Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
tappo01

Reduce exp/credits multiplier for conqueror

51 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[BUSHI]
Players
16 posts
6,637 battles

Beacause point and click easy mode shouldnt be rewarded the same as playing other ships. A ship a 5 years old could probably get good results in needs to suffer heavy credit loss at every game to discourage abuse of said ship.

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,101 posts
14,384 battles

That's a terrible way to fix it. Why not just have the Conqueror nerfed as to bring her in line with the rest of the ships in the game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
5,446 posts
9,358 battles
5 minutes ago, tappo01 said:

A ship a 5 years old could probably get good results in needs to suffer

Like carriers? :Smile_trollface:

 

BitterActualKingbird-max-1mb.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OGHF]
Players
674 posts
11,839 battles

I really do not get this, nerf this, nerf that, all ships are different, some are better than others at one thing, but worse than others at other things, thats what makes them  different, you learn there strength, there weaknesses and play accordingly.

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,833 posts
6,919 battles
1 hour ago, dasCKD said:

That's a terrible way to fix it. Why not just have the Conqueror nerfed as to bring her in line with the rest of the ships in the game?

 

Because she's already in line and balanced maybe?

 

1 hour ago, tappo01 said:

Beacause point and click easy mode shouldnt be rewarded the same as playing other ships. A ship a 5 years old could probably get good results in needs to suffer heavy credit loss at every game to discourage abuse of said ship.

 

Or maybe because you don't understand how it works? Conq has high dmg numbers because it generally attacks BBs. But it's not the damage number that gives you results, it's the % HP of enemy you took.

Compare it this way:

BB with 100k HP, Cruiser with 50k HP and DD with 20k HP. Dealing 5k dmg to DD is equal in reward to dealing 12.5k dmg to cruiser or 25k dmg to that BB. % of max HP is what matters not the flat number.

Or put it this way: Conq can heal 40% Hp with one heal. So by the time you're through his HP AND 2 heals you'll still get less XP and credits than if you killed 2 DDs.

Just having a fancy number doesn't give you much if all you did the whole was burn one unlucky BB down through all of his heals.

 

Also about this part:

1 hour ago, tappo01 said:

Beacause point and click easy mode shouldnt be rewarded the same as playing other ships. A ship a 5 years old could probably get good results in

A claim clearly supported by your wast experience of 0 games in the Conq. Or Lion. Or Monarch. Or KGV. Or QE. Or Iron Duke. But hey, you played Orion whole 2 times, so you definitely are well informed about the ship 6 tiers higher!

 

1 hour ago, Cyclops_ said:

you learn

See, that's the problem. They'd have to learn. Far too much to ask

 

 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,101 posts
14,384 battles
3 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Because she's already in line and balanced maybe?

 

Ah yes, a battleship with the bounceback potential of a Minotaur, the armor of a battleship, and better concealment that about half of the tier X cruisers. Balanced. Sure. Keep telling yourself that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,833 posts
6,919 battles
6 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

 the armor of a battleship,

:Smile_teethhappy::Smile_teethhappy::Smile_teethhappy:

 

Stop talking out of your a** and go actually check it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,101 posts
14,384 battles
21 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Stop talking out of your a** and go actually check it

What? 32 MM minimum all round and impossible to overmatch for any gun in the game save for the Yamato with a 19 mm superstructure armor and 400+ mm belt armor? I know that from the top of my head. Are you really under the delusion that my assessment of the Conqueror comes from a place of ignorance? Get over yourself.

 

edit: yep, double checked. 406 mm of belt armor. If you're going to catch me out, at least try to do it with a ship with a difficult armor scheme like the Kurfurst or something. The Conqueror has one of the simplest armor schemes in the entire game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,806 posts
5,762 battles

I don't know what do you expect from the one that says that nerfs to other classes doesn't make life easier for BBs specially, that direct buffs to BBs haven't been that much so people's just talking nonsense, it's all good, no problems anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,833 posts
6,919 battles
1 hour ago, dasCKD said:

What? 32 MM minimum all round and impossible to overmatch for any gun in the game save for the Yamato with a 19 mm superstructure armor and 400+ mm belt armor? I know that from the top of my head. Are you really under the delusion that my assessment of the Conqueror comes from a place of ignorance? Get over yourself.

 

edit: yep, double checked. 406 mm of belt armor. If you're going to catch me out, at least try to do it with a ship with a difficult armor scheme like the Kurfurst or something. The Conqueror has one of the simplest armor schemes in the entire game.

And now compare that armour to every other tier 10 BB. Or tier 9 BBs. Or even tier 8 BBs. Worst across the board, equaled only by Monarch and Lion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,833 posts
6,919 battles
1 hour ago, SHDRKN4792 said:

that direct buffs to BBs haven't been that much

Had a full list of them, still failed to show anything. Well well, loud mouths when we need to claim something, surprisingly silent when we need to back up claims, aren't we? Can't say I'm surprised...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,101 posts
14,384 battles
22 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

And now compare that armour to every other tier 10 BB. Or tier 9 BBs. Or even tier 8 BBs. Worst across the board, equaled only by Monarch and Lion

I routinely play heavy cruisers which is why I know you're lying. 32 mm plate armor is also what the Amagi and Izumo have both on extremities and in the midplate with the Izumo also lacking the concealment, submerged citadel, or broken high explosives of the Conqueror. 32 mm plate armor on the midplate is also the armor thickness of the new French battleships. 32 mm is still impossible to overmatch by anything not Yamato. It is still battleship armor. "Worst of the class" is NOT the same as having the armor of a cruiser. Cruisers with an exception of the Germans and Americans have a maximum armor thickness in the bow and stern groups of 25 mm (VS the Conqueror's 32) and all tier VIII to IX cruisers have a maximum mid-plate thickness of 25 mm (exceptions being Kutuzov with 27 mm midplate armor and the Atago with 41 mm deck armor) with tier X cruisers having a midplate of 30 mm (with the exception of the Moskva with a 50 mm midplate armor and the Minotaur with a 16 mm midplate armor. Didn't have to look that up either so the only one really talking out of their [edited]it you. Did you think that I can't just look and see which battleships my 203 mm gun cruisers are penetrating and dealing damage to with high explosives? The 25 mm plate armor is significant as it can be overmatched by any battleship gun from tier 8 upwards in the game. The 32 mm armor can be overmatched by exactly one gun. Before you accuse me of talking out of my [edited], I recommend a short trip to the closest mirror.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,483 posts
9,790 battles
31 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Had a full list of them, still failed to show anything. Well well, loud mouths when we need to claim something, surprisingly silent when we need to back up claims, aren't we? Can't say I'm surprised...

 

And your entire dishonest premise was based on similar stuff like you present here.

 

As if Conquerors fire particularly much more on BBs than other BBs do (they don't), they're just far more likely to use HE (and fire) resulting in higher numbers (for higher rewards, but not neccessarily all that much higher effect at sinking ships).

 

That's what you get when someone has a ridiculous bias toward one class of ship.

 

I mean, someone is actually attempting to pretend that the Conq doesn't have a ridiculous potential to survive getting fired at?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,483 posts
9,790 battles
4 hours ago, tappo01 said:

Beacause point and click easy mode shouldnt be rewarded the same as playing other ships. A ship a 5 years old could probably get good results in needs to suffer heavy credit loss at every game to discourage abuse of said ship.

 

Tbh what could more sensibly change is to reduce the xp/credits BBs overall gets from HE hits, and fires in particular (at least from main guns). Because it's one thing to have a BB that actually use HE effectively use it on you, but it just feels stupid to see some tirp spamming HE, doing negblible damage that actually hurts a team, but still gets mid to high levels of xp for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,101 posts
14,384 battles
16 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

Tbh what could more sensibly change is to reduce the xp/credits BBs overall gets from HE hits, and fires in particular (at least from main guns). Because it's one thing to have a BB that actually use HE effectively use it on you, but it just feels stupid to see some tirp spamming HE, doing negblible damage that actually hurts a team, but still gets mid to high levels of xp for it.

Unlikely to be a good solution. It reminds me too much of the change to carriers that massively overvalues plane kills over ship damage. It does shift the priority of the players, but that's just attempting to hide the problem. The simple fact that it rewards a lot of XP and Credits right now suggests that it is an effective tactic. The very fact that it is an effective tactic in the first place is what probably needs changing the most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,833 posts
6,919 battles
23 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

Armour thickness is measured only on bow / stern and main belt! No other armour exists!

Corrected your long nonsense to a TL;DR version

 

11 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

As if Conquerors fire particularly much more on BBs than other BBs do (they don't)

They do. You see, we don't get all the statistics like what ship does how much dmg to what ship types. WG themselves do obviously. And then - just check pretty much any Conq replay. HE on a BB, HE on a BB and then some more HE on a BB, just burn them as much as you can.

I see you just unlocked the Lion? Whenever you get the 419s it's pretty much the same Conq with 1 less turret (and 15 degrees per side worse 3rd turret angles) - same guns, amo, armour, very similar detection and mobility, just that you still have the benefit of a spotter. Unlike almost every single "nerf Conq" yeller you'll actually soon be able to speak with some experience behind you

 

24 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

someone is actually attempting to pretend that the Conq doesn't have a ridiculous potential to survive getting fired at

Good deal of those shells that deal dmg to Conq would have done nothing to other BBs bcuz of their armour, which is why Conq gets a better heal. Healing damage that wouldn't have been done on others gives you false sense of vastly improved survivability - it's just not there, really.

 

26 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

but it just feels stupid to see some tirp spamming HE, doing negblible damage that actually hurts a team, but still gets mid to high levels of xp for it.

Contradicting yourself there, as that's not how it works. Already explained that

 


 

Anyhow, subject of Conq has been long since discussed (pun intended - you'll understand if you bother to keep reading) in a different thread, doubt there's much more you can add to the topic:

 

 

And as far as your "totally adequate armour is concerned" pay good attention to this one

And don't skip neither the pictures, not the text after them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,483 posts
9,790 battles
24 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

Unlikely to be a good solution. It reminds me too much of the change to carriers that massively overvalues plane kills over ship damage. It does shift the priority of the players, but that's just attempting to hide the problem. The simple fact that it rewards a lot of XP and Credits right now suggests that it is an effective tactic. The very fact that it is an effective tactic in the first place is what probably needs changing the most.

 

Could be, just trying to consider some options. Would probably be easier to just nerf HE fire chance on BBs overall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,101 posts
14,384 battles
On 1/1/2018 at 9:50 PM, wilkatis_LV said:

Corrected your long nonsense to a TL;DR version

You're a Edited with no arguments who can only feign a illusion of integrity by gish-galloping and constantly moving the goalpost. You didn't directly state that, but every single thing you do and say just provides evidence towards it.

Edited by Asklepi0s
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
3,944 posts
14,412 battles
4 hours ago, tappo01 said:

Beacause point and click easy mode shouldnt be rewarded the same as playing other ships. A ship class a 5 years old could probably get good results in needs to suffer heavy credit loss at every game to discourage abuse of said ship class.

 

So the title of the thread should be "reduce exp/credits multiplier for BaBBies", right?

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,483 posts
9,790 battles
15 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

 

Good deal of those shells that deal dmg to Conq would have done nothing to other BBs bcuz of their armour, which is why Conq gets a better heal. Healing damage that wouldn't have been done on others gives you false sense of vastly improved survivability - it's just not there, really.

 

Contradicting yourself there, as that's not how it works. Already explained that

one

 

 

Sorry, but sticking your finger in the air and saying "it is because I say so" isn't actual proof of anything (just as little as making up one sided arguments where you ignore every other influencing factor because they break your troll idea).

 

The Conq has a better heal to make up for FAR worse max hp, not to make up for some supposed weak armour configuration.

 

And if you think that's a contradiction, ie doing more damage but being less effective, then I do wonder if you ever played BBs at all.

 

To explain it to you slowly:

 

With HE and fire you can do MORE raw damage against BBs.

 

BBs have repair party. It heals fires VERY effectively.

 

Thus doing 100k damage with AP/HE pens could sink a BB, but 60k HE+60k fire might not (and you will do even more fire by spreading them across more targets).

 

Thus the first is effective at sinking ships, the other at doing damage and getting rewarded with xp/credits.

 

Oh, since I missed that part, it's cute that you try to pretend I wouldn't know anything about conqs, as if having every other t10 BB (and most other t10s) wouldn't make me notice which BBs gets shot at by which other BBs. That you in particular would think the conq has low survivability though isn't surprising, given you how play it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,101 posts
14,384 battles
15 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Corrected your long nonsense to a TL;DR version

Hey, seeing as how you're already busy digging your own grave shall we keep going?

 

2 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

And now compare that armour to every other tier 10 BB. Or tier 9 BBs. Or even tier 8 BBs. Worst across the board, equaled only by Monarch and Lion

 

The Conqueror has a 19 mm mid citadel deck plate with 63 mm on either side. Every battleship she meets will be able to overmatch this, but aim either way too high or low then the shell will miss this sliver of a target that is the 19 mm plate. Aiming underneath the water means being able to break through the 279 mm armor belt then the 45 mm citadel bulkhead, two armor plates that are impossible to overmatch, before anyone can land a citadel hit. This plate would be vulnerable to long ranged battleship plunging armor but->

 

The Montana has a 19 mm armor plate over THE ENTIRETY of her citadel deck. She is also far more easily spotted than the Conqueror. Her citadel is also at the waterline which presents similar challenges as the Conqueror, but the Montana's overmatchable deck is a significantly bigger larger in all respects. To hit the Montana's citadel underwater, the shell will have to pass through a 259 mm plate nestled directly underneath the 409 mm plate. Whilst this may seem like a thick plate, both of these plates are directly in contact with the ship's outer hull. For comparison it means that to be able to hit a Montana's citadel at close ranges you will need to overcome either a 409 mm or 259 mm plate underneath the water. For comparison, to citadel a Conqueror you will need to overcome a 279 mm plate THEN a 45 mm plate.

 

The Yamato lacks the benefit of having a citadel that is entirely submerged. I did not bring up this point as the Montana had a submerged citadel like the Conqueror, but the water offers ANOTHER layer of armor on top of what I have already mentioned. The Yamato has a citadel thickness of 410 mm that sits above the water. I will like to remind all who are reading that the Conqueror has 406 mm of belt armor that extends below the waterline. To citadel a Yamato from above the waterline you need to penetrate 410 mm of armor whereas citadeling a Conqueror above the waterline is all but impossible. This makes the Yamato far more vulnerable to citadel hits than the Conqueror.

 

The extremities and midplate is what dictates how vulnerable a battleship is to high explosives. The citadel armor and positioning is what dictates how vulnerable battleships are to citadel hits. Now I could just stop right here as I have already demonstrated you to be a liar. I want to go on though, just because I can. You also dug your own grave by allowing me to drag tier IX and VIII battleships into this.

 

To citadel a Kii you will need to penetrate a 292 mm belt armor then a 38 mm deck slope when firing down into her citadel. To land citadel hits on a North Carolina you either have to overmatch her 19 mm citadel deck armor after overcoming a 305 mm belt armor in comparison to the Conqueror's 409 mm belt armor and 19 mm deck armor. You can also try for an underwater shot where you either have to overcome a 305 mm citadel armor belt OR one 165 mm citadel armor belt in comparison to the Conqueror's 279 mm armor belt AND the 45 mm citadel bulkhead. Your assertions bear as little weight as your integrity which would be an insult if you haven't already established through your recent actions that you also have no shame.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,833 posts
6,919 battles
22 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

Sorry, but sticking your finger in the air and saying "it is because I say so" isn't actual proof of anything

And this is why you actually read through the post and then you answer, now you look kind of stupid as I provided you that "proof" at the end of it :cap_cool:

 

23 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

The Conq has a better heal to make up for FAR worse max hp, not to make up for some supposed weak armour configuration.

Pff, smaller HP really is the least of the problems there, absolutely don't mind having it. Once again tho - if you bothered to read through the post you'd know what armour I'm talking about

 

28 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

And if you think that's a contradiction

 

1 hour ago, AgarwaenME said:

spamming HE, doing negblible damage

^ this

1 hour ago, AgarwaenME said:

gets mid to high levels of xp for it

^ and this

 

Rather obviously.

 

36 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

Thus the first is effective at sinking ships, the other at doing damage and getting rewarded with xp/credits.

Congratulations, you figured out why people who know what they are talking about are calling RN BB HE dmg "low impact"

 

41 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

That you in particular would think the conq has low survivability though isn't surprising, given you how play it.

A lot of repeating myself here. Go and check those armour profiles, and the calculation example I give below. Surely you should be able to understand it, I've played with you enough to know you're not the common potato that can be met so often in these seas.

 

18 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

The Conqueror has a 19 mm mid citadel deck plate with 63 mm on either side.

Discussed to great lengths in that topic, not going to address it anymore as you literally don't tell me anything new

 

Also because I find it amusing, here's a very crude sketch of ships armour according to your posts:

 

Im8kwFW.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,483 posts
9,790 battles

Wow, this has devolved even more into the same blitheringly moronic ignoring of actual realities,  of the actual points made (replying to something entirely different than what the quote actually talked about over and over).

 

I mean, quoting "doing negblible damage" while ignoring the part that comes after "that actually hurts a team"  is a pure quote mine. Ie. a pathethic way to lie, to pretend there's a contradiction where there's none.

 

If you can manage to post anything without lying I might consider replying, until then you can keep your trolling without my input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WOTN]
Quality Poster
2,101 posts
14,384 battles
20 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Discussed to great lengths in that topic, not going to address it anymore as you literally don't tell me anything new

 

Also because I find it amusing, here's a very crude sketch of ships armour according to your posts:

Go on then, keep digging your pathetic little hole. See if it saves you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×