Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Gojuadorai

Alaska and Azuma Fire duration ...WG fails again

71 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
2,818 posts
16,234 battles



Fire duration is set to 60s

i assume cause "Battlecruisers" (Kron and Stalin) showed not enough fire dmg taken in comparison....
but that would be again the typical Wg fallancy reading data.

those ships are humungous and therefore i would bet 90% of cpts run fire prevention
+eventually other skills to reduce fire dmg .

OFC the data will show less fire dmg taken.

but hey they need to nerf that  and therefore create a intra calss imbalance .... :fish_palm:
(prepare for RU_Bias posts incoming)

Great job.

 

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles

Balanzgrad :Smile_trollface:

 

You "really" want to hope they will adjust the burn for the RU Battlecruisers when the above goes live...

 

Otherwise the Russian Ships will have better armour and less fire damage, I have faith in our impartial developers. 

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,936 posts
12,778 battles
Just now, LemonadeWarrior said:

I am guessing that if the test is succesful that Stalingrad and Krohnstad will receive this nerf as well.

Nerfing premiums? Now that would be against their policy.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,047 posts
9,878 battles
Just now, 159Hunter said:

Nerfing premiums? Now that would be against their policy.

“Universal change”... when it’s not Russian comrade 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,818 posts
16,234 battles
4 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

I am guessing that if the test is succesful that Stalingrad and Krohnstad will receive this nerf as well.

 

that would atleast be fair


although i dont see the point to nerf them by increasing the frustration potential
(beeing huge is already a bane for BCs)
also 45s is kinda a nice middleground between CAs and BBs
 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OP-B]
Beta Tester
597 posts
3,341 battles
4 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Nerfing premiums? Now that would be against their policy.

Perhaps not for the Krohnstad, but I don't know how they see the Stalingrad. Before the campaign it was a premium that could only be gotten by ingame rewards, so yea who knows, they've done it before.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
617 posts

I would see rough seas ahead if they began to nerf premium ships directly (they might still do it the sneaky way through a change in game mechanics...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,461 posts
9,589 battles
5 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

Perhaps not for the Krohnstad, but I don't know how they see the Stalingrad. Before the campaign it was a premium that could only be gotten by ingame rewards, so yea who knows, they've done it before.

 

Now that they sold the steel campaign for 60 Euros, there is no way they will nerf Stalingrad. 

 

It is basically the same as Missouri now, which people got after converting FXP for money. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
1,936 posts
12,778 battles
4 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

Perhaps not for the Krohnstad, but I don't know how they see the Stalingrad. Before the campaign it was a premium that could only be gotten by ingame rewards, so yea who knows, they've done it before.

The big issue is that there is no "battlecruiser" class ingame. They are all in the cruiser department. So how they'll justify nerfing Stalingrad and Kronstadt without nerfing say Henri and Moskva ( or all other high tier cruisers for that matter ) is beyond me. It'll set a dangerous example. (especially now that a number of people invested real money in the steel campaigns to get their Stalin quicker ).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
617 posts

Mind you, I have nothing against a universal change in game mechanics. I had a strange battle in my Jarvis  Icarus yesterday. Usually playing it feels crappy at best but.. what was strange about that battle is that mostly people seemed to miss a lot, ships did not seem to get that much damage, they did not seem to burn so quickly and most of the battle was spent in tactical maneuvering unlike the usual 'camp-in-smoke-or-behind-island' kind of game play which I personally find detestable.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
878 posts
6,994 battles

Joining NWP private topic, just because I'm NWP :Smile_trollface:

 

Also, when is this bloody Alaska coming?

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OP-B]
Beta Tester
597 posts
3,341 battles
5 minutes ago, __Helmut_Kohl__ said:

 

Now that they sold the steel campaign for 60 Euros, there is no way they will nerf Stalingrad. 

 

It is basically the same as Missouri now, which people got after converting FXP for money. 

Yea true that. I can imagine Azuma needs the 60 fire duration, because it is a more stealthy ship though. 
We'll see what happens. So far WG is doing a pretty good job imo.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,818 posts
16,234 battles
12 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

So far WG is doing a pretty good job imo.

 

yes and no
im mostly onboard or atleast can live with what they do and then they throw in the occasional super horrible decision like


- releasing the asashio
- creating the Harugumo

- the current CV rework
- this.... 

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
456 posts
11,457 battles

This is such a BS! I'm trying to say something, make a comment, that is not filled with salt and toxicity, I just can't find the words. Russian bias at it's finest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
878 posts
6,994 battles
4 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

 

yes and no
im mostly onboard or atleast can live with wwhat they do and then they throw in the occasional super horrible decision like


- releasing the asashio
- creating the Harugumo

- the current CV rework
- this.... 

Asashio isn't that much of a problem - another "SKY IS FALLING" issue, like RPF or smoke changes, that doesn't really impact the game. As an erstwhile DD main, I think I've played about 3 games in her and don't find her OP in the slightest. Boring, more than anything.

 

Agree about the Haru, though. Of course everything can be countered but it's just pure cheese in pixel form.

 

Least said about the current rework as possible :Smile_hiding:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,085 posts
6,478 battles

Speaking of which: Oktyabrskaya has nice russian DCP. We all know, all upcoming russian BBs have it. Why doesnt Stalingrad have it? Come on, WG, you dropped the ball on this one! But its not too late, just a little buff change. And dont forget Kronshtadt, ty :Smile_hiding:

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OP-B]
Beta Tester
597 posts
3,341 battles
10 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

 

yes and no
im mostly onboard or atleast can live with what they do and then they throw in the occasional super horrible decision like


- releasing the asashio
- creating the Harugumo

- the current CV rework
- this.... 


I am not sure what you mean with the Asashio or Harugumo? Both of them are nicely balanced imo.

Current CV rework I don't know. It is still in progress. Same for this nerf, but it makes sense in my eyes.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,818 posts
16,234 battles
8 minutes ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

I am not sure what you mean with the Asashio or Harugumo? Both of them are nicely balanced imo.

 

i dont want to derail this to much from the original topic so i dont wanna diuscuss this further but since you asked:
both ships are toxic in a way no matter how they are balanced they are harmfull to the game cause they work fundamentally diffrent to the game eco system 
(e.g. the harugumo ignores spoting as seen in CW cause its ROF can "target paint unspoted ships for everyone" this is a example and more can be made but please not here)

as for the topic i just hope it doesnt go through
if thoise ships seriously need a nerf im pretty sure they can nerf something else 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RO-RN]
Players
442 posts
5,937 battles

how about we buff kronstadt by giving it stalingrad guns and we leava alaska alone? 

and we can give azuma 60s of fire duration if you give stalngrad 100 of fire duration it deserves the worst!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,185 posts
3,836 battles
7 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

Nerfing premiums? Now that would be against their policy.

It wouldn't be the first time WG going against their rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
456 posts
11,457 battles
1 hour ago, Hades_warrior said:

It wouldn't be the first time WG going against their rules.

This is one "rule" WG never broke, Not in WOT, WOWP or WOWS. They never nerfed a premium vehicle. Directly They nerfed some game mechanic like firing from smoke which affected Belfast and Kutuzov for example. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×