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

MM Changes for Tone?

46 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[TACHA]
Players
124 posts
731 battles

If the devs are going to add ships that carry aircraft that can range the map and spot, the MM will have to balance them. It's fundamentally unfair to hand one side superior vision. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,983 posts
12,562 battles
4 minutes ago, SodaBubbles said:

If the devs are going to add ships that carry aircraft that can range the map and spot, the MM will have to balance them. It's fundamentally unfair to hand one side superior vision. 

 

 

You mean like one side 3 radars and the other side none? Or one side has gunboat DDs with 8+ km concealment and the other team has 5.5km concealment with hydro? Yeah, totally balanced MM right there. If they don't care about this stuff, why do you think they care about the Tone?

  • Cool 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,505 posts
17,830 battles

Already had a discusison with a WG employee about this. The tone (see what I did there :) ) of that dialogue was:

- They know just adding it as a cruiser in MM is not optimal, HOWEVER:

- They are not willing to match them 1 on 1 (as there might not be enough to go for this type of MM);

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SHAD]
Players
3,528 posts
14,469 battles

Have faith, once the balance department has their say, there will be no problem at all......

 

 

 

:cap_haloween:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SVX]
Players
1,354 posts
15,883 battles
12 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Already had a discusison with a WG employee about this. The tone (see what I did there :) ) of that dialogue was:

- They know just adding it as a cruiser in MM is not optimal, HOWEVER:

- They are not willing to match them 1 on 1 (as there might not be enough to go for this type of MM);

 

me and my friends are gonna get it day 1 and play 3 of them in 1 division just to see the salt flowing ingame chatt!

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,193 posts
20,211 battles

There is no way WG will make the MM balance the team out so I’m hoping they will see it’s a bad idea and quietly shelve the project like they have done with Kitakami.

 

However I’m a pessimist so assuming she will be released my only hope is the price will be so extortionately high that only the most extreme whales will get it. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,088 posts
22 minutes ago, gopher31 said:

Have faith, once the balance department has their say, there will be no problem at all......

 

 

 

:cap_haloween:

so you think there is a balance department ... 

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHEFT]
Players
12,400 posts
9,841 battles

They could just put a one tier higher ship on the enemy team in its place - that could be fair... Alltho that would essentially mean, their MM would be -1/+2, because, f.e., Tone gets replaced with a Neptune, then it must be T7-9 MM.

Tone could also be replaced by a BB. Which would be a problem for Ise, since you cant really replace it with some other class. But for Ise, you could put a higher Tier BB in its place without issues, because Ise is gonna be T6 and it already has -1/+2 MM.

 

That could really make sense imo:

- Tone gets MM, which puts a BB in its place, or better, Tone will take a BB place so to say. So one team has 4 BB + Tone, enemy team has 5 BBs

- Ise will get replaced by a 1-tier higher BB, so even if its T5-7 MM it will work out.

 

Also Div restriction must be 1 Hybrid and no additional CV, so a hybrid will essentially be a CV in the division.

 

@MrConway @YabbaCoe What do you think of this? Maybe worth looking into, if you arent sure about MM for hybrids.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
750 posts
7,530 battles
37 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Already had a discusison with a WG employee about this. The tone (see what I did there :) ) of that dialogue was:

- They know just adding it as a cruiser in MM is not optimal, HOWEVER:

- They are not willing to match them 1 on 1 (as there might not be enough to go for this type of MM);

 

Sounds to me a tone deaf answer.

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ALYEN]
Players
2,367 posts
4,202 battles

I expect 3DIV teams of those on release ... that will be ... a time to take a break ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,505 posts
17,830 battles
52 minutes ago, albin322 said:

me and my friends are gonna get it day 1 and play 3 of them in 1 division just to see the salt flowing ingame chatt!

 

14 minutes ago, Hugh_Ruka said:

I expect 3DIV teams of those on release ... that will be ... a time to take a break ...

Both of you are wrong. Why on earth bring (and pay for) 3 of them? Just bring a real CV as third player. 

Free and equal amount of fun ensured :)

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,669 posts
14,325 battles

I've seen a CV div'd with 2 Tone. When this hits the server. I'm taking another lengthy break. That's all I'm saying from what I saw. 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHEFT]
Players
12,400 posts
9,841 battles
18 minutes ago, Bear__Necessities said:

I've seen a CV div'd with 2 Tone. When this hits the server. I'm taking another lengthy break. That's all I'm saying from what I saw. 

 

Maybe you can punish them with CV + 2x Deadeye/spotter plane NC :cap_yes: or just go 899

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SVX]
Players
1,354 posts
15,883 battles
3 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

 

Both of you are wrong. Why on earth bring (and pay for) 3 of them? Just bring a real CV as third player. 

Free and equal amount of fun ensured :)

omg you are RIGHT ! but what if we have 3 tones in division AND end up in a cv game AIRCRAFT FOR EVRYONE :cap_haloween:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TACHA]
Players
124 posts
731 battles
14 hours ago, ThePurpleSmurf said:

You mean like one side 3 radars and the other side none? Or one side has gunboat DDs with 8+ km concealment and the other team has 5.5km concealment with hydro? Yeah, totally balanced MM right there. If they don't care about this stuff, why do you think they care about the Tone?

Maybe they might care about Tone, because they hard balanced CVs even though they had hoped the players would accept unbalanced CVs, which speed up games incredibly. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TACHA]
Players
124 posts
731 battles
14 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

Already had a discusison with a WG employee about this. The tone (see what I did there :) ) of that dialogue was:

- They know just adding it as a cruiser in MM is not optimal, HOWEVER:

- They are not willing to match them 1 on 1 (as there might not be enough to go for this type of MM);

 

Lol. Of course not. As usual with all the toxic mechanics they introduce, they simply dont care. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,505 posts
17,830 battles
28 minutes ago, Execute0rder66 said:

Players on forum: "Introducing surface ships with CV planes is not good for the game"

 

Same players on forum have been asking for Tone and Ise for years. Maybe a bit less since CV rework, but it is an old player request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,791 posts
33,198 battles
Just now, 159Hunter said:

Same players on forum have been asking for Tone and Ise for years. Maybe a bit less since CV rework, but it is an old player request.

I've seen way more players not asking for tone and ise and objecting to those than the ones asking for. Same for CV rework.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,505 posts
17,830 battles
4 minutes ago, Execute0rder66 said:

I've seen way more players not asking for tone and ise and objecting to those than the ones asking for. Same for CV rework.

That's not what spreadsheet (TM) says...

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,032 posts
3,686 battles
16 hours ago, SodaBubbles said:

If the devs are going to add ships that carry aircraft that can range the map and spot, the MM will have to balance them. It's fundamentally unfair to hand one side superior vision.

people who keep playing the game are proof that balancing is not needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,505 posts
17,830 battles
1 minute ago, Execute0rder66 said:

That's why i posted this;

 

 

Not the same though, people have been asking these ships. So WG will hide behind that request.

It's not the same as saying "we don't give a ****". It's a subtle nuance, but it is one none the less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,791 posts
33,198 battles
10 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Not the same though, people have been asking these ships. So WG will hide behind that request.

No, it is not that easy to say people have been asking for these ships. There are more people that have been objecting to these ships with the same logic.

If WG will listen to the community, they need to look at the majority. But they don't look and they won't listen.

 

Quote

It's not the same as saying "we don't give a ****". It's a subtle nuance, but it is one none the less.

Taking into consideration of a request by minority over majority does not justify their unilateral actions.

 

If no one asked for these ships WG would still introduce them into the game, just like they did with cv and commander reworks and will do with subs They keep trying to add things into the game regardless of the community opinion. Of course, they sort of (not really) do a brief introduction in devs blog about what is coming to hit us but it's already decided by WG. At no point they ask the player base, do you want this or not. So, for every change there will be some people saying 'yay' and many others 'nay'. The primary problem is WG forces people who really play the game with major changes they decide which should not be the case imo. The forum is full of player complaints about WG's one direction decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×