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

Montana should get a speed nerf

186 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

378
[WAIFU]
Members
289 posts
9,916 battles

From what I can gather, Montana in her final form would have had 28knt speed instead of the 30knt speed she has in game.

If WG wants to stick to the design philosophy they have for this game and keep the ships the same as their historical counterparts or to their designed blueprints, this should be changed.

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
351
[55TH]
Beta Testers
1,285 posts
3,689 battles

WG strays from historical aspects of the ships when it comes to game balance.

For example, every US and RN ship in the game would have radar by the time WWII comes around.  So think about how that would change the game.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
138
[DAKI]
[DAKI]
Members
660 posts
8,382 battles
1 minute ago, MutsuKaiNi said:

From what I can gather, Montana in her final form would have had 28knt speed instead of the 30knt speed she has in game.

If WG wants to stick to the design philosophy they have for this game and keep the ships the same as their historical counterparts or to their designed blueprints, this should be changed.

mutsu~ no nerf my ships i like, baka.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,054
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
20,321 posts
11,303 battles
8 minutes ago, Gasboy said:

WG strays from historical aspects of the ships when it comes to game balance.

For example, every US and RN ship in the game would have radar by the time WWII comes around.  So think about how that would change the game.

Actually I would say by mid to late 1943, there were still a lot of ships without radar at the time of the battles around Guadalcanal in late 1942. The British were likely farther ahead in the adoption of radar but even then it was likely 1942 or 1943 before they had full adoption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,393 posts
3,213 battles
3 minutes ago, Gasboy said:

WG strays from historical aspects of the ships when it comes to game balance.

For example, every US and RN ship in the game would have radar by the time WWII comes around.  So think about how that would change the game.

Every nation with any substantial navy had radar on most of their ships by the latter half of the war, if not earlier.

And if you're going to nerf the high tier USN BBs, nerf their citadel. Ever since they had their citadel lowered they're become nigh invulnerable to being citadeled unless they give complete broadside at ranges of 11km+, or unless they just get outright overmatched by something like Yamato, which is just silly.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,832
[NSF]
Beta Testers
5,236 posts
8,119 battles

"I don't like thing. I won't provide any reasoning as to why or how this has an impact ingame. Please nerf."

  • Cool 6
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
833
[SIDE]
Members
2,368 posts

A bb that barely goes 30 knots, takes and hour to get there, scrubs a tone of speed in turns turns like a barn needs to be slower??

So a tier 10 dd that never existed can go over 40knts plus has armor, plus has rail guns, plus has either magic heal or magic smoke is fine?

Troll thread!

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,803 posts
4,524 battles

I'd be game for Montana being reduced back to 28 kts. She's currently pretty near top of the heap at tier X, so cutting her speed back a little bit might make her less of a no-brainer versus GK and Conq, and make the advantages of Yamato and Republique a bit more prominent.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24
[RNG]
Members
279 posts
3,437 battles
6 hours ago, goldeagle1123 said:

Every nation with any substantial navy had radar on most of their ships by the latter half of the war, if not earlier.

And if you're going to nerf the high tier USN BBs, nerf their citadel. Ever since they had their citadel lowered they're become nigh invulnerable to being citadeled unless they give complete broadside at ranges of 11km+, or unless they just get outright overmatched by something like Yamato, which is just silly.

Maybe not to the point where they were before, but at least a few of the USN BB's do need a cit nerf - as well as some other high tier ones (*glares angrily at RN BB's*).

The low cits in almost every high tier BB in the game now just don't punish bad play enough, not to say the ships should be blown off the face of the earth in a single salvo like they used to though.  It also ruins the point of turtleback on the German BB line, making them kind of anemic, I find that you can actually do heavier damage more consistently to broadside German BB's than to many other BB's despite one of the main quirks of German BB's supposedly being their ability to not take much damage while broadsiding.

Edited by TheBeefKid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
833
[SIDE]
Members
2,368 posts
1 minute ago, Aetreus said:

I'd be game for Montana being reduced back to 28 kts. She's currently pretty near top of the heap at tier X, so cutting her speed back a little bit might make her less of a no-brainer versus GK and Conq, and make the advantages of Yamato and Republique a bit more prominent.

Each BB has its pros and cons. Going 30 knots makes Montana neither the fastest or slowest . It doesn’t unbalance her against her peers. It’s not her special power or special handicap.

Nerfing her speed is just flipping off US ships again for no reason.

This whole discussion is stupid.

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,809
[WOLF3]
Members
20,303 posts
18,624 battles
8 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

You mean like all the other ships that go to fast?

There are A LOT of Fake A** Refits in this game.  In Battleships alone, there are tons of ships that go RIDICULOUSLY FASTER than they ever did.  Then you got Normandie.

 

If I had my way I'd take away all those Fake Sci-Fi Refits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
527
[DDM_]
Members
1,552 posts
4,343 battles
6 minutes ago, thebigblue said:

A bb that barely goes 30 knots, takes and hour to get there, scrubs a tone of speed in turns turns like a barn needs to be slower??

So a tier 10 dd that never existed can go over 40knts plus has armor, plus has rail guns, plus has either magic heal or magic smoke is fine?

Troll thread!

He's a fanboi of Japanese ships in this game, of course he wants American BB nerfed. Duh......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
3,803 posts
4,524 battles
Just now, thebigblue said:

Each BB has its pros and cons. Going 30 knots makes Montana neither the fastest or slowest . It doesn’t unbalance her against her peers. It’s not her special power or special handicap.

Nerfing her speed is just flipping off US ships again for no reason.

This whole discussion is stupid.

Yeah, and Montana is actually in need of some sort of handicap. Because let's face it- she has no weaknesses. She has thick inclined armor, making her hard to citadel if she puts the slightest work into it. She has 12 guns, USN accuracy, access to the 11% acc mod, and high sigma. Nothing else in the game can evaporate cruisers or punish a BB error like Montana can. She has the best AA on a battleship(ATM, Republique will steal this unless they change how CV rework AA functions). I suppose she doesn't have buffed HE like the UK or IJN, but Yamato has too few guns to make that work anyways, so she's probably upper half there as well(better than GK, Yamato, possibly Rep). Secondaries are fairly good, she doesn't have the best range but they get good gun arcs, high damage and fire output, and are armored so they don't get killed like on most battleships.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
777 posts
1,515 battles
45 minutes ago, MutsuKaiNi said:

From what I can gather, Montana in her final form would have had 28knt speed instead of the 30knt speed she has in game.

If WG wants to stick to the design philosophy they have for this game and keep the ships the same as their historical counterparts or to their designed blueprints, this should be changed.

Then again this is a game where radar, hydro, AA can go through islands while having no visibility penalty in your own smokescreen (can see 20km through dense fog)

Edited by Ephemeric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,393 posts
3,213 battles
15 minutes ago, TheBeefKid said:

Maybe not to the point where they were before, but at least a few of the USN BB's do need a cit nerf.

The low cits in almost every high tier BB in the game now just don't punish bad play enough, not to say the ships should be blown off the face of the earth in a single salvo like they used to though.  It also ruins the point of turtleback on the German BB line, making them even more anemic, I find that you can actually do heavier damage more consistently to broadside German BB's than to many other BB's despite one of the main quirks of German BB's supposedly being their ability to not take much damage while broadsiding.

I can agree there. USN BBs had a notoriously large citadel, but now they're at or below the waterline making them extremely hard to citadel in general, and near impossible at close ranges. The only battleships left in the game that can be reliably citadeled are the Japanese and some of the French it would seem (and even the French aat least get a turtleback).

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
833
[SIDE]
Members
2,368 posts
Just now, Aetreus said:

Yeah, and Montana is actually in need of some sort of handicap. Because let's face it- she has no weaknesses. She has thick inclined armor, making her hard to citadel if she puts the slightest work into it. She has 12 guns, USN accuracy, access to the 11% acc mod, and high sigma. Nothing else in the game can evaporate cruisers or punish a BB error like Montana can. She has the best AA on a battleship(ATM, Republique will steal this unless they change how CV rework AA functions). I suppose she doesn't have buffed HE like the UK or IJN, but Yamato has too few guns to make that work anyways, so she's probably upper half there as well(better than GK, Yamato, possibly Rep). Secondaries are fairly good, she doesn't have the best range but they get good gun arcs, high damage and fire output, and are armored so they don't get killed like on most battleships.

No. I skeptical you aren’t on some agenda here. I’m nearly certain you don’t have the Montana in port. Citing specs and saying “looks good” is poor analysis. Notice how nobody is claiming “ that darn Montana is OP and nukes me every day.” Never will. You should get some stick time before spewing nonsense.

 It’s a balanced ship. This is what a jack-of-no-trades ship looks like. 

Guns good but not best. Speed good but not best. Survivability good but not best. Forgettable secondaries. Really good AA but Zero gadgets and no gizmos. 

You are too used to seeing floating gimmicks disguised as warships. Its a ship that is actually well thought out and plays pretty well without add-ons or “best of game” specs. You are looking for a problem where there just isn’t one to find.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
980
[R-F]
Members
1,355 posts
8,274 battles
10 minutes ago, Aetreus said:

Yeah, and Montana is actually in need of some sort of handicap. Because let's face it- she has no weaknesses. She has thick inclined armor, making her hard to citadel if she puts the slightest work into it. She has 12 guns, USN accuracy, access to the 11% acc mod, and high sigma. Nothing else in the game can evaporate cruisers or punish a BB error like Montana can. She has the best AA on a battleship(ATM, Republique will steal this unless they change how CV rework AA functions). I suppose she doesn't have buffed HE like the UK or IJN, but Yamato has too few guns to make that work anyways, so she's probably upper half there as well(better than GK, Yamato, possibly Rep). Secondaries are fairly good, she doesn't have the best range but they get good gun arcs, high damage and fire output, and are armored so they don't get killed like on most battleships.

Not a battleship player so I have no dog in the fight here, but... Montana is last in average damage and win rate in randoms and is near the bottom in practically every other category in both randoms and ranked play.  Not sure there's much basis to support a nerf to it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,441
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
22,971 posts
3,895 battles
2 minutes ago, Brhinosaurus said:

Not a battleship player so I have no dog in the fight here, but... Montana is last in average damage and win rate in randoms and is near the bottom in practically every other category in both randoms and ranked play.  Not sure there's much basis to support a nerf to it.

Oddly, it's the #1 pick for battleships in Clan Wars. So clearly there's something good about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,795
Alpha Tester
7,113 posts
3,722 battles

The Montana's biggest issue is her shell size when fighting other BBs. Outside of that she's not particularly well armored, but not poorly armored either. She's mostly an asset in CW because she's good against Cruisers do to her accuracy and number of guns.

Her citadel being unhittable is also fairly laughable with no basis in reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
833
[SIDE]
Members
2,368 posts
Just now, landcollector said:

Wrong.  That distinction goes to Jean Bart.

And it doesn’t matter AT ALL. Any tier 9 or 10 carrier driver with planes and a pulse can do the old cross-drop-apocalypse and delete them easily.

Yeah they may lose a few planes but that’s not gonna cost any team points and it’s not like the carrier loses health when it loses planes. Now there are a couple ideas...

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×