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

  • 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

Calendars

  • World of Warships Event Calendar

Found 150 results

  1. So, when you're a low tier ship in a hi tier match do you: 1. [edited] and complain about the MM and then post about it? 2. Give up and YOLO? 3. Sit at the back? 4. Show those Tier 9s that the 7s can carry the match? Never give up and just enjoy the game.
  2. T5 CVs Should Not See T6 CVs

    Putting a CV that can’t strafe against one that can is nonsense. It’s helpful (if painful) to come up against Clevelands. You need to learn which cruisers create no-fly zones. But Bogue vs. Independence is useless.
  3. No DDs on one side? Seriously? Why is this permitted? The MM couldn't have waited 10 seconds for another DD to enter the queue? Or started the game by giving neither side a DD? It's really time to hard balance the number of DDs. People have asked and asked and asked and asked and asked and asked and asked and asked and asked and asked. We shouldn't need to keep asking for something as simple as a balanced DD MM. 4 radars on one team, 1 on the other. Time to balance radars. You can't hand out an I-WIN button and then not balance it.
  4. 12000 people on the server. Why does one team have 2 T8s and the other 1? Why does one team have 2 DDs and the other team 3? Why are 3 radars on 1 team and 1 on the other? Of course this was a loss for green. Once we saw they had the radar and DD and tier advantage, it was over. Why were all three advantages given to one side? Completely wrong. 12000 people on the server. Why are T8s filling T10 matches when the server is crowded? There is neither need nor excuse for that. Time to hard balance the number of DDs, at minimum. No team should ever enter a match down one DD. People playing at T10 are willing to wait for a good match. WG, you need to stop prioritizing queue times over all other considerations. Time to hard balance the number of T8s. Time to hard balance radars.
  5. Stop putting people into games where they are -2 tiered. It's [edited].. Despite what you keep spouting.. It does NOT equal out in the end. It just ruins the game when you can't do crapto the enemy because you can't pen them, meanwhile, they breathe your way and you get 1/2-3/4 of your health deleted while angled because of overpens.
  6. Play 3 games in an Orion and get 4 CVs in every game. Play 3 games in Iron Duke. Get 4 CVs in every game Load up Texas. No CVs. Load up Cleveland. No CVs. Figure it's safe to go back to Orion and start again. 4 CVs. Looks like WG wants CV players to get their little Boy Scout Merit Badges as fast as possible.
  7. This is really getting old when a leander can win against 5 BBs, 3 CR &5 DDs. Why is T5 BBs in a battle with a experienced T6 Leander And I always have play my T5 DD against T7 ships. Yes, it part of the Tier spread but this happens just much.
  8. MM imbalance

    Ok, you know, I try to deal with the MM, I think we all do in our own ways, but today has been absurd. Twice, my team faced 3 16 inch gunned BB's, 2 15 inch gunned BB's, and 2 14 inch gunned BB's, with 3 Scharns, 3 Konigs and a Dunk, and each of those red teams also had an extra DD. Those red teams also had radar(Go Indy!). Want to guess how that all turned out? The shocking thing, aside from how poorly the teams played, was how close we came to winning in 4 of them(Only to watch those wins vanish because derping around is just SO important). That's beside the point, the demoralization of the teams at the start shouldn't have ever been an issue. In one, we had a 3 man div bail on us due to the line ups before the round even began, that's the one we got obliterated in. No, they shouldn't have bailed, but they also shouldn't have felt the need to bail. It's like everything we all complain about or wish could be changed, all in the same battle. Yeah, I'm venting some frustration, but I'm not raging and cursing and screaming and blaming WG for the death of JFK and the fall of man, I'm just, you know, saying. While there are certain things the MM can't do, like determine which ships with a choice in the radar slot actually have it equipped, it CAN deal with things like the above, even numbers of DD's between teams, the disparity between the BB's. That it doesn't, even after all the complaints, to me shows that WG really doesn't care about the issue. I, for one, am willing to wait longer for a balanced match. I know some people are going to disagree, and that's fine, this is just my own feelings on the matter at hand. It sucks big time to look at the lineup and instantly think *even if we all play like unicums, this is gonna be way harder for us than it will be for them*, it's a game, it's supposed to be fun, and there's already enough uphill grind type things in this game, I feel that WG needs to take that into account. Peace, out.
  9. mm and server question

    Hello folks, Would somebody explain it to me, how the mm works,in regard to filter players "in your range" ,and the available player pool ? Here is a screen,that says : players in your range: 49/102 Total players on the NA server was like 12k. I was in tier Vll. I'm sure, there were more than 102 players waiting to play for that tier ? thx
  10. It is very aggravating to be constantly handicapped with being shorted a DD nearly every match in random battles. There are almost always equal numbers of BB's and Cruisers, but there's not enough DD players to even the teams out? I find that hard to believe.
  11. Unfair matching

    Unfair matching We only place players who are poorly skilled in friendly teams, All opponents are well placed. (Only low ranks on friendly teams, Knop on the enemy team places only ranks.) These games are very common. Unfair matching is intentionally created. It has been two years since its commercialization, but I can not get the impression that this system has been deliberately designed. For reference, my total is over 6,000 games, It has a random total odds of 62 pro, and is in a rank of 5.
  12. I don't know if it's just the match making currently or what not, but when I drive my Perth, I am consistently put into tier 7-8 games as the ONLY tier 6 ship for either team. I grabbed an after action of my latest, (This one had 3 tier 6, the other two being aircraft carriers...) As much as I love the Perth, she has some extreme difficulties running against higher tiers and now it seems like MM has abandoned her. If this keeps up, I might as well run the Belfast. Match making is way more forgiving on her.
  13. None of the MO or Atlantas were in division but salute to the algorithm master who designed the MM.
  14. 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.
  15. 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?
  16. 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.
  17. 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..
  18. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. 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.
  21. 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?????!!!?????
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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%
  25. 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.
×