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

Coddling should extend through Tier 6!

73 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,551
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
3,872 posts
5,259 battles

A agree that a rollback of protected MM for Tier 4 would be good.  But it's not going to happen.


Soooo. . . just extend it through Tier 6.  The power levels of ships through that tier are really uneven.  By the time you hit Tier 7, most ships are pretty good.  But that's not the case until then.

 

Plus everyone could start playing all their Tier 6 favorites again!

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

How about just make it so if you only have 5 wins in your last 20 games in a given ship, you won't be made bottom tier?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,119
[NDA]
Supertester
3,896 posts
1,487 battles
9 minutes ago, TheDreadnought said:

A agree that a rollback of protected MM for Tier 4 would be good.  But it's not going to happen.  Soooo. . . just extend it through Tier 6. 

Unfortunately then Tier 7 would be the new Tier 5.  The problem isn't that T5's can't compete - they can if you play smart.  The problem is that the more people complain about being bottom tier because 'MM is broked', the less people play T5, which only makes the MM problem worse.  Same thing will happen to T7 - players will be convinced that they are 'always bottom tier' at T7 and quit playing that tier, which means less players at that tier to work with, which means more uptiered games, which convinces more players that they are 'always bottom tier'.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,062 posts
4,736 battles
6 minutes ago, CaptainKaitoGhost said:

So tier 7 will be the crapped on tier.

Tier 7 ships more or less do much better on average against Tier 9 than Tier 5.  Ship speed is more even between the tiers and most gunnery is fairly even.  Poor Colorado though, it still is a slowpoke.

 

Also, it is the tier with more overpowered premiums than any other tier.  The crapped on Tier will be Tier 8 because it will have to face overpowered tier 10's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,322
[-K-]
Supertester
5,153 posts
8,946 battles

Considering how many premiums there are at T7, WG will never screw it over like they did with T5. The former is their money-making tier. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
10 minutes ago, Psicopro said:

Tier 7 ships more or less do much better on average against Tier 9 than Tier 5.  Ship speed is more even between the tiers and most gunnery is fairly even.  Poor Colorado though, it still is a slowpoke.

 

Also, it is the tier with more overpowered premiums than any other tier.  The crapped on Tier will be Tier 8 because it will have to face overpowered tier 10's.

Imo the only reason t4 shouldn't see t6 is the Ryujo. If WG would give players more real time tools to improve AA, then protected MM can vanish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
Beta Testers
6,868 posts
4,189 battles
4 minutes ago, Kombat_W0MBAT said:

Considering how many premiums there are at T7, WG will never screw it over like they did with T5. The former is their money-making tier. 

 

That's one theory. Another could be that they've already banked the money for those ships so they can crush them with MM and start cranking out T6 and T9 premiums.

 

That might be a little cynical, but WG had no problem screwing T6 that was their old money farm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
412 posts
17,016 battles
5 minutes ago, Kombat_W0MBAT said:

Considering how many premiums there are at T7, WG will never screw it over like they did with T5. The former is their money-making tier. 

i thought that about all the tier 5 premiums there were, but look what happened

 

all wg did was , where before they would make a new tier 5 premie, now they make a new tier 6, 7 or 8, because they know  most people will not spend real $$$$ only  to be crapped on  by the mm all the time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,322
[-K-]
Supertester
5,153 posts
8,946 battles
9 minutes ago, a_trout_bum_2 said:

i thought that about all the tier 5 premiums there were, but look what happened

 

all wg did was , where before they would make a new tier 5 premie, now they make a new tier 6, 7 or 8, because they know  most people will not spend real $$$$ only  to be crapped on  by the mm all the time

 

I suspect they've found the price point at which people are mostly likely to fork out $$$. T7 is likely the sweet spot for volume and pricing. T5 and T6 may sell a lot, but they're not as expensive. T8 ships usually run $40-$50, and are probably just a bit too steep for most. They have the data on all this, so I'm sure they're making the best financial decision for the company. 

 

Just a hypothetical... which scenario would you invest in to the detriment of the other two scenarios?

A. Sell 100 items for $20 each

B. Sell 80 items for $35 each

C. Sell 40 items for $50 each

 

Obviously the more lucrative one. Again, made up numbers, but I think their decisions are financially motivated (as they should be). 

 

Edited by Kombat_W0MBAT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,624 posts
5,147 battles
3 minutes ago, Grizley said:

 

That's one theory. Another could be that they've already banked the money for those ships so they can crush them with MM and start cranking out T6 and T9 premiums.

 

That might be a little cynical, but WG had no problem screwing T6 that was their old money farm.

Tier 6 is still a money farm as long as Arizona is in the Premium Shop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,720
Members
18,242 posts
5,215 battles
21 minutes ago, Psicopro said:

Tier 7 ships more or less do much better on average against Tier 9 than Tier 5.  

 

That's probably what they said about T5 ships before protecting T4 lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,801
[SALVO]
Members
17,071 posts
17,737 battles
1 hour ago, cometguy said:

How about just make it so if you only have 5 wins in your last 20 games in a given ship, you won't be made bottom tier?

In theory, not a horrible idea.  OTOH, we all should know that MM can only work with what's in the queue.  And if the above statement was included in the MM code, it's entirely possible that it might take a long, long time to get a battle, if the ships in queue weren't there in sufficient numbers to allow you to be top tier at any given time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,801
[SALVO]
Members
17,071 posts
17,737 battles
2 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

The only tier that should have preferential MM is Tier X.

You mean that tier 9 doesn't get pref MM?  I mean, hey, it's never worse than -1 tier. 

Stop the coddling of tier 9, I say!!!  :Smile-_tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,575
[PSP]
Members
6,286 posts
8,912 battles
35 minutes ago, Battleship_MaineMk1 said:

Tier 6 is still a money farm as long as Arizona is in the Premium Shop.

 

I got my Arizona for free in a supercontainer. I can see why people buy it though as it's a great ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,801
[SALVO]
Members
17,071 posts
17,737 battles
59 minutes ago, Battleship_MaineMk1 said:

or we could do +/-1 on all tiers

*GASP*

Or people could stop whining about it.  And stop entering tier -2 battles with such a negative nelly attitude, which means they're half dead from the get go.  

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,624 posts
5,147 battles
3 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Or people could stop whining about it.  And stop entering tier -2 battles with such a negative nelly attitude, which means they're half dead from the get go.  

+/- 2 mm is ok with me TBH. However, in terms of balancing ships and lines, the game would run better with +/- 1 MM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,106
[SPTR]
Members
3,479 posts
5,736 battles

:Smile_ohmy:

You just want to see helpless Colorados getting skinned alive by Donskois don't you?

You sick monster!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15
[HYDRA]
Members
136 posts
1,167 battles
1 minute ago, Battleship_MaineMk1 said:

+/- 2 mm is ok with me TBH. However, in terms of balancing ships and lines, the game would run better with +/- 1 MM.

+1/-1 turns every game into a camp off and massively nerfs durability in all it's forms. Having those low tier ships helps balance the game because suddenly it's not an ocean boiling with torps where getting spotted means getting shot by 3 yamatos and a few minotaurs for good luck, a T10 DD has much scarier torps then a T8 dd so now any battleship that pushes is facing down 30 torpedoes and is on fire everywhere. Also it would just kill carriers since T10 AA varies from strong to wth. It means that T10 is like 11v11 T10s with 1 T9 on each team, 2 moskvas are scary what about 5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[FAE]
Members
2,161 posts
2,639 battles

I'm really becoming in favor of +1 tier MM only. Although Ithinnk its more exciting to have +2 tiers, realistically T5 vs T7s are utterly hopeless.  T6 vs T8 also. 

I think they should make it so that T8 -T10 is the only +2 MM if they go down that path. 

 

But the better solution is to make the percentage of T5-7 T6-8 games less likely. Especially for T5.  T5 should feel fun, and BEGIN to start showing you that +2 MM can happen. LEARN TO PLAY YOUR SHIP EVEN WHEN UP TIERED AND STOP WHINING. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,497
Beta Testers
6,868 posts
4,189 battles

It's colossally stupid to have 6 tiers in a MM system with 3 tiers per game. That's the root of all the problems.

 

3 is a factor of 6. You can place every ship in queue into a game by starting n T7 games and m t10 games. 

 

7 and 8 both have their merits for the number of tiers for MM. 7 is prime so no matter the spread it will never have the layered tiers that come from having the spread be a factor of the available.  8 in that it's not a multiple of 3 and it provides a little slop in case people stop playing the lowest tier in a 7 tier system.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×