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

different tiers for different leagues in cb's? yay or nay?

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[THESO]
[THESO]
Players
2,728 posts
25,075 battles

dunno if it has been discussed b4 widely, can't recall so. fee lfree to point me on if so.

 

so, here we go:

how about different tiers for different leagues in cb's? would start with gale at t7, squall t8, storm t9, t10 for typhoon and hurricane:

 

- different metas on different tiers, so rather no stale gameplay troughout the whole season

- uneven tiers in, so 2 leagues without cv's (winwin?)

- not so advanced clans without too many high tier ships could take part

 

what do u think?

 

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,096 posts
9,488 battles

Well, sounds nice in general, but ofc doesnt really work with how teams face each other, like Storm vs Typhoon or even Hurricane at times.

Might get even more boring at the top, alltho i dunno how often they see one another in Hurricane?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Players
2,728 posts
25,075 battles
1 minute ago, DFens_666 said:

Well, sounds nice in general, but ofc doesnt really work with how teams face each other, like Storm vs Typhoon or even Hurricane at times.

Might get even more boring at the top, alltho i dunno how often they see one another in Hurricane?

dang, true.... matter of numbers i guess :/. didnt think of that directl, thanks!:Smile_honoring:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAFT]
Players
11,096 posts
9,488 battles
33 minutes ago, MrWastee said:

dang, true.... matter of numbers i guess :/. didnt think of that directl, thanks!:Smile_honoring:

 

Maybe it could work if you only split them in 2?

Like Gale+Squall T8 and Storm - Hurricane T9. The only problem is, how you do the advancement matches. :cap_hmm: It would need to be T8, but that might be kinda unfair :cap_haloween: There might  be a way like those in asymmetric battles which are upcomming:

The lower tier leagues are played with more ships (lets say 8-9) and the higher league only with 6-7. Then the advancement matches would be played with either 9v9 or 9v7 depending on the league of the enemy you encounter.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NOCAP]
[NOCAP]
Players
693 posts
8,018 battles

Many players dont have the necessary ships available for each tier. So limiting it to one tier that people can grind and buy the right ships is good. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
1,267 posts
16,496 battles
16 hours ago, MrWastee said:

dunno if it has been discussed b4 widely, can't recall so. fee lfree to point me on if so.

 

so, here we go:

how about different tiers for different leagues in cb's? would start with gale at t7, squall t8, storm t9, t10 for typhoon and hurricane:

 

- different metas on different tiers, so rather no stale gameplay troughout the whole season

- uneven tiers in, so 2 leagues without cv's (winwin?)

- not so advanced clans without too many high tier ships could take part

 

what do u think?

 

 

It's an interesting idea, certainly worth a good discussion.

 

CBs would get pretty interesting with all the changes in tiers. Minor note: squall is below gale, so squall would be T7 and gale T8.

There is two sides to this suggestion.

 

Nay:

- The more competitive clans do a lot of training and preparations. Would they lower their expectations? Would they force/expect their players to train for different tiers/metas? That looks like a lot of work. Lower clans don't have the time for a lot of training. They would struggle to even get their tactics right for one meta. Then they get to the next league and the deck is reshuffled. So they need to addapt to a new meta. Then they fail and they get relegated and it's back to the one tier lower. That's a lot to adapt to.

 

- Many clans expect their players to have well-equipped ships, ideally with 19pt-commanders. Newish players hardly have the CXP to train one captain for a ship below T10. Now they need good captains for every tier and ship involved. Their FCs might be more flexible and not expect perfect ships but for higher clans I wouldn't bet on that.

 

Yay:

- Maybe CBs would be taken more easy

 

- Such wide requirements of good captains might persuade WG to reintroduce the free-captain-respecs, an actual necessity that was taken away for no good reason.

 

 

An alternative idea:

Drop the tier restrictions altogether. Assign points to each ship equivalent to their "power". Let the clans decide for themselves, what tiers they want. Lower league could mean less points, which translates to less or lower tier ships. High leagues get more points so higher tier ships or more players. That way not only clans with few ships could participate, but also clans with few players.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,301 posts
19,580 battles

Another game I play has a split in the middle of the competitive season. Why not have a split in a CB season of wows as well.

First 2 or 3 weeks we play a mix of tier6 and tier7 or tier 7 and tier 8 ships on one set of maps. Then next 2 or 3 weeks we play tier 9 and tier 10 ships on another set of maps.

2 Tier spread means you get wider variety of ships to choose from. Changing tiers and maps in the middle of the season means keeping it (somewhat) fresh.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
7,045 posts

No, I dont find this a good idea, first you play one league/tier, play through struggle and you start near bottom of next league, now there you need to get used to completely new ships and maybe tactics (say odd vs even tier already brings cvs and absence thereoff) before you drop back out... And thats even before we start to consider how not all people keep lower tiers handy, captains, respecs etc...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
4,194 posts
11,532 battles

CBs should stay one tier only to observe ship performance in competetive environments more, see how meta develops and then be able to react and tweak it which WG did for example with Venezia. 

If you make each league have different tiers meta changes will not be noticeable and changes happening in a single tier during the whole season will happen way slower too. Also the strain on the fleet commander will be just to much. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Moderator
4,192 posts
11,284 battles

I've said this before.. 

Gib points to teams.. and let them choose from a list.. 

min 5 ships.. max 12 ships.. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Players
2,728 posts
25,075 battles
10 hours ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Maybe it could work if you only split them in 2?

Like Gale+Squall T8 and Storm - Hurricane T9. The only problem is, how you do the advancement matches. :cap_hmm: It would need to be T8, but that might be kinda unfair :cap_haloween: There might  be a way like those in asymmetric battles which are upcomming:

The lower tier leagues are played with more ships (lets say 8-9) and the higher league only with 6-7. Then the advancement matches would be played with either 9v9 or 9v7 depending on the league of the enemy you encounter.

... now it's really getting interesting :)! from the scratch i like the idea amking it asymetric somehow. but i think indeed a pts solution like mentinoed down below might would be better.

 

7 hours ago, semiGM said:

Many players dont have the necessary ships available for each tier. So limiting it to one tier that people can grind and buy the right ships is good. 

as i did myself only start to buy ships back when having all the 10's indeed this might be a problem. necessitiy to invest money/credits to be able to play ata ll in doubt. on the other hand somehow that is the case already, may just would get worsened.... good point, thx!

 

6 hours ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

[...]

indeed i would find it more appropiate to have shifting tiers in that regard. i mean, what makes a good team? excersing the same ol all over, or adapt to new environments? ofc i can see the pts for no shifts within a season, on the other hand i think these are some of the major reasons mostly cb seasons rather play stale?

to mash that feeling a bit up, in combination with odd tiers in, it not necessarily would mean the t7 up to t10 model btw, could be any mix.

 

again ur right on the captn side, though i think that could add up to the mash up. and give wg potentially more incentives to the players to invest into their account (or might even the other way round lol^^).

 

if only the captn respec would stand as positive in the end, i think we can scratch this lol.

 

3 hours ago, GarrusBrutus said:

@MrWastee

Or how about mixed tier teams: 1 TX 1 TIX 5 5 T8 for example. :cap_yes:

the "pts solution" somehow. me gusto, though one really would have to measure the pts relation carefully. the tiers are kinda dynamic enough to in doubt screw it up.

 

2 hours ago, quickr said:

Another game I play has a split in the middle of the competitive season. Why not have a split in a CB season of wows as well.

First 2 or 3 weeks we play a mix of tier6 and tier7 or tier 7 and tier 8 ships on one set of maps. Then next 2 or 3 weeks we play tier 9 and tier 10 ships on another set of maps.

2 Tier spread means you get wider variety of ships to choose from. Changing tiers and maps in the middle of the season means keeping it (somewhat) fresh.

this would be the low-fat variant i guess :D..... sounds good to me :).

 

1 hour ago, Yedwy said:

No, I dont find this a good idea, first you play one league/tier, play through struggle and you start near bottom of next league, now there you need to get used to completely new ships and maybe tactics (say odd vs even tier already brings cvs and absence thereoff) before you drop back out... And thats even before we start to consider how not all people keep lower tiers handy, captains, respecs etc...

yep, i guess there lies kind of the highest burden for a mix up. peoples ressources and in doubt their lack of will to kind of being dynamic.

 

30 minutes ago, _Warfarin_ said:

CBs should stay one tier only to observe ship performance in competetive environments more, see how meta develops and then be able to react and tweak it which WG did for example with Venezia. 

If you make each league have different tiers meta changes will not be noticeable and changes happening in a single tier during the whole season will happen way slower too. Also the strain on the fleet commander will be just to much. 

in the end it's a matter of participants, timeframe and meta/changes. i'm not sure tbh if this would be the case/it would take too much time to see significant impacts, for that i dont know enough about the numbers. with global seasons i might could see it work regardless. nevertheless good point. even though none i directly would tie a decision about this to though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Players
2,728 posts
25,075 battles
3 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

I've said this before.. 

Gib points to teams.. and let them choose from a list.. 

min 5 ships.. max 12 ships.. 

this indeed could mix it up lol, on the other hand it got some tweaking problems for sure, as the tiers are rather dynamic. by now i think this is the best approach overall as well though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
7,045 posts
10 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

I've said this before.. 

Gib points to teams.. and let them choose from a list.. 

min 5 ships.. max 12 ships.. 

To complex for an average player setup Im afraid...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CR33D]
[CR33D]
Players
2,981 posts
28,589 battles

I like idea of the Warship Master Invitational with 100pt for 7 T10 ships and every ship has a price. IMO it would be nice to try that system in CBs. 

 

But there are two big issues there, first it excluded CVs which I doubt WG would ever do and the second one is that, while people who organise this tournament have freedom to put values on the ship as they though it is fitting,  WG would never admit that some of the ships, of some particular class, are better and would probably value them all the same which would ruin all purpose of this system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Moderator
4,192 posts
11,284 battles
1 hour ago, Yedwy said:

To complex for an average player setup Im afraid...

sometimes shooting guns and activating AA becomes too complex for average players.. that cannot be a criteria :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
4,194 posts
11,532 battles
51 minutes ago, Excavatus said:

sometimes shooting guns and activating AA becomes too complex for average players.. that cannot be a criteria :) 

 

Can one team have less ships than the other? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Moderator
4,192 posts
11,284 battles
7 minutes ago, _Warfarin_ said:

Can one team have less ships than the other? 

Ofcourse. 
lets make an extremely simple example. 
don't stick on details no.. 

available tier 8 and 10
you have 100 points.. 
tier 10 BBs 25 points
tier 10 speshul / premium cruisers 20 points
tier 10 silver line cruisers 15 points
tier 10 DDs. 10 points. 
tier 8 BBs 15 points
tier 8 Cruisers 12 points
tier 8 DDs 8 points.. 

you need to pick 4 ships min.. 
7 ships max... 

 

basically that.. 

one team can have 4 x kremlins
the other team can have, 2 desmos + 2 zaos + 2 massas + somers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
4,194 posts
11,532 battles

the team with more ships in this case will then almost always win no matter if the ships are objectively "inferior" as numbers and map control wins the games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Moderator
4,192 posts
11,284 battles
7 minutes ago, _Warfarin_ said:

the team with more ships in this case will then almost always win no matter if the ships are objectively "inferior" as numbers and map control wins the games. 

might not be the case always.. if you balance the points good enough.. 
what do you say the winning chances of these 2 teams when they fight each other.. 

Kremlin + Stalingrad + hindi + Somers + Midway

Massa + Vladi + baltimore + Atago + kagero + Benson + Lexy. 

 

I don't think we can say %100 the team with less ships will lose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
4,194 posts
11,532 battles

We should argue about picking Kagero in this example first.

 

I get what you mean but we should always assume that you want to pick the best ships for the job facing a certain meta. Atago and Kagero are absolutely useless picks and lexy should be exchanged for enterprise or shoukaku. 

 

Make it Massa, Massa, Cossack Benson chapa Balti Shoukaku and that will win 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
1,267 posts
16,496 battles
5 hours ago, _Warfarin_ said:

CBs should stay one tier only to observe ship performance in competetive environments more, see how meta develops and then be able to react and tweak it which WG did for example with Venezia. 

If you make each league have different tiers meta changes will not be noticeable and changes happening in a single tier during the whole season will happen way slower too. Also the strain on the fleet commander will be just to much. 

 

A minor correction:

Wargaming did not "tweak". They nerfed a ship that was too powerful in CB. Doing so they also affect its performance in Random Battles, where the ship was not overperforming. It's two different environments. In CB you practically had no BBs and mostly long-range cruiser engagements. In Random Battles, the Venezia needs to support cap contesting, get closer, while being targetted by a couple of BBs. They nerfed the rudder shift, which certainly doesn't help dodging those BB shells. A huge thing in CB was chain-smoking into and out of caps. That needed good coordination and communication of two Venezia players. Try to achieve that in Randoms.

 

If there was two versions of each ship, one for CB and one for Randoms, they could actually tweak a ship to a game mode. But there isn't.

Everybody is talking about Venezia being too powerful in CB, and that was right. But the ship was balanced for Randoms, like any other ship.

 

We are always talking about ships that are too influencial in CB. Doing that, killed the Yueyang. The Henri was dominating CBs, got nerfed and is dead now.

 

We might as well be talking about the ships that never make it into CB. It's just as legitimate. They don't work in that meta. Same argument, different direction. Do we call for buffs? Does e.g. the Harugumo need a concealment-buff, so it is a legit choice in CB? A buff that would make it overpowered in Randoms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,264 posts
14,115 battles
8 hours ago, _Warfarin_ said:

see how meta develops and then be able to react and tweak it which WG did for example with Venezia. 

And failed miserably so far with Stalin and CVs (both cumulatively even worse in twisted synergy) . Kind of cherry picking reacting and tweeking when one counter to one broken ship gets nerfed while broken ship and it's environment remains pretty much unchanged. 

Share this post


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

×