Jump to content


"Effect of Safe Stowage Not Cumulative"


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

Oxboy1212 #1 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 22:50

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 28139 battles
  • 283
  • Member since:
    09-21-2015

I just want to make sure I understand....

 

The FV304 has two loaders.  Since Safe Stowage doesn't stack according to the tooltip, it's therefore 100% useless to put it on both loaders....meaning if you want the total effect of the perk, just put it on one loader and put something else on the other loader.

 

This correct?



The_Wehraboo #2 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 22:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 49849 battles
  • 5,137
  • [OKH] OKH
  • Member since:
    04-02-2012

Yes, it is only effective on one crew member. 

 

Any more, and it is redundant. 



Ndtm #3 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 22:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 15866 battles
  • 3,494
  • Member since:
    05-01-2012
You'd get the effect even if both have it's just that there isn't any bonus for both having it, but yes, put it on one guy and get something else for the other

swagglessboy #4 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 23:00

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 13631 battles
  • 43
  • Member since:
    12-30-2013

Yes, Only with 1 loader. You can also put Wet ammo rack equipment to increase the effect.

 



galspanic #5 Posted Mar 18 2017 - 23:14

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20560 battles
  • 2,494
  • [GUNS3] GUNS3
  • Member since:
    01-06-2016
If 1 loader gets killed having it on both would keep the effect in the game... but think about dumb that sounds.

ArmorStorm #6 Posted Mar 19 2017 - 00:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 32700 battles
  • 6,384
  • [F__R] F__R
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostOxboy1212, on Mar 18 2017 - 15:50, said:

I just want to make sure I understand....

 

The FV304 has two loaders.  Since Safe Stowage doesn't stack according to the tooltip, it's therefore 100% useless to put it on both loaders....meaning if you want the total effect of the perk, just put it on one loader and put something else on the other loader.

 

This correct?

 

Also, I have never been ammo racked in the FV.  You die from HP damage too quickly to really worry about it.

Rawrlynn #7 Posted Mar 19 2017 - 00:30

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 20304 battles
  • 151
  • [CDN-T] CDN-T
  • Member since:
    10-13-2014

View PostArmorStorm, on Mar 19 2017 - 00:05, said:

 

Also, I have never been ammo racked in the FV.  You die from HP damage too quickly to really worry about it.

 

it was an example.  TOGII also has 2 loaders. as do several other tanks.

 

It SHOULD stack as you spent all that exp to get it but it is just what they made it to be. 



uberdice #8 Posted Mar 19 2017 - 04:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 22030 battles
  • 9,392
  • Member since:
    01-14-2012

View PostRawrlynn, on Mar 19 2017 - 09:30, said:

 

it was an example.  TOGII also has 2 loaders. as do several other tanks.

 

It SHOULD stack as you spent all that exp to get it but it is just what they made it to be. 

 

Why should it stack for that reason? You know ahead of time that it won't, so there's no reason to do it in the first place.

Gothraul #9 Posted Mar 19 2017 - 05:42

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 1356 battles
  • 2,366
  • Member since:
    11-17-2014
Would be nice if it and several other perks stacked but this is WG and reason like that just doesn't happen even if it were not for full effect. The perks in general can use some refreshing given how long ago the last big change was made.

Ikanator #10 Posted Mar 19 2017 - 07:26

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 6242 battles
  • 271
  • Member since:
    06-23-2016

View Postgalspanic, on Mar 18 2017 - 14:14, said:

If 1 loader gets killed having it on both would keep the effect in the game... but think about dumb that sounds.

 

I agree that it sounds silly, nevertheless there is a case that can be made for redundancy. As long as the player realizes that redundancy is all they're getting and they're ok with that then there should be no problem.

galspanic #11 Posted Mar 19 2017 - 07:28

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20560 battles
  • 2,494
  • [GUNS3] GUNS3
  • Member since:
    01-06-2016

View PostIkanator, on Mar 18 2017 - 22:26, said:

 

I agree that it sounds silly, nevertheless there is a case that can be made for redundancy. As long as the player realizes that redundancy is all they're getting and they're ok with that then there should be no problem.

 

And the fact that maybe 1:10,000 games will use that redundancy.

IndygoEEI #12 Posted Mar 20 2017 - 21:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 46538 battles
  • 4,729
  • [GUNS6] GUNS6
  • Member since:
    01-06-2012

View PostArmorStorm, on Mar 18 2017 - 15:05, said:

 

Also, I have never been ammo racked in the FV.  You die from HP damage too quickly to really worry about it.

 

And even if you do get racked, it's by something that can 1hk you.  In fact I've decided to

switch out my loaders towards another tank at skill 4 because they are useless for the FV304

after that point.  Might as well give them to a tank that needs more then 3 skills for it to be

worth it.



1mp0ster #13 Posted Mar 21 2017 - 07:07

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 32478 battles
  • 1,018
  • [NVRDI] NVRDI
  • Member since:
    07-13-2013

View PostIndygoEEI, on Mar 20 2017 - 21:22, said:

 

And even if you do get racked, it's by something that can 1hk you.  In fact I've decided to

switch out my loaders towards another tank at skill 4 because they are useless for the FV304

after that point.  Might as well give them to a tank that needs more then 3 skills for it to be

worth it.

 

The fv304 probably doesnt need safe stowage.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users