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

 

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.

 

#TRIGGERED?

0

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.

 

How about no?

 

No more history nerds injecting their nonsense into the game.

 

Balance and make changes as a game. Not as a goddamn simulator.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How about no?

 

No more history nerds injecting their nonsense into the game.

 

Balance and make changes as a game. Not as a goddamn simulator.

 

Move along,  you're comment is noted, you have nothing left to add . Edited by Shadowrigger1

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Is the error resulting in gameplay issues?

 

If no, i doesn't matter.

 

If yes, argue based on the gameplay.

 

#TRIGGERED?

 

By people injecting irrelevancies into a fantasy world? Yes.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Move along little boy,  you're comment is noted, you have nothing left to add .

 

How about no?

 

People whining "but muh realism" is the root of 90% of my gripes with this game.

 

So no, I'm not letting this go.

 

Demonstrate a gameplay reason why this needs to be changed, or GTFO.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How about no?

 

People whining "but muh realism" is the root of 90% of my gripes with this game.

 

So no, I'm not letting this go.

 

Demonstrate a gameplay reason why this needs to be changed, or GTFO.

 

As a rule, WG generally doesn't change belt/deck/bulkhead/turret/barbette armor values from historical values. When there is a significant deviance from the norm established on 99% of the other ships in the game, its fair to assume that an error has occurred. It's not my fault that you are incapable of seeing this and are on a vendetta to scream and cry about people attempting to provide proof through historical fact for modeling errors, even though WG has said time and time again that they have made simple mistakes when it has been brought to their attention, and solved them.

 

But please, keep missing the point and yelling obscenities. I'm sure that will be effective at swaying peoples opinions.


28

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I wanted the NC to be dropped to T7. Then the Bama could be made to actually be better than the NC rather than a more brittle but dancier version.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yall cried about not getting the ship. yall now cry that its not correct. News flash when the fix the Mo, Iowa and Monty the bama will NOT get the same fix. Well deserved for the ship


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yall cried about not getting the ship. yall now cry that its not correct. News flash when the fix the Mo, Iowa and Monty the bama will NOT get the same fix. Well deserved for the ship

 

This isn't about the citadel height, read the OP before posting nonsense.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a rule, WG generally doesn't change belt/deck/bulkhead/turret/barbette armor values from historical values. When there is a significant deviance from the norm established on 99% of the other ships in the game, its fair to assume that an error has occurred. It's not my fault that you are incapable of seeing this and are on a vendetta to scream and cry about people attempting to provide proof for modeling errors.

 

But please, keep missing the point and yelling obscenities. I'm sure that will be effective at swaying peoples opinions.

 

Except... they didn't change the armor values.

 

You even admitted as much.

 

WG doesn't do tapered armor, so they average out a tapered section and apply a flat value across the board.

 

They did it to Alabama, as they do for ALL ships.

 

You're sitting here whining that the sections for Alabama's averaging wasn't finely partitioned enough.

 

Prove that this impacts gameplay enough to matter, or GTFO.

Edited by issm

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Except... they didn't change the armor values.

 

You even admitted as much.

 

WG doesn't do tapered armor, so they average out a tapered section and apply a flat value across the board.

 

They did it to Alabama, as they do for ALL ships.

 

You're sitting here whining that the sections for Alabama's averaging wasn't finely partitioned enough.

 

Prove that this impacts gameplay enough to matter, or GTFO.

 

I'm guessing you didn't read the OP? Cause its clearly stated that WG did exactly what we're asking for to the Bayern. Theres even a pretty picture that shows it as well.

 

All we're asking for is consistency in the game. Nothing more.

Edited by Kitsunelegend

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly surprised, and this certainly explains the durability concerns (even more so than the tall citadel.) that so many of the reviewers have had. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually, I think this is a pretty relevant thread.

 

Canadatron just wants to cause crap because he thinks people who got fired up about unavailability for something are somehow entitled.  He doesnt care about the ship so it doesn't matter to him that exclusivity is bad.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outstanding catch, Spud - just ignore Issm.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Except... they didn't change the armor values.

 

You even admitted as much.

 

WG doesn't do tapered armor, so they average out a tapered section and apply a flat value across the board.

 

They did it to Alabama, as they do for ALL ships.

 

You're sitting here whining that the sections for Alabama's averaging wasn't finely partitioned enough.

 

Prove that this impacts gameplay enough to matter, or GTFO.

 

If you read the OP you would know that they can do much better quality armor tapering simulation than what Alabama currently has, even in other ships that share the exact same armor scheme. This tells me that a mistake was made somewhere along the line. Maybe Boris the intern got to do the model for this one. That doesn't somehow excuse the poor quality of work though, nor does it make it correct when viewed in comparison with the rest of the ships in the game.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the OP you would know that they can do much better quality armor tapering simulation than what Alabama currently has, even in other ships that share the exact same armor scheme. This tells me that a mistake was made somewhere along the line. Maybe Boris the intern got to do the model for this one. That doesn't somehow excuse the poor quality of work though, nor does it make it correct when viewed in comparison with the rest of the ships in the game.

 

It tells you it's an error? It tells me it's a deliberate decision made to emphasise Alabama's weakness or main battery shots relative to North Carolina.

 

You know, the same reason she's not getting the "corrected" citadel that Iowa, Missouri, and Montana supposedly are (and buffin Missouri is a disgusting decision on top of that).

 

If gameplay stats from testing indicates that the ship is too squishy, and needs a slight armor buff: Great.

 

If gameplay testing indicates she's fine, which, given WG is deciding against lowering her cit, then no change should be made.

 

Simple as that.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It tells you it's an error? It tells me it's a deliberate decision made to emphasise Alabama's weakness or main battery shots relative to North Carolina.

 

You know, the same reason she's not getting the "corrected" citadel that Iowa, Missouri, and Montana supposedly are (and buffin Missouri is a disgusting decision on top of that).

 

If gameplay stats from testing indicates that the ship is too squishy, and needs a slight armor buff: Great.

 

If gameplay testing indicates she's fine, which, given WG is deciding against lowering her cit, then no change should be made.

 

Simple as that.

 

As has been noted in the past, gameplay testing has not been particularly relevant when it comes to the specific modeling of belt armor and other surfaces of great thickness. Extremity armor, perhaps. Bomb deck armor, sometimes. 

 

But belt armor? Not once has it ever been increased or decreased from the actual historical ship they are using as a reference point. In fact, they often seem to tout the accuracy of their armor modeling, such as the New Orleans magazine incident, in which many members of the dev staff and community spent hours and hours going through dozens of historical references and microfilm diagrams to find the correct layout, which the ship ingame was later changed to.

 

A few other cases like this was the missing 10 inches of armor over Nagatos magazines that was added after it was found to be missing. Another was the forward bulkhead of Arizona missing 5 inches of armor, which was also added back in after it was found missing shortly after release. Or perhaps the lower belt thickness on Bismarck or Tirpitz, which was also changed recently for purely historical reasons.

 

WG has an easily traceable history of fixing armor model errors if its clear that there are indeed errors. This is one such case. Sorry to rain on your tirade.


8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean they should probably garbage something else in exchange of robbing cruisers their ability to "citpen" (so you claim) the Alabama.

 

0% fire resist? There is no historical proof there for you to whine about, so why not? Can't just whine for buffs, especially for a premium. If you want us to care you need to drop a significant if not crippling nerf. Ability to citpen is a pretty huge deal and should be properly compensated.

Edited by Naughtius_Maximus

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean they should probably garbage something else in exchange of robbing cruisers their ability to "citpen" (so you claim) the Alabama.

 

0% fire resist?

 

For the average player, the high Iowa-style citadel, huge unarmored superstructure, bad secondaries and slow shell speed will probably be enough of a balancing factor. Its not idiot proof like the Germans are, just one mistake is enough to get you deleted.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For the average player, the high Iowa-style citadel, bad secondaries and slow shell speed will probably be enough of a balancing factor. Its not idiot proof like the Germans are, just one mistake is enough to get you deleted.

 

No that was balance BEFORE the armor whine. Meaning WG thinks it is balanced as is.

 

If you want a buff, especially for a premium and Especially regarding something as big as cit pens, you need something as big as that (0 fire resist.)

 

You need tradeoffs when arguing for buffs on a tested for balance ship. Triply so with a premium.

 

If you do not have a corresponding nerf I would not have any reason to follow this.

 

Unless you are asking for a.....universal nerf of some kind :hiding:.

Edited by Naughtius_Maximus

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No that was balance BEFORE the armor whine. Meaning WG thinks it is balanced as is.

 

If you want a buff, especially for a premium and Especially regarding something as big as cit pens, you need something as big as that.

 

Hang on, what are you implying here? The ship is still vulnerable to citpens, massively so even with this proposed armor fix. This isn't removing vulnerability to citpens from other battleships or something, it would just be removing that vulnerability to CRUISERS getting citpens at long range (even a Pensacola's gun can punch through that 184mm section out to almost 15km as it stands), something that no other high tier battleship (not even Amagi) has to deal with regularly. The ship is vulnerable because WG modeled the belt armor too thinly, that's all that's happening here.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hang on, what are you implying here? The ship is still vulnerable to citpens, massively so even with this proposed armor fix. This isn't removing vulnerability to citpens from other battleships or something.

 

WG has it balanced as it is now. If you up the armor for zero compensating nerfs and it gets released, it'll just be a Nikolai That is OP as hell. And subsequently nobody gets to buy 3 months into the game.

 

Suggest a huge nerf to the "citpen 15km away by cruisers." Because as it is supposedly balanced as is, removing that feature would massively hurt the cruiser class for zero redeeming benefits.

 

Fire resistance nerf/removal would be a pretty fair compensation, really.

Edited by Naughtius_Maximus

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

WG has it balanced as it is now. If you up the armor for zero compensating nerfs and it gets released, it'll just be a Nikolai That is OP as hell. And subsequently nobody gets to buy 3 months into the game.

 

Suggest a huge nerf to the "citpen 15km away by cruisers." Because as it is supposedly balanced as is, removing that feature would massively hurt the cruiser class for zero redeeming benefits.

 

Fire resistance nerf/removal would be a pretty fair compensation, really.

 

Dude what.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Dude what.

 

What do you mean what. The ship is balanced as it is now. Or at least WG is balancing with all the current ship in mind.

 

You are asking for buffs with zero compensating nerfs. To a premium. Of course no one would take you seriously.

 

You need to pair your buff suggestion with a nerf. And since more armor affects the cruisers the most, I would personally suggest dumpstering the fire resistance. Though of course if you can suggest something about as big, go ahead.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.