Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
TD1

+1/-1 MM

25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

253
Member
541 posts
6,731 battles

Seeing that @dejiko_nyohas brought up this topic a couple of times here, I'm going to ask about something: is +1/-1 MM practical to implement right now, with the current player base?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,458
Member
4,690 posts
8,752 battles

Let say that T8 ships in T10 matches is about 33% of the number of ships, and I barely ever get more than 2 minutes (the average is less than 1 minute) of queue waiting time during peak hour (my local time), for many Updates in a row. 33% increased queue waiting time is barely an issue for me.

+2/-2 MM is good when the game was still new, with the number of players the game has NOW, +1/-1 MM is a better idea for so many people.

My opinion anyway.

Edited by Paladinum
  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,694
[TLS]
Member
4,069 posts
20,266 battles

It is not only me, there are others out there but buried in threads deep in time.

+/-1 MM is not the only possible option. Skill based MM is another. Whatever the suggestion, it is basically MM need to be fixed for the times. The way it is with random (or even coop) matchmaking now is throw everything in the blender and see what comes out. I don't mind when 50-60% of the ships are the lowest tier. High tiers still fall to concentrated application of force. The issue is when the lowest tier is the only one or two ships in the whole team. Yes, I do admit some ships can cope but those are exceptions because usually they have range or super stealth.

To use the very frequently used but unspoken adage by wg: "why don't we try new things". We try new poorly instituted cv. We try new wierd modes. We try broken rank. Except this one they don't want to. Why is waiting another minute so difficult? We already waste 1-2 minutes at the beginning of the game -getting into position before we even start engaging- (exception is when cvs start spotting).

Edited by dejiko_nyo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
311
[LBAS]
Beta Tester
875 posts
5,777 battles

Now: -/+ 2 MM is not good, we should get -/+ 1 MM instead.

1 year later: +/-1 MM is op, we should get +/- 0 MM instead.

2 years later: Equal MM is BS, I want to be top tier always.

:Smile_popcorn:

P.S. I want Kawachi to meet tier 6 again.

Edited by spixys
I am old.
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[MPH]
Member
85 posts
9,791 battles

Tier +/-1 MM is very fair and practical proposal. Actually, this is implemented in less than Tier 4.

With the current CV issues in mind, I think +/-1 MM solve bottom CV balancing problem about AA performance.

But sometimes MM is broken because of mismatch for DDs and CVs numbers. As a result, this makes small people games.

Edited by AreaSteal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,694
[TLS]
Member
4,069 posts
20,266 battles
27 minutes ago, spixys said:

P.S. I want Kawachi to meet Cleveland again.

I want T2 in T10 matches. Never experience it because it was removed when I started but stories from old seasalts say it was fun to watch.

But seriously, +/-2 may have worked in the past because there were less variety and easier to work with. Now, things are not the same as 2 years ago.

Just look at upcoming 0.8.6.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
311
[LBAS]
Beta Tester
875 posts
5,777 battles
12 時間前、dejiko_nyo の発言:

I want T2 in T10 matches. Never experience it because it was removed when I started but stories from old seasalts say it was fun to watch.

 

Ok I did forgot that Cleveland had uptiered (silly me). I started when +/-3 MM (I think?) existed, and the MM allowed 0 CV vs 2 CVs for all tiers.

Well jokes aside, I personally wouldn't mind if they put -/+1 MM after all, since I don't mind with current -/+ 2 MM, but we will soon enough to witness that +/- 1 MM will be too much for cry babies as well.

Edited by spixys

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
708
[SMOKE]
Member
1,927 posts
16,057 battles

Let's be hones, its always the under tier who suffers ... and be made offering on the altar and that exactly is the one thing MM should avoid but had been unable to do ..  while +/- 1 would not exclude all the trouble , it at least made it tolerable, manageable ; but still IMHO we need to be placing a guideline here , that for any game only 1/3 ( rounded down ) or less ships should be the up tier ones .. if we had +/-1 MM but it end up only 1/3 of the ships are under tier, its still the same , the under tier become the offering on the altar , because of that up tier nature, I do think 1/3 is a good start but OK let real game stat tells ; would the queuing time really suffer, I doubt it, any tier up to T9 can be matched into game with being up tier or under tier ( or even if the game had all the same tier ships ) .. the only tier that face a limitation is T10 and they should had that, because by nature of being T10 these players are generally well versed in anything under theirs ( grinding made sure you really get to know them ) so they are best match is other T10 players ( sorry if you buy into a T10 ship, you are just buying to progress and its your duty to learn to T10 )  and since they enjoy never being under tier that extra queue time is compensated ( and I doubt its long by any mean ) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
708
[SMOKE]
Member
1,927 posts
16,057 battles
2 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

I want T2 in T10 matches. Never experience it because it was removed when I started but stories from old seasalts say it was fun to watch.

But seriously, +/-2 may have worked in the past because there were less variety and easier to work with. Now, things are not the same as 2 years ago.

Just look at upcoming 0.8.6.

Actually WG can made special game mode that cater to this more realistic composition of a fleet , I think it could be really fun too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
708
[SMOKE]
Member
1,927 posts
16,057 battles

Other than making the Premium Consumable standard , all the other seems counter intuitive , are they running out of new player to populate the low to mid tier , well it surely sound like so .. No thanks .. even though I like playing some of the low to mid tier ships I am not about to re-grind a whole line no matter WHAT 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,694
[TLS]
Member
4,069 posts
20,266 battles
27 minutes ago, Mechfori said:

Other than making the Premium Consumable standard , all the other seems counter intuitive , are they running out of new player to populate the low to mid tier , well it surely sound like so .. No thanks .. even though I like playing some of the low to mid tier ships I am not about to re-grind a whole line no matter WHAT 

The concept of beefing up your ship is fine. The method is definately not. It stinks that they have run out of ideas to implement properly. I am going to try to put this in the most polite manner: A lot of us have spent years grinding out the various lines in whatever our own personal definition of "support for the game" is and they attempt to shortchange years of effort EA-style? Wow. I managed to achieve it without using the F key in every other word.

My VERY SANE suggestion is grind up to T10, then everything in that line is converted to FreeXP which then you spend on those upgrade tokens instead of this worthless regrind.

So. Apart from breaking the economy by introducing all this pointless extra "currencies", they attempt to fix the economy by breaking it some more. GENIUS. *thesoundofslowclapping*

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
132
[SPCTH]
Member
390 posts
9,207 battles

At T8 its like 4 games at +2 , 1 game at +1 and 1 game at -2, that the cycle, in no particular order. Ive been taking down notes and also the MM with how many battles each team has and there is also a trend in that with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
624
[OH]
Modder
312 posts
8,163 battles

 

I am a Japanese player.
Please pardon my poor English.

When I took a questionnaire about +1/-1 or ±0 MM in the Japanese community, many people wanted it.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,187
[FORCE]
Member
2,326 posts
12,150 battles

shot-19_07.06_12_24.43-0531.thumb.jpg.8fdef3bf8985e2249f3b20e61592341e.jpg

This screenshot explains the whole +2/-2 MM is not a problem that only T8 ships suffer from it.shot-19_07.06_12_25.21-0748.thumb.jpg.bf5712b283128c4eb899562edd103425.jpg

I mean while this battle was somewhat less problematic for the T8 ships, the T7 ships were the fodders. Especially Helena which suffers from having a very short gun range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,694
[TLS]
Member
4,069 posts
20,266 battles
1 hour ago, Sir_Feather said:

shot-19_07.06_12_25.21-0748.thumb.jpg.bf5712b283128c4eb899562edd103425.jpg

I ask only one question: What the fooks were your T9 BBs fooking doing?! And that T9 CL...

Just to add so I don't keep adding new posts. Every now and then, across the forums, there are voices that raise up +/-1 MM. No one raised up that bullshit NTC concept and keeps perpetuating it. How is that player base wants NTC when clearly we have been voicing concerns regarding other things? "Lack of resources, waiting times, blah blah excuses". Excuse me, instead of devoting resources to unwanted ridiculous ideas, why don't you put those resources into doing something MORE USEFUL? A number of people mentioned that this NTC was basically already "quite advanced in design" and that scrapping it would be a waste of effort.

Also, that MM analysis over xyz matches to "improve MM". Stop. Please. Just Stop. Again, wasting resources that can be put into a +/- 1 optimization trial. It's not a huge change and if things go wrong in implementation, you can always rollback without much long-term problems(*cough*cvrework*cough*)

Edited by dejiko_nyo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,918
[TDA]
ST Coordinator
5,624 posts
7,655 battles
On 7/3/2019 at 10:26 PM, TD1 said:

Seeing that @dejiko_nyohas brought up this topic a couple of times here, I'm going to ask about something: is +1/-1 MM practical to implement right now, with the current player base?

Why would it be any different if the player base were different.  The overall server numbers haven't changed a lot over the years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,187
[FORCE]
Member
2,326 posts
12,150 battles
6 hours ago, dejiko_nyo said:

I ask only one question: What the fooks were your T9 BBs fooking doing?! And that T9 CL...

Besides that JB who got top xp, they didn't even manage to snipe properly to help scoring kills. As you can see on the first screenshot, the enemy team only lost 4 ships right before I got deleted. So it was pretty much 2 vs 12 (our CV could not do much other than spotting).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
132
[SPCTH]
Member
390 posts
9,207 battles

Just played 4 games at T8 and all end up in T10 in a row. Luckily i won 3 games so why cant we have it T8 all end up in T6??????????????????????????. 4x games at +2, 1x game at +1 then 1x game at -2, that is the current formula for my games. I worked out if i play my best ships to see what i get then i work out if i get a good tier MM to play other ships.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
708
[SMOKE]
Member
1,927 posts
16,057 battles

the only tier(s) that really can be said to be having any real impact if MM goes to +/-1 is Tier 9 and T10 , T9 being they would more than likely be pulled into T10 game but since many a T9 are good match against T10 ( but some are grossly the other way round ), and T10 being they no longer can be pulled into game with T8 around ( slightly longer queue time ) but the overall game balance is well worth it , more than well worth it instead ..

Part of that T9/T10 problem though must be on WG's blame when they introduce all the super cruiser / BC without branching them off and MM accordingly , in fact not branching off CL vs CA is already a issue ( Had seen many game matched with too many CA one side and too many CL the other side ) and of course they are about to introduce yet more OP ship premium regarding T9 / T10 , in short I would say T9/T10 can no longer be termed just high tier, they practically are now populated in a fashion that they game their own .. and that is reflected in many a T7 / T8 find themselves simply out matched no matter what .. so getting them off shoot to their own ( sorry T8, you will still had to face T9 ) could not be any wiser and for all others tiers T7 and under, there is no issue when everyone could be presented with more evenly and equally matched opponents.

I had in the past also mentioned that the reward system should also be calibrated to reflect tier difference in that any support duty reward ( spotting , cappin etc ) shoudl remain the same, but damage deal should be calculated with a tier difference co-efficient , so say if your ship deal damage to same tier ship it will be a coefficient of 1.0 ( default rewarded ), if your ship deal damage to an up tier opponent your reward would be calculated with a coefficient of something like 1.15 ( you got better rewarded for facing a superior foe ) and if you deal damage to an under-tier opponent your coefficient should be something like 0.80  ( you are discouraged from just seal clubbing ) , and similarly this tier difference can be introduced to other interaction of the game 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[HMNZ]
Member
364 posts
5,531 battles
11 hours ago, Mechfori said:

Part of that T9/T10 problem though must be on WG's blame when they introduce all the super cruiser / BC without branching them off and MM accordingly , in fact not branching off CL vs CA is already a issue ( Had seen many game matched with too many CA one side and too many CL the other side ) and of course they are about to introduce yet more OP ship premium regarding T9 / T10 , in short I would say T9/T10 can no longer be termed just high tier, they practically are now populated in a fashion that they game their own .. and that is reflected in many a T7 / T8 find themselves simply out matched no matter what .. so getting them off shoot to their own ( sorry T8, you will still had to face T9 ) could not be any wiser and for all others tiers T7 and under, there is no issue when everyone could be presented with more evenly and equally matched opponents.

but WG are saying there are too many players playing top tiers and not low-mid tiers?? why would we need MM+/-2 at top tiers? Is there any data that shows just what levels are played daily etc?

 

13 hours ago, AxEyBoI said:

Just played 4 games at T8 and all end up in T10 in a row. Luckily i won 3 games so why cant we have it T8 all end up in T6??????????????????????????. 4x games at +2, 1x game at +1 then 1x game at -2, that is the current formula for my games. I worked out if i play my best ships to see what i get then i work out if i get a good tier MM to play other ships.

sounds good to me, or would a selection button as you enter the "Battle" screen MM "+/-1" "+/-2" ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
132
[SPCTH]
Member
390 posts
9,207 battles

As said above going in the a Mogami, or Edinburgh or something similar and you find the entire enemy team with Alaskas, Kronies and Azumas coming around the corner........but you cant hide with your concealment, CV spotting you all game if not the DD. For me it dont matter i can use most ships but for the new players zzzzzzhh and if they on my team getting wasted left right and center. There is no balance. Unfortunately nothing will change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×