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

Something I don't understand about Conqueror

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,594
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,755 posts
6,734 battles

Disclaimer -- I don't have the ship, still on Iron Duke. But most people say it's extremely OP, broken, etc.

 

However, when I look at tier X BB solo* stats from the last two weeks, I don't see anything outstanding. Win rate below Kurfurst's and barely above Yamato's. Same average ship kills per game as other BBs. What gives? Oh, and before you say something about higher average damage, ask yourself -- would you rather score a 20k citadel hit, or deal 30k in fire damage against a half-health enemy battleship?

 

TOIWT8x.png

 

* I took solo stats because divisions introduce too much variability that's impossible to control for. I understand this this might be biasing the averages downward because it is reasonable to assume that better players tend to play in division more often. However, I think it's also reasonable to assume that people which spent real money to free XP all the way up to Conqueror are probably on the whole better than your average tier X BB player.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
Members
2,274 posts
7,365 battles

Average Damage, average XP, kill/death and survivability are way above the other T10 BBs.

 

Its still early to see how OP Conqueror is, we have few battles compared to other BBs. But so far it seems very OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,339
Members
7,047 posts
4,534 battles
1 hour ago, vak_ said:

However, I think it's also reasonable to assume that people which spent real money to free XP all the way up to Conqueror are probably on the whole better than your average tier X BB player.

I'm not really sure about that. Anybody with enough money and enough convertible XP can skip ships. 

 

Anyway, I think it's still to early to tell much from the server stats of the Conqueror. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,509
[O7]
Members
4,921 posts
8,751 battles

Here's the simple awnser.  Its HE on it's own isnt too bad. Perhaps a little bit too strong, but it's not a lot. The problem with something like conqueror starts at its heal. If you know what you're doing, you can not use a single heal until about 15k hp. Using the better reload module coupled with Adrenaline you are getting about 20s salvos of this powerful HE. And just when you think you've pushed your luck far enough, you can just run a heal and start over. 

 

Sure, any BB can do this, but while others get maybe a 15-20% heal safety net, conq is getting a 50%. This vastly improves this type of low health high damage strategy and really abuses the easy use of the HE.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,635
[INTEL]
Members
8,445 posts
25,345 battles

What it really shows is that UK BBs have poor carry potential even though they do great damage. To carry you have to be able to kill ships that need killing, and UK BBs simply lack the ability to put ships down when they need to be put down. Here are the T7 BBs, solo, min 100 battles, ALL (not two weeks), NA server:
 

Nelson 53.13% 62,923
KGV 51.80% 64,112
Scharn 51.78% 51,360
Hood 51.13% 49,897
Gneis 50.20% 47,102
Nagato 49.57% 47,771
Colorado 48.38% 41,249

 

The KGV really jumps out for damage -- the Nelson in overall performance is a much better ship, with excellent damage and good win rates -- the heal is its hidden advantage. The KGV just barely edges out Scharnhorst in win rate even though Scharn has thousands of games by players of many different skill levels, being a very popular ship. It's very likely that as more potatoes rise to KGV these win rates will deteriorate to Colorado-like levels (insert obligatory buff the Colorado! call... or is this an evil plot by WG to say "We don't need to buff Colorado, look, KGV is nearly as bad").


Here is the data for T8 (solo, min 100 battles, ALL (not two weeks), NA server):

 

Alabama 52.02% 54,927
Monarch 51.24% 64,591
Amagi 51.08% 57,613
Bismarck 50.99% 57,019
Tirpitz 49.23% 49,351
N Carolina 48.84% 48,873

 

Same situation. Monarch stands out, but Alabama can carry because it has real AP and can put ships down (I omitted Alabama ST which has <400 games and is played by experienced players), while Monarch has UK Almost PiercingTM. Note that anyone can purchase Alabama, so like Scharn she is owned by people of wide skill levels. Whereas to get to Monarch this early implies you have tons of free XP which implies tons of experience. Yet she is just barely ahead of Amagi even though Amagi is widely played by players of all skill levels. When Monarch deteriorates....

Here is T4 where the Orion is widely considered OP (solo, min 100 battles, ALL (not two weeks), NA server):
 

Nikolai 59.28% 47,541
Ark B 53.56% 36,213
Ishi 51.44% 29,678
Orion 51.32% 43,873
Kaiser 51.06% 36,893
Wyoming 49.52% 27,464
Myogi 48.08% 23,336

 

Orion is behind only Nik in damage, but look -- even Ishi has better carry potential, because of its speed, I expect, and the recent buffs whose effect is not shown in the long-term damage numbers. Orion's win rate numbers will fall, too, as more potatoes work their way up the line. 

The UK BBs pile up gaudy damage numbers, but they are a dramatic illustration of how it's not the amount of damage you do, but the kind and target of damage, that is more important. 

Edited by Taichunger
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,177 posts
5,973 battles
34 minutes ago, Pulicat said:

Here's the simple awnser.  Its HE on it's own isnt too bad. Perhaps a little bit too strong, but it's not a lot. The problem with something like conqueror starts at its heal. If you know what you're doing, you can not use a single heal until about 15k hp. Using the better reload module coupled with Adrenaline you are getting about 20s salvos of this powerful HE. And just when you think you've pushed your luck far enough, you can just run a heal and start over. 

 

Sure, any BB can do this, but while others get maybe a 15-20% heal safety net, conq is getting a 50%. This vastly improves this type of low health high damage strategy and really abuses the easy use of the HE.

Basically, the Conqueror is forgiving and strong enough on its own for the average player, but in the hands of better players, it's a monster. It's decisively above the other t10 battleships when played at maximum efficiency, and it has that heal to facilitate that. The Conqueror just has the potential for risky strategies, except its not really all that risky due to how quickly your heal works combined with your stealth, and the amount of literal fire you can throw down when built properly is very scary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,594
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,755 posts
6,734 battles
11 hours ago, Ajax_the_Great1 said:

Someone tipped off the potatoes to this ship and they're bringing the stats down.

 

10 hours ago, Aduial said:

I'm not really sure about that. Anybody with enough money and enough convertible XP can skip ships. 

 

I think it's reasonable to assume that people who care enough about a new BB to spend tons of free XP that was most likely bought with real money are, as population, better at BBs than your average tier ten player. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,594
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,755 posts
6,734 battles
11 hours ago, Xlap said:

Average Damage, average XP, kill/death and survivability are way above the other T10 BBs.

 

So why doesn't this translate to a better solo win rate?

 

Also, I've already mentioned that HE+fire damage is less impactful than AP damage (should be obvious why). XP is unreliable because it includes premium time -- to me it's clear that a lot of people who spend real money on free XP also run premium time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
125
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
196 posts
5,664 battles

The ship sure seems overpowered.. I trust competent people that have played the ship and clearly demonstrate how faceroll it is.  

 

The only conqueror's I have seen actually die in game are driven by sub 50% wrate players who have no clue how to disengage and utilize the broken heal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,095 posts
5,622 battles
20 minutes ago, vak_ said:

 

 

I think it's reasonable to assume that people who care enough about a new BB to spend tons of free XP that was most likely bought with real money are, as population, better at BBs than your average tier ten player. 

That usually is the case but I see no reason why the Conqueror would be so low. It's  damn near noob proof. Immune citadel and HE spam with a massive heal. The only way to fail in this ship is to overextend and die before using all your heals, or sit at range and snipe without ever getting hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,594
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,755 posts
6,734 battles
15 minutes ago, Simers72 said:

The ship sure seems overpowered.. I trust competent people that have played the ship and clearly demonstrate how faceroll it is.  

 

The only conqueror's I have seen actually die in game are driven by sub 50% wrate players who have no clue how to disengage and utilize the broken heal. 

 

That's the source of my confusion. Plenty of good players are claiming it's OP. And yet the solo win rate stats are decidedly mediocre. Why is that?

 

I can think of four possible explanations:

(1) All good players are playing in divisions, thus solo win rate is much worse than in should be. But this factor intuitively doesn't seem impactful enough to drive the solo win rate down by that much -- not to mention that good players play other tier X BBs in divisions as well.

(2) This is a statistical fluke, the "real" win rate is higher than this observed average. But since we have thousands of battles, the probability of observed and "true" win rates differing by a lot (say, by even half a percent) is quite low.

(3) Confirmation bias. People readily see that they do a lot of damage in Conqueror and are able to survive well, but don't keep track of battle outcomes as carefully.

(4) For some reason the player population that is currently playing Conqueror is _worse_ than average tier ten BB population. But to me this is preposterous; if anything, I think the reverse should be true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
Members
2,274 posts
7,365 battles
29 minutes ago, vak_ said:

 

So why doesn't this translate to a better solo win rate?

 

Also, I've already mentioned that HE+fire damage is less impactful than AP damage (should be obvious why). XP is unreliable because it includes premium time -- to me it's clear that a lot of people who spend real money on free XP also run premium time. 

Maybe bad luck, win rate is very unstable. Its very common to have a good game and still lose the battle because your team is full of potatoes. 

 

Also as you said HE is less reliable to carry its a DoT damage. Takes more time to stack damage. If your team die during that times you lose no matter the damage. 

 

Yep, XP can be unreliable with such a small number of battles. But Conqueror still have much better average damage, kill/death, and survivability than other T10 BBs.

 

As i said we need to wait a month or two so se can have more players with Conqueror. The stats can drop, increasse or stabilize. But so far it seems very OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,594
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,755 posts
6,734 battles
1 hour ago, Xlap said:

Maybe bad luck, win rate is very unstable.

 

Also as you said HE is less reliable to carry its a DoT damage. Takes more time to stack damage. If your team die during that times you lose no matter the damage. 

 

Conqueror still have much better average damage, kill/death, and survivability than other T10 BBs.

 

1) Win rate average is highly variable for small samples. Once we get into thousands of battles, it's a pretty reliable metric for a given player population (or a single player).

 

2) Yep, that's an issue too. Besides being 100% repairable, fires also take longer to damage/kill something than a straight up citadel. Enemy ships stay alive longer and put out damage during that time

 

3) Average damage has been covered before. Better KDR is just a function of higher survivability, because average kills per match are same for all tier X BBs. And if higher survivabulity (due to an awesome repair party) doesn't actually lead to better win rate -- then who cares? It's not like you get to save more credits by not dying, that's been changed a long time ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,635
[INTEL]
Members
8,445 posts
25,345 battles
16 hours ago, vak_ said:

 

That's the source of my confusion. Plenty of good players are claiming it's OP. And yet the solo win rate stats are decidedly mediocre. Why is that?

 

I can think of four possible explanations:

(1) All good players are playing in divisions, thus solo win rate is much worse than in should be. But this factor intuitively doesn't seem impactful enough to drive the solo win rate down by that much -- not to mention that good players play other tier X BBs in divisions as well.

(2) This is a statistical fluke, the "real" win rate is higher than this observed average. But since we have thousands of battles, the probability of observed and "true" win rates differing by a lot (say, by even half a percent) is quite low.

(3) Confirmation bias. People readily see that they do a lot of damage in Conqueror and are able to survive well, but don't keep track of battle outcomes as carefully.

(4) For some reason the player population that is currently playing Conqueror is _worse_ than average tier ten BB population. But to me this is preposterous; if anything, I think the reverse should be true. 

 

None of those are correct. Read my post above: the numbers suggest that UK BBs have great damage potential but poor carry potential. That is why their solo win rates are low. 

 

PS, for three ship divs on the EU (NA server no data on WarshipsToday right now), the Nelson has a 66.01% WR, the KGV 63.23. 

Edited by Taichunger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,594
[-K-]
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,755 posts
6,734 battles
1 minute ago, Taichunger said:

 

None of those are correct. Read my post above: the numbers suggest that UK BBs have great damage potential but poor carry potential. That is why their solo win rates are low. 

 

What you're saying is same as my point #3, i.e. people misjudging their true contribution to battle, and thinking Conqueror is more powerful than it really is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,472
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,039 posts
12,528 battles
1 hour ago, vak_ said:

(4) For some reason the player population that is currently playing Conqueror is _worse_ than average tier ten BB population. But to me this is preposterous; if anything, I think the reverse should be true. 

There is a related phenomenon that would contribute to the observed result: early in a ship's lifecycle, players (even generally skilled ones) have relatively few games in it and are therefore still learning how to play it effectively. It could be that it is always easy to do damage in Conqueror, but takes some practice to learn how to make that damage influence games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,285 posts
4,369 battles
7 minutes ago, vak_ said:

 

What you're saying is same as my point #3, i.e. people misjudging their true contribution to battle, and thinking Conqueror is more powerful than it really is. 

yep  in fact it may need a buff based on early stats :)

<runs away to hide very quickly>

M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
Members
2,274 posts
7,365 battles
10 minutes ago, vak_ said:

 

1) Win rate average is highly variable for small samples. Once we get into thousands of battles, it's a pretty reliable metric for a given player population (or a single player).

 

2) Yep, that's an issue too. Besides being 100% repairable, fires also take longer to damage/kill something than a straight up citadel. Enemy ships stay alive longer and put out damage during that time

 

3) Average damage has been covered before. Better KDR is just a function of higher survivability, because average kills per match are same for all tier X BBs. And if higher survivabulity (due to an awesome repair party) doesn't actually lead to better win rate -- then who cares? It's not like you get to save more credits by not dying, that's been changed a long time ago. 

The problem: one stat doing better is not a issue, but when most stats are doing better, in some cases much better, this might indicate a OP ship. 

 

But as i said, its to early to know really if the ship is OP or not, we still havea small sample so the stats might change.

Share this post


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

GK is the king of solo carry because of the easy and forgiving ability to pressure caps with minimal fleet support. HP and Armor to survive HE spam. Very small sections of 32mm to ignore Yamato pressure.

Conq has slightly more carry potential than Montana due to her obscene HE making wrecking DDs and countering angled BBs much easier. But both are very susceptible to Yamato pressure and HE spam. 

Yamato on the other hand is more of a precision scalpel that requires a really good player to make use of. Knowing exactly where to aim to maximize overmatches for lolpens isn't exactly for potatoes. Her glacial turrets and overall sluggishness requires more strategic planning.

 

Is Conq better than Montana? IMO yes skill floor is much higher and has more versatility. OP? maybe not. I think much of the calls of OP are because of divisions and the fact that she's incredibly unfun to play against at all times.

 

In divisions this plays out very differently because Smoke allows the disadvantages of armor and hp to be mitigated. You see this in cruisers as well with squishy radar ships (like NO and Chap) being similar or worse than the other cruisers at tier but becoming monsters in divisions.

 

Plus the smoke changes are coming so we should hold off on making any judgements like with the German DDs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
396 posts
9,434 battles

Had a Zao stay behind an island west of a cap trying to solo burn down a conqueror on his own.... yes he got a witherer.... no he didn't sink it as it sunk him after 3/4 of the battle was over. I tried to get the Zao to stop, telling him he couldn't sink him but no, he wanted to stay on the 1 line frying like a potato should I guess.

 

That game in a Shim I took B then headed to A, the cap he (Zao) was near on the 1 line, as well as 3 of our BB's huddled behind islands... of course the enemy slowly took C then B on its way to the 4 ships hiding in the corner.

 

All my DD games last night had good enemy CV's... it was a terrible night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×