23 replies to this topic

[jonesofcolorado]

Are platoons punished? Last night my friends and I played a few hours in a platoon. I don't think we played 1 game where we were top tier. They were mostly like this:

 

[Tempest fox3]

4/5 man platoons can get punished yes. They always get matched with an opposing 4/5 man platoon regardless of whether the platoons are the same tier.

[jonesofcolorado]

Tempest fox3, on 24 October 2019 - 08:50 AM, said:

4/5 man platoons can get punished yes. They always get matched with an opposing 4/5 man platoon regardless of whether the platoons are the same tier.

 

Yuck that's gross, it doesn't sound like a good feature. 

[SpandexRockstar]

For large platoons (4/5), always go tier 9 or 10s.

 

In the OP's rollout, the greens VI and VII platoons combined probably have a similar battle weight to that of the red's VIII platoon

[Sammael85]

Tempest fox3, on 24 October 2019 - 04:50 PM, said:

Platoons can get punished yes. They always get matched with an opposing platoon regardless of whether the platoons are the same tier.

 

More likely like this. Platoon system is just cancer.

[MaximusBoonie]

Platoons in random battles should have never been a thing. They should have had a separate lobby from the start.

[Sadriel Fett]

I think for large platoons, they call it karma.   

 

Seriously, though, for large platoons, they get "weighted" differently than small platoons.  So, the MM will try to find a large platoon of equal number first, usually regardless of Tier level.  So, sometimes they end up pretty lopsided like this if there's not alot of large platoons playing different tiers.  So, it kind of sucks in that regard.  

[DiluteBump4]

It is a thing. Platoon in tier 8 and be only eigths in tier 10 battle

[x_BAlN_x]

+1/-1 would have made this less of an issue and the match more difficult for the reds. But the deniers conveniently omit this in their pathetic pleas for no change.

Edited by x_BAlN_x, 25 October 2019 - 03:31 PM.

[VoluptaBox]

Yea, 4 and 5 men platoons tend to mess the match making up. If you stick to 3 people maximum you should be fine (as it originally was anyway).

[John Arrowsmith]

x_BAlN_x, on 25 October 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

+1/-1 would have made this less of an issue and the match more difficult for the reds. But the deniers conveniently omit this in their pathetic pleas for no change.

 

the deniers you speak of want a fix,  not a band aid.     

 

+1 can still lead to complete unbalanced teams. 

[LiteralComic635]

x_BAlN_x, on 25 October 2019 - 03:31 PM, said:

+1/-1 would have made this less of an issue and the match more difficult for the reds. But the deniers conveniently omit this in their pathetic pleas for no change.

 

I don't know what possible reason you have for the final sentence but I don't see a huge problem with +2-2 nor a huge amount of improvement in the game at +1-1. I believe that there is a middle ground here, increasing the odds of +1-1 in the matchmaker and have the occasional week of +1-1. A permanent replacement of +1-1 would be detrimental in the long run for the game. 

 

No need to be snarky or absolutist about +1-1, it doesn't solve every problem and generates its own. 

 

ChubbyBuckle06 

[x_BAlN_x]

LiteralComic635, on 25 October 2019 - 09:45 AM, said:

 

I don't know what possible reason you have for the final sentence but I don't see a huge problem with +2-2 nor a huge amount of improvement in the game at +1-1. I believe that there is a middle ground here, increasing the odds of +1-1 in the matchmaker and have the occasional week of +1-1. A permanent replacement of +1-1 would be detrimental in the long run for the game. 

 

No need to be snarky or absolutist about +1-1, it doesn't solve every problem and generates its own. 

 

ChubbyBuckle06 

 

Never said it was going to fix or solve everything. Just lessen the effects of bad MM. And that MM can't be fixed.

 

Personally I don't care either way. Have no problem being -2 or -1. Just don't like the deniers posting false information or omitting certain points. They remind me too much of today's politicians.

[TennisMan56]

LiteralComic635, on 25 October 2019 - 03:45 PM, said:

 

I don't know what possible reason you have for the final sentence but I don't see a huge problem with +2-2 nor a huge amount of improvement in the game at +1-1. I believe that there is a middle ground here, increasing the odds of +1-1 in the matchmaker and have the occasional week of +1-1. A permanent replacement of +1-1 would be detrimental in the long run for the game. 

 

No need to be snarky or absolutist about +1-1, it doesn't solve every problem and generates its own. 

 

ChubbyBuckle06 

 

I up vote you on this. I also do not get the hate for platoons in a game all about team work/communication. Get out of the basement and make friends. Platoons do not break the broken MM.

[TocFanKe4]

MaximusBoonie, on 24 October 2019 - 03:49 PM, said:

Platoons in random battles should have never been a thing. They should have had a separate lobby from the start.

 

They did have a separate lobby for 6 and 7 man platoons back in 2014.  It was a disaster.  Timing out all the time, 7v7 or 6v6.  Your 6 player tier 7 platoon would get matched with a 6 player tier 9 platoon.  I'd rather have them kill 4-5 player platoons than put them into that disaster again. 

[scwirpeo]

MaximusBoonie, on 24 October 2019 - 01:49 PM, said:

Platoons in random battles should have never been a thing. They should have had a separate lobby from the start.

 

Oh they did at first. Thing is it was a almost unplayable for bad players. Even -2 our uni platoons wiped the floor with pubs. Even getting wins against RHMs in hellcats was cake. Best thing WG ever did tbh but as far as I'm aware the pubbies absolutely hated it.

TocFanKe4, on 25 October 2019 - 10:19 AM, said:

 

They did have a separate lobby for 6 and 7 man platoons back in 2014.  It was a disaster.  Timing out all the time, 7v7 or 6v6.  Your 6 player tier 7 platoon would get matched with a 6 player tier 9 platoon.  I'd rather have them kill 4-5 player platoons than put them into that disaster again. 

 

You should have run with more purples. The group I used to run with had 8s vs 10s games, didn't end well for the tens very often. Was legit hilarious killing 6-7 E-100s with a buch of tier 8 mediums.

[TocFanKe4]

scwirpeo, on 25 October 2019 - 01:58 PM, said:

 

 

You should have run with more purples. The group I used to run with had 8s vs 10s games, didn't end well for the tens very often. Was legit hilarious killing 6-7 E-100s with a buch of tier 8 mediums.

 

I didn't know any at the time. I was orange/yellow at the time. I didn't start playing with Matthew, Ginger Bair, Leatherbelt, and Radica1Cat until later in the fall/winter after it was over.

[RAGNAR0K N ROLL]

Why shouldn’t large platoons get weighted higher than lone wolves or even two man platoons? They theoretically have a greater chance of influencing the game as 5 coordinated fund are vastly more dangerous than one or two.

[jonesofcolorado]

RAGNAR0K N ROLL, on 26 October 2019 - 05:55 AM, said:

Why shouldn’t large platoons get weighted higher than lone wolves or even two man platoons? They theoretically have a greater chance of influencing the game as 5 coordinated fund are vastly more dangerous than one or two.

 

Your assuming platoons actually play together and coordinate attacks ha ha. We just do it to chat. I don't think a platoon gives much advantage, and no advantage or fun being - 2 every time. 

[SpandexRockstar]

jonesofcolorado, on 26 October 2019 - 10:14 PM, said:

 

Your assuming platoons actually play together and coordinate attacks ha ha. We just do it to chat. I don't think a platoon gives much advantage, and no advantage or fun being - 2 every time. 

 

If your failing to take advantage of being in a platoon, then you are letting your team down because you're being weighted against other platoons who may be using it as intended. If you just chat (nowt wrong with that btw), why bother platooning just use party chat? (assuming PS4 here). With match making, you're already on the back foot if you don't a platoon to your advantage.