Jump to content


Montana, Iowa/Missouri citadel buff finally coming


  • Please log in to reply
78 replies to this topic

Shokaku_1 #1 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:28 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 551
  • Member since:
    04-28-2015

According to data-mined info, Montana citadel size reduced by 28.2%, Iowa/Missouri citadel size reduced by 27.5% in 0.6.6 test version. :teethhappy:

 

Finally my Montana and Missouri will see battles again:P.



gurudennis #2 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:28 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 5,047
  • Member since:
    12-09-2013
Yay, power creep! :)

All views and opinions expressed herein, whether express or implied, are not intended to violate or otherwise contradict the rules and regulations of this forum and shall not be construed as offensive, disrespectful or contrarian to any present or past participants of this discussion thread, forum moderators or their affiliates. The author assumes no responsibility for any adverse effects on other participants' mental state, faculties or health condition resulting from reading the aforementioned message. Read at your own risk.


admiral_noone #3 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:32 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 137
  • Member since:
    06-04-2016
I can't wait for Brit BBs to show the secondaries creep is real.  7 km secondary Montana when. 

Edited by admiral_noone, 19 May 2017 - 04:42 AM.

T10 ship aesthetics polls:

DDs

BBs

CA/CLs


KaptainKaybe #4 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:38 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,793
  • Member since:
    08-14-2012
Yay! No more being one-shot by concealed enemy battleships!

jeffreywalker74656 #5 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:34 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 362
  • Member since:
    09-13-2012
It's about time. They really needed this. They were the weakest at tier for no logical reason. Now at least they will be able to stand up to the German and Japanese BB's Good Move WG. 

Leader of Naval Force's Elite - Apply to join today - Casual, Fun, Unrestricted.

Player primarily of US Navy ships

 

Peregrinas #6 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:37 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,743
  • Member since:
    05-16-2015

Once again, WG buffing ships that don't need buffs because CVs were nerfed hard and are now nearly nonexistent in high tier.

 

Seriously, an AA-focused ship line is suffering because there aren't any CVs? Gee I wonder why.

 

What happened to the good days in OBT and launch when IJN ships had some advantages over USN ships, but were prone to CV attacks. AA and CVs are now like just an afterthought. Balancing ships in a no-CV environment and then throwing away USN's AA specialization and making every ship equal.



Abo89 #7 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:39 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 531
  • Member since:
    08-05-2013

View PostPeregrinas, on 19 May 2017 - 12:37 AM, said:

Once again, WG buffing ships that don't need buffs because CVs were nerfed hard and are now nearly nonexistent in high tier.

 

Seriously, an AA-focused ship line is suffering because there aren't any CVs? Gee I wonder why.

 

What happened to the good days in OBT and launch when IJN ships had some advantages over USN ships, but were prone to CV attacks. AA and CVs are now like just an afterthought. Balancing ships in a no-CV environment and then throwing away USN's AA specialization and making every ship equal.

You know...he has a point.



SimiaStoicus #8 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:45 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 168
  • Member since:
    07-13-2015

View PostPeregrinas, on 18 May 2017 - 09:37 PM, said:

Once again, WG buffing ships that don't need buffs because CVs were nerfed hard and are now nearly nonexistent in high tier.

 

Seriously, an AA-focused ship line is suffering because there aren't any CVs? Gee I wonder why.

 

What happened to the good days in OBT and launch when IJN ships had some advantages over USN ships, but were prone to CV attacks. AA and CVs are now like just an afterthought. Balancing ships in a no-CV environment and then throwing away USN's AA specialization and making every ship equal.

 

^ what he said.

USN BBs feel pretty strong to me. prebuff North Carolina, Iowa/Missouri are some of my fav/best performing BBs in game.



SmokinCAT #9 Posted 19 May 2017 - 05:49 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 195
  • Member since:
    11-19-2015

View PostPeregrinas, on 19 May 2017 - 05:37 AM, said:

Once again, WG buffing ships that don't need buffs because CVs were nerfed hard and are now nearly nonexistent in high tier.

 

Seriously, an AA-focused ship line is suffering because there aren't any CVs? Gee I wonder why.

 

What happened to the good days in OBT and launch when IJN ships had some advantages over USN ships, but were prone to CV attacks. AA and CVs are now like just an afterthought. Balancing ships in a no-CV environment and then throwing away USN's AA specialization and making every ship equal.

 

Short of being against a T8 CV the AA is over rated in my opinion, it may have been powerful before the captain skills change, but you give up too much going full AA build now.



Shadeylark #10 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:00 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 486
  • Member since:
    03-14-2015

View PostPeregrinas, on 19 May 2017 - 05:37 AM, said:

Once again, WG buffing ships that don't need buffs because CVs were nerfed hard and are now nearly nonexistent in high tier.

 

Seriously, an AA-focused ship line is suffering because there aren't any CVs? Gee I wonder why.

 

What happened to the good days in OBT and launch when IJN ships had some advantages over USN ships, but were prone to CV attacks. AA and CVs are now like just an afterthought. Balancing ships in a no-CV environment and then throwing away USN's AA specialization and making every ship equal.

National flavor got abandoned when new nations were introduced.

 

Instead of balancing on a nation v nation, or even line v line basis, wg is moving towards an individual ship v individual ship balancing plan.

 

This sort of became a necessity with the introduction of Russian paper ships, which as purely conceptual designs vary too wildly from ship to ship in each line, to really be able to have a blanket national niche.

 

Can't really stick to a national flavor balancing mentality when you're introducing paper design lines where the playstyle changes drastically from ship to ship in the same line.



vasuba #11 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:06 AM

    Ensign

  • Supertester
  • Alpha Tester
    In AlfaTesters

  • 901
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
National Flavoring was done half assed anyways and was/is a poor attempt at justifying keeping ships performing certain ways even if against historical performance. Ships should have been balanced based on the realities of the ship from day one

Edited by vasuba, 19 May 2017 - 07:07 AM.


TenguBlade #12 Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:20 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,258
  • Member since:
    06-21-2015
How long after 0.6.6 do you wager it'll be before we see another thread from an ignorant American fanboy who broadsides in the Iowa and gets wrecked?:rolleyes:

Edited by TenguBlade, 19 May 2017 - 07:21 AM.

Don't know if you have a dark sense of humor?  If you laugh at this, you do.

IJN: Yamato, Amagi, Ibuki, Mogami, Shokaku, Hiryu, Akatsuki, Shiratsuyu, Kamikaze R, Katori, MikasaKongō, Myōkō, Kirishima, Haruna, Hiei, Ashigara, Nachi, Haguro, TakaoSouthern Dragon

USN: Montana, Iowa, New Mexico, New Orleans, Pensacola, Cleveland, Langley/Bogue, Farragut

European Navies: Gnevny, Shchors, Nürnberg/Yorck, Bayern, Fiji, Blyskawica (Gift from Compassghost), Scharnhorst (First and only bought), Admiral Graf Spee


Excield #13 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:50 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,956
  • Member since:
    12-29-2015

Excellent!

 

Though it wasn't THAT huge an issue for me on my Missouri. I mean, if you angled, you'd be tankey enough for anything, save for Yamatos looking you in a mean way. Of course, it's gonna make the ships MUCH more comfortable and forgiving to sail, and increase the opportunities for you to make more aggressive plays. Yamatos will still be a problem, with their overmatching and SIGMA, as they outta be (Yamatos have 9 guns, to the 12 the MT/GK have), but to a lesser degree, so it's fine.



Excield #14 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:52 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,956
  • Member since:
    12-29-2015

View PostPeregrinas, on 19 May 2017 - 05:37 AM, said:

Once again, WG buffing ships that don't need buffs because CVs were nerfed hard and are now nearly nonexistent in high tier.

 

Seriously, an AA-focused ship line is suffering because there aren't any CVs? Gee I wonder why.

 

What happened to the good days in OBT and launch when IJN ships had some advantages over USN ships, but were prone to CV attacks. AA and CVs are now like just an afterthought. Balancing ships in a no-CV environment and then throwing away USN's AA specialization and making every ship equal.

 

CV's need an overhaul in general. A battleship having better chances against other battleships is not a huge issue, and directly impacts CV's very little.

Frederick_The_Great #15 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:53 AM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 91
  • Member since:
    08-20-2016

View PostTenguBlade, on 19 May 2017 - 07:20 AM, said:

How long after 0.6.6 do you wager it'll be before we see another thread from an ignorant American fanboy who broadsides in the Iowa and gets wrecked?:rolleyes:

 

probably after another buff yamato thread, and maybe a crazy one like the khab is UP thread.

saagri #16 Posted 19 May 2017 - 09:53 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,548
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostPeregrinas, on 19 May 2017 - 01:37 AM, said:

Once again, WG buffing ships that don't need buffs because CVs were nerfed hard and are now nearly nonexistent in high tier.

 

Seriously, an AA-focused ship line is suffering because there aren't any CVs? Gee I wonder why.

 

What happened to the good days in OBT and launch when IJN ships had some advantages over USN ships, but were prone to CV attacks. AA and CVs are now like just an afterthought. Balancing ships in a no-CV environment and then throwing away USN's AA specialization and making every ship equal.

 

Having a national flavor of AA was stupid anyways. Oh gee, you are good against 0-2 ships on the enemy team. Have fun dealing with the other 10-12 ships. 

 

I hate planes.

saagri 

  • Plays a mix of cruisers (excellent), destroyers (excellent), battleships (excellent) and aircraft carriers (very good)
  • Deals a large amount of damage
  • Often finishes damaged enemies
  • Key vehicle - Kiev

SimiaStoicus #17 Posted 19 May 2017 - 10:43 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 168
  • Member since:
    07-13-2015

View Postsaagri, on 19 May 2017 - 01:53 AM, said:

 

Having a national flavor of AA was stupid anyways. Oh gee, you are good against 0-2 ships on the enemy team. Have fun dealing with the other 10-12 ships. 

 

It wasn't stupid when those 0-2 ships could single handily delete you from existence and make u regret not maxing AA. and not like USN ships weak against the other 10-12 ships. Other than Colorado before all the buffs, I never had a bad experience with any USN ships.

Phoenix_jz #18 Posted 19 May 2017 - 10:49 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,427
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013

View Postsaagri, on 19 May 2017 - 04:53 AM, said:

 

Having a national flavor of AA was stupid anyways. Oh gee, you are good against 0-2 ships on the enemy team. Have fun dealing with the other 10-12 ships. 

 

Yeah, but back when CVs were at that peak, USN BBs and Cruisers were valued pretty well, because of what CVs could do to ships with poor AA. Those two ships on the enemy team were a lot more powerful than any other ship on their team, and they were there for the whole match.

 

It's certainly stupid now when AA isn't much of a threat... But it when it was...


 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


Phoenix_jz #19 Posted 19 May 2017 - 10:52 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,427
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013
Intresting... So it's ​also stripping off 24.5% of the hitpoints in the extremities of the ship and putting them in the casemate area on Montana, and the some thing is being done to Iowa/Monty, although only 18.7%

Can anyone who pays for GM3D tell us how much HP actually lies in those areas (bow, stern, superstructure, casemate) for the two ship classes?

 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


icyplanetnhc #20 Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:22 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 273
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

The HP redistribution will be interesting, but I'm not entirely sure what it would entail in terms of overall gameplay effects. The bow and stern would saturate quicker, but the upper hull area (labelled as "casemate") will have more HP in return.

 

It will be harder to punish broadside Iowa players at close range, but I do look forward to being able to play more aggressively and having more freedom to maneuver.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users