Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Big_Spud

Alabama's armor model is already massively in error

734 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

issm    3,165

I'm beginning to think that WG is just trolling USN BB players at this point: They "accidentally" say that Alabama, one of the most highly anticipated ships in the game, will only be released to supertesters. Then, just as people get really angry, they announce that Alabama was "always" going to be available to everyone. This is followed by the announcement of a planned fix to the blatantly incorrect citadel hitbox of high tier USN BBs, finally addressing a persistent complaint from the community. USN BB players are happy! Bama is going to be awesome! The hype is real!

 

And then, with mocking nonchalance, WG releases Bama's specs. The citadel? Still has the old broken hitbox. And the citadel armor? Turns out it's actually worse than the rest of the notoriously fragile high tier USN BBs. I'm not sure whether to be angry or impressed. WG is putting on a masterclass in antagonizing their players.

 

WG didn't say anything.

 

Someone leaked Alabama, and everyone ignored the fact that there were 2 entries and focused only on the ST version.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not capable of modeling in tapered armor?  Did you see the M103 turret armor HD Model?  It has like 100 bands of armor on it.  They can model tapered armor fine, they just cant see a USN ship armored properly.  It would kill them to see a USN BB at the top of the charts.

 

And yeah, the Citadel, its the area below that 12# and to the left of the #25 in that armor grid.  The upper portion, yeah its what?  the barber shop, and other non-Citadel related crap.  Yeah, the armor is [edited], thats for sure.  Its missing all the STS as well.  See how deep inside the ship the citadel actually is.  There is all that material on the outside to have to go through before you ever reach the citadel. 

Edited by KnightFandragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1nv4d3rZ1m    3,419

Hilarious, when it was suggested to add tons of armor to the bow of the Nagato everyone was on board with the buff to correct the armor model. But with the Alabama as with other USN ships, apparently fixing an inaccuracy is bad. 

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 but she'll be slightly more forgiving against heavy cruiser AP whilst angled. And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

Meanwhile cruisers can still be citadeled and loldeleted at any angle by this poor, helpless, underpowered battleship which won't be able to sit broadside on without taking return damage from the cruiser. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big_Spud    2,284

 

Meanwhile cruisers can still be citadeled and loldeleted at any angle by this poor, helpless, underpowered battleship which won't be able to sit broadside on without taking return damage from the cruiser. 

 

Right. So instead you can have a battleship that can't withstand any sort of incoming fire, so the average player sits in the back trying to snipe and then the teams cruisers cry and report the player after they get rolled over by a bunch of Bismarcks. Job done, you've saved cruisers.
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Right. So instead you can have a battleship that can't withstand any sort of incoming fire, so the average player sits in the back trying to snipe and then the teams cruisers cry and report the player after they get rolled over by a bunch of Bismarcks. Job done, you've saved cruisers.

 

Learn to angle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big_Spud    2,284

 

Learn to angle. 

 

Maybe git gud and stop trying to solo battleships with your cruisers. All you achieve by putting in a battleship with weak protection is the continuation of the passive sniping meta, which is the exact reason why Montana and Iowa are having their citadels lowered.
  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
issm    3,165

Right. So instead you can have a battleship that can't withstand any sort of incoming fire, so the average player sits in the back trying to snipe and then the teams cruisers cry and report the player after they get rolled over by a bunch of Bismarcks. Job done, you've saved cruisers.

 

Oh, poor USN victims.

 

Ignoring the fact that NONE of the reviews of Alabama complained about being cit penned by cruisers while angled.

 

ALL of the reviews compared it to an Iowa or Montana: "If you can deal with current Iowa, you'll be fine".

 

It just fails to be as tough as current NC, which has an underwater cit.

 

It's durable enough as it is, and you're asking for it to be made more durable, when WG considers it balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Maybe git gud and stop trying to solo battleships with your cruisers. All you achieve by putting in a battleship with weak protection is the continuation of the passive sniping meta, which is the exact reason why Montana and Iowa are having their citadels lowered.

 

Yeah, buffing an already OP class of ships is going to do wonders for fixing the meta. You guys will still sit in the back, then piss and moan for more buffs because you're still capable of taking any damage at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BGrey    459

 

Oh, poor USN victims.

 

Ignoring the fact that NONE of the reviews of Alabama complained about being cit penned by cruisers while angled.

 

 

So what you are saying is that your objections are pointless and we could make this more historical without upsetting balance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh, poor USN victims.

 

Ignoring the fact that NONE of the reviews of Alabama complained about being cit penned by cruisers while angled.

 

 

 

Flamu did spend most of his video claiming the ship was paper thin garbage, while showing a replay of a pretty good match. He then said he had tons of video proving his claims, but that he wasn't going to show any of it. I guess he either knows that damage was his own fault, or is lying in an attempt to get the ship buffed just like OP.  Edited by RevolutionBlues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
issm    3,165

 

So what you are saying is that your objections are pointless and we could make this more historical without upsetting balance...

 

Wonder how you got from "The ship is balanced and it's not being cit penned by cruisers while angled" to "cool, so we can buff it to be more resistance to BB calibre fire"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big_Spud    2,284

 

Oh, poor USN victims.

 

Ignoring the fact that NONE of the reviews of Alabama complained about being cit penned by cruisers while angled.

 

ALL of the reviews compared it to an Iowa or Montana: "If you can deal with current Iowa, you'll be fine".

 

It just fails to be as tough as current NC, which has an underwater cit.

 

It's durable enough as it is, and you're asking for it to be made more durable, when WG considers it balanced.

 

On the contrary, every single damn one of them pointed out how huge of a citadel magnet it was if you angled even slightly improperly. The 184mm lower belt does make it vulnerable to cruiser guns, but it also makes it EXTREMELY vulnerable to other battleship guns. It has an extremely negative impact on what angle you can safely manage with the ship, even moreso than it currently does on Iowa because THE ARMOR IS EVEN THINNER on the lower section than on Iowa, which maintains 297mm down well below the waterline. Every single video and text review showcased how weak it was when caught even slightly out of position. Several of them showed citadel hits being taken at rather odd angles from other battleships, probably BECAUSE of that exposed 184mm citadel belt armor.

 

Not to be rude to the reviewers, but most of them probably don't go and check each and every individual armor face for accuracy. They just play the ship and assume that WG did it correctly, and aren't any more infallible than the rest of us. Its up to the rest of the people who do care about how thick each and every face is to actually go in and check.

 

Your opinion doesn't somehow invalidate the steps that WG has taken to correct armor model errors found by the community on multiple ships ever since the viewer came into circulation. No matter how much you kick and scream, your opinion =/= WG's actual stance on the matter.

 

And thank god for that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BGrey    459

 

Wonder how you got from "The ship is balanced and it's not being cit penned by cruisers while angled" to "cool, so we can buff it to be more resistance to BB calibre fire"

 

Probably, as I have already mentioned multiple times, because the change would still leave it with the worst resistance to BB fire by a large margin after 6.3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
issm    3,165

Probably, as I have already mentioned multiple times, because the change would still leave it with the worst resistance to BB fire by a large margin after 6.3.

 

And your point is? You could buff Alabama's armour so it was just a fraction of a percent worse than NC's, and it would still be the worst.

 

Alabama has excellent agility. The reviews I've seen all recommend you use that to evade shells rather than try to tank them.

 

On the contrary, every single damn one of them pointed out how huge of a citadel magnet it was if you angled even slightly improperly. The 184mm lower belt does make it vulnerable to cruiser guns, but it also makes it EXTREMELY vulnerable to other battleship guns. It has an extremely negative impact on what angle you can safely manage with the ship, even moreso than it currently does on Iowa because THE ARMOR IS EVEN THINNER on the lower section than on Iowa, which maintains 297mm down well below the waterline. Every single video and text review showcased how weak it was when caught even slightly out of position. Several of them showed citadel hits being taken at rather odd angles from other battleships, probably BECAUSE of that exposed 184mm citadel belt armor.

 

Not to be rude to the reviewers, but most of them probably don't go and check each and every individual armor face for accuracy. They just play the ship and assume that WG did it correctly, and aren't any more infallible than the rest of us. Its up to the rest of the people who do care about how thick each and every face is to actually go in and check.

 

Your opinion doesn't somehow invalidate the steps that WG has taken to correct armor model errors found by the community on multiple ships ever since the viewer came into circulation. No matter how much you kick and scream, your opinion =/= WG's actual stance on the matter.

 

And thank god for that.

 

My "kicking and screaming" might not be changing anything yet, but I sure as hell am not going to stop, until WG adapts fair and consistent principles.

 

To our point, and you know it's that 184mm section of armour making it take cits at all angles? 

 

I mean, if you're eating a cit from the front, a 184mm plate is going to autobounce anything that hits it there anyway.

 

Buffing the armor won't make it any less resistant to "being cit penned from any angle", it'll just make it tougher to cit-pen from the side with 11", 4", and maybe 15" guns, all of which it sees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big_Spud    2,284

 

And your point is? You could buff Alabama's armour so it was just a fraction of a percent worse than NC's, and it would still be the worst.

 

Alabama has excellent agility. The reviews I've seen all recommend you use that to evade shells rather than try to tank them.

 

 

My "kicking and screaming" might not be changing anything yet, but I sure as hell am not going to stop, until WG adapts fair and consistent principles.

 

To our point, and you know it's that 184mm section of armour making it take cits at all angles? 

 

I mean, if you're eating a cit from the front, a 184mm plate is going to autobounce anything that hits it there anyway.

 

Buffing the armor won't make it any less resistant to "being cit penned from any angle", it'll just make it tougher to cit-pen from the side with 11", 4", and maybe 15" guns, all of which it sees.

 

I know that its the damn 184mm plate because I understand the effect of angles on armor effectiveness and high tier gun power well enough to put two and two together that 184mm at an angle is less effective than 305mm at an angle, regardless of what is shooting at it.

 

You can be at an angle where the 310mm upper belt will bounce any gun in the game, but if the shell hits 6 inches lower, it will [edited] through the 184mm belt like it wasn't even there.  If the two plates are being shot at outside of auto-bounce, the 184mm plate will ALWAYS yield before the 305mm plate does. Its not difficult to understand.

 

 

If you want to go kick and scream about WG's "unfair policies", maybe you should go get your own soap box and post a whine thread of your own instead of trying to hijack unrelated ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You keep bringing the Nikolai, and that's a poor example. Thickening a thin belt armor to more realistic values does not a Nikolai make. But oh well, you have your opinion, and I will have mine. I'm just hoping the devs can see what's better.

 

It's a great example. The ship is being release, balanced, as it is.

 

You're asking for a buff with no accompanying nerf. With this much of an armor buff it will possibly be up to Nikolai levels of OP. Hell Gremy isn't even that OP in actuality and they removed it from stores because they could never nerf it. Like the Nikolai they flat out removed it from the store as fast as possible.

 

 

I will assume this is your answer as to how you believe this is a massive buff. I would ask you how making this change invalidates an entire class, do they exist only to citadel the Alabama and without that ability they have no purpose? Again, this is silly and obviously not the case.

 

I am not saying it is not a buff, only that it is not on any scale that necessitates nerfs. I don't think any review has said this is going to be anything but a decent ship and as I have explained there is no reason this change would alter that.

 

 

 

And I am saying that this is a fairly massive buff, that should be accompanied by a fairly massive nerf?

 

What do you have against 0% fire resist anyways? That'd be reasonable compensation considering the loss in AP citadels. Or maybe Kawachi dispersion, so whereas they can no longer hurt you easily, neither can you.

 

Something to compensate for the buff. Anything. As it is now you're just asking for a buff with no consideration that it is a premium and zero acceptance of any nerfs to balance your proposed buff. You need to accept a loss in something, at least be reasonable enough to list what you'd accept. Otherwise your argument is just whiney, regardless of historical backing. I mean I could whine for a torpedo reaction time of ~4 seconds, but I'd get nowhere with it because people don't actually move in this game.

 

 

I guess you've never heard of HE or shooting the super structure with AP. All the change would do would allow for slightly better protection, WHILST ANGLED. 

 

Technically speaking, Alabama is still somewhat worse than NC, simply due to the citadel size, not even counting other factors. Fixing the issue that spud brought up would only slightly lessen that gap, but Alabama would STILL be worse, just due to the fact her cit is taller than the skyline of Manhattan.

 

Doing what spud brought up, would NOT make her the next Nikolai. Several reviews have already said she'll be a very tough ship for newer players or players who don't really get how to play NC and Iowa. Shes been said to be an at best, ever so slightly above average. This "buff" wouldn't change that. She'll still be punished for bad angling with BB caliber guns, but she'll be slightly more forgiving against heavy cruiser AP whilst angled. And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

"Slightly" being 100+ mm protection for the citadel? Yeah, unlikely. It is currently balanced at eating that kind of damage. Remove that and it is now unbalanced. What are you giving others in exchange?

 

There is absolutely everything wrong with removing her vulnerabilities to CAs. That is a vulnerability she is currently balanced against. If you want to remove that you need to decrease her capabilities elsewhere. End of story. Do you guys have zero concepts about balance?

 

Hilarious, when it was suggested to add tons of armor to the bow of the Nagato everyone was on board with the buff to correct the armor model. But with the Alabama as with other USN ships, apparently fixing an inaccuracy is bad. 

 

I am perfectly happey with armor buffs. Frankly we do need more armor in this game to counteract how OP guns get, especially in higher tiers.

 

What I intensely dislike are when all that's proposed are flat buffs and don't come with any form of compensation. In ships with many games, you could argue for that if it is clearly underperforming. But this is an unreleased ship. A premium too. People suggesting flat buffs in this situation are just deluded, quite frankly. Absolutely poor sense of balance.

 

 

Probably, as I have already mentioned multiple times, because the change would still leave it with the worst resistance to BB fire by a large margin after 6.3.

 

What of it? That's before your proposed buff. Meaning you are planning to buff what is already a balanced ship. If you want to buff a balanced ship you need a nerf to accompany it.

 

Suggest something. Or, I'll quote,

 

 What I intensely dislike are when all that's proposed are flat buffs and don't come with any form of compensation. In ships with many games, you could argue for that if it is clearly underperforming. But this is an unreleased ship. A premium too. People suggesting flat buffs in this situation are just deluded, quite frankly. Absolutely poor sense of balance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look. This is the summary.

 

Ship being released is, we can assume, reasonably balanced.

 

You are proposing a massive buff, one that will likely make it overpowered with no accompanying nerfs.

 

You need to suggest traits you are willing to sacrifice in order to have a decent proposal, otherwise if it is even mildly OP like Gremy was on release (and super OP after WG could never nerf it) it'll get pulled from stores faster than Nikolai.

 

I'm sitting here thinking 0% fire resist sounds fairly reasonable for that kinda buff. You are free to suggest otherwise, but you need something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BGrey    459

 

And your point is? You could buff Alabama's armour so it was just a fraction of a percent worse than NC's, and it would still be the worst.

 

Alabama has excellent agility. The reviews I've seen all recommend you use that to evade shells rather than try to tank them.

 

 

And what is your point?

 

You know that this is not buffing Alabama anywhere near NC nor will it remotely remove the need to angle and evade.

 

 

.............

 

I am not sure how you find this reasonable. Is it not obvious that your proposed exchanges would be huge nerfs, not equal trades? How can you complain about anyone's sense of balance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Francois424    512

Every error on ships armor have been fixed in the game... or pretty much all of them, so bringing the armor error to the forum (especially before release) was the good move.

Whether you want it fixed or not is irrelevant and whatever anyone thinks is irrelevant just the same.

 --> If there is an error, it will be fixed by WG.

 --> If they are aware of it and it's "working as intended"TM then it's going to remain as is.

 

Let WG check it out.  Arguing over this isn't worth anybody's time (Save for WG's).

EDIT: Seems I might be wrong on WG fixing most of the armor inconsistencies... so the H*** if I know, lol.
 

Edited by Francois424
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I am not sure how you find this reasonable. Is it not obvious that your proposed exchanges would be huge nerfs, not equal trades? How can you complain about anyone's sense of balance...

 

Yeah, but the key here is you guys don't have anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big_Spud    2,284

Look. This is the summary.

 

Ship being released is, we can assume, reasonably balanced.

 

You are proposing a massive buff, one that will likely make it overpowered with no accompanying nerfs.

 

You need to suggest traits you are willing to sacrifice in order to have a decent proposal, otherwise if it is even mildly OP like Gremy was on release (and super OP after WG could never nerf it) it'll get pulled from stores faster than Nikolai.

 

I'm sitting here thinking 0% fire resist sounds fairly reasonable for that kinda buff. You are free to suggest otherwise, but you need something.

 

You're trying to balance an entirely different game than this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
issm    3,165

I know that its the damn 184mm plate because I understand the effect of angles on armor effectiveness and high tier gun power well enough to put two and two together that 184mm at an angle is less effective than 305mm at an angle, regardless of what is shooting at it.

 

You can be at an angle where the 310mm upper belt will bounce any gun in the game, but if the shell hits 6 inches lower, it will [edited] through the 184mm belt like it wasn't even there.  If the two plates are being shot at outside of auto-bounce, the 184mm plate will ALWAYS yield before the 305mm plate does. Its not difficult to understand.

 

If you want to go kick and scream about WG's "unfair policies", maybe you should go get your own soap box and post a whine thread of your own instead of trying to hijack unrelated ones. 

 

And despite that, WG thinks Alabama is balanced.

 

This is an unwarranted change that violates the principles I judge the game on. It's absolutely related. 

 

This is a specific change that should not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're trying to balance an entirely different game than this one.

 

You mean one where the ship is already going to come out balanced and all I'm seeing from you is, "hey let's buff this ship, which is already coming out balanced as designed, and it'll definitely not be OP. Somehow"

 

I forgot /S, but it seems you aren't using that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Air_0374    5

You guys act like WG's balance is infalable, or that they've never rebalanced tanks or ships after armor changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×