Alabama Pre Release Buff, thoughts?

[RUSSIANBlAS]

When I saw the patch notes about the Alabama being buffed I immediately wondered why it was being done...

 

In case anyone doesn't know, the Alabama previously had a very high citadel but this has now been dropped to the waterline. I believe iChase said the underwater armour has been enhanced too. None of this will change the play style, it'll just make things easier. 

 

I was going to consider buying it anyway as it seemed like an interesting challenge.

 

But now it's essentially stronger than an NC in almost every aspect. Much like how the Texas is better than a New York and how the Missouri is better than an Iowa. 

 

 

 

I pretty much agree with both the YouTubers, you've now got a ship that's essentially a buffed silver tech tree USN BB with a pay wall at the point of entry. 

 

Interesting how the recent dismay over stealth firing, CVs, German DDs and other balance issues are being pushed through yet a BB is being buffed prior to entry. It's hard to argue against it being strengthened in order to increase sales as the average player is going to be more comfortable in it. 

 

And the worse thing is I know it's somewhat wrong of WG to pre release buff ships for sales but I've got enough disposable income to get it and farm potatoes with her. I might even take it into Ranked next season if it's T8 as it has very little weaknesses on paper. I've already taken two Premium Ships to Rank 1 

 

I'd rather this not descend into a raging salt fest and I can see WG shutting this thread down too but thoughts about the Alabama folks? 

[Shirakami_Kon]

I heard rumors about lowering Iowa and Montana citadels below waterline too. I think if the same thing aplies to the tech tree ships as well it's fine. Since they do it for the Alabama I think they're going to do it for those silver ships too, but hey, it's WG, you never know what they're thinking about and if it's logical.

[StuntMan0369]

It's been over 3 months since she got first leaked. Every since Day 1, I've thought this thing might power-creep NC. That raised citadel was a good trade-off; You have better mobility and torp protection to mitigate the torp threat, but you're more vulnerable to shell damage. Even if the citadel wasn't lowered, I'd pick Alabama over NC. Mobility and a smaller profile far outweigh the raised citadel imo. Having played Iowa and Montana, I don't care about the raised citadel - I barely even remember that's a thing for them. I'm slightly disappointed that WG made the change, but since I was getting her anyways, I guess I just get a better ship out of it? I wont be surprised to see Alabama replace NC in ranked and even competitive. 0.1 less sigma, 2,700 less HP, 48 less mid-range DPS, 0.5km worse detection - that's not a bad trade for the mobility, torp protection, smaller profile, increased credit earning and crew training.

[ScratxNeko]

I don't think the buff makes it that much better. I've seen full HP NorCals giving broadside nearly getting deleted and the Alabama will be just about as vulnerable post-buff. More maneuverable, better torpedo belt and fair bit smaller but fewer HPs, less range, less accuracy, slightly worse AA and worse detection... it seems fairly balanced as tradeoffs go. Mileage may vary. The main thing that the buff will do is give the Alabama a fighting chance if it gets flanked at short range.

 

One thing... I don't think the Missouri is an Iowa clone but better. IIRC the Missouri's dual purpose guns are actually much less armored than the Iowa's, being easily damaged by any shell that pens 25mm. I think Iowa's DP secondaries have a much thicker armor. But sadly I don't think the armor layout scheme shows them. IIRC it was datamined. So beware, not all the differences between similar ships are obvious.

[Chiledip]

Just put myself through the desalination plant, this is as non-salty as I can muster.

 

Is it a good thing for game balance? It will not have any impact on game balance whatsoever. It is impossible to unbalance something which is already embarrassingly unbalanced already. It's like trying to knock over a drunk man who is already on his back and asleep. As hard as you try, your efforts will be in vain.

 

I did watch ichase's video and got to say that I agree with much of it. As he suggested the ship (like the whole game IMO) is balanced in a very special way. It is bank balanced. This ship will now be a huge seller for them and that's what counts! Sadly that's why warships will NEVER be anything other than unbalanced and why the meta is horrible and only ever going to get worse. If your design philosophy is solely driven by the pursuit of short term profit, you aren't going to produce a work of art are you?

 

I have heard the same rumours about the lowering of NC's citadel at some point. I am sure they will do it once they are confident that they have sold as many Alabamas as they are going to. Why change it before, it might damage sales and the game will be less bank balanced.

[Haleos]

Does Tirpitz's torpedoes have a trade off?

[Shirakami_Kon]

Does Tirpitz's torpedoes have a trade off?

 

Quite a shorter range of secondaries than Bismarck and no hidro. Bismarck - Tirpitz it's basically a choice of long range secondaries and hidro or torps respectively.

[ScratxNeko]

Does Tirpitz's torpedoes have a trade off?

 

Yeah, as pointed out. Tirpitz secondary suite is 4.5km base plus 6km ranged torps, Bismarck is 7km base. Bismarck also has hydroacoustic consumable, which is invaluable to push into contested caps for maximum torpedo beats and destroyer/british cruiser salt extraction.

 

They're both pretty much at the same level power-wise, with Bismarck having a more consistent performance in general but Tirpitz being superior in knife range slugfests because the torpedo stinger tail smashes way harder than the constant plinking of secondaries, particularly against hardened targets like battleships.

[El2aZeR]

The thing is that, with Iowa/Mo/Monty getting their citadels lowered as well, I can't really fault them for also lowering the citadel on the Alabama. I'd see this as a global change rather than a specific buff.

 

Besides, doesn't she get what is essentially pre-buff NC accuracy? The internal armor belt and huge superstructure also make her highly vulnerable to penetration damage. Depending on how thick the outer belt is it may even get overmatched like on the Iowa, giving her rather wonky armor when angled. Imo those are pretty harsh trade-offs for her advantages.

(Obviously does not justifiy the whole p2w thing which should never be an accepted practice by the community, but really we should be used to it by now)

 

The only thing I can't really understand is why the rest of the "citadel-too-high" crew doesn't get their buffs put into the patch alongside the Alabama and are instead slated for release in 6.4.0. It obviously doesn't take that long to change it as proven by the Alabama.

[xXx_Blogis_xXx]

hope they fix citas on iowa , monty too,,,,

[Spellfire40]

Well if Iowa and  Montana get theirs lowered ist understandable that this will happen so im not brothered on the other Hand there is no way now keeping a NC when you have a Alabama so it wont increase my ship colection since im not keeping a nearly idetical ship when i can use a premium one. a bit Sad Tirpitz Bismark Fiji Belfast are all good ships that are diferent Alabana without that flaw is just a a strait up better NC.

[lycea]

I don't think this ship will be OP just a good allrounder and since I already have Mo in my port I won't buy her.  She will be a good ship for ranked/competitive battles on that I agree. 

[piet11111]

I dont mind this buff at all the tier 8+ american BB's where always too soft skinned and now with the german BB line their relative weakness was even more obvious.

If they go broadside they will still be punished heavily anyway so all in all i think this is a reasonable buff.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

Literally days ago Sub_Octavian posted this on the NA server.

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/118632-alabamas-armor-model-is-already-massively-in-error/page__st__380

 

No plans to change Alabama citadel yet it's already implemented. 

 

The speed of the change and sudden U turn isn't great when other stuff doesn't get changed for months or ever. 

[Leo_Apollo11]

HI all,

 

hope they fix citas on iowa , monty too,,,,

 

 

Apparently soon in v0.6.4 ...

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[Diabolik__]

nd torp protection to mitigate the torp threat, but you're more vulnerable to shell damage. Even if the citadel wasn't lowered, I'd pick Alabama over NC. Mobility and a smaller profile far outweigh the raised citadel imo. Having played Iowa and Montana, I don't care about the raised citadel - I barely even remember that's a thing for them. I'm slightly disappointed that WG made the change, but since I was getting her anyways, I guess I just get a better ship out of it? I wont be surprised to see Alabama replace NC in ranked and even competitive. 0.1 less sigma, 2,700 less HP, 48 less mid-range DPS, 0.5km worse detection - that's not a bad trade for the mobility, torp protection, smaller profile,

 

Isn't Alabamas sigma 1.8 and NC is 2.0? Or they also buffed her sigma value?

[Origin47]

Rather than lower the citadel, i would have preferred they'd buff the accuracy.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

 

Isn't Alabamas sigma 1.8 and NC is 2.0? Or they also buffed her sigma value?

 

iChase said the differences in the guns are essentially non existent. They look accurate enough from all the videos. Just the same floating lol shell travel time.

[Affeks]

Raised citadel only forces people to play super passive bow on style of gameplay, this is not what the game needs tbh. I'd rather the ship be a tiny bit of a power creep than it forcing tons of new players to only snipe from max range. 1.9 sigma is overkill, I still think NC should have 2.0 and Alabama 1.8 to even further force it into a semi-brawler type of playstyle. Still, it would be very unreasonable to remove raised citadel on Missouri (that is a much bigger powercreep than Alabama) but leave it on Alabama. Tbh this is a line buff that was needed, and NC still isn't that much worse.

[__Helmut_Kohl__]

People are only comparing Alabama to North Carolina. 

Premium ships should be compared to the whole tech-three. Otherwise weak nations at a certain tier would always have weak premiums at that tier too. 

[Affeks]

People are only comparing Alabama to North Carolina. 

Premium ships should be compared to the whole tech-three. Otherwise weak nations at a certain tier would always have weak premiums at that tier too. 

 

Comparing it to NC is totally legit though, NC is considered to be a strong but not OP ship. Its exactly what players want Prems to be.

[__Helmut_Kohl__]

I feel dirty in the Belfast and don't really play it anymore. 

But would I feel dirty in this Alabama compared to Bismarck/Tirpitz? Don't think so. 

 

The awkward mix of close-combat tools and a raised citadel just did not justify to spend that amount of money to me. With this change I might actually buy it. 

[hopeasusi]

 

Comparing it to NC is totally legit though, NC is considered to be a strong but not OP ship. Its exactly what players want Prems to be.

 

NC strong in what universe may I ask?

 

It's the worst tier 8 silver BB and has been from the beginning. Amagi and Bismark are both better ships than NC. 

 

Or is this your way of saying tier 8 BBs are mostly too good?

 

Also I would love to see Yammys citadel in lower to water level, maybe some balancing the same time. 

[PotatoTorpedo]

NC strong in what universe may I ask?

 

Have you played the ship in this universe may I ask?

[CuddlyPanda]

NC strong in what universe may I ask?

 

NoCal is excellent ship. Maybe you are thinking, given your "Beta" tag, of the prebuff NoCal. 2.0 sigma, god-tier concealment, excellent AA, and very good mobility and speed make it awesome. 

 

*edit: Could not find you even played the ship. Not that it matters in this discussion... (but it does)