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

Want to never be bottom tier and increase your WR ?

36 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

383
[WOLFB]
Members
1,669 posts
8,063 battles

Yuro has the answer :

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
578
[WOLF6]
Members
1,849 posts
4,842 battles

Yuro states it breaks the game, ethically 

you post it as some kind of perk? Seriously?

 

Edit: i think the neg reps are cute. It’s like, “don’t call us unethical, lust because we are!”

Edited by Thornir
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,490
[INTEL]
Members
6,632 posts
25,386 battles

Nothing new. We know about this. He is right.

He offers some solutions. I am not sure WG will do any of these. Personally, I would not mind slightly longer waits to get a way to fix this.

I am also on record saying I would be ok with longer waits to fix other balance issues that are not being addressed at all, (e.g. unequal number of radars, unequal number of DDs). I am all for as balanced a match as possible. Not as much as in Coop of course, where it is always balanced with mirror matching, but taking into consideration types and radar. Skill-set of the players I am not complaining about. There is always a possibility that one team will have more skilled players (esp. in a Div). I am ok with that.

Edited by alexf24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
517
[SYN]
[SYN]
Beta Testers
1,827 posts
10,762 battles

Isn't that a fail div? Why is it guaranteed to not be the bottom tier? Or does Saipan has a special MM rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
49 posts
603 battles
3 minutes ago, chewonit said:

Isn't that a fail div? Why is it guaranteed to not be the bottom tier? Or does Saipan has a special MM rule?

CVs can only be matched with same tier CVs, so basically the MM is +/-1 for them, and because the CV is T7(or T6 in case of a 677), the CV will anchor the MM and the max tier they meet is +/-2 of the other teams's CV, which is a T7

 

i.e, their division MM will be T7MM instead of T8 MM, so they will never meet T10s and are top tier most of the time becasue of the how MM places T7 ships

 

but then you see ppl who do this get dragged into T10 and you laugh at their misfortune

Edited by drakon1998
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
517
[SYN]
[SYN]
Beta Testers
1,827 posts
10,762 battles
5 minutes ago, drakon1998 said:

CVs can only be matched with same tier CVs, so basically the MM is +/-1 for them, and because the CV is T7(or T6 in case of a 677), the CV will anchor the MM so the max they meet is +/-2 of the CV's tier i.e, their division MM will be T7MM instead of T8 MM

Still not clear why. Doesn't CV have the same ±2 MM like every other ship? I thought having T8 ship, which is bottom tier a lot, actually makes this more likely to be a fail div.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
49 posts
603 battles
1 minute ago, chewonit said:

Still not clear why. Doesn't CV have the same ±2 MM like every other ship? I thought having T8 ship, which is bottom tier a lot, actually makes this more likely to be a fail div.

because CV's are already in the dirt in terms of balancing in the same tier, and WG never figured out how to fix them, so their soulution to the dual CV/CV inbalanced MM/single CV MM problems was to simply limit it to +/-1 and leave it there to rot

and no, CVs can only meet same tier CVs, so since the CV you are facing is a T7 you also get T7 MM (unless the other team's CV is tier anchoring as well)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
62
[TF16A]
[TF16A]
Members
447 posts
5,490 battles

There is one downside to this tactic.  If there is another division in the queue doing the same thing, the CV can end up in a match against ships 3 tiers higher.  For example, with the division composition as laid out in the video, the Saipan, Kidd, Kutuzov division could find themselves against a similar division and T10's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
49 posts
603 battles
Just now, DanielLeary said:

There is one downside to this tactic.  If there is another division in the queue doing the same thing, the CV can end up in a match against ships 3 tiers higher.  For example, with the division composition as laid out in the video, the Saipan, Kidd, Kutuzov division could find themselves against a similar division and T10's.

the odds of that happening is fairly low, and the risk is worth the usual payoff, and beside, one thing that yuro didnt mention is that most 788 divisions are made up of one kutu and one BB/kidd for the express purpuse of countreing surface ships, and these ships do just fine in T10 with the gimmics, and the CVs can just help them spot and other stuff to secure a win(or at least a cap and tons of damage)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
517
[SYN]
[SYN]
Beta Testers
1,827 posts
10,762 battles
4 minutes ago, drakon1998 said:

because CV's are already in the dirt in terms of balancing in the same tier, and WG never figured out how to fix them, so their soulution to the dual CV/CV inbalanced MM/single CV MM problems was to simply limit it to +/-1 and leave it there to rot

and no, CVs can only meet same tier CVs, so since the CV you are facing is a T7 you also get T7 MM (unless the other team's CV is tier anchoring as well)

Ah. CV MM trumps everything. Thanks.

Applying band-aids upon band-aids to make CV works has some unintentional consequence, I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
49 posts
603 battles
5 minutes ago, chewonit said:

Ah. CV MM trumps everything. Thanks.

Applying band-aids upon band-aids to make CV works has some unintentional consequence, I guess.

where other games devs balance with a scaple, WG balances with a rusty chainsaw

Edited by drakon1998

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,692
[TBW]
Members
6,354 posts
11,894 battles
6 minutes ago, drakon1998 said:

where other games devs balance with a scaple, WG balances with a rusty chainsaw

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
472
[WORX]
Members
1,652 posts
12,706 battles

Win rate, this just shows that its not a individual effort, its a fleet effort. It does'nt surprise me people are trying to cheat the system in order to appear to be the best (ala Trump life). Win rate by definition is

  • having luck finding 11 other   guys working together that know what is needed to win the match. Not complaining about MM
  • To be honest, there are going to be game that are unwinnable, not because of your efforts but those of the 11 other guys in your fleet.
  • So Win rate is how well you can command 11 other knuckle heads to victory.
  • Win rate also shows us how the other side of that coin, how fortunate are you in landing yourself in a  non winnable situation.

I love Yuro, he does great content for the community. In turn, I think we have to reinterpret/redefine win rate  is compare to what your ego mind convinced yourself it is. Just because you think the interpretation of win rate is correct to you, does'nt mean/necessarily its the correct one.

Edited by Navalpride33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,060
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,233 posts
8,804 battles

Yeah but when it backfires it is hilarious, this only works when you only have a single CV per team. As soon as there are enough for two CV's per team you have the chance for the ship type that up-tiers the worst getting dragged into a plus three situation. I am going to guess that the possible up-tiering is why WG has done nothing about this which has been around since before launch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
170
[OSG]
Beta Testers
1,350 posts
14,793 battles

Another suggestion could be to match the enemy CV to the highest tier of any ship in a division with a CV.  So in your 788 example, the enemy CV would be a tier VIII since the unethical CV division contains a tier VIII ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,092
[SPTR]
Members
3,459 posts
5,674 battles
1 hour ago, Thornir said:

Yuro states it breaks the game, ethically 

you post it as some kind of perk? Seriously?

I'm not sure myself, but I think OP made an attempt of sacasm...

Jokes aside, yes this is pretty broken. Sure, it still requires considerable individual player skill and coordination, but this should receieve an immediate band-aid hot fix IMO.

Like, stucking the platoon in queue forever until another 788 scrub division appears :Smile_playing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
49 posts
603 battles
9 minutes ago, The_first_harbinger said:

I'm not sure myself, but I think OP made an attempt of sacasm...

Jokes aside, yes this is pretty broken. Sure, it still requires considerable individual player skill and coordination, but this should receieve an immediate band-aid hot fix IMO.

Like, stucking the platoon in queue forever until another 788 scrub division appears :Smile_playing:

it's been there since CVs got the +/-1 MM, and no one really cared, nice that yuro is spreading that cancer outside of the asia server so WG will finally sit up and take notice

Edited by drakon1998

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,572
[BIAS]
Members
3,049 posts
9,037 battles

I have played saipan in a t10 game... It's not really all that fun... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
337
[DPG]
Members
825 posts
4,249 battles

I've had to face a Saipan in my Zuiho so I'm not sure this anchoring is some kind of fool proof option.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,060
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,233 posts
8,804 battles
1 minute ago, Amenhir said:

I've had to face a Saipan in my Zuiho so I'm not sure this anchoring is some kind of fool proof option.  

Only when the MM creates matches with a single CV per team. As soon as it starts looking at two per team all bets are off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,690 posts
7,231 battles
1 hour ago, Ducky_shot said:

I have played saipan in a t10 game... It's not really all that fun... 

Saipan that does the anchoring in 788 division often goes 3/0/1, specifically because of remote possibility getting into tier 10 battles against similar 788 division.  3/0/1 Saipan does fine in T10 game, mostly providing vision and occasional DD bombing run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
49 posts
603 battles
8 minutes ago, Ramsalot said:

Saipan that does the anchoring in 788 division often goes 3/0/1, specifically because of remote possibility getting into tier 10 battles against similar 788 division.  3/0/1 Saipan does fine in T10 game, mostly providing vision and occasional DD bombing run.

301 saipan is usless in tier anchoring, the very reason that you take 2 ships with you is that you have AA support on any cap you decide to stike(or even both if they split up) takeing AS us stupid when you already are assured the air. good saipans will always run 220 and go after DDs, even in T10 those T9 TB squads can hunt down DDs with ease

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×