Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
nambr9

Symmetrical MM in 0.7.4

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SCRUB]
Players
2,906 posts
7,759 battles

I mean ... yes we wanted FAIR MM regarding radar ships, but symmetrical MM just seems and sounds boring.

 

I dont think thats a good thing for the game play diversity.

 

+ from the queue waiting line perspective ... the +-1 MM would do better. So let me hear the (+-1mm is not implemented because of the waiting queue) no more.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester, Players
5,285 posts

+1 MM never happens , as for mirror mm not much changes , only good that now we will have always same dds not -1 like always before ^^

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PUPSI]
Players
6,573 posts
Vor 1 Minute, nambr9 sagte:

but symmetrical MM just seems and sounds boring

 but it is only symmetrical concerning class and tier, not more (for example radar is not mirrored). And during 'normal' gaming times usually the teams are already set up like this, so this change will affect only a small number of matches...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,457 posts
7,852 battles
24 minutes ago, Klopirat said:

 but it is only symmetrical concerning class and tier, not more (for example radar is not mirrored). And during 'normal' gaming times usually the teams are already set up like this, so this change will affect only a small number of matches...

Exactly. In video they show image of fully symmetrical game with bots in it, but it is not going to be like that. They can be different ships. Just same tier/class.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,906 posts
7,759 battles
34 minutes ago, Klopirat said:

 but it is only symmetrical concerning class and tier, not more (for example radar is not mirrored). And during 'normal' gaming times usually the teams are already set up like this, so this change will affect only a small number of matches...

 

7 minutes ago, Kenliero said:

Exactly. In video they show image of fully symmetrical game with bots in it, but it is not going to be like that. They can be different ships. Just same tier/class.

 

Ok, guess I didnt understand. It seemed like they are introducing mirrored MM (like coop currently).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
354 posts
5,038 battles

Some ships are still better if they spawn at a specific side of some maps.
As for the mirrored MM i also think that this isn`t the best idea, but it solves a lot of issues like 3 radars being put agains no radar, or putting 2 Montanas against 2 Yamatos in a CV game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,457 posts
7,852 battles
38 minutes ago, nambr9 said:

 

 

Ok, guess I didnt understand. It seemed like they are introducing mirrored MM (like coop currently).

Yeah, that would of been boring and sucked 100%

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Beta Tester
4,563 posts
8,248 battles

Class/tier symmetry is a good thing imo.

At the very least it's the first step before we can start talking about radar/smoke balance.

 

Personally I don't think I would want a ±1 tier MM. That would be boring and severely limit the different ships you could see in a battle. A lot of the time I don't mind being the bottom tier ship because it also lifts some pressure off of my shoulders compared to if I'm top tier.

What they need to solve is just the frequency at which you end up in the 3 different tier positions. When I pick a tier 5, 6 or 8 ship I shouldn't have to first ask myself if I really want to be the bottom tier with 80% certainty.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,906 posts
7,759 battles
42 minutes ago, Nechrom said:

Personally I don't think I would want a ±1 tier MM. That would be boring and severely limit the different ships you could see in a battle.

I disagree.

With the amount of ships currently in the game (all new lines, premiums) and the lines still to be introduced, the +-1 MM would have no problem with ship diversity in the game.

 

A year or two ago ... yes ... I would agree. But now? Not anymore...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ETD5]
Players
295 posts
1,640 battles
1 hour ago, Infiriel said:

Some ships are still better if they spawn at a specific side of some maps.
As for the mirrored MM i also think that this isn`t the best idea, but it solves a lot of issues like 3 radars being put agains no radar, or putting 2 Montanas against 2 Yamatos in a CV game.

 

With the new MM you still can get both situations you referred. The thing is that you won't get a team with 2 DDs an other with 3 DDs with the team with 2 havint one TX and one T9 and the other having all TX. They will be equally in number and tier, but still can end up with a team with 2 gearing and 1 Z52 an the other with 3 shimas...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[3STG]
Players
328 posts
10,457 battles
1 hour ago, Infiriel said:

Some ships are still better if they spawn at a specific side of some maps.
As for the mirrored MM i also think that this isn`t the best idea, but it solves a lot of issues like 3 radars being put agains no radar, or putting 2 Montanas against 2 Yamatos in a CV game.

That won't change with this. As stated, it mirrors only the ship types and tiers, not ships (or their abilities) itself. So 2 Yamato's vs 2 Montana's can and will happen in the future and 3 radars vs 0 radars also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,808 posts
6,919 battles
4 hours ago, nambr9 said:

I mean ... yes we wanted FAIR MM regarding radar ships, but symmetrical MM just seems and sounds boring.

 

I dont think thats a good thing for the game play diversity.

 

+ from the queue waiting line perspective ... the +-1 MM would do better. So let me hear the (+-1mm is not implemented because of the waiting queue) no more.

3 hours ago, Infiriel said:

As for the mirrored MM i also think that this isn`t the best idea, but it solves a lot of issues like 3 radars being put agains no radar, or putting 2 Montanas against 2 Yamatos in a CV game.

That's not the kind of mirrored MM we get - if your team has an Atlanta it doesn't mean enemy team has to have an Atlanta.

What it means is if your team has 4 cruisers (3xt7 1xt8) then enemy team will have 4 cruisers (3xt7 1xt8) and so on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ONE2]
Players
2,509 posts
14,976 battles
5 hours ago, xXx_Blogis_xXx said:

+1 MM never happens , as for mirror mm not much changes , only good that now we will have always same dds not -1 like always before ^^

Weel, I was in a game today where our team had 4 radars and 3 DD's against the enemy's 2 DD's and no radars. We still quite successfully contrived to lose the bloody match (I have no idea how or what happened. Was too busy dodging incoming fire since playing Mogami, you know), suddenly I was just the only one left alive and the game ended... :Smile_amazed:

 

The next game was even worse, the enemy had 6 DD's and 5 BB's - No Cruisers and so I was the only Cruiser in the game by my lonesome, did not win that one either, but I survived (just barely, but anyway)...:Smile_ohmy:

 

Both games had also tier 9 CV's - YAY!. Never playing these early morning matches again, I swear...:etc_swear::Smile_facepalm::Smile_Default:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
2,906 posts
7,759 battles
24 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

That's not the kind of mirrored MM we get - if your team has an Atlanta it doesn't mean enemy team has to have an Atlanta.

What it means is if your team has 4 cruisers (3xt7 1xt8) then enemy team will have 4 cruisers (3xt7 1xt8) and so on

Yeah, we cleared that up already. In vid they showed mirrored mm as is in coop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,341 posts
11,248 battles
5 hours ago, nambr9 said:

I mean ... yes we wanted FAIR MM regarding radar ships, but symmetrical MM just seems and sounds boring.

 

I dont think thats a good thing for the game play diversity.

 

+ from the queue waiting line perspective ... the +-1 MM would do better. So let me hear the (+-1mm is not implemented because of the waiting queue) no more.

Isn't is symmetrical only in the sense that you'll get same class-tier combinations on both teams?

You can still get 3 Iowas in one team and 3 Missouris in the other, don't worry :Smile_trollface:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
136 posts
3,209 battles
6 hours ago, nambr9 said:

+ from the queue waiting line perspective ... the +-1 MM would do better. So let me hear the (+-1mm is not implemented because of the waiting queue) no more.

 

I think i prefer symmetrical over +/- 1 (though if both could work at the same time that would be amazing)

 

Symmetrical removes the issue with DD mismatches, including severe ones like 1Khaba on one team vs lets say Shima + Fletch on the other. Matches like that tend to be extremely passive with match ending fast with very little fighting and small number of ship sunk.

 

+/- 1 helps with very powerfull ships facing very weak ones, but it only accomplishes it partially. It solves the problem with low tier cruisers facing high tier cruisers/BBs and issue with CVs vs too high or too low AA. But it does not help with lets say T7 DD without concealment module facing T8 ship that has one.

 

In my opinion, things that +/- 1 wants to accomplish should be done by changing hard stats on ships (for example raising range of cruisers, or increasing innate concealment of some ships), and maybe some additional MM exception rules for CVs (but proper AA balancing would simply be best solution).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
113 posts
5,340 battles
On 25/4/2018 at 8:27 AM, nambr9 said:

I mean ... yes we wanted FAIR MM regarding radar ships, but symmetrical MM just seems and sounds boring.

 

I dont think thats a good thing for the game play diversity.

 

+ from the queue waiting line perspective ... the +-1 MM would do better. So let me hear the (+-1mm is not implemented because of the waiting queue) no more.

Symmetrical MM would have a point if the players in each team were about the same as a matter of skill. Since WG did nothing to improve the quality of the players in each team, the symmetrical MM is basically useless. What is the point of a symmetrical MM when one team has unicum players and the other team has all the potatos? Besides: Even the so called "symmetrical MM" that WG claims to have in 0.7.4 isnt symmetrical at all. Unless you can symmetry the fact that one team has normal cruisers and the other has radar cruisers, or one team has AA cruisers as for the other team has none, while playing with CVs etc. Bottom line is that the MM is and will still be a total trash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OGHF]
Players
673 posts
11,754 battles
On 25/04/2018 at 6:32 AM, Klopirat said:

 but it is only symmetrical concerning class and tier, not more (for example radar is not mirrored). And during 'normal' gaming times usually the teams are already set up like this, so this change will affect only a small number of matches...

They can not mirror radar ships as most have radar as an option I.E. Smoke or Radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BFS]
Beta Tester
1,036 posts
5,791 battles

The other thing that I've not seen mentioned in this thread is that if the game is not set up inside three minutes the old MM will be reverted for that battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GOUF]
Beta Tester
253 posts
5,550 battles

Among the 5 games I played yesterday 3 were perfectly mirrored and 1 had just 1 ship different. Is there a chanche that WG put a layer of preference for "same ship first if available"?

 

Yes, 5 it's not statistics, but it's curious anyway.

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×