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

CybrSlydr #641 Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:43 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

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

View PostDestroyer_Kiyoshimo, on 20 March 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

 

That's a nice thought but you know they won't.

 

 

Man I have to wonder if even half of the chimpanzees who scream "NO KITAKAMI EVER" even played a game with one on their team. It was not anywhere near as bad as the claims, even with a 3-Kitakami division.

 

I certainly did and it was an absolute menace to anyone on it's team. 

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 #642 Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:44 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

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

View PostDestroyer_Kiyoshimo, on 20 March 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

 

 

 

Man I have to wonder if even half of the chimpanzees who scream "NO KITAKAMI EVER" even played a game with one on their team. It was not anywhere near as bad as the claims, even with a 3-Kitakami division.

 

It was EXACTLY as bad as its made out to be, you're just delusional.
.- ..- - .. ... - .. -.-. / ... -.-. .-. . . -.-. .... .. -. --.

Airbane425 #643 Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:50 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 76
  • Member since:
    08-14-2014

View PostDestroyer_Kiyoshimo, on 20 March 2017 - 09:39 PM, said:

Man I have to wonder if even half of the chimpanzees who scream "NO KITAKAMI EVER" even played a game with one on their team. It was not anywhere near as bad as the claims, even with a 3-Kitakami division.

 

In CBT, i was exposed to more than enough evidence to conclude that the Kitakami does NOT need to be available to the "Average Joe". Now, if they made it an exclusive reward, similar to Flint or maybe even like Missouri, then having it re-added wouldn't be too terrible. At least more experienced players would be driving it. But letting potatoes potentially get their hands on a Kitakami would almost certainly spell disaster for the rest of their team.



KnightFandragon #644 Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:50 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,451
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
Kitakami?  Basically the Movie Battleship Alien ships with their peg launchers?  I can imagine thats kinda how it was...so mcuh crapin the water you cant possible WASD through it, then BOOM....

SeaAdmiral #645 Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:53 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 464
  • Member since:
    09-06-2012

View PostLittleWhiteMouse, on 20 March 2017 - 04:42 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 the vast majority of people didn't want an OP Alabama, what they wanted was a ship with a more clearly defined role from which you could play around. Most people I think didn't want a straight buffing of citadel placement without any other changes, but again as you yourself mentioned sacrificing other aspects of the ship would make people unhappy too. So they aren't going to change any of that either. 

 

The problem with the original Alabama was that it was a ship that wasn't anything more than her components, in that she did not have a clearly defined role and place in the battlefield to which you worked to get a win condition for. She had good strengths and defined weaknesses, however her weaknesses detract and make it hard to use her strengths, to the point where people were rightfully confused where she belonged in the battlefield.

 

In front of the NC in a battle line to be the one to absorb torp hits? She can't back out at all and thus has to be a bit more conservative whenever more than one BB is on the field (a majority of the time). Behind the NC? Her worse accuracy and other soft stats make her perform worse than the NC in this regard, and her maneuverability and TDS are largely wasted here except vs carriers. Behind NC until she can push up? She can't push in except when there are no BBs, and she has no tools to force that situation to ever happen. You can also choose to bow tank and not die to cits, but not use your TDS, or you can maneuver and eventually get blindsided by a BB, possibly concealment built. Her tools are mainly "oh I needed to do this anyway and can do it better now" rather than anything the player worked to achieve as a win condition, all the while having to constantly worry about her one weakness. The ship would seem like you play more to avoid your weakness instead of trying to accentuate your strength, and even if the ship was perfectly fine it took a lot of effort to use for situational, little benefit over other options.

 

If the ship simply entered original testing with say minus 5-7% TDS, a lowered citadel + taper, 1.8 sigma, and possibly (if needed for balance) a 1-2 second rudder shift or gun reload nerf it would be fairly well balanced with a defined role and most people would have been happy. It would have a defined niche (CQC NC that is worse at being a generalist) where you were more focused on bringing out the strengths rather than worrying about the weaknesses, because her gameplay patterns merge both. She would not be an NC clone because her fundamental gameplay pattern would be sufficiently different enough compared to the NC, to the point where there would have been a clearer distinction between these two than there was New Mex vs Arizona, and you could definitively see whether an NC or Alabama would have been better in a certain situation/match up. Now that they've already tested it with really strong strengths counteracted by an almost equally detracting weakness, people don't want to let go of even a bit of the former to address the latter. For the record the example balancing in this paragraph was what I personally advocated. (Edit: You could say that this iteration is less gimmicky, which if I recall from another topic was a concern of many)

 

I would hesitate to accuse people of ONLY wanting overpowered premiums because it turns a complex balancing situation into an attack. There exists better solutions, and the complaints about the ship were valid from multiple perspectives, and many were willing to adjust the ship downward in other aspects in order to address these issues. However you yourself have said that these strengths you absolutely do not want to be adjusted downward, and WG is aware of such sentiment, and therefore takes the option of pissing the least amount of people off from now on by releasing an Alabama that likely might be slightly stronger than ideal on release. (which still has a group of people now disliking a very strong premium release)


Edited by SeaAdmiral, 21 March 2017 - 02:56 AM.


Airbane425 #646 Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:53 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 76
  • Member since:
    08-14-2014

View PostKnightFandragon, on 20 March 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:

Kitakami?  Basically the Movie Battleship Alien ships with their peg launchers?  I can imagine thats kinda how it was...so mcuh crapin the water you cant possible WASD through it, then BOOM....

 

That's one way of putting it.

CybrSlydr #647 Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:53 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Beta Testers

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

View PostKnightFandragon, on 20 March 2017 - 09:50 PM, said:

Kitakami?  Basically the Movie Battleship Alien ships with their peg launchers?  I can imagine thats kinda how it was...so mcuh crapin the water you cant possible WASD through it, then BOOM....

 

It got even worse if one of the dang things survived until half-way into a match.  You'd be fighting someone at a cap, sink them and then go on to win the cap and suddenly from behind you, 20 torpedoes when they were aiming at the cruiser 10km in front of you.

 

You'd have Kitakami's 15km away from battles dumping torps and hitting teammates on the other side of the freaking map. 


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.

 


Destroyer_Kiyoshimo #648 Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:55 AM

    Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 12,002
  • Member since:
    05-25-2014

View PostKnightFandragon, on 20 March 2017 - 06:50 PM, said:

Kitakami?  Basically the Movie Battleship Alien ships with their peg launchers?  I can imagine thats kinda how it was...so mcuh crapin the water you cant possible WASD through it, then BOOM....

 

And then you blow it out of the water because it has a 12km detection range, 12km torpedo range, and is literally a tier 4 Kuma in tier 8.

 Kiyoshimo's aircraft carrier rework Kiyoshimo's Torpedo Campaign

I am the Hull of my Torpedo. Steel is my body and Oxygen is my blood. I have caused over one thousand hull breaches. Unknown to flames, nor known to penetrate. I have withstood pain to launch many torpedoes. Yet those guns will never shoot anything.
So, as I pray-- Unlimited Torpedo Works


KnightFandragon #649 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:01 AM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

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

View PostSeaAdmiral, on 21 March 2017 - 02:53 AM, said:

 

I think the vast majority of people didn't want an OP Alabama, what they wanted was a ship with a more clearly defined role from which you could play around. Most people I think didn't want a straight buffing of citadel placement without any other changes, but again as you yourself mentioned sacrificing other aspects of the ship would make people unhappy too. So they aren't going to change any of that either. 

 

The problem with the original Alabama was that it was a ship that wasn't anything more than her components, in that she did not have a clearly defined role and place in the battlefield to which you worked to get a win condition for. She had good strengths and defined weaknesses, however her weaknesses detract and make it hard to use her strengths, to the point where people were rightfully confused where she belonged in the battlefield.

 

In front of the NC in a battle line to be the one to absorb torp hits? She can't back out at all and thus has to be a bit more conservative whenever more than one BB is on the field (a majority of the time). Behind the NC? Her worse accuracy and other soft stats make her perform worse than the NC in this regard, and her maneuverability and TDS are largely wasted here except vs carriers. Behind NC until she can push up? She can't push in except when there are no BBs, and she has no tools to force that situation to ever happen. You can also choose to bow tank and not die to cits, but not use your TDS, or you can maneuver and eventually get blindsided by a BB, possibly concealment built. Her tools are mainly "oh I needed to do this anyway and can do it better now" rather than anything the player worked to achieve as a win condition, all the while having to constantly worry about her one weakness. The ship would seem like you play more to avoid your weakness instead of trying to accentuate your strength, and even if the ship was perfectly fine it took a lot of effort to use for situational, little benefit over other options.

 

If the ship simply entered original testing with say minus 5-7% TDS, a lowered citadel + taper, 1.8 sigma, and possibly (if needed for balance) a 1-2 second rudder shift or gun reload nerf it would be fairly well balanced with a defined role and most people would have been happy. It would have a defined niche (CQC NC that is worse at being a generalist) where you were more focused on bringing out the strengths rather than worrying about the weaknesses, because her gameplay patterns merge both. She would not be an NC clone because her fundamental gameplay pattern would be sufficiently different enough compared to the NC, to the point where there would have been a clearer distinction between these two than there was New Mex vs Arizona, and you could definitively see whether an NC or Alabama would have been better in a certain situation/match up. Now that they've already tested it with really strong strengths counteracted by an almost equally detracting weakness, people don't want to let go of even a bit of the former to address the latter. For the record the example balancing in this paragraph was what I personally advocated. (Edit: You could say that this iteration is less gimmicky, which if I recall from another topic was a concern of many)

 

I would hesitate to accuse people of ONLY wanting overpowered premiums because it turns a complex balancing situation into an attack. There exists better solutions, and the complaints about the ship were valid from multiple perspectives, and many were willing to adjust the ship downward in other aspects in order to address these issues. However you yourself have said that these strengths you absolutely do not want to be adjusted downward, and WG is aware of such sentiment, and therefore takes the option of pissing the least amount of people off from now on by releasing an Alabama that likely might be slightly stronger than ideal on release. (which still has a group of people now disliking a very strong premium release)

 

Ill take any Battleship that I have to worry less about "postion" and more just about shooting, taking hits and being, well, you know, a BAttleship.  THe whole tight rope walking game of "dont get scratched or die" belongs in the arms ofthe Cruisers and Destroyers.  Battleships shouldnt need to be sitting back worrying about that so much. 

Destroyer_Kiyoshimo #650 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:03 AM

    Admiral

  • Beta Testers

  • 12,002
  • Member since:
    05-25-2014

View PostKnightFandragon, on 20 March 2017 - 07:01 PM, said:

 

Ill take any Battleship that I have to worry less about "postion" and more just about shooting, taking hits and being, well, you know, a BAttleship.  THe whole tight rope walking game of "dont get scratched or die" belongs in the arms ofthe Cruisers and Destroyers.  Battleships shouldnt need to be sitting back worrying about that so much. 

 

Except they do, and whine about torpedoes and planes the whole time despite being the ships best equipped to reduce damage from both.

 Kiyoshimo's aircraft carrier rework Kiyoshimo's Torpedo Campaign

I am the Hull of my Torpedo. Steel is my body and Oxygen is my blood. I have caused over one thousand hull breaches. Unknown to flames, nor known to penetrate. I have withstood pain to launch many torpedoes. Yet those guns will never shoot anything.
So, as I pray-- Unlimited Torpedo Works


Phoenix_jz #651 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:11 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,435
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View PostDestroyer_Kiyoshimo, on 20 March 2017 - 10:03 PM, said:

 

Except they do, and whine about torpedoes and planes the whole time despite being the ships best equipped to reduce damage from both.

 

And they get to heal back most of the damage from it... :D


 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


Special_Kay #652 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:12 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

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

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

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.

 

Except that Indy, Scharnhorst, Belfast and Kutuzov are not at par or superior in every single category. Pensacola, Fiji, and Chapayev all bring things to the table that make them worth considering for competitive play.

 

In particular Scharnhorsts are doing poorly in ranked right now compared to Gneisenau, because they can't overmatch Nagato.


Edited by Special_Kay, 21 March 2017 - 03:13 AM.

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 #653 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:15 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers

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

View PostSpecial_Kay, on 20 March 2017 - 10:12 PM, said:

 

Except that Indy, Scharnhorst, Belfast and Kutuzov are not at par or superior in every single category. Pensacola, Fiji, and Chapayev all bring things to the table that make them worth considering for competitive play.

 

In particular Scharnhorsts are doing poorly in ranked right now compared to Gneisenau, because they can't overmatch Nagato.

 

Except Alabama isn't better in every category either. She sacrifices a chunk of HP, range, some AA power and some accuracy from her guns.
.- ..- - .. ... - .. -.-. / ... -.-. .-. . . -.-. .... .. -. --.

Airbane425 #654 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:15 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 76
  • Member since:
    08-14-2014

View PostSpecial_Kay, on 20 March 2017 - 10:12 PM, said:

Pensacola, Fiji, and Chapayev all bring things to the table that make them worth considering for competitive play.

 

Hows that exactly..?



Phoenix_jz #655 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:16 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,435
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View PostSpecial_Kay, on 20 March 2017 - 10:12 PM, said:

 

Except that Indy, Scharnhorst, Belfast and Kutuzov are not at par or superior in every single category. Pensacola, Fiji, and Chapayev all bring things to the table that make them worth considering for competitive play.

 

True. Pepsi is a lot stealthier than Indy, by well over a kilometer, which does a lot for her, believe me... 10.9 km detection (with CE) FTW!


 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


Special_Kay #656 Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:29 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

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

View PostAirbane425, on 20 March 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

Hows that exactly..?

 

See here: follow through to thread if you want more details.

View PostSpecial_Kay, on 17 March 2017 - 06:00 PM, said:

They touch on that in the reddit thread.

 

My take on what they said is thus: the 'Cola is more agile and stealthy, and Indy in particular isn't stealthy enough to leverage 8.5km radar and remain involved beyond being a radar station, because of the way the USN CAs need to be played to put up damage without making bad hitpoint trades.

 

5.6s rudder + 10.9km concealment + 20RPM fore > 8.5km radar + 7.3s rudder + 11.8km concealment + 25RPM fore.


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.


Punisher_1 #657 Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:39 AM

    Seaman

  • Beta Testers

  • 21
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

With all the historical data available why does this continue to be a problem?

I have been on the U.S.S. Alabama seeing much of it's armor and taking a hard look at the ship. I can say WG really does not do these ships justice. The game mechanics seem way to simplified, broken and arcade-ish. Maybe we need two game states with one leaning towards a more realistic version of the abilities of these ships.

http://imgur.com/a/YGHpE

http://imgur.com/a/YGHpE

http://imgur.com/a/YGHpE

 


Edited by Punisher_1, 21 March 2017 - 04:42 AM.


mofton #658 Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:57 AM

    Commander

  • Members

  • 3,044
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

View PostBig_Spud, on 20 March 2017 - 07:15 PM, said:

Except Alabama isn't better in every category either. She sacrifices a chunk of HP, range, some AA power and some accuracy from her guns.
 

 

That's not necessarily a fair or even significant trade.

 

HP - 4.1% fewer vs. Torpedo defense - 49% vs. 19%

A single same tier Kagero torpedo for 20,966 will end up doing (unless I miscalculate) 10,692 dmg to Alabama's TDS, vs. 16,982 to North Carolina, or about double the starting HP difference. Certainly you're not guaranteed to take torpedo hits but it's a real advantage. I somewhat wonder how much Amagi's success is due to her far superior TDS.

 

Range - I never bothered buying the range module for T8+ USN battleships as they don't have the accuracy, the shell flight times, or often the spotting to exploit it. If you can spot, target and hit a target 23.3km and there's not one closer well you're doing much better than I ever did.

 

AA power - 529 DPS for Alabama, 547 DPS for North Carolina, a 3.3% reduction, practically unnoticeable I'd think, especially as the outer aura with all the MFCAA and survivability bonuses is the same. Still streets ahead of the other T8 battleships.

 

Maneuverability - 710m/15.3s rudder vs. 760m/17.3s rudder. So what, 6.6% tighter in the turn and 11.6% better in the rudder shift - probably more noteworthy than the AA difference.


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


Beatty_10 #659 Posted 21 March 2017 - 05:25 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 145
  • Member since:
    06-25-2016

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.

 

Yep - gonna buy her now! I've been saving for a premium and finally have the $$. But I was hesitant and probably not going to buy the Alabama due to the citadel issues. I really didn't want to buy a flimsy USN fast BB. I'm joyously grinding through the NC and can't wait to try the Iowa in time. I'm up to my ears in bow-on play already. It will be nice to have all the abilities of the USN fast BB without the frightening broadside vulnerability. 

 

I'll be looking forward to purchasing the Alabama ASAP.

 

Thank you WG, for listening.

 


 

Special_Kay #660 Posted 21 March 2017 - 05:28 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

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

View PostBig_Spud, on 20 March 2017 - 10:15 PM, said:

Except Alabama isn't better in every category either. She sacrifices a chunk of HP, range, some AA power and some accuracy from her guns.

 

4% hit points and "only" 21km range are of little consequence. The AA difference is negligible. As far as accuracy goes, it seems to make a small difference at 16km. I can't in good faith call that negligible, but any Alabama tallying most of its damage from beyond 15km is not being played well enough for me to care about its relative strength to North Carolina.

 

On the flip side, being able to weave around incoming shells is a massive boon for any battleship, and is a large part of the reason my Nagato is performing so well in ranked. Even a "small" increase in agility makes a substantial difference when you're staying mobile vs. relatively few targets in competitive play.

 

 

But I can accept you don't judge the value of these traits the same way I do. (For what it's worth, I've unhidden my stats if you care to compare our North Carolina performance numbers—if not for the present ranked season, they'd be unhidden as a matter of course.) That's why I asked you to take it for granted when I asked your opinion about premiums with only upsides (and admittedly, I was disappointed that you spoke of the answer Wargaming's actions would imply, rather than what you think). I am certainly of the opinion that they shouldn't make premiums that largely eliminate any reason to favour their tech tree relatives, regardless of what WG's actions imply about that. E.g., Kutuzov better than Chapayev? That's fine, as Chapayev still has a purpose in its long-range radar.


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.






Also tagged with Alabama, armor, model, error

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users