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

MM and Radar

40 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

6
[AN2AC]
Members
19 posts
10,300 battles

Playing t5-7 and MM gives the opposing side radar ships and none on our side 3 matches in a row, its such a powerful and one sided tool when distributed like this..

And then in a t6-8 match MM gives the opposing side 2 radar ships and none on our side...  come on change MM dont just look at levels but abilities (esp Radar) and equal them both sides..... An Atlanta or Belfast in a t5-7 match is soooo OP as it is but having one on one side only....

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,196
[5D]
Members
3,045 posts
19,489 battles

MM is rather basic as it looks at ship class and tiers. They tried a long time ago to have MM not put 3-4 Clevelands on one side (pre-radar) since it was death for CV operations and the HE spam was deadly. While it worked better after many patches it seemed to not work any more.

Radar is a consumable and MM isn't built to look at consumables. Additionally, for some ships radar is an option not a fixed consumable so that would add more complexity.

Many players would like to see the MM updated for many different reasons but this doesn't really seem to be a priority for them.

EDIT - Also, when MM is more one-sided with radar your team should make deleting those ships the first priority towards winning the match. If not, then your team has made it one-sided by their poor decision making.

Edited by 1SneakyDevil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,626 posts
8,563 battles

You think thats bad MM, try having the same issue in ranked play, especially last season where the enemy could have 2 radar cruisers and dd's w/ hydro while you had neither.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,210
[NMKJT]
Members
4,023 posts

I've never seen anyone complain when they had all the radar on their side, or not use theirs because the other side didn't have any. It's a first person/third person issue. My team's radar is fine, their team's radar is unbalanced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
373
[P2W]
[P2W]
Members
1,241 posts
1 hour ago, TheDreadnought said:

It averages out over time.

Not that Radar is that big a deal anyway.

Says the 78% BB main.

14 hours ago, Dreamkiller said:

 its such a powerful and one sided tool

That's all you really needed to say.

12 hours ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

EDIT - Also, when MM is more one-sided with radar your team should make deleting those ships the first priority towards winning the match. If not, then your team has made it one-sided by their poor decision making.

Most teams can't even decide which caps to go after. I've never seen radar ships focused no matter how hard you try to get your team to understand how the dominoes will fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
114
[WOLF2]
Members
434 posts
6,509 battles
2 hours ago, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

I've never seen anyone complain when they had all the radar on their side, or not use theirs because the other side didn't have any. It's a first person/third person issue. My team's radar is fine, their team's radar is unbalanced

Being on the team with 4 radars when the other team has none isn't any fun either.  It's no accomplishment to stomp an enemy team when you have a Z-52, multiple radar cruisers and a Missouri vs no radar.  I don't want to be on either side of that game.  It's an mm flaw that they need to address.  If mm can put 4 radars on one team why not be able to split it two and two.  

"Because it's not designed like that" 

Well I imagine the consensus amongst the player base would be...design it like that.  These people write code for a living.  It can't be all that hard.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
340
Members
1,189 posts
9,219 battles
35 minutes ago, Kochira said:

If you have to warp the matchmaker around a ship is it really balanced?

It's not the ship it's the consumables. Belfast is a prime example of that, the ship itself is mediocre, it's the fact it gets smoke/hydro/radar all at the same time that makes it op.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,210
[NMKJT]
Members
4,023 posts
2 hours ago, LastSamurai714 said:

Being on the team with 4 radars when the other team has none isn't any fun either.  It's no accomplishment to stomp an enemy team when you have a Z-52, multiple radar cruisers and a Missouri vs no radar.  I don't want to be on either side of that game.  It's an mm flaw that they need to address.  If mm can put 4 radars on one team why not be able to split it two and two.  

"Because it's not designed like that" 

Well I imagine the consensus amongst the player base would be...design it like that.  These people write code for a living.  It can't be all that hard.

I don't see it as an MM flaw at all, I see it as a ship balance issue. MM shouldn't have to look at loadouts to balance, the ships should be balanced at that point. I say fix the ships not change MM.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
114
[WOLF2]
Members
434 posts
6,509 battles
21 minutes ago, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

I don't see it as an MM flaw at all, I see it as a ship balance issue. MM shouldn't have to look at loadouts to balance, the ships should be balanced at that point. I say fix the ships not change MM.

You either have radar or you don't.  There's no balancing that aside from removing it.  Easier than removing it is just balancing the extreme cases that happen quite often.  When you combine all the radar on one side then the other anomalies like extra BB' extra DD and all the radar...it's not really fun on either side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,210
[NMKJT]
Members
4,023 posts
1 hour ago, LastSamurai714 said:

You either have radar or you don't.  There's no balancing that aside from removing it.  Easier than removing it is just balancing the extreme cases that happen quite often.  When you combine all the radar on one side then the other anomalies like extra BB' extra DD and all the radar...it's not really fun on either side.

My thought is two cruisers of equal tier should bring equal value to their team. If they don't, if one has an advantage like radar that gives a clear edge, that's a ship balance issue. If you have to start looking at consumables to create balance than there is a fundamental flaw in the ship design.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,458 posts
8,476 battles
8 minutes ago, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

My thought is two cruisers of equal tier should bring equal value to their team. If they don't, if one has an advantage like radar that gives a clear edge, that's a ship balance issue. If you have to start looking at consumables to create balance than there is a fundamental flaw in the ship design.  

It is a consumable un-balance. Not a ship design flaw. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,210
[NMKJT]
Members
4,023 posts
Just now, Crusin_Custard said:

It is a consumable un-balance. Not a ship design flaw. 

If a ship has a strong advantage because it can mount a consumable which another ship can't, that is ship design every bit as rate of fire or DPM. That superheal that British BBs and Cruisers get? That's ship design. So is radar

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
340
Members
1,189 posts
9,219 battles
1 minute ago, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

If a ship has a strong advantage because it can mount a consumable which another ship can't, that is ship design every bit as rate of fire or DPM. That superheal that British BBs and Cruisers get? That's ship design. So is radar

 

 

Radar is primarily only relevant in cruiser vs. destroyer fights, those other things work for any fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,458 posts
8,476 battles
Just now, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

If a ship has a strong advantage because it can mount a consumable which another ship can't, that is ship design every bit as rate of fire or DPM. That superheal that British BBs and Cruisers get? That's ship design. So is radar

 

 

Iam sorry but radar is not a ship design flaw, unless it is integral and hard wired into the ship itself. Radar can be mounted or dismounted. It has everything to do with
the radar consumable design, not ship design. Put radar on every ship and they play the same. The flaw is in the consumable, and how it is distributed or not distributed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,210
[NMKJT]
Members
4,023 posts
Just now, Rouxi said:

Radar is primarily only relevant in cruiser vs. destroyer fights, those other things work for any fight.

I would argue that radar has a direct influence on contesting caps and outcome of the match more so than a super heal, and is more relevant as a result. Superheal simply does not impact the outcome like radar

1 minute ago, Crusin_Custard said:

Iam sorry but radar is not a ship design flaw, unless it is integral and hard wired into the ship itself. Radar can be mounted or dismounted. It has everything to do with
the radar consumable design, not ship design. Put radar on every ship and they play the same. The flaw is in the consumable, and how it is distributed or not distributed.

 

I am sorry but you're wrong. Take the Shiratsuyu. They took the torpedo reload booster out of it's own slot and put it in the same slot as smoke so you can choose one of the other, and this was done to balance the ship. What consumables a ship can mount or not, and what the work time is, and the benefits of a consumable have all been used as balance points by devs.

That new French BB has a repair party that comes available super fast. The October Revolution has limited repair parties. You cannot separate consumables from ship balance. That's how the devs use them

Moskva has what 10 second work time on its radar? Balance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
340
Members
1,189 posts
9,219 battles
2 minutes ago, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

I would argue that radar has a direct influence on contesting caps and outcome of the match more so than a super heal, and is more relevant as a result. Superheal simply does not impact the outcome like radar

My point was that in order to balance radar ca and non radar ca you'd have to make the non radar ca significantly better at fighting dd so as to be equal to radar...or just give them radar. Either of which would throw cruiser/destroyer balance out the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,458 posts
8,476 battles
1 minute ago, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

I would argue that radar has a direct influence on contesting caps and outcome of the match more so than a super heal, and is more relevant as a result. Superheal simply does not impact the outcome like radar

I am sorry but you're wrong. Take the Shiratsuyu. They took the torpedo reload booster out of it's own slot and put it in the same slot as smoke so you can choose one of the other, and this was done to balance the ship. What consumables a ship can mount or not, and what the work time is, and the benefits of a consumable have all been used as balance points by devs.

That new French BB has a repair party that comes available super fast. The October Revolution has limited repair parties. You cannot separate consumables from ship balance. That's how the devs use them

Moskva has what 10 second work time on its radar? Balance. 

In a lot of case's radar came after ship was introduced. Thu is was a add on feature. Radar was not introduced to balance ships,. It was introduced to counter ships / meta.
Radar is not about balance. It was introduced, cause ppl cried a lot about DD's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,210
[NMKJT]
Members
4,023 posts
4 minutes ago, Crusin_Custard said:

In a lot of case's radar came after ship was introduced. Thu is was a add on feature. Radar was not introduced to balance ships,. It was introduced to counter ships / meta.
Radar is not about balance. It was introduced, cause ppl cried a lot about DD's. 

So it was introduced to balance DDs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,210
[NMKJT]
Members
4,023 posts
7 minutes ago, Rouxi said:

My point was that in order to balance radar ca and non radar ca you'd have to make the non radar ca significantly better at fighting dd so as to be equal to radar...or just give them radar. Either of which would throw cruiser/destroyer balance out the window.

My point point is simply that tweaking MM to consider consumables is not the way to address cruiser/destroyer balance. It's a house of cards at that point.

2 minutes ago, Crusin_Custard said:

Supposedly to balance gameplay of a specific ship line. Not the ship specifically :cap_book:

If you look at the Missouri or Belfast, having radar balances the ship specifically. In fact without consumables like radar the Belfast is sub average.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
340
Members
1,189 posts
9,219 battles
9 minutes ago, Destroyer_Suzukaze said:

So it was introduced to balance DDs

Yes and no. At the time radar was added there was a heavy smoke meta and stealth firing both of which have since been removed by other changes. Radar was originally intended to counter all of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
724
[TMS]
Members
2,991 posts
28,875 battles
1 hour ago, Rouxi said:

Yes and no. At the time radar was added there was a heavy smoke meta and stealth firing both of which have since been removed by other changes. Radar was originally intended to counter all of that.

And only the russian cruisers had radar and it lasted 25 secs.

Everyone had to be ready to take advantage of it or the DD could get away, but now with so many ships having it and upto 56secs for just one ship it gets use as a defacto DD spotting device more than an anti smoke device and in cyclones its we can see and shoot all you ships within radar range and you can't see or shoot  me.

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.

×