Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
sovergein

Tirpitz - topic NA forum

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles

The short of that is TL:DN


Too Long: Didn't Nerd


Isn't that OP the same guy who rattled off some long spiel about how Roma should be drastically different too?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,976 posts
6,311 battles

deshafer doing what he dose best :Smile_veryhappy:

Always finds some model innacuracys, 

i remeber when he went on about the turrets on Nagato

(i do read the NA forum mostly because Lert & LWM reviews) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
910 posts
11,126 battles

Nah, the Roma one detailed actual gameplay stuff and data values; this is purely about modeling.

And as such, I am... let's just say, not a fan of it. Sure, put a telescope here, remove it from there, whatever, but even if we take modeling as a problem in the game, there are a fair amount of old models in the game those look like a brick with a smokestack compared to the Tirpitz.

 

...so work on the older models? Sure! That "older model" is the Tirpitz? Absolutely not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,806 posts
5,868 battles

The guy asking for torps on Hood might want to learn something from this guy  if he wants at least a mere chance of WG doing that. :Smile_trollface:

 

Let's just hope he doesn't contact dseehafer.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles
Just now, SHDRKN4792 said:

The guy asking for torps on Hood might want to learn something from this guy  if he wants at least a mere chance of WG doing that. :Smile_trollface:


I was  genuinely sad when that thread got closed earlier.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,806 posts
5,868 battles
18 minutes ago, Negativvv said:


I was  genuinely sad when that thread got closed earlier.

 

Oh no! :Smile_ohmy:

 

I didn't bother to comment more on that topic but it was fun reading every few days how that topic continued. Sad.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,806 posts
5,868 battles
1 hour ago, Bellegar said:

I also loved the comment on the closing

 

"It is beyond repair"

 

NOOOO :cap_haloween: You don't say :Smile_teethhappy:

 

Not even RN speshul repair party would have saved that. :Smile_teethhappy:

 

Anyways, back on topic, that guy from NA gave something good to read, even if it's mostly visual changes I hope WG change the model. I'd love to see him talk about Atago's AA, I bet it would be awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles

I really want to see Tirpitz's name badge added....

 

It's been missing since the very beginning :Smile_sad:                                                

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEGIO]
Players
599 posts
8,039 battles

Goodmorning guys :) Great pics there. But omg such a whiner. Whine about small tiny details. Imo is it really good details on the ships. I thing WG do a really great job. WTF, Whine about fences around some flakguns. My stupid AA gunners don´t need any fence, They can´t hit crap :P Let stumble overboard :cap_like:

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,676 posts
3,660 battles
On 28. 1. 2018 at 2:47 AM, Negativvv said:

I really want to see Tirpitz's name badge added....

 

It's been missing since the very beginning :Smile_sad:                                                

Now you are saying... I didnt read the whole post yet but i know him from NA and know that he has valid points (although a bit Tirpitz-biased). Apart from the aesthetical ones the waterline issue should have been fixed long ago. I just cant get how wg could have so many issues with waterlines (remember hipper and nurnberg being completelly off)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weekend Tester
601 posts
5,879 battles
1 hour ago, puxflacet said:

Now you are saying... I didnt read the whole post yet but i know him from NA and know that he has valid points. Apart from the aesthetical ones the waterline issue should have been fixed long ago. I just cant get how wg could have so many issues with waterlines (remember hipper and nurnberg being completelly off)

 

 

Possibly the waterline issue is one of WG's core balancing tools. Raising or lowering the citadel and armour probably gives the fine adjustment necessary to bring the ships damage stats into line with the rest of its tier/class (over thousands of games). The difference in game model between Tirpitz and Bismarck is probably needed to balance their respective game outcomes.

 

Many of the ships in the game have completely inappropriate waterlines. Look at the Nikolai - it would never have floated that high, even when it was an empty shell at the dockyard (which is as far as it got in real life). Now imagine what it stats would be like if it sat several metres deeper in the water - it'd be near indestructible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
1,676 posts
3,660 battles
6 hours ago, cracktrackflak said:

 

 

Possibly the waterline issue is one of WG's core balancing tools. Raising or lowering the citadel and armour probably gives the fine adjustment necessary to bring the ships damage stats into line with the rest of its tier/class (over thousands of games). The difference in game model between Tirpitz and Bismarck is probably needed to balance their respective game outcomes.

 

Many of the ships in the game have completely inappropriate waterlines. Look at the Nikolai - it would never have floated that high, even when it was an empty shell at the dockyard (which is as far as it got in real life). Now imagine what it stats would be like if it sat several metres deeper in the water - it'd be near indestructible.

Ships should have their historical waterline. Period. Thats the way they were designed and built. Anything else is just wrong. Adjusting ships' waterlines is certainly not an option to balance them.

 

And regarding Nikolai - i believe it is ok. These russian dreadnoughts have the hull quite high above the water. wg just decided for whatever reason to put the turret A one deck higher than the actual design shows

file

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
607 posts
6,029 battles
13 hours ago, AkosJaccik said:

Nah, the Roma one detailed actual gameplay stuff and data values; this is purely about modeling.

And as such, I am... let's just say, not a fan of it. Sure, put a telescope here, remove it from there, whatever, but even if we take modeling as a problem in the game, there are a fair amount of old models in the game those look like a brick with a smokestack compared to the Tirpitz.

 

...so work on the older models? Sure! That "older model" is the Tirpitz? Absolutely not.

 

I think it is a chance to have someone with the expertise of a second look to ship models. Little details cumulated in time, everywhere, will generate big ugly inaccuracies. Quality modelling is something good in the long term for the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
910 posts
11,126 battles
14 minutes ago, PseudoMi said:

 

I think it is a chance to have someone with the expertise of a second look to ship models. Little details cumulated in time, everywhere, will generate big ugly inaccuracies. Quality modelling is something good in the long term for the game.

I am not saying that his input isn't valuable. I'm saying that the object of his examination - namely the Tirpitz in this case - should not be of the highest priority when it comes to revising of older models.

 

It's a bit like being angry about my Jaguar having it's hood emblem somewhat wrong while  most of the playerbase is driving an Opel with three wheels.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×