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

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.

 

S_O. I'm starting to like you.

 

:medal:


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

Oil - presumably fuel oil - was used to fill sections of that big-azz torpedo belt.  Since liquid is incompressible, it would transfer the energy away from the point of the strike.

 

 

What would the EPA say now?


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.

 

Oh my God, yes! *pulls out credit card and hits F5 on the premium shop repeatedly until release*


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This ship is gonna be awesome. I honestly don't care if it has a raised citadel or not... It's still gonna eat huge damage from the side. But I loved the NCs maneuverability, and this thing is even better.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, don't get too excited.  We still have the issue of scaling leading to flat trajectories, which the original armor was not really designed for.  But maybe we'll get there too.

 

Spring brings HOPE.

 


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.

 

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 :)

 

This is the best ive ever felt about WG ever.  Nice work. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just to double check, Alabama will have the same citadel height as North Carolina, trivial AA differences but be more maneuverable and with a massively better TDS.

 

So it's absolutely P2W in that configuration?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just to double check, Alabama will have the same citadel height as North Carolina, trivial AA differences but be more maneuverable and with a massively better TDS.

 

So it's absolutely P2W in that configuration?

 

No more P2W than the Texas's massively better AA VS New York, or Indianapolis getting radar when Pensacola doesn't.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just to double check, Alabama will have the same citadel height as North Carolina, trivial AA differences but be more maneuverable and with a massively better TDS.

 

So it's absolutely P2W in that configuration?

 

If by P2W, you mean that Alabama will accurately represent the fact that the South Dakota class was designed to correct some of the deficiencies of the North Carolina class and arguably was a superior ship to begin with, then yes.

 

Besides, is it really P2W if the premium is possibly superior to one of the worst performing battleships in the tier?  I honestly don't see it stomping Bismarck any time soon.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So just to double check, Alabama will have the same citadel height as North Carolina, trivial AA differences but be more maneuverable and with a massively better TDS.

 

So it's absolutely P2W in that configuration?

 

Basically.  People complain about OP ships and game balance, yet what do they clamour for?  That well balanced ships also be OP or they won't open their wallets...

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically.  People complain about OP ships and game balance, yet what do they clamour for?  That well balanced ships also be OP or they won't open their wallets...

 

I mean, I was not interested in Alabama, despite regarding my North Carolina as the most worthy place in the line to stop and keep my top commander. The ship's main draw was its history within the USN, something I couldn't care less for. In other words, it was a viable ship, ideal for collectors and suitable for all.

 

Now? It's looking like Alabama will be worthwhile if I have any intentions of playing USN battleship at T8 in a competitive context. I do hope they leave her citadel high, or reconsider the "buff only" approach to final tweaking. As SeaAdmiral wisely pointed out to me, a lower citadel would synergize with her agility and TDS, so it would be interesting to see her specialized to this role—perhaps by introducing her with reduced accuracy, which would reserve WG's flexibility in balancing the ship. Then if she under-performs, North Carolina and Alabama can both receive a small accuracy buff to keep North Carolina's relative differences intact while shoring up Alabama's performance. If she doesn't under-perform, WG dodges the bullet of "oops another premium which completely eclipses the tech tree."


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Basically.  People complain about OP ships and game balance, yet what do they clamour for?  That well balanced ships also be OP or they won't open their wallets...

 

Or its just a North Carolina with slightly worse AA, less HP, slightly less accurate guns, in exchange for a better TDS and turning circle.

 

It's not magically a Nikolai because of that.


6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Basically.  People complain about OP ships and game balance, yet what do they clamour for?  That well balanced ships also be OP or they won't open their wallets...

 

I think I'm going to just start calling you "issm".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Or its just a North Carolina with slightly worse AA, less HP, slightly less accurate guns, in exchange for a better TDS and turning circle.

 

It's not magically a Nikolai because of that.

 

+10000000 for this

(I'm out of +1)


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or its just a North Carolina with slightly worse AA, less HP, slightly less accurate guns, in exchange for a better TDS and turning circle.

 

It's not magically a Nikolai because of that.

 

Buffing her until none of the downsides are significant (while ensuring the upsides remain so) will not result in a Nikolai situation, but it will certainly result in a premium which obsoletes its tech-tree equivalent. Taking for granted that none of Alabama's downsides will be significant, can you agree that a premium with only upsides is problematic?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If by P2W, you mean that Alabama will accurately represent the fact that the South Dakota class was designed to correct some of the deficiencies of the North Carolina class and arguably was a superior ship to begin with, then yes.

 

Besides, is it really P2W if the premium is possibly superior to one of the worst performing battleships in the tier?  I honestly don't see it stomping Bismarck any time soon.

 

+5000000 for this

(I'm out of +1)


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Buffing her until none of the downsides are significant (while ensuring the upsides remain so) will not result in a Nikolai situation, but it will certainly result in a premium which obsoletes its tech-tree equivalent. Taking for granted that none of Alabama's downsides will be significant, can you agree that a premium with only upsides is problematic?

 

No, I can't agree to that. Its no longer WG's policy to intentionally gimp premiums anymore if you haven't noticed. The last time they did it with a high tier premium was with Prinz Eugen, and people STILL complain about how its just a mediocre copy of Hipper, and it doesn't perform very well either.

 

If you haven't noticed, Texas is a better New York. Indianapolis is a better Pensacola. Missouri is a better Iowa. Arizona is a better New Mexico. Sims is a better Mahan. Konig Albert is a downtiered Kaiser thats OP as [edited]. Scharnhorst is a flat out better ship than Gneisenau. Belfast is a downtiered Edinburgh thats OP as [edited]. Atago is effectively a better Mogami, and Kutuzov is a better Chapayev.

 

Alabama with a lowered citadel will probably SLIGHTLY edge out North Carolina in practical use, but it won't be overpowered.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, I can't agree to that. Its no longer WG's policy to intentionally gimp premiums anymore if you haven't noticed. The last time they did it with a high tier premium was with Prinz Eugen, and people STILL complain about how its just a mediocre copy of Hipper, and it doesn't perform very well either.

 

If you haven't noticed, Texas is a better New York. Indianapolis is a better Pensacola. Missouri is a better Iowa. Arizona is a better New Mexico. Sims is a better Mahan. Konig Albert is a downtiered Kaiser thats OP as [edited]. Scharnhorst is a flat out better ship than Gneisenau. Belfast is a downtiered Edinburgh thats OP as [edited]. Atago is effectively a better Mogami, and Kutuzov is a better Chapayev.

 

Alabama with a lowered citadel will probably SLIGHTLY edge out North Carolina in practical use, but it won't be overpowered.

 

It's never been Wargaming's policy to "gimp" premiums in World of Warships. The devs have commented on this.  The only change in policy they've had was that originally (back in early Alpha), premiums were originally going to be ships that couldn't fit normally into the tech-tree -- really weird ships.  This could be viewed to extend to sister ships, but that's a bit more of a stretch of the original message. 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Buffing her until none of the downsides are significant (while ensuring the upsides remain so) will not result in a Nikolai situation, but it will certainly result in a premium which obsoletes its tech-tree equivalent. Taking for granted that none of Alabama's downsides will be significant, can you agree that a premium with only upsides is problematic?

 

Well, the "equivalents" to compare it to are all the worst performing ships in the game.  So, really, making it "better" then its tech tree equivalent wont make it OP, it will make it on par with the other ships in the game.  You know, like the Bismarck, Amagi and stuff...the ships that are actually winning with good avg dmg and kills.  It wont be deleted in 1 salvo as soon as you make the mistake of AD hacking. 

 

There is the real problem with the Alabama, what its being compared to it already terrible.....so, comparing it to terrible ships means it to will be  terrible.  Gotta go beyond the crapits being compared to. 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Alabama with a lowered citadel will probably SLIGHTLY edge out North Carolina in practical use, but it won't be overpowered.

 

Yeah, making it an improved North Carolina will make it a GOOD ship.  Maybe we can finally have another USN BB thats as good as the Arizona tier for tier.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, making it an improved North Carolina will make it a GOOD ship.  Maybe we can finally have another USN BB thats as good as the Arizona tier for tier.

 

Wouldn't that be Missouri once they lower her citadel?  She can do almost everything Alabama can but better for the USN, only losing out in maneuverability and TDS.

 

And technically cheaper too.


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.

 

Glad you guys are taking good feedback and testing it... Hope it works out. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, I can't agree to that. Its no longer WG's policy to intentionally gimp premiums anymore if you haven't noticed. The last time they did it with a high tier premium was with Prinz Eugen, and people STILL complain about how its just a mediocre copy of Hipper, and it doesn't perform very well either.

 

If you haven't noticed, Texas is a better New York. Indianapolis is a better Pensacola. Missouri is a better Iowa. Arizona is a better New Mexico. Sims is a better Mahan. Konig Albert is a downtiered Kaiser thats OP as [edited]. Scharnhorst is a flat out better ship than Gneisenau. Belfast is a downtiered Edinburgh thats OP as [edited]. Atago is effectively a better Mogami, and Kutuzov is a better Chapayev.

 

Alabama with a lowered citadel will probably SLIGHTLY edge out North Carolina in practical use, but it won't be overpowered.

 

I disagree with a few of your statements.

 

Indianapolis was a Portland class while Pensacola was a Pensacola class. The Pensacola class was succeeded by the Northampton class which was succeeded by the Portland Class which was succeeded by the New Orleans Class.

 

So while it is better than Pensacola (T7) it can't be better than the New Orleans (T8) Its a T7.5 if you will and while Indy has some strengths it does lose 1 round per salvo.

 

Arizona has 356mm/45 while NM has 356mm/50 which I find to make a difference though the armor on the Arizona does slightly better and the range is slightly better but also loses AA.

 

Belfast I think is listed as Edin. class in game but to my knowledge was actually a town class either way it loses British AP for normal AP and rather weak HE. Last I checked it under performs the Fiji slightly.

 

I find Scharny and Gneis perform different roles and the 11" doesn't perform consistently but I can't find it better than Gneis.

 

Atago might be like a better 8" Mogami but I still prefer the 6" Mogami which then comes down to different missions. I like all the extra rounds per salvo and in that case see them as also performing different roles.

 

Haven't played Chapy yet.

 

I agree that Texas is better, Missouri is better and Konig is amazing.

 

This still makes it a long shot from being premiums better than line ships usually its just gimmicks to make them play a little differently. Alabama seems like it will be a more 8 - 15km brawler based on what I have seen on forums and video reviews. NC on the other hand I find better as second line support at 10 - 17km.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Buffs with no Nerfs......someone best go check on ISSM and make sure he didn't stroke out. 


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I can't agree to that. Its no longer WG's policy to intentionally gimp premiums anymore if you haven't noticed. The last time they did it with a high tier premium was with Prinz Eugen, and people STILL complain about how its just a mediocre copy of Hipper, and it doesn't perform very well either.

 

If you haven't noticed, Texas is a better New York. Indianapolis is a better Pensacola. Missouri is a better Iowa. Arizona is a better New Mexico. Sims is a better Mahan. Konig Albert is a downtiered Kaiser thats OP as [edited]. Scharnhorst is a flat out better ship than Gneisenau. Belfast is a downtiered Edinburgh thats OP as [edited]. Atago is effectively a better Mogami, and Kutuzov is a better Chapayev.

 

Alabama with a lowered citadel will probably SLIGHTLY edge out North Carolina in practical use, but it won't be overpowered.

 

 

I disagree with a few of your statements.

 

Indianapolis was a Portland class while Pensacola was a Pensacola class. The Pensacola class was succeeded by the Northampton class which was succeeded by the Portland Class which was succeeded by the New Orleans Class.

 

So while it is better than Pensacola (T7) it can't be better than the New Orleans (T8) Its a T7.5 if you will and while Indy has some strengths it does lose 1 round per salvo.

 

Arizona has 356mm/45 while NM has 356mm/50 which I find to make a difference though the armor on the Arizona does slightly better and the range is slightly better but also loses AA.

 

Belfast I think is listed as Edin. class in game but to my knowledge was actually a town class either way it loses British AP for normal AP and rather weak HE. Last I checked it under performs the Fiji slightly.

 

I find Scharny and Gneis perform different roles and the 11" doesn't perform consistently but I can't find it better than Gneis.

 

Atago might be like a better 8" Mogami but I still prefer the 6" Mogami which then comes down to different missions. I like all the extra rounds per salvo and in that case see them as also performing different roles.

 

Haven't played Chapy yet.

 

I agree that Texas is better, Missouri is better and Konig is amazing.

 

This still makes it a long shot from being premiums better than line ships usually its just gimmicks to make them play a little differently. Alabama seems like it will be a more 8 - 15km brawler based on what I have seen on forums and video reviews. NC on the other hand I find better as second line support at 10 - 17km.

 

 

There's also Mutsu (worse than Nagato, and only even with Fuso despite all the buffs given just to make her work), Marblehead (worse), Oleg (worse), Krispy Kreme (worse and uptiered), and until the IJN DD split, Fujin/Kamikaze/Kami.R (slightly worse then made OP by default and retired).

 

And until they switch around Ishizuchi's gun range and detected by sea ranges, she can count as well.

 

So there's a number of Premiums that are also slightly inferior to their tier equivalents as well.

 

I'm actually hoping the lowered citadel proves not OP; it just makes a stronger case for lowering the Yamato's citadel and restoration of all battleship maneuverability.  Moreso considering that Octavian said that they're hoping the concept will reduce bow-camping play, especially with Alabama, since battleships would also be able to make tight, fast turns like they were designed to.  We'd finally be back to where BBs should have been left at.  Then they can finally start buffing IJN torpedoes again.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.