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


Forums

  • 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
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
  • General WoWs Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Contests and Competitions
    • Clan Hub
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Player Modifications
  • Off Topic
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Off-Topic
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Discord


Twitter


Website URL


Instagram


YouTube


Twitch


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 34 results

  1. 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.
  2. 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!!
  3. 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
  4. 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??
  5. BloodDragon41

    WOWS SIN IDEAS

    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?
  6. 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
  7. MM, more lovely T10's please
  8. 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?
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. nastydamnanimal

    1v1 DUEL to the DEATH

    Ok WG since there is nothing wrong with random MM Give us 1v1 duels!!! Absolutly No restrictions and points go to DUEL win rate. I challenge all unicoms wanna be unicoms to a duel forthwith.
  15. nastydamnanimal

    MM rework POLL !!

    OK how many of you want the MM to be as follows.... Random MM mechanics = same tier and same average xp average xp can be found in your service record btw. Low xp Premium and Armory ship buyers will also have to climb the xp ladder. There is a bunch of them so they will just have to play against eachother and bot fillers until their average xp improves opening up more full pvp no bot filler random games. this is a poll so dont flame me just vote maybe WG will listen? thanks
  16. 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???
  17. slayingclub1996

    WG, you need to fix MM NOW

    I'm nowhere near the best playing but I would like to think I am competent enough to carry games. Now, with matchmaking so skewed, that is physically impossible.
  18. So you know what they say about local observers and their observations, right? Can't be trusted. The last few days, taking my GC out to complete daily missions, earn coins, all the normal stuff, I sort of suddenly realized "hey... i'm bottom tier". Its been like every match, especially the last two days. I'm sure it's just a miss-perception on my part, but I don't ever recall seeing so many tier seven ships in battle against my GC. Is it possible/probable/likely that matchmaking could have been tweaked in such a manner as to push the GC into more battles where she's the lowest tier? You might ask "Why would they do this?" I would respond, "To gather data about her performance against higher tier ships". I'll also say playing carriers a lot then switching back to other types really messes with your aiming skills. Phew. Just curious - anyone else seeing more "bottom tier matches" in the GC? tiafyc
  19. 8 4939843 7 4501474 10 4362409 6 3840728 5 3695758 9 2807057 4 2534687 3 1871145 The list above shows the number of battles played by tier for the NA server in the quarter ending Sept 29, taken from here. I've organized them from most to least by tier. Note first of all the extremely low number of battles for T9. There are simply not enough T9s to fill out T10 battles the way the current MM is set up, so it must dip into T8. As you can see, T8 has the most battles of any tier, followed by T7. There would probably be a lot more at T5 and T6 if the MM wasn't so awful right now. If T9s are pulled into T10 in great numbers, there are few T9s to give T8s one tier and T7s two tier spreads. Hence, to ensure that T9s are spread evenly across T7-8 battles and that there MM has a fair two tier spread at T7, the surplus of T8s have to be shoved up to T10 to fill the slots that should be going to T9s. The problem of the current MM is that no one plays T9 ships and that WG has organized the game around T10 even though, as evidence shows, most players would rather be at T8... indeed, if we switched to a one tier MM there would be even more T8 games. What's interesting is that people are still enthusiastically willing to be abused at by the MM at T8. Here are the T8 ships ranked by number of battles... 1 Cleveland 47107 661986 2 North Carolina 20705 400507 3 Bismarck 20333 379471 4 Massachusetts 11822 271901 5 Baltimore 17353 260425 6 Tirpitz 20213 246180 7 Benson 10407 200233 8 Akizuki 9786 171531 9 Admiral Hipper 9870 168702 10 Kagero 9317 167142 11 Richelieu 8343 164301 12 Amagi 9423 158947 13 Mogami 8857 152044 14 Alabama 10727 136962 15 Edinburgh 8542 131836 16 Atago 9359 106768 17 Monarch 5193 105370 18 Chapayev 5871 92695 19 Z-23 4647 87826 20 Charles Martel 5410 85963 21 Kidd 8947 79291 22 Lexington 4351 75741 23 Asashio 3375 71387 24 Prinz Eugen 9622 65538 25 HSF Harekaze 5042 63381 26 Hsienyang 2789 54644 27 Mikhail Kutuzov 5715 51030 28 Kiev 3806 50862 29 Ognevoi 4133 47330 30 Loyang 5066 43513 31 ARP Takao 5219 38809 32 Roma 3759 38380 33 Kii 3035 28395 34 Shokaku 2088 25200 35 Gascogne 2320 20164 36 Enterprise 1462 10379 37 Graf Zeppelin 399 8612 38 Cossack 1077 8366 39 Lightning 940 8031 ...note that the majority are tech tree ships. Kii, Roma, and Gascogne are almost non-existent -- examples of how the two tier MM that shoves players up to T10 has killed T8 premium ship purchases (doesn't help that the recent crop of T8 premiums has been pretty meh, soon to be joined by the gimped Wichita). I've stopped playing T8-10 and will not lay out any cash on premiums for those tiers since why pay to be a fodderbote, and I doubt I am the only one to make that latter decision. In a one tier MM I would probably have bought Roma, Gascogne, and Massachusetts... Lightning was new so I imagine she will move rapidly up the charts. But of the top ten and top 15, most are tech tree ships. Only 2 premiums, Mass and Tirp, are in the top ten. At T8 lots of the tech tree ships are really enjoyable boats, and of course many people wanted to try the new Cleveland. Thanks for the food, guys. It's blindingly obvious that we need to switch to a one tier MM. WG's deference to T10 is killing the high tiers, while T5-6 are broken. If we switched to a one-tier MM T9 would hardly change, and more T9s would be available to be pulled into T10 matches. There would be a slightly longer wait at T10 since the hordes of T8 ships would no longer be available. What is really needed to make that happen is for WG to change the way it treats T10 like a spoiled, favorite son even though the numbers show that people would rather be at T8. The best gameplay is at T5-8 and that's what the game should emphasize. In a one tier MM those four tiers would be loads of fun, and everyone would play a greater variety of boats. Top ten T9 ships by number of battles. I guess people must be grinding Buffalo, because there is no other reason to play it, let alone so much. 9 Iowa 13423 283731 9 Fletcher 10385 245719 9 Missouri 11380 230637 9 Buffalo 11495 209645 9 Seattle 7606 192111 9 Friedrich der Grosse 8253 159845 9 Yugumo 6537 146543 9 Alsace 5568 142368 9 Musashi 5806 138180 9 Roon 5707 117235
  20. Currently, tier 7 Battleships have 25mm extremity plating - the same as their tier 6 counterparts. Most Tier 7 Cruisers (CA/CL) have 16mm plating, with a few Heavy Cruisers (CA) carrying 19m or 25mm. I believe that this particular choice leaves too large a gap between tier 7 and 8 ships, which for Battleships increase to 32mm plating and CAs carry 25-27mm plating. I suggest the following change: Tier 7 Battleships -> 27mm extremity plating. This will have no significant effect on HE resistance (150mm IFHE pens 32mm, non-IFHE shatters on 25mm), but protect them from being overmatched by 380mm caliber guns found on many Tier 6-9 Battleships. Now, there is a more incremental increase in protection. Tier 6 is vulnerable to 380mm, Tier 7 is now overmatched by 406mm and Tier 8 reaches the maximum of immunity to all but the Yamato/Musashi and their 460mm guns. This will have little effect on tier 7 vs tier 5 (which all have 356mm guns or smaller) and a slight effect on tier 6 (Bayern and QE/Warspite will be slightly less effective against tier 7 Battleships so might need a very slight buff). Tier 8 and 9 ships will not be significantly affected - the few with 380mm guns are more than capable of overpowering them by other means and are already balanced around this limitation. The goal is to linearize the tier 6-8 power progression in such a way as to maintain the balance in 5-7 and improve the survivability of Tier 7 in the 7-9 range. Tier 7 Cruisers -> 25mm midships and deck plating (for those without it) and 19mm bow/stern plating. Basically, some tier 7 cruisers (especially CLs) are a little too vulnerable to being overmatched by all battleships. This change would give them some protection against 356mm armed battleships common at tiers 5-7. The gap between tier 7 and 8 cruisers is a bit too large. Tier 6 cruisers might also need this change, as they are currently crushed by both tier 7 and tier 8 counterparts. Essentially, increase the survivability of tier 7 ships slightly, and place an intermediate step between the tier 6 and tier 8 protection paradigm. Additional possibilities: Tier 5 BB -> 25mm Tier 5 CA/CL -> 16mm (Cruisers shouldn't overmatch each other) Thoughts?
  21. This was a refreshing change. Tough battle, a pleasure to be in.
  22. I would like to gauge people's opinion regarding the MM spread. Don't vote on what you believe might be better for new players, etc. Vote for the MM that you personally would prefer to have.
  23. monpetitloup

    Tier 7 is the new Tier 8

    played a couple tier 7 games, both bottom tier, is tier 7 the new tier 8?
×