Big_Spud

Alabama's armor model is already massively in error

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

734 posts in this topic

So this is where the next Alabamadrama is huh? We going to need a new thread every few minutes this time around or will a handful of threads suffice?

 


3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Nixon is getting jealous at the amount of drama that Alabama is generating...

 

Seriously though, as much as people bringing up 14" shell hits irrelevant to the citadel is annoying, this is definitely a flaw that should be fixed. At the very least, the 12" band should be modelled...

 

But below that it's actually thinner than 7.2", so be careful what you wish for...

 

 


3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is where the next Alabamadrama is huh? We going to need a new thread every few minutes this time around or will a handful of threads suffice?

 

 

Doubt it. Most people are going to be complaining about the citadel height, not the incorrect belt armor thickness.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Nixon is getting jealous at the amount of drama that Alabama is generating...

 

Seriously though, as much as people bringing up 14" shell hits irrelevant to the citadel is annoying, this is definitely a flaw that should be fixed. At the very least, the 12" band should be modelled...

 

But below that it's actually thinner than 7.2", so be careful what you wish for...

 

 

I don't really think the lower armor belt really matters that much, but the 184mm section that starts at/above the waterline is extremely concerning with its blatant incorrectness.

 

In terms of belt armor thickness, I would much prefer it to be accurate over some minuscule game-play advantage that is derived from it being wrong. In this case though, it makes Alabama vulnerable to CRUISER guns out to almost 15 kilometers.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is where the next Alabamadrama is huh? We going to need a new thread every few minutes this time around or will a handful of threads suffice?

 

 

Actually, I think this is a pretty relevant thread.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Spud

Another good catch might be time to send this info to pigeon and hope that he can get them to sought this one out quick before she goes on sail.

Having said that I still plan to buy her when she comes out hopefully not in this state though.

cheers


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

You make a good point.

 

I'm sorry to see some are lumping this in with other thread topics. :amazed:

Edited by Wulfgarn

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is how you make a good suggestion. 


5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is how you make a good suggestion. 

 

I've been waiting to hear that from you! :honoring:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm all for letting Alabama's cit be that high, but ONLY if this issue gets fixed. Proper armor modeling can go a long way to making skill an important factor in the game.

 

Being lazy about it like what WG has done right here, just makes the game a sloppy mess.

 

WG, please don't be Gaijoob. Model the armor correctly. :fishpalm:


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea....don't buy it? :)

It boggles my mind what players demand in an arcade game. :fishpalm:

If they modeled it that way, they did it for balance purposes, and in an arcade game, balance takes precedence.....

 

I can understand the outrage if you had already bought the ship...but there is a simple solution to this issue...

Edited by awiggin

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea....don't buy it? :)

It boggles my mind what players demand in an arcade game. :fishpalm:

If they modeled it that way, they did it for balance purposes, and in an arcade game, balance takes precedence.....

 

Wargaming's staff are the ones who constantly hold up their armoring system as if it's based upon real-life considerations. They're to blame if people have expectations that precedents will be upheld - not those who complain.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an idea....don't buy it? :)

It boggles my mind what players demand in an arcade game. :fishpalm:

If they modeled it that way, they did it for balance purposes, and in an arcade game, balance takes precedence.....

 

I can understand the outrage if you had already bought the ship...but there is a simple solution to this issue...

 

The point 

 

__________

 

 

Your head


3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the hell cares.

 

Deal with it, or don't buy the ship.


2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As somebody who has watched the Battleship community cry until Wargaming nerfed every other class in the game:

 

LJ8pW.gif


3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the hell cares.

 

Deal with it, or don't buy the ship.

Who the hell cares?

 

Deal with it, or don't comment.

 

There.  Now we've contributed equally to the discussion.


12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I get the point. I just don't give a fuck.

 

And? You gave enough to come and [edited]post about it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a USN bb so of course it's armor is all fubar, nothing new.

 

Seriously though..... I'm so tired of WG's apparent hate on for usn ships.

Edited by Hangoverhomey

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just rename it as "South Dakota"....

 

Problem solved :trollface:


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who the hell cares?

 

Deal with it, or don't comment.

 

There.  Now we've contributed equally to the discussion.

 

Sure, you want an actual argument?

 

GAME.

 

REAL LIFE.

 

DIFFERENT.

 

If balance dictate Alabama doesn't get that extra strip of 305mm armor, then that's what the game is.

 

By all appearances, WG's way of balancing Alabama as "NC but better" is to make it more vulnerable to main battery cit pens.

 

This armour model is consistent with that apparent goal.


2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good catch Spud.. Keep those eyes out on all the new ships.. your analysis is always spot on.  They half [edited]too much when it comes to making correct armor modeling.  You'd think by now they would realize people are going to dissect everything they do.  Do it right the first time.


2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sure, you want an actual argument?

 

GAME.

 

REAL LIFE.

 

DIFFERENT.

 

If balance dictate Alabama doesn't get that extra strip of 305mm armor, then that's what the game is.

 

By all appearances, WG's way of balancing Alabama as "NC but better" is to make it more vulnerable to main battery cit pens.

 

This armour model is consistent with that apparent goal.

 

Or they screwed up the armor model by accident, as they have in many other ships.

 

But no, lets just accept likely mistakes and never talk about anything because you think its pointless as it doesn't play into one of your agendas.

 

Your attempt of stiffening discussion you don't like doesn't help anything at all.


8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.