Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
Dano07

Stupid MM at its finest in AS

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

36
[NOOB1]
Member
89 posts
6,222 battles

Hi

Just had several matches in AS where the lower tier was 9 ships of t5/t6 vs  7 ships of T8 - as you can see it was a slaughter ; we were lucky to sink one or two T8s in those matches.

T8 DD gunboats are particularly deadly - able to do significant dmg even to a t5/T6 BB

And when I turn around and try a High Tier match  , I get matched against a lower tier of nearly all bots  plus is was in the 'standard' format of 2 lower tier to 1 higher tier

It seems the Match ups are even worse than what goes on in Randoms - how can WG get it so badly wrong ?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
260
[REPOI]
Member
188 posts
12,374 battles
1 hour ago, Dano07 said:

Hi

Just had several matches in AS where the lower tier was 9 ships of t5/t6 vs  7 ships of T8 - as you can see it was a slaughter ; we were lucky to sink one or two T8s in those matches.

T8 DD gunboats are particularly deadly - able to do significant dmg even to a t5/T6 BB

And when I turn around and try a High Tier match  , I get matched against a lower tier of nearly all bots  plus is was in the 'standard' format of 2 lower tier to 1 higher tier

It seems the Match ups are even worse than what goes on in Randoms - how can WG get it so badly wrong ?

This gamemode is mainly for the funs, nothing serious. For those who seek something different to your generic Random Battles,
They might have overtweaked it as in its older iteration, it was unfair for the top tier team where they would typically get slaughtered.

Well, this matchmaking is still random, sometimes you will get a team of players instead of bots, a team of players that knows what they are knowing, and some occasions teams where players that would just throw,
Again, this is for the funs and for those who seek to challenge themselves or like I have stated above, some funs

If it is indeed a cluesterfxxk for you, then I do recommend you taking a break from it, no one is forcing you to play it, you are doing it at your own free will. Nothing can be perfect

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36
[NOOB1]
Member
89 posts
6,222 battles
41 minutes ago, HoChunHao said:

This gamemode is mainly for the funs, nothing serious. For those who seek something different to your generic Random Battles,
They might have overtweaked it as in its older iteration, it was unfair for the top tier team where they would typically get slaughtered.

I agree that WG over reacted - but the early games were base on 2 Vs 1 ratio ; low vs high tier. 

Also the high tiers in early AS game mode had many bots , that is no longer the case its all players ot T8

and Indeed I play it for fun - its potentially a great idea , poorly executed  .....

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,305
[TDA]
[TDA]
Alpha Tester
2,206 posts
8,282 battles

 

asymmetrical
 
 
adjective
 
  1. having parts which fail to correspond to one another in shape, size, or arrangement; lacking symmetry..
     
    .having parts or aspects which are not equal or equivalent.
     
     
    ~
     
    I don't think it's meant to be BaLanCe.
  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,009
[CLAY]
Member
2,667 posts
12,025 battles

Its an excuse for WG to not care about matchmaker.

Players: "its unbalanced"

WG: "Its supposed to be, its historical."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Administrator, WG Staff
146 posts
5 hours ago, Grygus_Triss said:

Its an excuse for WG to not care about matchmaker.

Players: "its unbalanced"

WG: "Its supposed to be, its historical."

While I appreciate the humor, we do care about matchmaker. We are making changes to try and make the odds fairer in Asymmetric Battles. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,282
[151ST]
Member
2,357 posts
9,908 battles

It's in a test mode at the moment.

'But SappeR they should test it porperly before releasing it!'

Yes they should little Saplets, but the testing resources that WG have are limited and they need to test on the live server in order to get the sorts of player numbers needed to fix it.

'But SappeR, why don't they have the testing resources?'

I'm not sure little Saplets, it's most likely a cost they aren't willing to pay, QA testing can be quite expensive, most game devs keep QA salaries low to try and keep costs down... All I know is that it's a thankless task.

TLDR; the mode is still being tested, they need live server numbers to do it properly. Have a laugh with the mode but I would be concentrating on the lowbie tier campaign and the anniversary wins.

Edited by S4pp3R
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,701
[CLAY]
Beta Tester
4,273 posts
18,695 battles
8 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

Yes they should little Saplets,

I'm not sure little Saplets,

 

baby-groot-guardians.0.jpg

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,282
[151ST]
Member
2,357 posts
9,908 battles
5 hours ago, Max_Battle said:

 

baby-groot-guardians.0.jpg

Approved... :cap_like:

Edited by S4pp3R
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
Member
743 posts
19,634 battles

I think the only top tier match I've lost is when I had nothing but bots on my team... and even then we gave them a good hustle.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36
[NOOB1]
Member
89 posts
6,222 battles

All WG has do, is hold its nerve - and go back to the original concept of  2  lower tiers ships  to 1 higher tier ship ratio !

Most lower tiers will still be aa mix of t5/t6  while most  higher tier ships will be T8 : then lets see how it work !

Balancing  of sides of DDs and CVs is probably asking too much 

If you make it some what balanced and interesting you wont have bots filling the ranks 

PS while your at it  can you make more Operations  balanced and interesting  - is that asking too much ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,322
Member
4,528 posts
8,629 battles
14 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

It's in a test mode at the moment.

'But SappeR they should test it porperly before releasing it!'

Yes they should little Saplets, but the testing resources that WG have are limited and they need to test on the live server in order to get the sorts of player numbers needed to fix it.

'But SappeR, why don't they have the testing resources?'

I'm not sure little Saplets, it's most likely a cost they aren't willing to pay, QA testing can be quite expensive, most game devs keep QA salaries low to try and keep costs down... All I know is that it's a thankless task.

TLDR; the mode is still being tested, they need live server numbers to do it properly. Have a laugh with the mode but I would be concentrating on the lowbie tier campaign and the anniversary wins.

Not-Saplet here (wth is Saplets and why not Saplings?), not just the testing resources WG have are limited, and specifically and most importantly, they don't have enough people to test anything properly before they add it into the Live/official client.

Many video game companies, including some AAA, do send out open alpha/beta version to testers by application or invitation. Whether it is under constant development like WoWS... or not.

New feature/content = new problems to overcome.

In case of WoWS, I think it's utterly necessary to point out that the number of people who play PTS when it's available is jack !@#$. Like what, 2k, maybe 3k at the highest? 2k people from CIS, NA, EU and Asia - each of them can peak at 20k (or even more). Thus, WoWS PTS is rather worthless for WG, but they try anyway. PTs are still good for rewards though.

I can only imagine how tiny the number of people who would play this new mode in PTs is. I myself wouldn't get into it, I'm there chiefly to try out tech tree ships that I don't have to make a decision on whether getting them in Live.

Even in Live servers, so many people just don't even bother playing the new modes at all.

 

If the battles swing too much into one side or another, may as well remove victory economic bonus and defeat economic penalty, and merge them into one thing. Temporarily, only for testing purposes.

Edited by Paladinum
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,282
[151ST]
Member
2,357 posts
9,908 battles
9 hours ago, Paladinum said:

Not-Saplet here (wth is Saplets and why not Saplings?), not just the testing resources WG have are limited, and specifically and most importantly, they don't have enough people to test anything properly before they add it into the Live/official client.

Because I prefer using made up words for nouns so there's less confusion for ESL folks... Also I tend to use the term 'nooblets' thus 'saplets'.

Also pretty sure by saying you aren't one it automatically makes you one? 😉  :cap_like:

When I said resources that's exactly what I meant. Resources meaning money and people. WGs testing processes always annoy the $&#! out of me because if you are going to skimp out on testing, you need the best game designers and devs in the business so the product is already there. Sadly WG has neither, their ships even from a basic assessment usually don't look like they've even compared them to existing in-game ships at tier, class or even similar play styles.

But I didn't want to go too in-depth or negative on that as it is unlikely to be something they change anytime in the foreseeable future.

Edited by S4pp3R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,282
[151ST]
Member
2,357 posts
9,908 battles
24 minutes ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Sappies. Much nicer ring.

Sounds too much like floupies :Smile_teethhappy:

Edited by S4pp3R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,573
[TLS]
Member
3,937 posts
19,996 battles
1 minute ago, S4pp3R said:

Sounds too much like floupies :Smile_teethhappy:

I R shappy for U.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
192
[NZAUS]
Beta Tester
300 posts
8,284 battles

But money is no object .. I heard it said  ... 

 

Share this post


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

×