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

How many people here are happy about the Conqueror BB nerf?

Anyone happy about the Conqueror BB nerf?  

113 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you happy with the Conqueror BB nerf?

    • Yes
      61
    • No
      52
  2. 2. Do you want bacon

    • Yes
      85
    • No
      28

73 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

22,907
[HINON]
Supertester
19,236 posts
12,772 battles

It's only a tiny nerf that won't do much. Hopefully it'll be enough to stop the whining.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
699
[OO7]
Members
2,092 posts
8,191 battles

Depends on what you mean...happy about it receiving any sort of nerf at all, yes. Happy about the quality/effectiveness of them, hell no

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
397
Members
2,398 posts
7,721 battles

No, not happy at all.

 

Players complain about the stupid OP HE shell, that deals 10-15k plus 2 fires per salvo. And WG nerf the survivability. 

 

That wont change anything, most of Conqueror/Lion players stay at max range spamming HE, nerfing survivability wont change that. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
678
[-VT3-]
Members
1,626 posts
3,364 battles
4 minutes ago, Xlap said:

No, not happy at all.

 

Players complain about the stupid OP HE shell, that deals 10-15k plus 2 fires per salvo. And WG nerf the survivability. 

 

That wont change anything, most of Conqueror/Lion players stay at max range spamming HE, nerfing survivability wont change that. 

WG can't win, can they?  If they sledgehammered the Conqueror, people would be complaining.  They try a more nuanced approach, FOR ONCE IN THEIR LIVES, and people still harp about it.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
397
Members
2,398 posts
7,721 battles
3 minutes ago, DerKrampus said:

WG can't win, can they?  If they sledgehammered the Conqueror, people would be complaining.  They try a more nuanced approach, FOR ONCE IN THEIR LIVES, and people still harp about it.

They can win, if they do the right thing... People complain about the OP HE shell and WG nerf the heal? Yep, that solves the problem...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,089
[HINON]
WoWS Wiki Editor
6,247 posts
3,106 battles
17 minutes ago, Xlap said:

No, not happy at all.

 

Players complain about the stupid OP HE shell, that deals 10-15k plus 2 fires per salvo. And WG nerf the survivability. 

 

That wont change anything, most of Conqueror/Lion players stay at max range spamming HE, nerfing survivability wont change that. 

 

 

This post goes into the practically behind nerfing the survivability, and why it's a better idea than nerfing the damage output. It's a very well reasoned read, and I highly recommend you take a look. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
397
Members
2,398 posts
7,721 battles
5 minutes ago, RivertheRoyal said:

 

 

This post goes into the practically behind nerfing the survivability, and why it's a better idea than nerfing the damage output. It's a very well reasoned read, and I highly recommend you take a look. 

I saw this, and i disagree with the conclusion (Just IMO). Most Conquerors spam HE from Max range, this means that nerfing the survivability wont do that much. 

 

Also that HE spam from long range has no counter, he will burn you no matter what you do. There is no counter other than run as fast as you can and hope he target other ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
614
[_AFW_]
Members
984 posts
7,021 battles
4 minutes ago, Xlap said:

I saw this, and i disagree with the conclusion (Just IMO). Most Conquerors spam HE from Max range, this means that nerfing the survivability wont do that much. 

 

Also that HE spam from long range has no counter, he will burn you no matter what you do. There is no counter other than run as fast as you can and hope he target other ship.

I can do this very thing but better with the Zao. Better accuracy, rate of fire and a ship that is faster and handles better making it easy to avoid hits from other ships. Also the Zao is a lot more fun to play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
91
[VVV]
Beta Testers
800 posts
5,159 battles

I'm not happy about the nerf, I don't think it'll change the stats they feel is op. It's not a brawler style BB so nerfing it's only chance to get up close, will not mean the stats will go down. It means the players playing the ship will be more passive and have to be behind the team rather then in line with the team pushing. I still don't believe we should nerf damage of the ship either. I think it needs to have two play styles. Buffing the AP in line with other BB's for the 419's, and keeping the 457's as a fire starter. That would please many wanting a fire nerf since the 457's have less guns so less fires just from that alone, meanwhile the 419's will still have a place and a different playstyle. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,273
[RKLES]
Members
7,214 posts
9,006 battles

I am not sure if the HE and fire in and of itself is the main problem as much as the fire chances of Royal Navy BBs since it does not usually take much of any hits at all to start at least 1 or more fires.

When even Cruisers known for setting fires have to usually get multiple shells to hit and numerous salvos often times to set fire to a ship. All too often if 1 shell RN BB shell hits you out of 1 salvo then you catch fire.

Aside from CA fire chances brining seemingly lower than RN BBs, the CAs also have the balance adding factor that if they are close enough to be spamming HE and setting fires then they are also well within range usually to be getting return fire directed at them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
397
Members
2,398 posts
7,721 battles
14 minutes ago, Shadow_NA said:

I can do this very thing but better with the Zao. Better accuracy, rate of fire and a ship that is faster and handles better making it easy to avoid hits from other ships. Also the Zao is a lot more fun to play. 

Zao has less range, the shells does less damage, less fire chance, i can hit and kill the Zao back. Zao is strong, but not OP. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
Members
545 posts
2,962 battles
55 minutes ago, Xlap said:

No, not happy at all.

 

Players complain about the stupid OP HE shell, that deals 10-15k plus 2 fires per salvo. And WG nerf the survivability. 

 

That wont change anything, most of Conqueror/Lion players stay at max range spamming HE, nerfing survivability wont change that. 

It indirectly nerfs the long term impact which should push the damage down. I also think its good they cant spam the heal as fast. I suspect the result wont change enough though so its only the start.

I'd like the see it lose some AA so Montana can have its crown back, and lose the 16" guns but I don't think either will ever happen. I suspect minimal citadel changes next followed by a tweak to the fire damage and I think that will ultimately be it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
145
[JEEP]
Beta Testers
577 posts
4,615 battles

WG  "LOGIC" IN A NUTSHELL -

*Releases a badly broken, misaligned, and really incoherent BB line for a nation that for much of the life of Battleships had the most powerful navy afloat

*Deliberately underguns the entire BB line

*Then tells its playerbase "Hey these guns arent so great, but spam HE! Thatll do ya!"

*Hears a multitude of players complain as suddenly a broken mechanic that was prior abused mainly by wallet warriors and statpadders is now being abused by damn near everyone working up the line

*Decides 'hey we should nerf the ultimate reward for working through this mess of a line we made, while doing NOTHING to address the problem"

*Further drops hints that they 'are unhappy with how many players are in BBs and not in CL/CAs, DDs or CVs" when CL/CAs (esp American) have been suffering huge power creep, DDs are the most OP line of the entire game, with CVs  being a close second.



Ya. BRILLIANT I tell ya! BRILLIANT!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
397
Members
2,398 posts
7,721 battles
6 minutes ago, ksix said:

It indirectly nerfs the long term impact which should push the damage down. I also think its good they cant spam the heal as fast. I suspect the result wont change enough though so its only the start.

I'd like the see it lose some AA so Montana can have its crown back, and lose the 16" guns but I don't think either will ever happen. I suspect minimal citadel changes next followed by a tweak to the fire damage and I think that will ultimately be it.

I have to disagree, most Conquerors i see in game fight from very long range, and at that range this nerf wont make any difference. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,417 posts
8,276 battles

I think the repair party nerf is a mistake.  They should not make the recharge/reload time longer.  Instead, they should make the active time 28 seconds (vs. 20s) like the other T10 BBs and nip the max amount repair (HP recovery) within the active duration. 

Edited by lemekillmister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,263
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,803 posts
15,265 battles
1 hour ago, Mr_Alex said:

Just a simple poll

Wouldn't it have just been easier to throw a stray cat into the middle of a dog show? (nothing personal @Lert)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,263
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,803 posts
15,265 battles
1 hour ago, pmgaudio said:

Iqgcn3s.gif

Best Meme ... ever!

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,826 posts
5,599 battles
1 hour ago, YukonHunter said:

Once again, BBs get the middle finger from WG, with pro statpadders saying "Oh its ok its just a lil nerf'.


Ya. NO.  Gettin real fuckin tired of this crapfrom WG. Every fuckin patch as of late, BBs get another nerf, CODD!p$h!ts get another freebie or outright  buff; resulting in matches where [edited] in DDs outnumber BBs on each side; especially tier 7+.  When I see pro statpadding  twats like notso or flamo saying its a good thing; I know without question its ONLY good for their stats and not the balance of the game. Yes, fire is broken - that is not the fault of ONE BB or even one LINE of BBs; that is a massive flaw inherent to the game and propagated by the ABSOLUTE IDIOTS AT WG.

Am I bitter? You better fuckin believe Im bitter. Makes me glad even Jingles has backed off backing this game because right now? WG needs a frozen muckluk shoved right in  the gonads.

 

28 minutes ago, YukonHunter said:

WG  "LOGIC" IN A NUTSHELL -

*Releases a badly broken, misaligned, and really incoherent BB line for a nation that for much of the life of Battleships had the most powerful navy afloat

*Deliberately underguns the entire BB line

*Then tells its playerbase "Hey these guns arent so great, but spam HE! Thatll do ya!"

*Hears a multitude of players complain as suddenly a broken mechanic that was prior abused mainly by wallet warriors and statpadders is now being abused by damn near everyone working up the line

*Decides 'hey we should nerf the ultimate reward for working through this mess of a line we made, while doing NOTHING to address the problem"

*Further drops hints that they 'are unhappy with how many players are in BBs and not in CL/CAs, DDs or CVs" when CL/CAs (esp American) have been suffering huge power creep, DDs are the most OP line of the entire game, with CVs  being a close second.



Ya. BRILLIANT I tell ya! BRILLIANT!!

latest?cb=20151012172000

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
152
Members
545 posts
2,962 battles
27 minutes ago, lemekillmister said:

I think the repair party nerf is a mistake.  They should not make the recharge/reload time longer.  Instead, they should make the active time 28 seconds (vs. 20s) like the other T10 BBs and nip the max amount repair (HP recovery) within the active duration. 

They're clearly intent on leaving the zombie heal and fire chance as gimmicks. Neither should of made it out of testing but WG have shown themselves time and time again that they're stubborn bastards and will let things fester for months/years.

Edited by ksix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
145
[JEEP]
Beta Testers
577 posts
4,615 battles
1 minute ago, GhostSwordsman said:

 

latest?cb=20151012172000

O look a Uniscum trying to deflect from fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×