Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
enderland07

What problems would +/-1 matchmaking NOT help address?

171 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

644
[MIA-A]
Members
1,946 posts
6,549 battles

From my perspective, the main things which can be improved in this game are:

  • Carriers and their impact on the game
  • Difficulties in massive uptiering (5 to 7, 8 to 10)

While +/-1 matchmaking won't fix carriers, it would do a lot to help their current state - it'd prevent tier 7 CVs from fighting Missouris (or New Yorks). It would mitigate a lot of the AA mismatch problems.

Are there other significant problems that a +/-1 matchmaking fix would not help or entirely resolve? Maybe radar mismatch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,532
[BIAS]
Members
3,004 posts
8,978 battles

It wouldn't fix a population problem or q time problem. It would make it worse. That is the primary reason why. Honestly it doesn't affect me too badly. I would prefer my Atlanta didn't get taken into some of the t9 maps, though..... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,416
[5BS]
Members
4,465 posts
1 minute ago, enderland07 said:

From my perspective, the main things which can be improved in this game are:

  • Carriers and their impact on the game
  • Difficulties in massive uptiering (5 to 7, 8 to 10)

While +/-1 matchmaking won't fix carriers, it would do a lot to help their current state - it'd prevent tier 7 CVs from fighting Missouris (or New Yorks). It would mitigate a lot of the AA mismatch problems.

Are there other significant problems that a +/-1 matchmaking fix would not help or entirely resolve? Maybe radar mismatch?

The only problems from a +/- MM is that any ship that is overpowered against like-tiered ships will be THAT much more noticeably worse. So a belfast, for example, which is considered overpowered, will be that much moreso under +/- MM because the likelihood of a few T9's being around to stomp it down disappears.

That said, in my opinion, any costs associated with a +-MM is well worth it. The only practical downside, that is, will come up regularly, is it may hurt some people's ego to which I can care nothing for.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
644
[MIA-A]
Members
1,946 posts
6,549 battles
1 minute ago, _RC1138 said:

The only problems from a +/- MM is that any ship that is overpowered against like-tiered ships will be THAT much more noticeably worse. So a belfast, for example, which is considered overpowered, will be that much moreso under +/- MM because the likelihood of a few T9's being around to stomp it down disappears.

That said, in my opinion, any costs associated with a +-MM is well worth it. The only practical downside, that is, will come up regularly, is it may hurt some people's ego to which I can care nothing for.

The flip side is that the Belfast won't be able to stomp on tier Vs anymore.

I feel bad for people when I'm in a tier V game in the Atlant to be honest. It's.... seal clubbing. But it's how MM works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,416
[5BS]
Members
4,465 posts
Just now, enderland07 said:

The flip side is that the Belfast won't be able to stomp on tier Vs anymore.

I feel bad for people when I'm in a tier V game in the Atlant to be honest. It's.... seal clubbing. But it's how MM works.

I agree that's why I said I would still push a +-1MM even with the few potential problems it represents. It may require some rebalancing of ships, that's true, but the benefits FAR outweigh the costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
756 posts
15,482 battles

WG's Warships is a business enterprise. If enough people want change (for MM or whatever mechanic), they must KEEP THEIR CHANGE and not continue to subsidize the game. Companies see revenue. When it changes (for the worse), they will change to try and reverse the trend.

Crying about something, but continuing to buy premium time, ships, containers, etc. pretty much assures that NOTHING will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31
[5IN]
Members
200 posts
17,211 battles

The Matchmaking is a Double edged sword for me,  sometimes to be say a tier 6 in a tier 8 game and performing well gives you a hell of a confidence boost i.e. hahahaha I just schooled that Bismarck with my Perth,  on the flip side being in say a Farragut or gaede Vs Kagero's bensons Kidds etc makes for a nervous nailbiting tail between your legs play style or outright YOLO dice roll.   I would honestly not mind waiting another minute for a Game where the tier's were more balanced Vs getting uptiered by 2 tiers all night.  When youre top tier life is good when youre bottom tier life is a struggle.  I think the difference in overall power between a 6 and 8, 7 and 9 and especially 8 and 10 is far too great not to allow for +1 MM above tier 5.  I do like to take out some top-tier guys in my Bottom tier ships though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,197
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,155 posts
3,867 battles

The problem with +1/-1 is that it no longer facilitates players farming free damage and kills on tier 5 ships with tier 7s, or tier 8 ships with tier 10s.

 

Obviously this is highly detrimental to career seal clubbers and cannot possibly be changed as it would be bad for the game.

 

Spoiler

Sarchasm+assorted+internets+30+will+be+o

 

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,430 posts
12,163 battles

If WG would clearly show how we get XP I believe many folks would be happy as bottom tier knowing that their XP values are being multiplied. Assuming that is the case from I have been told. 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
644
[MIA-A]
Members
1,946 posts
6,549 battles
2 minutes ago, theLaalaa said:

WG's Warships is a business enterprise. If enough people want change (for MM or whatever mechanic), they must KEEP THEIR CHANGE and not continue to subsidize the game. Companies see revenue. When it changes (for the worse), they will change to try and reverse the trend.

Crying about something, but continuing to buy premium time, ships, containers, etc. pretty much assures that NOTHING will change.

As someone who has nearly a 70% solo and dived winrate in the last 30 days, I'll be honest - I benefit greatly from +/-2 matchmaking. Either I get top tier and club people (at whatever tier I'm in) or I get to farm more xp by being bottom tier. It hardly matters to me personally what MM is because I'll still be able to perform regardless.

But for the vast majority of people, this is not the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,280 posts
4,354 battles
25 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

From my perspective, the main things which can be improved in this game are:

  • Carriers and their impact on the game
  • Difficulties in massive uptiering (5 to 7, 8 to 10)

While +/-1 matchmaking won't fix carriers, it would do a lot to help their current state - it'd prevent tier 7 CVs from fighting Missouris (or New Yorks). It would mitigate a lot of the AA mismatch problems.

Are there other significant problems that a +/-1 matchmaking fix would not help or entirely resolve? Maybe radar mismatch?

Boredom.

It's more of a challenge to play at -2 and it's not really hard if you understand it's a different playstyle and since most ships origonally could fight at +/-3 until last year  +/-2 is not really a hardship or a problem..

The real problem, is the enforced change from +/-1 to +/-2 at T5 which imbalances the MM. 

+/-1 would get so boring it would loose players at a guess.

M

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,197
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,155 posts
3,867 battles
4 minutes ago, Sweetsie said:

If WG would clearly show how we get XP I believe many folks would be happy as bottom tier knowing that their XP values are being multiplied. Assuming that is the case from I have been told. 

More XP is kind of worthless for "keeper" ships in the line, and not really that important for premiums either.

 

I'd rather have a fun match that pays average than a terrible match that pays...actually also average because it was a terrible game propped up by an earnings multiplier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[AGPIS]
Members
354 posts
2,416 battles

Nothing is harmed by +/-1 matchmaking in the purest sense. It would make the game feel more fair. However, the question is whether or not the population can support that tightened spread. If so, awesome. If not, you end up with half-filled matches, like you see down at low tiers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,313
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,464 posts
6,644 battles
27 minutes ago, enderland07 said:

From my perspective, the main things which can be improved in this game are:

  • Carriers and their impact on the game
  • Difficulties in massive uptiering (5 to 7, 8 to 10)

While +/-1 matchmaking won't fix carriers, it would do a lot to help their current state - it'd prevent tier 7 CVs from fighting Missouris (or New Yorks). It would mitigate a lot of the AA mismatch problems.

Are there other significant problems that a +/-1 matchmaking fix would not help or entirely resolve? Maybe radar mismatch?

Why? I have no issues, either with Kaga in tier9 battles (with tier6 planes), or with Enterprise in tier 10 (with its tier 7 loadout). On the contrary, both are perfectly capable of holding their own +2 tiers. If anything, because they have a less result determining influence on battles, it is a very good thing that CVs are uptiered +2.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,197
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,155 posts
3,867 battles
3 minutes ago, MaliceA4Thought said:

Boredom.

It's more of a challenge to play at -2 and it's not really hard if you understand it's a different playstyle.

+/-1 would get so boring it would loose players at a guess.

M

Nope. No proof whatsoever supports this. Plenty of people play tier 4 specifically because it is +1/-1, whereas around 70% of players who reach tier 5 quit before they hit tier 6, or quit after hitting tier 6 and discovering that they just ground through a tier where 60% of their matches were bottom tier vs vastly superior tier 7 ships...only to be bottom tier for 60% of their matches vs vastly superior tier 8 ships.

 

I find that most opponents of +1/-1 just don't want the status quo to change, rather than that they have a legitimate argument that +1/-1 would harm the game (And like this post here, claiming it would do the exact opposite of what it would do, spreading misinformation to support a fear campaign and drum up further opposition based on lies)

 

Whoever wants to bother not strawmanning, Tell me this: How many tier 5, 6, and 8 premiums have you passed on because of the tier it was in? Because it was "too weak" to be competitive, despite being objectively stronger or even equal to existing ships in the tier?

 

How much money is +2/-2 costing WG?

Edited by KiyoSenkan
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
644
[MIA-A]
Members
1,946 posts
6,549 battles
Just now, amaROenuZ said:

Nothing is harmed by +/-1 matchmaking in the purest sense. It would make the game feel more fair. However, the question is whether or not the population can support that tightened spread. If so, awesome. If not, you end up with half-filled matches, like you see down at low tiers. 

 

I'm skeptical this would be the case. I rarely wait much more than 30 seconds for a match.

And worst case, make it so that after 2 minutes in queue in dumps a +/-2 matchmaking game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,430 posts
12,163 battles
Just now, KiyoSenkan said:

More XP is kind of worthless for "keeper" ships in the line, and not really that important for premiums either.

 

I'd rather have a fun match that pays average than a terrible match that pays...actually also average because it was a terrible game propped up by an earnings multiplier.

That's nice....but most people play to grind something...the next tech tree ship or credits or in my case captains XP. The thought of fun match that doesn't pay well...isn't fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[AGPIS]
Members
354 posts
2,416 battles
Just now, enderland07 said:

 

I'm skeptical this would be the case. I rarely wait much more than 30 seconds for a match.

And worst case, make it so that after 2 minutes in queue in dumps a +/-2 matchmaking game.

I'm not convinced that this doesn't already happen in some brackets. I get into T5/T6 matches relatively often, and they feel pretty okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,557
Members
17,726 posts
5,084 battles
10 minutes ago, theLaalaa said:

WG's Warships is a business enterprise. If enough people want change (for MM or whatever mechanic), they must KEEP THEIR CHANGE and not continue to subsidize the game. Companies see revenue. When it changes (for the worse), they will change to try and reverse the trend.

Crying about something, but continuing to buy premium time, ships, containers, etc. pretty much assures that NOTHING will change.

Yup. Best move IMO is figure out which tiers are most adversely affected, and don't play them.

Basically, you want to change all the complaints from, "I don't like playing my Tier y ships because x always happens to, "I don't play Tier y ships anymore".

WG doesn't really look at the complaints as much as their own data. We can complain about a tier situation all we want, but until WG sees hardly anyone playing that tier, they won't seriously acknowledge a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,197
[NMKJT]
Beta Testers
21,155 posts
3,867 battles
2 minutes ago, Sweetsie said:

That's nice....but most people play to grind something...the next tech tree ship or credits or in my case captains XP. The thought of fun match that doesn't pay well...isn't fun.

Don't know how to break this to you, but most people play a game to have fun

 

Grinding can be fun, but grinding isn't itself fun. The gameplay is what makes it fun, and the reward is a multiplier for that experience. The reward itself is not the experience when it comes to playing a game. It's icing. Not the cake.

Edited by KiyoSenkan
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
258
[CVA16]
Members
2,169 posts
9,615 battles

It would create the problem where the tier 10s have nobody to fight/beat up on if they can't see tier 8s. Probably take forever to get into a tier 9-10 match. Tier 9s would probably only see tier 10s because they are needed to fill in the rosters there.

 

Edited by Sabot_100

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
456
[LUCK]
Members
1,275 posts
18,968 battles
12 minutes ago, Sweetsie said:

If WG would clearly show how we get XP I believe many folks would be happy as bottom tier knowing that their XP values are being multiplied. Assuming that is the case from I have been told. 

Anyone that has GSD for their profile picture gets a like/upvote from me.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,557
Members
17,726 posts
5,084 battles
2 minutes ago, KiyoSenkan said:

Don't know how to break this to you, but most people play a game to have fun

Well yeah, but just like winning is more fun than losing, bigger rewards are more fun than less.

Sure, if you have every ship you want, and there's nothing left to grind for, you won't care about rewards, but most people aren't in that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,557
Members
17,726 posts
5,084 battles
4 minutes ago, Sabot_100 said:

It would create the problem where the tier 10s have nobody to fight/beat up on if they can't see tier 8s.

Creates the same problem for every tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×