessarily difficult for the developers, and frustrating for the player base, to have this wobbly, non-uniform way of creating ship balance by starting from uneven standards.


Check out my Twitch Channel: HERE

 

CPU: Intel i7 3770K, MB: ASUS Maximus V, RAM: 16GB, GPU: AMD Radeon HD 7900


RadDisconnect #586 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:08 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 127
  • Member since:
    05-10-2015

View PostSub_Octavian, on 20 March 2017 - 09:01 PM, said:

Don't worry, guys, no nerfs.
Actually, it won't hurt if you know - the torpedo bulkhead Big_Spud mentioned is tapered as we proposed (we saw you mostly liked the idea). We also double checked the possibility to lower the citadel space down to engine deck (as done on NC) and eventually, decided to give it a try. It actually may stack well with good rudder shift and bring more CQ tactics to the ship. If it does not make ship OP, gives more players option not to bow-on and makes you happier about the ship..why not? We will check this, and if everything is OK, that will be her final state for release. The changes are taking effect in 0.6.2.2.

 

I like this change. I think it will make the Alabama more popular and make it more user friendly without being overpowered. Because Alabama armor isn't that much thicker than NC, and the guns are a little shorter range and little less accurate. Having a lower citadel will help it perform better in brawling.

 

As a whole, I love this change.


I'm working on it.


chs4000 #587 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:08 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 145
  • Member since:
    06-30-2016
I'm speechless. Cool! Thank you, Wargaming & Sub_Octavian. :)

Sub_Octavian #588 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:13 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Developers

  • 193
  • Member since:
    07-01-2016

View PostAirbane425, on 20 March 2017 - 09:02 PM, said:

 

:honoring::great: Thank you!!

Well, thank all of you who gave us feedback here and on Reddit, and special thanks to supertesters for running intense tests over weekend :izmena:
And thanks to ship design team who implemented the changes quickly for further testing after long and fruitful discussion. Even without beer bribe.
If it plays out well, I think we all can be very happy about this cooperation :)


Edited by Sub_Octavian, 20 March 2017 - 09:13 PM.


renegadestatuz #589 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:21 PM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,904
  • Member since:
    07-03-2013

View PostSub_Octavian, on 20 March 2017 - 04:13 PM, said:

Well, thank all of you who gave us feedback here and on Reddit, and special thanks to supertesters for running intense tests over weekend :izmena:
And thanks to ship design team who implemented the changes quickly for further testing after long and fruitful discussion. Even without beer bribe.
If it plays out well, I think we all can be very happy about this cooperation :)

 

I would hope they'd always like a beer bribe :D


 
​Those who rebel, must be cleansed of their ways.

Big_Spud #590 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:30 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,193
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

Welp.

 

 

WELP.


Fat sterned botes make the warships world go 'round.

 

Check out this thread to see how the community managed to rescue Alabama from mediocrity: http://forum.worldof...18#entry2868718

 

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


Morpheous #591 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:31 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 584
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Can only say that I have seen Bama's working in pairs in games a few times, and they are pretty tough ships, very tough head on, and never got one citadel from my T9 German BB on the broadside...so even without fixes, it seems to be pretty good.

daegrima #592 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:37 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 36
  • Member since:
    08-29-2015
 

View PostSub_Octavian, on 20 March 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

Well, thank all of you who gave us feedback here and on Reddit, and special thanks to supertesters for running intense tests over weekend :izmena:
And thanks to ship design team who implemented the changes quickly for further testing after long and fruitful discussion. Even without beer bribe.
If it plays out well, I think we all can be very happy about this cooperation :)

 

Excellent news all around. This is the kind of cooperation between community and developers we can be proud of.



Big_Spud #593 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:39 PM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,193
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSub_Octavian, on 20 March 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

Don't worry, guys, no nerfs.
Actually, it won't hurt if you know - the torpedo bulkhead Big_Spud mentioned is tapered as we proposed (we saw you mostly liked the idea). We also double checked the possibility to lower the citadel space down to engine deck (as done on NC) and eventually, decided to give it a try. It actually may stack well with good rudder shift and bring more CQ tactics to the ship. If it does not make ship OP, gives more players option not to bow-on and makes you happier about the ship..why not? We will check this, and if everything is OK, that will be her final state for release. The changes are taking effect in 0.6.2.2.

 

Thank you so much for your efforts towards working with the community! This is honestly more than I, and a lot of other people, could have even hoped for in our wildest dreams.

Fat sterned botes make the warships world go 'round.

 

Check out this thread to see how the community managed to rescue Alabama from mediocrity: http://forum.worldof...18#entry2868718

 

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


renegadestatuz #594 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:41 PM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,904
  • Member since:
    07-03-2013

View PostBig_Spud, on 20 March 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

 

Thank you so much for your efforts towards working with the community! This is honestly more than I, and a lot of other people, could have even hoped for in our wildest dreams.

 

Now we can all go to sleep knowing that we won't have nightmares anymore of a Bama with a citadel as tall as the Empire State Building.


 
​Those who rebel, must be cleansed of their ways.

RivertheRoyal #595 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:46 PM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,103
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View Postrenegadestatuz, on 20 March 2017 - 04:41 PM, said:

 

Now we can all go to sleep knowing that we won't have nightmares anymore of a Bama with a citadel as tall as the Empire State Building.

 

Didn't have nightmares about that anyway....

 

I'll be eager to see the final product though. 



renegadestatuz #596 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:47 PM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,904
  • Member since:
    07-03-2013

View PostRivertheRoyal, on 20 March 2017 - 04:46 PM, said:

 

Didn't have nightmares about that anyway....

 

I'll be eager to see the final product though. 

 

Neither did I, but from the way a lot of members have been talking on here, it seems like a good portion of them have.


 
​Those who rebel, must be cleansed of their ways.

IAF_NASTY #597 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:52 PM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 108
  • Member since:
    10-05-2015

View PostSub_Octavian, on 20 March 2017 - 09:01 PM, said:

Don't worry, guys, no nerfs.
Actually, it won't hurt if you know - the torpedo bulkhead Big_Spud mentioned is tapered as we proposed (we saw you mostly liked the idea). We also double checked the possibility to lower the citadel space down to engine deck (as done on NC) and eventually, decided to give it a try. It actually may stack well with good rudder shift and bring more CQ tactics to the ship. If it does not make ship OP, gives more players option not to bow-on and makes you happier about the ship..why not? We will check this, and if everything is OK, that will be her final state for release. The changes are taking effect in 0.6.2.2.

Woohoo!!!



CybrSlydr #598 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:13 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,072
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View PostSub_Octavian, on 20 March 2017 - 04:01 PM, said:

Don't worry, guys, no nerfs.
Actually, it won't hurt if you know - the torpedo bulkhead Big_Spud mentioned is tapered as we proposed (we saw you mostly liked the idea). We also double checked the possibility to lower the citadel space down to engine deck (as done on NC) and eventually, decided to give it a try. It actually may stack well with good rudder shift and bring more CQ tactics to the ship. If it does not make ship OP, gives more players option not to bow-on and makes you happier about the ship..why not? We will check this, and if everything is OK, that will be her final state for release. The changes are taking effect in 0.6.2.2.

 

:ohmy:

 

I'm honestly stunned.  That is some absolutely incredible news! 

 

Thank you Sub! 


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.

 


Special_Kay #599 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:29 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 5,608
  • Member since:
    06-27-2014

View PostLaynester, on 20 March 2017 - 02:40 PM, said:

Dear World. Simple reason for United States to have a big citadel. Alabama can travel over 15,000 nautical miles. Tirpitz can travel around 8,000 nautical miles. American fast battleships were built for following carrier battle groups in the Pacific and need big fuel tanks.

 

Ship endurance and volume of fuel tanks has nothing to do with citadel size. Fuel oil storage was often used as a buffer between armour and vital parts of the ship, specifically because it was much easier to shrug off a hit to a fuel tank than to the machinery.

An open letter to the so-called "sniping" battleships: if you're going to let softer teammates take your share of the enemy fire, you need to do their share of damage in addition to your own. Otherwise you aren't sniping—you are dead weight, and you're gambling that your teammates don't have enough other dead weight to carry that they can still carry you.
Learn how to quantify the effect of fire chance modifications!

Enable replays! You never know when you will discover a bug or witness someone exploiting or being abusive, and demonstrating it to WG staff is much more difficult without a replay.


SergeantHop #600 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:33 PM

    Captain

  • Members

  • 4,114
  • Member since:
    10-10-2012
I'm not gonna lie. This makes me really happy. Not just  that Alabama is getting reworked, but the fact that WG is actively listening. To a degree, I think moreso than any other large game like this. It's a good thing. Keep up the great work.

#1 in the world for max base XP in Tirpitz

 

Check out my premium camo thread here!






Also tagged with Alabama, armor, model, error

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users