Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Lord_Argus

Can I Be Honest With You? The Thunderer Nerf Doesn't Really Feel Like a Nerf

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

806
[AKITA]
Members
396 posts

Just saying... seems to be doing as good as it always did and the 23km range is more than enough 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,523
[D-DAY]
Members
7,136 posts

It is a nerf in as much as the 'figures' have changed; in time maybe the stats may go down a little too. However the ship, how it plays and what it can achieve....pretty much the same IMO.

In fact, if this was a conscious move by WG to introduce 'balance' changes I'd say 'not bad' - at least we didn't get the usual sledgehammer size change! (But as I have long last faith in WG decisions, I can't give them credit - so I'll just thank whatever powers there are that  introduced the small scale changes :Smile_Default:).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,343
[-TRM-]
[-TRM-]
Members
3,953 posts

A paper cut nerf generates more attention than a compound fracture of the arm nerf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,123
[WPORT]
Members
11,035 posts
15,507 battles
3 hours ago, Lord_Argus said:

Can I Be Honest With You? The Thunderer Nerf Doesn't Really Feel Like a Nerf

By Lord_Argus,

Just saying... seems to be doing as good as it always did and the 23km range is more than enough 

I'll be honest with you.
I feel the Thunderer didn't need to be nerfed in the first place.

  • Cool 5
  • Haha 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
613
Members
696 posts
8,275 battles

Thunderer needed slava shell velocity, should of been buffed and not nerfed

  • Funny 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
290
[D4DDY]
Members
115 posts
6,263 battles

Can I be honest?

With dead eye being removed

thunderer should be buffed.

 

because it was so wicked to nerf coal ship that WG announced to remove from armoury to rush people to buy...

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
64
[DMGS]
Members
174 posts
7,250 battles
1 minute ago, I_Know_Putin said:

Can I be honest?

With dead eye being removed

thunderer should be buffed.

 

because it was so wicked to nerf coal ship that WG announced to remove from armoury to rush people to buy...

It’s still way more accurate and consistent with its volleys than Conqueror. No need for a buff at all. There are RN BBs that could use buffs, this is not one of them.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,484
[HINON]
Members
14,323 posts

I sense great sarcasm in this thread. 10/10 would read again.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,203
[HINON]
Members
9,164 posts
13,743 battles

"it doesnt really feel like a nerf"  thats because its not, Thunderer still has over 20km(23km iirc) range to play with and for a sniper-style battleship, thats more than enough no matter what range in the 20s it is

Edited by tcbaker777
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[FORM]
Members
332 posts
2,362 battles

It's tricky to play. Gotta set up at the back of the map and light the world on fire, picking targets you haven't already lit on fire is a real chore, and then sometimes you get in close to a cruiser and have to switch to AP... OMG! So much work! #buffthethundererererer!

thund.thumb.JPG.aa958a41a9d2cae14c5ac2ca25d502d4.JPG

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,766
[WOLFC]
Members
3,192 posts
11,879 battles

While I’m not going to argue that Thunderer didn’t need a nerf, I don’t think the main purpose of this nerf was to bring the ship into a balanced state - that might require further changes. It certainly helps, but I think the main goal, along with the Stalingrad radar nerf, was to establish a precedent for adjusting “special” ships, which WG had left the door open to do but had never done prior.

Edited by Nevermore135

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.

×