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

iDuckman #601 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:11 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 387
  • Member since:
    01-08-2017

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.

 

S_O. I'm starting to like you.

 

:medal:



iDuckman #602 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:19 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 387
  • Member since:
    01-08-2017

View PostSpecial_Kay, on 20 March 2017 - 04:29 PM, said:

 

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.

 

Oil - presumably fuel oil - was used to fill sections of that big-azz torpedo belt.  Since liquid is incompressible, it would transfer the energy away from the point of the strike.

 

 

What would the EPA say now?



KaptainKaybe #603 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:43 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,801
  • Member since:
    08-14-2012

View PostSub_Octavian, on 20 March 2017 - 05:01 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.

 

Oh my God, yes! *pulls out credit card and hits F5 on the premium shop repeatedly until release*



SgtSullyC3 #604 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:47 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 1,038
  • Member since:
    01-01-2016
This ship is gonna be awesome. I honestly don't care if it has a raised citadel or not... It's still gonna eat huge damage from the side. But I loved the NCs maneuverability, and this thing is even better.

T1-3: Erie, Smith, Derski, G-101, Katori, St. Louis, Bogatyr, Friant, South Carolina

T4-6: Izyaslav, Clemson, Danae, Yūbari, Kaiser, Kamikaze, Königsberg, Omaha, Kongo, Bogue, Duca D'Aosta, Cleveland, Aoba, Perth, Ryujo, Dunkerque

T7-9: Shiratsuyu, Sims, Mahan, Atlanta, Belfast (gift from YureiKuma), Ranger, Saipan, New Orleans, Bismarck, North Carolina, Alabama, Lexington, Iowa, Missouri

 

GoalsIJN: Hiryu, Mogami - USN: Benson, Baltimore, Essex - HMS: Leander, Fiji - VMF: Podvoisky, Budyonny - MN: Emile Bertin, La Galissonnière


iDuckman #605 Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:55 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 387
  • Member since:
    01-08-2017

Now, don't get too excited.  We still have the issue of scaling leading to flat trajectories, which the original armor was not really designed for.  But maybe we'll get there too.

 

Spring brings HOPE.

 



KnightFandragon #606 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:24 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,451
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

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.

 

View PostSub_Octavian, on 20 March 2017 - 09:13 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 :)

 

This is the best ive ever felt about WG ever.  Nice work. 

mofton #607 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:29 AM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,045
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

So just to double check, Alabama will have the same citadel height as North Carolina, trivial AA differences but be more maneuverable and with a massively better TDS.

 

So it's absolutely P2W in that configuration?


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


Big_Spud #608 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:36 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,350
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postmofton, on 20 March 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

So just to double check, Alabama will have the same citadel height as North Carolina, trivial AA differences but be more maneuverable and with a massively better TDS.

 

So it's absolutely P2W in that configuration?

 

No more P2W than the Texas's massively better AA VS New York, or Indianapolis getting radar when Pensacola doesn't.
.- ..- - .. ... - .. -.-. / ... -.-. .-. . . -.-. .... .. -. --.

Wardog_Noir #609 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:41 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 56
  • Member since:
    01-25-2015

View Postmofton, on 20 March 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

So just to double check, Alabama will have the same citadel height as North Carolina, trivial AA differences but be more maneuverable and with a massively better TDS.

 

So it's absolutely P2W in that configuration?

 

If by P2W, you mean that Alabama will accurately represent the fact that the South Dakota class was designed to correct some of the deficiencies of the North Carolina class and arguably was a superior ship to begin with, then yes.

 

Besides, is it really P2W if the premium is possibly superior to one of the worst performing battleships in the tier?  I honestly don't see it stomping Bismarck any time soon.



LittleWhiteMouse #610 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:42 AM

    Captain

  • WoWS Community Contributors
  • Members
    Beta Testers

  • 5,832
  • Member since:
    01-04-2013

View Postmofton, on 20 March 2017 - 07:29 PM, said:

So just to double check, Alabama will have the same citadel height as North Carolina, trivial AA differences but be more maneuverable and with a massively better TDS.

 

So it's absolutely P2W in that configuration?

 

Basically.  People complain about OP ships and game balance, yet what do they clamour for?  That well balanced ships also be OP or they won't open their wallets...

Q♥  Most Recent Review: HMS Hood
  


Special_Kay #611 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:53 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 5,660
  • Member since:
    06-27-2014

View PostLittleWhiteMouse, on 20 March 2017 - 07:42 PM, said:

Basically.  People complain about OP ships and game balance, yet what do they clamour for?  That well balanced ships also be OP or they won't open their wallets...

 

I mean, I was not interested in Alabama, despite regarding my North Carolina as the most worthy place in the line to stop and keep my top commander. The ship's main draw was its history within the USN, something I couldn't care less for. In other words, it was a viable ship, ideal for collectors and suitable for all.

 

Now? It's looking like Alabama will be worthwhile if I have any intentions of playing USN battleship at T8 in a competitive context. I do hope they leave her citadel high, or reconsider the "buff only" approach to final tweaking. As SeaAdmiral wisely pointed out to me, a lower citadel would synergize with her agility and TDS, so it would be interesting to see her specialized to this role—perhaps by introducing her with reduced accuracy, which would reserve WG's flexibility in balancing the ship. Then if she under-performs, North Carolina and Alabama can both receive a small accuracy buff to keep North Carolina's relative differences intact while shoring up Alabama's performance. If she doesn't under-perform, WG dodges the bullet of "oops another premium which completely eclipses the tech tree."


I am on vacation through June and into July 2017. There will be stretches where I am around infrequently, interspersed with stretches of complete absence.
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.


Big_Spud #612 Posted 21 March 2017 - 12:55 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,350
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostLittleWhiteMouse, on 20 March 2017 - 07:42 PM, said:

 

Basically.  People complain about OP ships and game balance, yet what do they clamour for?  That well balanced ships also be OP or they won't open their wallets...

 

Or its just a North Carolina with slightly worse AA, less HP, slightly less accurate guns, in exchange for a better TDS and turning circle.

 

It's not magically a Nikolai because of that.


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

CybrSlydr #613 Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:04 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,081
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View PostLittleWhiteMouse, on 20 March 2017 - 07:42 PM, said:

 

Basically.  People complain about OP ships and game balance, yet what do they clamour for?  That well balanced ships also be OP or they won't open their wallets...

 

I think I'm going to just start calling you "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.

 


CybrSlydr #614 Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:06 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,081
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View PostBig_Spud, on 20 March 2017 - 07:55 PM, said:

 

Or its just a North Carolina with slightly worse AA, less HP, slightly less accurate guns, in exchange for a better TDS and turning circle.

 

It's not magically a Nikolai because of that.

 

+10000000 for this

(I'm out of +1)


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 #615 Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:06 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 5,660
  • Member since:
    06-27-2014

View PostBig_Spud, on 20 March 2017 - 07:55 PM, said:

Or its just a North Carolina with slightly worse AA, less HP, slightly less accurate guns, in exchange for a better TDS and turning circle.

 

It's not magically a Nikolai because of that.

 

Buffing her until none of the downsides are significant (while ensuring the upsides remain so) will not result in a Nikolai situation, but it will certainly result in a premium which obsoletes its tech-tree equivalent. Taking for granted that none of Alabama's downsides will be significant, can you agree that a premium with only upsides is problematic?

I am on vacation through June and into July 2017. There will be stretches where I am around infrequently, interspersed with stretches of complete absence.
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.


CybrSlydr #616 Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:06 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 2,081
  • Member since:
    02-19-2013

View PostWardog_Noir, on 20 March 2017 - 07:41 PM, said:

 

If by P2W, you mean that Alabama will accurately represent the fact that the South Dakota class was designed to correct some of the deficiencies of the North Carolina class and arguably was a superior ship to begin with, then yes.

 

Besides, is it really P2W if the premium is possibly superior to one of the worst performing battleships in the tier?  I honestly don't see it stomping Bismarck any time soon.

 

+5000000 for this

(I'm out of +1)


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.

 


Big_Spud #617 Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:13 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

  • 3,350
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSpecial_Kay, on 20 March 2017 - 08:06 PM, said:

 

Buffing her until none of the downsides are significant (while ensuring the upsides remain so) will not result in a Nikolai situation, but it will certainly result in a premium which obsoletes its tech-tree equivalent. Taking for granted that none of Alabama's downsides will be significant, can you agree that a premium with only upsides is problematic?

 

No, I can't agree to that. Its no longer WG's policy to intentionally gimp premiums anymore if you haven't noticed. The last time they did it with a high tier premium was with Prinz Eugen, and people STILL complain about how its just a mediocre copy of Hipper, and it doesn't perform very well either.

 

If you haven't noticed, Texas is a better New York. Indianapolis is a better Pensacola. Missouri is a better Iowa. Arizona is a better New Mexico. Sims is a better Mahan. Konig Albert is a downtiered Kaiser thats OP as [edited]. Scharnhorst is a flat out better ship than Gneisenau. Belfast is a downtiered Edinburgh thats OP as [edited]. Atago is effectively a better Mogami, and Kutuzov is a better Chapayev.

 

Alabama with a lowered citadel will probably SLIGHTLY edge out North Carolina in practical use, but it won't be overpowered.


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

LittleWhiteMouse #618 Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:38 AM

    Captain

  • WoWS Community Contributors
  • Members
    Beta Testers

  • 5,832
  • Member since:
    01-04-2013

View PostBig_Spud, on 20 March 2017 - 08:13 PM, said:

 

No, I can't agree to that. Its no longer WG's policy to intentionally gimp premiums anymore if you haven't noticed. The last time they did it with a high tier premium was with Prinz Eugen, and people STILL complain about how its just a mediocre copy of Hipper, and it doesn't perform very well either.

 

If you haven't noticed, Texas is a better New York. Indianapolis is a better Pensacola. Missouri is a better Iowa. Arizona is a better New Mexico. Sims is a better Mahan. Konig Albert is a downtiered Kaiser thats OP as [edited]. Scharnhorst is a flat out better ship than Gneisenau. Belfast is a downtiered Edinburgh thats OP as [edited]. Atago is effectively a better Mogami, and Kutuzov is a better Chapayev.

 

Alabama with a lowered citadel will probably SLIGHTLY edge out North Carolina in practical use, but it won't be overpowered.

 

It's never been Wargaming's policy to "gimp" premiums in World of Warships. The devs have commented on this.  The only change in policy they've had was that originally (back in early Alpha), premiums were originally going to be ships that couldn't fit normally into the tech-tree -- really weird ships.  This could be viewed to extend to sister ships, but that's a bit more of a stretch of the original message. 


Q♥  Most Recent Review: HMS Hood
  


KnightFandragon #619 Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:48 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,451
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSpecial_Kay, on 21 March 2017 - 01:06 AM, said:

 

Buffing her until none of the downsides are significant (while ensuring the upsides remain so) will not result in a Nikolai situation, but it will certainly result in a premium which obsoletes its tech-tree equivalent. Taking for granted that none of Alabama's downsides will be significant, can you agree that a premium with only upsides is problematic?

 

Well, the "equivalents" to compare it to are all the worst performing ships in the game.  So, really, making it "better" then its tech tree equivalent wont make it OP, it will make it on par with the other ships in the game.  You know, like the Bismarck, Amagi and stuff...the ships that are actually winning with good avg dmg and kills.  It wont be deleted in 1 salvo as soon as you make the mistake of AD hacking. 

 

There is the real problem with the Alabama, what its being compared to it already terrible.....so, comparing it to terrible ships means it to will be  terrible.  Gotta go beyond the crapits being compared to. 



KnightFandragon #620 Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:49 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,451
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostBig_Spud, on 21 March 2017 - 01:13 AM, said:

 

Alabama with a lowered citadel will probably SLIGHTLY edge out North Carolina in practical use, but it won't be overpowered.

 

Yeah, making it an improved North Carolina will make it a GOOD ship.  Maybe we can finally have another USN BB thats as good as the Arizona tier for tier.





Also tagged with Alabama, armor, model, error

6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users