Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Paladinum

Limit BBs each side to 4 if CVs are present

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,297
Member
4,494 posts
8,613 battles

Title.

 

Also fix the issue that places more than 2 of the same ship in a team, and none for the other.

Example: One team has 3 Alaska, the other team none. Or one team has 3 Des Moist, no Zao but the other has 3 Zao and no Des Moist. One team has 2 Kitakaze and the other 2 Shimakaze.

3 Kronstadt and Alaska on one team and the other, all tech tree cruisers. That's 101 million % messed up.

Edited by Paladinum
  • Cool 6
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,975
[CLAY]
Member
2,643 posts
11,975 battles

Agreed.

What I find is an issue is when BBs outnumber cruisers. Or battleships which think they are cruisers taking up the cruiser slots.

Also when one side has more radar ships, or more 12km radar ships.

Or has more AA ships.

Or has gunboat DDs vs torpedo boat DDs. Or DDs thinking they are cruisers taking up the DD slots.

Just because a ship is of the same type and tier, it does not make them equal to all other ships of the same type and tier. And this messes things up when you expect certain ship types to perform certain duties, which they are not optimised to do. Which gives your team a disadvantage when the enemy has the right ships which can perform those duties.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
328
[-ISO-]
Member
1,054 posts
6,286 battles

When talking about this kind of topic, my question is, Isn't this will affect the MM que time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
654
[SMOKE]
Member
1,815 posts
15,556 battles
2 hours ago, Paladinum said:

Title.

 

Also fix the issue that places more than 2 of the same ship in a team, and none for the other.

Example: One team has 3 Alaska, the other team none. Or one team has 3 Des Moist, no Zao but the other has 3 Zao and no Des Moist. One team has 2 Kitakaze and the other 2 Shimakaze.

3 Kronstadt and Alaska on one team and the other, all tech tree cruisers. That's 101% messed up.

it goes deeper than that .. There's CV, and then there's Radar ( and different ones ) and then there are CA and CL all of different property ... and similar to DD ... MM had been long a problem since what WG do is simply artificially set a number and limit and care not to look at the balance .. how about having 4 Radar per team when there's only 1 DD per team ; even if the team are even matched, that mean the MM had taken away a core game play simply by that ( would you in that DD push or even go out to screen at all in such even if no CV in game ) .. actually its not uncommon 

The root cause of this is in balance between ships, we got people who would use Belfast or Atlanta and not other same tier CL .. why because they are OP against the same tier CL .. so you end up with cases after cases of similar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,975
[CLAY]
Member
2,643 posts
11,975 battles
16 minutes ago, mr_glitchy_R said:

When talking about this kind of topic, my question is, Isn't this will affect the MM que time?

Any change in what ships appear in battle will always affect the MM queue time. This is why it has stayed as it is for so long.

A while back WG did try to do something to ensure the ship types and tiers were always mirrored. The main concept was, if the mirrored MM did not find a battle in 3 minutes, it would revert back to the old MM.

I'm not sure if this is still the case or not. But I don't see too many uneven teams in terms of tier or type anymore.

Main issues is when you have more BBs than cruisers, the cruisers tend to get chewed up quickly, and when you have ships like Alaska, Kronstadt, Moskva, which are more BB than cruiser, as far as other cruisers are concerned.

All of which, can be compounded with other issues;

  • Many BBs and BCs hunting cruisers;
  • So few other cruisers that you may be the only cruiser on the flank;
  • Long range BBs hanging back, so you have to move far forward to even hit enemy;

Makes for a very hostile environment for cruiser captains in some games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
654
[SMOKE]
Member
1,815 posts
15,556 battles
1 hour ago, Grygus_Triss said:

Any change in what ships appear in battle will always affect the MM queue time. This is why it has stayed as it is for so long.

A while back WG did try to do something to ensure the ship types and tiers were always mirrored. The main concept was, if the mirrored MM did not find a battle in 3 minutes, it would revert back to the old MM.

I'm not sure if this is still the case or not. But I don't see too many uneven teams in terms of tier or type anymore.

Main issues is when you have more BBs than cruisers, the cruisers tend to get chewed up quickly, and when you have ships like Alaska, Kronstadt, Moskva, which are more BB than cruiser, as far as other cruisers are concerned.

All of which, can be compounded with other issues;

  • Many BBs and BCs hunting cruisers;
  • So few other cruisers that you may be the only cruiser on the flank;
  • Long range BBs hanging back, so you have to move far forward to even hit enemy;

Makes for a very hostile environment for cruiser captains in some games.

care to figure what the light force all doing then ... once firing starts .. nothing .. practically nothing ... the do not have the gun or torp range ; they cannot sail out to get into range cause if they do they got focus fired by overwhelming fire power .. and of course the lesser number of cruiser mean those cruiser cannot help either. A daring DD player in a stealth setup might try sneaking into range but how do you know where enemy DD are and no less RADARs ... and CL is pretty much pinned down .. its hostile to cruiser ( CA) but its downright dangerous to CL and hell for DD

Edited by Mechfori
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,564
[TLS]
Member
3,926 posts
19,941 battles

I have one thing to say about MM timings. -Bleep- it. At the end of x minutes, just throw the team in if there isn't enough people. I rather have balanced games. To use the Lewis analogy that someone created, MM right now is putting the Mercedes and Lewis on one side and the Force Indias on the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,975
[CLAY]
Member
2,643 posts
11,975 battles

Of course, the biggest issue with MM which is near impossible to solve. You will never truly be able to balance player skill. WG know players WR, no. of games, average damage etc... No. of battles and WR of each ship. But that's still not enough to work out someone's performance in any one battle. And to try to match based on player skill would just make the wait time far too long.

Best just stick with balancing ship rosters

Edited by Grygus_Triss

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,026
[MRI]
Member
3,435 posts
14,811 battles

Let's not talk about balancing player skill, I just want to see the ship rosters balanced.

Like if there are 4 Alaskas queueing for battle, is it that hard to ensure there are 2 Alaskas on each team? Instead we get the 4 Alaskas on one team while the other gets 2 Seattles, an Ibuki and a Roon. MM could have easily given both teams 2 Alaskas and a Seattle but nope. Why? Who knows. Nobody was in a division either.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
328
[-ISO-]
Member
1,054 posts
6,286 battles
1 hour ago, Grygus_Triss said:

A while back WG did try to do something to ensure the ship types and tiers were always mirrored. The main concept was, if the mirrored MM did not find a battle in 3 minutes, it would revert back to the old MM.

What I can say is that, it really depends on how many players in a server that uses the ship that has the same ability as yours in the enemy team. The probability of a radar cruiser to face another radar cruiser is very random.There are dozens of players who click the battle button simultaneously. And most of these players may use ships that has the same ability and class as the other team than that of the next dozens of players who enter the battle at the same time. There's also some cases where two radar cruisers are placed in the red team while the green team doesn't. This is why most players complains to WG regarding MM. I really questioning the existence of super cruisers right now. Because if they don't face the same exact class, it can demonize the existence and the reputation of tech tree cruisers.

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,297
Member
4,494 posts
8,613 battles
On 3/2/2019 at 9:08 PM, Thyaliad said:

Let's not talk about balancing player skill, I just want to see the ship rosters balanced.

EXACTLY!!!

THIS IS ONE OF MY POINTS!!!

HOW THE [content removed] DOES THAT EVEN HAPPEN?

Profanity. Post edited, user warned.

~Beaufighter

On 3/2/2019 at 6:55 PM, mr_glitchy_R said:

When talking about this kind of topic, my question is, Isn't this will affect the MM que time?

Limiting the BBs, yes, but before that, there is no reason why the MM should put teams like these examples below. 

The Zao and Ibuki in Screenshot 1. The Des Moist, Yamato and Republique in Screenshot 2. This isn't gathering players in queue, but arranging the teams in a fair(er) composition. None of them were in Divisions.

"Hutten" is name-changed FdG.

shot-18_12.29_09_07.13-0751.jpg.c0513040f43568ea2fdb7ba81091aa74.jpgshot-18_12.27_12_46.22-0357.jpg.ccf51c03bc0ad50a2b3f5eca4f3da479.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,564
[TLS]
Member
3,926 posts
19,941 battles
1 minute ago, Paladinum said:

Limiting the BBs, yes, but before that, there is no reason why the MM should put teams like these examples below. 

I have read somewhere, possibly in the deep depths of the forums about vaguely how ships are "balanced". Something like each ship has a points rating and they make sure both side have equal ratings blahblah. But you're right, it does not excuse putting so many same ships on the same team, although it might be because they are different hul.. wait a darn minute, t10s don't have different hulls. -_-

I say, lazy programming in MM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
328
[-ISO-]
Member
1,054 posts
6,286 battles
2 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

The Zao and Ibuki in Screenshot 1. The Des Moist - Worcester, Yamato - Republique in Screenshot 2. This isn't gathering players in queue, but arranging the teams in a fair composition.

Isn't it will takes time to gather such a perfect team composition? Or isn't it just a coincidence in the MM?

4 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

"Hutten" is name-changed FdG.

Well, as expected. She will lose her 'great' title -_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,564
[TLS]
Member
3,926 posts
19,941 battles
1 hour ago, Grygus_Triss said:

Of course, the biggest issue with MM which is near impossible to solve. You will never truly be able to balance player skill. WG know players WR, no. of games, average damage etc... No. of battles and WR of each ship. But that's still not enough to work out someone's performance in any one battle. And to try to match based on player skill would just make the wait time far too long.

Best just stick with balancing ship rosters

 

58 minutes ago, Thyaliad said:

Let's not talk about balancing player skill, I just want to see the ship rosters balanced.

Balance within a set range for skill. Gut yes, for a start at least get the rosters balanced.

Personally, I'd rather play with 7 competent players rather than 14 of which half are incompetent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,297
Member
4,494 posts
8,613 battles
9 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

I have read somewhere, possibly in the deep depths of the forums about vaguely how ships are "balanced". Something like each ship has a points rating and they make sure both side have equal ratings blahblah. But you're right, it does not excuse putting so many same ships on the same team, although it might be because they are different hul.. wait a darn minute, t10s don't have different hulls. -_-

Ship ratings in Port are a lie. They can be used to see if a ship is better than another in an aspect, but the exact/absolute number is 1001% incorrect.

Example: 

Clemson Gun B module DOUBLES the number of guns on the ship. DOUBLE the broadside weight.

Artillery rating increases from 10 to 11 :ultrahyperomegalul:

 

6 minutes ago, mr_glitchy_R said:

Isn't it will takes time to gather such a perfect team composition? Or isn't it just a coincidence in the MM?

Excuse my language, but "coincidence" my aft.

Tell me if you enjoy being penned for days by 3 Yamato while your team has all the Bourgogne. Or you're in a Zao and the other team gets all the Kronstadt and Alaska, while your team has all the Mino and Worc.

Waiting in queue is less of an issue for me than being in an unfair fight.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,297
Member
4,494 posts
8,613 battles

BBs IRL: even if it's a one-way ticket to the bottom of the seas, willing to fight to the end. Examples: Bismarck, Yamato. Even Graf Spee and DDs like Glowworm and Laffey fought splendidly and honorably. 

 

BBs in WoWs: *get a bounce* "OMG he hit me!!!" *shoot from max range for the rest of the match*

Edited by Paladinum
  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,564
[TLS]
Member
3,926 posts
19,941 battles
47 minutes ago, Paladinum said:

BBs IRL: even if it's a one-way ticket to the bottom of the seas, willing to fight to the end. Examples: Bismarck, Yamato. Even Graf Spee and DDs like Glowworm and Laffey fought splendidly and honorably. 

 

BBs in WoWs: *get a bounce* "OMG he hit me!!!" *shoot from max range for the rest of the match*

Yamatos in wows dishonour the IJN by their cowardice.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,297
Member
4,494 posts
8,613 battles
17 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Yamatos in wows dishonour the IJN by their cowardice.

I want Glowworm (Gallant's sister) as T6 Premium. Gimmicks: immune to ramming damage and ultra French cruiser speed boost (+50% speed in 3 mins).

USS Laffey (Benson-class), T8: ultra heal (50% HP in 30s) and 90% damage reduction against all shell damage.

Edited by Paladinum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34
[UWU]
Member
533 posts
5,104 battles

i agree sometimes its like
2 shimakaze on 1 team and the other team has like khabarovsk and gearing which to me is really unbalance im not saying shimakaze players are bad its just they are too into their torpedo they let the team lose the game overall..

Too many alaska..... is a huge problem right now i still new to yamato and im having trouble with alaska 

also

idk what kind of opinion you guys have please tell me whats on your mind on this but

Can my asashio be buffed to actually hit large cruisers like.... ALASKA ? or those stalingrad especially....... 
idk how that will balance it because i been seeing  these large cruiser kind of like replacing BB in some games in which my asashio really have no1 to target

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,975
[CLAY]
Member
2,643 posts
11,975 battles
2 hours ago, dejiko_nyo said:

I have read somewhere, possibly in the deep depths of the forums about vaguely how ships are "balanced". Something like each ship has a points rating and they make sure both side have equal ratings blahblah.

 

2 hours ago, Paladinum said:

 

shot-18_12.29_09_07.13-0751.jpg.c0513040f43568ea2fdb7ba81091aa74.jpgshot-18_12.27_12_46.22-0357.jpg.ccf51c03bc0ad50a2b3f5eca4f3da479.jpg

Ok, so, for the first example, we have 3 T10 cruisers on each side. On the red team, they are all Zao's. CAs.

On the Green team, 3 different, 1CL and 2 CA.

Zao's are good at long range sniping, setting fires from open water. Mino and DM work best from island cover at closer range. Hinden.. I think works somewhere in the middle? So, not a great match in terms of different abilities, though I suppose one could argue that the 2 Ibuki's can fil;l a role similar to Zao.

Second example is even worse. Why 3 Yamatos on 1 team? That's 3 T10 BBs which can overmatch the bow of everything on the other team. Green team only has Musashi. Harder to balance the cruisers, as one team is going to have a Wooster either way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
328
[-ISO-]
Member
1,054 posts
6,286 battles
1 hour ago, Paladinum said:

BBs IRL: even if it's a one-way ticket to the bottom of the seas, willing to fight to the end. Examples: Bismarck, Yamato. Even Graf Spee and DDs like Glowworm and Laffey fought splendidly and honorably. 

 

BBs in WoWs: *get a bounce* "OMG he hit me!!!" *shoot from max range for the rest of the match*

Cruisers when seeing BBs sniping from afar and can't hit a thing: "Get in here you moron! help me!"

Cruisers when seeing BBs charging to help them and dies in the first minutes: "This idiot Yamato by the way. Enough is enough, I have to report him"

So in conclusion, you want all BB players to be a unicum or real commander in order to compensate your role as a cruiser?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,975
[CLAY]
Member
2,643 posts
11,975 battles
15 minutes ago, mr_glitchy_R said:

Cruisers when seeing BBs sniping from afar and can't hit a thing: "Get in here you moron! help me!" 

Cruisers when seeing BBs charging to help them and dies in the first minutes: "This idiot Yamato by the way. Enough is enough, I have to report him"

So in conclusion, you want all BB players to be a unicum or real commander in order to compensate your role as a cruiser?

 

 

As I believe Rear Admiral Jingles once said, 'there is a middle ground'.

A BB just has to come forward enough to be just behind the cruiser line. I've done it a bit in my Yamato. If I'm bow tanking, little other than a Musashi or Yamato is a big threat to me. Only things are torpedos, which should be detected by screening cruisers in front, and HE spam, but I can heal that anyway. And little worry from CVs if cruisers are nearby.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
328
[-ISO-]
Member
1,054 posts
6,286 battles
2 minutes ago, Grygus_Triss said:

A BB just has to come forward enough to be just behind the cruiser line. I've done it a bit in my Yamato. If I'm bow tanking, little other than a Musashi or Yamato is a big threat to me. Only things are torpedos, which should be detected by screening cruisers in front, and HE spam, but I can heal that anyway. And little worry from CVs if cruisers are nearby.

What to do when I face a Musashi or another Yamato? Should I stay and reverse? or Turn around? Also, GK cannot be lolpened right? I mean she has a 60mm frontal armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
654
[SMOKE]
Member
1,815 posts
15,556 battles

In game ... unfortunately this is the issue , people willing only to score, to farm damage but unwilling to take any, unwilling to tank , and flat out refuse to group formation both offense and defense .. most CA and BB just want to be their own staying out of range and strike from long range ... in turn it mean no support to front line cruisers , so cruisers reel back , and in turn CL and DD reel back and then this vicious cycle repeat ... and repeat again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,297
Member
4,494 posts
8,613 battles
14 minutes ago, Mechfori said:

In game ... unfortunately this is the issue , people willing only to score, to farm damage but unwilling to take any, unwilling to tank , and flat out refuse to group formation both offense and defense .. most CA and BB just want to be their own staying out of range and strike from long range ... in turn it mean no support to front line cruisers , so cruisers reel back , and in turn CL and DD reel back and then this vicious cycle repeat ... and repeat again

Normally I would chose to stay at range, range beyond 15km can irritate the crap out of me because I can't hit anything. Unlike many people who choose to stay beyond 20km with their 15-18 inch guns. Only when I know the situation is beyond saving, I'd be like "Welp, time to farm as much damage as possible" lmfao

Since this game favors heavy for the "big-gun" meta (that you always have to mention)...

 

I suppose it is time to nerf gun range of BBs. There is an unfairness in gun range. People don't want BBs to snipe, what did WG do? Nerf CE so even more BBs stay at long/max range.

Conqueror is an "audacious" example of this. Base concealment is better than Hinden, HIV and Mockba. Fully-stealthed, that ship's concealment is half of her base gun range. My fully-stealthed Hindenburg is 12,3 km concealment vs 17,8 km base gun range. That's just bland stupid. There are so many ships in this game with stupidly unnecessarily long main gun range. Kongo and Fuso (outranges a bunch of T9 and T10 BBs), Richelieu (f*cking 25 km), Gneisenau (I don't even bother researching FCS B), Republique and of course Conqueror and Yamasushi. I may be lenient toward Yamato, but 10000% no mercy for Conqueror and Musashi.

If you want to put BBs closer to the frontline, then cut their gun range. It's not an "elegant" solution by any stretch of imagination, but a brute force attempt to say "move closer to the enemies", and reward them for it in the form of extra cred/xp per potential damage.

There is no number of protection/surviability nerf that will bring BBs closer to the front line. Those stats and features can stay, but it's the gun range that needs to be but down. There shouldn't be a BB in the game that has 24km gun range except Yamato (and Yamato alone). German and French BBs, no more than 21 km. US and UK, no more than 22,5 km. BBs must not have any main gun range upgrade, and no spotter plane if the ship's range already exceeds the national limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×