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

Big_Spud    2,284

 

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.

 

You're approaching it as every ship is balanced with all the others already and they need to automatically change something for the worse if it is made better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this threat, there's only two guys all gung-ho over this small proposed buff. Everyone else is in here agrees this purposed correction would be a plus.

 

But hey, small vocal minority FTW! No one cares about the silent majority :B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Thing is a premium. Makes arguing this much more important (Barring the premium nerf precedent that is upcoming.) If you want risk it being removed not two months into the game, sure. Go ahead. I'm sure the supertesters would be happy their exclusive ships stay theirs only.

 

 

You're approaching it as every ship is balanced with all the others already and they need to automatically change something for the worse if it is made better.

 

You're assuming a massive 100+mm buff to armor wouldn't change balance whatsoever or make it immune to stuff it was formerly vulnerable to, when it was balanced around being vulnerable vs that to begin with.

 

Oh wait I forgot /s again. Are you using that?

 

In this threat, there's only two guys all gung-ho over this small proposed buff. Everyone else is in here agrees this purposed correction would be a plus.

 

But hey, small vocal minority FTW! No one cares about the silent majority :B

 

Silent Majority gets referenced a lot on these forums. It's an euphemism for Potato. Just fyi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big_Spud    2,284

 

 

You're assuming a massive 100+mm buff to armor wouldn't change balance whatsoever or make it immune to stuff it was formerly vulnerable to, when it was balanced around being vulnerable vs that to begin with.

 

Oh wait I forgot /s again. Are you using that?

 

 

Silent Majority gets referenced a lot on these forums. It's an euphemism for Potato. Just fyi.

 

You want to keep insulting people, go right on ahead. I'll point out again that changes like this have been made before without any counter-nerf being made.

 

The universe has yet to collapse as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You want to keep insulting people, go right on ahead. I'll point out again that changes like this have been made before without any counter-nerf being made.

 

The universe has yet to collapse as a result.

 

I suggest you ignore him. He already made his point. You won't get anywhere with this one :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all just boils down to we're talkin' about armor on a USN BB.  This community is allergic to making anything US even remotely close to "good".  The US, even in WoT is the "GitGud" faction, instead of actually having anything that is innately good.  Same here, they over nerf the [edited]out of it, then claim its UP, it performs like crap, outside the few players who manage to meta [edited]the [edited]out of it, and make it work, but its still actually really bad.

 

The US in this game is akin to cutting your steak with a butter knife, if you do it right, or work really hard at it, sure, you can cut a steak with a butter knife.  But for the majority of people, we would MUCH rather just be given a goddamn steak knife, which would do the job MUCH better.  PROPERLY armoring up the USN ships wouldnt make them OP.  It would make them all tough enough to be played like a Battleship and NOT be deleted like a phat [edited]cruiser every time you turn around(literally).  It would make them strong enough that you can push, pull, fall back, hold, fight and play the game without worry of being randomly 1 shot.  You can focus more on PLAYING THE GAME and less on having to dance to the beat of your enemy's drums as you try to tip toe through the tulips between all the citadel hits. 

 

The USN ships are excessively frustrating and stupid to play.  They require a playstyle that simply doesnt belong on that class of ship. 

 

50mm of STS across the ship, a smaller citadel, the proper armor belt, all of it would culminate, not in an OP ship, but rather a ship that is on par with its contemporaries, in it's role as a front line battleship.  It wont make it immune to citadels, it wont make it a god ship that cant die, it would just make it much more in line with the Bismarck in terms of toughness.  You still need to angle, your still gunna take damage, but it wont be the [edited]LOL -63,300 cuz lol 2 seconds of broadside....

 

You all whine and [edited]that your BBs are in the back, its cuz they know they can be deleted at any moment.  People get in BBs cuz they want something  they can FIGHT, TAKE HITS and BRAWL with.  Just like when I take a TANK class in an MMO.  I get a TANK class cuz I wanna be the one in the front TAKING THE HITS.  BUt people in thisgame get in a USN BB and find out, well, [edited], this thing is made out of butter, so I cant brawl in it.  You cant play it like a Battleship, so they sit in the back, like USN ships are supposed to, and just snipe. 

 

You all wanna end the BB camping, you fix the armor.  As people realize USN BBs can reliably wade into battle and take and dish hits you will see the camping in the back gradually go away. 

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all just boils down to we're talkin' about armor on a USN BB.  This community is allergic to making anything US even remotely close to "good".  The US, even in WoT is the "GitGud" faction, instead of actually having anything that is innately good.  Same here, they over nerf the [edited]out of it, then claim its UP, it performs like crap, outside the few players who manage to meta [edited]the [edited]out of it, and make it work, but its still actually really bad.

 

The US in this game is akin to cutting your steak with a butter knife, if you do it right, or work really hard at it, sure, you can cut a steak with a butter knife.  But for the majority of people, we would MUCH rather just be given a goddamn steak knife, which would do the job MUCH better.  PROPERLY armoring up the USN ships wouldnt make them OP.  It would make them all tough enough to be played like a Battleship and NOT be deleted like a phat [edited]cruiser every time you turn around(literally).  It would make them strong enough that you can push, pull, fall back, hold, fight and play the game without worry of being randomly 1 shot.  You can focus more on PLAYING THE GAME and less on having to dance to the beat of your enemy's drums as you try to tip toe through the tulips between all the citadel hits. 

 

The USN ships are excessively frustrating and stupid to play.  They require a playstyle that simply doesnt belong on that class of ship. 

 

50mm of STS across the ship, a smaller citadel, the proper armor belt, all of it would culminate, not in an OP ship, but rather a ship that is on par with its contemporaries, in it's role as a front line battleship.  It wont make it immune to citadels, it wont make it a god ship that cant die, it would just make it much more in line with the Bismarck in terms of toughness.  You still need to angle, your still gunna take damage, but it wont be the [edited]LOL -63,300 cuz lol 2 seconds of broadside....

 

You all whine and [edited]that your BBs are in the back, its cuz they know they can be deleted at any moment.  People get in BBs cuz they want something  they can FIGHT, TAKE HITS and BRAWL with.  Just like when I take a TANK class in an MMO.  I get a TANK class cuz I wanna be the one in the front TAKING THE HITS.  BUt people in thisgame get in a USN BB and find out, well, [edited], this thing is made out of butter, so I cant brawl in it.  You cant play it like a Battleship, so they sit in the back, like USN ships are supposed to, and just snipe. 

 

You all wanna end the BB camping, you fix the armor.  As people realize USN BBs can reliably wade into battle and take and dish hits you will see the camping in the back gradually go away. 

 

 

 

I don't mind an armor buff. As mentioned before more armor to counteract how OP guns are is good.

 

I oppose mindless buffing, especially to a premium. The ship being released "as is" is balanced. Introducting a buff would naturally make it unbalanced, no matter how small.

 

If people would at least make concessions, yeah, a reasonable buff could be acceptable. But nope, people suggesting this are not even willing to entertain a nerf, which goes to show how little they know of balance.

 

 

You want to keep insulting people, go right on ahead. I'll point out again that changes like this have been made before without any counter-nerf being made.

 

The universe has yet to collapse as a result.

 

Those were with established ships, with server stats and everything. This is with a ship built balanced, as is or as close as it will with supertester input. You don't just suggest a buff without something to counteract it, not unless you have proof it is already underperforming.

 

What I find weird is your constant dodging of the fundamental question. What are you willing to trade for this buff? It has to be something, if you want to sound even somewhat reasonable at balance. I would suggest something big, or just a flat universal nerf to all other forms of performance. Slapping 100mm extra armor at the waterline massively reduces the capabilities of flanking cruisers. And if you're saying adapt, I will return it right to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about guns is, its irrelevant how good the guns are when your to dead to put them to use cuz your ship couldnt take the hits to dish any damage. 

 

When you make the armor so situational that you gotta spend so much time either avoiding fire, not taking shots to reposition, turning away to angle, and having to spend so much time worrying about simply staying alive, it completely makes the "OP guns", completely pointless.  It doesnt balance out, it invalidates. 

 

Kinda the same with its 50% TDS, its pointless since the general notion is AVOID torps, not get hit by them. 

 

As for 16 inch SHS guns, yeah OP they are not.  They are so slow, and so RNG they sure arent OP at all.  The 14 inch on the Arizona is more OP then the 16 SHS.  That 16 is so good it overpens and ricochets off everything.  It deviates wide, short, long, left, right, everywhere but the target.  Then its so SLOW in the velocity the Habakkuk can avoid them without any issue.  Nevermind trying to hit a cruiser beyond 5km away....

 

WG needs to lose the huge USN Citadel woody for all their ships. 

Edited by KnightFandragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing about guns is, its irrelevant how good the guns are when your to dead to put them to use cuz your ship couldnt take the hits to dish any damage. 

 

When you make the armor so situational that you gotta spend so much time either avoiding fire, not taking shots to reposition, turning away to angle, and having to spend so much time worrying about simply staying alive, it completely makes the "OP guns", completely pointless.  It doesnt balance out, it invalidates. 

 

Kinda the same with its 50% TDS, its pointless since the general notion is AVOID torps, not get hit by them. 

 

WG needs to lose the huge USN Citadel woody for all their ships. 

 

Heyyyyy, you know that sounds exactly what cruisers feel like whenever they play. The ship is currently balanced around this.

 

Know what the typical response is from BB players?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Heyyyyy, you know that's exactly what cruisers feel like whenever they play. Know what the typical response is from BB players?

 

Yeah, the only response anyone gives in this game is "gitgud".  I give alot more then that.  I come up with solutions that could SOLVE the problems on all sides.  gitgud is for the epeener elitist [edited]who only see it from their meta [edited]point of view. 

 

I dont play cruisers in this game cuz they are so soft they are truly USELESS ships.  DDs are atleast fast and small enough to avoid fire.  But even they dont have nearly enough hitpoints. 

Edited by KnightFandragon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big_Spud    2,284

 

I don't mind an armor buff. As mentioned before more armor to counteract how OP guns are is good.

 

I oppose mindless buffing, especially to a premium. The ship being released "as is" is balanced. Introducting a buff would naturally make it unbalanced, no matter how small.

 

If people would at least make concessions, yeah, a reasonable buff could be acceptable. But nope, people suggesting this are not even willing to entertain a nerf, which goes to show how little they know of balance.

 

Point to any one area here where the ship is over-performing that would need to be adjusted in order to counteract the armor being fixed.

 

Is it the fastest? No.

Does it have the thickest armor, even after the fix? No.

Does it have the best guns? No.

Does it have the best range? No.

Does it have the most HP? No.

Does it have the best AA? No.

Does it have the best concealment? No.

Does it have the best secondaries? No.

Does it have a small citadel? No.

 

What it does have is the best TDS value and the best turning circle in tier. Thats it. Countering those two distinct advantages in an otherwise mediocre ship, is the already weakest citadel in tier (soon to be in the entire game) of any battleship. It doesn't also need the armor model to be bugged in order for it to be balanced properly. Even if it is corrected, the ship doesn't magically displace any other from its role as determined by Wargaming. None of the other buffs applied to any other ship without a counteractive nerf have broken the game as of yet. All of the other inbuilt disadvantages still fully apply, and it would take a hell of a lot more than making the lower belt correct to push the ship into needing a nerf as a tradeoff in some aspect, unless you can provide some concrete proof that it would. 

 

Otherwise its literally just "my opinion>your opinion".

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

-snip

 

...Is the reason that you want the Alabama to underperform so much something to do with the TDS it has, and you being a DD main? I mean, you seem to be oddly passionate about hating this ship :aqua:
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Point to any one area here where the ship is over-performing that would need to be adjusted in order to counteract the armor being fixed.

 

Is it the fastest? No.

Does it have the thickest armor, even after the fix? No.

Does it have the best guns? No.

Does it have the best range? No.

Does it have the most HP? No.

Does it have the best AA? No.

Does it have the best concealment? No.

Does it have the best secondaries? No.

Does it have a small citadel? No.

 

What it does have is the best TDS value and the best turning circle in tier. Thats it. Countering those two distinct advantages in an otherwise mediocre ship, is the already weakest citadel in tier (soon to be in the entire game) of any battleship. It doesn't also need the armor model to be bugged in order for it to be balanced properly. Even if it is corrected, the ship doesn't magically displace any other from its role as determined by Wargaming. All of the other inbuilt disadvantages still fully apply, and it would take a hell of a lot more than making the lower belt correct than to push the ship into needed a nerf as a tradeoff in some aspect.

 

Then make it a mediocre ship? You know people will still buy it.

 

I don't care if it's not overperforming in any one stat. It is balanced around that. Buffing it without an accompanying nerf is unjustified regardless of historical armor.

 

You can't have something for nothing, at least not without server stats for proof. If it needs a buff after release? Fine, you can implement the armor buff. Until then no way, your proposal will simply make it overpowered on release, then get subsequently removed from the store like the Nikolai/Gremy.

 

If you want the buff, suggest a nerf. What's so hard about that, seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...Is the reason that you want the Alabama to underperform so much something to do with the TDS it has, and you being a DD main? I mean, you seem to be oddly passionate about hating this ship :aqua:

 

Lol, im sure alot of the people who are opposed to the USN ships getting proper citadels are ccruiser or DD mains who would hate to lose their HE/Torp XP Pinatas.  People like Eurobeat would lose their source of cool, funny videos of lol 1 shot T8 BB from 28km.  Yeah, cant have the USN being GOOD ships. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...Is the reason that you want the Alabama to underperform so much something to do with the TDS it has, and you being a DD main? I mean, you seem to be oddly passionate about hating this ship :aqua:

 

No, I want people to be bloody reasonable when suggesting changes to untested ships. Especially if they're premium ships. WG has the current stats for it now because it has tested them as balanced. AS IT IS NOW. Any changes will naturally require counter changes in some other aspect of the ship. It's only natural to balancing. You can only say "buff this" with no accompanying nerfs once we have public statistics as a foundation.

 

How in the world do I need to explain this to people? Do people have no concept of balance?

 

 

Yeah, the only response anyone gives in this game is "gitgud".  I give alot more then that.  I come up with solutions that could SOLVE the problems on all sides.  gitgud is for the epeener elitist [edited]who only see it from their meta [edited]point of view. 

 

I dont play cruisers in this game cuz they are so soft they are truly USELESS ships.  DDs are atleast fast and small enough to avoid fire.  But even they dont have nearly enough hitpoints. 

 

No a proper proposal that would solve problems on all sides would be to universally nerf guns to tier 3 level dispersion or scale them to Cleveland shell flight time. That models either tier 3 gameplay where we have almost none of our current complaints, or Cleveland which operates very well as a tier 8 ship in tier 6 because of that flight time (great because no amount of gun scaling like DPM or dispersion will change Cleveland's effective range.)

 

That, would solve the problems on all sides, regardless of how unpopular it is.

 

Supporting this armor buff with no accompanying nerf is just blatant buffing to an already tested for balance ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Air_0374    5

Nobody is saying to have this changed for release. All that is needed is for WG to acknowledge the inaccuracy and test the change internally, just like every other armor change they've made before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is saying to have this changed for release. All that is needed is for WG to acknowledge the inaccuracy and test the change internally, just like every other armor change they've made before.

 

And they would subsequently have to garbage something else in exchange, since +100mm armor at the waterline is not exactly small.

 

What I want is for people to at least acknowledge this and then provide suggestions as to what they're willing to give up in exchange.

 

I say garbage fire resist. I'm saying this primarily to get bristling comments. You can and should argue against it, but you need to offer a comparable nerf in exchange. Can't just have buffs when the ship is coming out balanced as it is. Especially since, as a premium, future nerfs will be difficult to do.

Edited by Naughtius_Maximus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big_Spud    2,284

 

Until then no way, your proposal will simply make it overpowered on release, then get subsequently removed from the store like the Nikolai/Gremy.

 

How. Lay out the actual concrete reasons why it would need to be so. The Bismarck would still be the better brawler. The NC still the better mid range stealth donkey-punch ship. The Tirpitz the better facepunch torpedo battleship, and the Amagi the better high speed skirmisher. What would change.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Air_0374    5

 

And they would subsequently have to garbage something else in exchange, since +100mm armor at the waterline is not exactly small.

 

YES, HENCE "test the change internally." 

 

Its like "Hey this ship's armor is inaccurate, lets implement it in supertest like every other armor change we've done before and if it needs adjustment afterwards we shall do so." There's your golden WG balance for you.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How. Lay out the actual concrete reasons why it would need to be so. The Bismarck would still be the better brawler. The NC still the better mid range stealth donkey-punch ship. The Tirpitz the better facepunch torpedo battleship, and the Amagi the better high speed skirmisher. What would change.

 

Again, doesn't matter. Just make it even worse in one or multiple areas. Your buff is reasonable. You just need to pair it with a nerf.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big_Spud    2,284

 

Again, doesn't matter. Just make it even worse in one or multiple areas. Your buff is reasonable. You just need to pair it with a nerf.

 

 

 

 

It does matter. Explain your damn reasoning in a manner that actually applies to the situation at hand that isn't just unfounded theory-crafting.

 

I've explained mine and presented evidence to support it. You have yet to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

YES, HENCE "test the change internally." 

 

Its like "Hey this ship's armor is inaccurate, lets implement it in supertest like every other armor change we've done before and if it needs adjustment afterwards we shall do so." There's your golden WG balance for you.

 

HENCE, why talking about their inevitable compensating nerfs is healthy for the game.

 

Do you want to be the JPZE-100 players back in WoT? They asked us what we wanted when they were designing that thing. We could have gotten an upgraded version of the Jagdtiger's gun, but nope. Potatoes, I mean the Silent Majority, wanted the biggest caliber (gotta be bigger than Object 704) and most armored thing on the field. That's it. All they wanted. Zero talk about the nerfs it would cost to keep that balanced at tier 10.

 

And that's exactly what we got. I don't know about you but up until Japanese heavies when I left, the JpzE-100 was one of the cruelest jokes ever played on the forum German fans in the forum.

Edited by Naughtius_Maximus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It does matter. Explain your damn reasoning in a manner that actually applies to the situation at hand that isn't just unfounded theory-crafting.

 

I've explained mine and presented evidence to support it. You have yet to do the same.

 

You've presented what, all the parts that make it balanced as it is currently?

 

And then you want a buff with nothing to compensate for it.

 

I've already given suggestions. Garbage the fire resist, since buffing the armor will make it nearly immune to cruiser AP cits that it is currently balanced against. You can certainly suggest something else, but yeah, needs to be a substantial nerf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big_Spud    2,284

 

You've presented what, all the parts that make it balanced as it is currently?

 

And then you want a buff with nothing to compensate for it.

 

I've already given suggestions. Garbage the fire resist, since buffing the armor will make it nearly immune to cruiser AP cits that it is currently balanced against. You can certainly suggest something else, but yeah, needs to be a substantial nerf.

 

For the love of god, NO BATTLESHIP IN THE GAME IS BALANCED AROUND A CRUISERS ABILITY TO CITPEN IT AT 14 KILOMETERS. Errors larger than this have slipped by WG on many occasions, my favorite one was when Moskva was released with a massive 0mm thick section of citadel armor on its belt that let any gun in the game citpen it from any angle. That bug made it through multiple rounds of internal testing and into release before the players figured it out, and yet nothing else about the ship was changed after it was corrected. Why? Because the ship wasn't balanced around having a huge 0mm thick citadel. It was just an error that WG fixed.

 

The ship is balanced around having a high citadel, but good maneuverability and TDS value in comparison to the other tier 8 BATTLESHIPS. Nothing about the ship suggests that "can be citpenned by cruisers from 14km" was a balancing parameter at any point in its development.

 

 

And your WoT analogy is entirely out of place and makes no sense in this context.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For the love of god, NO BATTLESHIP IN THE GAME IS BALANCED AROUND A CRUISERS ABILITY TO CITPEN IT AT 14 KILOMETERS. Errors larger than this have slipped by WG on many occasions, my favorite one was when Moskva was released with a massive 0mm thick section of citadel armor on its belt that let any gun in the game citpen it from any angle. That bug made it through multiple rounds of internal testing and into release before the players figured it out, and yet nothing else about the ship was changed after it was corrected. Why? Because the ship wasn't balanced around having a huge 0mm thick citadel. It was just an error that WG fixed.

 

The ship is balanced around having a high citadel, but good maneuverability and TDS value in comparison to the other tier 8 BATTLESHIPS. Nothing about the ship suggests that "can be citpenned by cruisers from 14km" was a balancing parameter at any point in its development.

 

 

And your WoT analogy is entirely out of place and makes no sense in this context.

 

Doesn't matter if a BB is meant to eat cits or not. Fact of the matter is it's currently balanced against that. And that is a huge drawback of the ship you will removing, which naturally demands a compensating nerf.

 

It's not a bug. They intentionally averaged out the lower portions of the armor and balanced the ship like that. Changing it for arbitrary historical reasons with zero consideration to gameplay is not acceptable. Not unless it's been proven that this model does not work (blatantly underpowered.) Oh wait we can't say that with no public server stats out yet.

 

No. The ship is tested as it is now, and it is balanced in its entirety as it is now. You can certainly change it so its only weakness is the high citadel, but only after you have the server stats to prove it underpowered. Until then you need to accompany a buff with a nerf.

 

So people only ever wanting buffs and not talking about the nerfs is out of context? Do you know how much salt was (and I presumably assume, is) released over the years as people actually played that TD? Not talking about the inevitable nerfs just gives WG free reign to garbage whatever they want to fit it in tier where there is zero player input. Not that I'd mind of course, Jpz-E-100 is funny to this day.

 

Edit: Actually, I would mind, since this is a premium. No more OP premium releases.

Edited by Naughtius_Maximus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×