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
    • Update Notes
    • Public Test
    • Surveys
  • General WoWS Discussion
    • General Game Discussion
    • Team Play
    • Support
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Historical Discussions and Studies
    • Player Modifications
  • Support
  • International Forums
    • Foro en Español
    • Fórum Brasileiro
  • Contest Entries
  • Contest Entries
  • New Captains
  • Guías y Estrategias
  • Árboles Tecnológicos
  • Fan Art and Community Creations
  • Community Created Events and Contests
  • Support


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 184 results

  1. 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?
  2. It is time to call it a day

    When you have to carry 2x in a row: I already used up my luck for this weekend, so I'm deciding to call it quits for the rest of the weekend.
  3. 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
  4. I've seen crap MM dumps, but this is a complete joke. Worst I have seen since I joined in 2015.
  5. Really enjoy the game overall...the graphics and realism that WG has created are impressive. I am a 44.5% winner and three month player so I guess that makes me a Potato as I learn the various ship types and map positions, etc.. I got above 45% and was feeling like I was progressing.....and then the last week. Even as my damage has started to rise and I feel like I understand the strengths of the Kagero and the Bismarck in particular, I have been in battle after battle lately where my side doesn't just lose...we get crushed. And over the last couple of days, it has gotten worse. Tried dropping down to level 3 and 4 ships, figuring maybe I wasn't ready for tier 8 though my Kagero has a 60% win rate on less than 50 battles...but same thing. Just did a game where at tier 3, we had SIX destroyers per side. Three or four were premium ships...not sure about the Russian one...on red team...none on our side. Within five minutes....all six of ours were sunk....before 10 minutes....they had 2 of the three caps...third was still open...WG mercifully just stopped the match and declared a winner. Same thing on the previous match.......three of us left..me on my British BB ...within 10 minutes in standard...WG stops the match though the cap had not yet been taken....defeat. Last night....what is the Stalingrad....what is the Worcester.....on the red team......in both cases....5 min into the match.....we are down to four ships...and one of the red team has seven kills.... then i read on the forums today that those are "test" ships allowed into random matches......I just happened to be selected as an opponent in both cases. As a three month player...it doesn't seem fair.....the MM is picking winners based on some criteria that is giving one side a HUGE advantage. I have jokingly called it the halo effect....WG sends angels to help the red team and my spot on hits do no damage ..or they suddenly, in clear open water disappear from view..not an island close by or a smoke screen in the vicinity. People on the forums are constantly dissing radar..but on my Kagero, I understand it and try to account for it in my game play. I can't do that for targets that just disappear from view for no apparent reason. I read that the the win rate doesn't matter...and I have tried hard not to focus on it and counseled others to not worry about it....just keep gettin better...your day will come. But on these forums..people are constantly either boasting about theirs or trashing 45%'ers/potatoes. I have just kept playing.....but now with all these lopsided matches with me on the crushed team.....not sure it is worth the time and effort. I don't mind losing...I see the game as a challenge and fun and when I lose, I try to figure out what I could have done better or didn't do right. But if the MM puts the "dot" on you and makes full teams of "potatoes" and loads the other side with premium and "test" ships.....what's the use? It is no longer a challenge..you are just fodder for an analytic that favors others... and it damn sure isn't fun. Anyway.....had to vent.....and gonna go find somethin else to do..
  6. All-Cruiser-Match

    Thank you MM!
  7. Well lets see a 72 percent winrate enemy saipan vs a 49 percent winrate needs to practice in coop for about 10 years ranger. enemy didn't need anyother ships other then the Colorado he was dived with . This CRAP is utter [edited].
  8. Match making... sounds like a gambling term, doesn't it... I suppose some of you think more like "match fixing" rather than "match making". I wanted to title it "match fixing" but that's so... derogatory. So tier/type/class/nation is the current flavors, yes? From high to low, in that order? Even if that's not the proper order I was thinking - dangerous i know - of some additional parameters. Lots of folks want to use win rate to balance it out... but as ranked shows us, you can get a good win rate by just "going along" with the team, not getting sunk. Maybe that's worth considering? I was thinking more of a lower level parameter... like average damage in the tier/type/class/nation (TTCN) the player is attempting to engage in battle. Meaning after the TTCN is applied, one last thing to check might be performance against the TTCN server average in oh, damage to the reds? This would be applied to scatter the players between the two teams about as evenly as possible. IOW, you would do the TTCN selection first with the last thing being a swap between the two teams in an attempt to balance the average damage. The purpose would be trying to reduce the number of steam rolls. Given, they will always happen, but would this balance the match even more, tweaking it? ps: The server average damage for TTCN could be applied to every ship disregarding player stats if you wanted; but it might work better if that value was only used when the player had oh, less then ten matches in the TTCN ship? tiafyc

    I'm having a bad ranked season and the attached screenshot of the team matchmaking is one of the major reasons why. My understanding is that a player's rank determines his/her skill, so why the heck would matchmaking put five rank 10 players together vs a team with only one rank 10? The other team is ridiculously stacked so no wonder we got steamrolled. This isn't the first time, as I'm mostly on the team that gets steamrolled with the occasional lucky placement onto a team that does the steamrolling. I'd rather just have a nicely balanced and fun match of two teams of equal skill. Why can't MM evenly distribute rank levels between teams???
  10. Supposedly, the ranked mode matchmaker takes into account player skill, but I still experienced this nightmare game against 4 MIA's coordinating on TeamSpeak plus Notser. (Crov... is also MIA I'm told) I'm very flattered that WG thinks I'm good enough to counterbalance five unicums on the other team, but OMGRLY? When I sent the screenshot to support, saying that the matchmaking clearly did not balance player skill, here was their (form) response: Wow. Thanks for not even reading the ticket I sent, which specifically questioned player skill balance in Ranked. I already knew you didn't care. Does anyone else get the impression that Ranked has better player skill balance than Randoms? Seems utterly broken to me. The MM could have easily mixed players better in the above example.
  11. e 13 DDs On Epicenter. Stupid beyond belief. The MM couldn't have waited a bit longer? A total waste of time. And when, WG, can we expect this godawful and widely hated map to be retired?
  12. Kicked off a new ranked season with a CV cancer game. Kicker, CV on the allied side is a 30% win rater. "Ohwellllll". Immediately followed by 4 BBs ignoring broad siding cruisers at 12 kms, FOR THE ENTIRE 15 MIN OF THE GAME. 13/10 matches...
  13. Clearly the average quality of the player base has gone downhill, steam, vacation, weekend, whatever... Clearly not my fault because reasons.
  14. The amount of DDs per match is just unreal.
  15. Ok folks. Since January I've collected 336 games and recorded their duration, the number of DDs, the number of divisions, the number of high ranked players, and the number of radar botes (all defined below), among other things. I also collected the tiers present, CVs present, and W/L outcome. I did not collect clan data because we were in the midst of clan wars so it fluctuated. I stopped collecting because WG has made significant changes to the MM and implemented another round of Ranked battles. I plan to collect another 500 games worth of such data in the next few months, and hope others will as well. I collected the divisions, ranked, DD numbers, and radar because imbalances in those items are popularly considered, at least based on forum complaints, to unbalance the game. I felt that was true but wanted to see with numbers whether it was. Lets look at the easy and predictable stuff first. First, ranks. At the end of each match I collected the number of players who had reached Ranked 1-5. In 212 games one team had more such players than the other. The team with at least one more such player won 137 (64.6%). Highly Ranked players tend to be better than average, so this outcome should not be unexpected. Second, divisions. I collected 175 in which one team had at least one more division. That team won 107 (61.1%). Yes, divisioning pays off. Third, DDs. Many people, including myself, have strongly contended that DD imbalances seriously affect game outcomes. I collected 157 games in which one side had an extra DD. That team won 86 (54.7%). I expected a much higher number, and was honestly surprised that it was so low. Finally, radar. For this dataset I treated all instances of Atlanta, Belfast, Indianapolis, Black (no occurrences), and Missouri as having radar. Pan-Asian DDs and UK CLs were not treated as radar botes even though sometimes I found out during the game that they carried radar. Russian and US T8-10 cruisers were always treated as radar botes. For example, if a Donksoi or Des Moines appeared, it was counted as having radar. Based on that definition, I collected 196 games in which one side had at least one extra radar ship. That side won 118 (60.0%). That was a much higher figure than I expected, and shows just how powerful radar is. Fundamentally, this dataset shows that an extra radar ship is as good as an extra division and better than an extra DD. I expect this power comes from two effects of radar: 1) The concrete effects of DDs get killed and damaged and forced out of caps early. 2) The subtler effect of DDs adjusting their playstyle, and the new playstyle being less aggressive across the DD population as a whole. (Don't worry -- I know YOU never adjust your playstyle and radar has no effect on YOU. Indeed your mere appearance in the game causes all red radar ships within 30 kms to detonate. I concede your awesomeness, but I am talking about the population of DD players as whole.) WG knows which ships carry what consummable, because one of the devs assured us in a recent talk that the sonar/radar, taken together, are balanced. What my dataset shows is just the opposite: when WG introduced radar but didn't adjust the MM to balance it, it broke the game. IMHO Sonar tends to be more meaningful for individual ships, radar for teams (though Des Moines' powerful radar may explain why it has the second higher WR among T10 cruisers on the NA server, even though its damage numbers are lowest, and of course the Russian bias bote with its absurdly potent radar is leading WR cruiser at T10). The reason radar doesn't affect individual ship win rates much is because radar botes are randomly distributed, meaning that sometimes they are on the extra side, and sometimes on the deficit side. I also have a pile of data on tiers, but I didn't play enough games at any specific tier to discuss the tier distribution meaningfully, so I am not presenting that. Additional DD numbers: the average number of DDs per match was 6.7. Of 336 matches, 37 had 10 DDs. I dislike ten DD matches, and was happy to see so few. The most common number of DDs was 6 (67 games). Least common was 1 DD, which thankfully occurred only once. 246 (73.2%) of the 336 games had no CV. I encountered only 4 4-CV matches in that span. Average match duration was 842 seconds, or 14:02.
  16. But this is a little bit different: Notice their 3 radar ships vs our none. That isn't including the fact that their Shokaku severely outplayed our Lexington, to the point where complete Red Air Superiority was unquestionable. As a DD, you already have to deal with plane spotting in a CV match like this, but with this mm you have to be aware of radar, while the enemy DDs can operate without fear of being spotted by plane or ship. And don't misunderstand, I am not expecting perfect balance, but is it so tough to give our team ONE radar ship?
  17. Tier 9-10 queue

    Often ,when i`m in queue for tier 9 or 10 in random,,and screen shows ships in my range only 3-4,,and i don`t want to wait,so i switch to a tier 8 ship,,and bamm, without any waiting,i got suck into a tier 10 game,,with my tier 8 ship........ But if i`m trying to wait it out with a tier 9-10 ship,,could take a minute or two ?? Whats the point ??
  18. Guess: Which side are bots, which are potatoes, or, are neither bots? Choose wisely . Post your own
  19. Aggrevating match making issues.

    I am not gonna lie, being thrown into tier 10 matches with a completely stock tier 8 BB and 50% captain stats is becoming the most frustrating thing I have ever experienced in a game. I get that I can't be top dog every game or even any games at tier 8 but being in a stock monarch against 70%+ tier 10 game is a complete waste of time and what few flags I have. I really hope this is on the radar to be addressed. Anyone else find being bottom of tier 10 games in a BB to be a complete waste of time and being extremely frustrating or is it just par for the course? are any of you finding much success in these situations and if so how? My tactic is usually to play forward of the team mostly behind islands. Deny any pushes I can for as long as I can without risking being focused by more than 1 or 2 enemies at once. Generally I get shot from across the map from an unspotted BB that I can not retaliate against. I am forced to relocate and of course I have basically no maneuverability or health so a CV casually kills me with a single wave of torpedo bombers. Last game I managed to soak 2.3 million potential damage but got into possition to shoot a single volley against a DD. Final score was 13k damage with 4 hits and one plane kill for a stagging 665 ships exp and 55 free xp and about 900 ish commander XP. insane amount of effort and avoiding damage to get a piss poor amount of xp that takes me less than 3% towards getting my first required upgrade. At this point I think I am pretty close to moving on to a different game, atleast for awhile. This is too common and too frustrating for someone who is usually pretty patient and tactically adept(moderately skillful) to deal with a extremely consistent basis..
  20. Losing 11 matches out of 13

    What a night.
  21. Hello everyone, I've recently purchased the HMS Edinburgh and HMS Monarch. My experience in these ships have been a sort of a revelation and I've produced a youtube video about it. It seems that perhaps certain things within the game will need to be adjusted or addressed. There are 2 different yet overlapping reasons behind my struggle... The Edinburgh by all account is a good ship. It handles well, has good consumables, and is overall a solid step up from the Fiji at tier 7. But it suffers terribly in the game environment it routinely faces. It seems that the overwhelming majority of the games it gets are tier 10 games. When it's bottom tier, often doing as much as you can possibly manage isn't enough to bring the team a win. It's not hard to do your part in the Edinburgh. But doing just that isn't so relevant or decisive when the higher tier ships on your team fall short or outright fail. For some reason most friendly tier 10s seem to be either too passive or too reckless. They tend to either patiently tunnel vision or hide/camp til we lose, or they over extend and get focused on and blown up. Also AFKs and bots seem to be particularly common at tier 10 for some reason... Meanwhile the HMS Monarch seems to suffer essentially all of the ills the pre-buff USS Colorado had, simply at a tier higher. It's got the perfect trifecta of #1 low HP & #2 low speed & #3 short range... The HMS Monarch has the least amount of health for any tier 8 battleship, yet it lacks the super heal some British BBs have. (Conqueror, Lion, Nelson...) So its theoretical staying power is lacking and it's by default the most vulnerable of all tier 8 BBs in terms of survivability. The 18.5km range (with upgraded fire control) for its main battery is also lacking for its tier. It might be workable against tier 8s, but against tier 9s and 10s, the Monarch is often out-ranged by enemies and gets shot at while not being able to reply. (Using a spotter aircraft isn't exactly a solution to this problem since: #1 the plane is easily shot down, #2 using a catapult fighter instead is often the better choice when playing against CVs, #3 The main battery's accuracy is already iffy at 18.5km and will get worse at extended range...) Even some high tier cruisers can shoot at you while remaining safe from return fire. So taking plunging fire onto your deck and HE spam into your superstructure while not being able to shoot back is the worst case scenario that ironically happen all the time. The Monarch is superficially a fast battleship, but the 28 knot top speed it carries over from its tier 7 counterpart the KGV, is on the slow side of things. This doesn't sound too bad until you realize that pretty much all of the game's battleships at tier 8 and above, particularly and especially the higher tonnage battleships with greater firepower are faster than the Monarch. So when facing a stronger enemy that is determined to engage you, the Monarch couldn't really disengage and withdraw. Being chased down by the likes of a Grosser Kurfurst is not fun. (this happened in the video) Sure the Monarch has a decent main armor belt, a submerged citadel, and has much of its plating upgraded to 32mm. At the same time, its large superstructure is vulnerable to cruiser and DD spam, while its small HP pool is more vulnerable to both fires and penetrations piling up than its peers. Ironically I find the semi reliance on HE shells to do damage and the iffiness of short fused AP shells to not be too much of a problem and perfectly workable... I'm thinking since the Monarch already features a speculative late war/post war vintage lattice mast and modern AA set up, maybe its best hull can feature a HMS Lion or HMS Vanguard style transom stern that gives it a little more health and speed. Maybe a upgrade to its propulsion system should be made available on top of what's been carried over from the tier 7 KGV. Last but not the least, 2km of additional range with a small buff to accuracy and sigma isn't too much to ask. Ultimately giving the ship's 15 inch main battery exactly the same range as the KGV's 14 inch main battery made no sense... Please feel free to chime in on your experiences with these ships and perhaps what can be done about them. And oh, I can always use more views, likes, and subscribers.
  22. This needs to stop. It's completely unfair to the team with no DD. Either make the DD wait and make it so both sides have no DDs, or make the MM wait until there are a minimum of 2 DDs in the queue. 5900 people on the server at this time. Red was thoroughly screwed by this MM. Not only do they have no DD, but we also have 2 radar ships. No need to explain how this ended.
  23. Strange tier 9 4v4 match

    Hi I saw in a post a while ago to post strange matches. I just had this 4 v4 tier 9 match. Hope this helps the devs.
  24. TL;DR: Conspiracy theorists are a few shells short of a salvo. The arguments used for WG-based team balance does not make any sense. Think about it: Step 1: Good player Queues in. WG "decides" to try and force his/her WR to 50%. Step 2: WG Puts 11 (non-Quality) potatoes on his/her team, and makes sure to put the greens and blues on the opposing side. Step 3: Good player fails to carry and loses. Result: 11 bad players get a loss pushing them further below 50%. 12 average/good players get a win they did not really earn, pushing them further ABOVE 50%. Step 4-58867839: MM tries to figure out a way to get everyone to 50% by grossly over-countering the influence of individual players (as witnessed by emperical anecdotal data) Step 3.98*1076: MM figures out that this is obviously impossible due to how statistics work, and just throws teams together randomly. Step 3.98*1076 + 1: Profit! The ONLY way to narrow the WR distribution is to disallow divisioning and implement full skill-based MM. This will result in each team being roughly balanced (which is not observed, god no it's NOT OBSERVED) and win rates converging until the mismatch between WR and true skill counters the matching algorithm, resulting in an equilibrium state with player win rates being distirbuted around 50% (as they are now) but with a narrower probability distribution. This will be true for ANY skill-based MM algorithm operating on a population. It is as fundamental as camping BBs and suicide DDs. If you believe in forced-distribution Matchmaking, you are suggesting that WG has singled out YOU SPECIFICALLY (or at MOST a statistically insignificant subset of players) to be the subject of the matchmaking algorithm. I consider this unlikely. It IS possible for the WG patent to be implemented, where your tier spread is probabilistically altered to try and curb streaky results. Basically, you are more likely to be top tier when losing a lot, and bottom tier when winning a lot. However, this won't work either, unless you are actually a skilled player! A bad player will be statistically more likely to have long losing streaks. Put them top tier, and their lack of ability will hurt their team MORE, leading to a HIGHER probability for additional losses. Average players will not be affected by this at all. Good players will be more likely to win when top tier and lose when bottom tier, so it works in their case, as they carry proportional to their ship's relative strength. The MM patent is likely intended to soothe the psyche of poor to average players by making them top tier more often when randomness bites - WG believes it is better for them to lose as a top tier ship (and at least do something purely by virtue of their ship's strength) then to win more often by dumped in as bottom tier where they are more likely to be carried to a win. It is NOT intended to affect the win rate of the population in any significant manner - all it could possibly do is slightly (and I mean SLIGHTLY) narrow the right tail of the win rate distribution while widening the left tail by tending to place better players on the bottom of the tier list. It won't force everyone to 50%, and really won't do much of anything considering that queue population and ship play distribution has the largest effect on which tiers you end up in. Long story short, the observed results from Matchmaking Monitor, all empirical evidence and my own anecdotal observations (take with 3.8% salt) are completely consistent with a random matchmaker with tier and class balance restrictions, with NO KNOWLEDGE of previous battle results or the performance statistics of the playerbase. Even ranked works this way, just limiting the pool based on the rank of the player. It has no idea if you got to rank 2 by playing 10000 games and getting a 1 in 10000 series of lucky wins, or by playing 100 games where you crushed all competition. It sees a "2" and treats you accordingly. Note that win rates are STILL not significantly converged to 50%. Once again: MM is RANDOM, and if it was otherwise, it would be obvious to people who crunch statistics for a living. Trust the experts and just enjoy the game.