War Thunder

Gaijin, “bring back NATO MM” does not mean “replace with NATO MM”, nor does it affect queue times.

There is no justifiable excuse anymore as to why Britain and America can't fight with Italy and Germany or any other combination thereof.

Gaijin has given the "muh queue times" excuse multiple times, however time and time again it's been shown that the current matchmaker is worse for queue times. Example 1: America was being spammed out in 1.79(?) to the point that Gaijin was forced to add mixed battles to the game to speed up queue times. MIXED battles. Instead of implementing battles where Germany could fight with America and Britain, adding more potential battle combinations to the game, Gaijin chose to add temporary mixed battles, that they since removed. Example 2: Italy was being heavily spammed out in the first weeks of 1.85, so Gaijin relegated to adding IT vs IT and mixed battles again, instead of allowing Germany to split from Italy and fight with America and Britain versus Italy, or even allowing Italy to fight America and Britain. Example 3: America was (and is) being spammed out at 10.0, with barely any Russian players to fight the hoards of F-100Ds. Instead of allowing Germany to fight with Russia and pad out the numbers versus America, they implemented US + RU vs US + RU with Britain being sprinkled in as and when possible. While these choices aren't the worst decisions they could have taken, they very easily skip over a much simpler solution that could have been made that Gaijin are adamant on not taking.

No one can argue historical accuracy, and anyone that does is either making a half-assed attempt at bait or is so utterly blind to everything political about not just the Cold War, but WW2 too. The most common matchup in GFRB is US+UK+JP vs RU+DE+IT+FR, with France and Japan occasionally swapping sides, and sometimes Russia switching sides. This is balantly wrong. I will describe the most ideal historical MM I can think of, and will use "MM webs" describing what nations can fight how with who, for which the key is this. Separate "WW2" and "Cold War" MMs at a specific BR. My recommendation is "WW2" is 6.7 and under, and "Cold War" is 7.0 and above. Is it clean? Of course not, why would it be? Is it very good as a general suggestion and works well enough for the MM? Yes. Then, the MM "blocks" (where two nations cannot fight with each other, like with Germany and the UK or US) and "links" (which are where two nations cannot be on their own or fight against each other like the US and UK or Germany and Italy), as I call them, would be different for WW2 and Cold War MMs. For the WW2 MM, a block should be put between Germany and Britain, Germany and the US, Japan and Britain and Japan and the US. Italy and France can represent the "switch" nations used to pad out the side with less people queueing. France can represent either Free or Vichy France, and Italy can represent either Fascist or the Republic of Italy. Japan and Germany were the major Axis powers, and Britain and the US were the major allied powers. No blocks or links should be placed anywhere else, because Germany and Japan while both allied with each other, like Russia and US/UK, never really fought with each other, but I don't want to rule out this matchup for off-peak times or when a nation (namely Japan) isn't able to fill up a team on their own. The MM web for this is here. For the Cold War, I propose a block between Russia and America, as well as a block between Russia and Japan and Russia and Italy. The "switch" nations for this MM are Germany, representing either East (despite having only West German tanks, I know) or West Germany depending on which side, and France, representing either France or a Middle Eastern nation France sold tech to such as Iraq, Egypt, Qatar, Saudi Arabia etc. Italy can fight with Germany, the UK, the US, France or any combination of those four countries, but cannot fight with Japan because despite being allies, was nowhere near Japan for the Cold War. The same for Japan, who can fight with the UK, the US, France (representing Pacific/Indochinese possessions) but not Italy or Germany for the same reason as aforementioned. The web for the Cold War MM looks like this. While a lot to take in and certainly not perfect, it is neither more complex than current MM matchups, does not implement any new technologies (all is based on current MM blocks, links and switch nations) and does not have any intricacies we haven't already seen (hard BRs separating new systems is already present – look at plane SP costs at 7.7 and below and 8.0 plus). I personally would like to see a limit of four nations per game across both teams for balance reasons, but it would negatively affect queue times so I am not suggesting it besides a mention here.

Read:  Discussion #249: 1.85 Dev Server

Lastly, you can't argue balance either. While perhaps true in 1.71, Germany+US is no longer the powerhouse they once were, mainly just being the US carrying everyone. Being able to see games of Germany, Britain, Japan, Italy and France vs Russia with the US not there at all is something we haven't seen before and could be very interesting. Russia is not as weak at 7.7 and below, and the ability to play with Germany as the US at 7.7 would be greatly appreciated. Balance is more fickle than historicity or queue times, but there just isn't the balance argument that could mean that you can't have Germany fight with the US, especially when, like in the title, it isn't limited to just NATO MM. You can have Germany fight with the USSR, just let them fight with the US too.

So please Gaijin, readd NATO MM. My MM suggestion in the 2nd paragraph may not be added, and is new to some people, and would have some kinks to work out, but I know I'm not alone when I say that you should add NATO MM back alongside the current USSR+DDR/Communist Vichy France/WW2 Axis-vs-Allies MM we have currently. It doesn't affect queue times but instead helps them, it doesn't affect balance because the old MM is still there, and it's ten times more historically accurate than right now.

Original post


© Post "Gaijin, “bring back NATO MM” does not mean “replace with NATO MM”, nor does it affect queue times." for game War Thunder.


Top-10 Best Video Games of 2018 So Far

2018 has been a stellar year for video game fans, and there's still more to come. The list for the Best Games of So Far!

Top-10 Most Anticipated Video Games of 2019

With 2018 bringing such incredible titles to gaming, it's no wonder everyone's already looking forward to 2019's offerings. All the best new games slated for a 2019 release, fans all over the world want to dive into these anticipated games!

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *