Ranked Allies vs. Allies / Axis vs. Axis?

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8659
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: Ranked Allies vs. Allies / Axis vs. Axis?

Postby Fade2Gray » Sat 6 May 2017 22:56

Operation Ivy wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:always use the exact same coalition/divisions/whatever and will always have the same exact teams, opening unit selection, etc? Sounds to me like mirror matches is not the problem.


You don't even need to have the exact same division and opening unit selection etc. because you find so many copied units in several decks, especially on axis side.


Operation Ivy wrote:I would be way less up on the fence about mirror matches if the divisions were more diverse.


I'm "nitpicking" but you agree with what I said, that the problem isn't with mirror matches.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
Operation Ivy
Master Sergeant
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed 5 Oct 2016 00:56
Contact:

Re: Ranked Allies vs. Allies / Axis vs. Axis?

Postby Operation Ivy » Sat 6 May 2017 23:38

I still don't like mirror matches. Even in SC2 they were always way less entertaining to watch than any other match up. But thats only my opinion and SD isn't going to be a pleasant viewing experience for most people in the first place, not that it is striving to be a big e-sport title.

However in SD they also cause problems that go beyond this as we have mentioned in this thread.

User avatar
SalzStange
Private
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue 9 May 2017 14:28
Contact:

Re: Ranked Allies vs. Allies / Axis vs. Axis?

Postby SalzStange » Tue 9 May 2017 14:35

I would love this idea. It would be very fair and balanced:)

User avatar
Operation Ivy
Master Sergeant
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed 5 Oct 2016 00:56
Contact:

Re: Ranked Allies vs. Allies / Axis vs. Axis?

Postby Operation Ivy » Sun 21 May 2017 21:26

We are getting closer and closer to the release of the game and yet we still have no word about mirror matches in ranked.

Why is that the case?

Random
Captain
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: Ranked Allies vs. Allies / Axis vs. Axis?

Postby Random » Mon 22 May 2017 01:31

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)

Tigga
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 2446
Joined: Tue 5 Jul 2011 02:46
Contact:

Re: Ranked Allies vs. Allies / Axis vs. Axis?

Postby Tigga » Mon 22 May 2017 02:13

Did ALB really have mirrors? I just found a replay where it did, so I guess it must have.

Random wrote: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.

That works for me. I think I'd want to select both an axis and an allied deck anyway. I like variety! Doesn't look like it's going to be feasible to go full random, but I'm hoping I can get 4 or so good divisions from each faction to randomize between.

Random
Captain
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: Ranked Allies vs. Allies / Axis vs. Axis?

Postby Random » Mon 22 May 2017 02:40

Tigga wrote:Did ALB really have mirrors? I just found a replay where it did, so I guess it must have.

Random wrote: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.

That works for me. I think I'd want to select both an axis and an allied deck anyway. I like variety! Doesn't look like it's going to be feasible to go full random, but I'm hoping I can get 4 or so good divisions from each faction to randomize between.


fun fact: people kept saying blue > red, which was pretty much proven by the fact that almost no team chose red in the WAB ESL, and as far as I remember not a single of the 5 teams which dominated the WAB esl (and won all the tourneys) played red, except for Day and Sleksa, who played red a couple of times, relying on hind-rushes mostly. Yet Eugen/madmat kept saying "we have the statistis, blue and red win an equal amount in multi, balance is fine. Madmat said this again, about SD, in the last dev vs youtubers showmatch, which worrys me greatly in regards to SD-balancing in the future.

I really like my suggestion, as it allows non-mirrors with competitive integrity of the Elo-rating.
Tigga wrote: I like variety! Doesn't look like it's going to be feasible to go full random, but I'm hoping I can get 4 or so good divisions from each faction to randomize between.


This kind of needs an additional feature, namely giving the ability to select an option "randomly chose one of x decks I select". Right now we only have "select any of the deck I have saved", which is highly annoying for me, because I like to import the decks of pretty much everyone I lose to repeatedly and have different decks for 1v1, 2v2s, decks designed to play together with specific other decks, etc.

User avatar
Operation Ivy
Master Sergeant
Posts: 154
Joined: Wed 5 Oct 2016 00:56
Contact:

Re: Ranked Allies vs. Allies / Axis vs. Axis?

Postby Operation Ivy » Mon 22 May 2017 03:19

That's what happens when you take every match into account and don't focus on "high level" statistics.

The question is what do you want to balance? something that is considered OP in "high level" play is not necessarily a problem at the lower end of the spectrum.

back to topic.

direct mirrors (same division) aside, i don't understand how people can argue for mirrors due to balance. Balancing 9 match ups is already difficult but trying to balance 17 is a nightmare.

User avatar
Crotou
Colonel
Posts: 2604
Joined: Thu 12 Apr 2012 20:36
Location: DM's keep
Contact:

Re: Ranked Allies vs. Allies / Axis vs. Axis?

Postby Crotou » Mon 22 May 2017 10:13

Random wrote:EE, I agree, it was fine for balance to not have mirrormatches, but keep in mind that was destruction

I don't get why the gamemode matters ?

Random wrote: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.

This way, it could help Eugen have better stats on which side has an advantage. ;)

Random wrote: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.

I didn't play ranked in ALB and WRD. Was it better with mirror matches allowed ? For my part, when I played WEE ranked, I swaped side when I had difficulties. To be honest, apart from rare occasions, I never had big problems to find a match.

Random wrote: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.

Good idea.
Image

Random
Captain
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu 31 Jan 2013 19:05
Contact:

Re: Ranked Allies vs. Allies / Axis vs. Axis?

Postby Random » Mon 22 May 2017 16:18

Crotou wrote:
Random wrote:EE, I agree, it was fine for balance to not have mirrormatches, but keep in mind that was destruction

I don't get why the gamemode matters ?

Random wrote: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.

This way, it could help Eugen have better stats on which side has an advantage. ;)

Random wrote: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.

I didn't play ranked in ALB and WRD. Was it better with mirror matches allowed ? For my part, when I played WEE ranked, I swaped side when I had difficulties. To be honest, apart from rare occasions, I never had big problems to find a match.

Random wrote: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.

Good idea.


1. In conquest costefficiency is crucial, see WAB, if one side has centurions and the other does not, the one with them will win. In destruction I dont have to care about costefficiency beyond a certain point, it does not matter if you have more costefficient units as long as my units dont die, I dont care if I have to spend 160 points on arty to kill 50 points of costeffcient infantry for example, as long as my arty does not die and I dont have to worry about getting run over. You can just camp and win on destructionpoints with less costefficient units, which is not an option if you need 50% mapcontrol. So if one side has more costefficient units it does not matter too much.

2. I am sceptical of this, but who knows.

3. It was not a problem in WEE, because the two decks were roughly equally good at destruction (imo, I had equal success with them, ending up ranked 3rd at the release of WAB, the people who were better then me quit the game before the last rank-reset, never met nr 1 or 2 as far as I recall).
If it were still in WAB, people who wanted to win would only search blue, so if people prioritise winning over finding a game, they get higher ranked, but as soon as more then 50% of the players are like this, liquidity decreases. And it is unfair to the people who would have had to play red, which was objectivly worse throughout most of WAB. I cant say for sure how it would have been in WAB or WRD without mirror, but I am pretty sure it would have been worse then it was with them. Ranked 1v1 ran throughout WAB an WRD, 2v2 died some months after the launch of WRD, in WAB 2v2 ranked existed more or less, 5 min searchtime in the beginning, 20 min to no game found a couple days at the end.

Return to “General Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest