This is normal

[DDG_121]

Having 3 radars on one side and zero on the other, in a 7v7 ranked match shows how they really care for game balance.

 

At least for ranked FOR GODS SAKE. At least for ranked.

 

It seems you can't code this simplest thing. I can help. Just ask. Don't be shy.

 

[Ocsimano18]

17 minutes ago, Zimbiye said:

Having 3 radars on one side and zero on the other, in a 7v7 ranked match shows how they really care for game balance.

 

At least for ranked FOR GODS SAKE. At least for ranked.

 

It seems you can't code this simplest thing. I can help. Just ask. Don't be shy.

 

Daring vs Smaland is not a bad matchup gunwise, and Smáland has no smoke, and probably can be outspotted. Also someone of your team probably has RPF to locate the Smaland. Thhe outcome would depend on skill and support more than on having radars.

[DDG_121]

We lost this match. But smaland got killed in the first minute. 

 

Problem is not winning or losing. Problem is the basic principles of balance like 3 x radar vs none.

 

At least it should be evaluated seperately from "completely random" ranked MM.

[Hirohito]

7 minutes ago, Ocsimano18 said:

Daring vs Smaland is not a bad matchup gunwise, and Smáland has no smoke, and probably can be outspotted. Also someone of your team probably has RPF to locate the Smaland. Thhe outcome would depend on skill and support more than on having radars.

Småland doesnt really get outspotted by Daring, the difference is about 100 meters so they spot each other roughly at the same time.
This matchup heavily favours team B, because Daring can't even properly threaten with torps against the Stalingrad (10km torps vs 12 km radar), especially not with Småland screening.
And if they bump into each other at around 6km, Daring essentially can't smoke up until he kites away to 7,5kms otherwise he'll most likely get farmed to death by Småland radar while he and his team are blind.
Daring and Småland are my favourite ships to play with, but in that particular matchup (considering the other ships on the teams too) I'd choose to play the Småland any day over the Daring, especially if it is a relatively open map like Crash Zone Alpha.
Bumping into a Småland with Stalingrad support is an absolute no-no, whereas you can try to rely on skill if you're facing a Daring with Hindenburg support.

[CV_SUB_Report_Blacklist]

it is not 7 vs 7 ...

 

 

and i didnt see the radar ships has the strong hand in the battles ...

 

the effect is minor to none ... it fine for me ...

[Karasu_Browarszky]

I'd say how effective those radars are depends on the players who use them, and their team mates. I don't know if it's even theoretically possible to have the MM balance the radars, unless it were to have an algorithm that seeks to balance the radar ships between the teams, in this case that would be  2 vs 1. Obviously, the MM is not doing this, so is it trying to balance the radars through other means, or is this just a 'random feature'.

[Ocsimano18]

37 minutes ago, Hirohito said:

.
And if they bump into each other at around 6km, Daring essentially can't smoke up until he kites away to 7,5kms otherwise he'll most likely get farmed to death by Småland radar while he and his team are blind.

 

Daring guns are no joke. Daring does not need smoke to shoot the Smaland. The team having better cruiser positioning/support wins the fight.

 

[Hirohito]

1 minute ago, Ocsimano18 said:

Daring guns are no joke. Daring does not need smoke to shoot the Smaland. The team having better cruiser positioning/support wins the fight.

I didn't say that Daring guns are a joke, but assuming equal positioning and support, you want to stay away from the Småland in a Daring in this particular case, especially in an open area.
Assuming you pick a fight with Hindenburg behind you, while the Småland has Stalingrad behind him, you are at a heavy disadvantage because you're inevitably going to take more damage in the Daring than the Småland assuming all other factors held constant, all the time your smoke advantage being neutered while Småland can speed boost around.

Of course things are seldomly constant in this game, I'd still generally approach a game with that lineup the OP posted very conservatively in the Daring, while I'd be looking to pick a fight if I was playing Småland.

[NewHorizons_1]

Am 15.7.2022 um 16:31, Humorpalanta sagte:

edit

You'd be surprised the amount of blithering that management can create when they don't want to do something

• it's core code and too risky to change due to the potential wide spread side effects
• it's old code, and the guy that wrote it has retired. No one else knows exactly how it works
• cost / benefit analysis says "NO"
• changing this code would mean updating too many systems

[SodaBubbles]

5 hours ago, Zimbiye said:

We lost this match. But smaland got killed in the first minute. 

 

Problem is not winning or losing. Problem is the basic principles of balance like 3 x radar vs none.

 

At least it should be evaluated seperately from "completely random" ranked MM.

Last time I asked a mod about this malicious MM, he said he doesnt play Ranked.

 

Its blindingly obvious that radars mustbe balanced. But that would require a dev team that cared about game play ...

[DDG_121]

23 hours ago, NewHorizons_1 said:

You'd be surprised the amount of blithering that management can create when they don't want to do something

• it's core code and too risky to change due to the potential wide spread side effects
• it's old code, and the guy that wrote it has retired. No one else knows exactly how it works
• cost / benefit analysis says "NO"
• changing this code would mean updating too many systems

Realistic approach.

[DDG_121]

23 hours ago, SodaBubbles said:

Last time I asked a mod about this malicious MM, he said he doesnt play Ranked.

 

Its blindingly obvious that radars mustbe balanced. But that would require a dev team that cared about game play ...

I actually think it is the management, not coders. I really wonder if this is even in their backlog. 

 

 

[DDG_121]

On 7/15/2022 at 12:43 PM, Hirohito said:

Småland doesnt really get outspotted by Daring, the difference is about 100 meters so they spot each other roughly at the same time.
This matchup heavily favours team B, because Daring can't even properly threaten with torps against the Stalingrad (10km torps vs 12 km radar), especially not with Småland screening.
And if they bump into each other at around 6km, Daring essentially can't smoke up until he kites away to 7,5kms otherwise he'll most likely get farmed to death by Småland radar while he and his team are blind.
Daring and Småland are my favourite ships to play with, but in that particular matchup (considering the other ships on the teams too) I'd choose to play the Småland any day over the Daring, especially if it is a relatively open map like Crash Zone Alpha.
Bumping into a Småland with Stalingrad support is an absolute no-no, whereas you can try to rely on skill if you're facing a Daring with Hindenburg support.

Great explanation. Reached to Bronze 1 in 2 days using Daring. Now qual is another thing. I come last at most matches, don't know why. Still trying my best.

[Vasya_Nyasha]

On 7/15/2022 at 12:06 PM, Zimbiye said:

Having 3 radars on one side and zero on the other, in a 7v7 ranked match shows how they really care for game balance.

 

At least for ranked FOR GODS SAKE. At least for ranked.

 

It seems you can't code this simplest thing. I can help. Just ask. Don't be shy.

 

pick radar ships. Simple.
Didnt focus on how much each team has radar ships during my matches. Very often got games without DDS.
Thats the current meta and restricting radar ships wont do anything. You need to do balancing really

[DDG_121]

Just now, Vasya_Nyasha said:

Thats the current meta and restricting radar ships wont do anything.

We just need simple balancing. Not restriction. Thanks

[Panocek]

3 minutes ago, Zimbiye said:

We just need simple balancing. Not restriction. Thanks

Can WG make more money by making game more balanced? No? Then why you're asking?

[DDG_121]

9 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Can WG make more money by making game more balanced? No? Then why you're asking?

More balanced game = better gameplay = maybe more players = more profit probability? 

[NewHorizons_1]

1 minute ago, Zimbiye said:

More balanced game = better gameplay = maybe more players = more profit probability? 

Careful, that sounds like the dark sorcery that is common sense.

[Panocek]

Just now, Zimbiye said:

More balanced game = better gameplay = maybe more players = more profit probability? 

If that would be the case, then you wouldn't have carriers and subs, certainly not in current shape.

[SkipperCH]

Removed 1 post for spam.

[Yosha_AtaIante]

1 hour ago, Zimbiye said:

More balanced game = better gameplay = maybe more players = more profit probability? 

it clearly shows on the current market that pay 2 win games are very popular money making machines because bad players like to pay to win. If you make a game too balanced then only a smaller dedicated player base would establish and once they have the tools they need they won't spend money anymore because why spend money if it's balanced

[DDG_121]

I'm a paying player. Maybe a whale. It is definitely not pay2win in this game IMO. Of course you have Smaland etc but a skilled player still can beat you with teamwork and game knowledge + patience.

 

Of course when you think of the standart crowd playing. Maybe it is pay2win. But really... Is it?

[tocqueville8]

On 7/15/2022 at 11:06 AM, Zimbiye said:

Having 3 radars on one side and zero on the other, in a 7v7 ranked match shows how they really care for game balance.

 

On 7/15/2022 at 11:06 AM, Zimbiye said:

 

I've got nothing against the idea of the MM splitting the radars 2-1 instead of 3-0, but I don't find it particularly decisive.

 

I'm seeing a lot of Ranked games with 3 cruisers per team, 2 of them with radar, but only 1 DD. Radar is useful anyway, but at some point the cruisers players are just overdoing it. If it's just for spotting around the island they're camping, they could often do it with hydro (looking at that Salem...) or even the meme spotter plane (thinking of her sister).

 

The Napoli is a fine choice for Ranked. As is the Hindenburg, at least in a game with 3 BBs. Maybe the issue is that they can be hard to coordinate, while both Salem and Stalingrad can just lock down a position by hugging an island each.

 

Surprisingly, other than the Thunderer, it might be your Daring that's the least "meta" ship of this lineup, at least from what I'm seeing out there... 

[Hirohito]

6 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

Surprisingly, other than the Thunderer, it might be your Daring that's the least "meta" ship of this lineup, at least from what I'm seeing out there... 

Daring has been my best and most consistent ship for ranked.
It's so easy to do well it, and fortunately what it has an easy time doing well is killing DDs and contest caps, which is exactly what you need to do in ranked to win games.

[tocqueville8]

38 minutes ago, Hirohito said:

Daring has been my best and most consistent ship for ranked.
It's so easy to do well it, and fortunately what it has an easy time doing well is killing DDs and contest caps, which is exactly what you need to do in ranked to win games.

 

I think it's the Smaland for me.

 

With radar cruisers often taking position early near islands, many games become very stand-offish, and I find the Smaland does the job of farming those stationary ships while also spotting them. The extra range on the torps helps, and the AA keeps her from being harassed too much when in the open.

 

Also, Vampire 2, but that thing can actually pull the smoke+hydro combo from time to time, and she can kind of go peek-a-boo from her own smoke. And again, I just need the extra range on the torps.

 

I'm just not seeing a lot of Darings around. Lots of Shimas, though