Jump to content


Should match making be switched to 1 tier up and 1 tier down?


  • Please log in to reply
170 replies to this topic

_RC1138 #41 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:30 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 383
  • Member since:
    03-22-2015

View PostSkpstr, on 19 March 2017 - 09:23 PM, said:

 

do wonder how may of the players who complain about the +/-2 MM realised that they'd never be 2 tiers down, but never 2 up either.

 

I do, and to be as [edited]honest as possible it's totally worth it to lose the ability to stomp on people 2 tiers below me to not get it done to me on another day. I don't get off on being functionally immortal in a Scharnhorst against a New York or making a Bayrne worthless in an Amagi. It's a) not a good sign that the ability to exact the same unfair punishment on someone else is worthwhile in ruining other person's good time, and b) it's not worth it in the long run, which is what people need to think about, as it will kill player retention and make it harder for new players to start.

 

I can speak of my own experience in WoT to testify to this. I was a Warthunder guy, have nearly all tier 5's in all trees, but after playing WoWs I figured, hey, give WoT's a try. The T3 is brutal. Just, brutal. I think I've not been bottom tiered like once. And after about 2 dozen games playing that way, I gave up. It wasn't worth the effort. That's one less player retention in the long run. Now WoT's is starting from a MUCH bigger pool, but WoWs isn't, and we need to think like that, or boy will some people feel stupid having spent the money they have.


Never argue with a gun, it may argue back...

Fiona_Marshe #42 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:31 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 183
  • Member since:
    08-16-2013
T5 needs to stop seeing T7.  T5 are mostly WW1 and pre-treaty ships and just aren't survivable against WW2 era ships (with 20 years more advanced development time).

Almost as bad with T6 seeing T8 all the time.  Warspite can't even get T8 cruisers into range (too slow, shortest range of tier).

_RC1138 #43 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:32 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 383
  • Member since:
    03-22-2015

View Postcrzyhawk, on 19 March 2017 - 09:29 PM, said:

Catering to the "good" players doesn't seem to make sense in the long term.

 

It's never a good idea. There's a reason a Quake is still played now, more than 15 years after release. It wasn't balanced to elites, it was balanced for EVERYONE, and that makes it accessible and fun.

 

You can never lose by copying Quake, their design method, balancing method, and multiplayer setup. It is the *perfect* multiplayer game, with a very low skill floor and an insane skill ceiling. You can't do BETTER than Quake, you can only equal it. WoWs is FAR from Quake, but it has the potential to get there, and +-1 MM is one of the things that needs to be done to make this happen.

 

In Quake terms this would be like letting some get the rail gun but the other guy is limited to the shotgun. Can it work? Yeah? Can the elite, best players in the game make it work? Yeah. Would it make a game something people want to play 15 years later? Nope.


Edited by _RC1138, 20 March 2017 - 02:36 AM.

Never argue with a gun, it may argue back...

Hiroe #44 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:34 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 706
  • Member since:
    09-16-2013

View PostArIskandir, on 19 March 2017 - 10:22 PM, said:

Hey, don't tell me you support this "socialist" agenda of equality for the masses when it suits your interest... so much for the far right...

 

Uh, no, it doesn't quite work like that. Games are meant to be enjoyable, and getting steamrolled isn't enjoyable. I suggest that you do more thinking and less typing. Your understanding is woefully lacking.

 

Instruction in world history in the so-called high schools is even today in a very sorry condition. Few teachers understand that the study of history can never be to learn historical dates and events by heart and recite them by rote; that what matters is not whether the child knows exactly when this battle or that was fought, when a general was born, or even when a monarch (usually a very insignificant one) came into the crown of his forefathers. No, by the living God, this is very unimportant. To "learn" history means to seek and find the forces which are the causes leading to those effects which we subsequently perceive as historical events.


ArIskandir #45 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:36 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,753
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

View Postcrzyhawk, on 19 March 2017 - 08:29 PM, said:

If you've ever used that mod to see what the teams stats are, +/-1 looks pretty good.  There are some pretty bad players in this game, and forcing them to fight two tiers down in my eyes, is a bad idea.  You can talk challenge and all you want, the fact is, there is a high level of churn in this game, and generally a low skill level.  Catering to the "good" players doesn't seem to make sense in the long term.

 

The problem is once you start on that road (and we had) where do you set the line?

 

By all means, make MM same tier only, ships with main battery autofire like secondaries, no vision mechanics. It is the clear way to player happyness. Get rid of anything skill related, just point and click to input basic commands and let RNG do all the work, because obviously this is a game and you aren't supposed to "work" in a game, that's not fun.



_RC1138 #46 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:38 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 383
  • Member since:
    03-22-2015

View PostArIskandir, on 19 March 2017 - 09:36 PM, said:

 

The problem is once you start on that road (and we had) where do you set the line?

 

You wana line? Here's a line: if average players don't like it, don't do it. If you cross that line, you ruin the game long term.

 

Right now the game is bleeding by small cuts: nerfing torps into oblivion, making stealthfire worthless, [edited]with citadel heights to appease players or to make balance, and a load of other half measures that ignore the real problem. Even +-1 MM is a half measure, but it's better than what they have been doing if WGing chooses to ignore the real problem present in the game.


Edited by _RC1138, 20 March 2017 - 02:40 AM.

Never argue with a gun, it may argue back...

RivertheRoyal #47 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:41 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,591
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View Post_RC1138, on 19 March 2017 - 09:38 PM, said:

 

You wana line? Here's a line: if average players don't like it, don't do it. If you cross that line, you ruin the game long term.

 

Right now the game is bleeding by small cuts: nerfing torps into oblivion, making stealthfire worthless, [edited]with citadel heights to appease players or to make balance, and a load of other half measures that ignore the real problem. Even +-1 MM is a half measure, but it's better than what they have been doing if WGing chooses to ignore the real problem present in the game.

 

And what's the real problem, in your opinion? 
River's Guide on Writing a Good Post—Required reading for some.

Hiroe #48 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:41 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 706
  • Member since:
    09-16-2013

View PostArIskandir, on 19 March 2017 - 10:36 PM, said:

 

The problem is once you start on that road (and we had) where do you set the line?

 

By all means, make MM same tier only, ships with main battery autofire like secondaries, no vision mechanics. It is the clear way to player happyness. Get rid of anything skill related, just point and click to input basic commands and let RNG do all the work, because obviously this is a game and you aren't supposed to "work" in a game, that's not fun.

 

Not at all. Skill will still be rewarded (actually it will be more rewarded) with +/-1. It's extremely odd that the more skilled among us aren't enthusiastic about the idea. Hmm, maybe they wish to keep +/-2 out of a sense of tradition? If so that's more understandable.


 

Instruction in world history in the so-called high schools is even today in a very sorry condition. Few teachers understand that the study of history can never be to learn historical dates and events by heart and recite them by rote; that what matters is not whether the child knows exactly when this battle or that was fought, when a general was born, or even when a monarch (usually a very insignificant one) came into the crown of his forefathers. No, by the living God, this is very unimportant. To "learn" history means to seek and find the forces which are the causes leading to those effects which we subsequently perceive as historical events.


crzyhawk #49 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:46 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Beta Testers

  • 9,329
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

View PostArIskandir, on 19 March 2017 - 09:36 PM, said:

 

The problem is once you start on that road (and we had) where do you set the line?

 

By all means, make MM same tier only, ships with main battery autofire like secondaries, no vision mechanics. It is the clear way to player happyness. Get rid of anything skill related, just point and click to input basic commands and let RNG do all the work, because obviously this is a game and you aren't supposed to "work" in a game, that's not fun.

 

There's being challenged, and there's being put at a severe disadvantage.  I played thru CBT match making, I've fought Clevelands with St Louis before.  I'm skilled enough that I can play my T5's vs T7 's and still top my team.  Just because *I* can do these things doesn't mean everyone can.

 

Where's the line?  Not sure.  I don't think that there's a GOOD argument AGAINST +/-1 MM though.  All I see is veteran players saying it's fine.  I'm not sure I agree with that just because it works for me.



Hiroe #50 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:47 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 706
  • Member since:
    09-16-2013

View Postcrzyhawk, on 19 March 2017 - 10:46 PM, said:

 

There's being challenged, and there's being put at a severe disadvantage.  I played thru CBT match making, I've fought Clevelands with St Louis before.  I'm skilled enough that I can play my T5's vs T7 's and still top my team.  Just because *I* can do these things doesn't mean everyone can.

 

Where's the line?  Not sure.  I don't think that there's a GOOD argument AGAINST +/-1 MM though.  All I see is veteran players saying it's fine.  I'm not sure I agree with that just because it works for me.

 

Well said.

 

Instruction in world history in the so-called high schools is even today in a very sorry condition. Few teachers understand that the study of history can never be to learn historical dates and events by heart and recite them by rote; that what matters is not whether the child knows exactly when this battle or that was fought, when a general was born, or even when a monarch (usually a very insignificant one) came into the crown of his forefathers. No, by the living God, this is very unimportant. To "learn" history means to seek and find the forces which are the causes leading to those effects which we subsequently perceive as historical events.


ArIskandir #51 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:48 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,753
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

View Post_RC1138, on 19 March 2017 - 08:38 PM, said:

 

You wana line? Here's a line: if average players don't like it, don't do it. If you cross that line, you ruin the game long term.

 

Right now the game is bleeding by small cuts: nerfing torps into oblivion, making stealthfire worthless, [edited]with citadel heights to appease players or to make balance, and a load of other half measures that ignore the real problem. Even +-1 MM is a half measure, but it's better than what they have been doing if WGing chooses to ignore the real problem present in the game.

 

Dude, if WoWS  is too hard and stressing there is always Candy Crush!

 

The original premise of this game is (or was) to be a pseudo-competitive environment, it wasn't meant to be "fair" in every single stance but balanced in the long run. At least that was the premise I was sold.

 

The capital sin for a game is to be boring, by limiting tier spread the game losses a lot of variability and becomes boring faster.



TalonV #52 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:50 AM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • Beta Testers

  • 25,822
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostHiroe, on 19 March 2017 - 09:34 PM, said:

 

Uh, no, it doesn't quite work like that. Games are meant to be enjoyable, and getting steamrolled isn't enjoyable. I suggest that you do more thinking and less typing. Your understanding is woefully lacking.

 

You really think going to +1/-1 MM is going to stop steamrolls? That's cute.

 

​This isn't dueling pistols at dawn. This is war. In war you

never want to fight fair. You want to sneak up behind

the enemy, and bash him over the head.


_RC1138 #53 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:52 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 383
  • Member since:
    03-22-2015

View PostRivertheRoyal, on 19 March 2017 - 09:41 PM, said:

 

And what's the real problem, in your opinion? 

 

I would make the strong argument is that WoWs suffers from the same problem plaguing most competitive FPS's, and now, baffling, RTS, and that's 1HK (One Hit Kill) Syndrome. Where everything in the game is built around weapons that kill in one, or close to one, hit. We saw this with noob tubes years ago, the knife in MW2, AWP in CS snipers in the Battlefields, and Citadels in WoWs. This almost psychotic desire to build into a game a system or feature that allows one player to instantly remove another is BAD game design. And, increasingly, making those means more and more usable. I remember when knife kills meant something, they were HARD to pull off and so when it happened, it was impressive. Now? It feels more cheap than impressive. Again I point to Quake. Pretty much only the Rail Gun could kill in 1 hit, and that's legitimately HARD to pull off, and inadvisable to attempt in 99% of situations. WoWs?

 

EVERYTHING is built around big hits. Landing 5-6 torpedo, huge citadel hits, insta-deleting CA/CLs. We all see it ALL the time. *This* is the problem in WoWs. Much moreso than anything else. When you think through every complaint in game, when you get to the bottom of the logic train, you 100% of the time end up with the issue being that players can be killed in 1 strike, or be MASSIVELY crippled by 1 strike, or that their class/ship of choice is being limited in their ability to do the same. Every complaint about DD's? It's annoyance of being insta-deleted by a wall of skill. Every complaint by DD's? Not being able to get big hits to compete with the other classes. Even this problem, the idea of +-1 MM is really, when we're honest, about being deleted in 1 hit. From a practical standpoint, a BB is a BB. Doesn't really matter that it's Tier 3 or Tier 10. But why would you NOT want to be in a South Carolina vs. a Yamato? Cause he could delete you in one strike and, most importantly, you couldn't DREAM of doing it to him.


Let's say you made it impossible to do that. That, for argument sake, no class in the game had the ability to, in a single strike, ever do much more than even a quarter of an enemy's full health, regardless of the dynamic, as in DD vs. BB is no more capable of doing more than a 1/4 total health than a CL vs. DD. Regardless of tier. What are the complaints at this point? What would anybody complain about in balancing at that point?


Never argue with a gun, it may argue back...

crzyhawk #54 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:52 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Supertester
  • Beta Testers

  • 9,329
  • Member since:
    05-08-2015

View Post_RC1138, on 19 March 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

I do, and to be as [edited]honest as possible it's totally worth it to lose the ability to stomp on people 2 tiers below me

 

agree


Hiroe #55 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:53 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 706
  • Member since:
    09-16-2013

View PostArIskandir, on 19 March 2017 - 10:48 PM, said:

 

Dude, if WoWS  is too hard and stressing there is always Candy Crush!

 

The original premise of this game is (or was) to be a pseudo-competitive environment, it wasn't meant to be "fair" in every single stance but balanced in the long run. At least that was the premise I was sold.

 

The capital sin for a game is to be boring, by limiting tier spread the game losses a lot of variability and becomes boring faster.

 

A game can be hard and enjoyable, or hard and unenjoyable. I enjoy playing Civilization V on higher difficulties because it's challenging and rewarding, but I would dislike playing pong against an AI that never messed up. You're conflating difficulty with enjoyment. They're separate. Also, +/-1 still isn't fair, since there is a tier of difference. Sometimes you're top tier, other times you're bottom tier.

 

The variability argument is a bit weak as well. There is enough variability in other areas to make up for it: ships (of different classes and nationalities, and also of different styles, flavors, and difficulties), maps, looks, flags, opponents, etc. Not everything has to contribute to variability.


Edited by Hiroe, 20 March 2017 - 02:54 AM.

 

Instruction in world history in the so-called high schools is even today in a very sorry condition. Few teachers understand that the study of history can never be to learn historical dates and events by heart and recite them by rote; that what matters is not whether the child knows exactly when this battle or that was fought, when a general was born, or even when a monarch (usually a very insignificant one) came into the crown of his forefathers. No, by the living God, this is very unimportant. To "learn" history means to seek and find the forces which are the causes leading to those effects which we subsequently perceive as historical events.


Hiroe #56 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:54 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 706
  • Member since:
    09-16-2013

View PostTalonV, on 19 March 2017 - 10:50 PM, said:

 

You really think going to +1/-1 MM is going to stop steamrolls? That's cute.

 

Never said that, and I'm talking about a ship two tiers down getting wrecked by a top tier. You know, a Bismarck feasting upon a Bayern.

 

Instruction in world history in the so-called high schools is even today in a very sorry condition. Few teachers understand that the study of history can never be to learn historical dates and events by heart and recite them by rote; that what matters is not whether the child knows exactly when this battle or that was fought, when a general was born, or even when a monarch (usually a very insignificant one) came into the crown of his forefathers. No, by the living God, this is very unimportant. To "learn" history means to seek and find the forces which are the causes leading to those effects which we subsequently perceive as historical events.


TalonV #57 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:54 AM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • Beta Testers

  • 25,822
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostHiroe, on 19 March 2017 - 09:54 PM, said:

 

Never said that, and I'm talking about a ship two tiers down getting wrecked by a top tier. You know, a Bismarck feasting upon a Bayern.

 

And how much different would it be with a Gneisenau ripping said Bayern apart?

 

​This isn't dueling pistols at dawn. This is war. In war you

never want to fight fair. You want to sneak up behind

the enemy, and bash him over the head.


_RC1138 #58 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:55 AM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 383
  • Member since:
    03-22-2015

View PostArIskandir, on 19 March 2017 - 09:48 PM, said:

 

 

 

The capital sin for a game is to be boring, by limiting tier spread the game losses a lot of variability and becomes boring faster.

 

Quake Area hasn't had a major change in 13 years (the game itself came out in 1999). It is the definition of stagnant development. It is actually MORE played than any non-COD FPS on the competitive scene. It has literally 0 variability. And it's not going anywhere ANY time soon. Limiting is one word to describe this development approach, I prefer the word FOCUSING.
Never argue with a gun, it may argue back...

Hiroe #59 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:55 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 706
  • Member since:
    09-16-2013

View PostTalonV, on 19 March 2017 - 10:54 PM, said:

 

And how much different would it be with a Gneisenau ripping said Bayern apart?

 

About half as different.

 

Instruction in world history in the so-called high schools is even today in a very sorry condition. Few teachers understand that the study of history can never be to learn historical dates and events by heart and recite them by rote; that what matters is not whether the child knows exactly when this battle or that was fought, when a general was born, or even when a monarch (usually a very insignificant one) came into the crown of his forefathers. No, by the living God, this is very unimportant. To "learn" history means to seek and find the forces which are the causes leading to those effects which we subsequently perceive as historical events.


ArIskandir #60 Posted 20 March 2017 - 02:55 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,753
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

View PostHiroe, on 19 March 2017 - 08:41 PM, said:

 

Not at all. Skill will still be rewarded (actually it will be more rewarded) with +/-1. It's extremely odd that the more skilled among us aren't enthusiastic about the idea. Hmm, maybe they wish to keep +/-2 out of a sense of tradition? If so that's more understandable.

 

View Postcrzyhawk, on 19 March 2017 - 08:46 PM, said:

 

There's being challenged, and there's being put at a severe disadvantage.  I played thru CBT match making, I've fought Clevelands with St Louis before.  I'm skilled enough that I can play my T5's vs T7 's and still top my team.  Just because *I* can do these things doesn't mean everyone can.

 

Where's the line?  Not sure.  I don't think that there's a GOOD argument AGAINST +/-1 MM though.  All I see is veteran players saying it's fine.  I'm not sure I agree with that just because it works for me.

 

As I said before, my main grip against restricting MM is limiting variability of scenarios. Take ranked for example, imagine playing thousands of games in a ranked like environment (same tier), it doesn't improve customer satisfaction (people still harvest insane amounts of salt in ranked) and it does grow stale after a while, I've only played over 40 games and droped it, I do very good at rank but I find it boring after a while. Being that stock Yorck in a tier 9 match is sometimes more entertaining, it is different and thus fun. 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users