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
    • Patch notes
    • Contests And In-Game Competitions
    • Support
    • The Pigeon's Nest
    • Player Gatherings and Events
    • Surveys
  • General Gameplay Discussion
    • General Discussion
    • Game Guides and Tutorials
    • Discussions about Warships
    • Off-Topic
    • Player Modifications
  • 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


  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 136 results

  1. There is absolutely no excuse for this—in fact, I can't believe the code would even allow it to happen in the first place, never mind the results (they aren't important, the utter failure of the matchmaker is). Hell, it isn't even really the fault of the Tier V dullards (the Furutaka on the left, the New York on the right) that divisioned with the Hoshos. Please, WG, fix this. Put in some kind of cut-out that prevents Tier IV carriers from being slapped into Tier VII games.
  2. Should there be a cap on DDs in match?

    Just measuring player opinion about number of DDs in a match. Been in many games where there are 5 on each side, and when there is only 1. Should there be a min or max imposed by Match Maker like with aircraft carriers? Should there be required equal number of DD on each side like CVs?
  3. Always 5 DDs and more

    But it is never possible that in recent months there are always 5 dd in battle. ALWAYS! This means that 42% of the TEAM is made up of DD, which are too many out of 12 ships. This problem is old, old for years, but WG does not want to change, as many things unfortunately. WOW is a great game, really, but some things have been blocked for some time. Another problem on DD and that too often happens to have 2 dd of the same class together, like 2 kaba or 2 gearing etc. I understand that if the 2 DDs are in Division, you can not do anything else, but if they come from unassociated teams then there is a real imbalance that could be avoided. I'm not talking about Match Making because I think it's a lot of mistakes and CLAN battle, which unfortunately have impossible times for many players. What to say, WOW is definitely a great game that excites and angers at the same time. We hope that the programmers decide to make those changes to make it almost perfect.
  4. so this will be a bit of a rant, I know that. At the same time, I have some serious questions. why is WG bases their MM off of the Hinduism "Well of Life" its the idea that pertaining to warships... that you do good, if not best of your team and win. and then suddenly you start doing good if not best of your team but losing. everyone says "well thats just the game, its MM" is it? I earnestly believe that this is done on purpose by WG.. its not fair MM. why is it WG says MM is "fair and balanced" when they allow a single team to have FIVE radar ships but give the other team ONE radar ship? that is ridiculous. it instantly give whatever team that has that much radar a clear and distinct advantage in winning, so how can you say it's "fair and balanced" I only say this because everyone that I play with, is sick and tired of this concept, sick and tired of WG saying things are balanced and fair. its not. WG decides who wins, and who loses. how is it certain people loses 6-8 games in a row, but take minimally top 3 on the team? play high tiers and 6 games you get the team that sits in spawn within 10km of eachother and wonder just why.. why you get such bad teams. especially high tier.. where you SHOULD know better. frankly on a separate note, WG why is it you making a mission, such as the Pan Asian DD hype, why do you making 50k flooding a mission? it has nothing to do with skill, nothing to do with how well, or how bad you play. it depends entirely on luck, but at the same time you make the campaigns and every other mission skilled based in some way. even the ARP ships were skill based. you needed XP, if you suck at the game it would take you FOREVER and thats if you complete it within the time.. but if you was good and new how to play you could get those ships within a few hours of playing. now however, you make a mission needing 50,000 flood damage, that is entirely up to RNG to get the flood in the first, place, luck you dont just out right kill your target, luck in hope that your target does not have their damage control ready to use. 43 games is what it took to get that 50,000 flood damage.. 38 games if you take the games out that I didn't land a torpedo. the entire mission was based on luck and random chance, not skill, not even RNG. so why is it Wargaming do you decide who wins and loses based on who you feel should win or lose? to say you don't do this, is a lie straight through your teeth. why is it you want people interested in the Pan Asian DDs by doing these really cool mission rewards to help people when they finally release the ships but you make it based upon random LUCK to do some of the missions? ...and you wonder why people become toxic and quit your games when you rig the system against them..
  5. Looking at each time a team gets rolled it's simple to see that it's how the game places players on the maps. Slow BB's get placed in the farthest spawn alone. Caps that should not even be considered are a first attack location you see three ships drive right into because they where spawned closer. You want to fix this spawn the teams closer to a proper fleet layout. Stop placing slow highly visible ships in the front but don't place BB's so far away from their support class that CV's can one shot them before their even loaded. Also on the load screen there should be map objectives. I just recently checked out World of Warplanes 2.0 and does a good job of showing the player what is needed for the map. Why can't WOWS do the same? Give them incentives to gain XP by supporting and playing their class. This way players will try to cover BB's with AA. DD's will scout, and BB's should be tanking. Sure we have some rewards for those but in WOWPs they really do add to the profits of the match. Right now their a slight bonus. Nothing that really makes the player want to fulfill the role. This should also show in the game so they can see their impact on the match.
  6. When I hit battle, and I immediately end up in something like this: It makes me want to do things like manual drop myself out of games. Why would you even let this happen? What possible explanation could there be for punishing me with games like this because somebody else sat in queue for too long? Why would you not just kick people out of queue who have waited too long instead?
  7. Seriously, MM?

    Why? I'm mad because not only did I die, but the game gave the enemy team not one, not two, but THREE destroyers. Tier EIGHT destroyers. What did we have? Myself in the Mahan, and an Akatsuki. Those are Tier SEVEN destroyers. Either the game wanted to make this as one sided as possible, or it thought that our team was too strong to be fairly equally tiered. IDK. Help me figure this out lol. Here's the screenshot, maybe there's something I'm not getting here.
  8. Why is this possible wargaming :/

    Why would this EVER be allowed? Sure ok 4 CV game tier 6 & 7 is already broken. But comon wagaming 4 CV game with a hiryu, kaga and two effing langley?????!!!?????
  9. The Match Making

    Good evening at all. As you see the title of the post concerns the MM. There are things I do not understand. 1) 2 Tier too. You've seen that, almost always, there are clashes with tier far above the tier you entered into the game. I can understand that if you are basing the ship in the middle (for example: a Tier 6 is between Tier 5 and Tier 7) the difference is a Tier only, but for ships with a lower Tier the clashes become just a frustration. Now, could not you enter the code of the program that in the presence of low tiers the MM should favor these and thus reduce Tier upper input? I am not saying that you eliminate the 2 Tier tolerance, but only reduce the number of high-tier ships. From what I read in chat every time that there are div divs with Tier significantly lower than the amount of ships with Tier higher the defeat is almost certain. 2) What is the criterion for sorting players between the teams? I mean, by the way, it's certainly happened to get into a game, lose it, and eventually see that the "enemy" has, for example, high-level players. Could it not be possible even here to enter a code that at least adds the PR of the deployments? Yes, maybe it will take a few seconds to get into the game but at least it will be a fun match and will not win or lose with 9/10 different ships. What a cabbage !! 3) Why is there a difference between ships? This too is incomprehensible. How many times have you got 3 or 4 ships in the clearing (opponent or in your team) with, for example, radar. Then 4 radar ships and your only one clearing. In short, I mean, it is clear that most DDs can be easily tested. Now, imagine all is 3 combinations together. Ah, no, you do not have to imagine them, these things always happen in MM. But does anyone think of solving these problems that I have, ever since I remember? Thank you Versione Italiana. Buona sera a tutti. Come vedete il titolo del post riguarda il MM. Ci sono delle cose che non comprendo. 1) 2 Tier di troppo. Avrete visto che, quasi sempre, vi sono scontri con tier nettamente supeirori rispetto al tier con cui siete entrati nella partita. Posso capire che se si prende di base la nave che sta nel mezzo (ad esempio: un Tier 6 sta fra il Tier 5 e il Tier 7) la differenza è di un Tier solamente, ma per le navi con un Tier inferiore gli scontri diventano solo una frustrazione. Ora, non si potrebbe inserire nel codice del programma che in presenza di Tier bassi il MM deve favorire questi ultimi e quindi ridurre l'ingresso di Tier superiori? Non sto dicendo di eliminare la tolleranza di 2 Tier, ma solo di ridurre il numero di navi con tier elevato. Da quello che leggo in chat tutte le volte che in squadra ci sono div con Tier nettamente inferiore rispetto alla quantità di navi con Tier superiore la sconfitta è quasi sicura. 2) Qual è il criterio di smistamento giocatori fra le squadre? Voglio dire, dai, vi è capitato di sicuro di entrare in una partita, perderla, e alla fine vedere che il "nemico" ha, ad esempio, giocatori con livelli alti. Possibile che anche qui non si possa inserire un codice che sommi quantomeno i PR degli schieramenti? Si, magari ci vorrà qualche secondo in più per entrare in game ma almeno sarà una partita divertente e non vincere o perdere con 9/10 navi di differenza. Che cavolo!! 3) Perchè vi è una differenza di potenziale fra navi? Anche questa è una cosa incomprensibile. Quante volte vi è capitato di avere 3 o 4 navi nello schiaramento (avversario o nel tuo team) con, ad esempio, radar. Quindi 4 navi con radar e nel vostro schiaramento una soltanto. Insomma, voglio dire, è chiaro che la maggior parte dei DD può essere detettata con estrema facilità. Ora, immaginate tutte è 3 le combinazioni insieme. Ah, no, non dovete immaginarle, queste cose accadono sempre nel MM. Ma qualcuno pensa di risolvere questi problemi che ci sono, che io ricordi, da sempre? Grazie
  10. Do your games in WoW's seem like a for gone conclusion after 5-6 minutes of play? Have you been in too many games that are completely one-sided to be lucky hits for the winning side? Not to blame MM for intentionally stacking the odds in favor of 1 team or the other, but it seems that many games I play in are essentially over in the first 8 minutes. Not that all ships are sunk on one side, but the winner has already been determined and it a matter of time to mop up the stragglers. Games finish with 0-3 ships lost on the winning side and 10-12 ships lost on the loosing side. Or if one side doesn't cap, the game is over at 0 to 6 losses because of point accumulation. Win or loose, this game is unsatisfying to me. I would rather have the match come down to the last 2 or 3 ships on each side trying to clinch the win. Now that is not always possible, and sometimes even a team playing well is overmatched by the other team through tactics or a few lucky hits early in the game that sets one side to a defensive posture that they cannot recover from. However, too frequently in my view, seems to be a large disparity in skilled players on one side than the other. If WG would address this (and they have stated in Q&A that they see no problem with player skill imbalance in MM, so they probably won't) we might all have more enjoyable games that are tense to the end. Also just as important, newer players could benefit from having good players on their team so they can live long enough to get better before the give up the game in frustration. We need more players that are having fun. So I propose to WG that they make a simple "player proficiency" stat that would be more accurate than win percentage, but not to difficult to calculate, and then have MM balance that statistic after ship class. Something like: (winning percentage /50%) + destruction ratio + (average XP / 1000) = players average proficiency 50% win and 1000 XP per game and 1.0 destruction ratio would rate a Proficiency 3 player. I am not a great player, but mine would look like this (55/50) + 1.69 + (1024 / 1000) = 3.814 I win average number of times, earn average XP, but I tend to take a few enemy with me. Someone who is just starting my have a rating below 3.
  11. T8 MM, How bad is it?

    DATA ANALYSIS THREAD Been around long enough you would think I know better, but there ya go right there in bold for some to read. After a 6 month+ break from the game some apparent changes were made in regards to tier 7/5 MM to help improve their fiasco of protecting T4 which had ripple effects all the way up the line. Now with T5 not getting T7s 66% of the time like it used to it appears to me that T8 is the new "crap" tier as far as being bottom tiered in T10s "constantly". Since I am grinding 2 T8 cruisers at the moment I have noticed much more T10 games than I remember in the past. Is it worse? Am I just remembering wrong? Or am I just seeing what I want to see? I will just record the data and see where the numbers fall. Will note how many games and percentage that I receive top tier, mid tier, and bottom tier MM and will update as I go along. Anybody wanting to chip in on the data is welcome and we can see what we come up with. 50 Game Update Well as you can see it is pretty bad so far. Almost 6/10 games are 2 tiered. 70% of the time you are going to be uptiered. That is pretty bad imho, not quite as bad as the old T5 MM, but with the huge grind of T8 ships you can't help but wonder if it is nothing more than a paywall. Interesting things to note are though 30% of games are top tier it is not like you are 1 of maybe 2 8s clubbing all sixes, out of 50 games I saw no more than 4 T6 ships in a single match with 2 being the average. On the opposite end the average T10 game saw 4 to 5 and there were many games where I was 1 of 2 T8s against nothing but 10s. Chappy uptiers fine, Edin so so, NO is just horrible. It is beyond weak at T10, ground through it with flags and insta-sold the ship. Data Top Tier - 26 Mid Tier - 10 Bottom Tier - 37 Total Games - 73 Percentages Top - 35.6% Mid - 13.7% Bottom - 50.7%
  12. Matchmaker Nomenclature

    I often see +2/-2 in threads used when the poster is discussing the range of tiers in a matchmaker. I also see +1/-1. As an engineer, I find the use of +2/-2 to be jarring. To me +2/-2 when applied to an integer means that I have a range of five integers that I'm covering. For example 7 + 2 = 9 and 7 - 2 = 5 so a tier 7 ship entering a +2/-2 MM would enter a battle that includes tiers 5,6,7,8 and 9 ships. It also may be the top tier in a 3,4,5,6,7 or it may be in a 6,7,8,9,10 MM. The (+2/-2) to an engineer, or a designer, or a machinist, or an inspector, indicates the allowable variance from a specific value. When applied to a MM it covers 40% more tiers than the speaker intended. I don't expect the practice of saying +2/-2 to go away because it's embedded in the nomenclature. But I propose an alternative for use by people who enjoy clarity. When you want to refer to a matchmaker that includes 3 tiers call it a three tier MM. Feel free to say 3T MM if you are a slave to brevity. You will find it easier to type than: (Hold down the shift key =) 2 / - 2. When there are only two tiers to be included call it a two tier MM. Single tiers would be ... See, I've even made a case for being lazy. I hope to see you all in many 3T MM battles in the future.
  13. tier 8 MM is a bit harsh

    I don't play very often, yet this months I have had several games where I am the only tier 8 in a tier 10 match on either team. This is a bit extreme. Today:
  14. My last game featured 5 players on the green team and 2 on the red team from the same clan. That's 7/24 players. Almost all were in top tier DDs, and, unfortunately, played very poorly (4 were the lowest scoring players on the green team). I don't know if they just weren't taking the game seriously, but their performance tanked the green team. I imagine this MM experience is going to be pretty rare for the time being, but as clans grow in popularity that may change. WG is pushing for clans, as demonstrated by the recent addition of the oil mechanic and the upcoming clan battle option, and I hope that the launch of clan battles coincides with an adjustment to the MM in Random. I would prefer a cap on the number of players from the same clan that can participate in the same Random battle. The cap can be set to 3 or 4. For those players who do want to participate in clan battles, I hope that the CV issue doesn't have too negative an impact and you enjoy the new battle option.
  15. I believe their should only be a 1 tier differential in match maker. I personally would rather wait another minute then get tier 10 with my tier 8! What say you?
  16. All too often MM will give a team an extra battleship along with an extra destroyer.....How is this a fair match making decision??? Wow, so my team has a two cruiser advantage.....what advantage? Cruiser have the detectability of battleships and most cruisers have the armor of destroyers. When a team has an extra battleship (more fire power for the team) and one more stealthy DD (able to sneak around and cap), how in the world is this fair??? Would it be fair if one team got two aircraft carriers and the other team just one? And to make up for the one less AC, you are given an extra cruiser. Every time I am on a team that has one less battleship AND one less destroyer.....we lose. It is the opposite when my team has such an advantage. I am not exaggerating. War Gaming.....YOU NEED TO FIX THIS, IT IS TRUELY UNFAIR
  17. Played a T10 game and someone had an API mod that showed every ones WTR/Win Rate/rating in game without having to look each person up on Warships.Today or elsewhere. He said it was custom made. Does anything exist like this as a public addon?
  18. It would really help game balance if the MM would try to put an equal number of radar ships on each team. Seems simple, obvious, needed, and fair.
  19. Okay, I am not a great CV driver by any means but I do not like getting into a double CV match with a T6 CV who can do the manual strafe while I can not, in a T5. I just came out of one, where I could not defend my fighters against a Ryujo and deal with his strafe. So I would like to see WG (Niko I Hope you will read this) fix this in a way that CVs without the Alt attack ability do not get in a match with CVs that have it You get your planes ripped to shreds by the T6. It makes no sense to do this mix. Yes this is a CV and MM Complaint thread but I am hoping for something constructive from it. Not a lot of salt. I am hoping to get the attention of the right person. And if I need to do something different here please post what I should do. Please do not say stop playing CVs. I am trying to be constructive here. Only thing I can think of is T5 CVs cannot be mixed with T6s to prevent being clubbed by the T6 in the match. Thank You!
  20. Hi Guy's / Ship Mate's I have been checking over the last few days and as it turns out everytime I take my Texas out there are no Carrier's/CV's in game. If I change to a T5 CL or DD there will be CV's Then next match grab the Texas no CV's back and forth a dozen times and it still works out the same it has been so long I can not remember the last time I was in my Texas and had a CV in the match. Has WG done something to MM to prevent the Texas from being in CV matches? One thing the Texas will get though is quiet often facing off against T7 BB's CL's and DD's I have tried over several days thinking it was just me and I was being awfully subjective and thinking unfairly that it had to be MM rigged that way. Well after today and several matches it has to be that way. Before the Texas every match had 2 CV's in it, then Jump into the Texas no CV's ok jump into my T5 DD and there is CV's ok then back to Texas no CV's so then I try a T5 CL and there are 2 CV's in match... Well then fine back to Texas and guess what No CV's again. Can someone explain what the heck is going on? Why did I buy a Premium ship to deal with CV's when MM magically removes them. One thing to be sure is she (Texas) will often have to face off against T7 BB's CL's and DD's though. Anyone have any idea what is going on? And yes I have submitted a ticket to support to see what is going on... Not expecting a helpful response. Sincerely: Len / NorthBayite
  21. Moving up tiers is hard!

    So when I first started, I rushed up to the Hipper, and got hammered. Based on my experiences in WoT, I quickly reversed my rush to top tiers, and hung out at tiers 3-4 for quite some time. My stats improved, I pushed into tier 5, for the longest time my WR/WTR stayed light teal, all was good. My average battle tier hovered around 4.5, life was good. But, It started to get boring, so I started regrinding the Hipper, unlocked the Roon (gawd what a beautiful boat!), and started to raise my average tier, and man has it been savage. My WR tanked, my WTR tanked etc. But this little post is for those captains looking to move up. Hang in there, as like me you will discover the Meta is different, and of course MM will not shelter you anymore. You are fighting more experienced players, better trained captains, and suddenly anyone can hit your from anywhere, you have to keep your head on a swivel. I am starting to see light at the end of the tunnel, the punishing learning curve, and the higher tier ships are worth it, as many different play styles become available to you. Anyway, forging ahead, taking a beating, but I am starting to learn. Just an FYI and one players opinion about the transition.
  22. Games are MM Rigged?

    Who feels that World of Warships rigs matches before they even start?
  23. Games are MM Rigged?

    Who feels that World of Warships rigs matches before they even start?
  24. Should Divisions be allowed in general MM?

    A lot of forum posts lament the lack of coordination within teams, and that this is a major cause of players not doing as well as they could. I agree with this to a point (there will always be players who YOLO); however, the current solution that WG has provided - Divisions - may not be the fairest choice. Divisions allow players, typically those in "clans", to join the same game. For example, a game I played earlier featured 3 players on the red team in the same Division (they also happened to be in the same clan). This sort of thing is more likely to be seen in higher tier gameplay. My question: is it fair to allow a group of people who already know each other to join into the same game on the same team? Most people who play this game are unlikely to play in a Division, so they are immediately at a disadvantage. How could WG allow people who want to play together to be able to do so, but not in a way that puts the larger player community at a disadvantage?
  25. Wulfgarn posted Flamu's video on the Iron Duke. About 30 seconds in Flamu says that in the past T5 faced a ton of T7, but in the last couple of months Wargaming "has made some efforts to make T5 more enjoyable". Does anyone know what he is talking about? I haven't noticed any changes in the MM in the few times I've gotten in T5s recently -- reliably uptiered to T7, as always, except for one game.