Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Avalon304

Alaska and Azuma Fire Duration Increase. [Dev Blog]

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

520
[CMFRT]
Modder
981 posts
2,391 battles

Hey look... WG is touching a ship that didnt need to be touched... I was worried about this... JFC... cant just leave a well balanced ship alone... gotta mess with everything...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,724 posts
11,839 battles

I am curious as to why those ships are getting the fire duration nerf.  Perhaps they are using those ships as a way to test how big of an impact 60 second fires will have in a live server, for a battlecruiser?   If they like what they see, they could apply it to Kron and stalin as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
520
[CMFRT]
Modder
981 posts
2,391 battles
1 minute ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

Kronshtadt is at 45, IIRC.

Both Stalingrad and Kronshtadt are at 45 seconds... where Alaska and Azuma should remain. And if theyre going to get BB levels of fire duration they should get BB Damage Control Parties.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,327
[KWF]
Members
4,895 posts
6,590 battles
2 minutes ago, Frederick_The_Great said:

I am curious as to why those ships are getting the fire duration nerf.  Perhaps they are using those ships as a way to test how big of an impact 60 second fires will have in a live server, for a battlecruiser?   If they like what they see, they could apply it to Kron and stalin as well. 

By that point who knows. What you say has merit however. Maybe this could be followed by a 10 second DC instead of the standard 5 second to further pronounce the "battlecruiser" aspect of these ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,966
[USCC2]
Members
6,170 posts

I'm assuming their survival is greater than WG want it to be, enabling them to do more of something WG doesn't want (damage possibly - or just influencing the game in some way?).

Take a look at the YY, it was performing well compared to other DDs BUT was not encroaching on the cruiser damage/survivability zone - Yet it was nerfed - Why? I assume it is because WG believed to bring up the rest of the DDs to the YY level would cause hysteria (:Smile_teethhappy:), but more importantly/seriously, an imbalance in game(?) Therefore they nerfed.

I'm not even going to try and say if this fire duration change is fair; just giving my thoughts as to the why of the change. :Smile_honoring:

Edited by _WaveRider_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[PHUA]
Beta Testers
225 posts
3,902 battles

And WG continues to find new and exciting ways to shoot themselves in the foot.

Somehow I doubt we'll see any changes to Stalingrad or Kronshtadt's fire duration any time soon, so this is a very questionable change for these two new ships.  By all accounts, they were pretty well-balanced before these changes.  Are we going to see an explanation for this, or is this WG just being classic WG again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
893
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,906 posts
12,305 battles
58 minutes ago, Avalon304 said:

Hey look... WG is touching a ship that didnt need to be touched... I was worried about this... JFC... cant just leave a well balanced ship alone... gotta mess with everything...

WG needs to leave Alaska alone; she's tier 9. Azuma is t10 and has 10k more health and bigger guns and just entered the game...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
893
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,906 posts
12,305 battles

Good lord.... gonna have to log into facebook to let then know this change is not ok. Especially for a 1million fxp ship that has 10k less health than her tier 10 counterparts. And less AA than her t10 counter parts this is dubiously ludicrous and uncalled fore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
893
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,906 posts
12,305 battles
17 minutes ago, Wardog_Noir said:

And WG continues to find new and exciting ways to shoot themselves in the foot.

Somehow I doubt we'll see any changes to Stalingrad or Kronshtadt's fire duration any time soon, so this is a very questionable change for these two new ships.  By all accounts, they were pretty well-balanced before these changes.  Are we going to see an explanation for this, or is this WG just being classic WG again?

Alaska has more than 10k less health than her post treaty counterparts with none of their merits. Survivability was almost all she had going for her and was the main perk of her guise; this change makes neither sense or has reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts
15 minutes ago, LCPL4ever said:

well they should nerf Kron and Stalin too, wth

I expect they will

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
893
[SHOOT]
[SHOOT]
Beta Testers
3,906 posts
12,305 battles
4 minutes ago, LoveBote said:

I expect they will

With their policies of not touching released premiums i doubt that. Stalingrad and Kronshtadt were nerfed in yhe fire department before their release and Stalingrad has 50mm plating in MOST areas. 

In addition, Azuma is a t10 ship, Alaska is t9. Thats like nerfing Musashi because Jean Bart has potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,142
[PVE]
Members
12,539 posts
26,104 battles
2 hours ago, Avalon304 said:

Hey look... WG is touching a ship that didnt need to be touched... I was worried about this... JFC... cant just leave a well balanced ship alone... gotta mess with everything...

That is what they do - oh look this ship is actually good and fun to play must nerf hammer it into crapdom. Doesn't surprise me they are nerfing Alaska anyway as most CC's have been saying it seems like a good fun ship that isn't too OP. Good and Fun though = OP to WG. Of course they wouldn't do that to the Stalingrad or Kronshtadt because of you know the whole Mother Russia thing. They will use the excuse of not nerfing premiums.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,928
[HINON]
Members
13,707 posts
Just now, renegadestatuz said:

Popcorn worthy :cap_popcorn:

For sure. :Smile_popcorn:I will follow this thread with great interest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,901
[SYN]
Members
15,874 posts
12,803 battles

these changes makes no sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[S0L0]
Members
305 posts
7,778 battles

image.png.e57ed649abceb4e07e755eda6b95d1e4.png
 

Quote

ST. Balance Changes of cruisers Azuma and Alaska

During the testing this cruisers, they have shown survival rates that are excessive during long battles. They have excellent armour plating and, with proper positioning, the only way to deal significant damage to them is through setting fires. Increasing the fire duration for these cruisers will make them more balanced compared to other cruisers on these tiers, while maintaining their distinctive features such as: high damage from Main battery salvoes, a strong armour plating of the citadel and a large reserve of Hit points.

We continue to monitor similiar ships of this type (Kronshtadt, Stalingrad) with a view to making the required and necessary balance adjustments.

Please note that the information in the Development Blog is preliminary.

..interesting for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,966
[USCC2]
Members
6,170 posts
2 hours ago, Wardog_Noir said:

And WG continues to find new and exciting ways to shoot themselves in the foot.

Somehow I doubt we'll see any changes to Stalingrad or Kronshtadt's fire duration any time soon, so this is a very questionable change for these two new ships.  By all accounts, they were pretty well-balanced before these changes.  Are we going to see an explanation for this, or is this WG just being classic WG again?

It could be another 'oh dear, we made 2 ships 'OP' and don't want to do the same again' approach, but rather than nerf a premium ship for game balance they mess up other releases.

Wouldn't surprise me if WG look at removing the SG and Kron when they have sold a reasonable amount, for being to OP - lets face it, everyone will end up picking them over the 2 new ships. 2 more desirables to help boost Santa Crate sales in future lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
624
[SVF]
Members
1,774 posts
2,335 battles
7 minutes ago, FlakKnight said:

So WG apparently will nerf premiums they are already release, but just fire duration?  Rofl

I won't believe they'll actually nerf the Kron and 'Grad until such goes live on a patch.  Their explanation about Azuma and Alaska is unconvincing to me *at best*.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,901
[SYN]
Members
15,874 posts
12,803 battles
19 minutes ago, _WaveRider_ said:

It could be another 'oh dear, we made 2 ships 'OP' and don't want to do the same again' approach, but rather than nerf a premium ship for game balance they mess up other releases.

Wouldn't surprise me if WG look at removing the SG and Kron when they have sold a reasonable amount, for being to OP - lets face it, everyone will end up picking them over the 2 new ships. 2 more desirables to help boost Santa Crate sales in future lol.

kronstad is nowhere near as OP as Stalingrad

First, Kron has no 50mm plating. Hell, it doesn't even get 27mm or 30mm plating, anywhere at all, which means it's very squishy

Second, Kron doesn't have improved autobounce angles that Stalingrad gets, which means less cits while angled

 

In fact... Moskva is still a better ship than Kronstad, where as Stalingrad is a better Moskva

Edited by MrDeaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,996
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,222 posts
8,341 battles

Umm....what?  Mind boggling changes, and I though the Alaska was "ready for release".

 

2 hours ago, LCPL4ever said:

well they should nerf Kron and Stalin too, wth

I doubt it, they're already released premiums, so I wouldn't expect any targeted nerfs. 

*edit

I didn't see they updated the dev blog with an explanation.  If they deem the Stalingrad + Kronstadt nerfable, then there is absolutely no reason they shouldn't get the 60 second fire duration as well.  

Edited by yashma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×