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

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

 

Not really, considering there was a non-ST entry for Alabama discovered at the same time.  NA just whined over a ship with limited-exclusivity duration for STs.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not really, considering there was a non-ST entry for Alabama discovered at the same time.  NA just whined over a ship with limited-exclusivity duration for STs.

 

Still does not explain Trevzor's post stating that Alabama will be for SuperTesters only.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Still does not explain Trevzor's post stating that Alabama will be for SuperTesters only.

 

My only guess is that they wanted to keep the regular Alabama on the hush-hush. Still, its not entirely out of the realm of possibility that shenanigans are afoot.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still does not explain Trevzor's post stating that Alabama will be for SuperTesters only.

 

Simple answer is lack of communication, stemming from the fact that WG does not normally discuss leaks.  They refuse to even discuss potential balance issues that appear in leaked info since it's "leaked info".  And further, they're quite secretive about their ST program and plans, so it's no surprise that ships and elements pertaining to the ST program would not completely be revealed to regular mods and other branch staff members until WG itself is ready to go public with their plans.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Simple answer is lack of communication, stemming from the fact that WG does not normally discuss leaks.  They refuse to even discuss potential balance issues that appear in leaked info since it's "leaked info".  And further, they're quite secretive about their ST program and plans, so it's no surprise that ships and elements pertaining to the ST program would not completely be revealed to regular mods and other branch staff members until WG itself is ready to go public with their plans.

 

Considering Trevzor is the one at NA who runs the ST program, would he know that info though?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Not really, considering there was a non-ST entry for Alabama discovered at the same time.  NA just whined over a ship with limited-exclusivity duration for STs.

 

The Alabama was originally meant for Super Testers only, and it was said so by WGing.

 

Somehow, in all of their wisdom, they didn't seem to realize making one of the most popular American Battleships an exclusive for Super Testers would be a big deal and cause all kinds of outrage. Now in their infinite wisdom they don't think that leaving her with a nerfed citadel won't cause all kinds of outrage.

 

To basically sum up WGing so far:

WGing: If we make another double standard, and improperly place the citadel and armor on the most famous USN Battleships in history, the Iowa Class, and miss-match a weaker version of the Montana together, no one could possibly be upset.

NA Community: *Pitch Forks*

WGing: I don't understand what went wrong!

 

Dec 2016

WGing: If we only let Super Testers have a massively popular Americans Battleship, no one could possibly be upset.

NA Community: *Pitch Forks*

WGing: I don't understand what went wrong!

 

2017

WGing: if we give the Alabama improper armor and a citadel after we said we're looking into fixing them on the Iowa, Montana, and Missouri, there is no possible way anyone could be upset.

NA Community: *Pitch Forks*

WGing: I don't understand what went wrong!


2

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.

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.


27

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ship final state for release.

 

:honoring::great: Thank you!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I hope this also shakes up the high tier BB meta in general.  It'd be great to have back some actual maneuverability in the middle to high tiers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Awesome news.

 

I try not to be salty about this stuff, and obviously it's not working, but I just feel like the same exact choices that upset people the last time are being made all over again. I just don't think it's that difficult to start each ship from a standardized baseline (ie, historically accurate armor, citadel, HP, reload, turning circle, AA, etc.) and then balance the soft stats from there.  That's really the source of my frustration is all of this.

 

It just seems un-necessarily difficult for the developers, and frustrating for the player base, to have this wobbly, non-uniform way of creating ship balance by starting from uneven standards.


5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

I like this change. I think it will make the Alabama more popular and make it more user friendly without being overpowered. Because Alabama armor isn't that much thicker than NC, and the guns are a little shorter range and little less accurate. Having a lower citadel will help it perform better in brawling.

 

As a whole, I love this change.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm speechless. Cool! Thank you, Wargaming & Sub_Octavian. :)

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

:honoring::great: Thank you!!

Well, thank all of you who gave us feedback here and on Reddit, and special thanks to supertesters for running intense tests over weekend :izmena:
And thanks to ship design team who implemented the changes quickly for further testing after long and fruitful discussion. Even without beer bribe.

If it plays out well, I think we all can be very happy about this cooperation :)

Edited by Sub_Octavian

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, thank all of you who gave us feedback here and on Reddit, and special thanks to supertesters for running intense tests over weekend :izmena:
And thanks to ship design team who implemented the changes quickly for further testing after long and fruitful discussion. Even without beer bribe.

If it plays out well, I think we all can be very happy about this cooperation :)

 

I would hope they'd always like a beer bribe :D


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can only say that I have seen Bama's working in pairs in games a few times, and they are pretty tough ships, very tough head on, and never got one citadel from my T9 German BB on the broadside...so even without fixes, it seems to be pretty good.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, thank all of you who gave us feedback here and on Reddit, and special thanks to supertesters for running intense tests over weekend :izmena:
And thanks to ship design team who implemented the changes quickly for further testing after long and fruitful discussion. Even without beer bribe.

If it plays out well, I think we all can be very happy about this cooperation :)

 

Excellent news all around. This is the kind of cooperation between community and developers we can be proud of.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Thank you so much for your efforts towards working with the community! This is honestly more than I, and a lot of other people, could have even hoped for in our wildest dreams.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thank you so much for your efforts towards working with the community! This is honestly more than I, and a lot of other people, could have even hoped for in our wildest dreams.

 

Now we can all go to sleep knowing that we won't have nightmares anymore of a Bama with a citadel as tall as the Empire State Building.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now we can all go to sleep knowing that we won't have nightmares anymore of a Bama with a citadel as tall as the Empire State Building.

 

Didn't have nightmares about that anyway....

 

I'll be eager to see the final product though. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Didn't have nightmares about that anyway....

 

I'll be eager to see the final product though. 

 

Neither did I, but from the way a lot of members have been talking on here, it seems like a good portion of them have.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Woohoo!!!


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

:ohmy:

 

I'm honestly stunned.  That is some absolutely incredible news! 

 

Thank you Sub! 


0

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.

 

Ship endurance and volume of fuel tanks has nothing to do with citadel size. Fuel oil storage was often used as a buffer between armour and vital parts of the ship, specifically because it was much easier to shrug off a hit to a fuel tank than to the machinery.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not gonna lie. This makes me really happy. Not just  that Alabama is getting reworked, but the fact that WG is actively listening. To a degree, I think moreso than any other large game like this. It's a good thing. Keep up the great work.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.