Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao

Montana Over-buffed?

59 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
1,368 posts
12,327 battles

I feel since the cit lowering the Montana has gone from average to massively overpowered. The higher cit at least would punish you from going broadside, (not that Montana needs to with her accuracy and turret angles), but now its almost impossible to take one on in most ships. The accuracy lets them do massive damage to any cruiser in range even without a cit hit, and allows the same to DDs. Other BBs, struggle to damage even broadside montys not to mention ones that are bow on or at that "sweet spot angle".

I feel one of her following attributes need a nerf to bring her more in line with other BBs and to make it more conformable for cruisers and DDs.

1. Nerf her base accuracy, the Iowa's/Missouri is already borderline OP but is balanced by less armor and 3 less guns, i feel Montana's base accuracy should be nerfed.

2. Raise her cit again, maybe not at much as before but it needs to be higher, otherwise shell pen through water needs to be un-nerfed (though this is a whole other story)

3. Reduce her turret angles for her rear turrets to the front, I'm not talking GK bad, but it should make her show some broadside to make use of her lol-accuracy guns

I feel one of these 3 nerfs will improve gameplay at high tier all around and make other tier 10 BBs competitive with the Monty.

Preemptive argument: Yes i know Yamato can over-match her bow, but even with this landing a cit is not easy at all and Yamato still has a broken cit model. Also-also I know Conq is generally considered OP, but her armor is not as good, but I would also like to see her cit raised or again shell pen mechanics tweeked. 


 

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
140 posts
2,743 battles

Ok you raise a point (heh) but before the buff she was bottom of the food chain. now she is competitive with the other battleships and is standard now when it comes to survivability,  

she was food for the Yamato before all the other ships were introduced. Kurfurst, Conqueror, the new France class tier 10, she wouldn't be able to duel with any of these newer ships without being ripped to shreds if she had that cit that would be sitting above the waterline, she needs those back guns to be able to keep up with the Dps of the other ships  and her accuracy needs to remain as she is actually needs that to stay competitive with her biggest rival right now, the Kurfurst. 

another thing i wanna bring up is the killing power of every ship at tier 10

before the buff she had statistically the lowest survivability of tier 10 (i dont remember the number.)  but now she can stay alive much longer and be less punishing on mistakes.

as for the whole death striking a cruiser at 15 km's...? that would be the cruisers fault for going broadside and thinking he'd be ok todo so without being punished. pretty much standard for that tier again. 

before you say that i dont even play one, i know i dont, i just pay attention to whats going on and how the meta of the game changes

also forgot to point out that they are called super battleships for a reason

Edited by LordSiege

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
592
[PLDN]
Supertester
2,151 posts
6,568 battles

It also didn't used to be that Montana was "average" it was simply the worst, and not a close worst, it was undeniably the worst.

Now it has become a debatable best tier ten BB. Yes, it is the Clan wars pick, but this game is balanced primarily around random battles. And in randoms where I play it is very well balanced. It holds the position of reliable jack of all trades, it doesn't have any gimmicks, it is simply a ship. And I would argue Montanna should be the bar other tier 10 BBs measure against because of that. And they do that well currently. GK looks like a tankier Monty with glorious secondaries, and this is at the cost of conqueror's side of the coin. It boasts has the best stealth and the most reliable damage. Yamato takes a third approach, It holds the best penetration and alpha damage, sacrificing both stealth and minor amounts of armor.

Montana can flex the best of the tier 10s, but it has no optimal situation that sets it both above and below that standard. Conqueror is the god of range, GK the god of brawls. Yamato remains the best bow-fighter.

There is no longer a clear "worst" tier 10 BB for every situation like Monty once was. And the distinction of best is awarded by consistency rather than sheer advantage. There will always be a "best" ship, the competitive pick. But right now the race is so tantalizingly close, and that is where it need to be.

Montanna is the perfect balance of BB qualities, and should not be changed. They all burn the same anyway.

 

I would also like to add, if anything gets nerfed on Montana, it shouldn't be the accuracy. Please, the last thing this game needs is more battleships that live or die by RNG.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,532
[KSE]
Beta Testers
1,712 posts
16,259 battles

No.

Last 2 weeks on NA server stats show Montana is # 3 on the win rate list at 50.34%.  #1 is Conq @ 51.09, #2 Grosser K @ 50.83 and bringing up the rear is the Yamato @ 49.85%.  The Montana is .75% behind the Conq. and .49% ahead of the Yamato - a pretty tight grouping considering what one sees at the tier 5 BB level, certainly nothing remarkable about that close a grouping of all 4 BB's.

Damage numbers on the last 2 weeks show Conq. at #1 with 105,368 (HE spam ftw ), Yamato at #2 with 89,784, Grosser K and Montana tied for last at 81,500 each.  Nothing surprising about those numbers, HE spam and 18" lol pen ftw.

k/d, survival % and ships killed are all similar as well, frankly tier 10 BB's are balanced pretty well statistically, a lot closer than DD's or CV's.....

Next time, you should probably look at the numbers before spending so many paragraphs proposing a solution to a problem that DOES NOT EXIST.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
200
[R-R-R]
Members
1,051 posts
9,910 battles

1. No. Accuracy should be Montana's thing. Her accuracy is still lower than Yamato but she has 3 more guns. Her AP penetration is the lowest of all T10 BBs. Also to use that accuracy module she has to give up reload module. So the gun performance is balanced, considering her trading RoF and penetration for accuracy.

2. Maybe. But I don't see the point. Both GK and Conq have even harder to hit citadel than Montana.

3. Conq and Yamato have just as good firing angles as Montana.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,368 posts
12,327 battles
2 minutes ago, BiggieD61 said:

No.

Last 2 weeks on NA server stats show Montana is # 3 on the win rate list at 50.34%.  #1 is Conq @ 51.09, #2 Grosser K @ 50.83 and bringing up the rear is the Yamato @ 49.85%.  The Montana is .75% behind the Conq. and .49% ahead of the Yamato - a pretty tight grouping considering what one sees at the tier 5 BB level, certainly nothing remarkable about that close a grouping of all 4 BB's.

Damage numbers on the last 2 weeks show Conq. at #1 with 105,368 (HE spam ftw ), Yamato at #2 with 89,784, Grosser K and Montana tied for last at 81,500 each.  Nothing surprising about those numbers, HE spam and 18" lol pen ftw.

k/d, survival % and ships killed are all similar as well, frankly tier 10 BB's are balanced pretty well statistically, a lot closer than DD's or CV's.....

Next time, you should probably look at the numbers before spending so many paragraphs proposing a solution to a problem that DOES NOT EXIST.

Numbers heh, I'm talking in  game experience. those numbers can be very skewed cause of bad and good players, its good as a ref but not the law. im trying to get a player prespective. this is not uncommon for nerfs/buffs, heck look at dets

  • Meh 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,532
[KSE]
Beta Testers
1,712 posts
16,259 battles

You are talking about subjective observations, I am talking about objective numbers - which one do you think wargaming is going to base changes on?

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
592
[PLDN]
Supertester
2,151 posts
6,568 battles
1 minute ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

Numbers heh, I'm talking in  game experience. those numbers can be very skewed cause of bad and good players, its good as a ref but not the law. im trying to get a player prespective. this is not uncommon for nerfs/buffs, heck look at dets

I think the topic of how WG balances ships has been blown apart thoroughly enough for your to see that this reasoning, like your waifu, is pretty much garbage.

Put simply: They take into account the good and the bad and balance for the greens not the purples. It is a methodical and statistical process, not really reliant on the opinions of individuals.

Just now, BiggieD61 said:

You are talking about subjective observations, I am talking about objective numbers - which one do you think wargaming is going to base changes on?

^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,368 posts
12,327 battles
1 minute ago, BiggieD61 said:

You are talking about subjective observations, I am talking about objective numbers - which one do you think wargaming is going to base changes on?

obviously both, they take into account both player feedback and hard numbers. to go off one or the other is foolish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,850
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
7,168 posts
3,967 battles

Go back to Reddit and cry to the butt-hurt weeb army.

There is nothing "OP" about the Montana, and it's not difficult to punish when it goes broadside.

l2aim

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,368 posts
12,327 battles
3 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

Go back to Reddit and cry to the butt-hurt weeb army.

There is nothing "OP" about the Montana, and it's not difficult to punish when it goes broadside.

l2aim

im not crying or butt-hurt at all, i just want a thoughtful discussion about the Montana, i feel its been a bit over-buffed. 

 

i also stay as far away from reddit as possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,850
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
7,168 posts
3,967 battles

In the last 2 weeks the Montana is 3rd of 4th on 3 of the 4 Servers, and 2nd on one.

Calling the Montana OP, out outline of line is simply disregarding the truth.

Image result for the truth quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,585
[WOLF3]
Members
25,161 posts
22,173 battles

Tier X Battleships are one of the most balanced things in this game.

XZOZaPZ.jpg

You will be hard pressed to find ALL SHIPS of a given type in the same tier this close in performance across the different servers.

 

In other words, Montana is fine.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,850
[90TH]
[90TH]
Alpha Tester
7,168 posts
3,967 battles

Like I said, Reddit needs to learn to aim. It isn't hard. They're just no longer gigantic Cruisers. They literally have the EXACT same citadel deck as North Carolina, yet Reddit never complains about North Carolina.

FVtpVT5.jpg

bQpVO1g.jpg

wnfX73F.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,368 posts
12,327 battles
9 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

Like I said, Reddit needs to learn to aim. It isn't hard. They're just no longer gigantic Cruisers. They literally have the EXACT same citadel deck as North Carolina, yet Reddit never complains about North Carolina.

 

ok cool, nice but NC and Iowa doesnt have 409mm of side armor, which is what causes the real issue with the lowered cit. also

your oh so fine numbers are MEGA-off set, since the monty is the most or second most played ship on the server than any other bar yamato

IsZBVO0.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
202
[-K-]
Alpha Tester
453 posts
11,940 battles
2 minutes ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

ok cool, nice but NC and Iowa doesnt have 409mm of side armor, which is what causes the real issue with the lowered cit. also

your oh so fine numbers are MEGA-off set, since the monty is the most or second most played ship on the server than any other bar yamato

IsZBVO0.jpg

And? A larger sample size means it's more likely that those samples are accurate rather than being skewed by some sort of sampling error.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,585
[WOLF3]
Members
25,161 posts
22,173 battles
3 minutes ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

ok cool, nice but NC and Iowa doesnt have 409mm of side armor, which is what causes the real issue with the lowered cit. also

your oh so fine numbers are MEGA-off set, since the monty is the most or second most played ship on the server than any other bar yamato

IsZBVO0.jpg

So by your same reasoning... Conqueror's stats are held up by too few people and she rates buffs, right? :Smile_glasses:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,704
[USCC2]
Members
5,795 posts

Making that type of ship stronger merely makes it more 'fun and engaging' for the majority of the customer base - good business. :Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,368 posts
12,327 battles
4 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

So by your same reasoning... Conqueror's stats are held up by too few people and she rates buffs, right? :Smile_glasses:

no more like its necessary to take not only last 2 week stats, but also a set amount of battles that is the same for both ships, such as last 2 weeks, out of 5000k battles, then you can get a more accurate statistic. please don't patronize me.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,776 posts
6,729 battles

I do understand that some cruiser players get mad about being insta deleted when you see half the BB community sailing broadside the entire game without taking the same percentage of damage.

  • I do agree with 2. Raise the citadel.
  • Also raise the citadel of the Conq.

BB players look like :Smile_facepalm: nowadays.

Edited by joris92
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
1,368 posts
12,327 battles
15 minutes ago, Dianeces said:

And? A larger sample size means it's more likely that those samples are accurate rather than being skewed by some sort of sampling error.

yes but you are comparing a large sample size to a small one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
202
[-K-]
Alpha Tester
453 posts
11,940 battles
1 minute ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

yes but you are comparing a large sample size to a small one

Yes. And?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
202
[-K-]
Alpha Tester
453 posts
11,940 battles
1 minute ago, Fog_Heavy_Cruiser_Takao said:

and you see no issue with that??? to get a better result you need the same sample size

I see no issue with that because there is no issue with it. Given that the smallest sample listed was a bit over 19k battles, I'm confident that the values for all ships are accurate enough to ensure meaningful comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×