NothingButTheRain

Your explanation as to the why and how of your opinion is nothing short of superlative. You want the pinnacle of dumbed down? Then look at what happened to DD citadels. Heck, they don't even take full pen damage anymore and the result is that half the DDs cross the entire map in a double carrier game in search of the enemy carrier. Oh sure, these players need all the help that they deserve. There's your superlative, you'd better start critisizing this as this is not just a single ship. Oh no, it's an entire class dumbed down through the floor! Now go forth and start critisizing the biggest dumbing down of any class we've had. Go on... There ya go....superlatives But there's another detail that is important to your plight, namely this here: You want the entire ship changed because it's easy on the beginner and hard on the pro and you personally don't like that? Well, then this ship is just not for you. People should stop demanding change to any choices they don't like. This game thrives on choices and diversity and there's plenty for everyone (provided people like you don't get their way that is). You don't like the ship? Then don't play it. It's not hard

I don't have Warspite, but I do have the permacamo for QE and it still wasn't enough for me to really continu play the QE after I had elited it. It was kinda like a tier 6 Monarch, except that I ended up liking Monarch more and I have sufficient tier 6 alternatives that I find more useful compared to QE. It not being a premium ship means you'd need a dedicated captain for QE and frankly I don't think QE is worth having an extra captain for (especially if you want to make it a 19pt one) and for other purposes the QE with permacamo is imo also eclipsed by other alternatives which are frankly just more useful and more fun.

I don't agree with your wording, but lets disregard this subjective aspect for a moment. Ok, so after having disregarded the subjective aspect of it, my question would be "So what?" That would be a straight up nerf and Conqueror is already not OP. Now I will state that personally I prefer WG make different tech tree lines more unique in a way. So what that it has a superheal? Mino's got a superheal and I don't hear anyone b**ching about that ship We both know you are not against the superheal. It's also not about it -needing- a superheal. It's the national flavor of the RN BBs. And changing more lines to me more alike and more like just cloned with different names, Wargaming has already stated that this would help at nothing except pose a different problem sooner: That they will at some time run out of new mechanics in the game and that they were worried about this causing game development to start to stagnate. I vote to let it keep the superheal and the superior HE. It's what makes this line unique. if anyone doesn't like this, there are 5 other tech trees to grind through that do what you want. Same thing with any tech tree line. Not liking torp boats? Then don't play them! There's ample choice for gunboats so why come to the forums and demand WG change the SHima line into yet another gunboat line? It's bad for the game.

@MrConway @Crysantos @Sehales Hi. I hope your trip to Berlin is great for you. I hope to be able to make it next time. I'm asking this for McMurmel as I think his tweak was actually a good addition to the game, but it's been changed and the tweak doesn't work anymore. I presume (I don't know for sure of course) that this was a bug and I understand that bugs are best fixed due to potential instabilities and other unwanted side-effects, but would it be possible to make this increase in maximum LOD change distances a more permanent change to the game? I think it is safe to assume that, when accessible only to modders for people with high end systems, this would benefit the game in the long run. Or is there perhaps an alternative in which this setting can be changed? It seems like a good idea to me. I have a potato computer so it's of little use to me personally anyway, but I do like to mod, so :P

I've hardly played the Fletcher so I can't compare it with Black, but from the couple battles I did play with Black and from some research, Black is not OP. I don't know how good Neustrashimy is and how doubloons compare to steel or coal. Neustrashimy did seem to be reasonably good (but of course we both know how easy this is to change for ships that are still WIP).

This is what you said You basically interpreted this data as evidence that Conqueror is OP. It's kinda hard to interpret this as "Conqueror is UP" so I don't see how anyone could interpret this as agreeing with me that Conqueror is actually more average. And you also said this initially: It's really kinda clear what you are implying with this (and I mean the old one, as that's what you are referring to here). Now you're pretending I was the first one to bring this up, which really isn't the case. I didn't read the rest of what you said as it seems kinda pointless if you already havea hard time understanding this bit and because I can't really be bothered explaining other stuff as long as this idea doesn't click with you. I'm not here to teach you nor to enlighten you you know.

Weird. Why would they do that? Or was this change due to something unrelated perhaps?

And there is one other thing that sprang to my mind. It is supposedly a bad thing that something is easy to play? Well...why is this a bad thing? If you don't like some ship because you think it's too easy, then don't play it. There's nothing wrong with having ships of different difficulty level, both for beginner players and for the max skill ceiling.

yes it does have any effect on a player who plays cong in a right way

Weren't the ARP ships used to be considered their own country? This would explain why the voice sounded differently when put on another ship. And afaik the dual-country hockey player also has a voice change when playing on either a soviet ship or a USN one. So I expect it has something to do with this. Could be fixable by some modding but of course that should be WG's job.

Sorry, but where exactly did I state that someone said Conqueror is OP while the person did not say this? You should stop verbally assaulting me and perhaps focus more on the facts (and to interpret them more correctly instead of just briefly glancing over them and then smash the judges hammer into the table because you already have the definitive endconclusion and I am simply ignoring what in your eyes is the one and only possible truth here. If you don't like what I say, feel free to add me to your ignore list. That could also save me the burdon to have to go look up numbers because some "tart" as some special other unicum here called it, had jumped on this bandwagon and thinks that he who shouts the loudest, is also the one that is most heard. Sorry, what did I just find out? Afaik everybody only just found out about the shape of Conqueror citadel because it was only recently revealed to all of us. How does that make you wonder why I only just found that out? I'm not bending anything. You are, by saying the numbers I presented are a proof of Conqueror being OP and me simply ignoring this supposedly cold hard data, and I already explained why this interpretation is incorrect and my reservations against this interpretation are well founded. Not everybody will like this but that's not really my problem. I can't save the whole world of its ignorance. I wasn't even the one who started bringing in the GK in this specific case, it was a point that someone else brought up with a single purpose and this statement was simply not an accurate representation of the point of discussion here. And I already mentioned that this superheal is only effective against fires and flood damage which is something different from broadsiding battleships which usually get damaged by AP shells. And I'll add in an example of how nasty it can be to have any dialogue with you by stating that you are obviously and purposefully leaving out the increased cooldown time of a whopping 2 full minutes because you are a manipulative fanboy. And of course this is totally true and not suggestive in any way (but you only just found out right?) also totally a normal way to disagree with someone. Such a shame that I didn't bother to try and bring in the numbers to back up my claims

Lusty? I'm also happy Monarch is getting some attention now, but balancing these raised and widened citadels is a difficult task to get right. And that's what was not obvious to me until I saw a streamer show us the armor schemes. The citadels didn't just get raised, but they also got widened and kinda resemble a "T" now. And this shape of citadel proved too difficult to balance when Vanguard originally had such a citadel and WG ended up doing away with it completely. But now Conqueror is being gifted a heal that is getting absurd by itself, simply so they can get this nerf negated. Frankly, I'd say just give the Monarch an improved heal and be done with these ships. The Russian BBs got some considerable nerfs and they lost their radar. But testing has not been completed yet, so I'm waiting what they are gonna do with them now.

He was talking about broadside tanking, not HE spam.

So you already know that ships that depend on mostly HE/fire damage should have higher average damage. But of course you completely swipe away this fact. And it's not just about what place a ship has in the list, but also how much the difference is between these ships. And of course one can compare premium ships along with tech tree ships. Nobody is denying that reading stats is just about reading the numbers, but you have a peculiar way of doing this. But fine. If you want to interpret this as evidence that Conqueror is indeed vastly OP, well I guess you are entitled to your opinion. But so am I. Anyway. I've done some fairly extensive research in finding which ships can be considered OP and Conqueror is not one of them. I'm pretty sure you want to believe it is but the numbers are not on your side.

But it's not just about punishment of broadside BBs. It's about balance. And you also don't need to verbally assault me. And you conveniently left out that GK and Conqueror have vastly different health pools. GK has the most while Conqueror has the least. So in your words it's the GK that would need the nerf. But that's not what you're saying, so the punishment of broadside battleships is not your actual point. It cannot be as you would have been all over GK instead and you're clearly not. Montana and Yamato have more health and Yamato has the lolpen guns. And of course we can all see that, all strengths and weaknesses of all the ships you named included, none of these ships is vastly overpowered.

Yes it would. And there is no need to verbally assault me simply because I believe that if an average ship gets nerfed (which raising citadel is, it is a straight out nerf without any benefits whatsoever), then it will decrease its performance and it doesn't need another nerf to its performance as its performance is already average. If you can't even accept this, then we have nothing left to say to each other.

What's your problem? There's just 6 ships in that list in total and HE is known for doing more damage statistically, but not where it matters so the slightly higher average damage is imo kinda negated by this effect. All HE slingers should have slightly higher average damage. And you're missing the point anyway. Because the point is that if you nerf one aspect of an otherwise average ship, you will have to buff it somewhere else or it's gonna be underpowered. It's not hard to understand my dude. Perhaps you should write your own comments a bit more tardproof next time you respond to me? Every ship gets punished when going broadside. Haven't you read this comment here? It seems you 2 don't even agree with each other and statistically Conqueror is average. So the problem appears to be not on my end at least. So according to you listening to the wrong people is something you disagree with, and then start explaining how WG is (in your opinion) listening to brain dead potatoes? How is this not wrong in your book? And don't start repeating this "it just needed a nurf" bandwagon crap. If you nerf one end of this ship, then you got to buff it someplace else. And as the (subjective) complaints about this ship was about it being too easy to play, WG did what they thought was a logical respons to this by effectively making bad players worse with this ship and good players even better. I don't see how this logic is so hard to understand. Either you let it be average in evrrybodies hands, or you let it be bad in bad player's hands and good in good player's hands. That's basically the options you have. Now, in regards to this tard proof stuff I read about here. I think it's actually quite visible that the real complaint was never about Conqueror being OP (because it is not (anymore)) or its conceilment which I hear virtually no complains about anymore even though the conceilment was never specifically nerfed, but that people don't like the HE of this battleship. But the HE of Haragumo and other HE slingers is suddenly just fine? That's just hypocritical and it would be wise of WG to either ignore this or at least to not reward this. You can't change one thing without affecting something else. That's what the whole concept of balancing is about and people don't seem to like how Conqueror is getting rebalanced because they just don't like the ship or don't like bbabies or whatever reason. But whatever this reason is, it is not about balancing (maybe only superficially, but under the hood it is not). And trust me, balancing is anything but easy. TLDR: You can't just change a ship to be more punishable for mistakes without buffing the rewards for good play. You either accept both, or none. That's balance.

I'm not ingame so I can't check the armor scheme for myself right now. But I don't think it really matter as it's actually quite easy to see that statistically speaking, Conqueror is quite average. So all HE slingers have literally no counterplay according to you, including dakka HE from smoke and USN cruisers, is this correct according to you? How odd a statement. And calling it high reward cannons just lost you all your credibility. Well according to your standards at least, right? It's not stupidly overpowered like for instance Stalingrad is, so why even bother with this ship anyway? Don't like how it plays? Then don't play it. Statistically Conqueror is indeed fine yes. Or are you saying that it's not statistically fine? There's always different opinions. But not all opinions are equally useful to WG or even factual. I don't expect this to be a surprise to you. I mean for instance just look at what happened to GZ as an example of this.

Gib us HMS Thunderer, my fxp is ready!

This is where you are wrong. Conqueror can't be nerfed while retaining average strength, it would be straight up underpowered if Wargaming did this. Tbf, imo they should've just not listened to these whiners and spend their balancing resources on something more useful. If they do end up making it more rewarding for skilled players, fine, I'll take it then! The whiners got their way, but are disappointed because they expected the ship to just get nerfed. Oh well.

Well, angling the current Conqueror doesn't really help as much as with the other ships as Conqueror seems to have been made of soft steel instead of anything hardened. And it would be hard to make it more punishable to play the Conqueror badly without buffing anything. The people demanded Conqueror to be more punishable for mistakes, so they also asked for it to be buffed elsewhere indirectly. And lets face it, Wargaming making the Conqueror less rewarding for bad players and more rewarding for skilled players is just a terrible idea, right?

If they had only raised the citadel, it would have been a straight up nerf and Conq is already averagely powerful. And in the hands of the best players Conqueror is actually kinda weak, take a look at these stats: The old Conqueror is actually fine. The only reason they are changing it is because of all the crying about it spamming HE and wanting to turn the line of HE battleships into one of the other lines. Frankly, changing Conqueror was always a bad idea and it should stay as it is afaic. Everybody has ships they don't like for whatever reason, but WG seems to sometimes listen to the wrong people, alas. EDIT: I don't know why it keeps messing up the tables, but I tried to kinda fix them to make them more readable again.

I didn't know it was possible to have even more carriers at these tiers

My opinion of Missouri is "Meh", but mostly because I never clicked with her. Statistically Missouri is average at best and the radar is circumstantial. Iowa heal is significantly better now and the fighter plane may arguably be of more use in current meta compared to the radar. The things Missouri is best at, is that if you have a good game, you can get the highest credit earning potential. And the AA is decent, but of less use as it turns too slow to be able to dodge anything anyway. I find Missouri (and Iowa) hard (and not that fun) to play and atm I end up preferring Alaska.

Can still play ops/coop/space battles