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

MM for tier 3 BBs; are you [redacted] kidding, WG?

9 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

I'm sure this has been said a million times, but who cares?

 

In WoT we had to put up with absurd MM for 2.5 YEARS.

 

Has WG learned nothing from that?

 

Seriously, WTF business does a Kawachi with less than 9km range have in a battle with 6 TIER 6 SHIPS...or, even better, 8 TIER 6??

 

Do you even PLAY your own game?

 

No tier 3s on other side, of course.

 

So what's the deal?

 

"Oh, we're sorry, MM has decided you get to be entirely useless and a bunch of free exp and cr for the other side. Try again."

 

Please, seriously, I'd like to see ONE sensible, rational justification for including a ship in a fight where it literally DOES NOTHING because everything else is faster AND can be spotted OUTSIDE its pathetic range.

 

Now, if you CAN'T give me one, GROW A BRAIN AND GET RID OF IT.

 

It's utterly absurd, just as was putting stock tier 6 heavies in battles with tier 10s as WoT used to (and there wasn't even prem ammo for CR back then).

 

Just mind-boggling. Beyond stupid. Indefensible.

 

And those are the GOOD things I can say about it.

 

p.s. Is the idea to make it so excruciatingly bad as a playing experience I'll spend money to 'buy my way out of it'? First, if yes, shame on you for such an appalling design philosophy. If not, FIX IT. Right now all it's doing is making sure I don't spend a $.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

In WoT we had to put up with absurd MM for 2.5 YEARS.

 

Absurd +-3 MM where low tier vehicles actually had an easier time than they have nowadays due to HE mechanics...

 

Seriously, WTF business does a Kawachi with less than 9km range have in a battle with 6 TIER 6 SHIPS...or, even better, 8 TIER 6??

 

Sail into DD territory, obliterate tier IV-VI DDs, CLs and CAs.

 

Please, seriously, I'd like to see ONE sensible, rational justification for including a ship in a fight where it literally DOES NOTHING because everything else is faster AND can be spotted OUTSIDE its pathetic range.

 

I, myself like to think that the +-3 mm in WoT helped me a lot with getting better at the game despite HE being the all around go to weapon when frontally facing an enemy tank.

And if that doesn't cut it for you then...

... low population, not enough people on each tier to get anything useful together outside of the server's top end times.

 

It's utterly absurd, just as was putting stock tier 6 heavies in battles with tier 10s as WoT used to (and there wasn't even prem ammo for CR back then).

 

You mean back when the only tier VI heavy tank was the KV-3?

With the only changes made to the KV-3 after it was pushed to tier VII being it's hitpoints?

Yeah, how dare they let a tier VI heavy tank, that's really just a tier VII face enemies of it's own calibre...

 

Especially when it has this super weak 122mm gun that can pen anything up to tier IX and deal heavy HE damage to the two available tier Xs...

 

Do you have a screenshot or replay?

 

Not required, the current matchmaker will, if need be, send ships into +-3 tier battles.

Edited by Retia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
808 posts
1,399 battles

most ships can handle the +-3 matchmaker with no issue

 

kawachi (and its USN buddy south carolina) seems to be the exception because of its atrocious speed and atrocious range, the poor penetration of the 305mm guns towards battleships is also an issue.

 

better to just PVE your way through that junk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
679 posts
3,522 battles

most ships can handle the +-3 matchmaker with no issue

 

kawachi (and its USN buddy south carolina) seems to be the exception because of its atrocious speed and atrocious range, the poor penetration of the 305mm guns towards battleships is also an issue.

 

better to just PVE your way through that junk.

 

Yep. I like the SC, but now I have to agree PVE junk ships (New York is the worst I've played so far, but the New Mexico makes up for it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

 

Absurd +-3 MM where low tier vehicles actually had an easier time than they have nowadays due to HE mechanics...

 

They changed the HE mechanics before they changed the MM. Besides which, the amount of damage done compared with incoming damage and/or health of the target was piddling. Pretending otherwise flies in the face of the stats that were available back then and seem very much rose coloured glasses.

 

Sail into DD territory, obliterate tier IV-VI DDs, CLs and CAs.

 

Not an option on the maps I played. Oh, not quite true. I did sort of manage that once. An enemy DD ran aground, in fact. Full salvo at stationary target; all missed thanks to RNG. Great reward for effort. And of course I got killed by tier 6 CV in one of them because why not?

 

I, myself like to think that the +-3 mm in WoT helped me a lot with getting better at the game despite HE being the all around go to weapon when frontally facing an enemy tank.

And if that doesn't cut it for you then...

... low population, not enough people on each tier to get anything useful together outside of the server's top end times.

 

Low population is an argument put forward to justify the unjustifiable. First of all, population is an INPUT the system must deal with when producing matches. If the MM produces godawful waste of time battles within the operating environment on a server it's simply not fit for purpose. That's it. Plus, of course, it's only an issue because WG deems it acceptable in the first place. It took them 2.5 years to change the MM in WoT, and the game was undoubtedly the better for it. Yet people offered every excuse under the sun, including the 'pop' one, as to why it couldn't be done.

 

 

You mean back when the only tier VI heavy tank was the KV-3?

With the only changes made to the KV-3 after it was pushed to tier VII being it's hitpoints?

Yeah, how dare they let a tier VI heavy tank, that's really just a tier VII face enemies of it's own calibre...

 

No, I mean back when the M6 was around, too. Besides which, the common experience was you got a shot or two then were obliterated OR you sat hiding. Yes, it was doable, but the statistics of av dam for those vehicles when in bottom tier were undeniable. And, as I pointed out, HE mechanics were changed before MM. What's more, the guns were LESS accurate effectively due to different sigma in the shot distribution. Just because the vehicle COULD do something under optimal conditions did not mean it in fact managed it in any way regularly. Besides which it overlooks the most basic point: it is ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY.

 

Especially when it has this super weak 122mm gun that can pen anything up to tier IX and deal heavy HE damage to the two available tier Xs...

 

Already addressed.

 

None of which, of course, explains WHY tier 3 BBs should be put in this position. What purpose does it serve? How does it provide a good gaming experience? What terrible imposition would it be on tier 6 ships NOT to have a single tier 3 BB on the enemy roster?

 

As an aside, an obvious point about some things you've suggested is that the tricks a tier 6 in a tier 10 can use to mitigate the chances of being shot largely don't apply in WoWS. Once you are in a position to shoot, you're almost always exposed for some time. And the inaccuracy of those guns (tier 3 BB), a balance parameter for when they're top/middle tier, simply add insult to injury when you simply miss an otherwise perfectly aligned shot at a completely stationary target.

 

Nope, sorry, putting a tier 3 BB in a battle with 8 tier 6s and some 5s (I think there was 1 x 4 as well) where everything out-ranges you significantly AND is faster strikes me as irredeemably foolish and entirely unnecessary.

 

No amount of dancing around it addresses that central proposition until someone can tell me they'd rather play in tier 6 than tier 4-5 when in a tier 3 BB AND that the playing experience of tier 6s would be greatly diminished by not having the odd tier 3 in a roster.

Edited by Steeltrap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

Seems WG agrees, with most all tier 3s EXCEPT CAs seeing tiers 3-4 in MM for 0.5.0.

 

I think it's the range that's the limitation on BBs that is keeping them from tier 5 battles, which is fair enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Moderator
3,837 posts
2,602 battles

The inference for the wide MM spread is simple.

 

Because the game is still in its (relative) infancy the devs try to make it easier to get matches. In the process it also provides more data for balancing and further MM tweaks.

 

Now that they've collected enough data and the game is transitioning into release they'll be expecting an influx of players. Bigger population = MM spreads can be tightened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
2,150 posts
486 battles

That same excuse was one of the usual trotted out for WoT's fail MM for nearly 3 years.

 

It doesn't wash UNLESS you're of the view your customers should be shoved into utterly pointless, woeful battles (stock Kawachi in battle with 8 tier 6? Yeah, brilliant).

 

The MM should fit what best suits each vessel's abilities. If it can't fight tier 6 it shouldn't see tier 6. Period.

 

The pop will affect how quickly battles are formed, true, but that's no excuse whatsoever for putting people into battles where they really are hosed. Doubly so when the devs have bots available for use if they wanted to be at all creative.

 

All of which was contained in the lengthy thread I wrote on MM principles, which was deleted because Asia can't archive threads (while EU did perfectly well; you can go and read them even now).

Share this post


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

×