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

Battlecruiser fire time nerf

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

0
[B-W-M]
Members
6 posts
4,222 battles

I understand they are still trying to feel the waters, but does WG realize that the more they nerf the battlecruisers, (Alaska, Kronshtadt, Stalingrad) like with the burn time, the less interest they garner in the ship and in turn their game, by catering to the people that complain about everything? The defining characteristic of the battlecruisers were suppose to be, from my understanding, proportional differences from heavy cruisers, and battleships. Less fire time than a battleship, more firetime than a cruiser, bigger guns than a cruiser, smaller than a BB. However, by nerfing the burn time, they are making it to where they burn the same amount of time as a BB, so what incentive do i have to play these battlecruisers, like Kronshtadt or the Stalingrad, or to even buy the upcoming Alaska? By nerfing this ships into not necessarily oblivion, but still enough to make it to where they take ALL appeal out of playing the class, and therefore, I'd imagine they would/will lose possible profits they can make due to killing ANY interest in the upcoming Alaska, or the people that want to nab Kron before it goes. There is also the appeal in taking the time to grind the steel for the Stalingrad, why would we play these battlecruisers with less HP than a BB, but burn for the same amount of time as a battleship would? They have taken all appeal of the upcoming Alaska from me, and many, in my opinion, many players that were once looking forward to the ship,  and now probably wont even get the Alaska, because they are catering to the elitists, and the CC's that want to do nothing but complain about something until the ship is nerfed into the ground. Not to mention that these ships are also easier to citadel than a BB.

And they want us to drop 1,000,000 free xp into a ship that is gonna burn as easy or easier than a battleship? or 21k/28k steel? or 750k fxp?
I dont think so. This will kill any appeal in trying to get any of these "battlecruiser" nerfed battleships

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,060
[WOLFB]
Members
2,911 posts
12,140 battles

Personnally, the fire duration nerf WG put on Azuma isn't enough to discourage me buying the ship, if it is sold in free XP or coal. Unlike BB you're not supposed to be the one tanking and except Stalingrad or Kronshtad (to a certain extent), Alaska and Azuma aren't good at shattering HE anyway.

 

I'll just wait and see how it goes but the thing that annoy me is WG's justification for that nerf. You can't say fire is the only counter to these ship when the said ship is covered with 25-27-30mm of armor. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
827
[VCRUZ]
Members
3,303 posts
8,136 battles

Well, i wont stop playing Kron even with this nerf. I wilk probably buy the Alaska after i jojn enough Free XP.

 

But ill hold my wallet. They are creating a precedent of nerfing premium ships. And ill wait some time before buying another premium, to see how far they go with this "new policy" of nerfing premiums. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[ADPT2]
Members
1 post
5,965 battles

I agree with the post above, the excerpt I had read something like “are heavily armored” and I lol’d at that. They have armor schemes that resemble their same tier cruiser ships, a poor justification. Yes, they are more tanky than their cruiser kin, but only because of the HP disparity. 

Yet i do somewhat agree with the nerf, in my Kron I have no incentive to put out a fire, the damage done isn’t much and the heal is strong enough to get it back where in other true cruisers I probably would put out a few fires. With the increased duration I think it would force me to respect fires more. I’m not too sure of anything, it’s down to the testing right now, so we’ll see how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
274
[OKM]
Members
452 posts
3,261 battles

You want a reason to play them? Easy: Match making. You bring in the game the bastard son of a CA and a BB while forcing the other team to put a cruiser. In clan battle or ranked, it can give quite the advantages for one team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
136
[KKM]
Members
808 posts
9,406 battles

I am just not sure this is going to be a huge thing.  Take a few captains perks and damage control upgrades.  Put on the damn fire flag and the problem is pretty much solved.  Go and play your ship.  I would still buy the Alaska if I can get around to it.  I like the better pen angles and hard hitting guns.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,095
[N-W-T]
Members
1,823 posts
7,237 battles

There's 3 threads on this on the front page alone, including one 7 pages and counting. Why do you feel the need to clutter the board woth yet a 4th one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
607
[WOLFB]
Members
2,829 posts
5,688 battles

More of this why not just put your option in the other threads that already talk about it. Also the numbers are telling them they need to make a change so they are testing this out and if the change goes into effect they have to change the other ships that are similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×