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

Matchmaker Nomenclature

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,684
Supertester, Alpha Tester
6,042 posts

I often see +2/-2 in threads used when the poster is discussing the range of tiers in a matchmaker.  I also see +1/-1.
As an engineer, I find the use of +2/-2 to be jarring.  To me +2/-2 when applied to an integer means that I have a range of five integers that I'm covering.

For example 7 + 2 = 9 and 7 - 2 = 5 so a tier 7 ship entering a +2/-2 MM would enter a battle that includes tiers 5,6,7,8 and 9 ships. It also may be the top tier in a 3,4,5,6,7 or it may be in a 6,7,8,9,10 MM. The (+2/-2) to an engineer, or a designer, or a machinist, or an inspector, indicates the allowable variance from a specific value. When applied to a MM it covers 40% more tiers than the speaker intended.

I don't expect the practice of saying +2/-2 to go away because it's embedded in the nomenclature.  But I propose an alternative for use by people who enjoy clarity.  When you want to refer to a matchmaker that includes 3 tiers call it a three tier MM. Feel free to say 3T MM if you are a slave to brevity. You will find it easier to type than: (Hold down the shift key =) 2 / - 2. When there are only two tiers to be included call it a two tier MM. Single tiers would be ...

See, I've even made a case for being lazy.

I hope to see you all in many 3T MM battles in the future.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,488
[O_O]
Members
4,425 posts
9,588 battles

Triggered?

 

Spoiler

:Smile_teethhappy::Smile-_tongue:

 

Edited by desmo_2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,710
[HINON]
Modder, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
6,498 posts
3,751 battles

People use that way of writing it? :Smile_amazed:

 

I just use +/- 2.

 

Faster, less typing, and has the same meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,672
[OO7]
Members
2,229 posts
9,733 battles

If you're an engineer or philosopher you can use:

 

-2 v +2

 

As the slash people are using is supposed to signify "or." 

 

Actually upon further reflection:

 

-2 v +2 v (-1 ^ +1)... (I'm on a cell phone so a little latitude on the height of the and/or symbols) 

Edited by VGLance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
835
[FOXEH]
Members
3,363 posts
12,175 battles

I am one who interprets the "/" to mean "or".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,230
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,678 posts
9,083 battles

Blame the WoT players for this. A better way would be to say one, two, or three tier matches.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

I am one who interprets the "/" to mean "or".

I do too, of course then there's or and there's exclusive or. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[JASH]
Members
385 posts
5,252 battles

Maybe i'm just stupid, but I don't see an issue with the +/-2.  Tier 5s can face tier 7s, and 7s can face 9s.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,521
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,112 posts
12,671 battles
51 minutes ago, murf4321 said:

Maybe i'm just stupid, but I don't see an issue with the +/-2.  Tier 5s can face tier 7s, and 7s can face 9s.

7 +/- 2 means "somewhere in the range of 7-2 (5) to 7+2 (9)". You definitely can't find a game with T5 through T9 ships in it, so the naming convention is technically inaccurate. That said, we all know people only really think of matches as "I got stuck fighting enemies 2 levels above me" or "I got stuck with teammates 2 tiers below me", so the lazy number 2 is what persists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,731
[TBW]
Members
6,410 posts
12,057 battles

I am not an engineer (I have never driven a train), but I did notice that and went with it anyway. I said 2 tier MM once and got asked what I meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×