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

Large Cruisers Legendary mods? 8.0

41 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

19
[-TAB-]
Beta Testers
121 posts
6,846 battles

Where are they?

Should we get them after 60 sec fire nerf?

 

This is in reference to the confirmation on dev blog to  Nerf Large cruisers Stalingrad and Azuma.

Give them a glaring weakness ok I get it, Great!

Right now Moskva is a better Tank by a slim margin, now she will be the best tank bow on hands down.

Now post  60 sec fire nerf the gap between Moskva and Stalingrad widen by a fair distance in bow tanking.

Moskva does carry a Legendary mod which when received now will edge out Stalingrad after changes

I am all for checks and balances 

She should be compensated in a different department.

 

Same with Azuma

 

 

Whatever the case is, the player base who have  Stalingrads should be compensated with some hope to gain with legendary mods to compensate in other area to make up for the nerf to survivability.

I believe that both Azuma and Stalingrad. Should get there sister ships counter parts in Legendary mods. Azuma should get Zao and Stalingrad get Moskva to compensate for the 60 sec fire nerf.

 

You now get Tier X Large cruiser with a glaring battleship weakness to fire  but now get more comparable alpha damage similar to battleships, but still 305 AP shells that cannot penetrate bow on target but make broadside targets pay with -dispersion.

 

What are your beliefs in this subject?

To dethrone a ship position shouldn't it get something in exchange?

 

 

Edited by OppressorUnion
  • Boring 4
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,609
[KSE]
Members
7,741 posts
8,075 battles

You're freaking out over nothing, making a mountain out of a mole hill. 15 more secs max fire duration isn't going to make any real difference in how these ships perform. Use the right mods, skills, and flags, and use your DamCon correctly, that's all you need to do. It's all one has ever needed to do.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
586
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,158 posts
4,372 battles

I mean, with one single exception (Hakuryu) every legendary mod has been a trade-off in some way compared to the other mods a ship can mount, so I guess I wouldn't be opposed to Azuma and Stalingrad getting them as well. But is it really necessary? Oh no, you burn for 15 seconds longer, how terrible. When was the last time you had to let a fire run its full course while playing a long-range ship? Because that's what all these "super-cruisers" seem to be.

I'm more concerned about legendary mods for Harugumo and Daring.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
550
[WOLFB]
Members
2,097 posts
9,537 battles

Well I'll just put my Yamato captain with fire prevention on Azuma and deal with it. Sure I might not play as aggressive as I would do with cruiser fire duration but that doesn't make them irrelevant. Stalingrad still has 50mm armor almost everywhere making her immune to all T10 HE cruiser except IFHE Henri, Hindy, Azuma and another Stalingrad. Azuma wasn't supposed to tank anyway.

 

I can work with 60sec fire duration, I will still purchase Azuma as long as it's coal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[-TAB-]
Beta Testers
121 posts
6,846 battles
57 minutes ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

You're freaking out over nothing, making a mountain out of a mole hill. 15 more secs max fire duration isn't going to make any real difference in how these ships perform. Use the right mods, skills, and flags, and use your DamCon correctly, that's all you need to do. It's all one has ever needed to do.

4 +Mil potential damage in a Moskva I am good on advice on how to put out fires thank you lol

I have given you a educated experience of someone who specifically plays bow tanking Russian cruisers.

This is not a emotional rant. This is clear cut and accurate observation.

Moskva will become clear cut better bow tanker. 

30sec fire for Moskva= 5,886

60sec  fire for Stalingrad =13,041

This was drumming up awareness Moskva will become king and to make up for this  I believed Legendary mod are needed for large cruiser and would be a constructive counter.

All that is ok ! I made it clear I am ok changing the role of large cruisers but compensation  should be given to Stalingrad because tit for tat Moskva will do it better when changes go live ,its already very close for players who play both.

Stalingrad will be out performed in its own role, and will need a new role I believe the only category it has left is its alpha potential to broadside targets and what accomplish this is even better would be -dispersion  Legendary mod similar to Moskva.

 

 

 

Edited by OppressorUnion
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
552
[KRAK]
Members
2,019 posts
14,779 battles
6 minutes ago, OppressorUnion said:

4 +Mil potential damage in a Moskva I am good on advice on how to put out fires thank you lol

I have given you a educated experience of someone who specifically plays bow tanking Russian cruisers.

This is not a emotional rant. This is clear cut and accurate observation.

Moskva will become clear cut better bow tanker. 

30sec fire for Moskva= 5,886

60sec  fire for Stalingrad =13,041

This was drumming up awareness Moskva will become king and to make up for this  I believed Legendary mod are needed for large cruiser and would be a constructive counter.

If you would like to treat this tread like a crying over the nerf it is not. I made it clear I am ok changing the role of large cruisers but compensation  should be given to Stalingrad because tit for tat Moskva will do it better when changes go live ,its already very close for players who play both.

Stalingrad will be out performed in it own role, and will need a new role I believe the only category it has left is its alpha potential to broadside targets and what accomplish this is even better would be -dispersion  Legendary mod.

 

 

 

Why is it Stalingrad should perform better than Moskva? Just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
586
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,158 posts
4,372 battles
3 minutes ago, Vaffu said:

Why is it Stalingrad should perform better than Moskva? Just curious.

And while we're at it, since when is bow-tanking a "role"? It's a tactic for deflecting incoming fire. That's like saying that someone's job on a team is to fire in short controlled bursts, there's more to a ship's role on a team than just bow-tanking. I rarely ever see Stalingrads bow-tank anyway. Heck, I rarely ever see Moskva's bow-tank. Most of the time when I run into them they're out at range kiting to draw fire while blasting away with those ridiculous guns that never learned the meaning of the word "balance".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[-TAB-]
Beta Testers
121 posts
6,846 battles
4 minutes ago, Vaffu said:

Why is it Stalingrad should perform better than Moskva? Just curious.

They should both  be  great at something, they play very similar roles.

Moskva with legendary mod  has almost the same alpha potential as Stalingrad and better dpm.

Moskva and Stalingrad are very close to  being the same tanking abilities currently, Moskva wins because of smaller 25mm gap and less fire currently.

Post 8.0 This gap widens

Its only fair in my opinion  Stalingrad get a similar legendary mod now you have 

Post 8.0

Moskva best bow Tank

Stalingrad best Alpha cruiser 

Giving them there own playstyle and then you don't have to play  one over the other because of power. You can choose one based on style or want.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[-TAB-]
Beta Testers
121 posts
6,846 battles
15 minutes ago, Landsraad said:

And while we're at it, since when is bow-tanking a "role"? It's a tactic for deflecting incoming fire. That's like saying that someone's job on a team is to fire in short controlled bursts, there's more to a ship's role on a team than just bow-tanking. I rarely ever see Stalingrads bow-tank anyway. Heck, I rarely ever see Moskva's bow-tank. Most of the time when I run into them they're out at range kiting to draw fire while blasting away with those ridiculous guns that never learned the meaning of the word "balance".

Never really played bow on tanking till Clan battles but usually each clan has at least one Moskva or Stalingrad to anchor a position. To make it really hard for the counter team to push them out. Its area denial because they cant move you.

When applying this concept to Random it extremely fun to tuk in a island or take a flank turn your nose  in and say move me. When flank is taken no on can get to your side and the only counter is fire.  To push you out takes a lot of fire  but anchor are anchor when set up  its do or die you never show broadside. 

This is what Moskva and Stalingrad excel at currently from what I have seen from good players.

Edited by OppressorUnion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
664
[DAKI]
Beta Testers
2,905 posts
4,253 battles
29 minutes ago, Vaffu said:

Why is it Stalingrad should perform better than Moskva? Just curious.

pretty even now imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
894
[UDEAD]
[UDEAD]
Beta Testers
1,182 posts
11,723 battles
6 hours ago, OppressorUnion said:

Where are they?

Should we get them after 60 sec fire nerf?

 

This is in reference to the confirmation on dev blog to  Nerf Large cruisers Stalingrad and Azuma.

Give them a glaring weakness ok I get it, Great!

Right now Moskva is a better Tank by a slim margin, now she will be the best tank bow on hands down.

Now post  60 sec fire nerf the gap between Moskva and Stalingrad widen by a fair distance in bow tanking.

Moskva does carry a Legendary mod which when received now will edge out Stalingrad after changes

I am all for checks and balances 

She should be compensated in a different department.

 

Same with Azuma

 

 

Whatever the case is, the player base who have  Stalingrads should be compensated with some hope to gain with legendary mods to compensate in other area to make up for the nerf to survivability.

I believe that both Azuma and Stalingrad. Should get there sister ships counter parts in Legendary mods. Azuma should get Zao and Stalingrad get Moskva to compensate for the 60 sec fire nerf.

 

You now get Tier X Large cruiser with a glaring battleship weakness to fire  but now get more comparable alpha damage similar to battleships, but still 305 AP shells that cannot penetrate bow on target but make broadside targets pay with -dispersion.

 

What are your beliefs in this subject?

To dethrone a ship position shouldn't it get something in exchange?

 

 

1. Don't use red text in your posts - it's reserved for mods and admins.

2.  Your post is like a bad catfish attempt for a troll add-spamming website, it is disjointed and difficult to read.  Try using normal formatting and paragraph usage if you want to have your post taken seriously, right now it looks like a 5th graders attempt to make 500 words look like a 1,000 word book report.

3.  The "super cruisers" were given additional time to their fire duration because they were over performing, that's a good reason and it's a minor nerf that doesn't affect the overall playstyle of either the Kron or the Stalingrad.  Your point is overstated in a simplistic and hyperbolic fashion, hard to see if you are serious or just trolling.

4.  I'm sure the tier 10's will eventually be given legendary modules after they have a better understanding of their strengths and weaknesses in pub play.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
407
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
662 posts
14,272 battles

Stalingrad will get a legendary mod that reduces fire duration by 25%.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
361 posts
137 battles

1.) The Data in multiple other threads, have proven when skew is removed from the sample.. Stalingrad is NOT over-performing at all, it is actually borderline underperforming in Random (The primary game mode)

2.) Wargaming loves double-standards. The Stalingrad does NOT have BB guns, not for tier 10. The Stalingrad does NOT have BB armor. Great deck and bow, where as multiple cruisers have way better belt and Citadel, and ALL BBs have better citadel and belt. The Stalingrad has close to BB health pools, but still not. The Stalingrad does NOT get BB EHP. The Stalingrad does NOT get BB TDS.  So why does the Stalingrad get BB fire duration?  Why do BBs have BETTER concealment?

3.) Stalingrad was and STILL is advertised with a 45s fire duration. A refund for Steel needs to be made available if these nerfs go live. Simple as that. There is already very little reason to get the Stalingrad to begin with, this simply solidifies it. The Burg, especially being part of the developers blatantly favorite ship type, is a complete upgrade over the Stalin.

Wargaming loves to break records for having the worst balance and most hypocrisy in gaming in history.

  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,609
[KSE]
Members
7,741 posts
8,075 battles
58 minutes ago, KnyxUDL said:

1.) The Data in multiple other threads, have proven when skew is removed from the sample.. Stalingrad is NOT over-performing at all, it is actually borderline underperforming in Random (The primary game mode)

2.) Wargaming loves double-standards. The Stalingrad does NOT have BB guns, not for tier 10. The Stalingrad does NOT have BB armor. Great deck and bow, where as multiple cruisers have way better belt and Citadel, and ALL BBs have better citadel and belt. The Stalingrad has close to BB health pools, but still not. The Stalingrad does NOT get BB EHP. The Stalingrad does NOT get BB TDS.  So why does the Stalingrad get BB fire duration?  Why do BBs have BETTER concealment?

3.) Stalingrad was and STILL is advertised with a 45s fire duration. A refund for Steel needs to be made available if these nerfs go live. Simple as that. There is already very little reason to get the Stalingrad to begin with, this simply solidifies it. The Burg, especially being part of the developers blatantly favorite ship type, is a complete upgrade over the Stalin.

Wargaming loves to break records for having the worst balance and most hypocrisy in gaming in history.

If you're gonna do a "Come at me, brotatochipski" at WG, have the cojones to do it on your main account, and, and this is really important, be right. You've accomplished neither.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
552
[KRAK]
Members
2,019 posts
14,779 battles
6 hours ago, OppressorUnion said:

They should both  be  great at something, they play very similar roles.

Moskva with legendary mod  has almost the same alpha potential as Stalingrad and better dpm.

Moskva and Stalingrad are very close to  being the same tanking abilities currently, Moskva wins because of smaller 25mm gap and less fire currently.

Post 8.0 This gap widens

Its only fair in my opinion  Stalingrad get a similar legendary mod now you have 

Post 8.0

Moskva best bow Tank

Stalingrad best Alpha cruiser 

Giving them there own playstyle and then you don't have to play  one over the other because of power. You can choose one based on style or want.

Neither ship needs to be improved they both could stand a nerf in my opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
552
[KRAK]
Members
2,019 posts
14,779 battles
5 hours ago, Hanger_18 said:

pretty even now imo.

That may be but the OP is asking for a Legendary Mod so that Stalingrad would outperform Moskva. I was curious why they felt Stalingrad should be outperforming Moskva. I see no reason for Stalingrad to have a legendary mod it is already over powered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
894
[UDEAD]
[UDEAD]
Beta Testers
1,182 posts
11,723 battles
1 hour ago, KnyxUDL said:

1.) The Data in multiple other threads, have proven when skew is removed from the sample.. Stalingrad is NOT over-performing at all, it is actually borderline underperforming in Random (The primary game mode)

KnyxUDL loves to break records for having the worst analysis skills in gaming in history.

Skew?

In looking at Stalingrads performance in random battles versus other tier 10 cruisers, it is clearly outperforming them:

https://na.wows-numbers.com/ship/3760109008,Stalingrad/

The sample size is small at 41k games and is certainly influenced by the amount of good players who were the early rewardees of the ship.  I suspect that the numbers will drop slightly as players like myself and others use the ship in less than Unicum levels of performance.  Still, there is a 9% gap in win rate between the Stalingrad and the next closest tier 10 cruiser - the Worcester (60.59 vs 51.42 ).  It is 20k better in average damage and .3 better in frags per game than the others in the tier 10 cruiser category.  The win rate might drop 1-2%, it did that for the GC when everyone realized how powerful it could be, but the ship was still stronger than her peers and the numbers reflected that even after a full year of play.  The GC leads all tier 5 BB's by win rate ( 3% advantage ) Damage and frags per game.

Good players will learn how to mitigate the additional 15seconds of fire duration, just like good high tier DD players learned how to mitigate excessive numbers of radar ships.

Less than good players will start chains of forum threads complaining about nerfs to ships they will probably never earn.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,609
[KSE]
Members
7,741 posts
8,075 battles
6 hours ago, OppressorUnion said:

4 +Mil potential damage in a Moskva I am good on advice on how to put out fires thank you lol

I have given you a educated experience of someone who specifically plays bow tanking Russian cruisers.

This is not a emotional rant. This is clear cut and accurate observation.

Moskva will become clear cut better bow tanker. 

30sec fire for Moskva= 5,886

60sec  fire for Stalingrad =13,041

This was drumming up awareness Moskva will become king and to make up for this  I believed Legendary mod are needed for large cruiser and would be a constructive counter.

All that is ok ! I made it clear I am ok changing the role of large cruisers but compensation  should be given to Stalingrad because tit for tat Moskva will do it better when changes go live ,its already very close for players who play both.

Stalingrad will be out performed in its own role, and will need a new role I believe the only category it has left is its alpha potential to broadside targets and what accomplish this is even better would be -dispersion  Legendary mod similar to Moskva.

 

 

 

A) So what? Then why are you whining, if you're that awesome, it shouldn't matter, yes?

B) If you're playing a bow tanking style, you're doing it wrong, so your so called experience shows an actual lack of application said experience.

C) Incorrect, it is clearly, and I do mean clearly, an emotional rant, and is also not an accurate one.

D and Da) I reiterate point "A".

E) You're not drumming up awareness, you're doing a "The sky is falling!" and trying to convince people you're right, when in fact, you aren't, besides, Premiums aren't supposed to be better than tech tree ships, though a few, a very few, have touched or crossed that line. Remember?

F) Why? If you're "ok" with it, why do you need compensation for anything? The words "diametrically opposed" come to mind, here.

G) As of this time, no-one even knows if prems are getting legendary mods.

H) Relax, my dude, this is a game, it isn't real, it doesn't actually matter. This is something I have to keep telling myself, as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,193
[SUGAR]
[SUGAR]
Members
3,411 posts
13,962 battles
7 hours ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

You're freaking out over nothing, making a mountain out of a mole hill. 15 more secs max fire duration isn't going to make any real difference in how these ships perform. Use the right mods, skills, and flags, and use your DamCon correctly, that's all you need to do. It's all one has ever needed to do.

Thank you... I felt I have been taking crazy pills over this   OMG my BB health'd cruiser is going to eat 900 more damage because I can't manage my consumables.....The horror....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
247
[CAST]
Members
1,423 posts
7,924 battles

The Stalingrad is getting the fire nerf to compensate for its larger health pool.  I suspect that at some time in the future, you will see a legendary mod for this ship.  It might have a decreased fire duration, or it might be something else that is totally unique to this ship.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
361 posts
137 battles
46 minutes ago, BiggieD61 said:

Skew?

In looking at Stalingrads performance in random battles versus other tier 10 cruisers, it is clearly outperforming them:

https://na.wows-numbers.com/ship/3760109008,Stalingrad/

The sample size is small at 41k games and is certainly influenced by the amount of good players who were the early rewardees of the ship.  I suspect that the numbers will drop slightly as players like myself and others use the ship in less than Unicum levels of performance.  Still, there is a 9% gap in win rate between the Stalingrad and the next closest tier 10 cruiser - the Worcester (60.59 vs 51.42 ).  It is 20k better in average damage and .3 better in frags per game than the others in the tier 10 cruiser category.  The win rate might drop 1-2%, it did that for the GC when everyone realized how powerful it could be, but the ship was still stronger than her peers and the numbers reflected that even after a full year of play.  The GC leads all tier 5 BB's by win rate ( 3% advantage ) Damage and frags per game.

Good players will learn how to mitigate the additional 15seconds of fire duration, just like good high tier DD players learned how to mitigate excessive numbers of radar ships.

Less than good players will start chains of forum threads complaining about nerfs to ships they will probably never earn.

Clearly you don't understanding even the basics of data analytics.

Yes, skew.

1.) The vast majority of Stalingrad owners have an overall performance of "Great", as in most are Unicum/Super Unicum.

2.) Stalingrad has less than 500 owners.

3.) Owners of the Stalingrad that perform around the average of the Stalingrad's performance itself, are also in the top 6-8% of other T10s. Simply the 50th percentile for Stalingrad users are also matched in overall performance with the overall performance of the 94th percentile of other T10s.

When accounting for the skew above the Stalingrad is NOT overperforming. When further accounting for skew by removing CB play (/div play),  Stalingrad actually shows as borderline underperforming in Randoms, the primary game mode of WoWs.


The rest of your post is nothing more than fallacious " etc etc good players this bad players that "  aka "turn the other cheek" etc etc. A nerf is a nerf, and it is further exasperating the blatant double standard where Cruisers and DDs adhere to one balance model, and BBs as well as CVs are completely above reproach and are able to ignore the rules of said balance model.  It is a constant barrage of nerfs and buffs applied by WG that completely contradict any logical balance conclusion that can be drawn from viable data. The only thing WG is consistent with is making balance chances opposite any objective fact, and ensuring that anything that they claim is "Overpowered" or "Unbalanced" in regards to CAs/DDs, is NOT so when attributed to BBs/CVs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,367
Members
5,201 posts
9,061 battles
1 hour ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

If you're gonna do a "Come at me, brotatochipski" at WG, have the cojones to do it on your main account, and, and this is really important, be right. You've accomplished neither.

 

Just report him an move on. No need to engage with him. He's on another alt for a reason. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,056
[DRACS]
Members
4,123 posts

Reason for the fire duration change is obvious: These ships are greatly overperforming compared to their cruiser peers. Their AP is much more reliable, their HE can pen 50mm of deck armor, and they can take MUCH more punishment than ordinary cruisers. And they also have much better DPM than battleships. They are only a little less tanky than battleships (not by far in some cases), while still retaining access to cruiser consumables like radar and defensive fire.

The supercruisers are in fact quite super.

As for legendary mods for the tier 10 ships ... I'm sure Wargaming will eventually create some should these ships become popular enough to warrant it. Remember that Salem also is missing her legendary mod, and Salem is MUCH more common than Stalingrad.

Edited by KaptainKaybe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19
[-TAB-]
Beta Testers
121 posts
6,846 battles
1 hour ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

If you're gonna do a "Come at me, brotatochipski" at WG, have the cojones to do it on your main account, and, and this is really important, be right. You've accomplished neither.

Bravo great trolling lol. 

I respect your feeling on the subject but you've attack multiple people in this thread by trying to drum up emotion. With out giving any factual argument. We call that here in the states fake news .

 

What's the plus for  Stalingrad after  8.0 over the Legandary  mod  Moskva?  Constructive argument I am waiting...

 

Personally idc, I'll drive my Moskva it's just a shame for the people who earned her. 

Ship like her deserve  a legandary mod when 8.0 changes go live.

I was hoping some  cool Legandary mod idea would  come up from posters aswell.

Please don't attack my playstyle I have driven both ships far more than you have with all do respect

I know it's a game I hope you do to lol.

 

 

Edited by OppressorUnion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
361 posts
137 battles
1 hour ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

If you're gonna do a "Come at me, brotatochipski" at WG, have the cojones to do it on your main account, and, and this is really important, be right. You've accomplished neither.

Clearly you are very emotional. I see claims absent evidence.  Your argument from stone has no worth.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×