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

Conqueror Should Not be Nerfed yet - Discuss (Also win USS E)

161 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,228
[BRZKR]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,472 posts
4,763 battles

Unpopular opinion, yes.  First, the link for the Enterprise giveaway:  https://gleam.io/0ilFS/uss-enterprise-giveaway

 

Now about conqueror.  TL:DW.  It’s too soon to say whether it needs nerfing.  W/L has normalized and is in line with other T10 BBs.  Damage is still very high, but so was Yammie’s when the game went gold.  I suspect this will go down as well in time.  If not, then we can talk nerf.  No need for knee-jerks though.

 

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
354
[5D]
Members
1,243 posts
7,212 battles

I didn't agree... but now that I've got her and used her a bit I'd agree.

 

Though... I may just be a scrub at using her lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,228
[BRZKR]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,472 posts
4,763 battles
7 minutes ago, JojoTheMongol said:

Cap fire chance max at 40%.

Done.

And honestly that’s more tweak than nerf.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,266
[SEP]
Members
3,722 posts
14,928 battles

 Many ships need nerfs/buffs. Conqueror is one of them IMO. Server average W/L should not be considered when balancing ships. There is a reason why successful game developers don't balance their games based on the average potato but based on the top level competitive players instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,228
[BRZKR]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,472 posts
4,763 battles
4 minutes ago, m373x said:

 Many ships need nerfs/buffs. Conqueror is one of them IMO. Server average W/L should not be considered when balancing ships. There is a reason why successful game developers don't balance their games based on the average potato but based on the top level competitive players instead.

What developers do this?  I do t think balancing off one percent of the community is a good idea.  You’d make the game even less competitive.  I rather have one percent play a ship likes it’s OP and the rest play a ship normal than nerf a ship to suit that one percent making it unplayable for the massses.  Just my thoughts.

 

Other games have the luxury of competitive MM.  something we will never see.  Without it, you can’t balamce off skill or Unicum players.

Edited by NoZoupForYou
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,270
[NERO]
Members
3,542 posts

The problem is less that the ship is OP and more that team coordination is horrible. Playing a very strong ship should come with the risk of being focused down by the other team before you can cause too much havoc. If the player base cooperated and coordinated more, that risk vs reward would be established and it would be okay for a ship to be super strong because it'll also be one of the first to be sunk. 

Kinda like how a lot of the most high paying jobs are high risk and high rate of injury, so they're high pay to compensate for the statistical normality of short careers.  

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,228
[BRZKR]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,472 posts
4,763 battles
3 minutes ago, TTK_Aegis said:

The problem is less that the ship is OP and more that team coordination is horrible. Playing a very strong ship should come with the risk of being focused down by the other team before you can cause too much havoc. If the player base cooperated and coordinated more, that risk vs reward would be established and it would be okay for a ship to be super strong because it'll also be one of the first to be sunk. 

Kinda like how a lot of the most high paying jobs are high risk and high rate of injury, so they're high pay to compensate for the statistical normality of short careers.  

Nailed it.  We think of all our interactions with the conqueror on a one v one basis. We don’t think of it as taking it down as a team. If you’re in a division, they’re pretty easy to take down if you focus fire.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,266
[SEP]
Members
3,722 posts
14,928 battles
3 minutes ago, NoZoupForYou said:

What developers do this?  I do t think balancing off one percent of the community is a good idea.  You’d make the game even less competitive.  I rather have one percent play a ship likes it’s OP and the rest play a ship normal than nerf a ship to suit that one percent making it unplayable for the massses.  Just my thoughts.

 

 The thing is that when you balance based on the performance of the best it goes down the chain as well, unfortunately it doesn't go the other way. And when you do this with different aspects and elements of said game it turns into something smooth over time. I can't call WoWs neither smooth nor balanced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,598
[TASH]
Members
5,013 posts
8,076 battles

The very premise of the ship demands otherwise.  You have something with insane strengths, more so than basically every T10 BB in magnitude and number, and no weaknesses.  Conqueror dies to DDs if you're an idiot and sail in a straight line, but so too does every other T10 BB, and they can't heal back all the damage a torp hit deals and then some.  This ship is virtually immune to DoT, and can't even take citadels despite already being the most resistant to high-tiers' number one BB killer.  Furthermore, impressions are relative: you might "feel" it's not OP, but other people, even other users of the ship, don't agree.

 

On that note, you can't claim people are unicum and just wave off stats as a result: how they do in the Conqueror relative to their other ships are more important - and many players are doing vastly better.  Even in solo stats.  The ship dies quicker to divisions, but what doesn't?

 

The Flamu circle jerk might be harassing you, and he may be at the forefront of it, but the points he makes are valid.

Edited by ValkyrWarframe
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
172
[NEMO]
[NEMO]
Members
755 posts
6,963 battles
15 minutes ago, TTK_Aegis said:

Kinda like how a lot of the most high paying jobs are high risk and high rate of injury, so they're high pay to compensate for the statistical normality of short careers.  

I figured most of the high-paying jobs were in upper management, where rich buddies all pat each other on the back while passing around cash-stuffed envelopes...

Not saying there aren't high-paying blue collar jobs, but I'm sure there aren't nearly as many as the management types....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,228
[BRZKR]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,472 posts
4,763 battles
8 minutes ago, ValkyrWarframe said:

The very premise of the ship demands otherwise.  You have something with insane strengths, more so than basically every T10 BB in magnitude and number, and no weaknesses.  Conqueror dies to DDs if you're an idiot and sail in a straight line, but so too does every other T10 BB, and they can't heal back all the damage a torp hit deals and then some.  This ship is virtually immune to DoT, and can't even take citadels despite already being the most resistant to high-tiers' number one BB killer.  Furthermore, impressions are relative: you might "feel" it's not OP, but other people, even other users of the ship, don't agree.

 

On that note, you can't claim people are unicum and just wave off stats as a result: how they do in the Conqueror relative to their other ships are more important - and many players are doing vastly better.

 

The Flamu circle jerk might be harassing you, and he may be at the forefront of it, but the points he makes are valid.

I think I broke down the conqueror relative to every other tier 10 battleship. It’s win loss record is on par, and even though it’s damage is high right now, so too was yamatos when it first went gold. As I stated, if the damage remains high after sufficient amount of battles, Nerf it. However I suspect that it will normalize.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,559 posts
9,975 battles

I tried Conqueror on the test server and I don't see what the fuss is about. I think this ship is overrated. In port it shows that it's HE has 60% chance of fire yet in reality I'm setting far less fires than KG5. I'm lucky to get 30%.
The ship has it's pros and cons but I don't think it's any better or worse than any of the other tier 10 BBs. I don't think it should be nerfed. It has the least amount of guns (8) compared to Montana and Kurfhurst with 12 and Yamato with 9.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,731
[INTEL]
Members
8,568 posts
25,652 battles
13 minutes ago, ValkyrWarframe said:

The very premise of the ship demands otherwise.  You have something with insane strengths, more so than basically every T10 BB in magnitude and number, and no weaknesses.  Conqueror dies to DDs if you're an idiot and sail in a straight line, but so too does every other T10 BB, and they can't heal back all the damage a torp hit deals and then some.  This ship is virtually immune to DoT, and can't even take citadels despite already being the most resistant to high-tiers' number one BB killer.  You might "feel" it's not OP, but it's already you best-performing T10 BB.

 

On that note, you can't claim people are unicum and just wave off stats as a result: how they do in the Conqueror relative to their other ships are more important - and many players are doing vastly better.

 

The Flamu circle jerk might be harassing you, and he may be at the forefront of it, but the points he makes are valid.

 

Conk has a number of glaring weaknesses: crappy secondaries, mediocre TDS, AP that can't put down BBs that need killing, no spotting plane, no access to the dispersion module like Montana, low HP pool, and a superstructure that eats damage.

 

In Solo win rate, which reflects its ability to carry, on the NA server for overall solo games Conk is third, on Asia it is second, on EU it leads GK by .02%, a figure certain to fall even farther for Conk. Only on RU is it ahead and that will fall over time. 

Interesting how on all four servers different ships are ahead in WR for 3-ship divisions...


Conk is very well balanced. WG did a great job. When the furor dies down, opinions will shift. 

My own view from playing Conk is that too many people play her as HE spammer, meaning that the damage you get is worth 2/3 of real BB damage -- people are seduced by gaudy damage numbers. 180K in Conk is like 130K in Monty in game effect, I have concluded, based on overall stats from all servers and from my own experience and observation. I have switched to using far more AP, over 80%, and using HE more situationally, at long distances, early in the game, and when I know a ship has just repaired and is ripe for a fire. But it is so much more efficient to alert a cruiser to light up a ship like that, and retain my AP....

 

Edited by Taichunger
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
838
[MIA-A]
Supertester
2,589 posts
8,389 battles

The only thing that needs to be done to CQ is removing the 12x419 configuration. You play the ship with the 8x457s, it feels like it should... A very survivable, well rounded ship that isn't broken. 

 

You play with the 419s, get 14k derp HE salvos and say "Damn this is broken."

 

I'll continue to say this in every CQ thread because I fear that WG will take the ship and nerf it so hard, in a way that didn't need to be changed and doesn't address the actual problem, that it will become useless, like old old old Montana. 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,228
[BRZKR]
WoWS Community Contributors
1,472 posts
4,763 battles
14 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

 

Conk has a number of glaring weaknesses: crappy secondaries, mediocre TDS, AP that can't put down BBs that need killing, no spotting plane, no access to the dispersion module like Montana, low HP pool, and a superstructure that eats damage.

 

In Solo win rate, which reflects its ability to carry, on the NA server for overall solo games Conk is third, on Asia it is second, on EU it leads GK by .02%, a figure certain to fall even farther for Conk. Only on RU is it ahead and that will fall over time. 

Interesting how on all four servers different ships are ahead in WR for 3-ship divisions...


Conk is very well balanced. WG did a great job. When the furor dies down, opinions will shift. 

My own view from playing Conk is that too many people play her as HE spammer, meaning that the damage you get is worth 2/3 of real BB damage -- people are seduced by gaudy damage numbers. 180K in Conk is like 130K in Monty in game effect, I have concluded, based on overall stats from all servers and from my own experience and observation. I have switched to using far more AP, over 80%, and using HE more situationally, at long distances, early in the game, and when I know a ship has just repaired and is ripe for a fire. But it is so much more efficient to alert a cruiser to light up a ship like that, and retain my AP....

 

As you stated, it’s important to remember the type of damage the conqueror does, fire damage, can be easily repaired by other battleships. You’re not doing permanent lasting damage as the other battleship to do when they hit citadels and penetrate ship armor. Fire damage is superficial.

Edited by NoZoupForYou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
140
[CAPGO]
Members
524 posts
3,312 battles
8 minutes ago, STINKWEED_ said:

I tried Conqueror on the test server and I don't see what the fuss is about. I think this ship is overrated. In port it shows that it's HE has 60% chance of fire yet in reality I'm setting far less fires than KG5. I'm lucky to get 30%.
The ship has it's pros and cons but I don't think it's any better or worse than any of the other tier 10 BBs. I don't think it should be nerfed. It has the least amount of guns (8) compared to Montana and Kurfhurst with 12 and Yamato with 9.

 

When People call Conqueror OP, they generally assume that it's running 407mm with 3x4 gun setup. with so many shells being fired at such high fire percentage, it's slightly op on the live server.

 

28 minutes ago, NoZoupForYou said:

Nailed it.  We think of all our interactions with the conqueror on a one v one basis. We don’t think of it as taking it down as a team. If you’re in a division, they’re pretty easy to take down if you focus fire.

 

Any ship can be focused down sooner, but Conqueror's ability to engage/disengage makes it harder. Basically, this ship is OP enough that it needs to be focused down early but then it has all the advantages/kits to avoid being so. That is OP. 

You can not balance the game around saying people need to do this and do that and THEN we will talk about balancing.

 

I kinda agree that we need to analyze it thoroughly with time before we make premature bad decisions, but I think it's clearly over-powered compared to counterparts at T10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,270
[NERO]
Members
3,542 posts
18 minutes ago, Thraxian said:

I figured most of the high-paying jobs were in upper management, where rich buddies all pat each other on the back while passing around cash-stuffed envelopes...

Not saying there aren't high-paying blue collar jobs, but I'm sure there aren't nearly as many as the management types....

I should have specified non-executive. Some examples of high pay due to short careers compared to the typical work from 22 to 65: 
Air traffic controller (stress burnout)
Deep sea welder (high risk of death)
North sea fisherman (death / crippling injury)
NFL player (risk of career ending injury every time they play or practice and long-term brain damage due to concussive blows)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
172
[NEMO]
[NEMO]
Members
755 posts
6,963 battles
1 minute ago, TTK_Aegis said:

I should have specified non-executive. Some examples of high pay due to short careers compared to the typical work from 22 to 65: 
Air traffic controller (stress burnout)
Deep sea welder (high risk of death)
North sea fisherman (death / crippling injury)
NFL player (risk of career ending injury every time they play or practice and long-term brain damage due to concussive blows)

I agree with all of the above, but the percentage of the population represented by your examples is extremely small, less than 1%, while high paid executives are probably in the 10% range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
199
[MEIST]
Members
870 posts
3,054 battles
51 minutes ago, NoZoupForYou said:

Nailed it.  We think of all our interactions with the conqueror on a one v one basis. We don’t think of it as taking it down as a team. If you’re in a division, they’re pretty easy to take down if you focus fire.

If you need the whole team to take it down, then the ship may have a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
172
[NEMO]
[NEMO]
Members
755 posts
6,963 battles
Just now, jager_geist said:

If you need the whole team to take it down, then the ship may have a problem.

Sounds just like the Kurfurst or the Yamato.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
199
[MEIST]
Members
870 posts
3,054 battles

Neither has that incredible rate of heal. Neither has a detection lower than cruisers and I don't think they also have their citadel underwater, unlike her. The chances of fire I do not know what it is amongst the 3, but she sure seems to cause fires more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×