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

Set the minimum equal number of destroyers per side in a battle 

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

22,555
[HINON]
Supertester
18,966 posts
12,487 battles

How do you mean? The amount of destroyers per team is already +/- 1 from the enemy team, so you're never going to see more than 1 difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,304
[CUTE]
Members
5,159 posts
3,436 battles
4 minutes ago, Lert said:

How do you mean? The amount of destroyers per team is already +/- 1 from the enemy team, so you're never going to see more than 1 difference.

 

He's saying they shouldn't have the +/-1 deal, like CV. 1-1 ratio for both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,490
[INTEL]
Members
6,632 posts
25,378 battles

MM with a side with one more DD or even 1 v 0 DDs is lopsided and I believe it gives one side an advantage.

I do not care what the number of DDs per battle is (from 0 to 12), just that the number of DDs per side is equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,555
[HINON]
Supertester
18,966 posts
12,487 battles
3 minutes ago, Canadatron said:

He's saying they shouldn't have the +/-1 deal, like CV. 1-1 ratio for both sides.

I see.

And then what? What after that?

Look, I know that the slippery slope argument is a weak one, but if you're going to go 1:1 for carriers and 1:1 for destroyers while it's still +/- 1 for battleships and cruisers you're moving ever closer to mirrored teams only. It's only going to be a matter of time before people start calling for 1:1 cruisers / battleships because it's unfair for our destroyers when the other team has more cruisers and it's unfair for our cruisers when the other team has more battleships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,304
[CUTE]
Members
5,159 posts
3,436 battles
Just now, Lert said:

I see.

And then what? What after that?

Look, I know that the slippery slope argument is a weak one, but if you're going to go 1:1 for carriers and 1:1 for destroyers while it's still +/- 1 for battleships and cruisers you're moving ever closer to mirrored teams only. It's only going to be a matter of time before people start calling for 1:1 cruisers / battleships because it's unfair for our destroyers when the other team has more cruisers and it's unfair for our cruisers when the other team has more battleships.

 

Yeah, I'm not getting it either. It seems people would like this to be an iteration of Ken vs Ryu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
387
[POP]
Members
1,229 posts
8,075 battles

I think that he means something more like what I saw this weekend (multiple times). 

 

Team 1 DDs: T8, T8, T7
Team 2 DDs: T8, T6, T6

 

It is very lopsided. Yes, a truly skilled player in a T6 DD can swing the battle. But, much, much more often, the two T6 DDs get eliminated in the first few minutes and the other side cruises to victory with minimal effort. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,681
[TBW]
Members
6,351 posts
11,894 battles
11 minutes ago, alexf24 said:

MM with a side with one more DD or even 1 v 0 DDs is lopsided and I believe it gives one side an advantage.

Which side has the advantage? I have often wondered. If the stats 1 way or the other, were uneven, you would think that WG would have addressed it.

Edited by Sovereigndawg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,304
[CUTE]
Members
5,159 posts
3,436 battles
1 minute ago, OgreMkV said:

I think that he means something more like what I saw this weekend (multiple times). 

 

Team 1 DDs: T8, T8, T7
Team 2 DDs: T8, T6, T6

 

It is very lopsided. Yes, a truly skilled player in a T6 DD can swing the battle. But, much, much more often, the two T6 DDs get eliminated in the first few minutes and the other side cruises to victory with minimal effort. 

 

 

Tier 6 and 7 destroyers uptier like junk due to the concealment values and the mod that compounds the whole thing at 8. When a ship like Gallant has conceal as a "strength" but that is made invalid with a module at T8 it can be a tough row to hoe. Good thing T6 rarely sees T8! /sarcasm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
8,075 posts
17,032 battles
Just now, Canadatron said:

Good thing T6 rarely sees T8! /sarcasm

 

Pretty much why I never play T7+ CVs in Randoms. Other players can talk about how great it is when they're top tier all they want; for me that is meaningless; 90% of my games in those ships I was bottom tier, and effectively relegated to spotting and nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,304
[CUTE]
Members
5,159 posts
3,436 battles
Just now, Estimated_Prophet said:

 

Pretty much why I never play T7+ CVs in Randoms. Other players can talk about how great it is when they're top tier all they want; for me that is meaningless; 90% of my games in those ships I was bottom tier, and effectively relegated to spotting and nothing else.

 

Yeah, just playing the spotter is pretty dull. For example: My Z-23 has 9.9km guns.... at tier 8. If everyone goes all "lets camp this one out" I'm hooped on the damage front and gotta hope someone derps into torps, that my BB know how to aim, or their DDs get soft and smoke up in a spot I can hydro slap them in it. I don't experience this quite to the same degree in other ship types. Not to mention radar that I might encounter has a 1+km range beyond my guns. Good times! Just keep playing I guess!

 

I'm finding the German DD great, but some of the asks are getting pretty steep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
8,075 posts
17,032 battles
Just now, Canadatron said:

I'm finding the German DD great,

 

Oddly enough I find Z-23 to be a decent fit; despite my normal dislike of higher-tier games. Put Thea in it, (to work on getting a HSF 19 point captian, and a seceond 19 point 'German' captian...) used fxp to get her a few extra skill points, and have been using her for Yamamoto campaign missions to decent effect, (by my usual standards at least...)

Edited by Estimated_Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,090
[SIM]
Members
2,447 posts
4,080 battles

No, no class minimums, and no class maximums for any class other than CVs. That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,490
[INTEL]
Members
6,632 posts
25,378 battles
2 hours ago, Sovereigndawg said:

Which side has the advantage? I have often wondered. If the stats 1 way or the other, were uneven, you would think that WG would have addressed it.

To me if the DD drivers are semi-competent more DDs gives an advantage. Even worse, when there is only 1 DD in game (I 've been there), the side with the one DD (if there are no CVs) can play easy and relaxed and rely on the superior DD concealment to keep everyone of import lit till dead.

 

I reiterate i am not advocating a cap on DD numbers. I do not care how many DDs per side in a battle, as long as the number is even. MM often balances by playing also with the tiers of both sides, giving for example one higher tier BB in exchange for two higher tier CAs to the other side. I am fine with that.

Edited by alexf24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,430 battles
2 hours ago, HazardDrake said:

They need to at least make sure that both Khabarovsks end up on the same team more often. :cap_haloween:

Go for it. I'll wreck them with Hindenburg. Happily. Hindenburg just tells them "Poof! B***h be gone!"

Edited by IronWolfV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
121
[DAKI]
Members
621 posts
6,137 battles

5 v 5 was fun last night for me, not so much for the poor BBs that were getting nuked. I wonder why there's no ship based match making especially for dd types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,297
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,754 posts
9,484 battles
3 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

Go for it. I'll wreck them with Hindenburg. Happily. Hindenburg just tells them "Poof! B***h be gone!"

I'll just scoot elsewhere. Hindenburg is many things, fast is not one of those things. 

 

Not to mention that it's consealment is almost beyond Khabarovsks max gun range.

 

/Blaps Khabs too when I'm driving my Hindy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
56 posts
3 hours ago, Lert said:

How do you mean? The amount of destroyers per team is already +/- 1 from the enemy team, so you're never going to see more than 1 difference.

I personally wouldn't mind if they added or removed some "works as a DD or not weight" to or from certain DDs as DDs - meaning it really sucks when your team gets 2 udalois and a Khaba and the other team gets 4 capping DDs.  


I had that game the other night, and it went about as you'd predict.  It was extremely lopsided despite no real bad play from my team.  That match was lost on seed.

Edited by Smeggles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,430 battles
Just now, HazardDrake said:

I'll just scoot elsewhere. Hindenburg is many things, fast is not one of those things. 

 

Not to mention that it's consealment is almost beyond Khabarovsks max gun range.

 

/Blaps Khabs too when I'm driving my Hindy.

Smart Khab players do this. But those are few and far between. Loved the one khab I tore about 10k off him straight HE and he called the Hindenburg OP. I lol'd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
56 posts
11 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

Smart Khab players do this. But those are few and far between. Loved the one khab I tore about 10k off him straight HE and he called the Hindenburg OP. I lol'd.

Thats a black pot calling a black kettle black all right.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,430 battles
Just now, Smeggles said:

Thats a black pot calling a black kettle black all right.

Lol. That is good. +1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,303 posts
8,045 battles
23 hours ago, Lert said:

How do you mean? The amount of destroyers per team is already +/- 1 from the enemy team, so you're never going to see more than 1 difference.

 

Honestly, I was mainly posting in jest in response to other threads (there was new one yesterday) that essentially complain that there's such a significant problem stemming from too many DDs in game that WG should fix it through MM.

 

If anything, I think the opposite.  I'd sooner prefer to see a minimum number of DDs required by MM before there were a maximum number permitted.  DDs are an important part of a healthy game ecosystem.  There should be more, not less, and it would be great if each team is guaranteed to have at least two per. 

Edited by lemekillmister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
84
[KOOKS]
[KOOKS]
Members
422 posts
1,869 battles

I'd be happy if they set a minimum of 1 on each side, then after that it can be +/- 1 as much as they like. Some times one team gets a DD and the other one doesn't, and to not have a DD at all can be devastating at times depending on team composition and especially if that DD on the other team is a good one.

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.

×