Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'mm'.

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
  • External testing groups
    • Supertest Academy
    • Supertest
    • Clantest

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







Found 46 results

  1. I'm noticing an excessive number of games where I'm on the bottom tier of 3. Ex. I play a tier 5 and wind up with 7's. Yesterday alone, every battle except for 2, where it was 6's instead of 7's I was bottom tier. It is expected that we should find ourselves bottom tier a certain amount. It would seem to be reasonable. However, when the vast majority of battles have this scenario, something is either wrong or it's intended to be that way. First question, is this intentional? If so, why? This is becoming no fun at this point. If the game is no longer fun, why play? [rhetorical] Lastly, if this is not intentional, how about fixing it? This really does suck. ~ thanks
  2. Something I have notice of late. I was playing the new Moltke and notice the Match Maker was taking its sweet time before placing me into a match. I thought that WG had moved the new player algorithm up a level to prevent me with new player matches. However, I noticed this was happening with tier IX ships too. The only thing I can say that has changed is when subs were put into the live server random battles. Was Co-Op battles this slow too? Is the Match Maker having problems in placing ships into battles now? Anyone else noticing this condition of the MM?
  3. Like many solo-players who are tired of the salt and statistically-improbable consistency of utterly lop-sided teams in Randoms, I've taken to Co-Op for the peace and to grind missions in a happier (albeit slower) way. That said, I was just wondering if any other dedicated BB players (in Co-Op) are sick of no-Cap, no-Kill, Low-Damage, Low-Credit/XP matches because they are at best 1 of 3 ships on the board (often the only) with no torps and a speed at or under 30kts. Lately I've had countless matches where literally everything is Capped/Torped/DPM'd by teams 80%+ comprised of CL's/DD's/Subs and a CV or 2... it's not fun. Perhaps WG could balance the Co-Op MM ship-type distribution to ensure at least 3 BB's were on the map (even bots) so a decent earning match is possible for a BB player. Also, this would ensure at least a minimal enemy HP pool to make the match worth it for everyone. Thus far, Randoms continues to have some modicum of ship-type (if not Skill-Level) balance.
  4. I am curious why the Yamato is tier X and has to fight post WW2 ships and many imaginary ships. Is there is posted Wargaming guideline for ship tiers vs historical ship usage? It seems vague!
  5. One of my friends has started playing the game, and I'm using this a a opportunity to have a fresh set of eyes look at this game. Now, I would figure that they'd have issues with low tier carriers, or maybe the spotting mechanics, or other things like that, but no (well not yet anyway) so far the big issue has been the mm. With the low tiers not populated, and no max wait time to get into a random battle, we routinely ran into 2-3 minutes waits and at least once had to just give up after 5 minutes. If it wasn't for me being there to chat, I have real doubts that they would have stuck around long enough for the game to either sell itself on its merits or fail on its faults. They probably would have just left because the game looks dead and they can't get into a match. And worse was how we would see the mm have a number of ships queuing up that could easily be split evenly between two teams, and still we wait. Something has to change. Personally, I think that I would prefer there to be incentives for longtime players to play tier IV and below. Allowing any combat mission to be completed at any tier would be a start. Some may say that having new players get clubbed would chase them off, but I think it would be better than being chased off by boredom. Less optimal would be a adjustment to MM at low tiers to be less restrictive on how it populates games. If there's a even number of ships in each class in a queue, throw them in! Let me know what you think.
  6. I do love when everyone is a single tier, however... if I had to give up 1/2 of them to get 2 tier splits (instead of 3 tier splits,) I'd think that would be even more awesome. Aside from the mid tiers 4-7, and top tier 9-10, I don't think I've seen any with 7-8 and 8-9. I wonder if that's intentional by WG, or if that's just the way that the numbers fall. Either way, as much as I love the all Tier 7 or 9 matches I get occasionally, I think I'd definitely sacrifice them for some 7/8 & 8/9 matches in the mix. Or am I just crazy and those happen already and I'm just not remembering things as they actually are?
  7. Sooo, just came out of this battle. I believe people will notice something is missing . With that fresh example, this brings up the biggest impact the skill rework had, aka the disruption of the class ecosystem. It isn't just Deadeye; it plays its role in attracting BB players as if it will suddenly make them godlike snipers. It's that cruisers aside from a few lighthouse build exceptions got the short end of the stick and it shows while the other surface classes profited quite a bit. Why bother playing a CA/CL? To be target practice, or to stick to a specific playstyle that's just farming damage without any other impact? What's the point to punish myself in a cruiser when I can mimick a CL in a Kleber with 16.3km range, that goes 55 kts and has no citadel? Damage isn't everything, and in the case of cruisers their consumables can have real, meaningful impact on a battle without even firing a shot. Without them around there are no real hard counters to things like vision control of the DDs, nor DPM that can melt a fragile class. And when there are loads of BBs and almost no cruisers around DD populations surge. At that point the greatest enemy of a DD becomes an enemy DD, something which relies heavily on personal skill, something which the average DD player is lacking. Meanwhile aside from that original announcement there is still no info on the specifics of skill tweaks. But hey, at least I got my pound of flesh from the enemy BBs/DDs so everything is fine, there's absolutely no need for changes nor is the situation slowly turning toxic.
  8. SeaGladius

    Just one of those games

    It seems that people love to create posts about battles where they are the #1 player on their team, get huge amounts of damage and XP, but still lose the game because of all their potato teammates. If you read the forum, it would seem like there’s a never ending stream of these, where MM just decided that you’re going to get screwed, no matter how good you are. This is not one of those... I played my 4th game in my Benson this morning (all losses up to this point). Started off the game by narrowly escaping detection by the enemy CV. I then found a red Amagi and Atlanta. Threw some torps at them, which were going to miss until the Atlanta turned broadside in front of them and ate two. Threw another rack toward the Atlanta, that he just barely managed to not dodge. At this point, I noticed that my team had already killed 5 red ships. I move up on the Amagi, who was being joined by a New Mexico. They’re crossing in front of me, and I remember Flamu mentioning “dual-purpose” torps, so I drop two more racks in their paths. The New Mexico blunders into 4 torps, dying immediately, and the Amagi eats 3, dying soon after. I ended up second on the team on XP, missing the top spot by just 30 XP points, through frankly, an amazing string of luck more than skill. And I’m man enough to admit it. This side of the random MM happens too. People just don’t talk about it. Anyway, I hope this story made you laugh a little - we need to do more of that around here - and Happy (early) Thanksgiving!
  9. 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!
  10. Double CV games are completely unbalanced...When will this STOP?!? There is no counter when both CVs focus 1 ship and you have clueless teammate CVs that will not provide fighter support. A supposed AA strong ship cannot punish the planes when the enemy CV player can keep rotating squadron types and burn and flood the focused ship in a couple minutes. This is with other ships providing overlapping AA support. Any trash player that learns the basic game play mechanics can suffer no consequences by throwing their planes away. I'm so sick of this like many other players are. So tell us...when will it stop???
  11. BloodDragon41


    Estimados: No se si ha algunos les pasa lo mismo, pero no sienten que Wargaming en torno a WOWS, se ha quedado sin ideas?, los barcos nuevos están bien hasta cierto punto pero no mejoran en nada la experiencia de juego, sabemos que si esto sigue así, llegaremos a una etapa en que salgan los barcos modernos en el juego, pero de que sirve si la mecánica del juego sigue siendo la misma? estoica, estática, cansadora y aburrida. Poner nuevos modos de juegos como el royal battle, el deathmatch, el respawn mode (como en blitz), modos nocturnos, o protección de objetivos (un barco al azar en el juego no debe morir) no seria mas interesante? no haría mas placentera la experiencia del jugador? pues siendo sinceros, los mismos eventos el mismo mm malo y el mismo ranked una y otra vez aburre. ¿y ustedes que opinan?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. So the queue for this ranked sprint looks like this: And every single battle I have had so far has been reasonably balanced between the classes: I'm just wondering why the MM isn't letting us do 8-on-8 BB battles. My secondary-specced Bismarck is itching to go a-brawlin!!
  15. 100 bbs, 1 cv, and yet i get in a cv match each time i q up. if this screen is going to exist either it should represent some semblance of reality or just get rid of it, but stop lying. this is the match i got
  16. 82para

    Bad teams

    The make up of the teams lately has been horrible. Battles are completely one sided in Random battles. One team will have a skilled CV player the other a noob, same goes with DD players. wth wargaming??? How about some type of skill MM??
  17. While I personally do not mind the change in Co Op Match Making from 8v8 to 9v9; I definitely mind the fact that the battles now end far too quickly as compared to their former average duration in the 8v8 format. Here is the exact reason for the problem: In the 8v8 format both teams started with 300 points. In the 9v9 format, both teams STILL start with 300 points. In the 9v9 format there is a more dense dispersion of each team's ships across the map which means that it is far more difficult for either team to capture zones because the threat and actuality of capture resets is far greater. Human players can compensate for this and still successfully capture zones. The capture of zones is critical to the earning of points to compensate for ship losses during battle. As you are well aware, there are three ways to achieve victory: 1. Destroy all enemy ships. 2. Reach 1000 points through the successful capture and uncontested control of zones. 3 Drive the opposing team's points negative through the continued destruction of their ships. NUMBER THREE IS THE PROBLEM WITH THE NEW 9V9 FORMAT!!! The team rosters were increased by 12.5%, but the starting points were never adjusted at all! Because this starting value has not been adjusted for the 9v9 format, far too many battles are finished in under 5 minutes and that makes for very frustrated players. especially when Matchmaker places them all by their lonesome on the map and very few bots head in their direction and their ship is too slow to get to the bots nearer the rest of their allies. I HAVE HAD BATTLES IN THE 9V9 FORMAT (MOUNTAIN RIDGE IN PARTICULAR) WHERE I SPAWNED NORTH OF A AND ALL THE BOTS WENT B & C AND I WAS NEVER WAS ABLE TO GET IN MAIN BATTERY RANGE AND FIRE A SINGLE SALVO BEFORE THE REST OF MY TEAM DROVE THE POINTS NEGATIVE OR ON OTHER OCCURRENCES NEVER BE ABLE TO CAPTURE A BEFORE THE BATTLE ENDED!!! Under the 8v8 format; 300 starting points accounts for roughly 60 points for each of the ships comprising roughly 2/3 of the team in the 8v8 format or 5 ships of 8 appraised at 60 points each ( 5 x 60 = 300 ) To compensate for the larger teams; roughly 2/3 of the team in the 9v9 format should also be valued at approximately 60 points each to obtain a more functional starting point value for battles - or... Since the math is extremely simplified... 2/3 of 9 is 6... and the adjusted starting points should be very close to this! ( 6 X 60 ) or 360 starting points. A 360 point starting total for each team is about as simple a place for WG to start with without much difficulty and WG won't even acknowledge that it's even worth a try to alleviate the current situation. At least 360 would be a huge step in the right direction; maybe 380, or 400, or 420 might work better than 360 because 300 is undeniably too low a starting number! The new "Independent zone" EPICENTER starts at 450pts per team. Why? Why was the need felt to raise the 300 point start to 450 there, but no thought given to raise any other starting values to 450? 300 is too low a starting point value for the new 9v9 Co Op format. That fact is irrefutable! >>>>> The following is not so much of a continuation of the problems with the 9v9 format as it is a VERY PROMINENT SUGGESTION as to how to make Co Op battles truly a cooperative: Change the format from a max queue of 30 seconds where unfilled slots will be filled with bots, to the following: 1.SIX human players needed in queue regardless of ship type to initiate a server side battle loading sequence. 2. No max queue time 3. The format will be 6v10 where it will always be 6 real players verses 10 bots consisting of 1 each of every players ship selected for battle regardless of types and numbers, PLUS 1 random CV (even if it means the bot team has 2 CV), 1 random BB, 1 random Cruiser, and 1 random DD 4. Random Map 5. Random Battle Mode Since this format will always place the all human team against 66% greater enemy numbers; it will force the ally team to truly cooperate to overcome the enemy forces. This will also force players to think twice about simply rushing in and being focus fired by the greater enemy numbers and possibly triggering a cascade of ship losses leading to a Co Op loss if they do rush in. This will also remove the problem of ally bots simply doing the unwanted suicide ram kill because there will be no bots on the ally team with this format. This will also significantly reduce human players from suicide ram killing because that is the worst thing you can do when your team has the lesser ship count. This will also increase the hit point pool for farming damage from which is the only reason I can think of as to why WG raised the Co Op team rosters to 9v9 to begin with, because considering the total lack of follow through in ensuring that everything balanced out properly after switching to the 9v9 format; a greater hp pool for farming damage from is the only thing that makes any possible sense as being the reason for the change. This will also raise the difficulty level of Co Op without any adjustment to the bot AI and totally get rid of the current 9v9 fiasco's problem of ending so fast and being so boring. PLEA TO WARGAMING! Please do something FOR your player base for once to actually make the game much more interesting. Thank you! PLEA TO YOU! This suggestion needs your support to garner the attention from the developers. Thank you!
  18. with the recent update and the future sub update something needs to change for BBs were expected to push and tank but with the current meta were focused way to much we cant react fast enough from the new torps if we dont know the DD is there. so either a limit to DDs or even radar for high tier BBs would be a big help for us if you have nothing constructive to say dont say anything
  19. MM, more lovely T10's please
  20. monpetitloup

    Riddle me this

    so how can this player who has so few games and a 40percent win rate show a rank 1 in the latest season? clearly one of the bots they've been implementing in randoms...? what's your justification?
  21. Observe this example. what happened here, I carry, but once dead those left alive having spent all match hiding behind A come out to die. then check stats after 36 percent win rate over 61 games. fps mm is clearly screwing someone, cause these guys are actively playing for the other team.
  22. Someone in WoT sent a support ticket to WG asking about having skill-based / balanced MM. This is the reply: http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/618254-random-mm-is-broken/page__pid__12369051#entry12369051 You can easily infer from this that, at least for Tanks (and maybe Ships), WG is doing a kind of reverse skill-based MM as well; in other words they are occasionally rigging games to be blowouts (instead of letting it happen only by chance), because they consider this to be more fun. Long streaks of losses or victories can happen because of this. The same system is probably also in this game... I am not 100% sure as I don't use mods that track people's winrates so I could be wrong, but this is a complaint that pops up from time to time on the forums - about the MM being "rigged" or malfunctioning somehow. Well, looks like it's not "rigged" or a bug, it's a gameplay feature.
  23. monpetitloup

    Best game ever!

    i would like to take this moment to thank my colleagues in the cvs for waiting max time in q for a match. i did the rest, despite concerted efforts by my teammates to torp me.
  24. Just got put into a game as a t6 cv into a t8 game. With capt skills I had a dd (kagero) that no matter what, by the time the planes spotted it I was too close to attack with rockets bombs or torps. Even dropping my squads speed to it's slowest I had to be humping him to see him. Quite literally impossible to strike back other than starting the attack run completely blind and hoping when it was set he was in view and in the right spot. So, I was gone when they decided to completely rat (censored) CV's but can someone tell me why bending them over wasn't good enough, that they also had to only make them available every other teir which just compounds the teir gap in MM?
  25. nastydamnanimal

    Balanced MM "tree" SPOTTED!!

    MM mechanic tree algorithm working like this.. Use 2 mechanics.... TREE MAIN BRANCH SEARCH : players average experience earned per battle "E/B" is equal or almost equal +/- something DATA COMPILING..... "E/B" player pool created successfully.... 1st search criteria met.... 2nd branch ready. 2nd BRANCH SEARCH : player pool tier/ship type sorting please wait...... 24 clients ready now ......50 clients sent to express queue.. ANCHOR......players play and players are happy.... WG wins game of the year for many years to come. The above is a type of programming logic but for those that are ACTUALLY confused here it is in layman's terms: E/B has to be the main search criteria , this creates a pool of players that have very similar E/B then and only then do you sort the tier and ship types from that pool. Anchor! This would also solve complaints of WG catering to passives vrs players that like to fight. It would free them up to cater away any way they please, cause with this algorithm, passives will play against passives and vise-versa. This would eliminate "Fake" unicorns diving up against noobs and vise-versa Break the shackles WG you can do it.