Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
ABED1984

Stalingrad 60 Seconds Fire Duration

98 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[PNAVY]
Players
1,192 posts
38,162 battles

 Alaska and Azuma has one important thing going for them compared to Stalingrad, Which is concealment. Now with the increased fire duration Stalingrad will suffer two times, From bad concealment and the fire duration. Stalingrad concealment will even get worse with the upcoming changes to the Concealment captain skill which will make things even worse for the ship. Also Kronshtadt is already balance with her inaccurate guns, So why she gets that 60 sec fire duration as well?!! The only reason WG did that IMO is to please the players who doesn't have both ships. I'm not pleased with these adjustments.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 10
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
1,346 posts
18,996 battles
10 minutes ago, ABED1984 said:

 Alaska and Azuma has one important thing going for them compared to Stalingrad, Which is concealment. Now with the increased fire duration Stalingrad will suffer two times, From bad concealment and the fire duration. Stalingrad concealment will even get worse with the upcoming changes to the Concealment captain skill which will make things even worse for the ship. Also Kronshtadt is already balance with her inaccurate guns, So why she gets that 60 sec fire duration as well?!! The only reason WG did that IMO is to please the players who doesn't have both ships. I'm not pleased with these adjustments.

Glad i got the uss black instead :Smile-_tongue:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PNAVY]
Players
1,192 posts
38,162 battles
11 minutes ago, Ysterpyp said:

Glad i got the uss black instead :Smile-_tongue:

USS Black has no place for her in this thread. It's a DD not a B.cruiser. :Smile_Default:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,649 posts
8,138 battles
6 minutes ago, ABED1984 said:

USS Black has no place for her in this thread. It's a DD not a B.cruiser. :Smile_Default:

There is your answer.

WG had to do it because they reason with the fact that those are Battlecruisers, so it would be russian bias if they loosen the rule only for RU ships.

Some more disadvantages over moskva aren't a bad thing on Stalingrad either.

I agree though that Kronshtadt didn't really needed that Nerf but I still say it's reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PNAVY]
Players
1,192 posts
38,162 battles
Just now, Miessa3 said:

There is your answer.

WG had to do it because they reason with the fact that those are Battlecruisers, so it would be russian bias if they loosen the rule only for RU ships.

Some more dissadvantages over moskva aren't a bad thing on Stalingrad either.

I agree though that Kronshtadt didn't really needed that Nerf but I still say it's reasonable.

Yes, But they aren't Battleships either. Meaning, BBs has this 60 sec duration so why make a Battlecruiser on the same level with Battleships?! :Smile_unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
1,346 posts
18,996 battles
17 minutes ago, ABED1984 said:

USS Black has no place for her in this thread. It's a DD not a B.cruiser. :Smile_Default:

 

Another reason is its harder to farm unicum wtr in stalin + you should see the how the ultimate crocodile camo destroys WG economy  

download.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,649 posts
8,138 battles
4 minutes ago, ABED1984 said:

Yes, But they aren't Battleships either. Meaning, BBs has this 60 sec duration so why make a Battlecruiser on the same level with Battleships?! :Smile_unsure:

Yes i agree 45 Seconds would be more reasonable.

My point is just that if it's 60 seconds for Alaska and Azuma it's 60 secs for everyone.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PNAVY]
Players
1,192 posts
38,162 battles
5 minutes ago, Miessa3 said:

Yes i agree 45 Seconds would be more reasonable.

My point is just that if it's 60 seconds for Alaska and Azuma it's 60 secs for everyone.

Like i said, Those 2 ships has better concealment. Now Stalingrad has bad concealment and BB fire duration while the other two still has superior concealment that's better than regular silver ships like Hindenburg or Henri. If we are speaking about balancing ships then give Stalingrad the same level of concealment that Alaska and Azuma has or nearly to the same level.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NMA]
Players
1,040 posts
17,353 battles
7 minutes ago, Miessa3 said:

My point is just that if it's 60 seconds for Alaska and Azuma it's 60 secs for everyone.

 

16 minutes ago, Miessa3 said:

WG had to do it because they reason with the fact that those are Battlecruisers, so it would be russian bias if they loosen the rule only for RU ships. 

WG shouldn't have nerfed Alaska and Azuma in the first place. WG reasoning for it is questionable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,960 posts
8,346 battles
9 minutes ago, ABED1984 said:

Like i said, Those 2 ships has better concealment. Now Stalingrad has bad concealment and BB fire duration while the other two still has superior concealment that's better than regular silver ships like Hindenburg or Henri. If we are speaking about balancing ships then give Stalingrad the same level of concealment that Alaska and Azuma has or nearly to the same level.

Sure, just don't forget to give azuma radar and alaska soviet shell velocity to make them all truly equal.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LEEUW]
Players
1,996 posts
9,856 battles

It also has the biggest HP pool so yeah... Maybe this will bring the moskva back to life because now it is kinda obsolete. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
887 posts
16,496 battles

Can I just remind everyone that's whining that it's just a 15 second increase and that's before counting in stuff like flags, BoS etc. It's not the end of the world IMO.. 

Plus, now there might be a an actual reason to pick Moskva for CB.. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,895 posts
12 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

It also has the biggest HP pool so yeah... Maybe this will bring the moskva back to life because now it is kinda obsolete. 

Thought people already said the Moskva was a viable pick. "Moskva has better HE DPM therefore its a better pick for CB". Though the same ppl that said that run Stalingrad instead of Moskva so who knows. :Smile_trollface:

 

 

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TKBS]
[TKBS]
Alpha Tester
1,003 posts
10,749 battles

yeah...kronstad is triuly balansed comrade!

1237082319_tier9ships.thumb.jpg.9ff5edb285ccbeba00b94a897824999e.jpg

 

and don't tell me the bs " but it is a freemium ships, so better player have it" cause is bs, and the salem will show you exactly that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
1 hour ago, ABED1984 said:

 Alaska and Azuma has one important thing going for them compared to Stalingrad, Which is concealment. Now with the increased fire duration Stalingrad will suffer two times, From bad concealment and the fire duration. Stalingrad concealment will even get worse with the upcoming changes to the Concealment captain skill which will make things even worse for the ship. Also Kronshtadt is already balance with her inaccurate guns, So why she gets that 60 sec fire duration as well?!! The only reason WG did that IMO is to please the players who doesn't have both ships. I'm not pleased with these adjustments.

Stalin is OP ship....7 second longer fire will do nothing to change that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,564 posts
7,587 battles
32 minutes ago, Freyr_90 said:

Can I just remind everyone that's whining that it's just a 15 second increase and that's before counting in stuff like flags, BoS etc. It's not the end of the world IMO.. 

Plus, now there might be a an actual reason to pick Moskva for CB.. 

 

On top of that, the OP KNOWS why the change happens so...can we say TROLL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
1,346 posts
18,996 battles
3 minutes ago, veslingr said:

waist of good steel

3907435876_65a7e82703_b.jpg

steel waist yeah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
1 minute ago, Ysterpyp said:

3907435876_65a7e82703_b.jpg

steel waist yeah

no idea what is the point here but i agree :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,649 posts
8,138 battles
3 minutes ago, Ysterpyp said:

3907435876_65a7e82703_b.jpg

steel waist yeah

that sure is designed for a slim waist. :Smile_hiding:

 

1 minute ago, veslingr said:

no idea what is the point here but i agree :)

It's called "waste" (at least what you meant)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,564 posts
7,587 battles
6 minutes ago, veslingr said:

waist of good steel

 

Just now, veslingr said:

no idea what is the point here but i agree :)

 

To throw someting away, make it useless, its a WASTE.

 

Waist is the central part of your body, bottom end of your torso.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,975 posts
477 battles
5 minutes ago, Juanx said:

 

 

To throw someting away, make it useless, its a WASTE.

 

Waist is the central part of your body, bottom end of your torso.

aaaa spelling police...good good....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PNAVY]
Players
1,192 posts
38,162 battles
13 minutes ago, Juanx said:

 

On top of that, the OP KNOWS why the change happens so...can we say TROLL?

It isn't a good idea to nerf a hard earned ship, Is it? :Smile_sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×