Tigga wrote:I sure hope not. HS 129 against SS Panzer in Phase A sounds even less fun than the spitfire bomber.
I think it's best if the game is balanced around Axis vs Allies. I also don't enjoy mirror matches.
ALB and EE had it right.
ALB had mirrormatches, and considering Nato mixed dominated all competitive play it would have been very bad for the specific example of ALB to disallow mirrormatches.
EE, I agree, it was fine for balance to not have mirrormatches, but keep in mind that was destruction, where in EE you had a lot of freedoms how to play (at least at the level I played at, which was at the end of EE at the very top, ofc that was after highly competitive players, like you, left).
I think it is crucial for competitive integrity to allow mirrormatches, even if the asymetric balance were perfect. And I expect that not to be the case at the launch of SD.
I dont think the 91.LL vs 12.SS point is that relevant, if the meta consists out of many 91.LL, 12.SS might be bad (I expect 12.SS to be bad regardless on many maps vs many deck, but that is besides the point.)
Imagine a situation where one side is stronger on the average ranked 1v1 map. This will compromise the competitive integrity completly, as one player will be forced to play the worse side.
The second concern is liquidity, 1v1 and 2v2 ranked always had liquidityproblems from WEE to WRD, now you divide the availaible pool of players by 2.
The only way we can have mirrors disallowed and not have all those downsides is to force people to select both an axis and an allied deck and then just search, with the sides being determined randomly. I would be fine with that.
(btw I think it is best to keep no-mirror policy in quick play)