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.
HMS Conqueror Should not be Nerfed Yet - World of Warships
Admiral Spoor – Flawed if not Fraudulent Statistics and Zoup's Hypocrisy
“Highly Controversial Topic” 1:38 to 1:45
Only because Flamu keeps blaming casuals (classic example of hating the player, not the game), and you conveniently have backed down from your previous “Are Battleships Ruining the Game” position
“Just because it's powerful, does it mean it's overpowered” 2:00 to 2:06
To keep things simple, yes.
Not entirely serious, but any powerful meta or ship inevitably will be met with calls for patches to deal with it
Back before stealth fire was removed, HE-spam and Torp spam DD's and Cruisers were overpowered; now they suck unless you're a Belfast or have a bunch of smoke; which luckily now there's no shortage of
Back when Tier 4 and 5 CV's had manual drop, they were OP, now they suck and this “targeted casual change” hurt everyone, skilled and potato alike because how the hell are you going to train for that transition to manual strafes as filthy potato with no ability to do so with your first CV.
Never mind a skilled player if you wish to throw down in low tier CV's no longer exert the influence that once dominated low tier games
“Is the Conqueror Overpowered and should it be nerfed?” 2:21 to 2:28
Yes, and then No.
The [edited]? how can I say it's OP but not need nerfing?
At this point I'm simply pleased to see two CC's scrambling to rage at something in the game and them blame anyone but themselves, flawed analysis, or bad influences, or profit motive
Also assuming they nerfed the ship at all, given that almost every patch since launch has categorically made things worse (even if we assume it's aimed at casuals) it rewards precisely no one.
“Oh, but play has gotten so much worse since 6.11” some may say.
Perhaps that's because of the stupidly high attrition rate of new and existing players, which are then replaced with other new players who will profoundly suck and dilute the already limited talent pool; note, I do not exempt myself.
“It would be highly presumptuous of me to say it should be nerfed” 2:33 to 2:37
As presumptuous as anything you've said lately that was either under-analyzed or unsubstantiated by evidence?
I understand obviously what I say is presumptuous as well, but I as well as everyone will call attention to that.
“I'm not just going to give you my raw emotion” 2:45 to 2:49
What's with people front-loading the wrong [edited]information
Nevermind that's what you opened with and what follows is an emotional interpretation of largely incomplete statistical analyses; assuming any had been done at all; and failed comparisons between actually comparable phenomena
I.E. his use of the Nikolai, never mind Tier 4 MM helps it now, or conveniently ignoring that Tier X, the Conqueror performs better than all the BB's on its tier.
“Only 90k battles on the EU and NA servers combined” 2:55 to 3:00
The old “Not enough data argument”, are you for [edited]real?
Nevermind that's a huge uptick of battles in a relatively short time, it performs well and above the other ships on it's tier for vanilla BB's
Granted, I would use your numbers to say Battleships aren't ruining the game because guess what Tier Xs outperform the Conqueror in nearly every respect?
Also, conveniently missing was a comparison WITHIN the nation but we'll get there.
“Mere mortal numbers” 3:10 to 3:20
You know within half a percent of mortals like the Kutuzov, Neptune, or Warspite.
“It's trending with . . .” -Zoup . . . It's not
“The Yamato averaged high damage” 3:46
In a meta where American BB's were squishy as [edited], were main AA, and Carriers were not rendered completely pointless to try to grind.
“Personally I think Win Rate is more indicative . . .” 4:30
Remember before when I said he'd contradict himself, this wouldn't be emotional
Never mind that I happen to agree with him partially, but the problem is as we've noted before, either due to laziness or convenient and deliberate omission, he's overlooked the factors that contribute to why it's overpowered on it's tier much less on the top three tiers.
There was a reason why I factored in the stats for ALL ships for ALL time in m video, because the claim he made was “Battleships” were ruining the game, not “A” BB, so if that were the case you'd expect within any standard deviation a large gap, which simply doesn't exist even if you use all-time data, since presumably this problem has existed since his video months ago “The Current State of Battleships”
This is also ignoring that among Tier Xs alone, you'd then begin asking for other Destroyers, CV's, or Cruisers to be nerfed, which is patently absurd.
“But the point still stands . . .” 4:40 to 4:50
It literally does not
You've failed to establish whether or not despite your alleged analysis of stats or use of economics whether or not Damage correlates to victories
I did! As it turns out it does for DD's and BB's, but it does nto for CA's and CL's, and for CV's, well they were murdered as collateral damage for getting rid of Battleships thanks to the ineptitude of you, Noster, and Flamu
You have also failed to establish precisely how other ships that outperform the Conqueror also do more damage AND win more often, which is another convenient oversight.
Finally, while being a rampant hypocrite does not necessarily invalidate a point by itself, in this case is does because if light cruiser tactics are how it racks up damage, then it should be unsurprising precisely why it has “mortal” numbers compared to the four ships that perform around or above it.
“As of right now, I don't see the evidence to prove it” 5:00
Emotional statement, ignores evidence before him, including his own evidence from the past.
This applies to myself as well in many cases, I will not ignore that.
Also, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
I did show on average BB's win perhaps slightly more often, but the standard deviation was always higher on NA and EU, so you have a larger pool of inconsistent performance, which more accurately depicts that you cannot win consistently in those classes in a vacuum.
“When pounded relentlessly . . . by destroyers . . . easy to take down” 5:05 to 5:15
Are you [edited]kidding me?
This is what I imagine is the controversy also
So we've evolved from are “Battleships ruining the game” because there's no counter to ALL Battleships, into “Well this Battleship has counters, and it's destroyers”
F**k off. If this is true now, then at least point out how hypocritical your statement is
And presumably, it has always been true that a decent DD can deal with a good BB.
Basically you can't have your cake and eat it too
What? iI your next video then going to be “Is HE overpowered . . .”? Oh wait, you actually made it and I called it in your "Battleships are ruining the game" video
“Who are the players playing it” 5:16
By now, enough, if not everyone who cared to get this piece of crapthat has created an anti-potato crapstorm
Because obviously casuals want to spend money, immediately, to get the latest and greatest; and obviously follow obsessively the trend-lines and stat reports of the best stuff in any game.
“I haven't seen enough” 5:39
Thank you Wargaming, I am pleased to see you showed up.
Comrade commissar, he's towing the party line at long last, he agrees with the company
To be fair, nothing wrong with agreeing with the company; assuming there's something valid to be agreed with.
“What makes a ship OP, I'm gonna let the economics major in myself come out” 5:40 to 5:50
Appeal to authority is always good basis to argue I find
Oh, and, you're not, otherwise by now you would have pointed out the flawed economic analysis in your stats, but what do I know, I'm a casual potato who wants a Conqueror right?
“In my opinion” 5:53
You're either doing this quantitative analysis or you're not, otherwise shut the [edited] up hypocrite.
“Nikolai is 100% overpowered” 6:00 to 6:06
How can that be when it has the same destroyer weakness as allegedly the Conqueror has in your video, AND if you use Warship Numbers, you can actually get PROOF statistically
“The oft Orion only 53%” 6:19
Only competing with the Destroyer Gremyanschy, I see no problems there obviously
“Some people have called the Orion overpowered” 6:30 to 6:33
Yes, because the only thing that out performs it as a battleship on it's tier is the [edited]Nikolai
“The stats aren't there to prove it” 6:39 to 6:41
Then what constitutes proof because MY proof wasn't good enough for you, to anyone in the larger quote, “potato” community, but 53% isn't demonstrable enough? Are we looking at the same [edited]information?
“The Statistical spread of players on each skill level” 6:56
Never mind skill is subjective in many respects given the RNG nature of the game, but let's indulge this emotional analysis a bit more
Maple Syrup Stats Engine: http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/index.html
First I want to thank the Discord of WoWs for showing me this, but this helps run the statistics for you
So either he was too lazy to investigate the standard deviation of performance which somewhat captures skill, I.E. the ability to perform consistently across multiple matches which have random teams assembled; or he simply didn't want to
He could have taken the simpler approach and did an all-time standard deviation comparison, but I suppose that would be too much work for an economics major
“This is something we can't gain from stat tracking sites” 6:57 to 7:01
“Significant boost to all players” 7:07 to 7:10
In other words, economics major, the bell curve is not normally distributed and has a positive skew?
“Does it provide the ability to get that higher win rate” 7:40 to 7:50
Never mind given your rhetorical question that those ships you mentioned would elevate the WNR of a player anyway, but we'll ignore that as you did for now
“Are both those conditions met” 7:50
“The Easy answer is there's no way for us to know” 7:50 to 7:54
You're right, that is the easy answer, it's also the wrong answer as explained in detail before.
8:00 to 9:23
He largely spends this time rambling and repeating himself saying “You just can't call it OP”, largely refusing to actually do what he alleges he would or did attempt to do.
Despite having a pleasant past three days largely avoiding the forum, debates concerning the game's design, just playing this, and Verdun, I returned too late in night to my own curiosity haunting me. I am debating whether or not I will edit together a video and record something based on this script or simply leave this here as it's detailed enough to capture the perspective I'm stuck with. What complete garbage, I am getting tired of this stupidity.