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

ST Heavy Cruiser Changes

40 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

106
[T-SEC]
[T-SEC]
Beta Testers
463 posts
Quote

 

ST. Balance changes.

In update 0.8.0, fire duration on certain large cruisers has been increased from 45 to 60 seconds. This change is systemic and affects the following ships: Kronstadt, Stalingrad, Azuma and Alaska.

The excellent armor of these large cruisers created an excessive advantage in survival during long battles. With the correct positioning of the ships, the only way to deal a lot of damage to them is through setting fires. Increasing the time required to extinguish the fire for these cruisers will improve their balance compared to conventional cruisers, keeping their distinctive features: high damage from the main battery salvo, good armored citadel and large amount of hit points.

 

My take on this is that because of their ability to survive damage, they are increasing the time it takes to remove a fire.

Two things.

First: Why are you increasing the usefulness of an already toxic mechanic like fires? (This is coming from someone who plays the Conqueror) 

Second: Why dont you tweak the armor values a little bit instead?

If literally the only reason you are increasing the timer is because they have an "Excessive advantage" and the ONLY way to do damage is through fires, then why not tweak the armor so its a little bit easier? Im not a developer for the game, so im not someone who gets to make these decisions, but you guys are setting a fairly poor example of thought processes here.

Whats next? 2 minute fires for BB's?

I dont know how negative my opinion is on here, but there is my $.02

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,350 posts
1,482 battles
2 minutes ago, Raigoth said:

My take on this is that because of their ability to survive damage, they are increasing the time it takes to remove a fire.

Two things.

First: Why are you increasing the usefulness of an already toxic mechanic like fires? (This is coming from someone who plays the Conqueror) 

Second: Why dont you tweak the armor values a little bit instead?

If literally the only reason you are increasing the timer is because they have an "Excessive advantage" and the ONLY way to do damage is through fires, then why not tweak the armor so its a little bit easier? Im not a developer for the game, so im not someone who gets to make these decisions, but you guys are setting a fairly poor example of thought processes here.

Whats next? 2 minute fires for BB's?

I dont know how negative my opinion is on here, but there is my $.02

 

This change is a universal one for a ship type as opposed to an individual one for each of the ships (that all happen to be premiums).

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
203
[CAPGO]
Members
656 posts
3,976 battles

I was hoping to see Indianapolis, Pensacola, New Orleans buffs when I saw the title..

Well..back to the topic, they are not going to mess with armor profile because it's going to upset a lot of people who already got them.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
106
[T-SEC]
[T-SEC]
Beta Testers
463 posts
1 minute ago, DrHolmes52 said:

 

This change is a universal one for a ship type as opposed to an individual one for each of the ships (that all happen to be premiums).

Quote

This change is systemic and affects the following ships: Kronstadt, Stalingrad, Azuma and Alaska.
 

Only effect those ships as of testing. Whether they start changing the other ships has yet to be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,350 posts
1,482 battles

I think it is an out to not nerfing an individual premium that they have already released (like the Kron and Stoli).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,187
[SUGAR]
[SUGAR]
Members
3,401 posts
13,944 battles

for you bilge sniffers... is this fire change really that big a deal? I mean most cruisers dance between detection and not being detected... plus you have much higher health pools and heals?.... just curious.

Edited by Abides

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
850
[XBRTC]
Members
2,316 posts
8,244 battles
2 minutes ago, Abides said:

for you bilge sniffers... is this fire change really that big a deal? I mean most cruisers dance between detection and not being detected... plus you have much higher health pools and heals?.... just curious.

 

Well, there's two things here.

(1) You're increasing fire damage by 33%.

(2) You're setting a precedent about nerfing premium ships. This is a test to see what they can get away with, as much as anything else. They want to see how far they can turn the temperature up before the frog starts to notice that it's too hot.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
708
[R-F]
Members
1,001 posts
7,047 battles
2 minutes ago, DrHolmes52 said:

I think it is an out to not nerfing an individual premium that they have already released (like the Kron and Stoli).

correct.

They are classifying these four ships as "Large Cruisers", and applying certain mechanics to that type of ship.  Nothing else in the game currently or on the way is classified as such.  This is not the same as "Heavy Cruisers" such as Moskva, Des Moines, or Hindenburg.  Nor is it the same as Battlecruisers, which Wargaming are designating as Battleships.  

In real life the line between cruiser and battleship was blurred and confusing and depended on who was doing the labeling.  Wargaming is taking advantage of that uncertainty to get game balance to be where they want it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,045
[DRACS]
Members
4,108 posts

This change makes total sense. Those ships play more like battleships than they do cruisers, and are MUCH more resilient than your average cruiser at that tier, despite taking a cruiser slot.

Something had to give.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
646
[SYJ]
[SYJ]
Members
1,626 posts
2,633 battles
18 minutes ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

 

(2) You're setting a precedent about nerfing premium ships. This is a test to see what they can get away with, as much as anything else. They want to see how far they can turn the temperature up before the frog starts to notice that it's too hot.

And that's why we have broken rare ships that cant be sold like Belfast, Missouri, nikolas, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
306
[-S-R-]
Beta Testers
529 posts
3,026 battles

Should change the title it only affects large/super/battle cruisers not heavy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,187
[SUGAR]
[SUGAR]
Members
3,401 posts
13,944 battles
19 minutes ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

 

Well, there's two things here.

(1) You're increasing fire damage by 33%.

(2) You're setting a precedent about nerfing premium ships. This is a test to see what they can get away with, as much as anything else. They want to see how far they can turn the temperature up before the frog starts to notice that it's too hot.

totally get point number two,  as for point number 1 I am still struggling to see much of an impact, granted I get what you are saying... but how much damage is that really? 33% sounds like a ton..but is it 2k more on a 70k ship, if it buend for a the full duration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
350
[PLPT]
Members
824 posts
7,912 battles
23 minutes ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

(1) You're increasing fire damage by 33%.

 

NO it’s only increasing _potential_ fire damage by 1/3. If you can duck out and use DCP it makes _no difference_ to the damage dealt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,933
[TBW]
Members
6,966 posts
12,900 battles

Sorry OP but I see the fire duration as something you can mitigate with signals, upgrades and captains skills. You can't mitigate less armor. So I say, let it burn. Fire damage is repairable to a point or don't these ships have repair? and then there is the damage control party. You can get the cooldown for DCP to 54.15 seconds, so if you use it wisely along with RP fires are much less a factor as it is with all ships.

shot-19_01.17_13_48.53-0652.thumb.jpg.109cc51c9c957a4b30a841b40b277c35.jpg

Edited by Sovereigndawg
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,253
[SALVO]
Members
18,309 posts
18,897 battles
1 hour ago, VVoony said:

I was hoping to see Indianapolis, Pensacola, New Orleans buffs when I saw the title..

Well..back to the topic, they are not going to mess with armor profile because it's going to upset a lot of people who already got them.

Yeah, this thread should have been "ST Super Cruiser Changes".  The few ships affected are the small number of so-called "super cruisers", not true "Heavy Cruisers".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
357
[4HIM]
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
1,361 posts
9,988 battles

Its not a big deal guys...consistency is the key word here...and WG listened to the player base and brought all HEAVY heavy CAs (BCs is my book) into line with each other.  I am very glad that WG strives for some consistency...they listened on the Tirpitz secondaries and are listening here...kudos!

As others have stated, there are easier ways for CAs to duck fires than BBs...every try and duck out of range in  your BB to escape fire breathing CAs?  Not that easy...watched a guy burn up 3 BBs that all tried fleeing from him....I charge and try for the kill, cause  you will die for sure running away.  (this of course is a one v one or so type scenario on a flank)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
850
[XBRTC]
Members
2,316 posts
8,244 battles
1 hour ago, Abides said:

totally get point number two,  as for point number 1 I am still struggling to see much of an impact, granted I get what you are saying... but how much damage is that really? 33% sounds like a ton..but is it 2k more on a 70k ship, if it buend for a the full duration?

Remember: fire damage is based on how many HP you start with. It’s exactly the same impact, relative to your total survivability, as if you made a Gearing or Izyaslav burn for that extended period of time.

1 hour ago, n00bot said:

 

NO it’s only increasing _potential_ fire damage by 1/3. If you can duck out and use DCP it makes _no difference_ to the damage dealt.

 

That’s a rather large “if” you’re putting in there. In fact, even suggesting that one of these ships is even slightly capable of “ducking out” makes me wonder if you’ve played any of them? They’re not capable of ducking. They’re huge, and they don’t turn well, accelerate/decelerate like they’re chained to a post, and are visible from orbit. 

Edited by LT_Rusty_SWO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,320
[PVE]
Members
7,218 posts
12,439 battles
1 hour ago, _1204_ said:

And that's why we have broken rare ships that cant be sold like Belfast, Missouri, nikolas, etc

You think Missouri is broken (ie; massively OP)?

Missouri is an Iowa with radar (and radar is situational). Missouri was removed because it made too many credits. It is not an OP ship.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
557
[PVE]
Members
814 posts
9,853 battles
8 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

You think Missouri is broken (ie; massively OP)?

Missouri is an Iowa with radar (and radar is situational). Missouri was removed because it made too many credits. It is not an OP ship.

There is a screenshot on a couple posts here from Reddit where Sub_Octavian said it was removed for being OP and not for credit making abilities.

Edited by Rabbitt81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,592
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
5,478 posts
7,691 battles

i think the new thing to be calling these 4 ships is "Super-Cruiser" from what ive seen lately

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
557
[PVE]
Members
814 posts
9,853 battles
9 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

You think Missouri is broken (ie; massively OP)?

Missouri is an Iowa with radar (and radar is situational). Missouri was removed because it made too many credits. It is not an OP ship.

image.png.64482dbcd303a34bec17ead60bed5aa4.png

Found it

Edited by Rabbitt81
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,592
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
5,478 posts
7,691 battles
5 minutes ago, Rabbitt81 said:

image.png.64482dbcd303a34bec17ead60bed5aa4.png

Found it

i have a Missouri, and i can tell you right now that the only thing OP about it, is its credit earning ability, theres not a single thing about its battle influence that makes it OP, in that regard its pretty much an Iowa with Radar and slightly better armor

Edited by tcbaker777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,320
[PVE]
Members
7,218 posts
12,439 battles
16 minutes ago, Rabbitt81 said:

There is a screenshot on a couple posts here from Reddit where Sub_Octavian said it was removed for being OP and not for credit making abilities.

I am not sure I believe he is telling the truth then (or it may be what he was told but not the actual reason by those above him in WG). Missouri is not some game breaking OP BB just because it has radar and slightly better bow tanking armor over Iowa. It is a good BB but it is far from OP. The one thing about Missouri that sets it apart and is "OP" is it's credit printing ability. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
646
[SYJ]
[SYJ]
Members
1,626 posts
2,633 battles
24 minutes ago, AdmiralThunder said:

You think Missouri is broken (ie; massively OP)?

Missouri is an Iowa with radar (and radar is situational). Missouri was removed because it made too many credits. It is not an OP ship.

Maybe not brokenly OP like Belfast and nik, but a BB that can push caps certainly has a meta changing effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×