Jump to content

WanderingGhost

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    3,611
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    8485
  • Clan

    [SSG]

Community Reputation

981 Excellent

2 Followers

About WanderingGhost

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,642 profile views
  1. WanderingGhost

    Let’s make Azuma available for Coal

    Or just have some more events like Christmas/New Year where players can earn steel. One of the few things I think they executed well the last year, into this one, as when you look at the setup - Ranked and CW players get first dibs basically as they can/will earn steel faster, with the next group being those of us who have tier 9-10 ships (and/or tier 8 premiums)who would be more familiar with the tiers gameplay and have at least general experience to get to that tier, especially with multiple lines, followed then by players that are below that tier range and likely not ready for high tier gameplay. Ranked/CW players still have a goal to work towards, because getting it sooner means learning it and having an edge as players still have to learn how to fight it yet, while allowing those of us who can't or don't play those game modes to still be able to get these ships. Because no ship should belong to a select few, barring a temporary deal where say for a year, no one else can get them, and then everyone can - even the Iwaki Alpha and Ark Beta, both of which I own. Just like the ST version of Bama vs common, just have the alpha and Beta dropped. Simply markers that we got ours from testing, others did missions/bought/free xp/coal the ship. Stats wise the Iwaki is still a bit high - though, this could simply be us alpha testers having it, and the additional gameplay time we had, combined with small numbers that because the ship is seen so rarely, players simply have not learned how to beat it. Ark Beta however has started dropping off more, so that one is a bit less likely to be kicking a hornets nest on "OP ship".
  2. WanderingGhost

    Tier 8 premium BB: Hood, Vanguard, Rome, or Alabama?

    Not even close. The ONLY thing that comes close is her AA rockets - if the enemy sends DB's, you fully build AA, and don't have the 3 launchers knocked out and pop DF AA. Without that gimmick, that some of us would gladly pass on, I don't think they have a single justification to have her at tier 6. She BARELY manages to do well against +1 ships - like Bismarck, let alone against Iowa's and Izumo's. She's big, one of the biggest ships in game, and very soft armour. This size also impacts the turrets somewhat, with how far they are spaced apart. Giving some very weird angles when a ship gets close. She has I think a standard repair, not UK special, no real secondaries, no real AA without the rockets, she's basically a WW1 BC, squared off against interwar ships, that when she was finished Admiralty realized she stood little chance against, and early-late warships when up tiered. And with shorter fuse times, for now. If she were a tier 6, she'd be excellent. Great speed, decent armour for that tier and the guns she see's, And we'll say middle of the road guns, but a drawback of being a bigger target with weaker air defence (removing DF AA super rockets). At tier 7 - you really only see her when an event calls for her use because she just does not perform that well. As a matter of fact Wargaming is trying to buff the ship, setting her fuse timers to normal BB levels to try and increase it's ability to damage them.
  3. WanderingGhost

    Let’s Talk About "Waterline: Episode 4"

    Why I only use strafe when it's used on me - I'm the weirdo that wants a fair fight. But why removing strafe or nerfing it back to a dispersion debuff as it used to be (damage used to be the same as if you clicked on the group, just applied to all groups in the path) you pretty much remove that entire issue. A change that should have been made years ago. And what I've played - this new one still has a giant gap, it's just that now the red CV is less a part of that gap. Now it's back to the old days of USN strike vs USN strike - when no one had fighters. Whoever deals the damage faster runs the board. Throw in sniping and it being easier to remove CV's as they can not actively maneuver to dodge fire without fully recalling planes, it's going to be who's better at getting through flak, or isn't against a heavy flak team, and better at overly limited ordnance. I remove or help remove 2 BB's, and the other CV has done maybe 10% damage to a cruiser, it's the same tipping as before.
  4. This is like Super Pershing for me all over again. I mean, I've had some really bad luck beyond wins (I normally don't run det flags on anything, let alone a BB, but I've considered it on Izumo as 6/23 matches ended very early for me via detonations, part of my low average damage and all), but the games I got a chance to do something, it did work. Now it'll be even easier to destroy turrets.
  5. WanderingGhost

    Wargaming, please make Saipan Tier 6 Instead.

    I don't see her planes changing at all. As it stands, when she used to be a tech tree ship way back when - people rioted because of the planes she was given. As it stands her current tier 9 planes are basically a compromise because no more jets and the fact that jets at that tier anyway would be insane, but current hanger limits would be an issue vs tier 8. And lord knows the thing has been an issue at tier 7 since it was introduced. With hangers basically pointless, it makes more sense to put her at 8 with her sort of historical planes, more so if her F4U-4's are perhaps traded out for at drop or maybe down the road, for FH-1's because aside from lack of finalized rocket damage balance, having a higher speed will be a double-edged sword in timing and trying to attack, though, it's also only 30 mph faster than an F4U-4 at top speed. Other side benefit for DD's could be speed helping force the planes out of range and make it harder to keep them lit up.
  6. WanderingGhost

    Wargaming, please make Saipan Tier 6 Instead.

    To this point - people that like a type and line, and do well with it, especially as 8 is considered one of the better money making and training tiers for experienced players. That and any difference or meaning in ships, such as Bama and Mass. If anything - Enterprise should drop to tier 6, while Saipan moves to tier 8. Odds are Saipan will be the same 1 of each as every other ship, barring maybe tier 4, likely gain access to Tiny Tim's, and have the faster, more powerful planes that belong at that tier. And likely play around with her plane numbers and all. Enterprise, on the other hand, they basically rounded her up to tier 8. I think they may have moved the Hellcat to tier 6 in the rework or more accurately, that version as the F6F-3 is already the tier 6 fighter, can't remember, I know a point of contention is the Avengers being the starting tier 8 cause it's still tier 7, and the SBD-5 while listed as tier 7 makes it's first appearance at tier 6. Short of them actually keeping group numbers and attack groups the same, instead of the crap 1-2 at a time we got no idea what they are doing with this ship anyway. They could be altering how many attack and launch and all, again, reasons people want delays cause this is we should be getting told up front. I can justify with no problem the newer, better equipped CV with tier appropriate planes moving to 8 in the rework, more so than keeping the ship that is far older, despite upgrades, with more dated planes, maintaining it's tier. Then again, Kaga should be tier 6 not 8 in this mess and more over - they shouldn't be getting rid of tier 7 in the first place.
  7. I think you guys need to delay it a bit longer or postpone the rework part for some more changes (Kaga should be tier 6 in this mess, not 8 but you shouldn't be removing odd tiers in the first place), but a week is a start.
  8. WanderingGhost

    How many is your losing streak?

    I had to stop counting around 20 matches at the top of my team - including 5 where I did enough in only 5 minutes before getting obliterated, to out score my ENTIRE TEAM, some of whom were still alive in matches that went 18-20 minutes. 2 in BB's, 2 in CA/L, and one in a DD. As well as 2 krakens, in 100k damage games, in HE only AS Lexington.I have had some ugly streaks. To give you an idea, a couple months after the game went live, My winrate was 51.5% and rising. My current Winrate, is around 50.4% - after dragging it back up from a low around 48-49% after about 2 years of stacking losses, with occasional wins.
  9. WanderingGhost

    Let’s Talk About "Waterline: Episode 4"

    Which is why, for a long time, tutorials have been asked for, for not just that class but even some basics of gameplay in the others to help further teaching certain key skills, like angling. Sure, people do write ups, make video's, etc - but some people need to do it in game, and throwing themselves against bots after reading or watching isn't enough. I will also point out that I played one RTS game, Halo Wars, a decade ago on Xbox - as until Warships it was the one RTS game that was remotely tolerable and honestly aside from forgetting controls and all, I was used to a radically different control scheme. However, prior to the introduction of the action elements aka Strafing and Manual Drops- which is really most, if not all, of the entire skill gap in point 3, they were actually very easy to learn and master - at least from a certain point of view. I know a lot of people looked at it as this big complex and confusing mess. At first, back in alpha, even I did for a bit, till I looked at it again. WASD - these controlled my ship exact same as my Battleships. Groups 2-7 (I mainly stayed to USN at that time) was like selecting my ammo/torpedo tubes on a DD or cruiser. And scrolling to my target to click on it was the same as adjusting in binocular view for range and speed in the other 3 types and clicking that ship the same as firing. After that, the only thing was attack angles which was different than fire and forget shells and torps. I even used that logic to help some people learn the system because it does simplify back to the same system as the other 3 - WASD steers the ship, numbers/letters to select ammo and consumables, click to fire. Now keep in mind that I am not only an Alpha tester of this game, but a former World of Warplanes player I actually found the new system far less intuitive and more problematic, beyond my MYRIAD issues with history and function of the ships, than RTS - a style that I had limited real experience with and was at best, years out of practice. WASD controls the planes but so too does the mouse, which can cause a bit of a headache, I have to look all over the screen for different pieces of information, where as previously a lot of it on RTS was centralized to the bottom bar. Unlike simple point and click for planes to go places, I have to open the map, taking me out of gameplay entirely, and click just to try and get my ship to move or steer if I have planes in the air, on top of a similar clunky system for AA. So now, when my ship is in danger, I can no longer defend myself, and am more reliant than even now on my team to help defend my ship. And unlike ships, where beyond dispersion, shells go where you aim, and RTS, where torps and bombs, other than dispersion, go where you aim, the aim points for all 3 types you assume "I click there, I attack there" but last time I played it, all the aim points were off, a complaint I had back in beta testing this system - the aim point should be where I start my attack, not an area short of it. And TB's are that much wore as you have no indicator till you attack of where the run NEEDS to start so they arm. Even in Warplanes, other than ballistic drop on guns and rockets, which you knew to account for with lead - ordnance went where you clicked and in a dive attack, as most rocket attacks were in that game, they too, went where aimed. And getting fighters to do what you want is at best a headache. Except - this wouldn't because not only is it standard to current RTS play unless you one shot a ship, at least half decent ones, there is the plain and simple fact that all 3 other classes, especially DD and CL - are very much accustomed to this concept as they rely heavily on fires for damage. They are used to setting a fire or two in order to set another fire that burns longer, or flood a target. Or burn them after a torp hit. So, such a thing is not actually an increase in micro management. In the case of the BASIC RTS controls, this is false. The controls had nothing to do with it. No more than any other ship type and associated knowledge. This came down to two very specific controls, added after the fact, and never properly addressed - Strafing and Manual Drop. No other ship has a button that can automatically disable all of another ships turrets, or drastically increased accuracy. These did not exist when CV's first came out - they were added after complaints by players - complaints they wanted more action and control over fighters and bombers. The increased accuracy afforded by manual drops was an issue from day 1, as the alpha damage of CV's was balanced to heavily around the range of drops, AA doing it's job to which that has never been balanced well, and an ability to dodge and mitigate damage. The problem is that manual drops removed the range, and ability to dodge - making it purely reliant on AA. Because let's be real here, those of us with sufficient practice - we compensate for the attempted dodge of turning in before they arm. This, is like giving a BB DD accuracy. Accuracy that in the smaller types - is balanced around lower damage. There is a drastic difference between 6 hits for 6000 damage, and 6 for 60000. As well as when you have someone like me, that makes the choice to not exploit manual drops, and lands on average 50% of my torps or better, against someone like me when I exploit, almost guaranteed 100% hits, using those numbers again, is now a difference of 3000 damage, not 30000. A way, way smaller gap. And then you have strafing which, when it was first released was actually NOT a problem. You might take down a plane or two, but it was an AoE debuff for bombers same as DF AA, but less devastation of air groups. The same "action" crew balked again, that it was "useless" because it did not vaporize planes as an auto win button, you had to use it at the right time to have it be effective - just like DF AA. But then it was made into an auto delete - and from that day on, it has been who is better at using that skill. Remove those two things, again, RTS is still very similar to others when you look at it, it removes the skill disparity beyond tactical planning, which lets be real here a second, all 3 other types use tactical planning as well based on strengths and weaknesses. Even just fix them, and it drastically reduces it. Here has been one of my biggest issues on contention with the rework - at what point do you really make actual adjustments? A lot of the PTS complaints - we had those complaints in Beta never addressed, some are still an issue in 8.0 test 2, so is it when the live server erupts in rage that these things get fixed? At that point now your talking massive potential damage to the game out right, this is why some of us are saying fine, if this is inevitable, because it's been made clear you guys are overly focused on going to this style - a style with 32% backing it and a common complaint it's boring after a few battles, if not minutes - but take more time. Delay 8.0 and go to 7.13. Or just drop the CV element for now, work it into events for proof of concept on a larger scale and balancing. Create a new ship type if you have to, like submarines, that emulates the gameplay, put them in space battles for April fools and the like, have THAT be the proving ground. Not a year of top secret work and what was at best rushed testing. CV and non-CV players can at least agree we would rather you guys take the time, and release it way more right, than "This comes out the 23rd hell or high water be damned". Which is where I now address this. Lets remove point one at this point because the rework happens, from a different point of view CV's are not that different in controls for RTS, I've hammered this out, my key point is point 2 and 3 at this point. Let us start with point 2 - Class balance. As it stands, they are widely considered "OP" - because of strafing and manual drops, and the lack of AA balance at low tiers. Forgoing some exceptions at high tiers. At high tiers, most players seem to rarely care - unless they are singled out alone from any other ship. Most players complaints are solved by a reduction in alpha damage - that they should have been given years ago, and by AA being fixed. After that, charging alone when a CV is in play is like sitting broadside in a cruiser to a BB - player error and mistakes. Because we have to address the other side here - That some ships have been immune and made CV's useless in battles that are not other CV's. I've had a Shokaku bring his full force on my Iowa - and he hit me with one bomb, and just barely caught me with a torp, no flooding, at the cost of 18 planes of 72 total. I have been attacked by a Saipan with TB'sin Arizona - to which I followed his planes to him by match end and he hit me twice, and auto repaired the flooding on one, at the cost of 5 planes and AZ is not known for speed, agility, or AA. AA and Alpha changes have always been inevitable, and needed. The rework is unnessecary for them. And while AP bombs, which are on the wrong nation because beyond Pearl IJN never used the straight up AP bombs they used Semi-AP on DB's and typical attack runs mixed with HE, have finally gotten a nerf, we all know that because you have basically made the game now nothing but manual drops, your going to have to nerf the alpha more on CV's anyway. Which, will frustrate CV players who have 1 group of 3 TB's that attack 1 at a time. Same with rockets, likely same with bombs. At which point, what is the point of the setup of the rework as is when the point of divvying up planes is to act as an anti-one shot nerf? Especially when there is just as much salt over these planes circling to make attacks and keep you lit? A lot of people do not like the multiple attacks as they are now. Getting out of pure balance, the lack of a point to hangers, and that they all feel like cardboard cutouts, does not help endear this to anyone. Now as to point 3, while we can debate on impact disparity, because I've seen skill disparity when there is only one DD or Battleship, especially DD, have just as much impact, the goal is to close this. The problem is, the way you have this minigame setup, there is still a drastic disparity between players. And it still has the same impact, now made worse actually that attacks are fully in the hands of the players and tier 6 CV's vs 8 that if you get their fighters dropped on you, disintegrate your planes, pit someone against a player that knows even the new system out when they don't, they are going to end up having the same disparity of the skilled player running up damage numbers faster than them, especially when your talking such low volume, like single torps, that are far easier to dodge. I figured things out in testing, and ran up numbers on players that had no clue, just as when I was struggling, my team suffered from me still learning while someone that had it down just ran up numbers at a horrifying rate. That disparity is still there, and truth be told there is not much you can do to alleviate it in some cases. Not while we control attack planes the way we do in either system. You'd have to remove all manual attacks, and have planes attack by default from a preset attack angle that can't be changed to do that. But Flak dodging is going to be a major thing that separates the CV player dealing 100k in a match and the one doing 30. And at this point, we know we can't stop you guys from pushing this on us, but we'd like at least some sort of meeting halfway here. Your guys in the video are flat out wrong, we need control while the planes are in the air, even if we have to temporarily leave them in a holding pattern. It's almost universally agreed that removing odd tier CV's isn't right - to which this will also hurt the natural learning you guys want to add as the tiers jump as they do and hell, some of the other ships have little in the way of changes through tiers. And we have the fact your going to have to nerf alpha, people are not fond of circling and issues that come with it, skilled vs unskilled, etc - give us larger attack groups, with lower damage ordnance that make few, if any, second strikes. Maybe keep multiple groups, but launch one at a time so Midway has 2x6 rocket plane groups, 2x6 torpedo plane groups and 2x6 DB groups that you go, you drop, then launch the next. Which further helps differentiate tiers, as now, though even if you just adjust number of planes attacking and which type - this can help you have variety between tiers and lines, as well as ordnance options. And look, I get I'm likely one of, if not the only person that's got an issue with this - but let's keep at least some of the historical accuracy. Remove rockets from tier 4 all together, save that for tier 5 as an introduction. Just the TB's and DB's. Give USN an AP option higher up in tiers, as well as a smaller, more accurate option of HE along with the heavier less accurate HE option. If you want to give the tier 10 IJN CV an option of rockets cause were in full fantasy land at that point, fine, but remove rockets from the A6M's and other fighters for the HE bombs they could carry when they were used in non-kamikaze GA roles, as rare as that was. Make the DB's carry Semi-AP bombs - similar to British AP, or German enhanced pen HE. Kaga is similar to her 1941 setup, if not flat out in it - this can be exploited to add some variety by giving her full AP bombs, either as a 4th group, or, replacing her TB's (as they were the only planes that could carry the bombs, and dropped in level flight, not a dive) and keeping her at tier 7. This could also be a good test bed for a German full CV line, which has rocket or bomb equipped fighters, but maybe, as they had very limited real TB's that'd operate potentially from a CV (The 167 I think, the modified Ju-87, and 2 modifications of the Fw-190), unless we go a tad crazy with a big enough design to accommodate Ju-88's or the like, has 2 types of DB's, AP and HE instead of a torp option. With difference from IJN being that the fighters on IJN would have smaller/fewer bombs than the DB's/bombers, where as Germany you have say 1000 pound HE and 1000 pound AP both. As well as of course aim patterns. With UK a bit more a focus on it's rockets, that would be more similar to USN's HVAR's (Germany's would be closer to the "Tiny Tim's") and it's TB's, over really DB's as they had very few purpose built, really more just planes that could. And we can still play with speed, ordnance type, pattern, HP, etc for other lines. I have more detailed versions of both these things for the new gameplay somewhere, I can dig it back up and copy it if it's not already been passed on or pretty much rewrite the basics from memory. When it comes to history and balance and trying to maintain the two - I'll help free of charge, I've spent more than 20 years reading and researching second world war aviation of USN, IJN, UK, and Germany, which led to CV's and some other naval stuff, and the reason the stuff in that post is "well researched and tested" is because for my game and simulation design class 10 years ago, I actually designed a naval battle game meant to if not teach help spark interest in the subject that required me to balance a lot of the same factors that I took into play - ship speed, protection, firing range, spotting (never fully figured that out for my game cause you could see pieces), damage, ships vs planes, etc. I actually recently found the sadly water damaged board I made and took pictures should I try and redevelop it. There are some RTS elements like the attack group sizes that should stay, and maybe some others, that it feels like are being tossed to the side.
  10. WanderingGhost

    Public Test 0.8.0 - Feedback

    We already know that, but that's not the control were talking about. Waypoints on a map don't do for trying to dodge a DD that's broken through the lines and is shooting at you. Or when you have long range fire from battleships because a plane spotted you and the red CV is trying to snipe you which, you can't dodge his attack either. Which, is even more problematic given now, they can just trace the planes back to where we are because we can't alter their courses. This is literally the same as making any other ship - like the back camping BB's and rock hiding cruisers, only able to control one turret at a time, and only able to maneuver with map controls to dodge torps and shellfire. That direct control has saved me countless times, keeping from getting sniped by the red CV while attacking a ship that helps save a teammate, buying enough time for a teammate to help, or for secondary guns to deal enough in unison with attack planes. Were being made sitting ducks or at best - those targets that you find at a shooting gallery that move and are easy to hit still. Also, I'd say your more a guy that occasional uses a CV. I've barely touched them in a year or more due to a broken spirit and the various missions better done in other types, if not requiring them, and they still make up 20% of my played ships, and could easily surpass Cruisers and DD's again to solidly retake the 2 spot, I doubt they'll ever be my most played again unless they scrub the rework and fix RTS like they should have done years ago.
  11. This is exactly it - it was the same as their actual testing and is the basis of their excuse of "not enough data, have to push it to live". If they had just implemented it in stages over events like Halloween with the pvp battles they added and all, they'd get their data and proof of concept without the current issue of they set a date, they got busted, and are desperately trying to do spin and damage control and failing miserably at it for the last what, 4 months or so? Feels like at this point they invested too much time in this build, having only their internal testers and the few alpha there are if they even got to test it before us, thinking "this is good" only to suddenly find out a majority dislike it or do not approve of it's current design and be over-committed and have to release, likely to the detriment of the game and playerbase. Which comes back to a classic issue of RTS CV's that looks like it will still remain - Wargaming unable to admit when they make a mistake and actually address it. They doubled down on national flavours when we told them USN AS was an issue because the line was too heavily specialized in air defense or attack, while the balance of IJN allowed for full attack USN to be slaughtered. The fight we had to have or historically accurate planes. The return of 2,2,2 Midway that we told them would be OP, again. Nerfing Midway's hanger which didn't solve the problem it was meant to fix. Graf Zeppelin - sure they pulled it from the store but they went right back to the broken setup that prompted it being changed last minute in the first place. They practically screamed over everyone that everything was fine with CV alpha and manual drop - as they tried to desperately buff AA to fix it instead of reduce TB alpha or remove/adjust manual drop. List goes on as they listen to one side or dig their heels in fighting us over changes that NEED to happen. Hell look at the "one unit" nonsense, the lack of CV controls when operating the planes. Pretty much everyone universally agrees CV's need this - and they've dug their heels in that they will not add it - till we basically drag them kicking and screaming to the computer, tie them to the chair, and threaten their dog to make them make the change. Most of the things people are complaining about on PTS - were the same complaints we had on Beta test. But they did nothing to truly address them. This is Warplanes 1.5 all over again - they have an idea, they work on it in secret, they drop it on us, we revolt and rebel against it, the ones who like it even saying it's not ready and needs more work, they ignore us, and aim to shove it on the live server the day they want to. And want to know what happened after that, with promises of "we will work on the balance in a timely fashion" and all that stuff that they've been saying here -months of frustrating balance and problems, ones that drove the player base away, which caused more issues in MM and gameplay and all, that drove even more away, and that even as they got changes done to fix things didn't fix them well enough so people kept leaving, and as more fixes were added and changes made in this system, the more people left, and even more so as the only fix for MM and medals - was to put bots in live battles, which drove away even more. Not sure what, if anything, 2.0 managed to recover, it failed to get me back, it's the same garbage I left made even worse with a new game mode, but when I did leave - we were lucky to have 1000 players on around peak times. And it is not "Chicken little-ing" or being over dramatic to point out that this is the exact risk they are taking again. A risk the Tanks team, when they had similar issues with a patch, opted not to take. 32% of players are on board at best based on what they have - meaning releasing in this state could drive off 68% of the player base. Not the CV player base, not the BB player base, the entire thing. That takes us from he 14-15k players I've seen at times, to basically 4-5k players. If half those players pay, that's a 720000 dollar loss per year JUST on premium time. Start adding in ships, xp conversions, port slots, dubloons, that number gets bigger. And that's just one server of the games income. 32% are fine with things as they are, 68% aren't, and there is no guarantee to gain players to replace any losses, let alone catastrophic losses. Definition of a stupid bet.
  12. WanderingGhost

    Kraken Unleashed!

    Congrats, Dun is a fun and often underestimated ship.
  13. WanderingGhost

    CV Rework flak?

    You pray - it's still an RNG based system. I've done wild zigzags that result in total losses before I even hit a target, while just powering in straight through had none, and vice versa.
  14. WanderingGhost

    How is it possible to have a sub 35% WR?

    It's a bit more than 50-50. Your choosing 24 players at random, your assigning 12 at random, and each team can have very different ships that can complete change how the team needs to function to win if say one team has more point blank brawlers and the other has long range high accuracy snipers. And that is even before you factor in RNG and flat out luck such as accidentally hitting a key but it causes say a torp spread to miss. Plus those stats it highly depends on how many battles do they have, if they have a lot did they maybe potato a while but then get good and you see them on an off game, tons of possibilities.
  15. WanderingGhost

    For the love of god, buff the Indianapolis

    Depends on what DD you use and how long it lasts. Much as I'll say radar needs a nerf, I do know how to beat it in DD's (in reality, other cruisers and BB's is where I have more an issue with Radar, only issue when on DD's is the ones behind islands), and a few can beat the 9.9 km range stock, and a few more using angles and timing to effectively extend the range on torps. But it's 25 seconds on a 14.3 second reload, so you maybe get 2 shots at a target. Indy does need a slight buff to rate of fire I think.
×