Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Lert

WG, can you just - ... not?

35 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

24,423
[HINON]
Supertester
20,095 posts
13,578 battles

1PQJtcO.jpg

Can you just - .... Not allow this? I thought you wanted to 'protect' them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,597
[HINON]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
7,444 posts
2,075 battles

Thus is the danger of multi-tier divisions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,114
[YORHA]
Members
3,805 posts
6,614 battles

Look like a pretty typical tier V game to me.

 

Which is why I really regret giving them money for the Texas and why all of my Tier V ships sit  un-played.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24,423
[HINON]
Supertester
20,095 posts
13,578 battles
4 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

Look like a pretty typical tier V game to me.

There's more happening.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,114
[YORHA]
Members
3,805 posts
6,614 battles
5 minutes ago, Lert said:

There's more happening.

 

I recognize that, but it still looks like most of the tier V battles I have played (until I stopped).

Edited by JCC45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,608
[KSE]
Members
7,741 posts
8,075 battles

That's odd. There were 2 t4's in that div, shouldn't MM have gone down, and not up? Or does it always go with the highest tier ship in the div?

 

Still, that's absurd. And they wonder why virtually all of us hate the MM. -.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
829
[5D5]
Members
2,539 posts
15,653 battles

LOL, someone posted in a 7 month old thread about something like this but called it broken MM when they were the fail division. Yes it's happening more & more even in the upper tiers. All you can do is farm the damage and move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
444
[DETN8]
[DETN8]
Members
1,662 posts
17,967 battles
11 minutes ago, Lert said:

There's more happening.

The T4s made the decision to fail division, so they pay the price for it. If they got rid of +/-1 divisioning, then I could never take my Belfast to T10 games.

Edited by Ju87s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
829
[5D5]
Members
2,539 posts
15,653 battles
1 minute ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

That's odd. There were 2 t4's in that div, shouldn't MM have gone down, and not up? Or does it always go with the highest tier ship in the div?

 

Still, that's absurd. And they wonder why virtually all of us hate the MM. -.-

 

MM is always based on highest tier otherwise it would lead to other issues. Uneven divisions have never been a smart concept but the player base never seems to grasp this.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,608
[KSE]
Members
7,741 posts
8,075 battles
1 minute ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

 

MM is always based on highest tier otherwise it would lead to other issues. Uneven divisions have never been a smart concept but the player base never seems to grasp this.

Gawd. >< Well, I'm sure those 2 just enjoyed the heck out of their round. -.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
954
[WOLF1]
Members
3,812 posts
1,529 battles
2 minutes ago, Ju87s said:

The T4 made the decision to fail division, so they pay the price for it. If they got rid of +/-1 divisioning, then I could never take my Belfast to T10 games.

That's how I see it.  That's why I don't div up with my son very often.  He's pushed battleships really hard, and plays in T8 a lot, and I don't have any T8s atm.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,843
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,184 posts
12,189 battles
13 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

Look like a pretty typical tier V game to me.

 

Which is why I really regret giving them money for the Texas and why all of my Tier V ships sit  un-played.

 

Why are your t5s un-played? T5 has so many fun boats and Texas is one of them.

 

@Lert Not sure why WG even allows multi-tier divisions, is just upsets everyone involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,200
[SALT]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters, Beta Testers
3,660 posts
2,989 battles
3 minutes ago, Kapitan_Wuff said:

 

Why are your t5s un-played? T5 has so many fun boats and Texas is one of them.

 

@Lert Not sure why WG even allows multi-tier divisions, is just upsets everyone involved.

Um, maybe because a tier 8 paired with a tier 9 isn't a problem when tier 8's see tier 10's often anyways? Or are you also against tier 9/s with tier 10's? Lets just be real, the time it would take to create the code to lock out certain set of tiers for uptiering would burn time on other far more lucrative prospects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
108
[BAKED]
Members
918 posts
9,245 battles

some multi tier divisions are ok

 

CVs are always mirrored so, T4 CV +T5 ship almost always results in a T4-5 match.

 

BBs I believe are mostly mirrored, so a T10 CA + T9 BB is fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,379
[WOLF3]
[WOLF3]
Members
17,403 posts
15,874 battles

It could be worse.  It could be like it was at launch where someone divisioned up like so:  Yamato + Wyoming + St Louis

 

OTOH, it was funny watching Tier II Umikaze trying to get to work against a Yamato, and pulling it off.

Edited by HazeGrayUnderway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[CHAOS]
Members
574 posts
2,491 battles
15 minutes ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

That's odd. There were 2 t4's in that div, shouldn't MM have gone down, and not up? Or does it always go with the highest tier ship in the div?

 

Still, that's absurd. And they wonder why virtually all of us hate the MM. -.-

 

No - Matchmaker matches at the highest tier in the division.  If it matched at the lowest tier, it would be exploited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
130
[CHAOS]
Members
574 posts
2,491 battles
5 minutes ago, Dodgy_Cookies said:

BBs I believe are mostly mirrored, so a T10 CA + T9 BB is fine.

 

The hghest tier BBs in a match a guaranteed to have equal numbers on both teams.  Below that they may not match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,650
[RKLES]
Members
8,378 posts
10,645 battles
31 minutes ago, JCC45 said:

Look like a pretty typical tier V game to me.

 

Which is why I really regret giving them money for the Texas and why all of my Tier V ships sit  un-played.

Actually my Texas has taken quite a surprising amount of HP out of enemy ships in some of those bottom tier situations, of course getting superintendent skill was a major priority since I usually have to pump in a lot of HP back into my ship throughout the battle lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,235
[SYN]
Members
14,871 posts
11,351 battles
17 minutes ago, Azumazi said:

Um, maybe because a tier 8 paired with a tier 9 isn't a problem when tier 8's see tier 10's often anyways? Or are you also against tier 9/s with tier 10's? Lets just be real, the time it would take to create the code to lock out certain set of tiers for uptiering would burn time on other far more lucrative prospects.

it's also somewhat common practice to div a T9 CV with T10 ships

fortunately, you can't do that with a T4CV and T5 ships

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
660
[FML]
Members
2,143 posts
11,264 battles
39 minutes ago, Lert said:

1PQJtcO.jpg

Can you just - .... Not allow this? I thought you wanted to 'protect' them.

 

I would have thought the solution to this is for WG to place a clear an unequivocal warning when divisioning that explains what could happen, and that proceeding may negatively affect your and others' game experience. 

 

So so it is more clearly the fail division's fault, and not MM...

 

in other news, mm was kind to me yesterday. Drove my NC and it wasn't a tier 10 battle; I was even top tier, but as it was a mid tier map I had no idea where to go or what to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,650
[RKLES]
Members
8,378 posts
10,645 battles
11 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

It could be worse.  It could be like it was at launch where someone divisioned up like so:  Yamato + Wyoming + St Louis

 

OTOH, it was funny watching Tier II Umikaze trying to get to work against a Yamato, and pulling it off.

Lol man that takes me back to the years in WOT Blitz where fail plattns were quite common, some could actually do ok, but a tier 1 tank platooned with a tier X...

Supposedly the low guy was their scout or something. :Smile_facepalm:

 

Although in WOWs I would be curious to see a German tier 2 DD divisioned in an X battle since if they had had proper skills such as Concealment Expert they could in very least keep enemy perma spotted without CVs in battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×