Discussion thread for "some interesting info around the world"

[Panocek]

5 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Said it in Discord today:

Conqueror went from retard-ship to Pro-Pwnz0r. Noobs will fail because they get citadelled, and good players which can avoid receiving citadel damage will wreck everything. Who knows if future CBs arent played with more Conquerors because it will be so OP I can see that happen. Only problem might be CVs ?

Prime question how citadel raise will affect her vulnerability to AP bombs, as now Conquek and Croissant BBs are rather immune to citadels from above due too large distance between deck and cit itself.

[DFens_666]

3 hours ago, Panocek said:

Prime question how citadel raise will affect her vulnerability to AP bombs, as now Conquek and Croissant BBs are rather immune to citadels from above due too large distance between deck and cit itself.

 

I wonder how likely it will be to receive citadels from Yamato/Musashi while being angled, as the plating is 32mm and the citadel deck is 32mm aswell. Just overmatch straight into it?

[Panocek]

13 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

I wonder how likely it will be to receive citadels from Yamato/Musashi while being angled, as the plating is 32mm and the citadel deck is 32mm aswell. Just overmatch straight into it?

There is/should be armored deck, same in NC/Iowa/Montana which is omitted because armor groups being what they are AND inability to look from below in le port

Before Iowa/Monty got their citadels lowered, you could clearly see 152mm citadel roof plating.

 

And currently any BB grade munitions can overmatch central citadel roof in Conquek, assuming you punch through main belt and are far enough to shell actually meet with underwater cit.

[DFens_666]

4 minutes ago, Panocek said:

And currently any BB grade munitions can overmatch central citadel roof in Conquek, assuming you punch through main belt and are far enough to shell actually meet with underwater cit.

 

If they raise the citadel, then the shell doesnt need to go that deep tho.

But if there is a "hidden" deck in between, then it wont work. But i guess we will see Bow/Aft overmatch citadels should definetely become a thing tho.

[Panocek]

1 minute ago, DFens_666 said:

 

If they raise the citadel, then the shell doesnt need to go that deep tho.

But if there is a "hidden" deck in between, then it wont work. But i guess we will see Bow/Aft overmatch citadels should definetely become a thing tho.

Or you could count entire armored box as citadel, which is the case for Yamato, pre change Iowa/Monty and like every cruiser out there, with Germans retaining their citadel placement/protection as gimmick unique to them, like in 2016

 

But then, when you have increasing amount of paper guns outgunning Yamato in terms of penetration, it can be an issue. So some penetration reduction across the chart with exception of Yamato?

[FrankvC_Jr]

The Conqueror dilema:

-Raise of citadel: YAAAY

-Buffs 419 guns and heal: WHYYYY

 

I really don’t understand this, I find no reason whatsoever. On one hand im happy that they add some skill to the usual potato way of playing (full side, HE camping gameplay) but on the other....why? Why you buff a ship that is so damm unbalanced to play against even stronger? Oh I think I know.....WG’s game, WG do as it pleases despite the concerns and worries of its players. 

 

As as a matter of fact, what if they removed the 419s, both from Lion and Monqueror? As far as I know, the guns never went into prototype right? Why don’t they remove it and retain only the 406s planned for Lion. Just a thought. 

[NothingButTheRain]

15 hours ago, Toivia said:

Wait what? They're buffing the test Conqueror guns?! Isn't the test Conqueror actually stupidly OP because they gave it an even better heal than the normal one has (and well, you can angle to deal with the raised citadel)?

I just don't understand...

 

Like, all they had to do was raise the citadels (they're still not as high or large as those on most other ships) and compensate Monarch with possibly the normal british superheal. Done.

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:

Spoiler

 

Bourgogne France 82.00 % 2.05 171 878 3 059 7.87 6.48

 

République France 71.96 % 1.59 135 761 2 428 5.14 4.23

 

Conqueror U.K. 70.19 % 1.39 147 553 2 364 3.84 4.42

 

Großer Kurfürst Germany 68.53 % 1.45 120 591 2 138 4.16 3.37

 

Montana U.S.A. 68.44 % 1.46 122 049 2 378 5.79 3.91

 

Yamato Japan 66.51 % 1.33 125 167 2 382 4.46 3.25

 

12 hours ago, Toivia said:

I'm wondering maybe they want to get us thinking: "Actually, the good old Conq is fine compared to this OP crap".

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.

[NothingButTheRain]

13 hours ago, El2aZeR said:

So for anyone that knows how to angle and WASD this is just a straight up Conqueror buff.

Just when I thought this game can't get any more hilarious.

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?

[NothingButTheRain]

11 hours ago, Toivia said:

Yeah, I hope that is why. But anyway, Conq needed a nerf for the potatoes that don't angle, not a buff for those that angle... or arguably for all at this point.

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.

[NothingButTheRain]

12 hours ago, Cagliostro_chan said:

Tbf, it might be that they will seperate the 457s for a seperate ship, Kreml/Slava style, so they might not see a reason to adress those on Conqueror.

Gib us HMS Thunderer, my fxp is ready! 

[Exocet6951]

12 minutes ago, NothingButTheRain said:

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.

 

How to lose credibility instantly. 

 

Wether it's 32mm plating, or 500mm plating, an 60 degree angle will autobounce. 

 

It's why a t1 's belt can bounce Yamato shells. 

 

 

Angling the Conq currently is just as effective against AP, except for 460mm guns, as every other T10 BBs. 

 

Adding a ridiculous heal for regular pens to a ship is a massive, massive buff to everyone who understands how not to get citpenned through the extremely thick main belt. 

Add on to that a sigma buff on low skill floor, high reward moron cannons against which there is literally no defense, and which synergizes with the current crop of "you are never safe" CVs thanks to murderous splash killing AA guns, and DoT overloads. 

 

 

But yeah, Conqueror is fine

/s

[Tyrendian89]

10 minutes ago, NothingButTheRain said:

Tbf, imo they should've just not listened to these whiners and spend their balancing resources on something more useful.

and imho they should just not listen to you.

There, different opinions on who they should listen to... and WG is always gonna do as WG pleases

[ghostbuster_]

43 minutes ago, NothingButTheRain said:

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:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Bourgogne France 82.00 % 2.05 171 878 3 059 7.87 6.48

 

République France 71.96 % 1.59 135 761 2 428 5.14 4.23

 

Conqueror U.K. 70.19 % 1.39 147 553 2 364 3.84 4.42

 

Großer Kurfürst Germany 68.53 % 1.45 120 591 2 138 4.16 3.37

 

Montana U.S.A. 68.44 % 1.46 122 049 2 378 5.79 3.91

 

Yamato Japan 66.51 % 1.33 125 167 2 382 4.46 3.25

 

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.

well according to these stats, it has second best arvg damage and 3th best WR among tier 10 BBs and its "kinda weak"? 

 

no, wrong. the change was needed because the ship was tardproof. it didnt get punished enough when people made mistake while playing it. so we have been watching potatoes sitting full broadside with it and not getting punished. 

 

wrong people? no. WG has been listening to complete brain dead potatoes when it came to balancing.  for once i almost thought that they are actually gonna listen to people who give feedback to balance the game. but they decided to buff the already tarded heal...  conq is not op, it has never been op. but its tardproof/noobproof call it whatever you want. thats why it needed some changes and raising citadel would be more than enough. but yeah... to keep braindead potatoes happy wg also buffed it...

 

edit: these changes are actually a buff for someone who is not complete tard and who knows something about angling and positioning his ship. 

[NothingButTheRain]

19 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

 

How to lose credibility instantly. 

 

Wether it's 32mm plating, or 500mm plating, an 60 degree angle will autobounce. 

 

It's why a t1 's belt can bounce Yamato shells. 

 

 

Angling the Conq currently is just as effective against AP, except for 460mm guns, as every other T10 BBs. 

 

Adding a ridiculous heal for regular pens to a ship is a massive, massive buff to everyone who understands how not to get citpenned through the extremely thick main belt. 

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.

Quote

Add on to that a sigma buff on low skill floor, high reward moron cannons against which there is literally no defense, and which synergizes with the current crop of "you are never safe" CVs thanks to murderous splash killing AA guns, and DoT overloads. 

 

 

But yeah, Conqueror is fine

/s

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?

18 minutes ago, Tyrendian89 said:

and imho they should just not listen to you.

There, different opinions on who they should listen to... and WG is always gonna do as WG pleases

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.

[NothingButTheRain]

4 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

well according to these stats, it has second best arvg damage and 3th best WR among tier 10 BBs and its "kinda weak"? 

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.

Quote

no, wrong. the change was needed because the ship was tardproof. it didnt get punished enough when people made mistake wihile playing it. so we have been watching potatoes sitting full broadside with it and not getting punished. 

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?

25 minutes ago, Exocet6951 said:

Angling the Conq currently is just as effective against AP, except for 460mm guns, as every other T10 BBs. 

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.

Quote

wrong people? no. WG has been listening to complete brain dead potatoes when it came to balancing.  for once i almost thought that they are actually gonna listen to people who give feedback to balance the game. but they decided to buff the already tarded heal...  conq is not op, it has never been op. but its tardproof/noobproof call it whatever you want. thats why it needed some changes and raising citadel would be more than enough. but yeah... to keep braindead potatoes happy wg also buffed it...

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.

[ghostbuster_]

37 minutes ago, NothingButTheRain said:

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.

the thing you dont/cant understand is: without buffing the heal, raising the citadel wouldnt make the ship UP. raising the citadel is gonna make no difference for good players. they wont even notice it. but buffing the heal? they are definitely gonna notice that one and good luck with killing a good player in conq. 

if they only raised the citadel, the ship would reward good play and punish the bad play. this is how it should be. 

 

not enough. not every ship gets punished enough for doing stupid mistakes. conq is just stupid with its underwater citadel right now. you can show broadside at the worst moment but you can still get away with this stupid mistake.

 

there are 2 kind of people who give feedback about balancing. there are the ones who give feedback just to change the ships/mechanics according to their feelings. they like a ship and they dont want it getting nerfed even if nerfing it is the best thing to do for game balance. and there are people who give feedback just to balance the game. they like a ship, if they think its not well balanced, they still suggest nerfing it. so, those who give feedback according to their feelings are mostly the potatoes i have been talking about. they s.ck in a ship and they ask for buff even tho the ship is perfectly balanced.  to achieve the perfect game balance, WG has to listen to people who give feedback objectivly.

 

for even more tardproof comments you to understand, you have to ask WG for help. they are really good at introducing tardproof things in general. 

 

and this complaint is objective not subjective. good concealment, insane fire chance and tardproof citadels. so yes its pretty easy to play. saying "its boring to play" would be subjective. 

 

in a PvP game, if you are not good in that game, you are gonna perform bad. if you are good, you are gonna get good results. thats how it should be. so there is only one option which is the second one you wrote above. 

 

no, complaints were about conq being stupid and tardproof, not getting punished, being so easy to play. not about its HE spam. if you cant see the difference after tousends of battles, well ..... cant help you. 

 

REWARD YOU WOULD GET IS NOT GETTING PUNISHED IF YOU DONT MAKE MISTAKES...  so you wont die and continue playing and gonna get better scores at the end.... is it really that hard to understand?...

[HaachamaShipping]

2 hours ago, NothingButTheRain said:

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?

If you can't see the difference in "punishment" most high tier RN BBs take compared to other lines, then I don't know. Conqueror is second only to Großer Kurfürst in how little they have to care about exposing broadside, as worst case, the ships lose maybe 30k hp, if the enemy lands 12/12 shells on them. Meanwhile Montana and especially Yamato can potentially get oneshot or eat equal amounts of damage from just a few shells landing, but being citadels.

[Prospect_b]

Imdomitable with improved rockets, vid starts at unexpected (shouldn't be unexpected, but anyhow) encounter with leningrad.

 

"Now here's a test, how well do these rockets do against destroyers?"

 

Is that a real question?

 

[El2aZeR]

11 minutes ago, Saiyko said:

"Now here's a test, how well do these rockets do against destroyers?"

 

Clearly WG has drawn many lessons out of what happened with TST Midway. 

[Prospect_b]

5 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Clearly WG has drawn many lessons out of what happened with TST Midway. 

Also, just for comparison, we should find a way to test how long this new indomitable takes to kill monqueror v2.0

 

Is it even possible in 20 minutes?...

[Toivia]

Oh my oh my, NothingButTheRain posts a table that actually misproves his thesis that Conqueror is average (at best). Even for the better players that the table represents, Conqueror is the best in damage and k/d, second best in WR (no, I don't think counting Bourgogne is fair, even assuming it is not OP, very few players have it with overall few battles played, it's like comparing Stalingrad with other T10 cruisers or Kron/Alaska with other T9 - the stats are just wildly different).

 

Thing with the Conq raised citadel is that by itself, it indeed is a nerf for all, but a pretty small nerf. I would be fine with Conq receiving some small buff to compensate, but small. Right now it got its superheal buffed twice! and even the 12 guns got a buffed sigma. That's a freaking overcompensation if I've seen one.

[Toivia]

52 minutes ago, Saiyko said:

Imdomitable with improved rockets, vid starts at unexpected (shouldn't be unexpected, but anyhow) encounter with leningrad.

 

"Now here's a test, how well do these rockets do against destroyers?"

 

Is that a real question?

 

 

Tis all fine, comrade, nothing to see here!

 

[Panocek]

20 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Clearly WG has drawn many lessons out of what happened with TST Midway. 

Then Indentable have only 32mm HE bombs from Implantable, so... *laughs in armored deck*

[El2aZeR]

Just now, Panocek said:

Then Indentable have only 32mm HE bombs from Implantable, so... *laughs in armored deck*

 

With that dispersion and volume of fire you'll get 10k hits with superstructure salvoes all day. Why would you ever want to use the bombs? 

[NothingButTheRain]

4 hours ago, ghostbuster_ said:

the thing you dont/cant understand is: without buffing the heal, raising the citadel wouldnt make the ship UP.

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.