Jump to content
You need to play a total of 1 battles to post in this section.
The_EURL_Guy

Update 0.8.7: French Destroyers – Part 2

96 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[TF57]
Beta Tester, In AlfaTesters
195 posts
6,060 battles

Would be nice to add +/- 1 MM for CV's and a little more HP to help counter the increased AA but at least the new MM should help lower the amount of T10 games for T8 cv's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,109 posts
18,438 battles

Can somebody please explain these matchmaking changes in terms that I can understand.

 

 Because Wargaming writers / Translators yet again failed at that task.

 

Zitat

We’re introducing strict limitations on the tiers of battles that you can be sent to. For each player, the matchmaker will take into account the number of battles they have played with ships of the same tier as theirs, as well as the number of ships one or two tiers higher.

Yes well, it will take these numbers into account and then DO WHAT? For Christ's sake?!!!

 

Zitat

After a short calibration period that will last up to 20 battles for each battle type and ship tier, the matchmaker will ensure that the percentage of battles with ships of the specified tier does not exceed the set limits. For example, for Tier VIII ships, the limits are expected to be 40% of battles with ships two tiers higher.

This means that out of 20 battles you play with Tier VIII ships, a maximum of eight battles will include Tier X ships.

 

Another advantage of this change is that series of battles will be reliably interrupted, because the matchmaker will analyze the last 20 battles each time. This means that when calibration is done, long series of battles with ships of higher tiers will not occur when repeatedly using a single ship tier.

 

So if I want to avoid being uptiered in Tier VIII ships, I should just not play my Tier X ships for 20 battles in between?

 

How does that even make sense?

 

What does the Tier of ships I play in OTHER games have to do with me and my Tier VIII matchmaking?

 

How hard can it be? Why can primary school children describe things but not the people WG pays to do it?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
255 posts
13,825 battles

Also wondering what will happen in september/october, when the main ranked, the sprint and the clanbattles ends...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PUPSI]
Privateer
10,287 posts
3 minutes ago, FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor said:

So if I want to avoid being uptiered in Tier VIII ships, I should just not play my Tier X ships for 20 battles in between?

for my understanding every tier is "calibrated" on its own

Quote

After a short calibration period that will last up to 20 battles for each battle type and ship tier, the matchmaker will ensure that the percentage of battles with ships of the specified tier does not exceed the set limits.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
24,621 posts
13,653 battles
8 minutes ago, FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor said:

Yes well, it will take these numbers into account and then DO WHAT? For Christ's sake?!!!

Read your second quote.

 

9 minutes ago, FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor said:

So if I want to avoid being uptiered in Tier VIII ships, I should just not play my Tier X ships for 20 battles in between?

No. You cannot avoid that. It just will not happen more than 40% of the time (8 battles).

 

10 minutes ago, FixCVs_Nautical_Metaphor said:

What does the Tier of ships I play in OTHER games have to do with me and my Tier VIII matchmaking?

Nothing.

Only your Tier VIII battles count for Tier VIII MM.

 

As written...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MIAU]
[MIAU]
Players
4,025 posts
4 hours ago, Tanatoy said:

Has the free consumables were meant to lower the gap between new and veterans players in the context of the NTC system with direct combat buff. As the system has been completely redesigned, this change was put on hold, as it doesn't fit the concept, as this gap, that could have been created by those combat buff won't be here.  

Now that finally makes some sense.

 

The issue is:

It was never sold to us as such. We were told it was as an economic balancer and something to give us more game balance in general. You talked about how players even at T-X didn't use them. How it would give everyone the same level playing ground. And then said that it would somehow magically balance the NTC ship buffs. You never talked about reducing the difference. You talked about actual balance.

 

This is also one of those observed disconnects between you and us.

Free premium consumables + everyone likes that = Wargaming removes the idea without further communication.

NTC with buffs + everyone hates it = Wargaming changes it to remove the buffs

NTC without the buffs + still disliked heavily by the community = Wargaming introduces it anyway

 

Now add communication on top that is decieving, telling only half the truth, or keeping vital information away from the community (intentionally or not doesn't really matter in this context) and you see a pattern that isn't exactly shining a positive light on Wargaming. That's not how you build trust in your playerbase. Even all our feedback in regards to your repetetive, unecessarily complex, and stressfull events seems to be ignored. It's like you forgot all the positive lessons you learned in 2017 and 2018 when real improvements in your interactions with the community could be observed. It's all gone.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,328 posts
15,811 battles

"For example, for Tier VIII ships, the limits are expected to be 40% of battles with ships two tiers higher.

This means that out of 20 battles you play with Tier VIII ships, a maximum of eight battles will include Tier X ships. "

 

And in the other 12, you play against tier 9 ships.

 

Not. Bloody. Good. Enough. :Smile_izmena:

 

If you are BOTTOM tier in 40% of battles then you should be TOP tier in 40% of battles also.

 

The best players may cope with being bottom tiered in the majority of games at tier 8 (even relish the challenge to their skills) but for average players it is a bloody drag being the underdog so much.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UN3]
Beta Tester
28 posts
13,000 battles

Despite the programming effort, why do you think looking at planes and press a key on the right side of the keyboard is easier than pressing CTRL and clicking the planes? And why should a 4 point captain skill like massive AA come with a disadvantage like 15 Sek preperation time?

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TF57]
Beta Tester, In AlfaTesters
195 posts
6,060 battles
2 minutes ago, arrgh said:

Despite the programming effort, why do you think looking at planes and press a key on the right side of the keyboard is easier than pressing CTRL and clicking the planes? And why should a 4 point captain skill like massive AA come with a disadvantage like 15 Sek preperation time?

 

Good point, it should come with a free Captain Respec as its a major change to that ability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UN3]
Beta Tester
28 posts
13,000 battles
Just now, Kryostorm said:

Good point, it should come with a free Captain Respec as its a major change to that ability

It comes with a free respec that has to be activated on the right news button...

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TF57]
Beta Tester, In AlfaTesters
195 posts
6,060 battles
3 minutes ago, arrgh said:

It comes with a free respec that has to be activated on the right news button...

 

Thanks, I always seem to skip past and miss those embedded take part buttons in news articles :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
24,621 posts
13,653 battles
1 minute ago, Kryostorm said:

Thanks, I always seem to skip past and miss those embedded take part buttons in news articles :/

It is also written in the text that there will be a reset...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[INTRO]
[INTRO]
Players
1,257 posts
15,488 battles
3 hours ago, Last_Rites said:

It was tested alongside the much needed T10 version of a flint and the now overpriced somers, don't see why it should not be released with this patch. Ergo the question.

Problem is that WG doesn't give any release-dates untill a couple of days before the release, no matter how nice we ask. And being tested at the same time doesn't mean that it will be released at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DPRK]
Players
14 posts
3,360 battles

Hi i noticed a bug with the manual secondaries skill:
I use this skill on my aircraft carriers and it does not work when: I am flying around with a squadron and press control and try to select a ship or when im looking at my carrier and have a squadron selected.
It only works when i return to the carrier and have no squadron selected

also i'm am worried about the game
the last thing the game needs right now are high tier ships with lots of small fast firing guns, radar, sonar and AA
The meta has shifted from stealth and brawling to gunboat and camping
especially the value of stealth has been undermined the last few years. Things like: radar, sonar, lots and lots of fast gunboats and the incredible scouting potential of carriers have undermined the ability to perform ambushes for DD's and CA's
I think that stealth is the perfect tool to promote active and risky play styles and discourage camping and passive play
also i think that we need to split up the current pool of ships in more classes: battleships, battle cruisers, heavy cruisers, light cruisers, gunboats, destroyers carriers and in the future subs.
each class having its own advantages and its own consumable with no exceptions or premiums with gimmicks

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
650 posts
2 hours ago, Egoleter said:

Now that finally makes some sense.

 

The issue is:

It was never sold to us as such. We were told it was as an economic balancer and something to give us more game balance in general. You talked about how players even at T-X didn't use them. How it would give everyone the same level playing ground. And then said that it would somehow magically balance the NTC ship buffs. You never talked about reducing the difference. You talked about actual balance.

 

This is also one of those observed disconnects between you and us.

Free premium consumables + everyone likes that = Wargaming removes the idea without further communication.

NTC with buffs + everyone hates it = Wargaming changes it to remove the buffs

NTC without the buffs + still disliked heavily by the community = Wargaming introduces it anyway

 

Now add communication on top that is decieving, telling only half the truth, or keeping vital information away from the community (intentionally or not doesn't really matter in this context) and you see a pattern that isn't exactly shining a positive light on Wargaming. That's not how you build trust in your playerbase. Even all our feedback in regards to your repetetive, unecessarily complex, and stressfull events seems to be ignored. It's like your forgot all the positive lessons you learned in 2017 and 2018 when real improvements in your interactions with the community could be observed. It's all gone.

very easy - they have been lying from beginning and continue to do so ... while ignoring all the feedback given.

that's why i'm so pissed at wg ...

nobody asked for this ntc and yet it is here 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BRITS]
[BRITS]
Players
5 posts
23,796 battles

with them two bs ships coming you can put HE shells on all royal navy cruisers now to make it fair and also change the report system so muppet players don't report you for no reason what so ever.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PANEU]
Players
1,396 posts
12,723 battles
4 hours ago, ledgeri said:

Also doing this Research Bureau  thingy's main goal to introduce players to the lower tiers, what was removed by the early access mid-high tier ships...

Don't be naive. WG clearly stated that they want a sink for credits and free xp that veterans stockpiled. It has nothing to do with repopulating lower levels. 

So people will just skip them all. Others will skip lower levels and stock ships. 

 

I person will grind one line per season skipping directly to t6. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BOBS2]
[BOBS2]
Players
529 posts
16,061 battles

Credit where credit is due for the free respec; the way it worked on the PTS where the four points for Manual AA were refunded wasn't good enough as (a) the ships you'd want to lose Manual AA from would not be the same ships as the ones you'd want to add "Massive AA Fire" to, so you'd have had to pay to change the latter, and (b) you might want to change something else on the ships you were losing Manual AA from.

 

And further credit as the free respec also deals with the problem of Advanced Firing Training. I doubt there are many (if any) people who took that for its effect on flak explosions rather than increasing the range of the secondaries, but that so many flak explosions will have been removed and that part of the skill will have been made so useless does change its value.

 

However I don't see any mention of the AA module that adds +2 explosions to the flak auras, which has been literally made half as useful if the "no explosions within 3.5km" is implemented the same way as on the PTS where all flak explosions were removed from the mid-range aura (even if that had a greater than 3.5km range), so it would now only affect one aura rather than two. So unless some extra property has been added to this, which hadn't been by round three of the PTS, this module has been rendered almost worthless and although it is not an expensive one the cost of selling that at half-price and buying the replacement at full-price over a lot of ships would mount up.
(Cue someone with a screenshot of them having several hundred million credits :Smile-_tongue:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IDDQD]
Alpha Tester
3,384 posts
8,863 battles

that MM thing is strange

why not simply introduce MM tier 11 or 12 like in wot ?

would that not solve most of the MM issues we are facing now ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[INTRO]
[INTRO]
Players
1,257 posts
15,488 battles
1 minute ago, von_chom said:

that MM thing is strange

why not simply introduce MM tier 11 or 12 like in wot ?

Because most lines doesn't have ships to put at those tiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IDDQD]
Alpha Tester
3,384 posts
8,863 battles
9 minutes ago, Hanse77SWE said:

Because most lines doesn't have ships to put at those tiers.

:cap_fainting:

thats the beauty of it actually, since the matchmaker then just creates t10 only game

now t10 fits into battletier 8-10, if you add battletier 11 or 12 you are basically forcing matchmaker to create more t9-10 or t10 only games

got it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
538 posts
5 hours ago, Tanatoy said:

I'll note the confused smiley suggestion for the next feature of the forum ^^.

 

The Colbert is, I believe, necessary in the answer, has it's the '"now",  the buff ships were the "past". 

 

Has the free consumables were meant to lower the gap between new and veterans players in the context of the NTC system with direct combat buff. As the system has been completely redesigned, this change was put on hold, as it doesn't fit the concept, as this gap, that could have been created by those combat buff won't be here.  

That still doesn't make any sense. At the CC summit, you (WG) told us, that the biggest discrepancy in game balance are the premium consumables. Even the suggested crazily overpowered buffs for the ships would only be marginal compared to it. And now you cancel the only thing everyone ever wanted from the NTC idea.

Like: HAHA! You disliked our version of the NTC, so we'll still introduce the grind no-one wants with a new name, but you won't get the most important change for a better game balance! Take that!

I don't want to be rude, but that is more the reaction i would have expected from a 5-year old spoiled child. Since when didn't better balance "fit the concept" anymore?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[INTRO]
[INTRO]
Players
1,257 posts
15,488 battles
15 minutes ago, von_chom said:

:cap_fainting:

thats the beauty of it actually, since the matchmaker then just creates t10 only game

now t10 fits into battletier 8-10, if you add battletier 11 or 12 you are basically forcing matchmaker to create more t9-10 or t10 only games

got it ?

So you mean they should put two "empty" tiers into the game just so the MM can use them in the calculations. I don't see the point of it. For me, I've never had a problem playing T8s in T10 games, or T3 in a T5 game.

 

The whole "MM = bad" thing is just a storm in a teacup . You do your best no matter what. It's as easy as that.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HHR]
Players
283 posts
14,717 battles
8 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

You decided to go for the regrind, despite the feedback from the players. :Smile_sad:

you really think that wg takes in consideration about what we feel? all they see is $

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
24,621 posts
13,653 battles
8 minutes ago, Stronginthearms said:

you really think that wg takes in consideration about what we feel? all they see is $

Yes. Otherwise we would now have a NTC with grindable ship improvements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×