Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
MattChris_

The Azuma and Alaska fire duration nerfs need to be immediately discarded

222 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

163
[PEED2]
Members
191 posts
9,952 battles

The Change

These fire changes going into test need to be reverted immediately.

Azumas current deck, nose, aft and upper belt armor can't shatter any HE, so the whole line about "it has superior armor" is totally false. 

As upper tier large cruisers go, Alaska has the lowest HP and it doesn't need this fire duration increase. It also has medium concealment unlike Azuma, so disengagement is harder. Alaska can shatter HE shells on the main deck but so can Stalingrad. 

IF these changes go through they must include all large cruisers as a class balancing decision to get around the whole "premium" problem. Other than that I couldn't imagine why Kron and Stalin wouldn't be touched...

I personally implore every tester testing this to tell WG no and do not move forward with this assinine change unless the whole class gets the change. 

Edited by MattttChris
  • Cool 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
434
[LODGE]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,681 posts
4,513 battles
7 minutes ago, MattttChris said:

These fires changes going into test need to be reverted immediately. 

 

Could you post a link to these changes please?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
434
[LODGE]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
1,681 posts
4,513 battles

Here is the latest info. I am only posting this so people can read it and see why the team is moving in this direction and to avoid confusion. Dont ask me my opinion or anything because I cant say.

 

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 with a view to making the required and necessary balance adjustments.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28,487
[HINON]
Supertester
22,152 posts
16,004 battles

In which we get upset about balance changes to unreleased ships that are still in balancing and testing.

  • Cool 9
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377
[SVF]
Members
1,334 posts
1,816 battles
4 minutes ago, Lert said:

In which we get upset about balance changes to unreleased ships that are still in balancing and testing.

Not quite true.  Alaska was declared, by WG themselves mind you, to be finalized and ready as of December 19th or thereabouts.  And now they pull this move.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28,487
[HINON]
Supertester
22,152 posts
16,004 battles
Just now, landcollector said:

Not quite true.  Alaska was declared, by WG themselves mind you, to be finalized and ready as of December 19th or thereabouts.  And now they pull this move.

Like WG has never pulled a ship back out of 'finalized' - oh, wait ...

As for -

5 minutes ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

You can't have one set of rules for US and IJN Battlecruisers and then an entirely different set of rules for Russian Battlecruisers.

Sure you can. Just look at RN anything vs other nations.

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377
[SVF]
Members
1,334 posts
1,816 battles
2 minutes ago, Lert said:

Like WG has never pulled a ship back out of 'finalized' - oh, wait ...

Yes, I am well aware of that.  I guess the takeaway from this is a reinforcement of the idea that nothing WG says can be considered trustworthy or believable.  The sarcasm is unnecessary btw.

  • Cool 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[PEED2]
Members
191 posts
9,952 battles
15 minutes ago, Lert said:

In which we get upset about balance changes to unreleased ships that are still in balancing and testing.

How often do bad balancing changes get reverted. The Yue Yang is still hurting from the sledge hammer it got hit with

The problem is the precedent. Either nerf the ships (which is okay) but then nerf the other large cruisers that are already quite strong 

Edited by MattttChris
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28,487
[HINON]
Supertester
22,152 posts
16,004 battles
1 minute ago, landcollector said:

The sarcasm is unnecessary btw.

Which means I'm not allowed to use it? Oh teh noes. Please point out where it says that.

2 minutes ago, landcollector said:

Yes, I am well aware of that.  I guess the takeaway from this is a reinforcement of the idea that nothing WG says can be considered trustworthy or believable.

Which is also the reason WG is very hesitant to make any premature announcements whatsoever. Plans change.

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
827
[VCRUZ]
Members
3,303 posts
8,218 battles
Just now, MattttChris said:

the problem is the precedent. Either nerf the ships (which is okay) but then nerf the other large cruisers that are already quite strong 

This is a case of :"mah ship was nerfed, nerf all the other ships too!!!"

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28,487
[HINON]
Supertester
22,152 posts
16,004 battles
2 minutes ago, MattttChris said:

the problem is the precedent. Either nerf the ships (which is okay) but then nerf the other large cruisers that are already quite strong 

Why? Individual ships get rebalanced all the time. Every rebalance doesn't have to be a blanket type-wide rebalance.

2 minutes ago, MattttChris said:

Ah good old Lert. One of the reasons I spend close to 0 time in the forum.

Why, I'm flattered that I have such an influence over you.

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
386
[MIA-I]
Volunteer Moderator Coordinator
1,278 posts
13,199 battles

I'm not a fan of these changes, but mostly because I am impatient for Alaska's release. I have Kron and Stalinpuss, and frankly they burn just fine, IMHO.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[PEED2]
Members
191 posts
9,952 battles
1 minute ago, Xlap said:

This is a case of :"mah ship was nerfed, nerf all the other ships too!!!"

No it's a case of the Kron is one of the highest preforming ships on every server. 

And stalingrad acctually has the armor to negate HE spam unlike the other two 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,194
[EGO]
Members
3,714 posts
1 minute ago, Lert said:

Why? Individual ships get rebalanced all the time. Every rebalance doesn't have to be a blanket type-wide rebalance.

 

Therre were plenty of people that wanred WG that it made no sense to give battlecruisers the same health as battleships but not give them Battleship fire and Damage Con. Now that they have 2 OP Russian battrecruisers they are going to listen but not change the other battlecruisers?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
827
[VCRUZ]
Members
3,303 posts
8,218 battles
2 minutes ago, MattttChris said:

No it's a case of the Kron is one of the highest preforming ships on every server. 

Kron is a good ship but far from being OP. 

2 minutes ago, MattttChris said:

And stalingrad acctually has the armor to negate HE spam unlike the other two 

Stalingrad could use a nerf to the guns (mainly the improved AP pen angles) not to the survivability. 

 

And still, you cant justify a nerf to a shpi because some other ship was nerfed. This is just a biased request from you. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,173
[5D]
Members
3,013 posts
19,132 battles

God forbid they test anything to see how the adjustments impact the ship. Would you rather they release it as is so players can screaming OP ship OP ship, F U WG.

Seriously, these forums are filled with nothing but sky is falling and whiner threads. Rarely anything of value in here anymore other than helping someone figure out a simple problem.

 

  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
377
[SVF]
Members
1,334 posts
1,816 battles
6 minutes ago, Lert said:

Which means I'm not allowed to use it? Oh teh noes. Please point out where it says that.

Do not put words in my mouth, please and thank you.  I never said you weren't allowed, I do not believe my post warranted you adopting a sarcastic/condescending tone in your response to it.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28,487
[HINON]
Supertester
22,152 posts
16,004 battles
2 minutes ago, MattttChris said:

No it's a case of the Kron is one of the highest preforming ships on every server.

And yet, people everywhere are saying Kron is terrible because of its unreliable guns and asking for a buff there.

2 minutes ago, MattttChris said:

And stalingrad acctually has the armor to negate HE spam unlike the other two 

Aye, that it does.

2 minutes ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

Now that they have 2 OP Russian battrecruisers they are going to listen but not change the other battlecruisers?

There are more threads asking for Kron to be buffed than nerfed, threads from people regretting getting her and whenever someone asks for a recommendation on getting her or not, people are always quick to point out that she's wholly unreliable. Why?

As for Stalingrad, its performance numbers might have something to do with the fact that only the very dedicated can actually afford her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[PEED2]
Members
191 posts
9,952 battles
15 minutes ago, Lert said:

Which means I'm not allowed to use it? Oh teh noes. Please point out where it says that.

Which is also the reason WG is very hesitant to make any premature announcements whatsoever. Plans change.

I would really like to see you not be a WG apologist and speak out. You're really going to defend a professional company for continuous screw ups? 

If that's not the most twisted thing

Edited by MattttChris
  • Cool 2
  • Boring 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28,487
[HINON]
Supertester
22,152 posts
16,004 battles
1 minute ago, landcollector said:

 I do not believe my post warranted you adopting a sarcastic/condescending tone in your response to it.

And I do not believe my response warranted you pointing it out and taking things off topic, yet here we are.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[PEED2]
Members
191 posts
9,952 battles
6 minutes ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

God forbid they test anything to see how the adjustments impact the ship. Would you rather they release it as is so players can screaming OP ship OP ship, F U WG.

Seriously, these forums are filled with nothing but sky is falling and whiner threads. Rarely anything of value in here anymore other than helping someone figure out a simple problem.

 

I would normally agree with you. However if you look at the track record these changes aren't good. Usually over the top nerfs (like Yue yang who's current stats are extremely low now in a lot of categories) go through anyways

unfortunately if you just wait and see, than the worst happens 

Edited by MattttChris
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28,487
[HINON]
Supertester
22,152 posts
16,004 battles
1 minute ago, MattttChris said:

I would really like to see you my be a WG apologist and speak out. You're really going to defend a professional company for continuous screw ups? 

If that's not the most twisted thing

And more and more off topic we go. Now we're down to calling people WG apologists. I'm far from, kid.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×