Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
my13

move to 1 tier spread in battles

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
46 posts
17,363 battles

now with more players on game should move to 1 tier spread in battles with eventual goal of only single tier in battles in future to make game more fair.

i've had battles with my new A-hull tier 8 cruisers in battles with 5 tier 10 battleships and multi tier 10 cruisers/dds which is like putting a junior high wrestler in against hulk hogan

also:

try to keep higher tier ships in battle to 50% or less

for each lower tier battle fought have 1 higher tier

besides making game more fair and enjoyable would also make player stats more accurate and indicative of skill

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
243
[LSNB]
[LSNB]
Members
1,324 posts
3,959 battles

I think that would lead to longer waits in matchmaking, especially at times when not many people are online.

Also, remember that ships two tiers lower has the potential to dominate matches; it's just that they need to put in the effort to do so.

Edited by destawaits
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
918
[DPG]
Members
1,766 posts
7,931 battles
1 minute ago, destawaits said:

I think that would lead to longer waits in matchmaking, especially at times when not many people are online.

Did you see the thread about Clan battles not working.  People sat in queue for 15-20 minutes.  I don't think waiting an extra few seconds is going to kill people.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40
[-TOG-]
Members
77 posts
1,780 battles

Also, the variety of ships you face will be much smaller.  Yeah, it sucks being bottom tier in a stock ship, but you can use FXP to remedy that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,077 posts
9,086 battles

Please search for other threads ont he same subject - been a topic almost every week for about 2 years now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
789
Supertester
2,179 posts
9,480 battles

Tier 8 in T10 games really isn't the end of the world. T8 grants you access to the slot 5 Concealment System Mod 1, which is something the T9 and 10s all also have. Sure, the T9s and 10s have access to slot 6, but overall as far as cruisers are concerned that isn't too detrimental. A second or so of extra reload on the guns honestly doesn't make too big a difference, if they even choose to slot that module to start with. Who knows, maybe they opted for more AA power or something, which given the current meta isn't at all unlikely.
Another note, is that in this game, unlike WoT, every ship is capable of damaging any other ship. Even cruisers armed with 6" guns like Chappy and Kutuzov can easily either burn down a Yamato or Montana just as easily as a Worcester or a DM can. An Amagi or North Carolina can delete a Minotaur or any other broadsiding cruiser just as easily as a Montana can. Being a T8 in a T10 game is nowhere near the end of the world, and if you take the time to learn the inner workings of the game and ship to ship interactions, positioning, etc you'll find yourself happy to be bottom tier, so you can farm more.
Speaking of farming, because the way the game calculates XP and credit earnings, with % HP taken off enemies along with tier of ships involved, being bottom tier also benefits you economically. Say you're in a Baltimore, for example, in a T10 game. You end up Radaring a Gearing that bit off a bit more than he can chew, and shave off 90% of his health for his carelessness, and nab a solo base capture in the process. That right there is easily probably at least 1500 base XP, since you not only severely damaged a destroyer two tiers higher than you, you also got a solo base cap ribbon, which is worth a fair amount on its own, not to mention severely damaging a destroyer (a very economically beneficial target), but you did it to a ship two tiers higher, and since you "defeated" this "stronger" enemy, you are rewarded nicely. Now, lets pretend this is a top tier game, and you repeat this exact same scenario, except to a Farragut. This showing would probably net you only 1200 or so base XP, because yes you heavily damaged a destroyer, but since it was two tiers lower, your ship is considered "stronger" than your opponent's and thus the game rewards you less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
46 posts
17,363 battles

all good points everyone, and I have been top on my team in a low tier ship, but in general it is more an insta-liquidation scenerario due to the 2 tier higher ships have more hp so it takes longer to sink them, their weapons do massive damage to me while mine do minimal to them in most cases, they are faster, and they generally have much loner range weapons. if your in a stock t8 cruiser with 3 or 4 tier 10 bbs shotting at you at 20+ km when you cant even reach them and 1 volley easily able to sink you it tends to be more insa-liquidation scenerio. also, when playing a 2 tier lower ship with all other ships up tier I usually play very defensively hanging back for that reason which is upsetting to teammates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,641
[DOTM]
Beta Testers
1,493 posts
9,288 battles

Honestly, I think the only ship type that really needs +/-1 MM are carriers, as being bottom tier against ships two tiers higher is a pretty miserable experience. The same goes for ships going against carriers two tiers higher. Limiting to +/-1 means overall better matches for everyone IMO. The main exception would probably be tier 8, since that's when AA starts to get really powerful and some of the most prominent AA boats come into play. Cleveland, Baltimore, North Carolina, Massachusetts/Alabama, Kidd, the Kutuzov, probably more I'm not thinking of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
46 posts
17,363 battles

also, as far as wait times, I often see around 15k players on game, and I dont mean the rule as a strict rule at all times, just start to move toward it. with 10k plus players on I dont think it would affect wait times too much, and there are often 10k plus players on. and it might help get more players on the game (I have even been in a few battles lately with a 3 tier  spread, tier 4 ships in with all other tier 5 and 6 ships which is way too much of a spread)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
265
[WOLF2]
Members
563 posts
15,321 battles

Absolutely not, except the new CVs, which I DO think would benefit from +\- 1.  You can do quite well in a tier 8 against tier 10s.  I did a game last night with Mogami where I was the only tier 8 on the team and came first on the team.  I’m not good enough to do that regularly, but I’m good enough to make a go of it most every time.  By the time you get to tier 8 you should be at least be able to hold your own and contribute.  Being 2 tiers lower doesnt make you helpless like a lot of people seem to think.  You have to tone down aggression and play a little smarter is all.  You get bigger rewards for damaging higher tier ships as well.  

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
66
[TURD]
Members
155 posts
3,019 battles
12 hours ago, destawaits said:

I think that would lead to longer waits in matchmaking, especially at times when not many people are online.

Then you make it dynamic. When server population is high, you use a one tier spread. When its low or matchmaking taking too long, add the extra tier.

Edited by Don_Alvarez

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,289 posts
2,399 battles

One of WG money schemes is to incentivise converting fxp via the 2 tier spread. Making it +1 will make that less attractive and take away from their preferred tier which is t10. In short as much as it would be win for the players at large it would be a loss for WG so not happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
46 posts
17,363 battles

I definitely agree about the cvs, I immediately sold my tier 8 when got the chance last month because was almost always in matchs full of 2 tier higher ships and between my not being a very experienced cv captain (I mostly play gun ships) and my squads getting liquidated before getting near anything most of the time I was more of a detriment to my teams in random.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,479
[KRAK]
Members
3,471 posts
19,376 battles
12 hours ago, my13 said:

now with more players on game should move to 1 tier spread in battles with eventual goal of only single tier in battles in future to make game more fair.

i've had battles with my new A-hull tier 8 cruisers in battles with 5 tier 10 battleships and multi tier 10 cruisers/dds which is like putting a junior high wrestler in against hulk hogan

also:

try to keep higher tier ships in battle to 50% or less

for each lower tier battle fought have 1 higher tier

besides making game more fair and enjoyable would also make player stats more accurate and indicative of skill

Haven't seen a post crying about this for at least 15 minutes. Thanks for beating this dead horse for like the 3 millionth time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
46 posts
17,363 battles

I agree about the economic issue for wg driving many of the issues people have with the game which is why I almost wish it was just a paid game up front like a game on xbox so that there wouldnt be all sorts of manipulations within the game and it would be fairer and more enjoyable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
46 posts
17,363 battles

maybe by the 6 millionth time people complain something will be done, with that many complaints it sure indicates it is an issue for players.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,569
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
10,439 posts
14,621 battles

Q time is often cited as a reason to not go to +1/-1 MM. That has never been the real reason. The real reason has always been variety of gameplay. Trippel the player base and we will still be +2/-2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,396
[NG-NL]
Members
6,053 posts
9,696 battles

CVs definitely need it, and at peak times (I'd say around 10K online) it'd be worth turning on.

At the very least, it should be an option for T5-8 ships. Of course, I'm fine with the rewards being reduced in exchange. This way, players who want best chance for rewards can try the +/-2 and those who're doing it for fun can get the +/-1.

Thing is, it'd need a bigger playerbase to justify the resources spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
279
[RLGN]
Members
843 posts
6,456 battles

Yes it's possible.  Yes it would make the game nicer.  Yes it could be done without huge damage to queue time, especially if the current spread could be reinstated in off peak hours.  Yes if nothing else they should make special MM rules for carriers so that AA can be appropriately balanced.  No, it won't happen, WG has been adamant that they aren't even willing to consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10
[HODL]
Members
17 posts
1,836 battles
14 hours ago, my13 said:

now with more players on game should move to 1 tier spread in battles with eventual goal of only single tier in battles in future to make game more fair.

i've had battles with my new A-hull tier 8 cruisers in battles with 5 tier 10 battleships and multi tier 10 cruisers/dds which is like putting a junior high wrestler in against hulk hogan

also:

try to keep higher tier ships in battle to 50% or less

for each lower tier battle fought have 1 higher tier

besides making game more fair and enjoyable would also make player stats more accurate and indicative of skill

My Amagi used to regularly place in the top 4 on my team in tier 8-10 battles with mostly/all tierXs.  Just need to know your ship.  Of course while I hated the Amagi for it's faults (short range, weak armor, easy to cit), it had plenty of strengths (quick turning for a bb, good speed, great punching power, solid AA, great anti-torp belt, predictable flight path/dispersion)  I used it to delete CAs and CLs, single volley kills, it was really accurate at 15km, and while that's probably too close for a ship with as poor armor and exposed cit as it had, if you were careful you could go toe to toe with tierX bbs relying on 10k vollies and cit hits. Its funny, I hated that BB's guts, right up until I was around 100k toward the 178k i needed for the Izumi, then everything about that BB just clicked, and suddenly I was consistently racking up 2-4 kills a battle and 70-120k damage dealt (well there were still the battles where I got deleted with some cit hits from some Yamato 22km away from me, so its not like it's weaknesses weren't fully apparent up to the end).  

Of course now I'm in the Izumi, and hating it just as I used to hate the Amagi. If anything I wish the Izumi was matched up with tier 7s more.  might feel like it deserves to be in the same water with those ships.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,479
[KRAK]
Members
3,471 posts
19,376 battles
2 hours ago, my13 said:

maybe by the 6 millionth time people complain something will be done, with that many complaints it sure indicates it is an issue for players.

 

Al it indicates is people will cry about anything even when it is a non-issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
981
[LRM]
[LRM]
Members
2,880 posts
7,127 battles

+1/-1 MM would be better in general for balance more than the rest. It allows ships to be better equipped to shooting at there cousins and not their distant cousins. It also would allow split division MM to be more viable as MM would have no reason to pull tier 6's into a 7/8/9 match. It would make CV play WAY more comfortable and would stop stupid situations where you have a lot of ships of the same 2 tiers and then MM puts in that one lower tier ship on either team and they have a massive uphill battle to face. Overall, +1/-1 MM would be a blessing to the game health as a whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×