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

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

 

+100000

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

More +100000

 

(but let's not get too crazy with those torps yo)


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. 

 

:D If I had any more +1s i'd give em

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.

 

This. Alabama would already be fairly balanced with a waterline citadel. At least now we'll be able to play to her strengths.

 

It'd like comparing New Mexico to Arizona. One has more accurate guns and slightly better armor, while the other has guns with better penetration and better AA. Neither Arizona or Alabama would be OP like Nikolai or Gremy. Even Kutuzov, also at tier 8, would be considered more OP than waterline citadel Alabama.


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. 

 

Im pretty damn sure thats why we havent heard from them all day. 

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. 

 

Idgaf how many days left we have in 2017, this qualifies as best comment of the year!!!! :D


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Icon Name Tier Type Nation Battles WR ▼ Dmg XP K/D Sh☠ Pl☠ Srv MBH TH
           
PGSB108.png Bismarck 8 BB   1,198,847 52.36% 61,687 1,345 1.5 0.9 2.1 36% 28% 0%
PJSB013.png Amagi 8 BB   1,396,232 51.72% 58,876 1,241 1.6 0.9 2.0 45% 24% 0%
PGSB002.png Tirpitz 8 BB   2,509,916 49.61% 50,022 1,303 1.2 0.7 1.7 39% 25% 9%
PASB012.png North Carolina 8 BB   2,901,127 49.33% 50,320 1,171 1.3 0.7 2.9 41% 23% 0%

 

Honestly guys, I don't think it will be game breaking considering what its tech-tree equivalent is doing.....

Edited by Airbane425

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Im pretty damn sure thats why we havent heard from them all day. 

 

He's been hiding over in the CV threads. What else is new...


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

Ill say no to the Missouri, since the Mo is either a huge grind wall or a huge paycheck. 

 

Alabama, unless im mistaken, will just be in the premium shop to purchase.  Honestly, I wish they let us play the thing on PTS before we decided if we wanted to buy it.  If they do in fact lower its citadel, I prolly would have to nab it. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Icon Name Tier Type Nation Battles WR ▼ Dmg XP K/D Sh☠ Pl☠ Srv MBH TH
           
PGSB108.png Bismarck 8 BB   1,198,847 52.36% 61,687 1,345 1.5 0.9 2.1 36% 28% 0%
PJSB013.png Amagi 8 BB   1,396,232 51.72% 58,876 1,241 1.6 0.9 2.0 45% 24% 0%
PGSB002.png Tirpitz 8 BB   2,509,916 49.61% 50,022 1,303 1.2 0.7 1.7 39% 25% 9%
PASB012.png North Carolina 8 BB   2,901,127 49.33% 50,320 1,171 1.3 0.7 2.9 41% 23% 0%

 

Honestly guys, I don't think it will be game breaking considering what its tech-tree equivalent is doing.....

 

Yeah, if it ends up falling somewhere between the Amagi and Tirpitz, we can call that a good day.  If it falls between the Bismarck and Amagi, we can call that a success and finally claim the USN has a truly GOOD Battleship.  Well, besides the AZ.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More +100000

 

(but let's not get too crazy with those torps yo)

 

WG is already going crazy with the torps.

 

After trying to defend their pointless nerfing of IJN torpedoes, they then go and release Shiratsuyu, capable of putting up a wall of 16 torpedoes.

 

Then they release Robotnik, which while the torps only have a short range, is able to output what, 12 fish in short order with almost no way to dodge them?

 

All the need to do now is release Kitakami, then unnerf battleship maneuverability, and finally unnerf IJN torpedoes, so that pure potatoes in the high tiers can actually be sent back to port faster or forced to downgrade tiers to rebuild their silver reserves.

 

Then start buffing IJN cruisers with more torp options.


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.

 

Just because South Dakota's were supposed to succeed the North Carolina's doesn't mean they need to be better in this game as implemented at the same tier. If it were so much better then you could argue for making it T9... but don't do that.

 

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.

 

WG said after 4 rounds of testing (and most reviews agreed) that the ship was strong but balanced by the high citadel. By removing that one flaw either WG and the reviewers were mistaken and it was bad before, or it will now stray into 'too good' territory. The differences between them are somewhat up to the individual to weight - is AA worth much when there are f-all CV's in game and it's still superb? Is maneuverability always worthwhile? Is a 49% vs 19% TDS modifier significant if you may never take torpedoes at all, may still flood and TDS doesn't cover the whole ship? Is a 1.8 vs 1.9 sigma relevant?

 

Besides, is it really P2W if the premium is possibly superior to one of the worst performing battleships in the tier?

 

I don't think North Carolina is as bad as the stats suggest. She certainly beats Tirpitz despite having a bad stock grind. Amagi is and always has been strong. Bismarck looks good on paper but - in competitive gaming:

- 4 North Carolina's, 1 Bismarck, 1 Tirpitz

- 2 North Carolina's, 1 Bismarck, 1 Amagi

- 3 North Carolina's, 1 Amagi

 

I think there's a case that North Carolina is actually a fine ship just difficult to use and possibly still stained by her prior reputation with lower sigma and worse aft turret traverse. I don't think she's crap at all.

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

 

 

Those are not necessarily 'good things' either though, and at least the ships are different if better or worse. The differences between this proposed Alabama and North Carolina are pretty slim aside from the 30% better TDS. Scharnhorst may be better than Gneisenau (on which I agree) but at least she's better while being different.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

WG is already going crazy with the torps.

 

After trying to defend their pointless nerfing of IJN torpedoes, they then go and release Shiratsuyu, capable of putting up a wall of 16 torpedoes.

 

Then they release Robotnik, which while the torps only have a short range, is able to output what, 12 fish in short order with almost no way to dodge them?

 

All the need to do now is release Kitakami, then unnerf battleship maneuverability, and finally unnerf IJN torpedoes, so that pure potatoes in the high tiers can actually be sent back to port faster or forced to downgrade tiers to rebuild their silver reserves.

 

Yeah, they need to reduce the torp spam...dear god.  PVE is over in a matter of seconds cuz 4 cruisers, 2 destroyers and a German BB roll forward and torp spam everything before my NC even gets in the action.....that or they all die from failed torp runs and im stuck facing off against 5 ships...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then they can finally start buffing IJN torpedoes again.

 

That's a nice thought but you know they won't.

 

 

v689vn.jpg

 

Man I have to wonder if even half of the chimpanzees who scream "NO KITAKAMI EVER" even played a game with one on their team. It was not anywhere near as bad as the claims, even with a 3-Kitakami division.

Edited by Destroyer_Kiyoshimo

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That's a nice thought but you know they won't.

 

 

Man I have to wonder if even half of the chimpanzees who scream "NO KITAKAMI EVER" even played a game with one on their team. It was not anywhere near as bad as the claims, even with a 3-Kitakami division.

 

I certainly did and it was an absolute menace to anyone on it's team. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Man I have to wonder if even half of the chimpanzees who scream "NO KITAKAMI EVER" even played a game with one on their team. It was not anywhere near as bad as the claims, even with a 3-Kitakami division.

 

It was EXACTLY as bad as its made out to be, you're just delusional.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I have to wonder if even half of the chimpanzees who scream "NO KITAKAMI EVER" even played a game with one on their team. It was not anywhere near as bad as the claims, even with a 3-Kitakami division.

 

In CBT, i was exposed to more than enough evidence to conclude that the Kitakami does NOT need to be available to the "Average Joe". Now, if they made it an exclusive reward, similar to Flint or maybe even like Missouri, then having it re-added wouldn't be too terrible. At least more experienced players would be driving it. But letting potatoes potentially get their hands on a Kitakami would almost certainly spell disaster for the rest of their team.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kitakami?  Basically the Movie Battleship Alien ships with their peg launchers?  I can imagine thats kinda how it was...so mcuh crapin the water you cant possible WASD through it, then BOOM....


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...

 

I think the vast majority of people didn't want an OP Alabama, what they wanted was a ship with a more clearly defined role from which you could play around. Most people I think didn't want a straight buffing of citadel placement without any other changes, but again as you yourself mentioned sacrificing other aspects of the ship would make people unhappy too. So they aren't going to change any of that either. 

 

The problem with the original Alabama was that it was a ship that wasn't anything more than her components, in that she did not have a clearly defined role and place in the battlefield to which you worked to get a win condition for. She had good strengths and defined weaknesses, however her weaknesses detract and make it hard to use her strengths, to the point where people were rightfully confused where she belonged in the battlefield.

 

In front of the NC in a battle line to be the one to absorb torp hits? She can't back out at all and thus has to be a bit more conservative whenever more than one BB is on the field (a majority of the time). Behind the NC? Her worse accuracy and other soft stats make her perform worse than the NC in this regard, and her maneuverability and TDS are largely wasted here except vs carriers. Behind NC until she can push up? She can't push in except when there are no BBs, and she has no tools to force that situation to ever happen. You can also choose to bow tank and not die to cits, but not use your TDS, or you can maneuver and eventually get blindsided by a BB, possibly concealment built. Her tools are mainly "oh I needed to do this anyway and can do it better now" rather than anything the player worked to achieve as a win condition, all the while having to constantly worry about her one weakness. The ship would seem like you play more to avoid your weakness instead of trying to accentuate your strength, and even if the ship was perfectly fine it took a lot of effort to use for situational, little benefit over other options.

 

If the ship simply entered original testing with say minus 5-7% TDS, a lowered citadel + taper, 1.8 sigma, and possibly (if needed for balance) a 1-2 second rudder shift or gun reload nerf it would be fairly well balanced with a defined role and most people would have been happy. It would have a defined niche (CQC NC that is worse at being a generalist) where you were more focused on bringing out the strengths rather than worrying about the weaknesses, because her gameplay patterns merge both. She would not be an NC clone because her fundamental gameplay pattern would be sufficiently different enough compared to the NC, to the point where there would have been a clearer distinction between these two than there was New Mex vs Arizona, and you could definitively see whether an NC or Alabama would have been better in a certain situation/match up. Now that they've already tested it with really strong strengths counteracted by an almost equally detracting weakness, people don't want to let go of even a bit of the former to address the latter. For the record the example balancing in this paragraph was what I personally advocated. (Edit: You could say that this iteration is less gimmicky, which if I recall from another topic was a concern of many)

 

I would hesitate to accuse people of ONLY wanting overpowered premiums because it turns a complex balancing situation into an attack. There exists better solutions, and the complaints about the ship were valid from multiple perspectives, and many were willing to adjust the ship downward in other aspects in order to address these issues. However you yourself have said that these strengths you absolutely do not want to be adjusted downward, and WG is aware of such sentiment, and therefore takes the option of pissing the least amount of people off from now on by releasing an Alabama that likely might be slightly stronger than ideal on release. (which still has a group of people now disliking a very strong premium release)

Edited by SeaAdmiral

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kitakami?  Basically the Movie Battleship Alien ships with their peg launchers?  I can imagine thats kinda how it was...so mcuh crapin the water you cant possible WASD through it, then BOOM....

 

That's one way of putting it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kitakami?  Basically the Movie Battleship Alien ships with their peg launchers?  I can imagine thats kinda how it was...so mcuh crapin the water you cant possible WASD through it, then BOOM....

 

It got even worse if one of the dang things survived until half-way into a match.  You'd be fighting someone at a cap, sink them and then go on to win the cap and suddenly from behind you, 20 torpedoes when they were aiming at the cruiser 10km in front of you.

 

You'd have Kitakami's 15km away from battles dumping torps and hitting teammates on the other side of the freaking map. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kitakami?  Basically the Movie Battleship Alien ships with their peg launchers?  I can imagine thats kinda how it was...so mcuh crapin the water you cant possible WASD through it, then BOOM....

 

And then you blow it out of the water because it has a 12km detection range, 12km torpedo range, and is literally a tier 4 Kuma in tier 8.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the vast majority of people didn't want an OP Alabama, what they wanted was a ship with a more clearly defined role from which you could play around. Most people I think didn't want a straight buffing of citadel placement without any other changes, but again as you yourself mentioned sacrificing other aspects of the ship would make people unhappy too. So they aren't going to change any of that either. 

 

The problem with the original Alabama was that it was a ship that wasn't anything more than her components, in that she did not have a clearly defined role and place in the battlefield to which you worked to get a win condition for. She had good strengths and defined weaknesses, however her weaknesses detract and make it hard to use her strengths, to the point where people were rightfully confused where she belonged in the battlefield.

 

In front of the NC in a battle line to be the one to absorb torp hits? She can't back out at all and thus has to be a bit more conservative whenever more than one BB is on the field (a majority of the time). Behind the NC? Her worse accuracy and other soft stats make her perform worse than the NC in this regard, and her maneuverability and TDS are largely wasted here except vs carriers. Behind NC until she can push up? She can't push in except when there are no BBs, and she has no tools to force that situation to ever happen. You can also choose to bow tank and not die to cits, but not use your TDS, or you can maneuver and eventually get blindsided by a BB, possibly concealment built. Her tools are mainly "oh I needed to do this anyway and can do it better now" rather than anything the player worked to achieve as a win condition, all the while having to constantly worry about her one weakness. The ship would seem like you play more to avoid your weakness instead of trying to accentuate your strength, and even if the ship was perfectly fine it took a lot of effort to use for situational, little benefit over other options.

 

If the ship simply entered original testing with say minus 5-7% TDS, a lowered citadel + taper, 1.8 sigma, and possibly (if needed for balance) a 1-2 second rudder shift or gun reload nerf it would be fairly well balanced with a defined role and most people would have been happy. It would have a defined niche (CQC NC that is worse at being a generalist) where you were more focused on bringing out the strengths rather than worrying about the weaknesses, because her gameplay patterns merge both. She would not be an NC clone because her fundamental gameplay pattern would be sufficiently different enough compared to the NC, to the point where there would have been a clearer distinction between these two than there was New Mex vs Arizona, and you could definitively see whether an NC or Alabama would have been better in a certain situation/match up. Now that they've already tested it with really strong strengths counteracted by an almost equally detracting weakness, people don't want to let go of even a bit of the former to address the latter. For the record the example balancing in this paragraph was what I personally advocated. (Edit: You could say that this iteration is less gimmicky, which if I recall from another topic was a concern of many)

 

I would hesitate to accuse people of ONLY wanting overpowered premiums because it turns a complex balancing situation into an attack. There exists better solutions, and the complaints about the ship were valid from multiple perspectives, and many were willing to adjust the ship downward in other aspects in order to address these issues. However you yourself have said that these strengths you absolutely do not want to be adjusted downward, and WG is aware of such sentiment, and therefore takes the option of pissing the least amount of people off from now on by releasing an Alabama that likely might be slightly stronger than ideal on release. (which still has a group of people now disliking a very strong premium release)

 

Ill take any Battleship that I have to worry less about "postion" and more just about shooting, taking hits and being, well, you know, a BAttleship.  THe whole tight rope walking game of "dont get scratched or die" belongs in the arms ofthe Cruisers and Destroyers.  Battleships shouldnt need to be sitting back worrying about that so much. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ill take any Battleship that I have to worry less about "postion" and more just about shooting, taking hits and being, well, you know, a BAttleship.  THe whole tight rope walking game of "dont get scratched or die" belongs in the arms ofthe Cruisers and Destroyers.  Battleships shouldnt need to be sitting back worrying about that so much. 

 

Except they do, and whine about torpedoes and planes the whole time despite being the ships best equipped to reduce damage from both.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.