Jump to content

DerKleine

Players
  • Content count

    52
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    12311
  • Clan

    [OM]

About DerKleine

  • Rank
    Leading Rate
  • Insignia
  1. Nerf Conq already!

    It is worth noting that of his 38 Conqueror games, only 1 was in the past 67 days and 20 in the past 150 days. The conqueror has been in the game for 157 days, was directly nerfed 108 days ago (repair party cooldown, detection range), and indirectly nerfed 87 days ago (fire duration reduction on destroyers and cruisers). This means that it's fairly safe to assume that almost all of his games were pre-nerf and at a time when the ship was relatively new, when people had less of an idea how to play against it. From the time frames warships today has given, he must have played 18 games in it within 7 days of the Conqueror's release, so I think it's fairly safe to assume that most of the remaining 20 games were around that time period as well. As such I don't think placing too much value on this one person's stats makes sense for discussing how to change the ship in its current state in the current meta. But hey, it doesn't seem like most of you guys in this thread actually want to discuss anything the way you're just screaming at one another, so whatever.
  2. Nerf Conq already!

    So let's get this straight. - Your complaint is that the Conqueror is too easy to play. - The statistics we have available show that the Conqueror is not actually overperforming (significantly) in terms of winrate. - Rather than asking for changes to the ship (which is what I'm trying to do here and would make more sense if you complaint is more that it's too easy to play rather than that it's overperforming), you want a straight up nerf, which is somehow supposed to keep the performance of the ship fine... how exactly? I think you're completely missing the point of my suggestion to raise the citadel and buff the amount of healable citadel damage. The goal is to make the ship both punishable, but competitive with other T10 BBs in terms of survivability as a whole. By raising the citadel the ship becomes a lot more punishable, what would previously have been regular pens are turned into citadels. It becomes possible to instantly take out the ship from larger amounts of HP regardless of any changes to the heal. If we were to now buff healable citadel damage from 10% to 60% (the amount RN BBs can heal regular pens, let's just assume that as of right now they never get citadeled which is usually the case) we essentially land back where we started... except that you can now deal massive damage spikes to the ship. If these damage spikes fail, the ship can still recover, though not quite to the extent it currently can, as it's still taking more damage. If you main problem was the inability to punish the ship when it's broadside, that's exactly what this solution would fix while changing as little of anything else as possible (other than that non-devastating torpedo salvos would be less effective against it, which could be adjusted through changes to the torpedo protection if needed). In short raising the citadel and increasing the healable citadel damage percentage would - Make mistakes more punishable and reduce the brawling capabilities, raising the skill floor - Retain the unique form of tanking through consumables (which can be seen as a characteristic of both RN lines) - as a whole decrease survivability against Battleships and some cruisers at close range, while slightly increasing the survivability against destroyers - a slight nerf overall, not a massive nerf hammer swing (because do you really trust WG to make massive balance changes?) Where's the problem with that?
  3. Nerf Conq already!

    RN cruisers are literally the only example of cruisers the Conqueror can devastate with HE though, and even then it's a lot less likely than with AP, since you have to hit more shells to do the same amount of damage and you shells have to hit parts of the exterior armour that are part of the citadel (No citadel hits through the bow or Citadel Roof). So while it is theoretically possible to devastate RN cruisers that way, it's still a lot less likely than if the Conqueror was shooting AP, meaning you are less of a threat. The 1/4 pen rule for the main battery of certain battleships is arguably unnecessary and should be removed, but it's rarely that big of a game changer either. Still the point is that I don't think the fact that most cruisers can move around a lot more freely in the face of most conqueror players, and to some extent this applies to battleships as well. Like with all sources of damage over time, you want to avoid continued exposure to the source to allow you to make use of your damage control party more effectively. If a Conqueror can't maintain line of sight on you to actually start follow up fires after setting multiple fires, his fire starting ability decreases in value. This is where fire prevention comes in to play, as fire prevention will make it significantly harder to start multiple fires, giving you more time to break line of sight before you actually need to damage control. This is also where another piece of bad advice comes into play: "You can't angle against a conqueror". This is simply missing the point. When facing a conqueror you should absolutely try and minimize the number of shell hits you received, which involves angling. The Conqueror is certainly not an accurate ship, so this will also drastically reduce the chance of receiving multiple fires by decreasing the number of shell hits, once again giving you more time to break line of sight and damage control. This is what I meant by saying that mitigating damage from a Conqueror requires a different approach than mitigating damage from most other battleships. The ones who are punished by continuous HE spam the most are those who remain open to being spammed. Yes, the HE might not be "the most skillful" thing to use, but then again we might as well say similar things for ships that can overmatch a lot of stuff with AP or just sit somewhere and bow tank. These are all things that are easy to do, but not necessarily the most effective thing to do. Again, this is not saying that the Conqueror's guns shouldn't be changed, they're really not all that interesting to use, what I'm saying is that these guns come with a lot of their own unique issues. For the Concealment I'll just repeat what I've already said: Where's the evidence of people actually using it offensively? The Conqueror is not a ship that synergizes well with that kind of playstyle, as it doesn't have accurate or reliable AP to deliver that surprise devastating salvo. The North Carolina, Iowa and Missouri are much better examples of that, but I don't see people getting too outraged over those. In regards to the citadel, raising the Citadel to Yamato levels (or similar) would completely negate the only thing the Conqueror has going for it in terms of tankyness. You'd still be taking a lot of damage HE and AP pens, be taking more citadels and be able to heal less of it all back. Similarly a Minotaur can theoretically tank 126 436 damage with the +20% repair flag, but you'll never actually be able to repair anything close to that because a lot of the damage you take is not even close to being fully healable. Raising the citadel without changing anything else would make the Conqueror an incredibly vulnerable ship, so here's my proposal: Raise the Citadel (Perhaps not to Yamato levels, but USN BB levels or very slightly above) and make at least 50% of citadel damage healable, just like on the RN cruisers (rather than the regular 10%). That way you retain the unique ability to tank through consumables, but can also be punished for making larger mistakes and still take more damage in general. Depending on how well this performs the repair party cooldown could potentially be adjusted back to more normal levels as well.
  4. Nerf Conq already!

    The Conqueror's increased damage has been explained time and time again, and its winrate in the past two weeks is certainly not 2 - 3 % higher than that of other Tier 10 BBs. In any case there are plenty of ships with significantly better winrates at Tier 10 which no one is complaining about. Yueyang, Z-52, Khabarovsk and Des Moines are all ships with winrates that are 2 - 4% above 50% in the past two weeks, yet you don't see threads screaming for those to be nerfed. Playing the Conqueror with too much of an HE focus also comes with a lot of downsides that I think a lot of people inexplicably ignore. HE is never going to do a better job than AP at devastating anything larger than a destroyer, and even there it's arguable. While the HE might be annoying, it's not really an immediate threat preventing you from doing anything other than remaining stationary. You can turn broadside infront of an HE spamming BB knowing for sure that he's not going to land that devastating, game changing salvo. HE spam does not give you the same game winning impact. A lot of the annoyances of Conqueror HE also aren't as exclusive to the Conqueror as you might think. The HE destroys a lot of modules, yes, but so does the HE on every other BB. The fire starting capabilities and direct damage could arguably do with some tweaks, but it's not like other Battleships are completely useless as soon as they switch to HE either. The Großer Kurfürst for example is a ship whose HE I think is often underestimated (With all the fire chance reductions at Tier 10, the difference between 12 Guns with 41% or 46% fire chance really doesn't feel that big), yet you don't see people complaining about that. It's not surprising, as the Kurfürst actually has reliable AP and only really has to switch to HE in situations where you're dealing with bow on BBs for an extended period of time. In terms of nerfs, maybe that should be an inspiration for how the Conqueror's 419mm guns should behave in general? (lower alpha damage, slightly lower fire chance, drastically improve AP performance by removing the short fuse and whatever else is different about the AP) Another point that's often brought up is the Concealment of the Conqueror compared to cruisers. It's pointed out how ships like the Hindenburg, Moskva or Henri IV have worse concealment. However these are ships that don't rely on concealment, and the situation where a Conqueror sneaks around the map not firing his guns to not get spotted simply doesn't happen in any random battle I've seen. The concealment is generally used as a defensive tool, not an offensive one, so I don't think that's really something that needs to be changed. (Concealment is also an aspect where the T10 BBs could really do with some variety). Finally, I wouldn't call the Conqueror "tanky", but rather "uniquely tanky". The Kurfürst is an example for a battleship that is actually tanky, being resistant to AP overmatch/penetration, Citadels and HE penetration. The conqueror doesn't have most of those things. If it gets focused by a few ships, it dies way faster than any other Tier 10 BB. On the other hand the heal can make up for this in 1v1 engagements. What this means is simple: Don't waste your time dealing with a conqueror until you're actually able to deal with a conqueror. Before the repair party nerf this was a much bigger problem, as you were more often able to heal before death even when being focused by multiple ships, but that nerf certainly did help in that regard. In short, the Conqueror is a ship that requires a different approach both in terms of how you mitigate damage from it and when you deal damage to it. I think this is what a lot of people may be struggling with. Could it do with some adjustments? Certainly. Is it the most overpowered ship that will automatically win games for you? Not at all. Personally I think the Kurfürst is a ship that's both much more fun to play and effective at winning games, but hey, everyone keeps telling me it's crap.
  5. Nerf Conq already!

    And that only really applies to the forward firing angles, the turrets at the front can turn significantly further back.
  6. Cheater GamePlay

    Also bis die Beweise da sind halte ich @Igarigen's Quelle für deutlich zuverlässiger. Ich meine, wenn er sie schon schützen muss dann muss sie ja echt sein. Hier sind Leben im Spiel!
  7. Cheater GamePlay

    Findet hier sonst keiner es verdächtig dass unser @V_R3znov nichts gegen diesen schlagkräftigen Beweis für sein Cheaten zu sagen hat? Damit halte ich das ja schließlich auch für bestätigt.
  8. Holiday Lottery - Try your luck!

    Here's my entry: 1. Enterprise (Roma if available) 2. Warspite 3. Doubloons Thanks, and a merry christmas to all of you
  9. Ich habe nicht so das gefühl dass die Wartezeit das Matchmaking sonderlich beeinflusst. Gestern hatten wir einen etwas komischen Vorfall wo wir mit dem Hauptclan fünfeinhalb Minuten auf ein Spiel gewartet haben (normal wären 40 - 100 Sekunden), und das war dann trotzdem gegen WGP2W, die ja vom Ranking her nicht so weit weg liegen.
  10. Ja, in den unteren Ligen sind die vor kurzem erstellten zweit-clans.
  11. Neben dem ganzen was @TheLegendBegins zu CVs bereits gesagt hat finde ich sind die letzten paar streams von Flamu wirklich kein gutes Beispiel für was im CvsC modus möglich bzw. nicht möglich ist. Man sieht ja wie deren Team in der letzten Woche Punktemäßig einfach nur abgestürzt ist. Das Lineup und die Positionierung wie man sie in dem obigen bild zum Beispiel sieht finde ich höchst Fragwürdig. Mit einer Moskva und einem einzelnen DD ist spotting-mäßig nicht besonders viel der Karte abgedeckt, und selbst wenn etwas mit gutem Concealment gespottet wird: Es ist nur eine Moskva und ein DD, das Radar hält nicht allzu lange und der DD wird HP-schonend fahren müssen.
  12. Man beachte, dass wenn man den clan tab öffnet das Laden so aussieht: ist ja fast so als wäre der Clan tab einfach nur ein browser fenster der über dem Hafen drüber gelegt wird, weshalb sich die performance auch nur verschlechtert und nicht verbessert wenn man draufclickt.
  13. Die Anführungszeichen um das wort "bessere" in "bessere Winrate" sollte hinweis genug sein, dass das Bewertungskriterium hier ein anderes als üblich ist. Dass unsere Winrate nicht die höchste auf dem server ist, ist klar und hat auch gute Gründe, ist aber am ende auch nicht das wichtigste im Modus (da sind Clans wie eurer, AAO, W_I_G, etc. das perfekte Beispiel für)
  14. Wir haben heute ein wichtigs Ziel erreicht, eine "bessere" Winrate ist an dieser Stelle leider einfach nicht mehr möglich.
  15. Ob es möglich ist, ist denke ich keine Frage. Ob es wahrscheinlich für die die noch nicht in der Taifun Liga sind (und nie waren), ist aber eine andere. Die gefahr wieder abzusteigen ist nun mal doch etwas höher wenn man gerade erst in die Liga gekommen ist (es wäre eigentlich mal interessant zu sehen wie oft solche abstiege passieren). Da bleibt nicht mehr all zu viel Zeit um solche abstiege in kauf nehmen zu können, zumal jeder Erneute aufstieg wieder mindestens drei Spiele erfordert. Also für die die erst vor kurzem angefangen haben und es schnell in die Taifun Liga geschafft haben sehe ich kein Problem, aber wer schon seit Anfang daran arbeitet wird sich so langsam etwas anstrengen müssen.
×