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

 

Thank you Sub - appreciate the feedback!

 

Must've been why I saw an abundance of STs out with their Bama's this weekend.  I'm glad Sub was paying attention to the thread though :)


1

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:

 

That's great to hear!  Thanks for the update, and can't wait to hear the news!  :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Must've been why I saw an abundance of STs out with their Bama's this weekend.  I'm glad Sub was paying attention to the thread though :)

 

I was wondering what prompted LWM to provide an addendum to her review - I figured they had them out for a second going-over.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was wondering what prompted LWM to provide an addendum to her review - I figured they had them out for a second going-over.

 

I believe this weekend was actually the 4th time they had the STs testing her. In the patch notes for the last PTS we had it stated that she was going in for a 3rd round of testing for the STs I believe. Meaning they've really been putting the STs to work for her.


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:

 

So now that it's changing... What's changed? since all the reviews are now obsolete. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose we'll know when they get her finalized.

 


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:

 

Thank you very much for even looking into it to begin with. It's always nice to know that some people care enough to actually pay attention to the community. Look forward to seeing what changes have been made!

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been made aware of any changes.  The Alabama I've played has been the same version throughout (from review til now).


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been made aware of any changes.  The Alabama I've played has been the same version throughout (from review til now).

 

Octavian said that they plan on tweaking her with the data they've collected from the weekend from y'all, not that they already changed/tweaked her and had y'all testing the tweaked version.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Octavian said that they plan on tweaking her with the data they've collected from the weekend from y'all, not that they already changed/tweaked her and had y'all testing the tweaked version.

 

As someone who has extensively played (and loved) the current version, I'm worried that some of the elements I've come to love about Alabama might change.  People may get the (frankly unnecessary) citadel drop only to sacrifice stuff which makes her great, like her ability to throw the ship and guns about while being able to maintain speed in a turn.  Here's hoping any changes preserve her strong points and that it's just a flat out buff.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparative cross sections show the development of US battleship Armor Schemes from the North Carolina on. A) Although not Battleship the Battle Cruiser Alaska - B) North Carolina Class - C) South Dakota Class - D) Iowa Class 

 

 

Second image was the Originally planned Belt for the South Dakota Class 

 

 

 

IMG_2704.PNG

IMG_2705.PNG

Edited by djholley

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As someone who has extensively played (and loved) the current version, I'm worried that some of the elements I've come to love about Alabama might change.  People may get the (frankly unnecessary) citadel drop only to sacrifice stuff which makes her great, like her ability to throw the ship and guns about while being able to maintain speed in a turn.  Here's hoping any changes preserve her strong points and that it's just a flat out buff.

 

Considering this whole ordeal has specifically NOT been about the high citadel (which Sub already said in no uncertain terms that they were definitely NOT going to change), and has been about the taper of the armor belt itself, I very much doubt anything major will be different at all.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As someone who has extensively played (and loved) the current version, I'm worried that some of the elements I've come to love about Alabama might change.  People may get the (frankly unnecessary) citadel drop only to sacrifice stuff which makes her great, like her ability to throw the ship and guns about while being able to maintain speed in a turn.  Here's hoping any changes preserve her strong points and that it's just a flat out buff.

 

I hope so too.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Source on US Battleships is the "US Battleships" by Norman Friedman Published by the United States Naval Institute in 1985


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good Source on US Battleships is the "US Battleships" by Norman Friedman Published by the United States Naval Institute in 1985

 

Which I am sure quite a few people in this thread have (I have a copy myself).

 

Also, take a look at the WoWS RU portal for their update 0.6.2.2 notes: https://worldofwarships.ru/ru/news/common/update_0622/

 

 Скорректированы параметры линкора USS Alabama, находящегося на этапе тестирования силами разработчиков, участников супертеста и коллекционеров. Корабль недоступен для покупки, однако может встретиться в бою.

 

Translation gives:

 

 Adjusted parameters of the battleship USS Alabama, currently in testing by developers, supertesters and community contributors. The ship is not available for purchase, but you may meet it in combat.

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As someone who has extensively played (and loved) the current version, I'm worried that some of the elements I've come to love about Alabama might change.  People may get the (frankly unnecessary) citadel drop only to sacrifice stuff which makes her great, like her ability to throw the ship and guns about while being able to maintain speed in a turn.  Here's hoping any changes preserve her strong points and that it's just a flat out buff.

 

I just can't see how they can nerf a ship which is worse than the worst T8 bb in the game already... then again this is WG so..who knows

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like the ship will be slightly less expensive then Tirpitz as the wiki has the Alabama price grayed out at 12,200 where as the Tirpitz  is 12,500. So any hints this week or next when we can buy?

So Tirpitz at this time most expensive ship - 2nd Alabama and 3rd Atago - Missouri does not count as it would be the most expensive if you had to convert the Free XP from Zero which would put it at over $100

 

 

Edited by djholley

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd gladly take a 30% TDS for better survivability against shells.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see Sub_Octavian is taking a fresh look. There's no reason for that high citadel or cruiser thin armor at the waterline whatsoever. With a proper thick citadel at or below the waterline, she'd be perfectly balanced.

 

- Alabama's worse accuracy is balanced by her increased agility to allow her to get in closer.

- Alabama's worse HP and marginally worse AA is balanced by that incredible torpedo belt.

 

The problem with saying that she's good to play if you "know how to play her" is the same thing as saying "she's underpowered but will do well in the hands of a unicum player". Fact of the matter is that said players would be good in ANY ship. They have amazing map awareness and many thousands of matches of experience to know where hidden battleships may lie in wait. But premiums should not be balanced for just excellent players, *especially* not a T8 premium as those have, up till now, all been extraordinarily competitive ships in the hands of anyone but the worst potatoes. No one ever complains about Tirpitz or Atago or Kutuzov. They are much beloved.

 

If they drop her citadel the way they will drop Iowa's and Missouri's citadel, I would pull out my wallet so fast, I'd light my pocket on fire. I LOVE maneuverable battleships. Warspite is still one of my favorite ships to play because of how agile she is. But I also play battleships because I love to tank. I want the enemy to shoot ME instead of my squishy cruiser and destroyer escort. And if it's that easy to one-shot her because of an unseen threat to my side, then my sole purpose of being as a battleship is ruined. North Carolina *can* take big citadel hits for showing her side, but it's typically 1 or 2 at the most, not the 3 or 4 that Iowa and Montana currently have to deal with. I have *never* taken a volley that knocked off three quarters of my health in the NC.

 

If I want to play a cruiser with battleship guns and a heal, I'll play the Graf Spee. I love that ship. If I want to lead the charge and taunt the reds to shoot at me, I want a battleship with battleship durability. Because I can already do that in North Carolina. I don't see why it should be harder in Alabama, a ship with all the traits to get in closer and see the enemy sweat.


3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see Sub_Octavian is taking a fresh look. There's no reason for that high citadel or cruiser thin armor at the waterline whatsoever. With a proper thick citadel at or below the waterline, she'd be perfectly balanced.

 

- Alabama's worse accuracy is balanced by her increased agility to allow her to get in closer.

- Alabama's worse HP and marginally worse AA is balanced by that incredible torpedo belt.

 

The problem with saying that she's good to play if you "know how to play her" is the same thing as saying "she's underpowered but will do well in the hands of a unicum player". Fact of the matter is that said players would be good in ANY ship. They have amazing map awareness and many thousands of matches of experience to know where hidden battleships may lie in wait. But premiums should not be balanced for just excellent players, *especially* not a T8 premium as those have, up till now, all been extraordinarily competitive ships in the hands of anyone but the worst potatoes. No one ever complains about Tirpitz or Atago or Kutuzov. They are much beloved.

 

If they drop her citadel the way they will drop Iowa's and Missouri's citadel, I would pull out my wallet so fast, I'd light my pocket on fire. I LOVE maneuverable battleships. Warspite is still one of my favorite ships to play because of how agile she is. But I also play battleships because I love to tank. I want the enemy to shoot ME instead of my squishy cruiser and destroyer escort. And if it's that easy to one-shot her because of an unseen threat to my side, then my sole purpose of being as a battleship is ruined. North Carolina *can* take big citadel hits for showing her side, but it's typically 1 or 2 at the most, not the 3 or 4 that Iowa and Montana currently have to deal with. I have *never* taken a volley that knocked off three quarters of my health in the NC.

 

If I want to play a cruiser with battleship guns and a heal, I'll play the Graf Spee. I love that ship. If I want to lead the charge and taunt the reds to shoot at me, I want a battleship with battleship durability. Because I can already do that in North Carolina. I don't see why it should be harder in Alabama, a ship with all the traits to get in closer and see the enemy sweat.

 

This. 'Nuff said.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who else thinks things went something like this.

 

Plans for ST only Alabama, and it leaks out.

Boards erupt.

Dumb comment, "Well ST work hard so we want to give them something special no Alabama for you evar!"

Boss gets word of it, "Uh, I mean.  Totally we will have an Alabama for sale just with a different skin."

 

At WG HQ:  Ok, the Americans really want this.  We can throw any crappy stats out there and they'll still buy it.  Look how many posts the threads got.  I mean uh, make sure it isn't any better than the worst T8 BB so we can point at it when people say pay to win.

Boards:  wth, I want the Alabama not a nerfed North Carolina.

WG:  Crap, they noticed.  Ok friends, we will rebalance!


2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear World. Simple reason for United States to have a big citadel. Alabama can travel over 15,000 nautical miles. Tirpitz can travel around 8,000 nautical miles. American fast battleships were built for following carrier battle groups in the Pacific and need big fuel tanks.

 

Tirpitz was built for the flat trajectory of World War 1. Alabama was built for plunging fire and u boat torpedos. Someday War Gaming will allow historical battles and while Taffy 3 may not be allowed The Yamato's last run might. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who else thinks things went something like this.

 

Plans for ST only Alabama, and it leaks out.

Boards erupt.

Dumb comment, "Well ST work hard so we want to give them something special no Alabama for you evar!"

Boss gets word of it, "Uh, I mean.  Totally we will have an Alabama for sale just with a different skin."

 

At WG HQ:  Ok, the Americans really want this.  We can throw any crappy stats out there and they'll still buy it.  Look how many posts the threads got.  I mean uh, make sure it isn't any better than the worst T8 BB so we can point at it when people say pay to win.

Boards:  wth, I want the Alabama not a nerfed North Carolina.

WG:  Crap, they noticed.  Ok friends, we will rebalance!

 

The timing is off.  Alabama's stats were leaked on December 2nd.  The forums didn't learn about it being exclusively a reward ship until around December 12th with the announcement.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The timing is off.  Alabama's stats were leaked on December 2nd.  The forums didn't learn about it being exclusively a reward ship until around December 12th with the announcement.

 

Still, his point is somewhat valid. Methinks shenanigans.:sceptic: 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.