Jump to content
Server Restart - On the 17/09 the server will be unavailable for 1 hour Read more... ×
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
TheRonson

Conqueror and Thunderer need nerfing

67 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
229 posts

The WG Wiki page jokingly states one of these ships has a 63% chance of setting you on fire, but this is not true,  the Thunderer never misses a beat

to set you on fire, I will guarantee any salvo sent your way WILL result in a fire, not many other ships in the game guarantee score with every salvo so why is the Thunderer an exception. 

We know the guns are accurate but a fire every round is spoiling the game.  If you see a Thunderer in the next few days take note of  how many 

salvos he takes to burn you and you will not count above 1.  

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 11
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
32,385 posts
16,184 battles
11 minutes ago, TheRonson said:

The WG Wiki page jokingly states one of these ships has a 63% chance of setting you on fire, but this is not true,  the Thunderer never misses a beat

to set you on fire, I will guarantee any salvo sent your way WILL result in a fire, not many other ships in the game guarantee score with every salvo so why is the Thunderer an exception. 

We know the guns are accurate but a fire every round is spoiling the game.  If you see a Thunderer in the next few days take note of  how many 

salvos he takes to burn you and you will not count above 1.  

One salvo is more than one shell. That is why you get more than 63% chance.

Still, she does not cause a fire with every salvo. There are enough videos for that.

And fire damage can be healed.

 

And statswise they are not special:

image.thumb.png.c60c43cd677141aa69cea90e7e3f3d34.png

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20201219/eu_2month/average_ship_u.html

 

Conquerer started to become strong since the introduction of the RU BB and that is were she shines. As long as RU BB are strong, Conquerer will be strong, otherwise she is not special. Fire is too easily healed.

image.thumb.png.b00916b080c1801baf5ad60fba775f71.png

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LSCA]
Players
1,999 posts
14,770 battles

there are people who talk that Thunderer is OP, this ship is needed nerf as soon as possible for all those who tell that its a OP as they not happy that its a good ship

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
2,977 posts
4,452 battles
13 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

One salvo is more than one shell. That is why you get more than 63% chance.

Still, she does not cause a fire with every salvo. There are enough videos for that.

And fire damage can be healed.

 

And statswise they are not special:

image.thumb.png.c60c43cd677141aa69cea90e7e3f3d34.png

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20201219/eu_2month/average_ship_u.html

 

Conquerer started to become strong since the introduction of the RU BB and that is were she shines. As long as RU BB are strong, Conquerer will be strong, otherwise she is not special. Fire is too easily healed.

image.thumb.png.b00916b080c1801baf5ad60fba775f71.png

Nothing special ? Why do you only care about winrate when it suits you ? 2nd and 3rd place in survivability right after Slava with same for damage (right after Slava). This means they shoot from range quite a lot. Top damage ships are way less survivable, even Kremlin has much less survivability while at the same time having good winrate and crap damage ...

 

Fire might be too easily healed, but when you are constantly on fire it does not mean much ...

  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
809 posts

I don't agree.

 

Messing around in the back isn't helping the team. You'll win or loose depending on how the team manages around the caps... hence yourself have little effect, which is also shown in the stats for the ships.

 

Those two ships are cancer for a completely different reason, namely they enforces players in their belief that big damage from far away is a way of winning, and ruin teamwork.

  • Cool 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
32,385 posts
16,184 battles
2 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

Nothing special ? Why do you only care about winrate when it suits you ? 2nd and 3rd place in survivability right after Slava with same for damage (right after Slava). This means they shoot from range quite a lot. Top damage ships are way less survivable, even Kremlin has much less survivability while at the same time having good winrate and crap damage ...

 

Fire might be too easily healed, but when you are constantly on fire it does not mean much ...

When do I not speak about WR?

Survivability does not win games, otherwise everyone would sail backwards from spawn and nobody would shoot to stay hidden.

 

Even when you are constantly on fire, you heal large parts of the fire damage. The effective damage is much smaller. With AP, you can take out enemies much quicker, sometimes in one salvo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PANEU]
Players
1,084 posts
5,726 battles

Just take he away. Done. Balansed ship. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
964 posts
6,026 battles

those two are just an expression of an underlying set of problems in the game.

fire mechanics need rebuilt so that fire isnt just a DOT, since no tweaking fire chance or intensity up and down will fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
2,977 posts
4,452 battles
1 hour ago, ColonelPete said:

When do I not speak about WR?

Survivability does not win games, otherwise everyone would sail backwards from spawn and nobody would shoot to stay hidden.

 

Even when you are constantly on fire, you heal large parts of the fire damage. The effective damage is much smaller. With AP, you can take out enemies much quicker, sometimes in one salvo.

Extreme arguments won't help you. Survivability WHILE dealing damage (looks at the stats) wins games ... Also it's not like those ships don't have AP ... they have amazing HE on top of good AP ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
950 posts
3,535 battles

The damage figures are skewed when you add in silly people sailing broadside that get blapped for 30k from 23km with Thunderers accurate guns.

 

Is she op well i don't think so but the meta of the game is getting worse with WG condoning sniping and with the new captain rehash it will make here stronger.

 

Btw I find using AP a lot more effective than her HE.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,936 posts
18,027 battles

The idea of strong HE wasn't bad. Unfortunatly the HE on these BB is too strong.

It trumps their AP. Actually, it trumps it for people who can't properly manage ammunition and will only shoot one ammo type.

The AP is actually very good, and you'll see bad players waste amazing volleys cause all they do is shoot HE.

 

But yeah, choosing correct ammo type is hard. And shooting this HE will give you better results than only shooting AP (cause it also requires aiming and taking angling into account).

So bad players will do nothing but shoot this HE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
32,385 posts
16,184 battles
9 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

Extreme arguments won't help you. Survivability WHILE dealing damage (looks at the stats) wins games ... Also it's not like those ships don't have AP ... they have amazing HE on top of good AP ...

That is not an extreme argument. Survivability is of less importance when your aim is to win games. When you want to win games, you look at the winrating. That says it all. The other values help you understand why a winrating is as high or low as it is.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LSCA]
Players
1,999 posts
14,770 battles

as i not have Thunderer , in my eyes you can nerf that op ship like current Kawachi shoots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[RONIN]
[RONIN]
Players
771 posts
5,736 battles

A game in ranked. Yeah he does a lot of damage and he burn ships a lot but it takes TIME to do a lot of damage, and sometimes you need a lot of damage quick to win it. 

When playing against them I really dont feel they can do "that" much of a damage with HE, sure they burn but you can heal a lot of that damage. If he want to (thuderer) to hit you with all his guns he has to angle just enough so he can be hit hard. And if he is going straight to you he can only shoot 4 guns, which is not that much. I find Thuderer and Conq ships that depend on others ship, or should I say team game ships. But when they are alone I dont see that OP thing you are saying, which you can best see in ranked. There are much better BBs for ranked (or should I say less ship battles) then Thunderer, while in random they are much better. So no I dont think they need nerf. 

shot-20.12.30_20.53.59-0412.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
2,977 posts
4,452 battles
4 hours ago, Skurfa said:

I don't agree.

 

Messing around in the back isn't helping the team. You'll win or loose depending on how the team manages around the caps... hence yourself have little effect, which is also shown in the stats for the ships.

 

Those two ships are cancer for a completely different reason, namely they enforces players in their belief that big damage from far away is a way of winning, and ruin teamwork.

Well if you can keep the enemy main ships constantly on fire and thus detected and burning their damacons and heals, they'll retreat and leave the capping ships without support ... And you can do that reliably again and again without losing much HP yourself ? Of course that's a great ability. That's exactly how CVs operate in most cases. The actual damage might not be the best, but the constant attention will make the enemy retreat if they cannot deal with you quickly ... AP ships on the other hand unless they overmatch the opponents don't have that effect ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
2,977 posts
4,452 battles
2 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

That is not an extreme argument. Survivability is of less importance when your aim is to win games. When you want to win games, you look at the winrating. That says it all. The other values help you understand why a winrating is as high or low as it is.

 

Ah so that's why you exclude the number of battles in your charts ? To mask that the Thunderer is played in more battles than all the other ships with higher winrate while still doing well ? None of the "better" ships has that much battles and  players recorded and still does that well. All the "better" ships are far less widespread ....

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
32,385 posts
16,184 battles
7 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

Well if you can keep the enemy main ships constantly on fire and thus detected and burning their damacons and heals, they'll retreat and leave the capping ships without support ... And you can do that reliably again and again without losing much HP yourself ? Of course that's a great ability. That's exactly how CVs operate in most cases. The actual damage might not be the best, but the constant attention will make the enemy retreat if they cannot deal with you quickly ... AP ships on the other hand unless they overmatch the opponents don't have that effect ...

Two problems with that tactic:

  1. enemies do not need to turn back immediately and when they decide to do it, they need time, all the while they threaten the enemy ships around the cap
  2. your friendlies have to tank for themselves and do not get help tanking around the caps, while aggressive enemy BB around the caps support their teammates in tanking, increasing the survivability of the enemy team, while your team gets focussed down as their is no need to shoot at the BB in the back
5 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

Ah so that's why you exclude the number of battles in your charts ? To mask that the Thunderer is played in more battles than all the other ships with higher winrate while still doing well ? None of the "better" ships has that much battles and  players recorded and still does that well. All the "better" ships are far less widespread ....

I do not hide it. I give you the source and you can look it up and discuss it if you think it is relevant, which I do not.

 

With winrates under 50%, more matches bring the value of the WR closer to 50% as Thunderers being present on both teams happens more often. In other words, if she were played less, her winrating would be lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,335 posts
11,668 battles
4 hours ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

Survivability WHILE dealing damage (looks at the stats) wins games

 

Damn, who let the flies in here while I was reading the forums? Oh wait, its plane sounds in my head. How come they appeared exactly the moment, I was reading this part... odd :cap_hmm:

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,699 posts
7,659 battles

It's not so much that they can put people on fire a lot, a lot of people press repair too quickly... If someone keeps setting you on fire, then the problem is likely that you put fires out too quickly. A fire that's already on can't be turned on again, but it can be put out when you are about to reach safety (use those 10 seconds of repair to reach a safe position and heal up). Just use cover to your advantage and don't pop a repair the moment you're set on fire. Wait till you got two or three fires running. If possible, instead of using repair, pop a heal and repair near the end of the engagement. Catch that last volley of HE during the repair (won't start a fire) and then engage when you're ready (and your repair is) again. Thunds and Conqs don't bother me too much. I've got far bigger fire issues facing a Colbert.

 

 

I play a Thunderer regularly and I think it's reasonable to say it's not as forgiving as some want to think it is. Positioning is everything and I play it mid range, just out of spotting distance (12.3km detection, so I like to take on targets around 13-15km for excellent AP line ups they often don't see coming. Tier X cruisers getting flanked by Thunderer AP == yumyum).

 

Can I carry matches with it? Yes, but if I'd use just HE that's not going to work. As someone else said, HE and fire takes time to accumulate damage. And most of it can be repressed or repaired by the press of a button. AP on the other hand, cannot. And that is why most my good games are primarily AP based. I use HE mostly to finish up targets below 8K or at long distance and bad angle. But AP is even on a frontal target more reliable in damage. Especially if we're talking Stalingrad, Des or Petro, you're better of APing the upper structure than trying to set it on fire and hope it burns before their higher rate of fire wears you down (even in nose to nose combat).

 

The "don't just use HE" is true for pretty much all British BBs though. Their AP is great because of the short fuse that reduces the amount of overpens compared to other ships on a lot of targets. Not making use of it would be a mistake.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[4_0_4]
Players
8,340 posts
14,644 battles
6 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

Conquerer started to become strong since the introduction of the RU BB and that is were she shines. As long as RU BB are strong, Conquerer will be strong, otherwise she is not special. Fire is too easily healed.

 

Conq was always strong as long as the 5 BB stay per side is the norm.

Because you cannot angle properly against the HE salvos, the ship has been popular ever since. ( Your list of course lacks the amount of battles again)

 

Before the change with the citadel, Conq was a pretty dumb ship to play:

 

Sit a long to mid range, shoot HE at everything entering your field of view and laugh as you basicly print a new ships after a cruiser farmed you for awhile.

 

Of course this wasn't the most effective way to play her, as her AP is quite potent, however the majority of players want an easy time in this game.

The Conq gives them that, as they don't have to worry about their shells bouncing as much as the AP-main BBs have to.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BBMM]
[BBMM]
Players
7,289 posts
11,032 battles
31 minutes ago, Zemeritt said:

Of course this wasn't the most effective way to play her, as her AP is quite potent, however the majority of players want an easy time in this game.

The Conq gives them that, as they don't have to worry about their shells bouncing as much as the AP-main BBs have to.

Used to be pretty funny to sneak up on other BBs using the concealment, then blap them with AP and make a run for it. 

Nowadays, not so much. Blappy-botes like Stalingrad will run you down and out-DPM you, especially with the raised citadel. 

Oh and then there's French Baguettes with speedboost and MBR, ans Ruski Floatgulags, which you can only get down by hammering them with HE. :Smile_sad:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
281 posts
3,035 battles

The HE is annoying but all it is doing is taking away damage that your cruisers would otherwise be farming, the fact that the ships are middling around mid table and the Conq is entirely absent from competitive shows that while they are annoying to face they are nothing special.

 

WG made a garbage line, just as they did the CV's and CA's, 'Balanced' but at the same time trash to play and play against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
32,385 posts
16,184 battles
4 hours ago, Zemeritt said:

 

Conq was always strong as long as the 5 BB stay per side is the norm.

Because you cannot angle properly against the HE salvos, the ship has been popular ever since. ( Your list of course lacks the amount of battles again)

The stats of the past disagree (that is why I posted them). The damage accumulates too slowly and Conq lacks the ability to land deciding blows early (or too many players do not play her like that).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHEFT]
Players
12,666 posts
9,841 battles

With this playerbase, every ship can look balanced on average. Doesnt mean, that those ships arent bad for the game. Ofc everyone was crying their brains out, about how OP smolensk is, because its a Cruiser. If its a BB, majority think its totaly fine ofc.

And people who should know better, agree with it. But dont come crawling back and whine about the BBabies hiding in spawn, losing your games... :cap_fainting:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
2,266 posts
3,962 battles
16 hours ago, TheRonson said:

The WG Wiki page jokingly states one of these ships has a 63% chance of setting you on fire, but this is not true,  the Thunderer never misses a beat

to set you on fire, I will guarantee any salvo sent your way WILL result in a fire, not many other ships in the game guarantee score with every salvo so why is the Thunderer an exception. 

We know the guns are accurate but a fire every round is spoiling the game.  If you see a Thunderer in the next few days take note of  how many 

salvos he takes to burn you and you will not count above 1.  

And have you seen, how easily Thunderer can be burnt to the ground herself?

 

That is her balancing factor, Yes she has good accuracy and long range, but you cannot easily push in her, so you have to play defensively and position well a lot of the time.

 

The fires she can set are not the issue, The issue is the player who doesn't know how to manage fires with the tools at their disposal.

 

The real issue for the game is HE itself. It's braindead gameplay. Easy damage if you can aim, and as we all know in WoWS damage means more reward at the end of the battle.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×