Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'matchmaker'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • World of Warships - News and Information
    • News And Announcements
    • Updates and PTS
    • Developer's Corner
    • Community Volunteer Programs
  • Feedback and Support
    • Game Support and Bug Reporting
    • Player Feature and Gameplay Suggestions
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro


  • World of Warships Events

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 16 results

  1. I can only guess that player retention is at an all time high when 9 out of 10 games look like this. It's an amazing thrill to play a game with pre-determined outcomes. The player base must be growing by the day for this type of engagement. somuchfun.cpt
  2. Okay, it's more of a hypothesis at this point but it does offer a possible explanation for the horribly demoralizing losing streaks suffered by everyone. I don't think that I have ever heard anyone brag about being on a winning streak on a Saturday or Sunday night. What if MrWeeGee is tricking us? What if the game is rigged so that both teams in every game lose? Think about it. WOWS can show each team a different version of the battle in real-time as well as a different final score. This is the only possible explanation for the weekends guaranteeing long uninterrupted losing streaks for seemingly the entire player base. Technologically, it is possible. God, I hate playing on the weekends. I really hate this game on weekends. Fix the MM! ---- Why would they do that? Because they can. Doh!
  3. Seventy percent of the player base hate being bottom tier. The other 30 percent are liars! Okay, that was an old joke molded a bit for my topic. However, when I sit down and play several battles only to be bottom tier several consecutive times, the game is no longer fun. Sure I can have a good battle when I'm the lowest tier, and I try to make the best of it when it happens. However, it's a lot more fun to actually be top tier once every few battles. It's worse if you get these bottom-tier streaks when you're also on a losing streak because it makes it almost impossible to carry the team. It would be easy to fix: Simply make about a third of the matches have only one tier difference. Being bottom tier when there is only one tier above you isn't that bad. I concede there are times when I am top tier more than my share. However, it's getting those streaks of bottom tier multiple times in a row that is so maddening.
  4. Pretty much the title. I was wondering today (after some especially rough matches) why this isn't already an option. Something we could toggle, to opt-in or out of. Simple as it sounds, turn it on, and it would allow quicker matchmaking via the current method of (up to) +2/-2 tier matches. Again, having the option ON would be for the current matchmaker. Turning the option OFF would allow for even/same tier matches ONLY, but at the cost of a longer wait time. Nothing else would change. This doesn't even have to be a "Oh let's enable this now" type of thing. I think WG could put it in as a test feature, run it for a month or two, and see what the data shows. If it the data shows that players are interested in the feature, then it stays permanently, if not, then it goes away. I see no direct downside to this feature, as it would basically stop the downtier 'seal clubbing' and put players on an even ground.
  5. If you're a unicum player, this doesn't apply to you, and if you're a casual player, it doesn't apply to you so just hit the back button on your browser. If you're an average, competitively minded player, read on. We all enjoy a challenge and that's why we play WoWs. Playing against better quality ships and often more experienced players is a serious challenge but we're up for it - at least once in a while. When you are uptiered, or even worse - when playing 2 tiers above your own - your impact on the game is often to stay alive long enough to contribute positively. Uptier games are okay, you say? Because you get an equal number of 1 or 2 downtier games just as often? Think again. Over the last six months, I have conducted a thorough audit of games - thousands of games. This is a large enough sample size to show what's really happening with "random" matchmaking. The numbers don't lie. Here are the results. By itself, this long-term trend is somewhat annoying. Unfortunately, it is getting worse. In the month of July with several hundred games recorded the ratio of uptier vs downtier is nearly 2 to 1. So the question arises - who is getting all these juicy 1 and 2 tier down games? Tier 10 players obviously are benefitting since they are always top tier. I play mostly tiers 7&8 these days, and I am not benefitting, and my money is just as green as anyone else's playing this game. The many contributors to this data collection are not, that's for sure. What is certain is that some players are benefitting. I don't expect WG to publicly explain this because it may have to do with "super-premium players" getting preferred matchmaking, but it's food for thought. And there is mounting evidence that this is the case. Numbers don't lie.
  6. What is up with all the unbalanced ship distribution lately? So many games with 4 BB on one team and 3 on the other. It is always a blowout. Is this a new feature of Matchmaker. It sucks whether you are on the winning or losing team. All these missions are screwing up game play too. People are more focused on getting defended ribbons, citadels, fires, or any other number of tasks specified by missions instead of helping the team to win.
  7. I just now realized something that I'm figuratively kicking myself for not noticing sooner. Literally in almost all the blow-out matches that I lose, I'm facing enemy teams that look like the one in this. And in all the blow out matches I win, I'm ON teams that look like the enemy team in this. And what's even worse is divisions obviously aren't properly taken into account in the matchmaker. 2 of the 3 people in the enemy division are rank 1, and the third is rank 4. FIVE rank 1 players on the enemy team. FIVE. Count them. FIVE. Two rank 4s, three rank 8s, and one rank 9. Versus... One rank 2, one rank 4, myself at 11, and then one each at 17 and 24. How is this balanced matchmaking again? How hard would it friggin be to code the matchmaker to take the Rank of a person from the current/previous ranked season into account? I'm not talking this silly "ranked sprint" or even the "1 vs. 1 ranked sprint" thing they had months back either. I'm talking legitimate ranked seasons. Seriously, I'm so sick and tired of losing blow-out matches, and honestly I'm sick of WINNING blow-out matches too. It couldn't possibly be that hard to force a further balancing factor around a person's ranking from ranked battles so that teams are more evenly distributed. Sure, losing close matches sucks really REALLY badly. But at least I've got a chance to do something in said match. Likewise, winning those close matches is really REALLY amazing. I can't POSSIBLY be the only person here who hates constantly getting in losing matches where the loss isn't even close, but literally just one huge blowout where your team crumples like wet newspaper. Edit: Keep in mind, the only reason the enemy Dallas is at the bottom is because I somehow got lucky, RNGesus blessed my shells, Stalin himself reached his cold hand up from the depths of Hell, and guided 3 of my shells into the Dallas' citadel and a few others into the hull while saying, "I like you, go to Gulag!" and I got a rare DevStrike with a battleship.
  8. black_hull4

    Warhammer 40K in Co-Op

    In Co-Op Battles, shouldn't the matchmaker put only Imperium ships on one side & Traitors on the other? That way we can keep things simple. I could easily see teamkilling going up when there are both ships on the same team. Ragnarok vs Ragnarok could make sense, but having Imperium ships fight each other in Co-Op would be pure heresy. Reason I'm not saying this for Random Battles would be because the matchmaker is...well...random.
  9. Ralph_Vargr

    The MM Is Drunk Tonight?

    Not mine- one of my now-dead teammates said this before battle. I was playing Birdie, my new T8 Cleveland. It was a random. The rest of the list had X somethings on them. Not surprising. What was surprising was that I did *not* immediately suicide in the first push. I am a total scrub and fool. I suck, and I own it. This, sometimes, has advantages... Like looking at my horrific stats in randoms. My win rate is about 40%, even with my suicidal ship driving. This leads me to believe that it's not "just me" that is pulling the team down. 2/5 teams are winners, or your odds are 1.5/1 against finding a winning team. In teams full of T9/10's, with players who have lots of fruit salad next to their names, they can't come back from losing a worthless scrub in a Cleveland?!? It's not just a bad match making system. There is a distribution curve of skill in any competitive game. We *all* suck, just in different ways, and at different times. So, when you start a random, you are pulling the lever on a slot machine, in more ways than one.
  10. Sbels

    new MM

    in my last 20 game is have been bottom tier 11 times or 55% of my game mid tier 5 times or 25% of my games and top tier only 4 times or 20% of my games from what the patch notes said this should have stopped please look into this
  11. It is quite normal when you have (most of them) average days, with some 50-50 win and loses (especially solo) and very very very rare days where you win 2/3, but this shot proves the extreme rare "lucky day" with many, but a lot of s*** teams and s*** players, where you give your max to the team, you play nice to win and sum for your stats and everyone, but the players just can't think to play at minimum the ok for winning. It's just proving (among other things) the definitely the MM doesn't work at all, put the good ones on one side and s*** ones on the other side, it really pisses me off... to not say, the VERY common thing of putting 1x (or max 2) t8's vs an almost entire team of t10's, making it totally unplayable, forcing yourself to play defensively because you just can't face them (even if a s*** player with a tough ship, shreds you in a half aimed shot). IMO the MM should make an average calculus of the stats of the players for a real average team, before matching them for battle, not like it seems to be, picking the ship tier, putting on each side, balancing the numbers of classes and f... up the rest, the results may be like my today's top day.
  12. While browsing maplesyrup I came across a very interesting graphic. Keep in mind that all this, while pulled from WoWs API are hosted by a 3rd party site. http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/shipstats/index.html After taking a cursory glance, it seems there is some pretty convincing evidence pointing that popularity, or to be more precise lack of, of tier IX is an important issue leading to a domino effect that ends up shafting tier VIII Matchmaker. As you can see through the percentages of tiers played, in the earlier days, the higher the tier, the lower the percentage of battles played, at least for tiers VIII-X. Depending on the server, within 2017 there is some point when tier X started becoming more popular than tier IX with slowly increasing percentages. On NA for the first quarter of 2019 17,26% of battles played were at tier VIII, 10,55% at tier IX, then 15,60% at tier X. Because there are fewer tier IXs, Matchmaker pulls the tier VIIIs into tier X battles more often, leading to constant complaints. Of course, this is all relatively known, but now there is some actual evidence to back up the claims. To conclude, tier VIII Matchmaker goes through tier IX, and tech tree ships are partly to blame. With the exception of most DDs, there are almost no "keeper" tech tree tier IXs. I am pretty certain there would be even fewer battles played in tier IX if it weren't for the premiums. WG definitely needs to be careful on how to approach the subject, as too many buffs to tier IXs to make them more popular could negatively affect tier VIII even more. Maybe one solution could be to provide tier VIII exclusive modes, similar to how in World of Tanks there is a "Frontline" mode where only tier VIIIs are eligible. Anyway, thought it would be interesting to share this and maybe get some discussion going .
  13. Soylent_Red_Isnt_People

    No ''fun'' to be had anymore?

    Queue a [Random]: - Team may push in small groups to a cap or position of advantage, only to flee when the shooting starts. Slowest and/or least maneuverable ship(s) is (are) left holding the bag of Bravo Sierra. - Massive skill mismatch between team lineups, with at times up to half a dozen mid- to high-50% WR players on one side versus one or none on the other. - Whomever hangs back the longest yet is still able to cause enough damage while losing gets rewarded; playing to the match type usually does not. - Ships firing in open water may remain invisible due to random geometry, regardless of the presence of fog banks worth of smoke. - Possible to be low tier on poorly performing teams a significant number of back to back matches during multiple sessions. - Absurd number of 2x CV matches versus ships with little or no AA potential in low to mid tiers. Queue a [Coop]: - Bring a torpedo equipped ship, or high RoF spammer; otherwise get nothing for even the few minutes a match may last. Queue an [Arms Race] (yeah, right....) - May be a good match, but still subject to all of the vagaries of a normal [Random], only with tier IX & X ships to really thrust home the penalties of a defeat or early sink. Queue a [Scenario of the Week]: - Hope it's a relatively simple example not requiring a well coordinated team already knowing the exact timing and sequence of the scripted events. - Wrong ships brought in or too many DDs equal probable failure or few stars no matter the coordination. - No stars equates to no anything for the time spent playing. Got enough sovereigns to only pay about half the cost of a Warspite using premium RN crates in the store, but forget it WG - maybe if your game was still fun more than once, possibly twice, a week (if that!) I'd consider it. As is, [edited] for what your ''decisions'' and ''vision'' turned the game into.
  14. If we know the quality of the opponents (& teammates) for each random battle, (like average experience) then we can quantify the skill of a player relative to the WoWs community. It would be like Wins Above Replacement in Sabermetrics. WoWs Win% is completely subjective to the mystical MM algorithm & it's (justly or unjustly) suspected influence from marketing considerations. But that should not matter, not all matchups are equal. It would be very useful to know the level of difficulty the MM creates for a player over time. A good place to start might be something like the Q/A tool the dev team uses to quantify MM tweaks.
  15. The MM has shown a sense of humor in this match: So..what is wrong with this picture? What are the tactical challenges? Here's a bit of conversation we had at the start: So...who do you think would win?
  16. anonym_JEJgAhN5LeMR

    Another MM Fail

    This is stuff I expect to see in a PT or Beta test with like 500 people online. Not 6 days before release with 11.5K players on at primetime. EDIT: I thought 12 people on a team was a hardcoded limit