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

Because that would also probably require an entire rework of most torpedo stats in the game to account for targets being harder to hit, which I have a feeling they want to avoid at all costs. It probably wouldn't help CVs either.

 

I'm fine with having torpedoes, specifically IJN torpedoes unnerfed, and buffed with single-fire options for asymmetric launches (thus making it harder to dodge).  The rest can remain as-is.

 

CVs just need improved auto-drops by tier with T10s having auto-drops equal to manual drops in terms of close-range dropping (which can be more easily balanced closer or further as needed), which props up the non-hardcore CV players without really affecting the manual drop-skilled CV players (or better still, just remove manual drops and leave Strafe as balance breaking).

 

Nevertheless, the fact remains that they don't want to reduce Alabama's citadel because she has other things going for her, including some actual maneuverability.  Thus, the only way to get that lowered is to actually unnerf some level of battleship maneuverability so that it's not some "special advantage" to justify keeping the citadel so high.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm fine with having torpedoes, specifically IJN torpedoes unnerfed, and buffed with single-fire options for asymmetric launches (thus making it harder to dodge).  The rest can remain as-is.

 

CVs just need improved auto-drops by tier with T10s having auto-drops equal to manual drops in terms of close-range dropping (which can be more easily balanced closer or further as needed), which props up the non-hardcore CV players without really affecting the manual drop-skilled CV players (or better still, just remove manual drops and leave Strafe as balance breaking).

 

Nevertheless, the fact remains that they don't want to reduce Alabama's citadel because she has other things going for her, including some actual maneuverability.  Thus, the only way to get that lowered is to actually unnerf some level of battleship maneuverability so that it's not some "special advantage" to justify keeping the citadel so high.

 

I can't speak in depth about carriers because I don't play them, but I feel a torpedo / maneuverability rebalance is beyond what WG can justify in order for one ship to be remade. Most other battleships in the game aren't particularly unmaneuverable to begin with, its a trait that begins to start at tier 8 and really kick in at 9/10. I think part of this also involves cruisers, which are forced to engage from further and further away in order to avoid deletion. Buff maneuverability too much and it also effects the cruisers ability to do damage.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're acting as if this is 2003, and broadband is just hitting and the Pentium 4 is still all the rage.

 

There are so many games out there doing the same complex calculations and more. I have an incredibly hard time believing WoWs is approaching a breaking point with current hardware. I'm a network engineer though, not a programmer.

 

With the level of destruction present in Battlefield 1... I can tell you without any shred of doubt. That the calculations Warships has to perform are FAR FAR from hitting any hardware or network bottleneck with any modern setup.

 

Battlefield has to track thousands, probably millions of individual destruction points. Every brick blown out of every wall, every crater blown in the ground has to be tracked, throughout the match, and displayed to every single player in a 64 man server, identically. Not only that, they have to deal a much higher count of projectiles in the air at any one time.

 

It is so bad that the MINIMUM recommended Processor is a skylake i5 6600k. That's right, the minimum recommend processor for that game is the high end, unlocked quad core from the generation that was released in mid to lat 2015.

 


 

The fact that the minimum recommended processor for this game is a dual core processor that is 7 years old for AMD or eleven years old for intel. And we have players using 300$ laptops with integrated graphics, that were designed and sold to do nothing more than surf the web, and they were pretty [edited]at that task...

 

That says the engine this game uses is so far behind the times. We could have so much more. But the game is build around such outdated technology that we will not be able to have it.

 

I really do believe that the extra calculations necessary to track a tapered armor plate like the lower belt on Alabama would be too much for the game to handle.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You speak the truth.  My old PC build that I'm pretty sure I built around 7 years ago would struggle just a little bit with this game.  The 6600K build I just finished doesn't even speed up the CPU fan after hours of playing this game.  I think the processor temp only went up about 2 or so degrees after that, so it's fair to say the game engine is old and outdated compared to modern AAA titles.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You speak the truth.  My old PC build that I'm pretty sure I built around 7 years ago would struggle just a little bit with this game.  The 6600K build I just finished doesn't even speed up the CPU fan after hours of playing this game.  I think the processor temp only went up about 2 or so degrees after that, so it's fair to say the game engine is old and outdated compared to modern AAA titles.

 

 Calling this engine outdated might be the understatement of the year. However, a lot of work is being done on the version WoT uses, so hopefully there's some communication between the teams. Some of the reworked maps and models from WoT look downright gorgeous.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With the level of destruction present in Battlefield 1... I can tell you without any shred of doubt. That the calculations Warships has to perform are FAR FAR from hitting any hardware or network bottleneck with any modern setup.

 

Battlefield has to track thousands, probably millions of individual destruction points. Every brick blown out of every wall, every crater blown in the ground has to be tracked, throughout the match, and displayed to every single player in a 64 man server, identically. Not only that, they have to deal a much higher count of projectiles in the air at any one time.

 

It is so bad that the MINIMUM recommended Processor is a skylake i5 6600k. That's right, the minimum recommend processor for that game is the high end, unlocked quad core from the generation that was released in mid to lat 2015.

 


 

The fact that the minimum recommended processor for this game is a dual core processor that is 7 years old for AMD or eleven years old for intel. And we have players using 300$ laptops with integrated graphics, that were designed and sold to do nothing more than surf the web, and they were pretty [edited]at that task...

 

That says the engine this game uses is so far behind the times. We could have so much more. But the game is build around such outdated technology that we will not be able to have it.

 

I really do believe that the extra calculations necessary to track a tapered armor plate like the lower belt on Alabama would be too much for the game to handle.

I don't think that the game itself would struggle with it, but the probable issue is that increasing required system stats is considered unacceptable because people still play on weak systems a lot. They don't want to push those players out of the game, because a F2P game like WoWS depends on big player numbers. Like, look at the minimum specs for say League of Legends. 2 GHz processor, 2GB ram. That's an absolute minimal spec- probably you could get away with a notebook type computer.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because that would also probably require an entire rework of most torpedo stats in the game to account for targets being harder to hit, which I have a feeling they want to avoid at all costs. It probably wouldn't help CVs either.

 

What's really funny is Octavian practically trolled by refrenceing your thread in his statement and calling you one of the drama queens.

Edited by renegadestatuz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the game itself would struggle with it, but the probable issue is that increasing required system stats is considered unacceptable because people still play on weak systems a lot. They don't want to push those players out of the game, because a F2P game like WoWS depends on big player numbers. Like, look at the minimum specs for say League of Legends. 2 GHz processor, 2GB ram. That's an absolute minimal spec- probably you could get away with a notebook type computer.

 

Again though, were this change implemented, would it really hurt the system that much? One Alabama would still be less stressful armor calculation wise than say, a Tirpitz, or even a North Carolina. Basically any battleship in the game has an armor scheme that is at the very least as complex as Alabamas, and most are even more complex. Yet none of them seem the break the servers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What's really funny is Octavian practically trolled by refrenceing your thread in his statement and calling you one of the drama queens.

 

There may or may not have been a tad bit of drama in the OP. Usually its the only thing that gets people to pay attention to the damn things though, so I guess its necessary. I would like to say though that, as far as I know, nothing in the OP was intentionally made incorrect for drama purposes. It should all check out (or at least I hope it does).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There may or may not have been a tad bit of drama in the OP. Usually its the only thing that gets people to pay attention to the damn things though, so I guess its necessary. I would like to say though that, as far as I know, nothing in the OP was intentionally made incorrect for drama purposes. It should all check out (or at least I hope it does).

 

The OP looked good to me.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

With the level of destruction present in Battlefield 1... I can tell you without any shred of doubt. That the calculations Warships has to perform are FAR FAR from hitting any hardware or network bottleneck with any modern setup.

 

Battlefield has to track thousands, probably millions of individual destruction points. Every brick blown out of every wall, every crater blown in the ground has to be tracked, throughout the match, and displayed to every single player in a 64 man server, identically. Not only that, they have to deal a much higher count of projectiles in the air at any one time.

 

It is so bad that the MINIMUM recommended Processor is a skylake i5 6600k. That's right, the minimum recommend processor for that game is the high end, unlocked quad core from the generation that was released in mid to lat 2015.

 


 

The fact that the minimum recommended processor for this game is a dual core processor that is 7 years old for AMD or eleven years old for intel. And we have players using 300$ laptops with integrated graphics, that were designed and sold to do nothing more than surf the web, and they were pretty [edited]at that task...

 

That says the engine this game uses is so far behind the times. We could have so much more. But the game is build around such outdated technology that we will not be able to have it.

 

I really do believe that the extra calculations necessary to track a tapered armor plate like the lower belt on Alabama would be too much for the game to handle.

 

Wargaming is just a little more refined version of PGI... they specialize in MVP

Minimally Viable Product. 

Even with as old as this game engine is, think of the RTS games that were out seven years ago. Supreme Commander anyone? There are so many more data points that games can handle even from back then... 

This is just WG wanting to continue their "Decidedly Average Comrade!" narrative, without saying so. If reworking the alabama was going to screw things up so badly, there's no way they could release even half the lines they are promising, just this year. Hell it couldn't handle one more. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

crap, the T8+ BB gameplay, dear god is it boring and bad. 

 

Played my NC today, did well vs the DDs and the CA, and in the midst of playing the tight rope walking game of being "close enough, but not to far, but not to angle, but not to bow on but not to turning, or to fast".....I found myself double citadel [edited] by the NC, 2 shots, 40k to 10k.....god damn thats stupid [edited]gameplay and mechanics.  It wasnt a matter of me being "bad", it was just, GUESS WHAT?  I HAD TO TURN AROUND.  We should NOT BE [edited]penalized just for operating our [edited]ships....dear the [edited]god damn....

 

THat citadel [edited]in this game.....

 

The Alabama will be an UP piece of garbage cuz of how tacticaly limited the Citadel will make her.  This game needs gameplay more like how the German ships are...THATs actual gameplay.  We can move, turn, do what we need to do in order to win.  we dont need to be worried about our delete me button being pressed every time we do anything but sit bow on.  God damn the USN BB play is bad....

 

I did beat the AI NC, he sat kinda angled and broadside, I sat mostly bow.....took him from his 49k lead on me to dead with like 1m to go....but yeah, its such BORING [edited]gameplay.  As for the NC citadel being better then the Alabama, no, no its really not...it still gets citadel [edited] like mad.  I can only see it now, the Alabama gunna die to a cruiser cuz lol huge citadel. 

Edited by KnightFandragon

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

crap, the T8+ BB gameplay, dear god is it boring and bad. 

 

Played my NC today, did well vs the DDs and the CA, and in the midst of playing the tight rope walking game of being "close enough, but not to far, but not to angle, but not to bow on but not to turning, or to fast".....I found myself double citadel [edited] by the NC, 2 shots, 40k to 10k.....god damn thats stupid [edited]gameplay and mechanics.  It wasnt a matter of me being "bad", it was just, GUESS WHAT?  I HAD TO TURN AROUND.  We should NOT BE [edited]penalized just for operating our [edited]ships....dear the [edited]god damn....

 

THat citadel [edited]in this game.....

 

The Alabama will be an UP piece of garbage cuz of how tacticaly limited the Citadel will make her.  This game needs gameplay more like how the German ships are...THATs actual gameplay.  We can move, turn, do what we need to do in order to win.  we dont need to be worried about our delete me button being pressed every time we do anything but sit bow on.  God damn the USN BB play is bad....

 

I did beat the AI NC, he sat kinda angled and broadside, I sat mostly bow.....took him from his 49k lead on me to dead with like 1m to go....but yeah, its such BORING [edited]gameplay.  As for the NC citadel being better then the Alabama, no, no its really not...it still gets citadel [edited] like mad.  I can only see it now, the Alabama gunna die to a cruiser cuz lol huge citadel. 

 

Hence Ichases findign the game has cap gun range from reallife but didn't adjust the penvalues for that so that affects the armor usefullness.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP is fine. It's an important thing to highlight as 184mm at the waterline is WAAAAAY too thin for battleship citadel protection at that tier. It can be penetrated easily even when angled at anything higher than the 30 or 35 degree autobounce angle.

 

This ship will be a big hit in the shop for many players, but unlike the Tirpitz' legendary durability, you have to be a really above average player to do consistently well with her as there's no way a weekend warrior will have the kind of strong map awareness to avoid potentially stealthed battleships aiming at their sides. She is NOT newbie friendly, and hence not high tier premium shop friendly, unlike all the other tier 8 premiums. People will soon forget about 'Dirpitz' once the rage about 'Alabamorons' in matches starts spreading.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#1) This is an arcade game.

#2) The Designers can do whatever they want - historical accuracy be damned.

#3) Isn't WG a Russian biased game company?

#4) Isn't the Alabama a premium ship?

#5) I, personally, don't care about this, at all, since the Alabama is just another 'Lollipop for Suckers'.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone back and read the SubOctavian post again and it sort of makes sense.

 

It's not "USN BBs are balanced".  It's "USN BBs still crush CA".  Ok, true.  But they suffer against BBs, and there are more BBs than CA in the game.  

 

In addition, the grand vision might be that your BBs will go after CA, and the CA will go after DDs and the DDs will go after BBs.   In practice, that doesn't happen because that's not what the ships stats lend themselves too.  

 

Reality looks more like:

 

BBs shoot at CA whenever they can because lolpen.  When there are no CAs, BBs shoot at each other.

CA shoot at anything they can from behind islands or at long range because then they don't get deleted by BBs.

DDs fight other DDs for caps and then spot and sling random torpedos at whatever is out front.*

 

*BBs are rarely what's out front, and then only made in German BBs packing hydro.

 

So, BB vs BB is one of the main metrics a BB is measured by.  All BBs do exceptionally well against CAs that they can fire back at.  All BBs do exceptionally badly against anything they can't fire back at.  Some BBs do exceptionally well vs other BBs, and some don't.  So the main differentiation between the lines is not what range do they fight well at, it's can they handle a BB vs BB fight or not.  At the mid to high tiers, IJN and KM BBs can handle other BBs, USN BBs really can't.  That's all it comes down to.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#1) This is an arcade game.

#2) The Designers can do whatever they want - historical accuracy be damned.

#3) Isn't WG a Russian biased game company?

#4) Isn't the Alabama a premium ship?

#5) I, personally, don't care about this, at all, since the Alabama is just another 'Lollipop for Suckers'.

 

1. So it is, but some characteristics of ships are based almost without exception on their historical counterpart. This is intentional and is often used as a selling point.

 

2. In most cases yes. However as was mentioned in my answer above, some things are always kept as close to real life as they can manage within the confines of the game.

 

3. Sometimes.

 

4. How does this effect anything.

 

5. Then why did you come here and make a post about it?


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again, guys!

 

So I made some research on the subject and brought fresh info for you.

 

Iowa/Missouri and Montana citadel

 

As I answered on reddit, we are considering the community-proposed changes to Iowa and Montana citadel. The statement that we would be happy to cooperate and make them more comfortable in BB-BB combat is still relevant, but at the same time we should be careful not to buff them outside the class, where their effeciency is absolutely normal. This is why we are working on new citadel placement prototype for them, and will make the final decision only after we have some solid evidence that it will not break balance. So, I guess it is "work in progress" for now.

 

Alabama citadel

 

Alabama, on the other hand, is a new ship and was tested in relevant meta, with all knowledge and known community concerns in mind. And we see that combination of her qualities, specs and layout makes her solid good ship. Lowering her citadel has no balance reasons and is qurrently out of question. It is obvious it is a mutual interest for devs and players to release a fine, well-balanced ship. Alabama will make such ship, and she does not need opague last minute changes.

 

Alabama armor tapering

 

So the plate that is discussed indeed has tapering, we know that. Problem is, we don't have any solid proof of thickness distribution, like we have for some other ships. So we cannot model this plate with high accuracy. What we could do it to make it up like this: 

 

uaxHlZ1.png

 

Such "slicing" would reflect the tapering with at least some degree of historical accuracy. However, our tests indicated that it would not make any impact on ship survivability. While any additional details for armor model increase server load. Of course slicing that single plate won't make any server lags by itself, but every complication of sever model contributes. So we try to avoid unnecessary details that do not affect player experience for the sake of optimization.

 

This is why we decided to leave average thickness for this plate - we don't have 100% data, and it does not influence ship performance.

 

And this honestly makes statements "already massively in error", "what the hell have you done WG", "armor model essentially "skips" over a huge chunk of the primary belt armor" and "be open to citpens through her belt from 8" cruiser guns as far away as 14km" way too dramatic (at the very least). No, good folks, this is not true. That plate is not historically accurate, and this is pretty much it.

 

On this one one, when you have the information, what do you guys think? Do you think it is important to reflect tapering at least for some degree like in my example (274/168/60)? Please share your thoughts, and we will see what we can do. We are as always open to discussion and thankful for your input.

 

Cheers!

 

Hello Sub! Thank you for taking the time to look over this Matter. I really appreciate it, and believe the OP has some well-founded reasoning to the current stance.

 

While perhaps somewhat over-dramatic, I think the fact remains, as has been seen in this game as well as in real life with industries like automobile production, is that closed, limited testing even by the most hardened of developers or engineers, may still come up short when attempting to discover/correct/exploit design concerns. In fact, I would say the Matter concerning the Citadel Height of the Iowa/Missouri & Montana Highlight this very issue. Statistically speaking, (and my own experience in the Missou) are the weakest, most susceptible to Citadel penetrations of any BB in this game at any tier, and even rival some of the laughably easy Citpens from mid-tier cruisers. Because of this effect, you/the Dev team are seriously talking about correcting the citadel height on those ships.

 

Now, given consideration to that, and leaving the current citadel position on the Alabama alone may or may not draw the same problem. However, I believe banding the armor to the scenario that you have marked to be a fine solution, and should prove satisfactory for the majority of people who are interested in purchasing this ship, and will probably lean a few of those sitting on the fence from a "not sure" to a "will buy" situation. (Lowering the citadel would magnify this further, but considering that's already a hard "no" this should be acceptable) 

 

Bottom line;  I like the currently proposed armor bands (310/274/168/60) and intend to purchase this ship upon release, especially given the attention to which this is being addressed. Thank YOU!


2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such "slicing" would reflect the tapering with at least some degree of historical accuracy. However, our tests indicated that it would not make any impact on ship survivability.

...

This is why we decided to leave average thickness for this plate - we don't have 100% data, and it does not influence ship performance.

 

Thanks for your reply.  I would like to better understand the bolded statements above. 

 

What sort of "tests"?  A straight numerical analysis is possible, though probably tedious. A good statistical sample would be enlightening, but a half hour of shooting up a training room would not, IMHO.

 

In the current configuration, a quantum hit below the artificially short main belt on the current tall, "averaged" lower belt would encounter artificially thin armor some fraction of the time (fraction depends on the actual taper) and artificially thick armor at the inverse rate.  Do you mean that the net effect of the higher and lower hits below the main belt is zero because the statistical armor thickness encountered is the average?  A reasonable start, but that conclusion would require some understanding of the effects of a penetration at each location.  Not easy.

 

But there's another way to look at it: The designers did taper the plate, indicating that for a random distribution a lower hit would be less troublesome than a higher hit.  That's pretty good testimony that the effects of the higher and lower hits is not equivalent.  Thus we cannot conclude that the statistical net effect is zero.

 

Is the more realistic slicing worth it?  Maybe not.  I guess I could live with an averaged thickness.

 

But I do have a major concern that the main belt is too short vertically.  Both drawings indicate that the main belt should extend well below the waterline at full thickness.  What is your reasoning for ending the main belt well above the waterline?

 

 

 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thanks for your reply.  I would like to better understand the bolded statements above. 

 

What sort of "tests"?  A straight numerical analysis is possible, though probably tedious. A good statistical sample would be enlightening, but a half hour of shooting up a training room would not, IMHO.

 

In the current configuration, a quantum hit below the artificially short main belt on the current tall, "averaged" lower belt would encounter artificially thin armor some fraction of the time (fraction depends on the actual taper) and artificially thick armor at the inverse rate.  Do you mean that the net effect of the higher and lower hits below the main belt is zero because the statistical armor thickness encountered is the average?  A reasonable start, but that conclusion would require some understanding of the effects of a penetration at each location.  Not easy.

 

But there's another way to look at it: The designers did taper the plate, indicating that for a random distribution a lower hit would be less troublesome than a higher hit.  That's pretty good testimony that the effects of the higher and lower hits is not equivalent.  Thus we cannot conclude that the statistical net effect is zero.

 

Is the more realistic slicing worth it?  Maybe not.  I guess I could live with an averaged thickness.

 

But I do have a major concern that the main belt is too short vertically.  Both drawings indicate that the main belt should extend well below the waterline at full thickness.  What is your reasoning for ending the main belt well above the waterline?

 

 

 

 

They say that cuz the Citadel will be far more impacting on the survival of the ship then an underwater armor band.  Even if they upped that armor, the citadel will still kill the ship.  Edited by KnightFandragon

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, penetration below the main belt IS a citadel hit.  Unless you are contending that hits on the main belt penetrate at the same rate as hits below it, then your logic doesn't follow.  Fewer pens => fewer citadels == a bit more survivability.

 

OTOH, behind S_O's words seems to be the principle that WG doesn't want the ship to be more survivable...

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, penetration below the main belt IS a citadel hit.  Unless you are contending that hits on the main belt penetrate at the same rate as hits below it, then your logic doesn't follow.  Fewer pens => fewer citadels == a bit more survivability.

 

OTOH, behind S_O's words seems to be the principle that WG doesn't want the ship to be more survivable...

 

 

Yeah, no one wants the USN ships to actually be good, tough, playable Battleships.  They want them to be Citadel farming stat padder, meta [edited]only [edited]ships made of glass with blunderbuss accuracy. 

 

WG is relying on the "famous" of this ship to get suckers to buy it.  Anyone who actually expects to be buying aBATTLESHIP, will be disappointed.  Im not gunna fall for that trap. 

 

Edited by KnightFandragon

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, no one wants the USN ships to actually be good, tough, playable Battleships.  They want them to be Citadel farming stat padder, meta [edited]only [edited]ships made of glass with blunderbuss accuracy. 

 

WG is relying on the "famous" of this ship to get suckers to buy it.  Anyone who actually expects to be buying aBATTLESHIP, will be disappointed.  Im not gunna fall for that trap. 

 

 

I am! :P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello good folks! Thank you so much for LOTS of feedback here. As you may have noticed, we are also conducting additional production test of Alabama over weekend with our ST team. We plan to introduce a couple of tweaks based on all data and feedback we receive and make sure that the ship is absolutely enjoyable and worthy upon her release. As I already said, your input is greatly valued, and we're working to make the best of it.

Please keep an eye for the news, and see you soon. Cheers :great:


9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello good folks! Thank you so much for LOTS of feedback here. As you may have noticed, we are also conducting additional production test of Alabama over weekend with our ST team. We plan to introduce a couple of tweaks based on all data and feedback we receive and make sure that the ship is absolutely enjoyable and worthy upon her release. As I already said, your input is greatly valued, and we're working to make the best of it.

Please keep an eye for the news, and see you soon. Cheers :great:

 

Thank you Sub - appreciate the feedback!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.