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

Suggestion: Prime time +/- 0 Matchmaking

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,302 posts
10,644 battles

My idea is simple: during hours of high server loads, make all games one tier. (So all tier VIII ships in a match, or all tier VII)

Pros:

  • No more New Yorks facing Myokos and Hippers facing Des Moines. Everybody will be on a more equal playing field allowing for better balance for ship to ship and esp. ship vs air.
    • Tier V, VI, and VIII will no longer need to worry about consistently being uptiered in matches ~60-70% of Atago games are now tier X
    • Tier X ships become less prevalent as they no longer get to always be the top of the food pyramid in every game
      • They are now in the middle as they should be

Cons:

  • Longer Queue times, even during maximum player time
  • Not a viable strategy for off hours (middle of day, early mornings, late at night)
  • No longer ROFL stomp tier V BBs in ships like a Hiryu.
  • Changes the balance of some ships
    • Some ships don't mind being uptiered (Atago, Kutuzov, Lo Yang, Benson...) will receive more or less a nerf
      • ^lotta premiums in there
    • Some ships that really don't like facing higher tiers will be buffed
      • Yorck, New Mexico, Colorado..

Variations #1:

In addition to changing the tier gap, we also reduce the ships in a battle to match the number of players in game (i.e. during times of medium player load game modes are 9v9 or 10v10)

Pros:

  • Closer to a ranked format
    • Good practice for clan wars, rank, etc.
  • More decisive battles
    • From experience, it's much easier to carry or be influential in a 7v7 than in a 12v12. A 10v10 is probably going to be in the middle of that.

Cons:

  • Further from "normal" battles that ships are balanced around
  • Needs to use more server space

Variations #2:

Instead of +/- 0 spread, it's either +1 or -1. Range of 2 tiers in a match

Pros:

  • Same as original, only less so

Cons:

  • Same as original, only less so

 

If anyone else can think of any, please comment below. What do you think of this suggestion?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
143
[AFW-]
Members
972 posts

Wargaming staff busy designing 100,000,000,000,000 premium ships right now. So i guess your post gets ignored by them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,770
[SALVO]
Members
24,198 posts
24,546 battles
2 minutes ago, zuga_01 said:

Wargaming staff busy designing 100,000,000,000,000 premium ships right now. So i guess your post gets ignored by them.

And I hope that it continues to be ignored.  :Smile_hiding:

MM has issues.  This isn't one of them.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,872
[WAIFU]
[WAIFU]
Members
3,596 posts
13,513 battles

At least do +/-1 if not +/-0 plox. kthxbai.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
143
[AFW-]
Members
972 posts
7 minutes ago, pikohan said:

At least do +/-1 if not +/-0 plox. kthxbai.

But after releasing 100,000,000,000th premium ship. You have to wait until the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,302 posts
10,644 battles
25 minutes ago, Crucis said:

And I hope that it continues to be ignored.  :Smile_hiding:

MM has issues.  This isn't one of them.

Lol have you seen tier V?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,579
[INTEL]
Members
12,353 posts
34,329 battles

I dont think that is a good idea. Differing tiers preserves a certain amount of variety and challenge, as well as XP and credits!

 

A better way to handle it would, when the server is above 10K players, show 2 battle buttons: RANDOM TWO TIER DIFFERENCE and RANDOM ONE TIER DIFFERENCE. Many players like the challenge of being uptiered, while others find the constant uptiering trying. Some of us choose by ship -- I want to be uptiered in Kutuzov, more XP and credits, and T10 ships burn just as nicely as T8. Ditto for any of my T9s. But I dont want to see T7 in a T5 DD.

 

Giving players that choice would make a world of difference. There would be no need for restricted MM at any tier, and the players could choose the level of challenge they want.

 

But WG doesnt want to make any +/- 1 tier possible because (1) it wants to push ships into high tier matches so it can sell more high tier premiums -- which is the real reason for the T4 restriction -- and (2) it wants the two tier difference because that creates fodder ships that drive collapses and puts ships back in the queue ASAP. Sad, but there it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,380 posts
4,100 battles
Quote

and (2) it wants the two tier difference because that creates fodder ships that drive collapses and puts ships back in the queue ASAP. Sad, but there it is.

I've often seen this claim in this and WoT: "WG wants shorter games"

Have they ever stated this anywhere?  Is there any proof? Is there reasons why?
I tend to view this as a conspiracy theory like "MM awards better matchups to top clans" or "if you are on a bad streak, relog under another account and get better MM"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,770
[SALVO]
Members
24,198 posts
24,546 battles
17 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

 

A better way to handle it would, when the server is above 10K players, show 2 battle buttons: RANDOM TWO TIER DIFFERENCE and RANDOM ONE TIER DIFFERENCE. Many players like the challenge of being uptiered, while others find the constant uptiering trying. Some of us choose by ship -- I want to be uptiered in Kutuzov, more XP and credits, and T10 ships burn just as nicely as T8. Ditto for any of my T9s. But I dont want to see T7 in a T5 DD.

 

I don't mind seeing Tier 7 in my Kamikaze R (with her 19 point Shimmy captain).  That said, I'd rather not, but not out of fear of tier 7 ships, but rather the seals are more ripe for the clubbing when I'm top tier in my KamiR.  :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
426 posts
6,213 battles
19 minutes ago, evilleMonkeigh said:

Have they ever stated this anywhere?  Is there any proof? Is there reasons why?

Just offhand:

It serves as a natural time limitation for the battle. Without it the battles would be 2 minutes longer in general. By that time most players would’ve exhausted their respawn attempts, so the last minutes would just draw out the battle and turn into “hunt down the last GA” or “wait till the scale fills up”. - from Q & A on Status Report Site

 

.... ''two minutes longer''.....

Edited by Soylent_Red_Isnt_People

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,579
[INTEL]
Members
12,353 posts
34,329 battles
16 hours ago, evilleMonkeigh said:

I've often seen this claim in this and WoT: "WG wants shorter games"

Have they ever stated this anywhere?  Is there any proof? Is there reasons why?

I tend to view this as a conspiracy theory like "MM awards better matchups to top clans" or "if you are on a bad streak, relog under another account and get better MM"

 

"Reasons why" are stated above: they want short queue times and ships back in the queue as rapidly as possible. 

No, of course they aren't going to state "we want shorter matches". You have to deduce that from the way the game is set up to produce short games which are usually collapses. Although as I recall the developers have stated that reducing queue time is a priority. 

 

They also haven't stated anything about their marketing policies. So I guess it is a conspiratorial assumption that they are in it to make a profit.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,579
[INTEL]
Members
12,353 posts
34,329 battles
16 hours ago, Crucis said:

I don't mind seeing Tier 7 in my Kamikaze R (with her 19 point Shimmy captain).  That said, I'd rather not, but not out of fear of tier 7 ships, but rather the seals are more ripe for the clubbing when I'm top tier in my KamiR.  :Smile_teethhappy:

 

LOL. I dont have any of the Minekaze clones. Besides, I prefer to club in my OKhotnik :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,843
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

This post shows how selfish everyone is in the game. Those who approve it and those who deny it alike have selfish motives. The MM is bad agreed by most. This topic has been hashed over many times and there will never be a consensus. WG likes the way they set up their game. When WG changes anything there will be those who like it and those who don't. Maybe WG has a Troll like collective personality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
101
[WAIFU]
[WAIFU]
Members
426 posts
10,358 battles

hey at least were not back to -/+3 mm those were the days

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,380 posts
4,100 battles
Quote

It serves as a natural time limitation for the battle. Without it the battles would be 2 minutes longer in general. By that time most players would’ve exhausted their respawn attempts, so the last minutes would just draw out the battle and turn into “hunt down the last GA” or “wait till the scale fills up”. - from Q & A on Status Report Site

I'm not familiar with WoWP, but the quote seems a bit (a lot?) out of context... 

I mean if there is respawns... a "squall line"... seems to be relevant to WoWP only... to stop games dragging out when no respawns... does not seem to adocate games ending sooner for everyone, rather than helping stop it dragging out once it;s already decided (which we have pts timers etc for in WoWs)


It seems to also be designed to prevent collapses/steamrolls (opposite of what Taichunger suggests; a steamroll seems the fastest way to end a game)

 

Q: Do we really need the squall line? Why not let the team with the most points win?

Q: Squall line. The fact of smashing the plane into the ground just before the squall line was that intended? Are you happy people doing this? Or are you looking to correct this?

Squall line has 3 functions:

  1. It serves as a natural time limitation for the battle. Without it the battles would be 2 minutes longer in general. By that time most players would’ve exhausted their respawn attempts, so the last minutes would just draw out the battle and turn into “hunt down the last GA” or “wait till the scale fills up”.
  2. It is a “gamebreaker” — a mechanic that allows a losing team catch up or even make a comeback, which makes gameplay more exciting.
  3. Allows skilled players who can fly precisely and shoot accurately decide the outcome of the battle by shooting down enemies and winning through total elimination of enemy team.

Stats we have show that the squall line is doing what is supposed to quite well.

At the same time there are some issues with it, and we are working on solving them.

-Players who crash their aircraft right before the squall line triggers to have full HP for the last part of the battle are a problem. We need a better design to make this tactic unnecessary or not viable, and we’re working on it.

-Squall line right now has no visual representation, which breaks immersion

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,380 posts
4,100 battles
Quote

Reasons why" are stated above: they want short queue times and ships back in the queue as rapidly as possible. 

Surely they could do this by changing the points mechanics and timers rather than needing the insidious methods that I hear the "short gamers" (kinda like the flat earthers) claim.

 

Quote

No, of course they aren't going to state "we want shorter matches".

Why not? Would people quit playing in protest? WoT games are 3 x shorter and it's more popular? Why would this be such a PR disaster for them that they need to hide it, like some sort of Roswell alien corpse?

 

Quote

You have to deduce that from the way the game is set up to produce short games which are usually collapses. Although as I recall the developers have stated that reducing queue time is a priority. 

Pretty sure collapse % is similar - unbalanced teams just make it more likely one side will get the collapse (Lanchester's square law)? Why would +/-1 vs 2 tiers effect this?

 

I'm certainly not "white knighting" WG but I feel most of their decisions can be explained by Hanlons razor.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,770
[SALVO]
Members
24,198 posts
24,546 battles
16 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

 

LOL. I dont have any of the Minekaze clones. Besides, I prefer to club in my OKhotnik :)

Tai, I'd love to get an Okhotnik.  It was in that Thanksgiving Russian bundle, but I wasn't paying $90 for a tier 5 DD.  (I had all the other Russian prems in the bundle except the KK, the Diana, and the Oleg.  Wouldn't have minded the KK, but had no interest in the Diana or the Oleg.)

Maybe it'll be on sale this Christmas.  :cap_look:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
328
[PSV]
Privateers, Supertester
747 posts
6,030 battles

+/-0 MM sounds pretty boring tbh

 

Would get tiring pretty quickly. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
246
[REEF]
Beta Testers
892 posts
10,228 battles
1 hour ago, pikohan said:

At least do +/-1 if not +/-0 plox. kthxbai.

Yep!  :Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
789
Supertester
2,179 posts
9,480 battles

Just make every tier except tier I +/-2 tier MM spread. Problem solved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,725 posts
8 hours ago, Taichunger said:

I dont think that is a good idea. Differing tiers preserves a certain amount of variety and challenge, as well as XP and credits!

 

I disagree, +2/-2 MM makes the overmatch mechanic ridiculously broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,299
[VCRUZ]
Members
4,049 posts
9,180 battles

The +2/-2 is fine. Most ships can handle being botton tier. 

 

The only change they should do is remove the protected T4 MM. Out of that the MM is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,873
[KSC]
Clan Supertest Coordinator
5,043 posts
7,683 battles
9 hours ago, Gavorche said:

Lol have you seen tier V?

The problem with Tier 5 MM is not the +2....it's the -1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
547
[BS]
Members
1,967 posts
10,406 battles

I made a post about adding a "perfer uptiering?" button in the match making screen (for tier 7/8)... some people want to take thier atago's/scharnhorsts etc into higher tier games, it'll make a difference. I had a poll, 24% of the people said they'd click the button. The sample size isn't high enough, but if it were to settle around 10-15%, it'd be a noticeable difference due to volume. That means tier 7's would be put into tier 7-8-9 matches and tier 8's would be put into tier 8/9/10 matches.

 

EJ

Edited by HorrorRoach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×