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

Why the T8 MM cannot easily be fixed, by the numbers

45 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

3,605
[INTEL]
Members
8,407 posts
25,228 battles
8 4939843
7 4501474
10 4362409
6 3840728
5 3695758
9 2807057
4 2534687
3 1871145

The list above shows the number of battles played by tier for the NA server in the quarter ending Sept 29, taken from here.  I've organized them from most to least by tier. 

Note first of all the extremely low number of battles for T9. There are simply not enough T9s to fill out T10 battles the way the current MM is set up, so it must dip into T8. As you can see, T8 has the most battles of any tier, followed by T7.  There would probably be a lot more at T5 and T6 if the MM wasn't so awful right now. 

If T9s are pulled into T10 in great numbers, there are few T9s to give T8s one tier and T7s two tier spreads. Hence, to ensure that T9s are spread evenly across T7-8 battles and that there MM has a fair two tier spread at T7, the surplus of T8s have to be shoved up to T10 to fill the slots that should be going to T9s. The problem of the current MM is that no one plays T9 ships and that WG has organized the game around T10 even though, as evidence shows, most players would rather be at T8... indeed, if we switched to a one tier MM there would be even more T8 games. 

What's interesting is that people are still enthusiastically willing to be abused at by the MM at T8. Here are the T8 ships ranked by number of battles...

1 Cleveland 47107 661986
2 North Carolina 20705 400507
3 Bismarck 20333 379471
4 Massachusetts 11822 271901
5 Baltimore 17353 260425
6 Tirpitz 20213 246180
7 Benson 10407 200233
8 Akizuki 9786 171531
9 Admiral Hipper 9870 168702
10 Kagero 9317 167142
11 Richelieu 8343 164301
12 Amagi 9423 158947
13 Mogami 8857 152044
14 Alabama 10727 136962
15 Edinburgh 8542 131836
16 Atago 9359 106768
17 Monarch 5193 105370
18 Chapayev 5871 92695
19 Z-23 4647 87826
20 Charles Martel 5410 85963
21 Kidd 8947 79291
22 Lexington 4351 75741
23 Asashio 3375 71387
24 Prinz Eugen 9622 65538
25 HSF Harekaze 5042 63381
26 Hsienyang 2789 54644
27 Mikhail Kutuzov 5715 51030
28 Kiev 3806 50862
29 Ognevoi 4133 47330
30 Loyang 5066 43513
31 ARP Takao 5219 38809
32 Roma 3759 38380
33 Kii 3035 28395
34 Shokaku 2088 25200
35 Gascogne 2320 20164
36 Enterprise 1462 10379
37 Graf Zeppelin 399 8612
38 Cossack 1077 8366
39 Lightning 940 8031

...note that the majority are tech tree ships. Kii, Roma, and Gascogne are almost non-existent -- examples of how the two tier MM that shoves players up to T10 has killed T8 premium ship purchases (doesn't help that the recent crop of T8 premiums has been pretty meh, soon to be joined by the gimped Wichita). I've stopped playing T8-10 and will not lay out any cash on premiums for those tiers since why pay to be a fodderbote, and I doubt I am the only one to make that latter decision. In a one tier MM I would probably have bought Roma, Gascogne, and Massachusetts... 

Lightning was  new so I imagine she will move rapidly up the charts. But of the top ten and top 15, most are tech tree ships. Only 2 premiums, Mass and Tirp, are in the top ten. At T8 lots of the tech tree ships are really enjoyable boats, and of course many people wanted to try the new Cleveland. Thanks for the food, guys. 

It's blindingly obvious that we need to switch to a one tier MM. WG's deference to T10 is killing the high tiers, while T5-6 are broken. If we switched to a one-tier MM T9 would hardly change, and more T9s would be available to be pulled into T10 matches. There would be a slightly longer wait at T10 since the hordes of T8 ships would no longer be available. What is really needed to make that happen is for WG to change the way it treats T10 like a spoiled, favorite son even though the numbers show that people would rather be at  T8. The best gameplay is at T5-8 and that's what the game should emphasize. In a one tier MM those four tiers would be loads of fun, and everyone would play a greater variety of boats.  

Top ten T9 ships by number of battles. I guess people must be grinding Buffalo, because there is no other reason to play it, let alone so much. 

9 Iowa 13423 283731
9 Fletcher 10385 245719
9 Missouri 11380 230637
9 Buffalo 11495 209645
9 Seattle 7606 192111
9 Friedrich der Grosse 8253 159845
9 Yugumo 6537 146543
9 Alsace 5568 142368
9 Musashi 5806 138180
9 Roon 5707 117235
  • Cool 11
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
820
[SBS]
Members
2,394 posts
2,248 battles

Part of what increases T8 play is people funding their T10 play.  I doubt WG will ever lighten up on the economics of T10 but it would probably help T8 and T9.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
310
[TOG]
Members
2,344 posts
14,574 battles
12 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

What is really needed to make that happen is for WG to change the way it treats T10 like a spoiled, favorite son even though the numbers show that people would rather be at  T8. The best gameplay is at T5-8 and that's what the game should emphasize. In a one tier MM those four tiers would be loads of fun, and everyone would play a greater variety of boats.  

I've been wondering about the push WG is making for T10 play. Is there an economic reason for it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,465 posts
659 battles
2 minutes ago, Bill_Halsey said:

I've been wondering about the push WG is making for T10 play. Is there an economic reason for it?

premium time to get there, permanent camo's to help them stay there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,311
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,440 posts
6,631 battles
28 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

It's blindingly obvious that we need to switch to a one tier MM

I enjoyed reading your analysis, but disagree with your conclusion. The problem, as you analysed it, is that t9 is unpopular, and that the difficulty of playing bottom tier in MM+-2 is too great. In short, being bottom tier = hard mode.

I can see where the game has gone wrong, in some areas, an example would be the huge gulf between t7 and t8 dds (mostly down to concealment upgrades), or survivability vs cv assaults (tier 8 cv vs a t6 bb, or t8 bb vs a t10 cv.) But in others, the majority of ships are more than capable of fighting +2 MM, while +2 MM, when bottom tier, rewards good gameplay results with increased credit and xp rewards. Indeed, I welcome the challenge of being uptiered, and enjoy dmging, or better sinking, tier 10s, with a tier 8. But back to your point about why current MM is not doing its job properly, I agree with you, the unpopularity of tier 9 is the core reason. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,311
[-Y-]
Alpha Tester
4,440 posts
6,631 battles
9 minutes ago, Bill_Halsey said:

I've been wondering about the push WG is making for T10 play. Is there an economic reason for it?

forces players to invest in researching tech trees, so spending credits and doublons, while t10 is generally a loss maker for the majority of players, unless they have premium time, or excellent gameplay results.

There is one other reason, t10 is generally considered to be the most balanced tier (of course, there are "problem" ships at tier 10 too, but fewer, proportionally than at t6, 7 and 8, for example)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
597
[RKLES]
[RKLES]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,311 posts
11,415 battles
4 hours ago, Taichunger said:
8 4939843
7 4501474
10 4362409
6 3840728
5 3695758
9 2807057
4 2534687
3 1871145

The list above shows the number of battles played by tier for the NA server in the quarter ending Sept 29, taken from here.  I've organized them from most to least by tier. 

Note first of all the extremely low number of battles for T9. There are simply not enough T9s to fill out T10 battles the way the current MM is set up, so it must dip into T8. As you can see, T8 has the most battles of any tier, followed by T7.  There would probably be a lot more at T5 and T6 if the MM wasn't so awful right now. 

If T9s are pulled into T10 in great numbers, there are few T9s to give T8s one tier and T7s two tier spreads. Hence, to ensure that T9s are spread evenly across T7-8 battles and that there MM has a fair two tier spread at T7, the surplus of T8s have to be shoved up to T10 to fill the slots that should be going to T9s. The problem of the current MM is that no one plays T9 ships and that WG has organized the game around T10 even though, as evidence shows, most players would rather be at T8... indeed, if we switched to a one tier MM there would be even more T8 games. 

What's interesting is that people are still enthusiastically willing to be abused at by the MM at T8. Here are the T8 ships ranked by number of battles...

1 Cleveland 47107 661986
2 North Carolina 20705 400507
3 Bismarck 20333 379471
4 Massachusetts 11822 271901
5 Baltimore 17353 260425
6 Tirpitz 20213 246180
7 Benson 10407 200233
8 Akizuki 9786 171531
9 Admiral Hipper 9870 168702
10 Kagero 9317 167142
11 Richelieu 8343 164301
12 Amagi 9423 158947
13 Mogami 8857 152044
14 Alabama 10727 136962
15 Edinburgh 8542 131836
16 Atago 9359 106768
17 Monarch 5193 105370
18 Chapayev 5871 92695
19 Z-23 4647 87826
20 Charles Martel 5410 85963
21 Kidd 8947 79291
22 Lexington 4351 75741
23 Asashio 3375 71387
24 Prinz Eugen 9622 65538
25 HSF Harekaze 5042 63381
26 Hsienyang 2789 54644
27 Mikhail Kutuzov 5715 51030
28 Kiev 3806 50862
29 Ognevoi 4133 47330
30 Loyang 5066 43513
31 ARP Takao 5219 38809
32 Roma 3759 38380
33 Kii 3035 28395
34 Shokaku 2088 25200
35 Gascogne 2320 20164
36 Enterprise 1462 10379
37 Graf Zeppelin 399 8612
38 Cossack 1077 8366
39 Lightning 940 8031

...note that the majority are tech tree ships. Kii, Roma, and Gascogne are almost non-existent -- examples of how the two tier MM that shoves players up to T10 has killed T8 premium ship purchases (doesn't help that the recent crop of T8 premiums has been pretty meh, soon to be joined by the gimped Wichita). I've stopped playing T8-10 and will not lay out any cash on premiums for those tiers since why pay to be a fodderbote, and I doubt I am the only one to make that latter decision. In a one tier MM I would probably have bought Roma, Gascogne, and Massachusetts... 

Lightning was  new so I imagine she will move rapidly up the charts. But of the top ten and top 15, most are tech tree ships. Only 2 premiums, Mass and Tirp, are in the top ten. At T8 lots of the tech tree ships are really enjoyable boats, and of course many people wanted to try the new Cleveland. Thanks for the food, guys. 

It's blindingly obvious that we need to switch to a one tier MM. WG's deference to T10 is killing the high tiers, while T5-6 are broken. If we switched to a one-tier MM T9 would hardly change, and more T9s would be available to be pulled into T10 matches. There would be a slightly longer wait at T10 since the hordes of T8 ships would no longer be available. What is really needed to make that happen is for WG to change the way it treats T10 like a spoiled, favorite son even though the numbers show that people would rather be at  T8. The best gameplay is at T5-8 and that's what the game should emphasize. In a one tier MM those four tiers would be loads of fun, and everyone would play a greater variety of boats.  

Top ten T9 ships by number of battles. I guess people must be grinding Buffalo, because there is no other reason to play it, let alone so much. 

9 Iowa 13423 283731
9 Fletcher 10385 245719
9 Missouri 11380 230637
9 Buffalo 11495 209645
9 Seattle 7606 192111
9 Friedrich der Grosse 8253 159845
9 Yugumo 6537 146543
9 Alsace 5568 142368
9 Musashi 5806 138180
9 Roon 5707 117235

New clan member just got his N. CAROLINA so we played 8 tier 8 battles....

1 top tier.

2 matches less than 4 tier 10.

1 tier 9 match.

4 matches 8 tier 10 ships per side....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,867 posts
1,365 battles

For those who like simple solutions, they could limit t10s to their gimmick filled, t9 invalidating misery.  Reasoning here?  Well, t10s are so good and gimmicky, that everyone skips t9, which is the start of the problem.  The game gets wildly unbalanced at t10, so making t9 the top of food chain would make t9s worth something again, getting 9s in the q and played, in turn dragging more 8s into t8-9 games, which helps t6 q out by there being less straggler 8s not sucked into t10s, and less straggler 6s sucked into t8.  T7 I think would be fine, though might find itself bottom of t9 more often.  Ofc, could go to a 1 tier spread...or slight buffs for 5s and 7s..idk..

In the end it leaves 10 in its own world of obscene meta and competitive play.  Those who want the "end game" push up to 10, the "plebs" play lower tiers.  Could even open up the event imagination even more, since lower tiers and bad players wouldnt be as much of an issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444
[BOTES]
Members
1,895 posts
6,607 battles

+/-1 does not address uptiering because uptiering is determined by the population of the tiers in your spread and not the spread itself. T8 is in a great place right now because there is a healthy T10 population that can make its own high tier matches. You would not want to eliminate the possibility of seeing T10 because the lack of players at T9 will increase the rate of uptiering. You might think you want this because you won't see T10, but you will strongly dislike the decrease in the rate of same tier and -1 matches as well as the elimination of -2 matches.

People forget that T9-10 have preferential matchmaking. Normally, an ideal population distribution would have fewer people at each subsequent tier, which would allow for every tier to be top tier some portion of the time. However, T9 only has T10 and T10 has nobody above it, so they need sizeable population of their own that allow for quick matches without dipping into lower tiers. These tiers need to be highly populated or else they will drag T7-8 up more often. This happens in WoT all the time and WG has no idea how to stop it.

You can't make people play the other tiers more or less without changing the game economy and premium model (WG is not willing to do this), so the only solution is for WG to guarantee a certain percentage of top, bottom, mid, and same tier matches. They're slowly realizing that this is necessary for WoT and they will have to accept it here as well sooner or later.

There is a third way solution, but it requires a ton of work that I don't think WG is willing to commit to. Ultimately, tier is an arbitrary representation of capability. The MM you face is irrelevant if the ship is powerful enough. You theoretically could buff all T2-8 ships accordingly to fit their spread distribution. Tiers that uptier more will receive more substantial buffs. Everything has to be buffed all at once or else you would create greater imbalances between tiers, but this solution is technically possible since T1 is an island and cannot see T2. In terms of effective capability, the tiers would look like this:

  1. T1 stays T1.
  2. T2 becomes T3.
  3. T3 becomes T3.5.
  4. T4 stays T4.
  5. T5 becomes T5.5.
  6. T6 becomes T6.5.
  7. T7 stays T7.
  8. T8 becomes T8.5.
  9. T9 stays T9.
  10. T10 stays T10.

Essentially, ships that have preferential MM (T3-4, T9-10) get rebalanced by effectively buffing ships with deferential MM (T2, T5-6).

Edited by awildseaking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,569
[E-E]
[E-E]
Members
15,557 posts
14,005 battles

I disagree with the low battles for Roma, Kii, Gascogne being caused by their tier.  They're low because they're not good ships.  Tirpitz is a Tier VIII Premium and sees regular, heavy action.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,867 posts
1,365 battles
18 minutes ago, awildseaking said:

+/-1 does not address uptiering because uptiering is determined by the population of the tiers in your spread and not the spread itself. T8 is in a great place right now because there is a healthy T10 population that can make its own high tier matches. You would not want to eliminate the possibility of seeing T10 because the lack of players at T9 will increase the rate of uptiering. You might think you want this because you won't see T10, but you will strongly dislike the decrease in the rate of same tier and -1 matches as well as the elimination of -2 matches.

People forget that T9-10 have preferential matchmaking. Normally, an ideal population distribution would have fewer people at each subsequent tier, which would allow for every tier to be top tier some portion of the time. However, T9 only has T10 and T10 has nobody above it, so they need sizeable population of their own that allow for quick matches without dipping into lower tiers. These tiers need to be highly populated or else they will drag T7-8 up more often. This happens in WoT all the time and WG has no idea how to stop it.

You can't make people play the other tiers more or less without changing the game economy and premium model (WG is not willing to do this), so the only solution is for WG to guarantee a certain percentage of top, bottom, mid, and same tier matches. They're slowly realizing that this is necessary for WoT and they will have to accept it here as well sooner or later.

There is a third way solution, but it requires a ton of work that I don't think WG is willing to commit to. Ultimately, tier is an arbitrary representation of capability. The MM you face is irrelevant if the ship is powerful enough. You theoretically could buff all T2-8 ships accordingly to fit their spread distribution. Tiers that uptier more will receive more substantial buffs. Everything has to be buffed all at once or else you would create greater imbalances between tiers, but this solution is technically possible since T1 is an island and cannot see T2. In terms of effective capability, the tiers would look like this:

  1. T1 stays T1.
  2. T2 becomes T3.
  3. T3 becomes T3.5.
  4. T4 stays T4.
  5. T5 becomes T5.5.
  6. T6 becomes T6.5.
  7. T7 stays T7.
  8. T8 becomes T8.5.
  9. T9 stays T9.
  10. T10 stays T10.

Essentially, ships that have preferential MM (T3-4, T9-10) get rebalanced by effectively buffing ships with deferential MM (T2, T5-6).

You currently have such low t9 pop because there is no reason for it to exist.  If ur gunna be in t10 all the time, might as well be t10.  Capping it gives reason for t9 to exist, and t8 is fine because the power gap isnt as bad as it is between t9-10.  T8 can handle t9 without to much extra work.  I could see the same issue arising again, of t8 going dead, but with so many t8 prems, and t8 ships not being as out classed vs t9, we might see it turn out ok.  T9 is top, t8 sees t9, but there are now more t8s and 1 less tier of matches to pull ships into, leaving more for t8 games.  T8s would get more top tier games.  Put in a similar 3-5-7 type MM, though in this game, maybe a 2-3-7 spread, to allow the lower tier to not be so penalized if up tiered.  Gives the high tiers some clubbing opportunities, gives lowest tier plenty same and +1 tier to fight, and middle tier will be ok, + - 1 tier has never felt bad.

Go one further in lower tiers.  Keep t1 protection, limit t2-3, then buff t4s, and remove t4 protection.

Now we have t1, t2-3, t4-6, t5-7, t6-8, t7-9, with t10 able to focus on being the pure competitive "big boy" league for clan wars and all that end game content. 

T1-3 are trainer modes, middle tiers are general play, t10 is meta n competition(locked from going into coop n pve games).

Overall coops with similar treatment, 12v12 using the same current cloning but with new tier system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
439
[4HIM]
Members
1,699 posts
3,861 battles
7 hours ago, Taichunger said:

Note first of all the extremely low number of battles for T9. There are simply not enough T9s to fill out T10 battles the way the current MM is set up, so it must dip into T8.

Well, the economy of T9 is totally borked.  So no wonder there are so few T9's.  It will cost you more to run a T9 with a perma camo than it will to run a T10 with perma camo.  And many of the T9's are simply side grades of their T8 counterparts.  Once I finish the grind on the Buffalo Chip, I'll sell it and hopefully never see that awful thing again.  I have it flagged up and camo mounted.  But every time I go to the Buffalo Chip in port and hover over the "To Battle" button, I just go back to the carousel and select something I actually enjoy playing.   

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,605
[INTEL]
Members
8,407 posts
25,228 battles
17 hours ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

I disagree with the low battles for Roma, Kii, Gascogne being caused by their tier.  They're low because they're not good ships.  Tirpitz is a Tier VIII Premium and sees regular, heavy action.

Yes. it's the premium T8 that many people own and like, so they play it because it is fun, it earns credits, and they can learn the game (ditto with Mass, its the secondaries for both ships). Yet it has the lowest average damage and win rate in the tier. Roma and Gascan and Kii all outperform it, as does Alabama. Yet Tirp is played more than any of those -- 20K players put Tirp in the water at least once that quarter, more than Roma, Kii, Gascan, and Bama combined

It's pretty obvious that those T8 premiums aren't selling, sure, in part because they are seen as meh, but also because players don't want to pay to be uptiered -- and many already own a Tirpitz.

WG's own data is surely telling them this, which is why one of the devs made some noises about fixing T8. The obvious solution is a one tier MM spread. I can't be the only person on the server foregoing T8 premium purchases because "why pay to be fodder", and it wouldn't take many such people to impact WG's bottom line. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,867 posts
1,365 battles
10 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

Yes. it's the premium T8 that many people own and like, so they play it because it is fun, it earns credits, and they can learn the game (ditto with Mass, its the secondaries for both ships). Yet it has the lowest average damage and win rate in the tier. Roma and Gascan and Kii all outperform it, as does Alabama. Yet Tirp is played more than any of those -- 20K players put Tirp in the water at least once that quarter, more than Roma, Kii, Gascan, and Bama combined

It's pretty obvious that those T8 premiums aren't selling, sure, in part because they are seen as meh, but also because players don't want to pay to be uptiered -- and many already own a Tirpitz.

WG's own data is surely telling them this, which is why one of the devs made some noises about fixing T8. The obvious solution is a one tier MM spread. I can't be the only person on the server foregoing T8 premium purchases because "why pay to be fodder", and it wouldn't take many such people to impact WG's bottom line. 

The uptiering is in fact y I dont buy Mass(and mass gets uptiered atleast 70% of its matches). My dad plays his, constantly in t10....

I had even considered buying a Tirp, but the uptiering keeps it out of my port and is why I dont play my Alabama as much.

Likewise for t6, uptiering there is why I stopped playing initially.  Got tired of seeing 2-3 t8 bbs every game, then facing them as the t8s die or circle the board edge...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,605
[INTEL]
Members
8,407 posts
25,228 battles
16 hours ago, monpetitloup said:

Making tier 10 an exclusive mm is the obvious solution.

That would also work, and more people would play T9s...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,274
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
5,724 posts
9,432 battles

The reason there are so few T9s is because everyone is grinding out the legendary modules. I've been pretty much exclusively T10 for the last several weeks, going through the various ships whose modules I want.

I love my Z-49, Massachusetts, Udaloi, Kitikaze, etc. Legendary mods are T10 only though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
101
[-WTP-]
[-WTP-]
Members
465 posts
5,417 battles

 

5 hours ago, ZARDOZ_II said:

Well, the economy of T9 is totally borked.  So no wonder there are so few T9's.  It will cost you more to run a T9 with a perma camo than it will to run a T10 with perma camo.  And many of the T9's are simply side grades of their T8 counterparts.  Once I finish the grind on the Buffalo Chip, I'll sell it and hopefully never see that awful thing again.  I have it flagged up and camo mounted.  But every time I go to the Buffalo Chip in port and hover over the "To Battle" button, I just go back to the carousel and select something I actually enjoy playing.   

Rofl....the Buffalo is an awful grind. I've been doing the same thing. "I'm going to finish this...ehh...nope...hello ship I like"

That's how it goes for the majority of T9. Most are sold instantly after unlocking the T10...but Buffalo...that ship is just a special kind of turd. Simply selling it won't feel satisfying enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332
[5D]
Members
1,176 posts
7,086 battles

Learn to be objective in your writing, and people will likely be more receptive. You present facts, and then inform your reader how to interpret those facts. 

 

Maybe by switching to having two sections, an objective and a subjective, then you wouldn't come off as so high on the horse?

 

I personally enjoy the +2 MM. It's part of the challenge. By writing things the way you do, I spend more time borderline disgusted with your mentality then I spend considering your data. This does not bode well for convincing others.

  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,757
Members
9,862 posts
13 hours ago, Bill_Halsey said:

I've been wondering about the push WG is making for T10 play. Is there an economic reason for it?

Seriously?

WG stated that the reason for -2+ and the abuse of tier 8 was for the express purpose of making people grind to tier 10. Since 99% of the player base can't play tier 10 and make money without help....WG profits....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
125 posts
6,613 battles

Been leveling the Neptune.   Just awful.  I am not a great player so I run 20% credits and a  Premium  account to keep from losing credits.  Can't play CoOp like  I  usually do in order to learn the ship because even with Premium and flags I lose credits even  with a win. So my team members in Random end up paying the price.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22,431
[HINON]
Supertester
18,902 posts
12,435 battles
13 hours ago, Slimeball91 said:

I doubt WG will ever lighten up on the economics of T10

Like they did with T10 permacamos, the easy availablility of economic signals, etc?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
570
[KP]
Beta Testers
1,689 posts
11,061 battles

I love all the stats and numbers but in reality it has been this type of MM for quite a while now, I don't see them ever changing it, and everyone gets a little surprise when they end up in a top tier game.

There is also nothing sweeter than killing a t10 with a t8.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×