Jump to content


Tier spread?

tier spread

  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

BodyGuardOfLies #1 Posted 22 July 2017 - 02:41 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 76855 battles
  • 1,090
  • Member since:
    06-07-2011

Can anybody explain to me why we have to have a tier spread at all?

 

It is a source of resentment and must surely make it more difficult to balance tanks.

 

Notice the "serious" competitions like clan wars don't employ a tier spread so why in randoms?

 

It doesn't matter how you dress it up if match making puts you 2 tiers lower than an enemy tank then you are at an unfair disadvantage. 

 

It appears to me that the only benefit is to allow wargaming to manipulate games giving advantages to poor players so that they spend money rather than quit.



AngerManagement1 #2 Posted 22 July 2017 - 02:44 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 39729 battles
  • 87
  • Member since:
    12-05-2011

Surely it can only be a good thing having all matches at same tier....seen so many crybabies lately that refuse to play because they are 2 tiers down. 

Wouldn't less experienced players feel better knowing that they aren't cannon fodder for higher tiers?



Jigabachi #3 Posted 22 July 2017 - 03:13 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17753 battles
  • 17,642
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostBodyGuardOfLies, on 22 July 2017 - 02:41 PM, said:

Can anybody explain to me why we have to have a tier spread at all?

Why don't you waste ten seconds of your precious lifetime to think about it yourself?

It should be easy to come up with three major points...



fighting_falcon93 #4 Posted 22 July 2017 - 03:23 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 29335 battles
  • 3,329
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostJigabachi, on 22 July 2017 - 03:13 PM, said:

Why don't you waste ten seconds of your precious lifetime to think about it yourself?

It should be easy to come up with three major points...

 

Maybe you can waste 10 seconds of your precious lifetime to share with us what these points are? Because the only minor point I see is longer queue times when few players are online, in which case the tier spread could simply be extended if the MM doesn't find a match within a certain time limit. Now compare that with all the upsides of same-tier battles, such as much better balancing and less frustration, and it should be quite obvious what option is the best.

Edited by fighting_falcon93, 22 July 2017 - 03:28 PM.


Liviguy #5 Posted 22 July 2017 - 03:35 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12461 battles
  • 345
  • Member since:
    01-12-2016
I'd even settle for +1 mm, see how that plays, but this +2mm is no fun. Far too many games you feel like cannon fodder and unable to influence the game much.  

Tr0gledyte #6 Posted 22 July 2017 - 03:37 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18497 battles
  • 1,220
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

Only same tier battles would make this entire game MUCH easier to balance, but at the same time cause long queues outside of peak hours. Really long, because you need 30 tanks of the same tier to start a game and also balance the vehicle types. So if there are 30 tier VIII tanks in the queue and 1 of them is arty you still can't really start a game.

 

You can't use tier spread to offset queue time when needed because then you can't balance tanks properly around their tier.


Edited by Tr0gledyte, 22 July 2017 - 03:42 PM.


AngerManagement1 #7 Posted 22 July 2017 - 03:41 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 39729 battles
  • 87
  • Member since:
    12-05-2011

View PostJigabachi, on 22 July 2017 - 02:13 PM, said:

Why don't you waste ten seconds of your precious lifetime to think about it yourself?

It should be easy to come up with three major points...

 

Why post a comment? You should spend more time playing the game instead of making stupid replies on the forum...god knows...you need the practice

BodyGuardOfLies #8 Posted 22 July 2017 - 03:41 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 76855 battles
  • 1,090
  • Member since:
    06-07-2011

View PostJigabachi, on 22 July 2017 - 02:13 PM, said:

Why don't you waste ten seconds of your precious lifetime to think about it yourself?

It should be easy to come up with three major points...

 

Why don't you enlighten us all instead of gobbing off like a [edited]? 

BodyGuardOfLies #9 Posted 22 July 2017 - 03:42 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 76855 battles
  • 1,090
  • Member since:
    06-07-2011

View PostTr0gledyte, on 22 July 2017 - 02:37 PM, said:

Only same tier battles would make this entire game MUCH easier to balance, but at the same time cause long queues outside of peak hours. Really long, because you need 30 tanks of the same tier to start a game.

 

You can't use tier spread to offset queue time when needed because then you can't balance tanks around their tier.

 

I thought there was a massive player base?  I for one would not mind queuing for  better fairer battle.  

Tr0gledyte #10 Posted 22 July 2017 - 03:46 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18497 battles
  • 1,220
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-12-2011

View PostBodyGuardOfLies, on 22 July 2017 - 03:42 PM, said:

 

I thought there was a massive player base?  I for one would not mind queuing for  better fairer battle.  

 

Early in the morning or late at night you may have to queue for unpopular tiers. I've had situations where I was queueing for 5 minutes in a tier II tank and then just gave up. I've even had to queue for over a minute in my tier X tank with tier spread. Especially tiers I through IV would be tricky outside of peak hours which can scare away new players.

 

Also remember that the teams need to be balanced around vehicle types as well. 

 

It's doable and I would encourage WG to experiment with it, but queue times really can be an issue, especially in the future when popularity declines. Or even now on the NA server, which has the lowest population of them all I believe. It does have the major benefit of making tanks easy to balance as opposed to the current clusterfuck.


Edited by Tr0gledyte, 22 July 2017 - 03:49 PM.


sgtYester #11 Posted 22 July 2017 - 04:30 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 52241 battles
  • 1,416
  • [RANGF] RANGF
  • Member since:
    04-10-2011

View PostLiviguy, on 22 July 2017 - 03:35 PM, said:

I'd even settle for +1 mm, see how that plays, but this +2mm is no fun. Far too many games you feel like cannon fodder and unable to influence the game much.  

 

`yep, the problem with 2 tier mm is that ur lacking agaqinst 2 tier higher. most of the time they can kill u in 2 shots, while u need 5/6 shots.

 

+/- 1 mm should fix this, with some little rebalancing here and there



BodyGuardOfLies #12 Posted 22 July 2017 - 04:32 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 76855 battles
  • 1,090
  • Member since:
    06-07-2011

View PostsgtYester, on 22 July 2017 - 03:30 PM, said:

 

`yep, the problem with 2 tier mm is that ur lacking agaqinst 2 tier higher. most of the time they can kill u in 2 shots, while u need 5/6 shots.

 

+/- 1 mm should fix this, with some little rebalancing here and there

 

Why not zero tier spread? 

kripton69 #13 Posted 22 July 2017 - 04:51 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 1208 battles
  • 389
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    06-23-2016

View PostTr0gledyte, on 22 July 2017 - 04:46 PM, said:

 

Early in the morning or late at night you may have to queue for unpopular tiers. I've had situations where I was queueing for 5 minutes in a tier II tank and then just gave up. I've even had to queue for over a minute in my tier X tank with tier spread. Especially tiers I through IV would be tricky outside of peak hours which can scare away new players.

 

Also remember that the teams need to be balanced around vehicle types as well. 

 

It's doable and I would encourage WG to experiment with it, but queue times really can be an issue, especially in the future when popularity declines. Or even now on the NA server, which has the lowest population of them all I believe. It does have the major benefit of making tanks easy to balance as opposed to the current clusterfuck.

 

Queue times wouldn't be an issue. It's an excuse falsely spread by the fans of +2/-2 who don't have any valid arguments for the existence of +2/-2. It was even stated in a Q&A a few months ago that queue times would be shorter with +1/-1. It's probably just a case of the matchmaker having an easier time to create battles when it isn't artificially encouraged to seek for tanks from 3 different tiers.



Aikl #14 Posted 22 July 2017 - 05:12 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25141 battles
  • 4,036
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

The tier spread used to be +4/+5. Not joking. It was rather bad, but tolerable as driving tanks was pretty frickin' cool in 2011.


Being stuck with +2 isn't surprising - removing it would make it far harder for individuals to have that utterly incredible game that keeps them playing through their usual botting. Seriously, that's part of what makes WoT so fun even for players who are unable to perform well with some level of consistency. It would also mean that players would be far less inclined to spend free XP on modules to get their tank to perform OK enough to meet +2-tier tanks.

 

 

The fact that 3-5-7 is the preferred pattern for the matchmaker remains the biggest problem, it's basically forcing +2 MM, the objective being to feed individuals the occasional game where they do really well. The stated reasoning behind 3-5-7 is making bottom-tier games less frustrating - because there are more low-tier tanks to shoot.

That makes sense - but only when there has to be a +2-game for the matchmaker to be able to create one in the first place. It does not make sense when it creates more battles where you're bottom-tier. It amplifies the very problem it's trying to solve, and is like treating illness with poison. A monkey with a calculator can understand that the real reason is, again, to let everyone have a shot at their five-star game.

 

As it turns out, 3-5-7 is still not really solving anything at all. Being bottom-tier is mostly following the higher-tier tanks around, because the only thing that'll save you when you see a T10 heavy in your T8 med is, frankly, another T10. To some extent I actually preferred the "old" bottom-tier games. They were far less likely to happen, appr. 33% (as opposed to 46%+), and you kind of had free reign to do stupid stuff that sometimes worked and turned you into a battle hero. Well, most of the time dying in a blaze of fire, but the way the games played out were about the same.

Furthermore, you were about as likely to be on the top as on the bottom of the tea list. Heck, 3-5-7 means you're much less likely to see -2-tier tanks. It is further amplified by not having an even number of players per tier and that there's nothing above T10 (which also has 3-5-7 as its preferred pattern). That makes T8 in particular rather frustrating

 

 

 

Moving on to gameplay, the sheer fact that there are so many bottom-tiers in each and every battle means two things:

1. Tons of TDs - because they're naturally better equipped and better suited gameplay-wise to take on higher-tiers. If someone actually thinks that a game on Lakeville with eight TDs on each side is fun, you should probably join a training room and camp in a bush alone.

2. Camping. The 'bottom-tier is useless' mentality sticks with people, leading them to their default play, which is camping in the base or in a bush. Kind of makes sense, as a +2-tier TD, which is guaranteed to have shots at you if you move somewhere, is fully capable of removing 50-100% of your HP.
 That doesn't exactly lead to dynamic games, to say the least, and TDs remain dangerous even as bottom-tiers (well, at least T6 and up). Even at points where half the enemy team is dead, they still have a viable chance to win against a full-strength team if they camp hard enough.

 I know there are people who think that makes for fun gameplay, but it's really not. Sure, it's 'just a tactic', but too often it's a tactic with no viable counterplays.

 

 

Making a +1 pattern (like 5-10 or whatever) the priority would be a decent start, but would also remove a lot of the potential that even a one-handed monkey can have in this game if all stars align. I have a feeling that the one-handed monkeys are making the game more money than above-average players - else WG would likely try to cater more to them. To some extent this is accetable, as it would be rather stupid to cater to the vocal minority (money-wise) than the silent majority.


Edited by Aikl, 22 July 2017 - 05:19 PM.


Liviguy #15 Posted 22 July 2017 - 05:29 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12461 battles
  • 345
  • Member since:
    01-12-2016
im getting very pissed off playing in games where i dont matter, and it doesnt matter how well i play i lose. I'm getting sick of losing 5,6,7 games in a row no matter how well i play.  This isn't just the tier spread, but it is a partly responsible for the situation.

Edited by Liviguy, 22 July 2017 - 05:34 PM.


Suurpolskija #16 Posted 22 July 2017 - 05:36 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16610 battles
  • 1,191
  • [URHO] URHO
  • Member since:
    01-26-2016
1. Being bottom tier makes you wanna progress to higher tiers -> less credits, more profit for wg

2. Facing higher tier opponents makes you more prone to shoot premium ammo -> bleeding credits, more profit for WG.



unhappy_bunny #17 Posted 22 July 2017 - 05:43 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17409 battles
  • 2,142
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

View PostBodyGuardOfLies, on 22 July 2017 - 02:41 PM, said:

Can anybody explain to me why we have to have a tier spread at all?

 

It is a source of resentment and must surely make it more difficult to balance tanks.

 

Notice the "serious" competitions like clan wars don't employ a tier spread so why in randoms?

 

It doesn't matter how you dress it up if match making puts you 2 tiers lower than an enemy tank then you are at an unfair disadvantage. 

 

It appears to me that the only benefit is to allow wargaming to manipulate games giving advantages to poor players so that they spend money rather than quit.

 

OK, I will ask you a question.

 

Lets say you decide you want to play T8. You know there is only going to be 1 tier in the battle, so which tank do you pick? 

 



Nishi_Kinuyo #18 Posted 22 July 2017 - 05:43 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 6977 battles
  • 3,474
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

Imo, we have a tier spread to provide more challenge for the bottomtiers, who in return get more experience and credits by damaging and destroying higher tier tanks.

BodyGuardOfLies

 Notice the "serious" competitions like clan wars don't employ a tier spread so why in randoms?

 Afaik, there used to be a point system for selecting tank in clanwars or something similar to it (team battles?), resulting that at least one tank had to be of lower tier to meet the number of tanks required.



1ncompetenc3 #19 Posted 22 July 2017 - 06:02 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36772 battles
  • 11,489
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 22 July 2017 - 05:43 PM, said:

Imo, we have a tier spread to provide more challenge for the bottomtiers, who in return get more experience and credits by damaging and destroying higher tier tanks.

 Afaik, there used to be a point system for selecting tank in clanwars or something similar to it (team battles?), resulting that at least one tank had to be of lower tier to meet the number of tanks required.

 

Yeah that was team battles, 7/42 IIRC (5 tier VIII and 2 tier I for scouting/early warning).

Jigabachi #20 Posted 22 July 2017 - 06:08 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17753 battles
  • 17,642
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011

View PostAngerManagement1, on 22 July 2017 - 03:41 PM, said:

Why post a comment? 

Because I opened the thread and read the opening post, only to find out that the OP didn't bother to think about it before starting a thread. He also didn't use the search function - it's a quite old topic that gets digged out every month or so.







Also tagged with tier spread

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users