T10 BBs since September 2017

[wilkatis_LV]

A.k.a. t10 BBs since the release of RN BB line. Also actually 30th August not September

 

6 points with roughly similar "timeframes", as quarters of the year, EU:

1st through 5th taken from maplesyrup directly (and you can notice there's 1 week missing between Q4-17 and Q1-18, but there's nothing I can do about that), the last one (Q1-19 / marked by being coloured in) is not yet published as a full quarter (as it still lacks some 20-ish days to fully qualify for it) so I pieced it together from weekly statistics (note: week marked as 12th to 19th Jan on the site actually has data for 22nd Dec to 19th Jan)

 

Oh, and Bourgogne is not included because

1) would be a single point - it doesn't exist before Q1-19

2) clearly not available to the general player base like others

3) very low battle count, in nearly 3 months collecting less battles as some others have in a single week

 

And as a reminder - maplesyrup counts only solo games, no divisions included

 

---

 

 

Have to say - that global WR drop managed to confuse and amuse me at the same. I'm thinking - key is the "solo only" part. Since CV rework BBs seem to have fared quite a bit better in terms of AA than many others, and if more of them are played in divisions, that could easily lead to more of a negative outcome for teams with more solo BB players

 

 

Reminder: raw damage doesn't tell the full story. "% max HP" is what matters, but we don't have any access to that. Burning BBs for high dmg score is far far less useful than getting rid of lower health DDs and cruisers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

Now, when we're past that I have couple of points to note:

 

Firstly -> 6...7 of the 8 categories (depending on if you look at Q4-18 or Q1-19 for WR / 8th being Hitrate) show decline in performance over the last 1.5 years. So... I guess the rumour that the BB players are somehow managing to become worse are actually at least somewhat true. Magical

 

Secondly - why is WG so eager to nerf Conq (the raised citadel tested right now, I've heard rumours of screwing with it's AP fuse to make it the "normal" garbage instead of the current short fuse), which in nearly every category is already worst or one of the worst performing ship?

Where it leads are damage and survivability.

Large part of its damage comes from doing "% max HP" based damage to ships with high max HP - BBs. This is also supported by low K/B rate (as this is terribly inefficient) and somewhat the low WR (as this would be very low impact damage). This, of course, can also be seen as the "preferred tactic" for most Conqs met in battles.

High K/D is a simple outcome of high survivability cancelling out low K/B

High survivability isn't all on the heal either. Especially with the low HP and absolute crippling of Conq by taking even just one torpedo or hitting it with AP instead of burning it like others. What would be the common thing that would ensure high survivability, while producing low potential damage received, low spotting, low hitrate? Range, or rather the tendency to stay at a noticeably longer range than other BBs do. Again, the "what does the Conq in my game do?" tends to confirm with this completely

So, sure, playing Conq properly instead of as a long range HE spammer would increase its performance in multiple stats, but... it's not like it would magically jump above all others. Nerfing it could and probably will push it so far down that it will actually require a buff. Is the strom that would inevitably come with that the goal? Or is this simply based on "players find it annoying to play against", which is an extremely weak argument for game balancing?

[HMS_Britannia]

Very intersting, can you do something similar for stats before release on steam as I am sure that is when the real decline in player quality began.

this is because before that people that wanted to play ships had to find the game now any pleb can search for F2P on steam and come in and [edited]this game up 

[wilkatis_LV]

1 minute ago, HMS_Britannia said:

Very intersting, can you do something similar for stats before release on steam as I am sure that is when the real decline in player base began.

this is because before that people that wanted to play ships had to find the game now any pleb can search for F2P on steam and come in and [edited]this game up 

Steam release was 15th Novemeber 2017, so it actually fits this exact same period, staring about 2/3 into the 1st quarter - Q4-17

[WeGreedy]

6 minutes ago, HMS_Britannia said:

Very intersting, can you do something similar for stats before release on steam as I am sure that is when the real decline in player quality began.

this is because before that people that wanted to play ships had to find the game now any pleb can search for F2P on steam and come in and [edited]this game up 

So what's the point? People on steam are bad players in ship games? Or in all games? People on steam are dumber?

[Flavio1997]

nice overview and I would love to see those stats also for dds and cruisers.

when you talk about conquerror, you forgot the other part, that the heal from pen damage is gonna get buffed from 60 to 75%, this will mean that potatoes are gonna get punished, but for good players this is a massive buff in survivability

[AnEvilJoke]

1 minute ago, B0Tato said:

So what's the point? People on steam are dumb? People on steam are bad players in ship games? Or in all games?

 

Quite a long story...

I guess that everyone who had ever real interest in the scenario of WoWs got or will get the game from the website.

Every player from steam is either "walk-in customers" or achievement hunter + the fact that you mostlikly can buy stuff with steam money...which many have because they "play" the steam market...

[wilkatis_LV]

15 minutes ago, Flavio1997 said:

nice overview and I would love to see those stats also for dds and cruisers.

when you talk about conquerror, you forgot the other part, that the heal from pen damage is gonna get buffed from 60 to 75%, this will mean that potatoes are gonna get punished, but for good players this is a massive buff in survivability

We'll see as I do have couple evenings this / next week with nothing to do, so I might do DDs and CAs aswell. No promises tho

 

And yeah, had completely missed that heal part. But I actually do have a problem with it - the heal was fine as compensation for both - lack of armour and health compared to other BBs. Introduction of French BBs showed that armour isn't part of that equation, so the heal is as a compensation only for losing 20-ish k max hp. That already is far too much. A 1% 24s heal would be more appropriate - mid point between current normal and super heal. And buffing it further - I don't think that area needs buffs.

Honestly - as Conq is now, the only thing that "needs" some buffing is something to do with 457s to make them viable. Ship's fine, just generally misplayed.

 

Or - and I've said this since pretty much the autumn of 2017 - if you're really so eager to nerf Conq, especially in regards to citadel - remove the up-armoured magazine area of the citadel roof (at the very least from stern magazines). Make it the same "overmatched by everything all the way through" as on Lion and Monarch are. This actually lets the ship to be citadelled through bow and especially the flat stern, while on Conq because of the extra armour plating there the shell will just bounce on it and take out your 1st / 4th turret

[Aotearas]

Last I heard the citadel is only going to be raised to waterline. Not exactly much of a nerf as long as you don't show broadside. Plus the heal is going to get more effective at replenishing casenate HP which is going to give the Conqueror a buff to HE and non-citadel AP pen regeneration on top of its already incredibly powerful heal.

 

Never heard about a change to its AP shells.

[Spunyarn]

1 hour ago, Aotearas said:

Never heard about a change to its AP shells.

 

 

Quote

Test version of Conqueror 419mm, Monarch: These experimental ships are now equipped with normal fuse AP. 

 

 

[Tegli4]

1 hour ago, Aotearas said:

Last I heard the citadel is only going to be raised to waterline. Not exactly much of a nerf as long as you don't show broadside. Plus the heal is going to get more effective at replenishing casenate HP which is going to give the Conqueror a buff to HE and non-citadel AP pen regeneration on top of its already incredibly powerful heal.

 

Never heard about a change to its AP shells.

Rising it to the waterline will make it exactly as Montana's one. If you look at at the armor schema of both ships, you will notice they will actually have more or less the same "broadside" protection - 406mm (conq) vs 409mm (montana) side armor. That is followed by the 19mm citadel top armor. That will be overmatched by anything that passes through the side armor so the shot (any shot comes at a downward angle) will go in the citadel. Conqueror has a 63mm citadel top armor under the turrets will will bounce shells there (making them "only" penetrations), but the majority of shells will be aimed at the center of the ship so that advantage is minor at best. In short, if a shot can citadel a Montana, it will citadel Conqueror with waterline citadel as well. If you compare the rest of the two ships other abilities, the conqueror is starting to look weaker by each comparison (worse AA, worse HPs, worse dispersion). What it has is the better heal and the better concealment. Shorter CD on the heal will make little change if you are focused. Also, one citadel is enough to make the heal considerably weaker. The concealment is advantage that is hard to take good advantage of unless you intentionally go dark and wait for opportunity to get to a broadside and the gun accuracy is not helping you take that path often. That is situational as it requires the opponent to present you that option. It also goes against the very good HE the ship has which requires a constant stream of fires in order to make it effective.

 

I left the short fuse for last as I think the it was playing well into the HE flavor of the RN BBs. Use HE for big targets (as the short fuse was making citadelling a BB much harder) and use the AP on the smaller ones. Frankly I like the need to change ammo and when to change them, it is adding to the decision making process. But if you make the AP to have a regular fuse you are only buffing the ship against other BBs (arguably what Conq is most strong against) and reducing the power against cruisers which are the biggest threat to the Conqueror.

[wilkatis_LV]

4 hours ago, Tegli4 said:

But if you make the AP to have a regular fuse you are only buffing the ship against other BBs

That’s not completely true. More overpens instead of pens when firing AP into broadsise / superstructure. You can already citadel Montanas and Yamatos, but even with the change won’t get that “ability” against GKs and Republics

 

You gain nothing vs BBs while losing massively against cruisers

[NothingButTheRain]

14 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

A.k.a. t10 BBs since the release of RN BB line. Also actually 30th August not September

 

6 points with roughly similar "timeframes", as quarters of the year, EU:

1st through 5th taken from maplesyrup directly (and you can notice there's 1 week missing between Q4-17 and Q1-18, but there's nothing I can do about that), the last one (Q1-19 / marked by being coloured in) is not yet published as a full quarter (as it still lacks some 20-ish days to fully qualify for it) so I pieced it together from weekly statistics (note: week marked as 12th to 19th Jan on the site actually has data for 22nd Dec to 19th Jan)

 

Oh, and Bourgogne is not included because

1) would be a single point - it doesn't exist before Q1-19

2) clearly not available to the general player base like others

3) very low battle count, in nearly 3 months collecting less battles as some others have in a single week

 

And as a reminder - maplesyrup counts only solo games, no divisions included

 

---

 

 

Have to say - that global WR drop managed to confuse and amuse me at the same. I'm thinking - key is the "solo only" part. Since CV rework BBs seem to have fared quite a bit better in terms of AA than many others, and if more of them are played in divisions, that could easily lead to more of a negative outcome for teams with more solo BB players

 

 

Reminder: raw damage doesn't tell the full story. "% max HP" is what matters, but we don't have any access to that. Burning BBs for high dmg score is far far less useful than getting rid of lower health DDs and cruisers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

Now, when we're past that I have couple of points to note:

 

Firstly -> 6...7 of the 8 categories (depending on if you look at Q4-18 or Q1-19 for WR / 8th being Hitrate) show decline in performance over the last 1.5 years. So... I guess the rumour that the BB players are somehow managing to become worse are actually at least somewhat true. Magical

 

Secondly - why is WG so eager to nerf Conq (the raised citadel tested right now, I've heard rumours of screwing with it's AP fuse to make it the "normal" garbage instead of the current short fuse), which in nearly every category is already worst or one of the worst performing ship?

Where it leads are damage and survivability.

Large part of its damage comes from doing "% max HP" based damage to ships with high max HP - BBs. This is also supported by low K/B rate (as this is terribly inefficient) and somewhat the low WR (as this would be very low impact damage). This, of course, can also be seen as the "preferred tactic" for most Conqs met in battles.

High K/D is a simple outcome of high survivability cancelling out low K/B

High survivability isn't all on the heal either. Especially with the low HP and absolute crippling of Conq by taking even just one torpedo or hitting it with AP instead of burning it like others. What would be the common thing that would ensure high survivability, while producing low potential damage received, low spotting, low hitrate? Range, or rather the tendency to stay at a noticeably longer range than other BBs do. Again, the "what does the Conq in my game do?" tends to confirm with this completely

So, sure, playing Conq properly instead of as a long range HE spammer would increase its performance in multiple stats, but... it's not like it would magically jump above all others. Nerfing it could and probably will push it so far down that it will actually require a buff. Is the strom that would inevitably come with that the goal? Or is this simply based on "players find it annoying to play against", which is an extremely weak argument for game balancing?

There is one potential flaw in your data, and that is that you excluded how the other tier 10 ships were affected.

 

The drop may have come from the better players playing CV more, so that the averages dropped simply by this. I don't know if this is the case tho, but it may be.

 

I seen other stats (I think it was ColonelPete?) who posted about a short peak of the number of CVs being played at the cost of the other 3 classes (which decreased in numbers played), so it may be important to include the numbers of the other classes. I don't believe it's because of magic 

 

BBs are already the class in the game with the least carrying potential and Conqueror most certainly does not needa  nerf.

 

I think much of the critisism comes from players who are most affected by getting hit by HE (especially since the BB AP nerf, I think you can guess what kind of players would complain about the Conqueror the most).

 

Personally I think they should leave Conqueror as it is as it's not overpowered and because it offers a unique playstyle while all other tier 10 BBs focus mostly on AP and trying to shoehorn Conqueror in with the rest of the AP spammers would make it a mere slight different shade of grey.

[NothingButTheRain]

11 hours ago, Aotearas said:

Last I heard the citadel is only going to be raised to waterline. Not exactly much of a nerf as long as you don't show broadside. Plus the heal is going to get more effective at replenishing casenate HP which is going to give the Conqueror a buff to HE and non-citadel AP pen regeneration on top of its already incredibly powerful heal.

 

Never heard about a change to its AP shells.

This I hear from time to time but the heal is not getting a buff. It means it will basically heal more alike a Nelson and Nelson can usually not even use a lot of the healing potential because it will have sustained too much citadel/pen damage to do so.

 

This change will make Conqueror eat more citadel damage, which is not more healable with the new heal. And Conq already eats a lot of the normal pen damage because its armor seems to be made of soft steel or something.

 

The heal is only incredibly powerful if you get burned a lot (so it's the best tier 10 BB for tanking HE spam for the team) and it's not powerull enough right now to make it actually win games.

[darkstar73]

15 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

A.k.a. t10 BBs since the release of RN BB line. Also actually 30th August not September

 

6 points with roughly similar "timeframes", as quarters of the year, EU:

1st through 5th taken from maplesyrup directly (and you can notice there's 1 week missing between Q4-17 and Q1-18, but there's nothing I can do about that), the last one (Q1-19 / marked by being coloured in) is not yet published as a full quarter (as it still lacks some 20-ish days to fully qualify for it) so I pieced it together from weekly statistics (note: week marked as 12th to 19th Jan on the site actually has data for 22nd Dec to 19th Jan)

 

Oh, and Bourgogne is not included because

1) would be a single point - it doesn't exist before Q1-19

2) clearly not available to the general player base like others

3) very low battle count, in nearly 3 months collecting less battles as some others have in a single week

 

And as a reminder - maplesyrup counts only solo games, no divisions included

 

---

 

 

Have to say - that global WR drop managed to confuse and amuse me at the same. I'm thinking - key is the "solo only" part. Since CV rework BBs seem to have fared quite a bit better in terms of AA than many others, and if more of them are played in divisions, that could easily lead to more of a negative outcome for teams with more solo BB players

 

 

Reminder: raw damage doesn't tell the full story. "% max HP" is what matters, but we don't have any access to that. Burning BBs for high dmg score is far far less useful than getting rid of lower health DDs and cruisers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

Now, when we're past that I have couple of points to note:

 

Firstly -> 6...7 of the 8 categories (depending on if you look at Q4-18 or Q1-19 for WR / 8th being Hitrate) show decline in performance over the last 1.5 years. So... I guess the rumour that the BB players are somehow managing to become worse are actually at least somewhat true. Magical

 

Secondly - why is WG so eager to nerf Conq (the raised citadel tested right now, I've heard rumours of screwing with it's AP fuse to make it the "normal" garbage instead of the current short fuse), which in nearly every category is already worst or one of the worst performing ship?

Where it leads are damage and survivability.

Large part of its damage comes from doing "% max HP" based damage to ships with high max HP - BBs. This is also supported by low K/B rate (as this is terribly inefficient) and somewhat the low WR (as this would be very low impact damage). This, of course, can also be seen as the "preferred tactic" for most Conqs met in battles.

High K/D is a simple outcome of high survivability cancelling out low K/B

High survivability isn't all on the heal either. Especially with the low HP and absolute crippling of Conq by taking even just one torpedo or hitting it with AP instead of burning it like others. What would be the common thing that would ensure high survivability, while producing low potential damage received, low spotting, low hitrate? Range, or rather the tendency to stay at a noticeably longer range than other BBs do. Again, the "what does the Conq in my game do?" tends to confirm with this completely

So, sure, playing Conq properly instead of as a long range HE spammer would increase its performance in multiple stats, but... it's not like it would magically jump above all others. Nerfing it could and probably will push it so far down that it will actually require a buff. Is the strom that would inevitably come with that the goal? Or is this simply based on "players find it annoying to play against", which is an extremely weak argument for game balancing?

Awesome work mate. Impressed over this. Thank you 

[Aotearas]

28 minutes ago, NothingButTheRain said:

This I hear from time to time but the heal is not getting a buff. It means it will basically heal more alike a Nelson and Nelson can usually not even use a lot of the healing potential because it will have sustained too much citadel/pen damage to do so.

 

This change will make Conqueror eat more citadel damage, which is not more healable with the new heal. And Conq already eats a lot of the normal pen damage because its armor seems to be made of soft steel or something.

 

The heal is only incredibly powerful if you get burned a lot (so it's the best tier 10 BB for tanking HE spam for the team) and it's not powerull enough right now to make it actually win games.

Erm, no?

 

Casemate max HP regeneration is a significant buff to the Conqueror heal, precisely because it is covered in that 32mm hull all around that likes to eat HE and AP pens.

And Conquerors won't suddenly start eating citadels unless they show broadside because getting citadels via overmatching isn't won't be easier than compared to doing the same on the Montana right now and you don't see that ship getting evaporated through the nose/aft by Yamato AP anymore.

 

As long as players don't keep showing broadsides thinking they're immune to citadels (or more likely not thinking at all and simply never gotting the memo that only a ~40k+ volley can provide) and properly angle to bounce AP on the belt, the Conqueror changes are going to be a buff due to the added longevity provided by the improved heal.

[Tegli4]

Here is the dev blog post to make things clear for everyone.

 

https://medium.com/@devblogwows/st-cvs-georgia-monarch-conqueror-edec87929837?fbclid=IwAR2ei2y80kwVnGk0Aq043cp3o8YqaD1wLBkqUHSoGH86qrDVqmf7wgaEsNE

 

From the pic on the conqueror it might even be above water citadel. So it will be even worse than what I described in my previous post. The buff to the heal is good, but a single citadel hit will wipe it out completely. The armor is the worst at TX and no matter what people say, you can't always position yourself to be angled. In reality, the conq will have the second worse protected citadel after Yamato. Every other BB has either turtleback (Republique, GK) or the citadel is at the waterline (Montana), but every other BB has at least 10k more HPs.

 

On the other hand, it is a bit of a buff to the unique upgrade for the conqueror since it allows you to wiggle your butt faster which will mean you expose the side for less time or react slightly faster to incoming shells.

 

Also, I don't see anything about AP fuse time changes.

[NothingButTheRain]

1 hour ago, Aotearas said:

Erm, no?

 

Casemate max HP regeneration is a significant buff to the Conqueror heal, precisely because it is covered in that 32mm hull all around that likes to eat HE and AP pens.And Conquerors won't suddenly start eating citadels unless they show broadside because getting citadels via overmatching isn't won't be easier than compared to doing the same on the Montana right now and you don't see that ship getting evaporated through the nose/aft by Yamato AP anymore.

Erm, wrong!

 

Nerfing the citadel of Conqueror will result in it taking more citadel damage no matter how you try to twist it.

The heal was improved to compensate for it otherwise being a straight up nerf to the ship. And (as has already been mentioned) Conqueror armor is already among the worst of all tier 10 BBs.

Quote

 

As long as players don't keep showing broadsides thinking they're immune to citadels (or more likely not thinking at all and simply never gotting the memo that only a ~40k+ volley can provide) and properly angle to bounce AP on the belt, the Conqueror changes are going to be a buff due to the added longevity provided by the improved heal.

Good luck on your crusade vs this fictious BBaby infestation I keep hearing about from certain players.

[Aotearas]

29 minutes ago, NothingButTheRain said:

Erm, wrong!

 

Nerfing the citadel of Conqueror will result in it taking more citadel damage no matter how you try to twist it.

Still no. You won't suddenly start getting citadeled as long as you don't show broadside, period. The only exception to that rule would be Yamato's 460mm overmatch capability and even then we can draw conclusions from the Montana that no, you won't start getting citadeled through your nose/aft as soon as a Yamato shoots at you.

 

As a general rule of thumb for battleships you only have a citadel if you misplay (again, only exception being the Yamato). As long as you don't derp around showing sides everywhere having a raised citadel means exactly squat because it's still well protected by a massive main armour belt and citadel armour.

 

Just because technically speaking a raised citadel does statistically result in more citadel hits (duh) doesn't mean the actual gameplay reality is turning into a citadel fest galore for everyone playing the ship. Anyone with enough sense to angle and position himself in a way where he won't get jumped on his broadside by other BBs capable of punching through that main armour belt plus citadel is barely if ever going to feel that nerf. And with the Conquerors excellent detectability that's not exactly hard to pull off.

 

In the meantime however, being able to replenish a noticably higher percentage of regular AP and HE pens to your casemate/hull is a benefit for everyone playing that ship and those who don't sail around trying to catch every broadside volley they can will enjoy an up to 25% improved survivability due to the heal buff. That's more than sufficient to balance out any blue-moon freak citadel that might occur due to happenstance that couldn't be reasonably accounted for by skillfull positioning/angling.

 

 

In the end, raised citadels on BBs are only nerfs to potatoes as long as they don't raise them as high as on the Yamato and by everything I've seen the Conqueror is in no danger of something as drastic as that. And I have exactly zero problems with nerfs that punish bad play.

[wilkatis_LV]

4 hours ago, NothingButTheRain said:

The drop may have come from the better players playing CV more, so that the averages dropped simply by this. I don't know if this is the case tho, but it may be.

Not quite. Average WR should remain the same between them, especially since BBs practically always are 5v5 (or 4v4). No matter which side wins, it's a 50:50 sum outcome for BBs, unless it's a draw

 

CVs being played more surely impacts some statistics - like the lower survival rate. Absolutely. But that wouldn't give a global drop in WR. Since divs aren't included in the data they must be the answer.

 

4 hours ago, NothingButTheRain said:

I think much of the critisism comes from players who are most affected by getting hit by HE (especially since the BB AP nerf, I think you can guess what kind of players would complain about the Conqueror the most).

Even good players do their fair share of complaining, because playing against a Conq is frustrating and annoying. Ship doesn't need to be strong to do that, they just need to fulfill some specific... "criteria", like being an HE spammer

 

2 hours ago, Tegli4 said:

Also, I don't see anything about AP fuse time changes. 

I'm not sure how true it is or not, but here's the post from reddit:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/WorldOfWarships/comments/avsyq8/082_st_georgia_added_unlisted_changes/

 

There it says

"Test version of Conqueror 419mm, Monarch: These experimental ships are now equipped with normal fuse AP."

That is a possibility I absolutely despise.

 

1 hour ago, Aotearas said:

You won't suddenly start getting citadeled as long as you don't show broadside, period.

You could... We can't test this without the help of some ST (and if they could test it they probably couldn't tell us) - but there is a possibility

 

You know how you can citadel Lion / Monarch through their flat stern? The shell goes through citadel roof at the very stern end of it. On Conq currently the shell bounces on the improved magazine armour. Question is - how far back the shell hits? Elevating the citadel can change the hit location from the deck to the flat aft bulkhead. And that would be a straight up citadel hit

[Aotearas]

23 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

You could... We can't test this without the help of some ST (and if they could test it they probably couldn't tell us) - but there is a possibility

There is a possibility, but we've got a wealth of experience in form of the Montana after her citadel got lowered to waterline to make pretty well educated guesses.

 

And sure, you can citadel the Montana through the nose/aft with the Yamato (and in case of hitting the flat aft on RN ships other ships could do it too without overmatching, but it's not an easy shot to hit), but by far an large the Montana doesn't take much in the way of citadel damage without showing broadside to other BBs (or Moskva/Stalingrad roflguns). And whilst the Montana has more HP, the improved HP regen with the heal buff is something that should more than make up for catching a citadel once in a blue moon under the assumption that the Conqueror player knows not to minimize exposing his raised citadel.

 

 

I'm by no means unbiased, I'm sick and tired of BBs stupidly showing broadsides and being able to take the hits when other shipclasses evaporate presenting such a nice target. Imo the game needs less foolproofing and giving BBs reliably punishable citadels back is a good step towards that direction as far as I'm concerned.

[elblancogringo]

Very interesting statistics, thanks for sharing 

[NothingButTheRain]

3 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Not quite. Average WR should remain the same between them, especially since BBs practically always are 5v5 (or 4v4). No matter which side wins, it's a 50:50 sum outcome for BBs, unless it's a draw

 

CVs being played more surely impacts some statistics - like the lower survival rate. Absolutely. But that wouldn't give a global drop in WR. Since divs aren't included in the data they must be the answer.

 

Even good players do their fair share of complaining, because playing against a Conq is frustrating and annoying. Ship doesn't need to be strong to do that, they just need to fulfill some specific... "criteria", like being an HE spammer

First of all I'd like to remind you that your statement (this one)

Quote

playing against a Conq is frustrating and annoying.

is simply YOUR opinion. It is NOT a fact, nor it is my own experience. But it is not a fact.

 

Now regarding the average winrate between them remaining the same...could you please clarify what you mean by average winrate remaining the same? Did you mean this for all BBs? Or for all classes except CVs? Or all classes?

[NothingButTheRain]

5 hours ago, Aotearas said:

Still no. You won't suddenly start getting citadeled as long as you don't show broadside, period. The only exception to that rule would be Yamato's 460mm overmatch capability and even then we can draw conclusions from the Montana that no, you won't start getting citadeled through your nose/aft as soon as a Yamato shoots at you.

 

As a general rule of thumb for battleships you only have a citadel if you misplay (again, only exception being the Yamato). As long as you don't derp around showing sides everywhere having a raised citadel means exactly squat because it's still well protected by a massive main armour belt and citadel armour.

 

Just because technically speaking a raised citadel does statistically result in more citadel hits (duh) doesn't mean the actual gameplay reality is turning into a citadel fest galore for everyone playing the ship. Anyone with enough sense to angle and position himself in a way where he won't get jumped on his broadside by other BBs capable of punching through that main armour belt plus citadel is barely if ever going to feel that nerf. And with the Conquerors excellent detectability that's not exactly hard to pull off.

 

In the meantime however, being able to replenish a noticably higher percentage of regular AP and HE pens to your casemate/hull is a benefit for everyone playing that ship and those who don't sail around trying to catch every broadside volley they can will enjoy an up to 25% improved survivability due to the heal buff. That's more than sufficient to balance out any blue-moon freak citadel that might occur due to happenstance that couldn't be reasonably accounted for by skillfull positioning/angling.

 

 

In the end, raised citadels on BBs are only nerfs to potatoes as long as they don't raise them as high as on the Yamato and by everything I've seen the Conqueror is in no danger of something as drastic as that. And I have exactly zero problems with nerfs that punish bad play.

Wrong again.

 

There is such a thing as AP bombs and these can citadel certain targets, so it is a fact that citadels do not occur only due to misplays exclusively. But you are exclusing this possibility from the get go, apparently because you are riding the BBaby haterz bandwagon.

 

At least you are moving more towards the truth by stating that you now find it a general rule of thumb. You're even ignoring the fact that Conqueror has the worst armor scheme of all tier 10 BBs (except for these certain weakspots on the Yamato) but you are happy to start with conceilment. Of course you would want to ignore the facts.

 

You are excluding the distinct possibility that long range citadels will become easier to score on a Conq with raised citadel and you are ignoring that it's impossible to always keep an angle to all potential targets.

You are ignoring that Conq has the least health of all tier 10 battleships and you are ignoring that even a single citadel will make Conqueror superheal kinda moot.

And you are conceiling your true intentions for support for this nerf, very similarly to how Conflakes defended the Stalingrad vigorously because it was in his own interests to do so. And you seem no different in this regard.

 

You want bad play to be punished? Then where were you when BB AP pen got nerfed for DD players that messed up by getting spotted due to a misplay? (their misplay being a lack of situational awareness).

 

No sir, for you it is not about merely wanting bad play to be punished so please refrain from pretending that this is the case.

[wilkatis_LV]

7 minutes ago, NothingButTheRain said:

First of all I'd like to remind you that your statement (this one)

Quote

playing against a Conq is frustrating and annoying.

is simply YOUR opinion. It is NOT a fact, nor it is my own experience. But it is not a fact.

Except, of course, that it being really annoying and frustrating is the basis of literally every single "nerf conq" thread, and a major part of any comments in this regard.

 

HE can't be angled against, and fires tick slowly, there's a lot of salt to be mined from that regardless of which ship is the spammer. Some are simply more efficient

 

8 minutes ago, NothingButTheRain said:

Now regarding the average winrate between them remaining the same...could you please clarify what you mean by average winrate remaining the same? Did you mean this for all BBs? Or for all classes except CVs? Or all classes?

There are 5 BBs on team A, 5 BBs on team B. One team wins, the other one loses. 5 BBs have won, 5 BBs have lost. 50% WR as a sum outcome between them. The only way to change that is unequal BB numbers (doesn't happen these days) or a draw (practically nonexistant)

 

Same for other classes - CVs are always locked to equal numbers on both teams - no matter what the sum outcome will be 50%, and while DDs and CAs can go uneven when someone sits in queue for 3+ min that's going to be a very very small % of all the games played.

 

Going back to BBs, there will be different combinations of them in teams. Over many games these combinations will prove to be more or less effective, as some ships will have won more, some less. This is why each unique ship will have its own WR, but the sum will remain the same.

Lets simplify it to 2 BBs - X and Y.

100 games have passed averaging 3 Xs on the winning side and 3 Ys on the losing side. X and Y have been played equally often.

Xs WR will be (3*100)/(5*100)=66.67%

Ys WR will be (2*100)/(5*100)=33.33%

Sum WR will be (5*100)/(10*100)=50%

 

As one ships WR will go up, the other ones WR will fall down. A global move in single direction is impossible, there needs to be an "external" source that moves it

 

In this case - what we see is solo players stats. 5 BBs vs [4BBs + 1BB in div] would show up as 9 BBs in this statistic despite 10 being played. That is the external source, with divs presumably picking more BBs lately into them and divs - as usual - winning more than solo players do.

[Aotearas]

2 hours ago, NothingButTheRain said:

There is such a thing as AP bombs and these can citadel certain targets, so it is a fact that citadels do not occur only due to misplays exclusively.

AP bombs can already citadel the Conqueror ... been there, done that. Besides if you want to play a BB that's better protected against CV drops, play the Montana. No ship is meant to be good at everything, that includes a BB's protection against diverse threats such as CV strikes.

2 hours ago, NothingButTheRain said:

You are excluding the distinct possibility that long range citadels will become easier to score on a Conq with raised citadel and you are ignoring that it's impossible to always keep an angle to all potential targets.

How did I exclude long range citadels when they're mechanically no different in regards to angling? Longrange citadels still require a boadside to hit, otherwise they will bounce of angled armour just the same because plunging fire isn't a thing in this game.

 

Also it being impossible to angle against all potential targets is BS. We're talking citadels here, you don't have to angle against every ship, just those that have enough penetration to penetrate the belt and citadel armour, which for any given typical MM will cut the threat potential in half. Factor in that those ships will be dispersed across the map and not have firing range and/or angles on you it further decreases the number of ships you'd have to angle against ... it's really not hard to stay angled against 3-4 ships on your side of the map.

 

2 hours ago, NothingButTheRain said:

You are ignoring that Conq has the least health of all tier 10 battleships and you are ignoring that even a single citadel will make Conqueror superheal kinda moot.

I haven't. You however seem content to ignore that an up to 25% health regen buff is enough to counterbalance any freak citadel, which means this nerf in the end balances out as long as you don't show broadsides to catch more citadels and for every match where you don't catch a freak citadel the heal buff is just that, a straight up buff.

 

 

2 hours ago, NothingButTheRain said:

You want bad play to be punished? Then where were you when BB AP pen got nerfed for DD players that messed up by getting spotted due to a misplay? (their misplay being a lack of situational awareness).

Do you always move the goalposts?

 

AP was never intended to be effective against DDs in the first place, that's what you have HE for. And guess what ... you do a whole lot of damage to DDs with HE ... this point is doubly apt in any Conqueror discussion because so many players shoot HE more often than not anyway so the ~30 seconds ammunition switch is likely to be a non-factor in a considerable number of cases. And even just overpens still do roughly 5-10% of a DD's max HP per single shell hit, so it's hardly like BB AP has suddenly turned completely ineffective.

Or the fact that BBs in general where never intended to be effective against DDs, that's the cruisers' job and whatever damage you do in a BB is just a bonus.

 

Nevermind that getting spotted in a DD is dependent on a whole lot more variables than compared to not showing broadside in a BB.

But even if you would simplify the comparision, what makes you so convinced that apparently nerfing BB AP vs DDs was unneeded when all the DDs had to do was not getting spotted, but somehow demanding that Conqueror players pay more attention to their angling and position is too much? Looks a wee bit like a double-standard to me I must say.

 

 

 

As for the rest of your post accusing me of driving the "BBaby haterz bandwagon" .. I suppose that's what you resort to if you can't give enough compelling gameplay arguments.

Anyway, in light of your readiness to denounce my moral integrity in an effort to discredit my argumentation I presume we've hit rock-bottom as to what ought to be a constructive discussion. I'd recommend you dial back your little smear campaign and put more effort into actually reading my argumentation than trying to read into my argumentation if you wish to continue this.