Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Ericson38

Why place a mediorce Bismarck player in a 2 T10 CV per side match ?

74 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

56
[KRAK]
Members
936 posts
11,413 battles

Just for someone's jolly time I suppose. BAD Match Maker engineer. Why don't you let the MM genius post their great wisdom theirself, they don't need any T10 CV captain help to explain it.

Edited by Ericson38
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
336
[SEOP]
Members
1,474 posts
8,233 battles
Quote

Why place a mediorce Bismarck player in a 2 T10 CV per side match ?

cause it's "fun and engaging".  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,782
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
17,437 posts
10,147 battles

Because player stats are not used in the MM, just ship type and tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,352
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
7,272 posts
10,438 battles

Because Bismarck is a tier 8 Battle ship. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
601
[NOBS]
Members
1,018 posts
7,532 battles

Because WG wants you to buy a boat that suppose to be good so they can Nerf it later

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,519
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,237 posts
11,044 battles

Why place a mediocre New Mexico player in a game with 2 Bismarck's per side?

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,037
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
2,457 posts
9,395 battles

Time to rally the troops for +/-1 MM?

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
474
[FAE]
Members
2,309 posts
2,881 battles

+1 for +1/-1. Especially for T8. 

I dunno. I used to think +2 was exciting, but nowadays, its just an exercise in frustration. (The T8 BBs at least had mobility, but Conqueror and the cruisers don't really care) (T8 DDs still used to be lethal, nowadays, its like hitting something with a wet sponge due to radar and excessive firepower) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,352
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
7,272 posts
10,438 battles
18 minutes ago, Capt_h2o said:

Because WG wants you to buy a boat that suppose to be good so they can Nerf it later

Share GIF

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
131
[GLF]
Members
831 posts
10,498 battles
4 minutes ago, pikohan said:

Time to rally the troops for +/-1 MM?

Handy tip:... to get +/- 1 MM vs CVs, play only odd tier ships :)  

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,037
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
2,457 posts
9,395 battles
1 minute ago, AnimaL21 said:

Handy tip:... to get +/- 1 MM vs CVs, play only odd tier ships :)  

Yes! This has been my go to for the past few days!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
370
[TF_34]
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,230 posts
4,106 battles
15 minutes ago, mofton said:

Why place a mediocre New Mexico player in a game with 2 Bismarck's per side?

This. People whine and cry about 8's in t10 yet have no problem farming damage off t6's while driving those 8's.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16
[O_O]
Members
77 posts

I have to say +1/-1 is making more and more sense every day. Especially at the higher levels where the difference of two levels starts getting really harsh. That or rebalance the entire tree to make the differences smaller between tiers. 

Probably easier just to implement +1/-1.

However, playing odd tiers only at higher levels makes good sense right now too. Thanks for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
364
[D12]
[D12]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,124 posts
9,299 battles

I did fine in my Bismark the other day with two CVs.  Just follow the Worchester around.  It was so much fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56
[KRAK]
Members
936 posts
11,413 battles

Two T10 CVs per side was the problem. The two T10 BBs per side weren't the problem. Why waist 15 minutes of your afternoon with this presentation from the 'matchmaker', which no ones owns up to or definitively explains the workings of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[WDS]
Members
1,033 posts
7,707 battles
34 minutes ago, BBsquid said:

This. People whine and cry about 8's in t10 yet have no problem farming damage off t6's while driving those 8's.

That's such a lame excuse there supposed to complain about that you mean the 3 out 10 gams your high tier ????? No that's when the poor tier 6 is complaining he's in a tier 8 game . I keep hearing about balance but they have  +2/-2 matchmaking 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
370
[TF_34]
[TF_34]
Beta Testers
1,230 posts
4,106 battles
9 minutes ago, clammboy said:

That's such a lame excuse there supposed to complain about that you mean the 3 out 10 gams your high tier ????? No that's when the poor tier 6 is complaining he's in a tier 8 game . I keep hearing about balance but they have  +2/-2 matchmaking 

While mileage varies match to match, 8s can do well if they play smart and they get the occaisional nod from RNJesus. Better XP being low tier and beating on higher tier ships. 

As far as excuses....plenty of players do just fine playing 8s in 10s. People whining about it this late in the game's history is getting tiring. Contrary to the trend in gaming as of late, at least in floaty boats sometimes you have to put forth effort to get the good stuff. No free rides, and nobody gets a pass just because they breathe and managed to find the battle button.

If its too hard, or not fun, they can always play a lower tier. Or play Minecraft. Whatever. The incessant crying is pointless though.

Edit: jury still out on t8 DDs v. t10 CV matches..  

Edited by BBsquid
  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
68
[FYL]
Members
388 posts
1,847 battles

They are going to reduce CV presence to 1 in 75% of the games, so that'll help. Thankfully they are starting to make a lot of changes back to the pre-rework style - buffing DoT AA to reduce focus on flak, reducing number of CVs, slowing planes down and giving them more alpha, trying to find ways to reduce spotting now that CVs don't have useful fighters, and possibly changing fighters to be more controllable,  and lastly reducing rocket planes and rockets per plane making them less important as a new option. Also a reduction on DoT focus of CVs with them greatly reducing flooding and the like, probably making them even more dependent in an increased alpha.

Give us hull control back and we are basically piloting a single squadron from the RTS version.

Edited by Tanuvein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
348
[WDS]
Members
1,033 posts
7,707 battles
Just now, BBsquid said:

While mileage varies match to match, 8s can do well if they play smart and they get the occaisional nod from RNJesus. Better XP being low tier and beating on higher tier ships. 

Edit: jury still out on t8 DDs v. t10 CV matches..  

I agree with you and I don't mind being up tiered what bothers me is that there nerfing ships and premiums now because people complain about balance and then they throw you out in unbalanced match .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30
[FF]
Members
76 posts
2,333 battles
1 hour ago, Capt_h2o said:

Because WG wants you to buy a boat that suppose to be good so they can Nerf it later

Cant argue there.

1 hour ago, pikohan said:

Time to rally the troops for +/-1 MM?

I think that's the only real first step to working toward any real balance AA vs planes, even if that was only applied to CVs only.

1 hour ago, BBsquid said:

This. People whine and cry about 8's in t10 yet have no problem farming damage off t6's while driving those 8's.

I dont see much of them in my MM rng. But yes the shouldn't be their either imo. I would gladly give up never seeing t6 damage pinatas in my t8's if it ment not being the token pinata in t10. 

Edited by redneck1776

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
176
[SAINT]
[SAINT]
Members
438 posts
11,170 battles

Why place a mediorce Bismarck player in a 2 T10 CV per side match ?

because-putin_o_1109659.jpg

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
336
[SEOP]
Members
1,474 posts
8,233 battles
1 hour ago, WTFoxtrot said:

I have to say +1/-1 is making more and more sense every day. Especially at the higher levels where the difference of two levels starts getting really harsh. That or rebalance the entire tree to make the differences smaller between tiers. 

Probably easier just to implement +1/-1.

However, playing odd tiers only at higher levels makes good sense right now too. Thanks for that.

but the queues man...what about the queues.  That was my best Gregory Peck imitation.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
336
[SEOP]
Members
1,474 posts
8,233 battles
8 minutes ago, Jolly_Rodgered said:

Why place a mediorce Bismarck player in a 2 T10 CV per side match ?

because-putin_o_1109659.jpg

 

Putin's starting to looks like one of these babies would be handy...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,276
Members
20,766 posts
5,604 battles
39 minutes ago, Ericson38 said:

Two T10 CVs per side was the problem. The two T10 BBs per side weren't the problem. Why waist 15 minutes of your afternoon with this presentation from the 'matchmaker', which no ones owns up to or definitively explains the workings of. 

The workings are this: the MM randomly assembles a team, all ships within a potential 3-tier spread. Then it assembles a matching team, based on ship types and tiers.

Two things: it's known that T8s get into a fair number of T10 matches, and the CV rework just dropped last week. The CV numbers have died down, except at T10, where the OP Hakuryu keeps CV numbers up.

Best thing to do about your particular issue is to stop playing T8+ ships for a while.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
176
[SAINT]
[SAINT]
Members
438 posts
11,170 battles
7 minutes ago, Dr_Dirt said:

 

Putin's starting to looks like one of these babies would be handy...

 

 

Well, Putin's response is somewhat expected:

16ag2v.jpg

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×