Old MM vs New MM
Дата: 03.08.2017 00:57:00
GaussDeath, on Aug 02 2017 - 12:27, said: I like the new MM, but it needs work. 1)
Heavies and Mediums should NOT be considered equivalent in the MM.
The number and tier of HTs should be balanced against the opposing
number and tier of HTs. The number and tier of MTs should be
balanced against the opposing number and tier of MTs.
2) Tier 8 needs work. More than any other tier, this tier has a
problem because tier 10 cannot be mid or bottom tier so it gives
the appearance of forcing a much higher amount of bottom
tier matches in tier 8s.While, yes, there are other tanks to hunt, this becomes a real problem when you factor in point #1.
When the top heavies are facing bottom or mid-tier heavies in a half-city map there is really nothing that the bottom or mid-tier heavies can do. They cannot go field or they will be torn apart, so they must face down heavies that they cannot hurt. It is not that tier 8 is horrible, it is that you still wind up in matches (particularly with tier 8 heavies) where you cannot do anything. You cannot go field because you have no camo values. You cannot go city because you will face tier 10 heavies that you cannot harm.
CabbageMechanic:
I think that's a fair point, low tier heavy is definitely the most unpleasant situation to be in. I do think a lot of the Medium vs. Heavy stuff is way overblown though, on many maps a mobility advantage is preferable to an armor advantage to a team that is willing to play to its strengths.
I think that's a fair point, low tier heavy is definitely the most unpleasant situation to be in. I do think a lot of the Medium vs. Heavy stuff is way overblown though, on many maps a mobility advantage is preferable to an armor advantage to a team that is willing to play to its strengths.
chzwhz, on Aug 02 2017 - 13:24, said: It is better to have more equivalent tier tanks to shoot at
when you are bottom tier than to have less. But you are wrong when
you assert that having more tanks of equivalent tier to you when
bottom tier makes being bottom tier better than it was. It
absolutely, positively, does not. And it certainly doesn't make up
for being bottom tier way more often. The fairest matches are where
15 tanks all share the same tier, it gets less fair with +/- 1 and
gets very unfair with +/- 2. Again, it doesn't matter if you have
more to shoot at, you are playing more battles that are inherently
unfair.CabbageMechanic: I'm not sure I think that is a super consistent position.
Your premise is based on the foundation that encountering
vehicles of a higher tier = unfair, and less of it = more fair.
Under the new system, you are less likely to be top tier yes,
but overall you are also less likely to see an actual +2 tier
vehicle on the battlefield because they are limited by the
template. If you choose to frame that as an "amount of
battles in which there are higher tiers than me" you can make a
type of case but I think if you look at it as "amount of times
during gameplay you are actually at a serious disadvantage" the new
system is superior.
Commodore_Krunk, on Aug 02 2017 - 13:31, said: Hi Cabbage - Thanks for responding and giving your opinion.
I disagree with your position because with the recent
releases of all the new age tier 8 premium tanks and the new MM
meta, I think a lot of the traditional tech tree tier 8 tanks (ie
T32) are no longer competitive. C_KCabbageMechanic: I think there's some fair points there, I don't think most
Tier 8 tanks are hopeless though
Old MM vs New MM