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

3-5-7 from wot is coming to wows

153 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[PUPSI]
Privateer
10,293 posts
6 minutes ago, thiextar said:

this sounds exactly like the 3-5-7 system in wot,

imho it does not:

Quote

Example: it's now impossible to have one Tier VIII ship in battle with the rest of the ships being from Tier X. We’re planning to introduce similar improvements to the Random Battles matchmaker in future.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,316 posts
245 battles

Oh ffs, do they ever learn?

 

it was trash there it will be trash now.

 

there was reason why tier 8’s got shafted so much and basically saw tier 10’s and 9’s very consistently.

 

sure was fun getting rekt by a bobject or object 460u in my little t54-mod 1.

 

can we not wargaming?

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,130 posts
9,932 battles
10 minutes ago, thiextar said:

 

"coop battles with have a limit on the maximum number of top tier ships in a battle" "in the future, we also plan to introduce this mechanic to random battles"

 

NO, just NO! this sounds exactly like the 3-5-7 system in wot, and that was the most universally hated matchmaker change in the history of that game, why oh why would you drag it into wows???

 

For those of you who don't know what 3-5-7 in wot is: it means that there can be max 3 top tier tanks, 5 middle tier tanks and 7 bottom tier tanks in a match. This sounds good, but because of basic 1st grade mathematics it really isnt. Since battles will consist mostly of low tier ships, and very few high tier ships, it means you will spend nearly all of your battles as the bottom tier ship, because the high tier ships need lower tier ships to fill out the matchmaker. It will be especially bad for tier 8 ships, as tier 10 is very popular, tier 8 will be put against them in nearly every match. That is how the system worked in wot, and mathematically, that is how it will work in wows.

 

This isnt even theory-crafting, we know exactly what this kind of system did to the wot matchmaker, and in the sense of these mechanics, the games are similar enough that the same rules will apply here, if you try to lower the amount of high tier ships in a match, you will increase the amount of matches you are bottom tier accordingly, the high tier ships still need somewhere to go.

 

please lets stop this before wargaming gets stuck in their beloved sunk-cost fallacy, this matchmaker would make the game worse.

 

I cant see the vid as i'm at work, but what i do know about Wot (well, in the past) is that it is far easier to preform when lower tier then in WOT.

 

In WOT there was tanks that simply couldn't pen higher ones...Period.  Unless you use that god awful money grabbing system of premium ammo that i hope to god will never show it's face in this game. The main reason i left WOT a while a go.

 

A light tier 8 tank has little chance against a tier 10 Heavy tank.  In fact it couldn't do anything if i recall but splash HE damage which was pitterful.

 

In WOWS, a tier 8 DD can smash the face off a tier 10 BB. Technically, a tier 3 DD can smash the face of a tier 10 BB.  In WOT, that wouldn't simply not happen....Ever.

 

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
2,339 posts
5,701 battles
2 minutes ago, Klopirat said:

imho it does not:

 

"Besides that, we’re introducing limitations in battles for the maximum number of ships allowed from the highest tier, and minimum number of ships from the lowest tier."

 

That sounds exactly like 3-5-7, the specific numbers arent important, its the matchematical implication of forcing battles to consist mostly of low tiers that causes the problems.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
5,813 posts
10,255 battles
2 minutes ago, Redcap375 said:

I cant see the vid as i'm at work, but what i do know about Wot (well, in the past) is that it is far easier to preform when lower tier then in WOT.

My thoughts as well. Granted I never played WoT, but that was what I heared about why 3-5-7 was bad: Low Tiers could do nothing against High Tiers.

 

In Warships though ... triple Mogami Div against a Conkek?  I know on whom to place my money.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NMA]
Players
1,012 posts
17,184 battles

I left WoT before 3-5-7 was introduced but I know most players don't have kind words for it. They say it was the final nail in the coffin.

 

Red is right tho. In WoT tier 8 can forget about doing dmg to tier 10 unless it shoots premium ammo. In wows it's much easier for a tier 8 to dmg a tier 10 ship.

 

I'll go with "wait and see" on this one.

 

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
2,339 posts
5,701 battles
2 minutes ago, Redcap375 said:

 

I cant see the vid as i'm at work, but what i do know about Wot (well, in the past) is that it is far easier to preform when lower tier then in WOT.

 

In WOT there was tanks that simply  couldnt pen higher ones...Period.  Unless you use that god awful money grabbing system of premium ammo that i hope to god will never show it's face in this game.

 

The main reason i left WOT a while a go.

 

 

You will be able to put up a bit more of a fight, but it will remove all variety from the game, thats what it did to wot for me.

 

I know i will be bottom tier when i press the battle button in a tier 8, i know i will face only tier 10 if i press battle in a t10, because thats the only way wg can try to get them out of the matchmaker.

 

Besides this, it will shaft different ships in different grades. Say goodbye to brawling battleships like bismarck and massa now that you will be bottom tier in 90% of games. Meanwhile its probably a buff to asashio...

 

Its just a stupid system that is so full of flaws and implications, i cannot see why wg would even look at it...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
4,814 posts
11,806 battles

3-5-7 in WOT was, to use a technical term, a complete and utter rat-screw; I can't believe WG would ever be so idiotic as to introduce it to WOWS too (they've spent the last few years trying to fix WOT MM after the mess of 3-5-7).

 

There is probably a bit less cause for alarm in WOWS though, but only because the power differential between the tiers is less pronounced (in general), although not universally so and varying with class somewhat (a Kagero will do better against T10 opponents than a typical T8 cruiser, for example).

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
2,339 posts
5,701 battles
5 minutes ago, quickr said:

I'll go with "wait and see" on this one.

The problem with "wait and see" is that wargaming is notorious for falling for the sunk-cost fallacy. If they invest any time and money into developing this system, you can bet it will go in the game, because otherwise it is "wasted work"

 

we saw this with the cv rework, we are seeing it with submarines, and we will see it for this system.

 

I mean just look at what it took to get wargaming to back out of ntc, and how desperately they were clinging on to it...

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
5,425 posts
22,529 battles

Oh this is a move of pure genious, I tip my hat to the marketing dep guy that came up with this plot, really

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
4,814 posts
11,806 battles

Something else to have on the radar, that's WOWS-specific: in WOT people like to play T10s because they're the most powerful things on the board, however there is no particular economic reason to do so (if you aren't good, it's easy to lose silver playing T10s) as WOT doesn't have the equivalent of the WOWS economy-boosting permaflage.

 

If you have a T10 with permaflage in WOWS, it'll be one of your better earners (assuming you can be minimally competent with it) - I would imagine this alone would make the T10 pool in WOWS even bigger than for WOT, so meaning that the situation for T8s could easily be even worse, in terms of facing T10s the whole time (ignoring the different differential between tiers).

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NMA]
Players
1,012 posts
17,184 battles
1 minute ago, thiextar said:

The problem with "wait and see" is that wargaming is notorious for falling for the sunk-cost fallacy. If they invest any time and money into developing this system, you can bet it will go in the game, because otherwise it is "wasted work"

 

we saw this with the cv rework, we are seeing it with submarines, and we will see it for this system.

 

I mean just look at what it took to get wargaming to back out of ntc, and how desperately they were clinging on to it...

It's also futile to voice opinion in hope that WG will listen and change it. You said it: CV rework, subs, OP ships coming out of supertest... no matter how much we raise our concerns WG won't listen, they don't care.

NTC/RB was a one-off, which hasn't even been scratched off, just slightly changed. And it took quite literally all of forum and reddit to make them change it. I'm not holding my breath they'll do the same for a MM system (357) that barely anyone heard off.

 

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,130 posts
9,932 battles
12 minutes ago, thiextar said:

The problem with "wait and see" is that wargaming is notorious for falling for the sunk-cost fallacy. If they invest any time and money into developing this system, you can bet it will go in the game, because otherwise it is "wasted work"

 

we saw this with the cv rework, we are seeing it with submarines, and we will see it for this system.

 

I mean just look at what it took to get wargaming to back out of ntc, and how desperately they were clinging on to it...

 

Because it is totally and utterly pointless what we think or say.  If the WG marketing department wants it to happen, it's gonna happen.  There is ALWAYS a financial incentive for doing things like this. 

 

How many times have people spoken up against the rework and the problems before it was released and look at the state of it now?

 

All of which they could not give a stuff about, there minds were already made up.  We warned them, the streamers warned them, Flamu, IChase ect ect and we still got it.

 

Same as the Belfast, Balancegrad, Smol, Colbert ect ect.  But now even they are getting fed up (know first hand). It gets boring to be honest and everyone is given up.  

 

WG stopped listening to anyone a while ago.

 

So I too will "wait and see" because that is all we can do.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KAKE]
Players
2,418 posts
5,522 battles

I've had a couple of all-T10 games lately, and quite frankly they've been fairly enjoyable.

 

I can definitely see the point of limiting the number of top-tier ships when there is a bottom tier, but I think all-T10 matches are perfectly viable, and a good solution if there's overpopulation at that tier.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
24,640 posts
13,654 battles
24 minutes ago, thiextar said:

"Besides that, we’re introducing limitations in battles for the maximum number of ships allowed from the highest tier, and minimum number of ships from the lowest tier."

 

That sounds exactly like 3-5-7, the specific numbers arent important, its the matchematical implication of forcing battles to consist mostly of low tiers that causes the problems.

3-5-7 sounds fixed.

But they are talking about maximum, not fixed numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WG-EU]
WG Staff
3,417 posts
4,196 battles

Well, it wasn't said, that it will be equivalent to WoT's 3-5-7... only that the number of lower tier ships and also higher tier ships will be lower. It is mostly meant to be for those lower tier ships. We all know those situations, when you are the only tier VIII in almost full tier X battle. Also now it is only for Coop battles, and in future it most likely will be implemented for Randoms, as well. 

It is always easier to try those changes in Coop before unleashing them to Random battles. So now we can just predict how exactly these new limits will be implemented in 12v12 battles. 

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,404 posts
8,209 battles
27 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

In Warships though ... triple Mogami Div against a Conkek?  I know on whom to place my money.

Conkek, if it has a brain and isn't completely alone. Because yes, you can spam a buttload of HE at it, but it has to just get lucky with AP once and you are a double Mogami div already. Add to that the insane heal, while Mogami cannot recover anything. Only when fighting 3v1 (which is not usual battle conditions), you'd win with 3 Mogamis everytime due to capping and torps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
6,088 posts
10,254 battles

Besides that all: this would reverse the efford made to soften T8 mm (which worked imo) since there wouldnt be anymore T10 only battles?

 

35 minutes ago, Klopirat said:

imho it does not:

 

Whats aid there is just focussing on the one positive aspect of 3-5-7 while ignoring the negative as discribed by @thiextar

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator
5,813 posts
10,255 battles
2 minutes ago, Sleepy_Bunny said:

but it has to just get lucky

Luck goes both ways: Imagine the Mogami's getting lucky and setting fires with every salvo and/or getting spared by RNG.

 

Point is: While in WoT there are situations where a -2 tier tank can do NOTHING against it's opponent, these situations rarley in Warships (although one might argue that CV's follow the same logic as an OP tank).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
5,425 posts
22,529 battles
5 minutes ago, YabbaCoe said:

It is mostly meant to be for those lower tier ships.

Sure thing m8, sure thing, the over abundance of T10 we have in game for ages and the forced MM pattern wont lead to the T8s and 9s basically never beeing top tier, not at all...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NMA]
Players
1,012 posts
17,184 battles
8 minutes ago, YabbaCoe said:

and in future it most likely will be implemented for Randoms, as well.  

See @thiextar, it's already a done deal. We can talk and discuss and suggest and whatnot all we want. When it comes to WG and its community, communication is a one way street.

Now, disperse nothing to see here... where is that gif when you need it? :Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
4,814 posts
11,806 battles
9 minutes ago, YabbaCoe said:

Well, it wasn't said, that it will be equivalent to WoT's 3-5-7... only that the number of lower tier ships and also higher tier ships will be lower.

Before your MM people do something stupid, I would strongly suggest that they go and talk to their counterparts working on WOT.

If you reduce the maximum number of T10s (say) in each game, it is inevitable that the overall number of games with T10s in them will increase - unless you do something to *heavily* reduce the T10 pool waiting to get into games.

 

To put it in terms that the suits will understand: assuming the mess is similar to that in WOT, do you really want several years of people telling their friends not to buy T8 premiums because they will get rogered in MM?

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7,404 posts
8,209 battles
2 minutes ago, Allied_Winter said:

Luck goes both ways: Imagine the Mogami's getting lucky and setting fires with every salvo and/or getting spared by RNG.

 

Point is: While in WoT there are situations where a -2 tier tank can do NOTHING against it's opponent, these situations rarley in Warships (although one might argue that CV's follow the same logic as an OP tank).

Full tank build Conqueror with 3 fires loses 30% of its hp over the course of 36 seconds. This is the best case scenario for the Mogamis in terms of additional damage and on disengaging can be cut off with damecon.

 

Best case scenario for Conqueror is deleting one Mogami in 5 seconds, regardless of what that Mogami built into, because overmatch and 12 shells. And no consumable fixes that.

 

Yes, you are not helpless, but it's also not like the performance difference and class difference here does not exist and as if this was a realistic scenario, given that the match still would be 12 vs 12, so that Conqueror has some other ships that do stuff, while three Mogamis farm damage off it (that potentially is the lowest impact possible, because Conqueror can heal 100% fire damage and 75% pen damage back if it survives).

 

More on point, a Gearing running into a radar Edin with no support has a hard time to win that 1v1. It's not like the Edin thus is useless. It just has to play smarter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×