Shokaku_1

Montana, Iowa/Missouri citadel buff finally coming

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

79 posts in this topic

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.


2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I can't wait for Brit BBs to show the secondaries creep is real.  7 km secondary Montana when. 

Edited by admiral_noone

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yay! No more being one-shot by concealed enemy battleships!


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

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

9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

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

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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...


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bought the T10 Prem camo for Montana now. Looking forward to using her.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no doubt that USN battleships are strong in terms of AA. But even with lots of carriers throwing planes in the air, Iowa and Montana were FAR too weak against other battleships to make the balance worth it. When a ship has a citadel so high and long that the majority of BB shells shot into their side citadel them consistently, there's a problem.

 

Don't get me wrong ... even with their citadels dropped to the waterline, they will still be citadelled. These are not German BBs with turtleback. Or even Yamato's much smaller sloped citadel (and ability to overmatch and accurately fire at long ranges). But there is a difference between landing one or two citadels in a single volley ... and the three or four that is VERY common on Iowa currently. I mean, have you folks not noticed the sheer number of posts boasting about one-shotting Iowas on the forums or other community sites? Have you EVER seen people boasting about one shotting other battleships in this way?

 

This is an absolutely necessary change.


2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

I mean, have you folks not noticed the sheer number of posts boasting about one-shotting Iowas on the forums or other community sites? Have you EVER seen people boasting about one shotting other battleships in this way?

 

No this is completely unnecessary change. I have never seen these posts, do you even have links?

 

Can people here give me good reason why this is change is considered balanced for Iowa? Can you justify how this won't make Iowa OP? Historical or not I want to know why this change is even beneficial for gameplay. And I like it if people can actually answer this in proper way instead of calling people trolls.

Edited by bsbr

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

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?

Unless extremities includes the superstructure, I'm cautious about this change.  Making the superstructure and upper belt harder to saturate is a direct nerf to Iowa's survivability, against battleships in particular.  The loss of the high citadel doesn't matter as much when normal-pen damage won't ever be reduced by saturation in practice, and in fact it reduces her skill ceiling by compromising her bow-on profile.  The question is by how much (the adjustments may be in percentages, but shell damage is a given constant).

 

Iowa used to be extremely good at bow-tanking and angling back when her superstructure didn't have much HP - it and the bow would saturate quickly, and it would become virtually impossible to inflict meaningful damage a bow-on Iowa without using a Yamato to citadel it through the front.  That changed when they redistributed her HP to place more of it in the superstructure as part of her armor model rework, so other BBs could shoot it for 10k+ damage in normal pens repeatedly (previously, more than one salvo of that magnitude would saturate it completely and result in anything afterwards being reduced by half or straight up zero-damage pens).  I'd rather have actual angles of immunity to other ships and keep the high citadel instead of being penned for 10-15% of my health every time without a way to counter it.

 

As it stands, both of these ships demand skill of their drivers to work effectively, and that's why I love playing them.  I don't mind lowering the skill floor, but I absolutely have a problem with reducing the ceiling.

Edited by TenguBlade

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless extremities includes the superstructure, I'm cautious about this change.  Making the superstructure and upper belt harder to saturate is a direct nerf to Iowa's survivability, against battleships in particular.  The loss of the high citadel doesn't matter as much when normal-pen damage won't ever be reduced by saturation in practice, and in fact it reduces her skill ceiling by compromising her bow-on profile.  The question is by how much (the adjustments may be in percentages, but shell damage is a given constant).

 

Iowa used to be extremely good at bow-tanking and angling back when her superstructure didn't have much HP - it and the bow would saturate quickly, and it would become virtually impossible to inflict meaningful damage a bow-on Iowa without using a Yamato to citadel it through the front.  That changed when they redistributed her HP to place more of it in the superstructure as part of her armor model rework, so other BBs could shoot it for 10k+ damage in normal pens repeatedly (previously, more than one salvo of that magnitude would saturate it completely and result in anything afterwards being reduced by half or straight up zero-damage pens).  I'd rather have actual angles of immunity to other ships and keep the high citadel instead of being penned for 10-15% of my health every time without a way to counter it.

 

As it stands, both of these ships demand skill of their drivers to work effectively, and that's why I love playing them.  I don't mind lowering the skill floor, but I absolutely have a problem with reducing the ceiling.

 

Casemate area does not include superstructure. More likely the HP is simply being moved into that are that used to be the citadel on Iowa/montana.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.