Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
warheart1992

Tier VIII MM post, but not of the normal kind.

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,095
[HYDRO]
Members
2,220 posts
4,185 battles

Disclaimers:

  1. First of all, this is not a rant or whine in any form, merely some observations on my part
  2.  Yes I am aware of Lert’s Tier 8 experiment, in fact it proves some of the points I am trying to make. (https://forum.worldofwarships.com/topic/163474-lerts-t8-experiment-conclusions/)
  3.  Because of my very limited experience at tiers IX-X I will not be talking stats or performance, basing some of my claims on tier VIII instead.

Everybody has seen these topics pop up, about Tier VIII MM constantly seeing Tier X etc etc. To a certain extent I can relate, I play Tier VIII far more often than I used to. As a result there are times where RNJesus rolls a 1 for me on the D20 and puts me in streaks of Tier X battles. As a DD and cruiser main, I don’t really care for MM, especially in a DD. However that is not always the case with the rest of the playerbase.  There is some outcry about it. Many people believe that Tier VIII at the moment is the least fun tier and instead stick to Tier VII. I don’t think most can deny this.

The question persists however, why does this happen, and is there any way to “fix” any existing issue to streamline the average player experience?

What I believe is the issue with high tier matchmaking, is the way Wargaming has relegated roles to specific tiers. Tier VIII is your moneymaking tier, with most of the premiums that can turn up high profits existing there. This is where people spend quite a bit of time earning credits (if they don’t have any Tier IX premium) or grinding. In addition all Campaigns require at least Tier VIII ships.

Then, Tier X is regarded as the end game content and the focus of Clan Battles.  Tier Xs represent the ultimate a line can offer. It is therefore logical to assume people would play that tier

Last, both tiers are part of Ranked Battles.  It is safe to consider these tiers are pretty popular.

Then, we come to the factor creating the uptiering many people complain about.

@Lertdid a random solo Tier VIII experiment to see the matchmaking he would get in 100 battles. While as he said this is not a big sample size, it is definitely an indicator.

Quote

 

“Over 100 solo battles in T8 ships, I got:

37% top tier battles
18% tier 9 battles
45% tier 10 battles

 

 

 

I believe that “18% tier 9 battles” to be the core of the problem.

Tier IX is often seen as just a stepping stone. Of course, some of the Tier IX ships are pretty strong and keepers, no question about it. When it comes to certain ships however, it is often considered a gatekeeper tier for the glory of Tier X.  

The way Wargaming structures the game, with a moneymaking Tier (Tier VIII), then a stepping stone tier, and finally the end game/Clan Battles Tier (Tier X) shafts Tier IX basically.  Granted, there are Tier IX premiums, but they are few in number and variety to really shift the situation.

In order to “fix” Tier VIII MM we don’t need to look at strengthening Tier VIIIs to be more competitive or nerfing Tier Xs, but rather increasing the Tier IX population and providing incentives to play this specific tier. I believe in an ideal environment MM could be 30%/40%/30%, but I feel this is almost impossible to accomplish.

  • A good first step would be to make some improvements to ships that are considered gatekeepers. Izumo recently got a buff, maybe other ships should follow suit like, F. De Grosse.
  • Another way would be give more incentives for people to play Tier IX in the form of events. I don’t know how Tier IX Ranked would turn out, but it could be some food for thought.
  • A different route would be for WG to print out as many Tier IX premiums as possible. I believe this would do more harm than good on the long run.
  • Finally, permanent camouflage could be more beneficial to Tier IX ships, in order to promote more games in these ships. As it is now, Tier IX permacamo offers for 4000 gold:

    -3% to surface detectability range.

    +4% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship.

    -20% to the cost of ship's post-battle service.

    +100% to experience earned in the battle.

Tier X permacamo offers for 5000, so just 1000 gold more

    -3% to surface detectability range.

    +4% to maximum dispersion of shells fired by the enemy at your ship.

    -50% to the cost of ship's post-battle service.

    +20% credits earned in the battle.

    +100% to experience earned in the battle.

I believe a 10% to credits earned in battle for Tier IX permacamo would be useful.

 

Bottom line, I fear the lack of attention in certain aspects of Tier IX will affect high tiers negatively. The feeling of Tier VIII constant uptiering is but a symptom of it.

Hope we can get some good discussion out of this, disagreements/opinions/additions welcome!

Thanks for reading.

Edited by warheart1992
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,395
[HINON]
Supertester
20,086 posts
13,526 battles

The problem is an overabundance of tier 10s in the queueueueue. This I think is in part a result of WG making constant T10 play viable by way of permacamos and all sorts of economic bonuses on flags, like you said.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Supertester
3,005 posts
10,086 battles

I think there was some discussion about this in another topic with some of us spitballing ideas. While you have some good ideas, to me it seems like a lot of change.

Personally I think 10's could be in an MM of their own. 

Pro's:

1) Tiers 6 - 9 reshuffled. 

2 There is now a true "middle tier past the Tier 4 restriction. That being Tier 7, which by the way, is the rarest Ranked Tier.

Probably some more, but I'm tired and can't think atm. lol

The only real "Con" I can think of is:

- A possible longer que for Tier 10 or even a severe drop in Tier 10 play if que's are too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
197
[SIDE]
Members
775 posts
3,675 battles

Nah. that low % of Tier 9 is good... It's the reason why I love Tier 7... dun dun duuun =p

Edited by Merlox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
180 posts
2,725 battles

In co-op, I kinda like doing the T8 vs. T10 matches, certainly good for learning what NOT to do. Giving the Bots a couple tiers advantage makes up a little for their predictability.

What I'd like to change is when they put ONE T8 in a match where everyone else is T10. That's a little too much learning curve for me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
490
[INTEL]
Beta Testers
1,748 posts
4,512 battles
1 hour ago, warheart1992 said:

Tier X is regarded as the end game content and the focus of Clan Battles.  Tier Xs represent the ultimate a line can offer. It is therefore logical to assume people would play that tier@Lert

This is the a problem.  The existence of Tier X doesn't automatically make it the "end game" - people don't stop playing and declare they've "beaten the game" because they've reached tier X.  That's what "end game" means - the game ends.

Nor can we regard Ranked or Clan Battles as 'end game' content.  Owing to the schedule alone, it isn't likely a player will graduate to these modes and play them exclusively.  Pile on the economic incentives to play other tiers in other modes, and the odds are far lower.

In a game such as this, is the concept of 'end game content' useful?

If the answer to that question is 'no', shouldn't that inform the tier selection for competitive modes like Ranked and Clan Battles?  Tier IX should absolutely be in consideration for competitive modes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
97
[FAILD]
Members
427 posts
1,608 battles
1 hour ago, Lert said:

The problem is an overabundance of tier 10s in the queueueueue. This I think is in part a result of WG making constant T10 play viable by way of permacamos and all sorts of economic bonuses on flags, like you said.

If there is an over abundance of tier 10's you'd need less tier 9's and 8's to fill out teams. My last 2 tier 8 battles this morning there were less the half the teams with tier 10 ships in the first battle and the second battle tier 8 was top tier. 

I think peoples complaints about waiting times has caused WG to tweak the MM to accept more up tiering in order to keep wait times lower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,095
[HYDRO]
Members
2,220 posts
4,185 battles
20 minutes ago, Fishrokk said:

This is the a problem.  The existence of Tier X doesn't automatically make it the "end game" - people don't stop playing and declare they've "beaten the game" because they've reached tier X.  That's what "end game" means - the game ends.

Nor can we regard Ranked or Clan Battles as 'end game' content.  Owing to the schedule alone, it isn't likely a player will graduate to these modes and play them exclusively.  Pile on the economic incentives to play other tiers in other modes, and the odds are far lower.

In a game such as this, is the concept of 'end game content' useful?

If the answer to that question is 'no', shouldn't that inform the tier selection for competitive modes like Ranked and Clan Battles?  Tier IX should absolutely be in consideration for competitive modes.

I agree "end game content" is a pretty vague term in the case of WoWs. As for Tier IX for Ranked and Clan battles, the only objection would be that there would exist a strong meta favouring premium ships, especially Missouri and Musashi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
213
[ODIN]
Members
650 posts
14,818 battles

Dont forget to mention the amount of Tier 10 centric "events." For example, Campaigns are Tier 8 -10 (10 being preferred for achieving some tasks), we have legendary module missions that require a ton of play in each ship to unlock, Tier 10 ranked and clan battles encourage constant grinding of Tier 10s to progress captains to 19 full skill points, and finally the Go Navy event awards more points per game for each time when a player uses Tier 10. 

I agree that the economic bonuses for tier 10 with permanent camouflage as well as premium account time makes it rewarding to play, nearly as much as purchasing a premium ship.

Honestly, I think that they need to make things rotate, such as playing the other ships in the tech tree line to unlock the legendary upgrades. For example: Earn 100,000 experience in Mogami, Earn 8,000,000 credits in Ibuki, and Earn 100,000 free experience in Zao to unlock its legendary module. That way people play through the whole line instead of simply playing Zao 300 times in a row to unlock its unique module.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
484
[DAB]
Members
1,995 posts
6,846 battles

The real problem is there are relatively fewer people playing T6-7. No T6-7 players, no T6-7 games for T8 to be top tier in. This is the basic problem WG has faced in all of their games with regards to tier progression. Based on their monetization scheme, the spread inevitably ends up looking like this.

T8 > 7 > 6 > 5 > 9 > 10 > 4 > 3 > 2 > 1

The issue is everyone ends up being bottom tier more often to feed into the preferential MM T9-10 receive. WoWS has a few safeguards already in place like T1 +/-0, T2 +1/-0, and T3-4 +/-1, but with time, the end result will still be T2 always seeing T3, T3 always seeing T4, and T4 always seeing T5. T9-10 may become more populated than some of the mid tiers due to permacamos, but the placement of T9-10 is irrelevant. All that matters is that they are less populated than T8, which creates the upward pressure on T8. Eventually, WG will have no choice but to guarantee rates of top/bottom/mid/same tier matches. They're grappling with this dilemma right now in WoT because their stupid template system failed as predicted and they haven't found any alternatives to my solution after a whole year of seeing templates fail.

Edited by awildseaking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×