The model seems to supply all BRs in about equal abundance. And it obviously does not much else. So no squads, no levels, no bomber limit, no top BR limit. If I omit all that, it will be much easier, sure.
I can easily prove that we need no welfare laws if all are healthy and have jobs. But is that proof relevant?
Could you please quote that definiton? Failing that, could you please explain it very slowly so that we can follow.
And to be on the safe side: You mean with MM compression to switch from 1.0 to 0.7? To avoid misunderstanding your claim.
There are two arguments made on the forums: The correct one and the compression one.
1- Decompression. Decompressing the last holdouts of BRs after an analysis of what those holdouts are. At most a couple hundred vehicles.
2- Compressing the BRs and changing the BRs over over 1000 vehicles for a compressed matchmaker from 4 to 3: 1.0 to 0.7.
This BR compression in the matchmaker would cause more overlapping vehicles, meaning different vehicles like F-104 and Mig-19S would permanently be the same BR despite the Mig-19S being objectively superior.
This would also mean that F-14B and F-15A are permanently the same BR despite them being different.
A 0.7 matchmaker solidifies BR compression into the video game and will never be cured.
This is why 4 is superior to 3, and why we need to oppose this compression in favor of BR decompression in the areas that are still impacted.
There are zillions of arguments on this forum.
The argument in this thread is not about BR changes. This is stated in line 3 of the initial post. It isn’t mentioned in the title either.
Please explain or link why switching the MM from 1.0 to 0.7 width is “compression”. A 0.7 MM would have less vehicles meet than a 1.0 one unless you also change BRs. That is the whole reason people ask for it.
2 Likes
Compressing the BR matchmaker REQUIRES BR changes; everyone knows this, which indicates to me people really want their specific OP plane to be more OP.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Decompression is the only answer, and it’s funny to see so many people arguing against decompression for a system that makes their aircraft more OP and requires far more work than decompression.
You don’t even understand what’s compression and what’s decompression.
-Ignore list
1 Like
@Nick_Cloud
I see you ignore every pro-decompression and anti-compression man on the forum.
Good lord the pro-compression crowd is sensitive.
Decompression: Decreasing the density of a volume.
In the BR system: Matchmaker: Moving from 1.0 to 1.3+.
Tech tree: Moving from 1.0 - 14.0 to 1.0 - 14.3+.
Compression: Increasing the density of a volume.
In the BR system: Matchmaker: Moving from 1.0 to 0.7-.
Tech tree: Moving from 1.0 - 14.0 to 1.0 - 13.7-.
Seriously…
It’s the opposite.
Compress - put more things in one BR range so it becomes compressed .
Decompress -less things in one BR range.
The meaning of the word tells it.
2 Likes
Thanks for admitting my post is correct.
Your post about the tech tree BRs is literally my statement.
That is wrong for sure, as I don’t know this.
No problem, I just buy another…
I only see one person argueing about it and it isn’t funny…
Great opinion, troll debater #69420. I am sure he will listen to whatever you are saying and not continue spewing nonsense like he always does.
@山_田_凉
Stop derailing and trolling topics with false accusations against good people.
Please tell us how decompression is nonsense and trolling…
I await an explanation on why you think decompression is bad.
Please keep the discussion respectful, people are entitled to their own opinion, simply disagree without turning this discussion into a personal matter.
Changing the max BR spread to 0.7 would be an improvement in reducing the discrepancy in performance between top tier and low tier aircraft in a match.
Trying it would be as simple as setting the max range of planes you can go up against by 0.7. This could be implemented very easily without changing every single BR of every plane.
BR spread can be used on its own or together with decompression, but BR spread reduction to 0.7 would be a great start. It doesnt make any sense to be so passionatly opposed to 0.7.
There are too many replies here, and I feel like I may not have enough energy to reply one by one. I understand that what I am doing is an ideal simulation, just like a particle in a vacuum whose charge does not decay. I completed the simulation using simplified conditions to summarize my observations. All of your responses are valuable, but there is no doubt that each of us cannot 100% predict what results using ± 0.7 will bring. Will it ruin the game or improve our gaming experience? In order to obtain this result, it is necessary to conduct a pilot experiment to determine. If gaijin really conducts pilot experiments and proves that ± 0.7 is not a good idea, I believe all its supporters will be speechless, and vice versa.
Yes, but the gaijins like it when their entire class of equipment on the entire BR is dead.
Look what happened to the US planes from the pre-tops? F-15A, F-16A, F-14A, now the F/A-18, this is an absolutely mortal class. I just wonder why they made these planes at all? Someone spent time, effort and money and all so that they would forget about it.
- My model should not be applied to reality. Developing algorithms suitable for games is Gaijin’s job, and I am not a Gaijin employee. I will add a test, assuming that the player will leave the queue after waiting for 0.1 seconds, and test how many people will choose to leave at ±1 and ±0.7
========== ±1.0 ==========
147 battles started.
48 players quit the queue. (0.75%)
Remaining aircraft in queue: 26
========== ±0.7 ==========
142 battles started.
182 players quit the queue. (2.8%)
Remaining aircraft in queue: 20
========== ±0.4 ==========
10 battles started.
3408 players quit the queue. (53.25)
Remaining aircraft in queue: 89
The program runs for 6.4 seconds, generating a player every 0.001 seconds, a total of 6400 players, and a player will quit after waiting for 0.15 seconds. From the experimental results, we can see that ±0.7 can form almost the same number of battles as ±1.0. Although more players quit the battle, don’t forget that it takes 32 players to start a battle. But ±0.4 will cause a lot of players to leave the queue, which is why I wrote 0.7 in the title instead of other numbers.
- That’s why I wrote ±0.7 in the title instead of smaller numbers.
It seems that there is no option to apply MM compression and BR decompression at the same time in your options.
That is because that is objectively worse.
I can bring up 4 heavy tanks: Tiger 2, IS-3, IS-4M, and T29. You can also put int T26E5 instead of T29 if you think it’s OP.
IS-4M can be killed by a Tiger 2, it’s hard, but it can be done.
R2Y2 and MD452 can be killed by a Kikka, Attacker, F-80A, Ho 229, F3D, A2D-1, SK60B, or Me 262; it’s hard, but it can be done.
These vehicles under your system would have to compress to 0.7 apart instead of 1 apart in order for their balance to be maintained and the game to be challenging to the way it is.
It’s why I say decompression is superior than screwing up the match maker.
With 4 slots available, that’s more slots to balance similar but different vehicles, whereas 3 isn’t enough [see why Wargaming games struggle with 3].
I HOPE your intent wasn’t to make MD452 OP, or Mig-19S, or IS-4M and T26E5 unkillable, and your intent was to compress those BRs as well as the matchmaker.
I want decompression, I’ve proven how it’s mathematically superior than any changes to the matchmaker, and I’ve also mathematically proven that it’s less work.
And my opinion is to put your effort into arguing for decompression instead.
It’s just ONE guy. ONE GODDAMN GUY.