Razor this is decompression, it doesn’t need to extend the br range to be decompression. This is making sure that vehicles don’t see what they shouldn’t fight(balance wise). It achieves the same as extension but is so much easier to implement
Reducing the steps from 4 to 3 is compression.
Decompression and changing of the deviation of the matchmaker are 2 sides of the same coin btw.
If you decompress the BRs you reduce the difference between the strongest and weakest vehicle in a BR(and therefore match)
The exact same result if you reduce the deviation in the matchmaker.
Reducing BRs, either total or int he matchmaker compresses.
4 to 3 is compression, it’s less fine tuning available for similar but different vehicles.
Decompression increases the total BRs.
Compression reduces choice.
Total Br reduction compreses finally sth you said is true
Matchmaker spread reduction can not cause compression as was proven beyond any doubt. so again you are wrong
Reducing the BRs available to tank balancing compresses the BRs.
This fact is proven.
We are not and never have, been proposing a reduction in battle ratings, I challenge you to find where we did. And please get someone else to confirm first.
ALL QE HAVE EVER PROPOSED IS CHANGING THE MATCHMAKER SETTINGS SO THAT THE MAX BR GAP IS SHORTER, WHICH IS DECOMPRESSION!
1 Like
We aren’t reducing the brs
Never have been
Glad you support the current matchmaker.
I do but it needs major improvement like reducing the gap to 0.7
But 0.7 does not reduce the BRs available for tank balancing.
12th time now
Currently 1.0 to 11.7 exists
in 0.7 we will have 1.0 to 11.7 WHERE IS THERE A REDUCTION IN BRs
You are the only person arguing for compression
How exactly I’ve stuck on the same argument for days
The 0.7. You’re reducing the decompressed 1.0 matchmaker to a more compressed 0.7.
3 is more compressed than 4.
Say the fact with me.
Which is more compressed?
3? Or 4?
Simple math.
To improve game balance you can
A. Decompress the BRs
B. Decrease the deviation in the matchmaker
C. Adjust specific vehicles
This thread isn’t discussing A or C.
This is about changing the matchmaker which would help with game balance within a match.
I explained how multiple times but you haven’t addressed the logic of my posts.
If you are in favor of a BR decompression instead that’s fine. That’s your opinion.
However changing the matchmaker would also adjust balance.
You have mentioned “zones” when referring to the matchmaking incorrectly thinking that the more “zones” means more balance.
If you extend this logic it falls apart.
If you had a +/-12 BR matchmaker you would have tons of these zones you talk about but s horribly balanced game. If you has a +/-0 BR matchmaker you would have no “zones” but s more balanced game.
If you think I am wrong please address this point. Otherwise you just seen argumentative
There is no 3 or 4 how often do I need to tell you
there is 11.7 STEPS in the TT right now.
not 4 not 3 not 5
1.0 to 11.7
Thats all the steps. Your steps only exist when inside a match and inside a match the BR can not shift after the gam,e starts making your point mute.
And now finally answere my points made in post 180
It works the other way it’s like golf, lowest score wins. You have a lot more vehicles in a 1.0 difference than (more compressed) than a 0.7 difference from a vehicle ( decompression)
1 Like
Balance isn’t about fighting fictionally identical vehicles in a war games simulator.
It’s about fighting vehicles within capabilities of each other.
Such as Tiger-2, IS-3, IS-6, and M48.
0.7 is bad for the game because it compresses the matchmaker from the SUPERIOR 4 zones to the more compressed 3 zones.
Or steps if you want.
Just as 11.7 from 11.0 is decompression, & 11.7 to 11.0 is compression.
3 to 4 is decompression, and 4 to 3 is compression.
I want EXCLUSIVELY decompression. No compression ANYWHERE.
Why are you suggesting tiger should face the m48 that’s actually compression unlike making vehicles fighting others with a similar level
No compression happening. Less vehicles in the match is the basis of decompression your argument is pro compression again.
The rest is personal opionion with no basis in reality
again when will you answere my points from post 180