NothingButTheRain

Save your coal, yw

You are unaware that the citadel is also getting widened? That would (or at least could) explain why you have such a hard time agreeing with me.

Are you saying that widening the citadel (meaning, it gets to become a larger target from the top) will in absolutely no way increase the number of hits the citadel would receive (with AP bombs, but not totally excluding other means for now), provided nothing else is changed? Yes or so? I will respond to the rest after you answered this question here. Don't worry, I'm just checking your sanity.

Got any proof?

No, not equally right. because if they were right, these buffs wouldn't even have been needed and the raising of the citadel would (like these people have said) not be a nerf. But it is a nerf. Anyway, you are pulling things out of context a bit with your coparison. It's not as simple as you make it out to be. The other stuff is never intended to buff the ship, it's merely to try and shoehorn balance into the nerf (which apparently is hitting these ships quite hard to warrant buffs of this order). The point is also that these people you are talking about, are doing something else which you are circumventing: They are saying "the raising of the citadel is not a nerf" AND saying "the Conqueror is getting a heal buff!" and together they conclude "Conq is not getting a nerf, but it is getting a buff, therefore Conqueror is getting buffed". Clearly you see that people with this kind of assumption, are assuming wrong. They are ignoring the nerf, saying that it won't affect you if you play it right. But this is not the case as there are multiple reasons why this nerf is warranting these buffs now. It is not the same Fumtu, also because with your comparison you are leaving out one of the most important bits of my why.

For whatever reason, I did not remember that bit. But as it's merely to compensate for an added weakness these 2 ships received, it's clearly not a buff in itself but to compensate for the raised and widened citadel which is making this ship significantly weaker enough to warrant buffs like this. It also states (for the people who, for whatever reason, still complain about how Conqueror is getting improved instead of merely rebalanced (by their own whinin I might add)) that the goal is to make it easier to punish bad plays on this ship. But of course this will mean that this must include rewarding good play of this ship. Some people seem to simly not want to read that bit.

This one I already read and answered before.

Well, in that case I have given you your answer multiple times as well, haven't I? It's not just the freak citadels, you are leaving out at least 2 other scenarios (and possibly torps may also affect Conqueror more now as well). Is it so bad to simply not want to jump onto the bandwagon because I don't want to accept something which clearly is a nerf as not being a nerf? Sorry, but I'm not buying dung like that. Now that would be something if I had to start accepting clear untrue facts as true facts. I might as well start believing in that pastagod if it would really come to this. Of course noone wants their favorite ships nerfed, but in your case here, you are assuming this is one of my favorite toys based on...what exactly? Because I'm (in your eyes) simply defending my toy? Is that what you think? To me that is not funny, but just another disappointment. Oh well.

The sigma buff I knew about as it had been mentioned a couple times, but I was unaware of the citadel upper deck armor also getting a buff. Where is this information to be found? But anyway, the buffed heal doesn't affect citadel damage, so even a single stray hit to your citadel will mean the nerf hit you literally and proverbial. In the end, these "buffs" are nothing except to compensate for the nerfs it's receiving. Not because WG thinks this ship needs the buffs as it is now. If the citadel wouldn't have gotten raised, Conqueror would also have not received either of the buffs mentioned by you. Save to say these buffs are because of the nerfs. So these were nerfs, right? I'm starting to feel like I have to keep repeating myself over and over again. Kinda getting tired of this

I'm looking at data in which players own both a Stalingrad and one whatever other ship I would want to compare it with. And data in which both ships have been played a LOT (and I mean played like 100 battles in both of them. Solo and in randoms). But finding this data is a LOT of work as I have to do all of this manually. When I compared ships with generic data earlier this month or at the end of last month, this was also a lot of work but easier as I could compare more generic data without having to seek through a statistical significant amount of individual accounts. But i possible to objectively compate steel ships with tech tree ships. The (mathematical) trick is to somehow filter out the jitter so you end up with just the raw data. This extremely accessable citadel may be one thing, but go sit next to and island to cover your citadel and you can go citadel any ship from any range yourself with your stupidaccurate railruns, punishing ships that other ships themselves would not be able to punish. And you got 12.5km radar to boot. Pseudo-Yamato at tier 9 is not broken. It's actually on the same footing as JB and (iirc) Alsace and Lion and while they are the top of the list, they are not significantly outclassing the rest of the list like for instance Kamikaze and GC are. The ships (BBs in the case you brought forward) getting the short end of the stick in tier 9 included FdG and Iowa.

It's balanced, so it's fair. Or one would assume it to be fair. But is it fair for a BB to have to face a DD? Or a DD having to face a radar CC? Or a carrier? What is fair? In single 1 on 1 engagements, this game could be described as inherently unfair, even when playing ships 1 on 1 of the same class. How can a Shima outgun a Haru? What about Wooster vs a DM or Salem? How is that fair?

Yes tier 9 ranked, I'm ready for it! No stalingrads!

The pojnt is that you can minimise risks all you want, there's going to be a mistake or mishap sooner or later and technically, even if this nerf bites you only once, it will still be a nerf that hit you (both literally and proverbially). This Ghost dude said that there would never be a negative effect for this ship when player right and thus it could not be a nerf and I simply untwisted his logic into what it really means: That a nerf without any kind of buff is still a nerf regardless of how puny the chance that the nerf will affect you.

Fair enough. I would've preferred the true DPS as well.

If your tech tree ship has a permacamo (and my QE does, the one from christmas 2017), then it's very similar to a premium ship. The major differences are then kinda circumstantial. Tech tree ships are more likely to receive nerfs and are less likely to be included for special mission shortcuts (like the last mission in the usual directives). Also premium ships make more credits even if you have the permacamo for a similar tech tree ship. I'm not really sure what you mean with specifically RN BBs and IJN BBs. I played both lines through completely and both are fun, yet very different lines.

This got me LOL in real life here as this has got me nothing but confused! The percentages are useless as they mean nothing at all without any context (the context being the raw damage numbers). Like, "wow, my AA has been damaged by 23%! Well, what exactly is the damage? 23% of what?". During the battle, both max and current damage values were given (like 45/60 or something, meaning 45DPS of the 60DPS is still in working order). If someone can't even firgure this out, they really deserve to not know if this makes WG consider buffing their handicapreduction and more sensible people who don't want to bother memorising all AA damage values are getting shafted basically. I think your guess is somewhere in the right corner. There's fewer number to look at now. Too bad WG decided to remove the wrong numbers.

It will always land on the "1" sooner or later. And even a single one by sheer bad luck will mean the nerf hits you as well and that's a fact. It is not flawed. And in the end, the point is that if you nerf one aspect of a ship, it is a nerf regardless of how you look at it (or in the case of this Ghost guy, what lame excuses he wants to come up with).

Stalingrad is actually OP. You can compare the data of all steel ships objectively if you compare them with ships played by players who own both ships you want to compare. I'm not done with collecting enough data as this is a hellave lot of work, but thsi way you can compare stalingrad data with other ships objectively and stalingrad is at the very least the best tier 10 cruiser there is (and often by a very large margin). Bourgogne is also OP but could recheck. Black is not OP and Musashi and JB are the top of their class, but also not OP. I did this by looking at data (and more then just looking at the data).

Both used to be displayed in the ui. Now only the percentages are.

In WoT, blocking postbattle ragers has gone past its usefulness for years, as it's so common now that everybody there does this. So there will just be new chatpukers in your garage ui which haven't been included on your blacklist yet. The only way in which the blacklist feature could be sensibly salvaged is if multiple blacklists from multiple people could be combined and re-inserted into any individual blacklist.

They can't send you messages in port, but for messages during the battle itself you will need to also block their messages during the battle itself (can't do that post battle, you'll be limited to only blacklist them). The blacklist should be for good and is accessable from the port ui (good luck actually opening your blacklist in that horrid lagfest). I'm not sure about the disable messages, but it seemed to work like half a year ago.

But it is when calculating AA DPS when mounts start getting destroyed, or is this also a thing of the past? And why did they change the battle whatever UI to show only percentages and not raw DPS anymore? That's just kinda annoying.

Afaik, WG made CVs hard to sink for enemy CVs to prevent them from doing the CV sniping thing. You seem to have forgotten how lame (and common!) this used to be before the rework and in this WG has succeeded at mostly eliminating this problem. And what an awfully negative post yours is.

This is actually a good reason indeed, as it's kinda pointless to keep specialised captains for premium ships without having them trained for any tech tree ship. I do this all the time. My Wooster cap is also my Atlanta cap and used to be my Cleveland, Texas and Missouri captain as well, but those now use my Iowa cap except Cleveland which now has to make due with a spare cap. Yamato/Musashi/Mutsu share a cap, but perhaps Mutsu and Amagi will share a captain in the future as those may have better synergy. JB and Richelieu are really deserving of having a unified cap. Bismarck and Scharnhorst share a cap. I use my Conqueror cap on DoY and Nelson after I had put my old Lion cap (the Nelson anime chick) on a carrier. I like to mix and match with caps

Yes. It really does. Maybe you are not a native English speaker or something. But if you were to change a dice and have the "1" nerfed into a "0", it will still be a nerf regardless of how often you throw a "6". It's a nerf regardless of how good you throw the dice.