DerKleine

But it is consistent with both, you just can't look at either on their own. For any specific base concealment value, the smoke-firing penalty increases proportionally to base concealment. For any specific gun calibre, the smoke-firing penalty increases proportionally to base concealment. Just because mediocre smoke-firing penalties can be achieved in many different ways (low gun calibre + bad base concealment, high gun calibre + good base concealment & middling gun calibre + middling base concealment) doesn't mean there's anything actually inconsistent here, it's just maths. A function with multiple independent variables can reach the same result in many different ways.

As the loading screen and team lineup (hold tab) show, losing ships costs a team varying amounts of points, depending on the class of the ship that was lost. At the same time, the other team gains points for kills. If a team never gained (significant amounts of) points to begin with through caps or kills, it only takes losing like half the team's ships to reach 0 points.

You're aware that the game ends when any of the following conditions are met? - Either team reaches 1000 points - Either team reaches 0 points - Either team loses all their ships

What about those values is out of line with the description I gave earlier in this thread about how smoke-firing penalty balancing works and has always worked since its introduction? Let's present your list properly: Ships with 203mm guns: Hindenburg (15.54km base concealment) - 10.17km smoke firing penalty Venezia (15.27km base concealment) - 9.89km smoke firing penalty Des Moines (13.44km base concealment) - 8.18km smoke firing penalty Zao (12.22km base concealment) - 7.18km smoke firing penalty As you can see, there's nothing out of line here. Where there are small differences in base concealment, the same small differences are found in the smoke firing penalty (Hindenburg vs Venezia). The larger gaps in concealment correspond to larger gaps in the smoke firing penalty. Ships with 234mm guns: Gibraltar (14.14km base concealment) - 9.49km smoke firing penalty Comparable ship with 203mm guns (1): Cataluna (14.20km base concealment) - 8.86km smoke firing penalty Comparable ship with 203mm guns (2): Trento (14.06km base concealment) - 8.73km smoke firing penalty Goliath (13.62km base concealment) - 9.02km smoke firing penalty Comparable ship with 203mm guns (1): Pensacola (13.74km base concealment) - 8.44km smoke firing penalty Comparable ship with 203mm guns (2): Annapolis (13.58km base concealment) - 8.30km smoke firing penalty Yep, everything's still consistent here. Now, since Gouden Leeuw and Napoli don't have any similar-calibre cruisers in your list but do have identical concealment, let's instead compare them to ships with the same (or at least very similar) concealment and different calibres 381mm guns: Yukon (12.78km base concealment) - 12.17km smoke firing penalty 350mm guns: Mackensen (12.82km base concealment) - 11.32km smoke firing penalty 283mm guns: Graf Spee & Gouden Leeuw (12.76km base concealment) - 9.47km smoke firing penalty 254mm guns: Napoli (12.76km base concealment) - 8.75km smoke firing penalty 234mm guns: Drake (12.80km base concealment) - 8.33km smoke firing penalty 203mm guns: Myoko (12.76km base concealment) - 7.6km smoke firing penalty 180mm guns: Molotov (12.76km base concealment) - 7.12km smoke firing penalty 152mm guns: Neptune, Phoenix, Budyonny, Murmansk (12.76km base concealment) - 6.58km smoke firing penalty Still don't see any inconsistencies. In conclusion: Once again, the smoke firing penalty is actually one of the only balancing parameters that can always be explained, because it isn't an independent balancing factor.

This whole discussion is pointless because the smoke-firing penalty is currently not an independent balancing factor. Changing just the smoke-firing penalty for a ship would mean making an exception to a rule that hasn't been broken yet. Many people here seem to think that the smoke-firing penalty Is supposed to be related to gun calibre (probably due to a popular, somewhat clueless streamer guy), but that's just half the story. It's dependent on two things: gun calibre and base concealment. Contrary to popular belief there are no exceptions here that I know of. If you find two ships with the same calibre, the one with worse base concealment will have worse smoke firing penalty. If you find two ships with the same base concealment, the one with smaller calibre guns will have a lower smoke-firing penalty. Because Rochester has way better base concealment at 11.7km compared to Kutuzov's 14.06km. You should instead compare it to a ship like Amalfi, which also has 203mm guns, but a comparable 14.01km base detection range. And would you look at that, its smoke-firing penalty is 8.7km, a whole km worse than Kutuzov. For a comparison to Rochester take something like Duca d'aosta or Edgar - both have the same 11.7km concealment and 152mm guns, both have a smoke firing penalty of 5.8km - 1 km better than Rochester.

You're misunderstanding how the two squadrons on Halford work. It's like depth charges, where you can have up to two squadrons charged after waiting for twice the cooldown. Compared to Kearsarge, that just means that if you don't launch your first squadron as soon as it's ready, you're not wasting your damage potential by preventing the next squadron from recharging. The UI for this in-game is unfortunately pretty poor, I was kind of expecting WG would improve on that with the ship's release.

While you might be correct about me never having bought the ship and not currently owning the ship, my emblem may give you some hints as to how I'm able to produce this evidence of having played the ship two and a half months ago. Trust me, you don't want to get into a fight about who has more experience in this game. It seems like you've completely missed the point here: World of Warships is a game about chance & risk assessment. Again: You are worried about the scenario where you launch planes with an enemy between your ship detection range and plane detection range, spotting your planes on launch and then getting shot at and taking damage as a result of this information. I am telling you why the chances of that happening are very low. Not zero, but low. People needing to look in your direction very much does matter, because it'll affect whether they even notice the fact that you're launching planes. Beyond that, the less time the spend looking at those first couple of seconds of your launch animation, the harder it will be for them to tell your speed and heading, reducing their ability to aim. if a player doesn't notice you launching planes, the chance of them shooting at you as a result of the information provided by that is 0. And the less information they have to aim, the worse their chances are of aiming correctly and hitting you. Moving makes assessing speed and heading more difficult, reducing the chance of people assessing these things correctly. This fact applies to spotted ships as well. Since in this scenario your ship would be unspotted before launching planes, the chances of players being focused on your exact position is low. Since lock-on dispersion and aim-assist won't be available to players shooting at you in this scenario, their chances of them aiming correctly and hitting you are much lower than if your ship was actually spotted. The information provided by launching planes has a very short duration and is likely only going to be potentially valuable for a single salvo. A destroyer may be able to quickly get its guns pointed at your location and fire off a salvo, but a single salvo from a DD Is not much of a threat compared to salvos from the average cruiser or battleship (both due to lower damage and worse shell arcs). Cruisers and battleships will generally take significantly longer to get their guns pointed at your location, and therefore be reacting to more outdated information, decreasing their chance of aiming at the correct spot. Cruisers and Battleships will also be more significantly affected by the lack of lock-on dispersion - while it might be beneficial in terms of increasing the area in which shells can land, the chances of dealing significant damage are very low. It's not like Halford can get citadeled by a lucky shell hit. So far, that has just covered reasons why players on the enemy team are unlikely to hit you, but there's more: For a player on the enemy team to shoot you, they would need to think that this action is more beneficial to them and their team than other actions would be. The value of shooting at you while launching planes is generally going to be pretty low, and is influenced by the following factors: If a player on the enemy team has other spotted ships to shoot at, their chances of success with those firing actions are higher Shooting at your Halford comes with downsides: They won't have that same salvo available for anything else and will reset their concealment penalty for firing. If the enemy player wasn't spotted beforehand, giving away their position for such a low-success-rate action rarely makes sense. So pretty much the only situations in which it would make sense to try and shoot at your Halford are: When the enemy ship has literally nothing better to do and nothing to lose from doing so. When attempting to perform this action is crucial to the game's outcome, e.g. when hits/near misses would prevent taking a cap in a game that's tight on points or when the enemy knows you're one hit away from death. In conclusion: Attempting to shoot at an otherwise unspotted Halford launching planes is often going to be a high-risk low-reward action, and therefore rarely makes sense or achieves anything. And again: your solution to this imaginary problem is to slow down and smoke up, which is just not a good move, especially when you're between 6 and 10 km from the nearest enemy ship. Your smoke screen is a much longer-lasting position indicator and torpedo magnet, and much more valuable to be used while you're in control of your ship, not your planes. And smoking up so close to the enemy team while not in control of your ship is just asking for someone to rush in and spot you in smoke or once you leave your smoke if you don't have allies around you. And by the way, the chances of someone taking range upgrade and popping spotter plane at the start of the game, blindly shooting across the map and randomly hitting you also aren't 0. Of course, launching instantly-spotted planes or even just straight-lining launched planes towards enemies does give away your position or direction. Many actions in the game do. Whether that's information you want to give the enemy team will vary depending on the situation. You wouldn't want to launch planes while unspotted in radar range, or with enemy planes nearby that were previously unaware of you. For Halford, giving up this information isn't as big of a deal as with many other destroyers. It's really not a ship that's good at ambushing enemies with guns or torps, it doesn't have the firepower to do that.

Except you don't, because 1. People would need to actually be looking at your position to have any chance to react in time. 2. Your exact speed and heading would still be difficult to judge (unless you're standing for some reason), even more so if you're in a turn. 3. It'll still take time for people to turn their guns towards the position you broadcast, by which point that information for aiming is likely no longer all that useful 4. Even if they do get to shoot at you, they'd still be shooting without lock-on aim assist and lock-on dispersion. And your solution to this is to both waste a consumable and broadcast your position even harder by deploying a smoke screen, just to make sure that everyone can see where you were for the next 2 minutes?

But again: your ship is not getting spotted and your smoke does literally nothing to help in this scenario...

As soon as you activate your planes, you lose direct control of your ship and the concealment indicator is now tied to your planes. This isn't anything new, it's literally how all controllable planes have worked since the CV rework. There's nothing to argue here.

Just because your planes are spotted doesn't mean your ship is spotted. I mean, sure, people can see where you are based on where your planes took off, but it's not like that gives them enough information to actually shoot at you.

A battle may last 15 minutes, but most players aren't going to stay in the battle until the end. And on average battles don't last 15 minutes I'd say.

Where is Roon CLR marked as a special ship, and why do you bring up some random guy's stream rather than highlighting where in-game or on the official website the info is supposedly wrong?

Non-tech tree tier 10s are always special ships, not premiums. There's nothing out of the ordinary here.

I missed out on it last christmas, so now I finally got my very own Yudachi to abandon in port:

If it was an issue of people adapting, why do you see so many people from clans that were able to be quite successful this season complaining?

Since the new matchmaking monitor can now also display each player's average damage in the ship they're currently playing for the current CB season, I can confidently say that CVs genereally compete with if not slightly exceed the average damage done by most cruiser players, while of course also being responsible for way more spotting damage. That latter part is not shown in the matchmaking monitor, but I doubt anyone is consistently spotting for over 100k damage in their cruiser...

As mentioned above the CST has already existed for well over a year, which is to say that the EU server has a complete set of clans at the time of this announcement. Some other regions may be a different story.

Someone (not me) went to the effort of finding the game on twitch, so here you guys go: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/407637463?t=6634s It's basically what you'd expect, the [ROSET] team lemmings their ships to the side where all the Harugumos are located. They cap their base with one ship that then returns to the group. The lemming train then proceeds to sit bow on and get farmed (while also losing their base cap to a single Shimakaze). They do bring most of [SYN]'s ships down to half health, but never manage to actually focus one down. I get the feeling they rely way too much on having more health and armor for bow tanking than making actual tactics and reactive decisions, which is what led to things not working out.

How are we supposed to give you examples when compositions like this simply don't make it to the higher leagues? And if this line up is so incredibly overpowered any successful, why does [SYN] only have a 56.25% winrate this season, why are they still stuck in the silver league? On second thought, forget what I said. A 56.25% winrate is incredible, and clearly proves that their meme comp is the best. There is simply no way you could perform any better than them with a normal lineup. It has never been done.

I want to join the lottery.

Remember when you not only had AP, but could also division with Tier 10s for a real challenge? Now that was playing Tier 1 at a competitive tier!

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.

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?

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.