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

Asymmetric battles...

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,855
[TLS]
Member
4,234 posts
20,377 battles

As if we don't have enough asymmetric battles already. Make even more asymmetric as F.

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,186
[CLAY]
Member
2,841 posts
12,654 battles

Which players suggest this? Why can’t more players suggest scenarios.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
736
[SMOKE]
Member
2,058 posts
16,289 battles

Ok - well - I wonder how do WG come up with the idea that we can actually guesstimate the result when pretty much none of us actually had enough experience on this game mode playing both sides ..

So they just want our WAG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
179
[WWS]
Member
316 posts
4,003 battles

Ikr. There's a f-ton of metrics that can affect a battle not just ship tier and count. And there's also RNG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,855
[TLS]
Member
4,234 posts
20,377 battles
59 minutes ago, notyourfather said:

And there's also RNG.

The most significant thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,565
[151ST]
Member
2,644 posts
10,486 battles

At this point I reckon they should release a quiz to the entire playerbase...

Here's a list of ideas, what order would you wish to see them implemented.

Note: we are not confirming these features but considering them at this stage.

 

On a list of 20, asymmetrical battles would probably be bottom 5, if not bottom 3...

It's only commendable from the point of view that at least it's some sort of dynamic change. Most of us will know that vsing a T8 in a T5 isn't fun.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,855
[TLS]
Member
4,234 posts
20,377 battles

@S4pp3RAt this juncture, I believe that this 'more asymmetric battles' is their convoluted answer to +/-1 tier MM. They are basically putting less higher tier ships versus more lower tier ships. Quality vs quantity matchup except it doesn't factor that player skill is a bigger factor. Excluding same tier ship differences: All same tier, but different skills, the variable is mainly skill. All same skill but different tier, the variable is tier. Much more balanced. 'More asymmetric mode' basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

My 2 cents.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331
[-ISO-]
Member
1,062 posts
6,286 battles

This survey BTW.... 

When you're tired of RNG so you become THE RNG

But on a serious note, this survey sucks. Many players doesn't have any idea what team will win and what will defeat. Some people won't take it seriously and just playing clicks then submit it as if there's nothing happened. The survey should be a text box where a player can share their opinion about this mode. Not this kind of bullsh1t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,990
[CLAY]
Beta Tester
4,549 posts
20,043 battles

How do you spell SMH?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15
[LU-NA]
Member
98 posts
3,439 battles
1 hour ago, dejiko_nyo said:

@S4pp3RAt this juncture, I believe that this 'more asymmetric battles' is their convoluted answer to +/-1 tier MM. They are basically putting less higher tier ships versus more lower tier ships. Quality vs quantity matchup except it doesn't factor that player skill is a bigger factor. Excluding same tier ship differences: All same tier, but different skills, the variable is mainly skill. All same skill but different tier, the variable is tier. Much more balanced. 'More asymmetric mode' basically throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

My 2 cents.

Wait, ranked is already a same tier battle so players skill should already decided the outcome? Are there any study about this? Someone used winrate monitor and calculate the winning chance of team with higher win rate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
331
[-ISO-]
Member
1,062 posts
6,286 battles
12 minutes ago, Arzach said:

Someone used winrate monitor and calculate the winning chance of team with higher win rate. 

Just winrate is not enough. The number of battles played in randoms and ranked also should be taken into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
75
[IWN]
Member
265 posts
2,862 battles
22 hours ago, mr_glitchy_R said:

Just winrate is not enough. The number of battles played in randoms and ranked also should be taken into account.

winrate is overrated, number of battle in random and ranked battle worth more, an player with 5k experience worth more than 2K one even when the winrate is something like . Except for bot, they are well bot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[SPQR]
Member
3 posts
660 battles

This is ri(dick)culous, look at my team, This is too fair, beyond my imagination. when they can't find a player and they put a bunch of stupid bots on the wrong side, what for wargaming? Increased inhibition experience for players? 
I don't find this mode interesting. It just discourages the player and doesn't want to play this game anymore. Throw a bunch of new players with stupid bots into a match to get bullied by more experienced players.
Goodjob WG.
image.thumb.png.51eae107375efc0a5d5b03a74a0bdeda.png

Share this post


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

×