Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Merc85

Time For Hard Limits

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

846
[GGWP]
Beta Testers
2,414 posts
38,095 battles

WG, imo it is now time for some hard limits.  This battle had just 3 BBs/cruisers which is ridiculous.

Hard limits could be something like this per team:  1 CV   2 subs   3 DDs   balance BBs/cruisers
That way you get at least half the teams in BBs and cruisers.shot-22_11.04_16_19.39-0366.thumb.jpg.4f7ae9e9950204f11a80364052d567b4.jpg

 

 

  • Cool 5
  • Thanks 1
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,145
[WPORT]
Members
20,736 posts
22,656 battles

I suggest learning to play the hand you're dealt.

Edited by Wolfswetpaws
  • Cool 4
  • Funny 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
  • Meh 18

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,714
[PSP]
[PSP]
Members
19,325 posts
27 minutes ago, Merc85 said:

WG, imo it is now time for some hard limits.  This battle had just 3 BBs/cruisers which is ridiculous.

Hard limits could be something like this per team:  1 CV   2 subs   3 DDs   balance BBs/cruisers
That way you get at least half the teams in BBs and cruisers.shot-22_11.04_16_19.39-0366.thumb.jpg.4f7ae9e9950204f11a80364052d567b4.jpg

 

Ya gotta play the cards you're dealt but why do you want to play the same card game all the time?

Edited by Snargfargle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
635
[THICC]
Beta Testers
1,250 posts
8,316 battles
32 minutes ago, Wolfswetpaws said:

I suggest learning to play the hand you're dealt.

If all the hands are bad I'm getting up from the table and finding a better dealer.

  • Cool 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
679
[-GF-]
Beta Testers
1,294 posts
12,915 battles
21 minutes ago, LuckyStarFan said:

If all the hands are bad I'm getting up from the table and finding a better dealer.

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
679
[-GF-]
Beta Testers
1,294 posts
12,915 battles
1 minute ago, DrHolmes52 said:

New York:

Image result for Sweating gif

I had a similar match in my DoY! Double CV both picked on me then both subs pinged me one after another… I just decided to leave the game after that match 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,374
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
7,757 posts

oh look it's me... we lost that one, our new york just cuddled with me the whole match...   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3
[GUSTO]
Members
14 posts
23,447 battles
2 hours ago, Merc85 said:

WG, imo it is now time for some hard limits.  This battle had just 3 BBs/cruisers which is ridiculous.

Hard limits could be something like this per team:  1 CV   2 subs   3 DDs   balance BBs/cruisers
That way you get at least half the teams in BBs and cruisers.shot-22_11.04_16_19.39-0366.thumb.jpg.4f7ae9e9950204f11a80364052d567b4.jpg

 

 

I think you missed the point, wow ownership is in full greed mode. They have constructed a cash cow and are now milking it for all it's worth, that is why they favor ships that they make money off of. Like bb's and cv's, there are usually 5 or 6 bb's and usually they are up tiered so these players have a more fun experience, subs are a recruiting new players gimmick that seems to be working well for them. They don't make much money off of dd's and cl's so they have relegated them to cannon fodder. People are leaving games because of this and that's why they have to have severe penalties. We have clan members checking out new games and streaming them on discord, probably our last clan season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,856
[TDRB]
Members
7,362 posts
16,186 battles
2 hours ago, Merc85 said:

WG, imo it is now time for some hard limits.  This battle had just 3 BBs/cruisers which is ridiculous.

Hard limits could be something like this per team:  1 CV   2 subs   3 DDs   balance BBs/cruisers
That way you get at least half the teams in BBs and cruisers.shot-22_11.04_16_19.39-0366.thumb.jpg.4f7ae9e9950204f11a80364052d567b4.jpg

 

 

WG top MM priority is to get players into battle as quickly as possible. Queue dumps, which "soften" cap rules is the mechanic WG uses. I doubt if they would even consider changing.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,864
[ARR0W]
Members
6,149 posts
32,910 battles

Slow down there hoss, BBs were the least common ship type in this period. If you are going to do that to other ship types, limit BBs also, and I'll give you a relaxed limit of 2. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,315
[CVA16]
Members
8,880 posts
27,102 battles
34 minutes ago, Pugilistic said:

Slow down there hoss, BBs were the least common ship type in this period.

That is IRL not in game where (theoretically) every ship can defeat any other (like tier) ship. Where a fleet battle is limited to 12 ships (9 in coop). In game the cost of DD is about the same as a BB (both by grinding or in the Armory). 

And for most of the period covered by the game, CVs were the least common warship. Only three of the nations in WWII had more than one operational fleet CV. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,352
[WOLF1]
[WOLF1]
Members
2,916 posts
8,973 battles
2 hours ago, Pugilistic said:

Slow down there hoss, BBs were the least common ship type in this period. If you are going to do that to other ship types, limit BBs also, and I'll give you a relaxed limit of 2. 

We don't agree on much, but I can't argue with this. There were significantly fewer battleships in the field than there were cruisers, destroyers and subs. 

If hard limits are in place, BBs should be on the table too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,374
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
7,757 posts
8 hours ago, kgh52 said:

WG top MM priority is to get players into battle as quickly as possible. Queue dumps, which "soften" cap rules is the mechanic WG uses. I doubt if they would even consider changing.

that was not a queue dump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11,312
[SALVO]
Members
16,461 posts
10,200 battles
13 hours ago, Merc85 said:

WG, imo it is now time for some hard limits.  This battle had just 3 BBs/cruisers which is ridiculous.

Hard limits could be something like this per team:  1 CV   2 subs   3 DDs   balance BBs/cruisers
That way you get at least half the teams in BBs and cruisers.shot-22_11.04_16_19.39-0366.thumb.jpg.4f7ae9e9950204f11a80364052d567b4.jpg

 

 

I agree the hard cap on CV and Subs, since there'll be too much asymmetric interactions going on, and those types are not geared to engage each other. But I disagree on capping DDs, DD interaction is more symmetrical and they do fight each other freely. Having a high possible variation in the number of DDs provide a very interesting variation of setups.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,344
[NG-NL]
Members
7,138 posts
12,577 battles

Like WG cares. Dump players into battles ASAP if they're in queue.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
846
[GGWP]
Beta Testers
2,414 posts
38,095 battles
1 hour ago, ArIskandir said:

I agree the hard cap on CV and Subs, since there'll be too much asymmetric interactions going on, and those types are not geared to engage each other. But I disagree on capping DDs, DD interaction is more symmetrical and they do fight each other freely. Having a high possible variation in the number of DDs provide a very interesting variation of setups.

Fine with me.....would love to see your suggestion happen.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
846
[GGWP]
Beta Testers
2,414 posts
38,095 battles
14 minutes ago, CylonRed said:

There are hard limits but MM can only deal with what is available for a game at any one time.

Of course there are....but they need to be changed/improved in order to avoid what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,856
[TDRB]
Members
7,362 posts
16,186 battles
5 hours ago, SKurj said:

that was not a queue dump

The reason I gave is valid whether or not the teams shown were the product of a queue dump or not.

Also, WG doesn't appear too eager to change anything involving subs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,906
[WOLF9]
Wiki Lead, Privateers
18,987 posts
5,224 battles
8 hours ago, Impitoyable_5929_x said:

Believe it or not. Enabling a single-type MM for BBs is the MOST EFFICIENT solution. 

No, for many reasons it's not.  LWM (and others) have done analyses of the downstream effects of such alterations to MM.  None of them are desirable -- or viable.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
514
[-HUGS]
Members
973 posts
13,187 battles
26 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

No, for many reasons it's not.  LWM (and others) have done analyses of the downstream effects of such alterations to MM.  None of them are desirable -- or viable.

 

Well, we recently got some brawls with a single-ship type, 12 players per team. While I didn't play all that much, some players really appreciated it. From what I've seen...  It is apparently desired by some and probably somewhat viable when presented as a special game mode for a limited time.

It will probably return at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,145
[WPORT]
Members
20,736 posts
22,656 battles
9 hours ago, Impitoyable_5929_x said:

Believe it or not. Enabling a single-type MM for BBs is the MOST EFFICIENT solution. 

I played in the 12 versus 12 Battleship Brawls temporary game mode.
For the first few games it was "something different" and a "change of pace".

But, it didn't take long for the majority of players to forget it was a "brawls mode".

Essentially it became random battles 2.0 with too much camping and kiting and back-line humping and not nearly enough brawling within secondary-battery gun range.
At that point it became a boring situation.

Edited by Wolfswetpaws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,374
[DRFTR]
Beta Testers
7,757 posts

damage numbers are going to plummet... next ppl will be using those same numbers to state dd's are under powered...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×