Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
S4pp3R

Asymmetrical Mode and generally balance...

6 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,542
[151ST]
Member
2,609 posts
10,423 battles

So I've been playing around with Asymmetrical battles over the weekend on PTS...

Mods, before you look to move this thread, it's about balance as well and belongs in a lively section of the forums, not some dark harry potter closet. [Pretty please don't move it]

Even when it was announced I'll be honest, I had serious doubts. Having played it now, I still have doubts but I don't think it's an impossible task; just one that needs work.

Can Wargaming pull it off? Maybe but very unlikely.

@dejiko_nyo will no doubt chime in at some point with 'I told you so' but some of it has to do with player skills and some of it has to do with the balance between ships.

World of Warships as a game has a wide variety of ships that range from strong in all situations to only in niche situations.

In random battles, most games are 12 v 12. In this, the ship differences and player skill levels have more of a chance to be levelled out by the other 23 players/ships. 

In a game mode like ranked that has a more limited ship selected and number of players, those with stronger ships or who are better players can influence the battle more.

Asymmetric battles IMO has both of these issues in the current format.

If you have a stack of really good players in the right good ships on the high-tier side, it'll be a nightmare for the swarm side. If you have even one muppet on the high tier team, that can also spell disaster.

And what ships are on the high tier team has a huge impact. Whoever has the DD/CV advantage gets a massive advantage and what ships the high-tier side has can change everything. A good radar cruiser or gunboat bully can change everything.

Asymmetrical battles point out the massive differences in ships within classes at tier in power and in role... When talking about the high tier side.

At the same time as this is happening, the swarm side is far more forgiving if a player is a muppet or pro, in a good ship or bad.

The way the game is balanced is around equal number sides and many people on both teams.

However... ... .. .

If the ruleset is changed, everything changes.

What I mean by ruleset is the conditions for winning.

If WG can find a good ruleset that suits the numbers, classes and tiers disparity then the mode could work.

I think WG tried that with some different cap setups and this is the right avenue of thinking. They haven't found the right type yet though.

I actually think an attack/defence mode would work in this type of numbers setup far better.

High tier ships have to defend against the hordes, sounds fun right?

Probably the main challenge with this will be when impossible odds happen - having said that we see those in randoms a lot anyways.

Bottom Line - Ships vary in power and role within classes, this variety becomes more noticable when there are few vs many. Asymmetrical battles are plausible but require a rethink of the ruleset over a Standard/Domination/Epicentre style of game.

Thoughts?

Edited by S4pp3R
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,229
[REPOI]
[REPOI]
Member
6,575 posts
26,552 battles
Just now, S4pp3R said:

So I've been playing around with Asymmetrical battles over the weekend on PTS...

Mods, before you look to move this thread, it's about balance as well and belongs in a lively section of the forums, not some dark harry potter closet. [Pretty please don't move it]

Even when it was announced I'll be honest, I had serious doubts. Having played it now, I still have doubts but I don't think it's an impossible task; just one that needs work.

Can Wargaming pull it off? Maybe but very unlikely.

@dejiko_nyo will no doubt chime in at some point with 'I told you so' but some of it has to do with player skills and some of it has to do with the balance between ships.

World of Warships as a game has a wide variety of ships that range from strong in all situations to only in niche situations.

In random battles, most games are 12 v 12. In this, the ship differences and player skill levels have more of a chance to be levelled out by the other 23 players/ships. 

In a game mode like ranked that has a more limited ship selected and number of players, those with stronger ships or who are better players can influence the battle more.

Asymmetric battles IMO has both of these issues in the current format.

If you have a stack of really good players in The right good ships on the high-tier side, it'll be a nightmare for the swarm side. If you have even one muppet on the high tier team, that can also spell disaster.

And what ships are on the high tier team has a huge impact. Whoever has the DD/CV advantage gets a massive advantage and what ships the high-tier side has can change everything. A good radar cruiser or gunboat bully can change everything.

Asymmetrical battles point out the massive differences in ships within classes at tier in power and in role... When talking about the high tier side.

At the same time as this is happening, the swarm side is far more forgiving if a player is a muppet or pro, in a good ship or bad.

The way the game is balanced is around equal number sides and many people on both teams.

However... ... .. .

If the ruleset is changed, everything changes.

What I mean by ruleset is the conditions for winning.

If WG can find a good ruleset that suits the numbers, classes and tiers disparity then the mode could work.

I think WG tried that with some different cap setups and this is the right avenue of thinking. They haven't found the right type yet though.

I actually think an attack/defence mode would work in this type of numbers setup far better.

High tier ships have to defend against the hordes, sounds fun right?

Probably the main challenge with this will be when impossible odds happen - having said that we see those in randoms a lot anyways.

Bottom Line - Ships vary in power and role withing classes, this variety becomes more noticable when there are few vs many. Asymmetrical battles are plausible but require a rethink of the ruleset over a Standard/Domination/Epicentre style of game.

Thoughts?

i have literally yet to see a match where the T8 ships won the game, and i've seen it both from people playing the T8s and the people playing the T5-6s 

what always happens is

if- there's no DD on the T8 side, then they get farmed for free and the dont have the required spotting to win the game

if- they have 1 DD, there isnt enough supporting fire for it to win any engagements when it's getting crossfired by a lot more people (HE hurts just the same across all tiers) and then the team still gets stomped
if- the team have 2 or more DDs, they dont have the tankiness or firepower to hold off a enemy hard push 

 

and god forbit there's a CV on the T8 side, they dont have anywhere near the ammount of time nor DPM to make a impact on the game

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,542
[151ST]
Member
2,609 posts
10,423 battles
12 minutes ago, CV_NMSL said:

i have literally yet to see a match where the T8 ships won the game, and i've seen it both from people playing the T8s and the people playing the T5-6s 

what always happens is

if- there's no DD on the T8 side, then they get farmed for free and the dont have the required spotting to win the game

if- they have 1 DD, there isnt enough supporting fire for it to win any engagements when it's getting crossfired by a lot more people (HE hurts just the same across all tiers) and then the team still gets stomped
if- the team have 2 or more DDs, they dont have the tankiness or firepower to hold off a enemy hard push 

 

and god forbit there's a CV on the T8 side, they dont have anywhere near the ammount of time nor DPM to make a impact on the game

Yeah I have won as T7s/8s a few times but mostly yes.

Their data will play this out but this is why I reckon they need to change the ruleset, not just change up the number of ships. There are inherent issues with DD disparity and CVs as you mentioned.

I like the concept though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,800
[TLS]
Member
4,187 posts
20,354 battles

The quality of players on the teams makes all the difference. We already have an existing analogue for asymmetric battles: Operations; albeit the swarm comes in waves. If you have muppets, the muppets team is always going to lose. This week's ops exemplifies it. Snipers of Newport is lost in the 1st 3 waves where you are battling inferior ships. You do not finish those ships fast enough, you lose. 

In addition, the existing random battles is already asymmetric enough after factoring all the conditions. I would call the the mode they want to implement "EVEN MORE ASYMMETRIC BATTLES" but it doesn't catch the tongue, does it?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,229
[REPOI]
[REPOI]
Member
6,575 posts
26,552 battles
37 minutes ago, S4pp3R said:

Yeah I have won as T7s/8s a few times but mostly yes.

Their data will play this out but this is why I reckon they need to change the ruleset, not just change up the number of ships. There are inherent issues with DD disparity and CVs as you mentioned.

I like the concept though...

as always with WG, the concept is cool but the execution is horrendous =( 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
728
[SMOKE]
Member
2,020 posts
16,233 battles

am doing the same, I mean playing the mode on PTS over the weekend .. seems rather difficult to balance pending the mode now with almost always off beat MM

Edited by Mechfori
  • Cool 1

Share this post


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

×