Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Slntreaper

CQ has passed Hakuryu in damage and still climbing

72 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,244
[SCCC]
Members
1,134 posts
6,250 battles

It's been happening on the EU server too, I'd give it a week and it'll surpass the Hakyryu even on the Asia server.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,550
[HINON]
Supertester
19,573 posts
13,172 battles

Sample size. Also, early adopters, only the real serious and arguably skilled will have Conq this early after its release.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
341
[TBOW]
Members
1,183 posts
10,754 battles
1 minute ago, Lert said:

Sample size. Also, early adopters, only the real serious and arguably skilled will have Conq this early after its release.

That doesn't explain me, Lert ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
145
[SF-3]
Beta Testers
594 posts
8,917 battles
1 minute ago, Lert said:

Sample size. Also, early adopters, only the real serious and arguably skilled will have Conq this early after its release.

This, also most of that damage is fire damage to BBs, which is the least effective type for winning the game.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,550
[HINON]
Supertester
19,573 posts
13,172 battles
Just now, LancerUlysses said:

That doesn't explain me, Lert ;)

Sample size. You're just one person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
304 posts
3,567 battles

tbh a lot of the good cv players dont play CVs regularly anymore, and theres been a surge of some questionable hakuryu players lately

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
375
[KOZ]
Beta Testers
1,485 posts
1,186 battles

It's way too early to make any calls about the performance of the Conqueror.

The CQ is brand new, and right now there's a handful of people who have it:

1. Those with the Free EXP. Check the Missouri's stats vs. the Iowa's. Have to say it: the Missouri is NOT by any means a significantly better ship than the Iowa. Stronger Armor that doesn't affect the game whatsoever, Radar which on a Battleship doesn't mean much, outside of killing a couple more RN CLs. Nope, the MO's performance is her playerbase...

2. Those skilled enough to crush the line with win after win after win. These are Unicums. Not a metric to make a call on, unless their behavior becomes centralizing.

The CQ is raining fire on Battleships right now, so of course it's going to do tons of damage. Give it a few months and let enough time to let the average joes get the ship... then watch those numbers drop. If it stays high THEN, it might be worth worrying about. Right now? Fahgettaboutit.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
340
Beta Testers
2,580 posts
4,701 battles

People already have over 1,000 battles in Conq?! :Smile_amazed:

 

Dat russianbias doe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,982
[WOLF7]
Members
10,343 posts
4 minutes ago, AirshipCanon said:

It's way too early to make any calls about the performance of the Conqueror.

The CQ is brand new, and right now there's a handful of people who have it:

1. Those with the Free EXP. Check the Missouri's stats vs. the Iowa's. Have to say it: the Missouri is NOT by any means a significantly better ship than the Iowa. Stronger Armor that doesn't affect the game whatsoever, Radar which on a Battleship doesn't mean much, outside of killing a couple more RN CLs. Nope, the MO's performance is her playerbase...

2. Those skilled enough to crush the line with win after win after win. These are Unicums. Not a metric to make a call on, unless their behavior becomes centralizing.

The CQ is raining fire on Battleships right now, so of course it's going to do tons of damage. Give it a few months and let enough time to let the average joes get the ship... then watch those numbers drop. If it stays high THEN, it might be worth worrying about. Right now? Fahgettaboutit.

 

 

You think Missouri's stats are the players who play it? Have you seen how many really bad players are in one?:Smile_amazed:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
137
[K-P-M]
Members
1,606 posts
13,269 battles
2 minutes ago, awiggin said:

 

You think Missouri's stats are the players who play it? Have you seen how many really bad players are in one?:Smile_amazed:

Yeah,and they end up on my team:fish_panic:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,364
[CRMSN]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,495 posts
3,803 battles
28 minutes ago, AirshipCanon said:

It's way too early to make any calls about the performance of the Conqueror.

The CQ is brand new, and right now there's a handful of people who have it:

1. Those with the Free EXP. Check the Missouri's stats vs. the Iowa's. Have to say it: the Missouri is NOT by any means a significantly better ship than the Iowa. Stronger Armor that doesn't affect the game whatsoever, Radar which on a Battleship doesn't mean much, outside of killing a couple more RN CLs. Nope, the MO's performance is her playerbase...

2. Those skilled enough to crush the line with win after win after win. These are Unicums. Not a metric to make a call on, unless their behavior becomes centralizing.

The CQ is raining fire on Battleships right now, so of course it's going to do tons of damage. Give it a few months and let enough time to let the average joes get the ship... then watch those numbers drop. If it stays high THEN, it might be worth worrying about. Right now? Fahgettaboutit.

 

Strongly disagree about MO.

 

When she is putting out 20-30k gp  every 2 weeks. The high skilled players only argument flies  out the window. 

 

I also know many including myself who feel the MO is much superior  to Iowa 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
127
[SWOB]
Beta Testers
486 posts
3,793 battles
43 minutes ago, Lert said:

Sample size. Also, early adopters, only the real serious and arguably skilled will have Conq this early after its release.

 

The sample size is fine. But I agree that it is probably not representative of the general population. Early adopters are mostly likely not average players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23,550
[HINON]
Supertester
19,573 posts
13,172 battles
1 minute ago, TheHolySpork said:

The sample size is fine.

Really? Because it's only 10k. When I argued that Nelson was fine instead of crap and showed its stats at the time I was told 8k was waaaaay too small a sample size to make any sort of judgment on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
127
[SWOB]
Beta Testers
486 posts
3,793 battles

 

6 minutes ago, Lert said:

Really? Because it's only 10k. When I argued that Nelson was fine instead of crap and showed its stats at the time I was told 8k was waaaaay too small a sample size to make any sort of judgment on.

 

Without getting too technical, 8000 is good enough too. If you are comfortable with an 95% confidence level (which is the "norm"), then at a sample size of 1000 your margin of error is already at about 3%. At 10000 it is about 1%.

 

Of course, it depends on what you are trying to estimate, but - statistically speaking - you are good with anything in the 1000s unless you need a very very small margin of error. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[BAKED]
Members
918 posts
8,948 battles

Solo win rates are still under GKs on the NA SEA EU. If you look at the battle percentages, Conq has much higher division rate than the other T10 BBs

 

Though the damage is pretty high. I don't think even GK at launch was ever that high.

Edited by Dodgy_Cookies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,749 posts
3,775 battles
1 minute ago, Lert said:

Really? Because it's only 10k. When I argued that Nelson was fine instead of crap and showed its stats at the time I was told 8k was waaaaay too small a sample size to make any sort of judgment on.

Really?  8k is fine when you consider the games population.  Also that the Hak in the past two weeks has only 2,500 games.  The problem isn't the number of games,  it's the people in those games.  I'd say in a month we'll start seeing more reliable numbers as the general populace catches up and starts dragging stats down.

That being said,  those are still high numbers and need to be monitored carefully to prevent her from being too strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
791
[SF-A]
Members
2,946 posts
5,876 battles

It's a very high number. As people have said, this is partly due to the best players being the only ones with access, but it does seem extraneous even for a brand new line. I don't recall such outcry about the Henri IV (or maybe I'm just forgetting things).

 

That said, I think many of the UK BBs will be receiving nerfs in the near future. Not huge nerfs, but small things, like 3-4% fire chance or 100-200 HE damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,644
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,836 posts
6,940 battles
1 hour ago, Lert said:

Sample size. Also, early adopters, only the real serious and arguably skilled will have Conq this early after its release.

 

Yep. The population of players that will spend a ton of free XP to get a tier 10 ship right after the new line was released is clearly different from the overall player population.

 

1 hour ago, RHINO_Mk_II said:

This, also most of that damage is fire damage to BBs, which is the least effective type for winning the game.

 

Also this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,808
[TBW]
Members
6,595 posts
12,435 battles

Not trying to be demeaning or anything OP but why do you care? you are at tier 6 only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,019 posts
8,415 battles

Conqueror was 115k+ last week, so don't know what u guys talking about in her "climbing" damage, as sample size gets larger and less skilled players play her, her numbers will become in the +-10% average  damage of the rest of the T10 BB's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,347
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,991 posts
10,668 battles

I think it's worth pointing out that not all damage is equal - Conq's doing 103k including an absolute ton of entirely repairable fire damage is my guess.

Yamato might only be doing 89k but in all likelihood that's almost exclusively AP, and a mix of 10% repairable citadels and 50% repairable AP pens as well as some (but not a huge proportion) of 100% repairable overpens.

If you were in a Yamato, would you rather take 100k from a Conq that you can probably repair 75% of depending on the HE pen/fire breakdown (all the fire, half the HE pen), or 90k damage from another Yamato which if it includes cits you'll be healing only say 30% of?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×