Jump to content


Matchmaker battle tiers.

Battle tiers matchmaker pol

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

Poll: Matchmaker tier spread. (95 members have cast votes)

What matchmaker is better in your opinion?

  1. +1,-1 (50 votes [52.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 52.63%

  2. +2,-2 (45 votes [47.37%])

    Percentage of vote: 47.37%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

barbaroja_Ar #21 Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:18 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 338
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

My typical tier 5 (New York) battle is against tier 7 (Belfast / Fiji / Atlanta) so go figure....

 

I´m convinced there must be special cases:

 

Tier 1/2 seeing only tier 1/2

Tier 3 seeing tier 3/4

Teir 4 seeing tier 4/5

Tier 5 seeing tier 4/6

Tier 6 seeing tier tier 5/8

All above as today



SocksRevenge #22 Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:21 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 35
  • Member since:
    10-19-2016

View PostMrEndeavour, on 20 March 2017 - 11:32 AM, said:

If player counts weren't so low then +1/-1 would probably be introduced. 

 

Good point!


awildseaking #23 Posted 20 March 2017 - 05:23 PM

    Ensign

  • Members

  • 985
  • Member since:
    08-05-2015

If it were WoT I would say +/-1, but there are no [edited]mechanics in WoWS that relegate any one ship to support roles. It won't be as easy, but if I'm good enough in a Konig and have to fight a Nagato, I can do it exactly like I would if I were also in a Nagato. The only time I felt +/-2 was inadequate was the old T3-T5 and T4-T6 system. I love my T5/T6 premiums (and tech tree ships) and play them well despite seeing T7 frequently. Even the Emerald was nowhere near as bad as people made it sound. I despised T3 in the old system because you had awful ships like the Scal and Kawachi that can simply be outranged by New York and Kongou. Plus they can outspeed you, have significantly better dispersion, etc. T4/T6 wasn't as bad, but it was still pretty obnoxious fighting CA/CL like the Budyonny that outrange you by a large margin in your slow, inaccurate BB. Low tier BB play used to put you in a situation where you didn't have enough range to fight back and weren't fast enough to close the distance, so higher tier ships kited you and burned you to the ground. Maybe they could have just buffed these T3/T4 ships, but +2/-1 for T5/T6 really made lower tier more playable. I admit I was much better when I had to play new lines like VMF DD and KM BB, but it's not like I would have done better in the old system.

 

I hate games like WoT where MM makes you useless regardless of skill. The best part about WoWS is that I know I can always contribute significantly to my team no matter what. It is a very fair and equitable game, which is why I stick around and keep improving. WoT just infuriates me.



Grampy2015 #24 Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:06 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 81
  • Member since:
    12-23-2015

Never fun being the lower tier in a +2 battle.  Almost makes me want to delete the game and start over.  I will vote -1 or +1 all day long but I don't think developers will listen.  They don't think like we do nor do they want to have fun.  There are more average players out there (me sometimes) and the more the average player is listened to, more players will join since their friends will tell them the game is fun.  

 

In my opinion, if MM was changed to +/- 1 battles, then more players would come play, the newer ones would stop playing, and WoW would make more money with those that stay and wanna play.  I don't play higher tiers cause it seems that I get placed in as the lowest tier so many times, have to hide or play conservative and not do much to help the team, but when in a more even battle, I seem to be able to do a little more, have more fun, and even help my team mates a little more.

 

1 +/- battles all the way.  What say you WG....try it, I know we will like it.



Sock5 #25 Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:21 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 442
  • Member since:
    11-11-2012
In Tanks and in Ships, you can still contribute as bottom tier.

The only thing I'd regulate as ±1 would be CVs.

In Port: Hosho, Langley, Bogue, La Galissonniere, New Mexico, Gnevny, Fiji, Yorck, Edinburgh
Premium Ships: ARP Hiei, Warspite, ARP Ashigara, ARP Nachi, Saipan, Alabama, Tirpitz
Currently Working Towards: Neptune

 


BossmanSlim #26 Posted 20 March 2017 - 07:38 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,284
  • Member since:
    03-27-2015

I voted +/- 1 as I think that is the most competitive when top or bottom tier.  However, I think the system should be variable based on server load.  If the +/- 1 tier cannot place players in a full game consistently within a minute, then it should open up to +/- 2 tiers for all tiers except tier 1.  Tier 1 should always be its own match maker.

 

The issues I have with +/- 2 tiers is that tier 5, 6, 7 and 8 suck when facing tier 7, 8, 9 and 10.  You can compete, but it takes a lot of concentration to get it done and that gets really old really quick when doing it game after game.


"wont pay crapanymore to wg.lot of orange is bad for business.stop giving win to the one you favor.potato need win to.otherwise no more potato in game" - fellow forum poster


drakoolia #27 Posted 20 March 2017 - 08:57 PM

    Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 93
  • Member since:
    07-12-2013

The greater the differences in tier, the more fun, the uptierd ships get to make more money because they are trying to take out higher tier ships, and just creates an even greater variety of gameplay. If I want ranked play, I'll play ranked. Lets keep tiers as variable as possible...make world of warships great again.

 

 



surratus #28 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:28 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 305
  • Member since:
    06-19-2016

View PostBossmanSlim, on 20 March 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

I voted +/- 1 as I think that is the most competitive when top or bottom tier.  However, I think the system should be variable based on server load.  If the +/- 1 tier cannot place players in a full game consistently within a minute, then it should open up to +/- 2 tiers for all tiers except tier 1.  Tier 1 should always be its own match maker.

 

The issues I have with +/- 2 tiers is that tier 5, 6, 7 and 8 suck when facing tier 7, 8, 9 and 10.  You can compete, but it takes a lot of concentration to get it done and that gets really old really quick when doing it game after game.

 

What about selecting more than one ship in port?  "Say what?"

 

Imagine I want to play my tier 5 Omaha, first choice. But there are nothing but tier 7's available? (Truncated to T7 only for brevity.)  Well, I could wait for five minutes - which clearly no one wants to do.  Or I could have clicked twice (one, two) - then select "Battle".  My second ship I picked was a tier 6 Nurnberg.  30secs. I load in and discover I'm playing my Nurnberg (from the team display) in a +/-1 match.  I guess there were too few T4-T6 at that time. Oh well, I'll try the Omaha later.

 

Ever have a match where there are 1 CV, 9 BB's, and 2 CA's per side?  Would some other more balanced arrangement make for a better match?  WG is spending too much time on trying to balance Rock, Paper, Scissors.  So?  Same solution - click "one, two, three" for first, second, and third choice.

 

I can readily agree there are all sorts of issues with this.  But thing is - it's an optional choice any player can use to speed up loading into matches that are "near tiered" and don't form ludicrous fleets.  It's a suggestion...



Battleship_Constitution #29 Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:39 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 441
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View Postmeat2, on 20 March 2017 - 03:45 PM, said:

If anyone wishes to elaborate their stance or points feel free to do so.

 

Tanks- 3-5 times more player base per day durring the times of 5PM to midnight EST. Sometime s even more. Tanks WAS +5-2 for some classes. Now it is +3-2 for light scouts classes and +1+2-2 for most other classes and premium tanks. With near 50K people or more on a night split over to U.S servers and x3 that number on EU or Asia the MM has not changed nor will it change. mind you tanks been around for 6+ years

 

Ships simply does not have the player base to support +1-1 MM and even if it did. Unlike tanks HE still can do damage to ships +2 above it and catch it on fire.


Edited by Battleship_Constitution, 20 March 2017 - 09:40 PM.


_Fantomex_ #30 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:00 PM

    Master Chief Petty Officer

  • Members

  • 350
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSlimeball91, on 20 March 2017 - 11:50 AM, said:

As others have said you could possibly see +/-1 at peak hours and fewer ships per match at off peak times, this could help keep queue times low.  I'd also be okay with a +/-2 at off peak hours. 

First off, I voted for +2/-2. Second, I'm not a fan of the "+/- 1 at peak times, +/- 2 at off times", as anyone not living in the timezone that the peak hours are determined off of potential gets screwed over. "Peak time" would need to be a 6+ hour period covering a three or four hour time difference (keep in mind the SA players on the NA server).

 

+/- 1 should exist for CV's though, as a bottom tier CV really struggles against higher tier AA, and a top-tier CV craps on pretty much any ship that is bottom tier.


Becoming Slightly Less of a Potato Every Day (Usually)

Current Goal: All-Time 1,300 WTR and 56% WR

-FOG- Recruitment Officer

 


Phoenix_jz #31 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:23 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Testers

  • 4,447
  • Member since:
    05-06-2013
Funny, I seem to have a similar sentiment to a lot of people. +2/-2 is fine, but CVs should only ever see +1/-1

 

My "Directory of Threads" <-- Various threads I've done you might find interesting, feel free to check it out!

​Most recent addition: USN Cruiser Split


TalonV #32 Posted 20 March 2017 - 10:24 PM

    Admiral of the Navy

  • Alpha Tester
  • Beta Testers

  • 27,504
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

+2/-2 Just because it allows for more HP to farm on each side if you're bottom tier. Though I do like the idea of evening out the tiers. 4 tier 8s, 4 tier 7s 4 tier 6s, etc etc.

 

Even it out a bit.


 

​This isn't dueling pistols at dawn. This is war. In war you

never want to fight fair. You want to sneak up behind

the enemy, and bash him over the head.


TreeBurst82 #33 Posted 21 March 2017 - 04:00 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 115
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

I have no issue with +/- 2.  I played my Kawachi when it was a three tier spread - that [edited]sucked.  9.8km range in t6, GG.

 

Sure, seeing a t7 match in any t5 is a bit disheartening but I consider it a 'challenge accepted' moment.  I like the variety of ships I see and have no issue with the current spread.


dark.png

Excield #34 Posted 21 March 2017 - 05:03 AM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,962
  • Member since:
    12-29-2015

View PostPope_Shizzle, on 20 March 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

+-2 is better for me.  It means more diversity in matches.  I think +-2 should be at every single tier except tier 1.  Tier 2 and 3 will get shafted with limited opportunities for downtiering, but those tiers progress really quickly anyway.  For new players, a system could be implemented that says if you have less than 500 battles, you will only face players who have less than 500 battles, negating some of the experience discrepencies and allowing them to learn the game without being taken advantage of by experienced players clubbing at low tiers.  Tier 2 and 3 ships would need to be buffed to make them more comfortable being at the bottom of the barrel more often.  What would also be nice is a mechanism that says you will never be bottom tier twice in a row.

 

I would accept slower queue times for a better matchmaker.

 

Agreed! Nice ideas. WG should get on stuff like this.

 

So yes, keep 2+/2-, but also think of the newer players. Something like a battle number bracket, and buffed up Tiers 2/3 sounds nice.


Edited by Excield, 21 March 2017 - 05:04 AM.


Nordmanni #35 Posted 24 March 2017 - 03:40 AM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 15
  • Member since:
    10-14-2016
Would be balanced if the MM +/-2 had some spread, so that there's always approx. a third of each tier involved.  Being solo tier VI against a fleet of tier VIII is just silly, and no fun.  That's what would be good to have fixed.


Tembin #36 Posted 24 March 2017 - 05:09 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Members

  • 449
  • Member since:
    10-11-2015

There are some ships that are extremely poor at being up tiered.  I've noticed it most in the German CAs, but that might just be an indication that I don't really know how to play them effectively.

 

View PostRivertheRoyal, on 20 March 2017 - 12:11 PM, said:

 

Now imagine your performance in a +/-1 match, where things are more 'equal'. Player skill would become even more OP.  

This could actually be....fun. :trollface:

 

A good player will still carry in bottom tier ships in +/- 2 matchmaking.  I don't really care all that much, and I think +/-2 is good because it makes for a wider variety of ships in the match.  It keeps the games more varied, which I think is a good thing for keeping the game interesting.

Francois424 #37 Posted 24 March 2017 - 05:11 AM

    Commander

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 3,187
  • Member since:
    09-04-2012

When there was no exceptions, I preferred -2/+2... but since WG has no intention of reverting the 'exception' currently in place, my vote goes to -1/+1.

I care too much about tiers 5 and 6 to keep -2/+2, sorry.


Edited by Francois424, 24 March 2017 - 05:11 AM.


 


Hiroe #38 Posted 24 March 2017 - 05:18 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,754
  • Member since:
    09-16-2013

View Postpmgaudio, on 20 March 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

I am trying to actually figure out of this was 100% sarcasm, LOL.... 

 

I am trying to figure out if there was any thought put into your post at all. LOL.

Edited by Hiroe, 24 March 2017 - 05:19 AM.

<a href='http://i.imgur.com/yHCutrX.png' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://i.imgur.com/yHCutrX.png</a>

 

"A person hears only what he understands." - Goethe


Hiroe #39 Posted 24 March 2017 - 05:23 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Members

  • 1,754
  • Member since:
    09-16-2013
I'd prefer +/-1, but I don't feel too strongly about it. I like +/-1 more because it means less worrying about being simply outclassed.

<a href='http://i.imgur.com/yHCutrX.png' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://i.imgur.com/yHCutrX.png</a>

 

"A person hears only what he understands." - Goethe


issm #40 Posted 24 March 2017 - 05:42 AM

    Vice Admiral

  • Members

  • 9,844
  • Member since:
    06-26-2015

The only ships that really have trouble with +/- 2 are mid tier cruisers and battleships, and carriers.

 

Anything else can hold it's own.


Got a problem with the game? Don't pay WG, and tell them why.

Mandatory Introductory Reading to the Internet





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users