World Conqueror 2 Max General

Now, let's see what we can actually tell about the ship from the data provided.1. Who plays Conqueror?The wowdevblog post is interesting because it provided access to data that the public normally doesn't get to see. Rather than providing player-base-wide statistics like Warships.today or wows-numbers, they pulled the numbers for only those players who own Conqueror.This allows us to compare the numbers for Conqueror Players (wowsdevblog) vs. The playerbase as a whole (warships.today 2wk):Damage:CQ PlayersDamage:General PlayerbaseWinrate:CQ PlayersWinrate:General PlayerbaseConqueror108,22%51.06Montana97,4%49.67Yamato95,2%50.29GK91,3%50.68There's one very consistent takeaway from this comparison, which is that Conqueror ownership is skewed toward above-average battleship players. In all four ships, Conqueror owners have higher damage and winrate than the general population. I didn't list them, but the same is also true of survival rate and kills/death.Conclusion: Conqueror is still owned primarily by above-average players.This supports the popular belief that ship stats in the first few months after release are skewed toward high-skill players who acquire them first, and confirms that this bias persists for at least that several-month window. It refutes the theory that Conqueror's strangely low winrate is due to skill dilution as the general masses have gotten a hold of the ship over time - the Conqueror playerbase is still skewed toward high skill.Finally, a minor technical note.

In World Conqueror II you will be a general to accomplish a lot of important campaigns during World War II and Cold War. You can fight with or against those famous generals including Guderian, Rommel, Patton, Zhukov, Nimitz, MacArthur, Yamamoto, Montgomery and de Gaulle. It’s so impressive to see their unique tactics and ace forces. World Conqueror 2 v1.3.8 Mod Apk Money In World Conqueror II you will be a general to accomplish a lot of important campaigns during World War II and Cold War. You can fight with or against those famous generals including Guderian, Rommel, Patton, Zhukov, Nimitz, MacArthur, Yamamoto, Montgomery and de Gaulle.

There is a close but imperfect match on the Conqueror numbers. This makes sense, since WG has access to all users' statistics, while public sites like Warships.today and wows-numbers cannot see data for players with hidden stats. However, the values are close enough (and admittedly, a few days have passed since the post) that the data should be comparable.2. What is Conqueror's food?The data also contained a breakdown of damage by type of ship the Conqueror shot. This data is normally unavailable to the public.DD healthbarsCA healthbarsBB healthbarsTotal 'ships' of damage doneConqueror0.1580.4730.9621.615Montana0.1690.7080.7171.622Yamato0.1360.6090.7661.531GK0.1690.6620.7171.554The percentages shown are '% of a healthbar of the ship being shot'. One-shotting a full-health destroyer for 20k would show up as '100.0%' in the original chart, but I've converted it to the easier-to-understand '1 DD healthbar' in the chart above.

Knocking that same 20k off a 40k-max HP cruiser would show up as a '0.5 CA healthbars' in the cruiser column. Blasting a 100k HP battleship for 20k would show up as '0.2 BB healthbars'. The general idea here is that it's far less important how many HP of damage you do, and far more important how many ships or fractions-of-ships you're taking away in a round. Note that this is the same basic system used to calculate XP earnings in-game. Also note that it will often take more than 100% HP to kill a ship, if it is allowed to repair, as it effectively has more HP than 'one healthbar' at that point.So what does this tell us? First of all, it tells us what kinds of ships Conqueror players are aiming at.

It's battleships. Holy crap, is it battleships. While all four BBs do similar amounts of damage to destroyers (an average of 15% of a destroyer kill per round), Conqueror has much higher BB damage per round. Where is all that firepower coming from?

Turns out, it's coming from NOT shooting cruisers - Conqueror has only 2/3 as many average cruiserbars as the other BBs.Second question, is Conqueror really more lethal than the other battleships? Going by the last column of ship-equivalents killed, the answer is, perhaps surprisingly, no. In fact, among this (remember, above-average) group, Montana is actually just as lethal. The big difference is in how that lethality is achieved. Montana takes that bite largely out of cruisers, killing an average of 0.708 cruisers per match (almost 50% more than Conqueror's 0.473!). Conqueror, on the other hand, gets its damage from battleships.

Since battleships have much larger health bars, this shows up as a higher amount of damage done overall, but results in only the same amount of 'ship' being killed.Conclusion: Conqueror feeds on battleships instead of cruisers like every other BB.In terms of balance decisions, this is informative. It means that Conqueror's HE-heavy style of play is being applied primarily against other battleships, and has actually lessened the threat against cruisers, at least the way people are playing her today. Since WG believes BBs are slightly overpopulated and CAs are too threatened, this actually means Conqueror's HE spam is good for class balance.It may also explain why Conqueror's winrate is not significantly different from the other battleships. While ships like Montana and Grosser Kurfurst are efficient at removing cruisers from the battlefield quickly, Conqueror is busy grinding down battleships. This would result in high damage output, but kills would occur later in the match, giving the enemy more time to deal damage to the Conqueror's team.

The slow-acting HE+fire damage of Conqueror, therefore, would be less impactful on the match than early-game burst that removed enemy guns quickly.3. Does Conqueror do more damage, or just live longer?Conqueror lives significantly longer than any other battleship in the game under most circumstances. Given its extremely potent repair party consumable, this should not be surprising. This leads to an interesting question: is Conqueror really putting out more damage than the other BBs, or is it putting out similar levels of damage and being propped up by its extreme survivability?

If Conqueror is due for a nerf, this distinction is important: is it the ship's offensive capability level that needs to come down, or its defensive capability level?Average DamageAverage Time in GameAverage DPMConqueror108,88Montana97,04Yamato95,33GK91,04It turns out that the answer is a little of both. Conqueror does more DPM, and also does it for longer. However, an important adjustment is needed here. As we all know, basically no firing takes place during the first 2 minutes or so of a round, as ships sail toward the capture points but contact has not yet been made. It doesn't make sense to tally DPM over a period of time in which includes non-combat action - DPM is artificially zero for this period.

If all the ships live about the same amount of time, then this doesn't matter, because everyone still gets the same amount of active engagement time. However, Conqueror lives significantly longer than the others, and that extra minute or so is 100% engagement time.So, here are the numbers after adjusting the DPM to ignore 2 minutes of non-combat time at the beginning of each round:Average DamageAverage Time in GameAverage Combat Time in GameAdjusted Average DPMConqueror108.4610349Montana97,14211.849.849872Yamato95,91711.5GK91,98111.359.359838These numbers are, by and large, now very close. Conqueror is within spitting distance of Yamato's DPM, and all four battleships are within a 500 DPM spread. The total DPM numbers vary by only 5% between highest and lowest, which is a quite tight spread, all told.Conclusion: Conqueror is not putting out more DPM than other Tier X Battleships. It is living longer while doing similar damage.This means that, again IF Conqueror were to be targeted for a nerf, it is the defensive capabilities that should be examined more closely. Its guns are not delivering more intense damage pressure than the other battleships, they're just around longer to do it.Final thoughts: Does the Conqueror nerf make sense?Well. Analysis 3 above shows that if something is due for a nerfing on Conqueror, it should be its survivability.

Definitely not the guns. And that's what we're getting, a nerf to the cooldown of the repair consumable and a token reduction in its ability to disappear between salvos at medium-short range. So, the nerf is targeted to the right area.But was a nerf really needed due to OP-ness? In all honesty, given the more in-depth data we now have, the answer may very well be no. Conqueror doesn't kill more ships per game than the other battleships (and it's not just KS'ing, it's also true of healthbars overall).

And that's the case even though it spends nearly 10% more time in combat than the other ships. The damage it's doing is primarily to other battleships, and seeing a Conqueror on the opposing team is actually better for cruisers than seeing a Montana or Kurfurst.And yet, it's also hard to deny that fighting a Conqueror is a supremely irritating experience. It disappears whenever it wants.

You're always on 2 fires. If you can't kill it inside 60 seconds, you're not going to for a very long time. The Conqueror may not be more impactful than other battleships, but the quality of life of fighting one just sucks. In that sense, the proposed nerfs make even more sense. The concealment nerf makes it less likely to ambush your cruiser or pull a ninja vanishing act in the middle of a fight.

The heal nerf was specifically to the cooldown of the consumable, and not its amount or intensity of healing while active. That means that the Conqueror isn't any easier to burst down than it was before, but if you can keep it lit, you now have a much longer window of time in which to kill it before the next super heal happens.Ultimately, the 'nerfs' to Conqueror are really more about quality of life than sheer power. They file down the rough edges around the cloaking device and miracle heal power. They don't lower its damage output, they don't change its targeting priorities, and they don't make it less survivable in the long run. And according the numbers, that's exactly how it should be.TL;DR: Conq is owned by above-average players, who burn battleships with it instead of blapping cruisers. It doesn't actually do more DPM than other BBs, it just lives longer.

The nerfs change none of that, they just make the ship less annoying to fight.P.S. If replying, pleeeease don't quote the whole post. Highlight some text with your mouse and a 'Quote this' button will pop up. Edited October 11, 2017 by Edgecase. For the most part, spot on.My only contention would be the whys of the thing.

Why is the Conq doing so much less to cruisers? The simple answer is, most of them have HE loaded 100% of the time and firing HE at cruisers is nearly always less effective than firing AP.

The question then is, is that a weakness with the playstyle being used or the ship itself? The answer to that pretty conclusively, is that it's a playstyle issue. If a BB captain fires AP at cruisers he does as well as the Montana, while retaining the advantage vs BBs.I dislike the plastyle the Conq encourages. Standing off and blinking in and out of visibility with a 30 second reload and 20 second bloom. This is pure bullship especially considering the same BB captains whined about 'stealth fire' when it was DDs.

The same logic that applies to DD not having a 5 second bloom because it leads to ships blinking in and out should apply BBs, the Conq just happens to exploit that mechanic more than any other BB thanks to its very short detection range.The Conq also has a problem with a lack of counter play. Against a BB normally you can angle and reduce the area they can pen with AP, if they switch to HE then they do significantly less damage so either way you have done something to lower your damage intake. Against Conq, that isn't really the case. The HE hits very very hard and of course has silly fire chances on top of that. Angling does stop him from swapping to AP and getting citadels, but it does very little to reduce incoming damage. The below water citadel means that it doesn't have to worry about citadels in return, from anything. So you end up with a BB that flat wins 1v1 encounters with BBs, flat wins 1v1s with CA, and does as well or better against DD than any other T10 BB.

That is not a balanced ship. Broken by design.I suspect that the increased cooldown on repair will only make them more irritating. They will still have by far the largest health pool of any BB, they just have to play even more passive to make sure that they get to use it all.

That could be countered by upping the detection to something more like Yamato and increasing the bloom time for all BBs to a minimum of 30 seconds. Final thoughts: Does the Conqueror nerf make sense?Well.

Analysis 3 above shows that if something is due for a nerfing on Conqueror, it should be its survivability. Definitely not the guns. And that's what we're getting, a nerf to the cooldown of the repair consumable and a token reduction in its ability to disappear between salvos at medium-short range. So, the nerf is targeted to the right area.And yet, it's also hard to deny that fighting a Conqueror is a supremely irritating experience. It disappears whenever it wants.

You're always on 2 fires. If you can't kill it inside 60 seconds, you're not going to for a very long time. The Conqueror may not be more impactful than other battleships, but the quality of life of fighting one just sucks. In that sense, the proposed nerfs make even more sense.

The concealment nerf makes it less likely to ambush your cruiser or pull a ninja vanishing act in the middle of a fight. The heal nerf was specifically to the cooldown of the consumable, and not its amount or intensity of healing while active. The wowdevblog post is interesting because it provided access to data that the public normally doesn't get to see.

Rather than providing player-base-wide statistics like Warships.today or wows-numbers, they pulled the numbers for only those players who own Conqueror.This allows us to compare the numbers for Conqueror Players (wowsdevblog) vs. The playerbase as a whole (warships.today 2wk):Damage:CQ PlayersDamage:General PlayerbaseWinrate:CQ PlayersWinrate:General PlayerbaseConqueror108,22%51.06Montana97,4%49.67Yamato95,2%50.29GK91,3%50.68There's one very consistent takeaway from this comparison, which is that Conqueror ownership is skewed toward above-average battleship players. In all four ships, Conqueror owners have higher damage and winrate than the general population.

I didn't list them, but the same is also true of survival rate and kills/death.Conclusion: Conqueror is still owned primarily by above-average players.I'm not entirely sure that I can draw the same conclusion from the data presented. Is it that Conqueror is primarily owned by 'Above-average players,' or is it that Conqueror is itself easier to play 'above-average' in?A better source of data would be to show the median Overall WR of players who play those ships primarily and comparing that, instead of showing a mean WR value for each ship of players that own Conqueror.

The Conq also has a problem with a lack of counter play. Against a BB normally you can angle and reduce the area they can pen with AP, if they switch to HE then they do significantly less damage so either way you have done something to lower your damage intake. Against Conq, that isn't really the case. The HE hits very very hard and of course has silly fire chances on top of that. Angling does stop him from swapping to AP and getting citadels, but it does very little to reduce incoming damage.

The below water citadel means that it doesn't have to worry about citadels in return, from anything. So you end up with a BB that flat wins 1v1 encounters with BBs, flat wins 1v1s with CA, and does as well or better against DD than any other T10 BB. That is not a balanced ship. Broken by design.I agree.

And most of that is the below-water citadel. Nothing to do with the Superheal itself, it was the foolish decision to lower the citadel that broke this ship.Edited October 11, 2017 by CarrierLexingtonS.

The root problem is that WG has yet to address the HE in-balance in the game. So to building an entire line that uses HE as a BB line was doomed to fail from the start. While the ship may need adjustments, once again WG goes about it the wrong way. Reduce the amount healed, not the time between heals. We are talking about a ship that has no real torp early warning (no hydro, no plane) and has very soft armor.

Extending the time between being able to heal will cause this (and the tier 9 Lion) to become one of the worse high tier BBs. Only if the CA carries torps and in ambush would a CA accept a CQB fight. That or being able to loft shells over an island. Or inside smoke like a Mino.Not true. I've seen lots of CAs get into CQ fights and deal large amounts of damage to broadside battleships with AP.

Des Moines and Zao are notable examples.And Conqueror, with its inaccessible citadel, is just another slap in the face for cruiser players. They can't burn it down, they can't deal raw HE damage to it, they can't pen it at range, and the only way to deal with it is to get close. But only if you have torpedoes. And there's only one cruiser at Tier 10 that doesn't have Torpedoes and relies on Citadel Damage to punish BBs.You disregard my first point, however: if you were to raise the citadel of Conqueror, you wouldn't need to play with the consumables or change the concealment. The citadel would balance her, as a citadel is supposed to do. While I agree with the conclusion you draw from the data, what I would say would be a more logical nerf would be to leave the consumables alone and increase the height of its citadel.The raised citadel solution only affects Conqueror's balance against other battleships (plus a few CAs in specific circumstances).

If the Conqueror's problem were that BBs couldn't hurt it (but CAs were fine), the raised citadel would be a good option. Since the data did not include anything on incoming sources of damage, it's difficult to say whether that's the case.The solution they did propose - increasing the heal cooldown - affects Conqueror's medium term survivability against all ship types by widening the window during which the ship can be killed by concentrated fire if it does not disengage. This leads me to believe that WG viewed the problem as Conqueror being too hard for anyone to kill, not just one specific class.The heal cooldown increase also makes things 'more comfortable' (as WG likes to say) for other players. If Conqueror does disengage under heavy fire, it will eventually come back and resume burnination (as it does today), but the longer CD means everyone else on the battlefield gets a 40 second breather as well, and that takes some of the edge off the 'feels bad to fight' aspect.

Nice work OP. One of the things or hidden things the Conqueror does or at least I think it does is that it takes away from teammates ability to do damage. Many ships rely on HE/fire spam as a main source of damage. With Conqueror easily obtaining 10-15 or more fires per game.other ships that used to get damage that way don't anymore or as much as its more difficult to get a second fire than a first.I don't have any data supporting that but it stands to reason that if one ship is generating so much more damage from a constant damage/health pool, it is simply taking damage away from other ships hence the WR% still in line with other ships.

Now, when there are multiple RNBB's in a game the health pool numbers can be skewed higher with the crazy high heals. But even with the added healthpools other ships damage numbers haven't jumped.Would love to see the average damage output of all other ships with or without a Conqueror in the game. My only contention would be the whys of the thing. Why is the Conq doing so much less to cruisers? The simple answer is, most of them have HE loaded 100% of the time and firing HE at cruisers is nearly always less effective than firing AP. The question then is, is that a weakness with the playstyle being used or the ship itself?

The answer to that pretty conclusively, is that it's a playstyle issue. If a BB captain fires AP at cruisers he does as well as the Montana, while retaining the advantage vs BBs.I actually agree with this. Anecdotally, very high-level players in Conqueror have suggested they use far more AP than the typical current player does.

However, I'm completely okay with this. If the ship gets a 'typical player' to act as a BB-suppressing ship that doesn't maul cruisers very often, then that's good for Random matches. If high-end players see a different potential and sail it in some other way, then that's not necessarily a bad thing either. A ship should ideally be designed to benefit the game at all player levels, and fit the character of the game at those different levels.That said, the data we have today is from the playstyles people have today. If any ship's playstyle shifts dramatically over time, WG will of course need to manage its effects at that time.

I'm not entirely sure that I can draw the same conclusion from the data presented. Is it that Conqueror is primarily owned by 'Above-average players,' or is it that Conqueror is itself easier to play 'above-average' in?A better source of data would be to show the median Overall WR of players who play those ships primarily and comparing that, instead of showing a mean WR value for each ship of players that own Conqueror.I actually prefer the data that WG provided. The comparison isn't between the ships, it's between the CQ Players and the General Playerbase for any given ship. CQ players are higher on damage, winrate, K/D, and survival than the general playerbase on all three of the comparison ships.

From that, we can pretty reasonably conclude that they are, as a group, better-than-average at playing T10 battleships.Edited October 11, 2017 by Edgecase. I'm really glad WG released that damage breakdown as percentages of a ship's hitpoints, because that really is far more important than raw numbers. Most players already know that doing 30k damage to enemy DD's is far, far more valuable than doing 30k damage to enemy BB's, but we've never had access to data that showed it before.Seeing that Conqueror is dealing its very high average damage mostly to enemy BB's, and actually hurting CA's less than other tier 10 BB's, makes it a look a lot more balanced. I wish we had data like this available for other ships.Edited October 11, 2017 by Vaidency.

Interesting take on the data. As a primarily cruiser player, I opted to acquire the Conq for. When I first got her, I was rocking a 70+% win rate and knocked out a couple of 250K+ battles. These were the happy times.(for reference, the best BB game I'd had previously was about 212K with my GK.)Of late, MM and changing player awareness have knocked that down a peg or two. I did get a 220K+ game last night, but that was on a loss where a GK and I were the last two standing on our team.

Meanwhile, my Conqueror WR has dropped below my GK and (new) Montana. Go fig.I'm just a slightly better than average potato, and I've had a good time with her so far, despite (and sometimes because of) other player's saltiness, and my own occasional ineptitude.While she's a bit of a riot to play, with time, I expect her to drop to the bottom of the leaderboards for the Tier X battleships, because in the end, she's really just a support ship, and as others have noted elsewhere, doesn't have the oomph to push objectives.

The incoming nerfs will only serve to cement that status. Time will tell.My 2 coppers.

World Conqueror 3 is a newly-developed strategy game released in 2015 by EASYTECH!Commander! War is about to begin.