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

A possible fix to the MM

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
2,092 posts
8,093 battles

A long while ago I had an idea that involved the introduction of "leagues" into the Random Battle MM.

 

The idea here is that players will earn a certain "rank" or "league" simply based off basic stats. Average WR and damage will probably be weighed most heavily, as those are the two stats that are generally easiest to keep track of. Things like contribution to capture/defense, spotting, and hit ratios and such will also be taken into account, and all of these will be rated on an 1-10 scale, proportional to server averages. The overall result is a "rating" based on the average rating of all these factors combined. 


Take me, for example (Some of these numbers are made up; too lazy to look at my actual stats atm):

My WR: ~57-58%

Avg. Damage: ~62,500

Spotting: ~33,000

Hit Ratio (Guns/Torps): 40% / 10%

Contribution to capture/defense : 10% / 20%

KDR: 2.30

 

Now compare these to server averages, and then "rate" each stat based on its current standing compared to  server average, 1-10 scale. So my 57.50% WR compared to the server average of ~50% would equate to a rating of anywhere between 4-7 or so. Take my average damage and compare it to the server average of ~30,000 and that would probably be about a 8-10 rating there. The league placing system could still always use a good bit of fine tuning but that can come later if this idea grows. So say my stats are rated at: 7, 9, 5, 7, 2, 8. The would lead to an average of about 6.333, rounded down to 6. More on that number later

 

Ok, so you've read this far. Bear with me here. Again, this can always use fine tuning, but this is a fresh out of the box idea here. Give it tim. So you would take my rating of 6, and place it on a 1-10 scale to determine my league level. I figure the league scale can look like this:

  • League 1: Rating 1-3
  • League 2: Rating 4-6
  • League 3: Rating 7-8
  • League 4: Rating 9-10

 

So what does this all have to do with the MM? Simple. Each player will have a league, but won't be matched only against players of the same league in order to pad wait times for high level leagues. Instead, the MM will take into account your ship's type and tier, as it does currently, but it will also balance the number of certain leagues on each team best it can. So if there were two League 1s, ten League 2s, eight League 3s, and the rest League 4s, each team will have:

  • One League 1 player
  • Five League 2 players
  • Four League 3 players
  • Two league 4 players

 

And bam. Skill based MM that both helps balance matches and also pad queue wait times at the same time. Again, this idea is still heavily a WiP and current versions of how the leagues are calculates, scales, etc. are still definitely subject to change according to feedback.

 

So what you your thoughts on this idea? Is it good? Bad? Am I being stupid and/or delusional here? What can be improved? What needs to be changed? Please discuss in the replies below and I would love to be a part of that

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,824
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

It is spawned in good intentions. Looks interesting, but I my opinion Stat based MM will eventually end up on a 50% stat. Starts out a legitimate MM. The Stats now are informational and can be padded. The segregation of Stat MM from Random MM would tax the low membership of the server. This would make two separate games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,423 battles

SBMM is a facade that people believe will bring better closer matches. It's a great lie. Ranked and CW has proven this.

 

There is no fixing landslide victories. Plus something else the OP has forgotten w/r and the rest of the statistics sit on a bell curve. The OP for example sits in the top 5% of players. Me myself sits at around the top 15%.

 

Now take our average gaming population at prime time. About 12,000. Top 5% puts that about 600 players. And he also assumes they are all playing roughly the same tiers, types etc.

 

Sorry OP. SBMM WILL NOT WORK. Not now. Not ever. And it will never EVER give you what you desperately seek.

 

Give it up.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,092 posts
8,093 battles
3 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

It is spawned in good intentions. Looks interesting, but I my opinion Stat based MM will eventually end up on a 50% stat. Starts out a legitimate MM. The Stats now are informational and can be padded. The segregation of Stat MM from Random MM would tax the low membership of the server. This would make two separate games.

Perhaps, but the players themselves won’t know their own league or the leagues of others unless they look at their stats and others stats themselves and made educated guesses, but this would rather be a “tool” to help reduce the amount of one sided matches. Skilled players can still carry, others can still have good games, nothing would really change other then the quality of matvhes thrown together

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[CAPT]
Members
23 posts
4,767 battles

I think it would be a big change, hard to implement, but necessary. It seems like there is a divide in the player base of those who want to play well and those who don't care. In battles these two groups rarely get along and ruin each others enjoyment to some degree.

As one of those people who cares about doing well, having a team that gets steamrolled because of too many low skill players on one team will ruin a game. I mean I've personally had a game with 347k damage on a defeat and it felt like a kick in the teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,092 posts
8,093 battles
11 minutes ago, IronWolfV said:

There is no fixing landslide victories. Plus something else the OP has forgotten w/r and the rest of the statistics sit on a bell curve. The OP for example sits in the top 5% of players. Me myself sits at around the top 15%.

 

Now take our average gaming population at prime time. About 12,000. Top 5% puts that about 600 players. And he also assumes they are all playing roughly the same tiers, types etc.

 

Sorry OP. SBMM WILL NOT WORK. Not now. Not ever. And it will never EVER give you what you desperately seek.

 

Give it up.

The MM will still take into account type and tier, as it does currently. That part of it won’t change. CVs will still cap at 1 per team, both sides will only have a +1/-1 difference between other ship classes, etc. The league system probably wouldn’t take into account the leagues of certian classes, so one team may end up with a League 3 DD and the other a league 1, but this can be balanced out by a League 3 CA player or CV player. As for prime time, on some days I’ve seen that number get as high as 20-22-24k. On some lesser nights Ive seen 10-14k. I do agree with your point about the bell curve, but I don’t consider myself in the top 5% of players. I would place myself in the top 25% or so, as I have seen a good number of players far better then I am. But I will consider this and I’ll try to think up a way to possibly address your concerns 

Edited by FireAndHEspam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
294
[O7]
[O7]
Beta Testers
1,252 posts
7,648 battles

I mean potatoes are going to get wrecked regardless, either under this system or the current system.  Baddies are not bad because they lose, they lose because they are bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,633
[INTEL]
Members
8,433 posts
25,306 battles

Shouldn't a skill-based MM look only at data generated in Solo matches?

In any case, I don't think the skill-based MM is the answer. The reason we have collapses is not because of the MM and the maldistribution of potatoes. It's because the game is designed to produce bad matches which are largely dull collapses. Factors include:

1. The presence of CVs and detonations to add cancer damage and pointless, arbitrary kills

2. Choked, channeled maps that split teams up to create more rapid collapses.

3. Accumulations of small differences in RNG between red and green over time have huge effects on the outcome. How many more games would you have won if more overpens had become citadels?

4. Split spawns that create tiny groups which result in more rapid collapses.

A skill-based MM won't change that. Indeed, it would make it worse -- in a skill based MM skill players would always be facing competent CVs, which would mean virtually all matches involving CVs would be short collapses, as WG intends (that's why CVs are in the game). Good players would murder each other quickly in our crappy choked maps, meaning that the most decisive factor would not be player skill but RNG.

The paradox of a random MM is that -- unlike a skill-based MM -- player skill is still a decisive factor. Many players suck so the decisive factor is in fact negative. But we've all seen good players carry. In a skill-based world, good players will carry less and random factors will play a more decisive role since there is less variation in player skill.

Do you really want a world in which a skilled player can't go into a cap and kill three ships to win the match, because the three ships in the cap are basically as skilled as he is? I've done that before many times, but I couldn't do it if the other three drivers were PopeShizzle, CatonBoard, and Gaisshu_Ishoku. Do you want a world where the damage difference between the two teams is based on idiotic mechanics like detonations and dive bombers, or on the steadier but still RNG-driven fire chance?

I used to think some kind of skill-based MM might be the answer, but after playing thousands of high tier matches against experienced and better players, I don't think so any more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
294
[O7]
[O7]
Beta Testers
1,252 posts
7,648 battles
5 minutes ago, FireAndHEspam said:

The MM will still take into account type and tier, as it does currently. That part of it won’t change. CVs will still cap at 1 per team, both sides will only have a +1/-1 difference between other ship classes, etc. The league system probably wouldn’t take into account the leagues of certian classes, so one team may end up with a League 3 DD and the other a league 1, but this can be balanced out by a League 3 CA player or CV player. As for prime time, on some days I’ve seen that number get as high as 20-22-24k. On some lesser nights Ive seen 10-14k. I do agree with your point about the bell curve, but I don’t consider myself in the top 5% of players. I would place myself in the top 25% or so, as I have seen a good number of players far better then I am. But I will consider this and I’ll try to think up a way to possibly address your concerns 

Does a Unicum CV player have to wait for all of eternity for another Unicum or does he get to play potatoes because there are so few uni CVs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
251 posts
1,395 battles

Well, with WOWS being accessible via Steam now I would say this is a great idea... filtering the newbies so they don't always get seal clubbed, and then quitting the game after 100 battles or something like that. Though like a lot of the other people commenting, I think the main issue is the amount of players in game... I just don't think there's enough players playing at the same tiers with similar skill levels to make the MM viable. I think it would work, but people would be waiting for a fair while before they'd even find a game. Nice thought, though.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,423 battles
19 minutes ago, FireAndHEspam said:

The MM will still take into account type and tier, as it does currently. That part of it won’t change. CVs will still cap at 1 per team, both sides will only have a +1/-1 difference between other ship classes, etc. The league system probably wouldn’t take into account the leagues of certian classes, so one team may end up with a League 3 DD and the other a league 1, but this can be balanced out by a League 3 CA player or CV player. As for prime time, on some days I’ve seen that number get as high as 20-22-24k. On some lesser nights Ive seen 10-14k. I do agree with your point about the bell curve, but I don’t consider myself in the top 5% of players. I would place myself in the top 25% or so, as I have seen a good number of players far better then I am. But I will consider this and I’ll try to think up a way to possibly address your concerns 

It doesn't matter if you think you're a top 5% player. Your stats make you one. Do you realize that 60%+ players only make up less than 1% of the total player population? W/R in this game is not linear, it's bell. Over 50% of the players in this game fall into 47-51% w/r. So for them SBMM doesn't really change anything. For the rest of us, wait times dramatically shoot up the better you are.

 

And furthermore reason we have the win rates we do, is because we play against lesser players.

 

W/R got explained like this to me 1 fine day.

 

Break down games played into 10 game blocks. Over time this is how it breaks down. 3 games you will lose by default. 3 you will win. The other 4 is what will make or break you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,201 posts
8,185 battles
42 minutes ago, FireAndHEspam said:

Perhaps, but the players themselves won’t know their own league or the leagues of others unless they look at their stats and others stats themselves and made educated guesses, but this would rather be a “tool” to help reduce the amount of one sided matches. Skilled players can still carry, others can still have good games, nothing would really change other then the quality of matvhes thrown together

One-sided matches are not caused by uneven distribution of player skill so much as they are caused by a lack of comeback mechanics. 

 

Since the main way you gain an advantage in a game of World of Warships is by removing ships from the opposing team, the further ahead you are, the less likely it is the enemy team can recover.  How often would soccer games turn into one-sided stomps if you got to just remove an opposing player from the field every time you scored a goal?  If you jumped out to 2-0 lead, there'd be very little to stop you from eventually winning by 20-0.  That's how WoWS works, and skill-based matchmaking wouldn't change it.

 

I've played enough ranked games in the top-most ranked bracket (which is a psuedo-skill-based matchmaking system since everyone in that bracket is at least very persistent and experienced) to know that if one team gets the first two kills, they almost always win.  It's my understanding the same thing happens in Supremacy League and clan battles.  In fact, a team of all good players is even more likely to leverage an early advantage into an insurmountable one, so a skill-based matchmaker might lead to even more one-sided stomps.

 

It is an error to believe that one-sided victories are caused by an uneven distribution of skill.  Even if both teams are perfectly matched skill-wise, the WoWS game mechanics will still cause most games to turn into a one-sided snowball.

Edited by Vaidency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,423 battles
19 minutes ago, Vaidency said:

One-sided matches are not caused by uneven distribution of player skill so much as they are caused by a lack of comeback mechanics. 

 

Since the main way you gain an advantage in a game of World of Warships is by removing ships from the opposing team, the further ahead you are, the less likely it is the enemy team can recover.  How often would soccer games turn into one-sided stomps if you got to just remove an opposing player from the field every time you scored a goal?  If you jumped out to 2-0 lead, there'd be very little to stop you from eventually winning by 20-0.  That's how WoWS works, and skill-based matchmaking wouldn't change it.

 

I've played enough ranked games in the top-most ranked bracket (which is a psuedo-skill-based matchmaking system since everyone in that bracket is at least very persistent and experienced) to know that if one team gets the first two kills, they almost always win.  It's my understanding the same thing happens in Supremacy League and clan battles.  In fact, a team of all good players is even more likely to leverage an early advantage into an insurmountable one, so a skill-based matchmaker might lead to even more one-sided stomps.

 

It is an error to believe that one-sided victories are caused by an uneven distribution of skill.  Even if both teams are perfectly matched skill-wise, the WoWS game mechanics will still cause most games to turn into a one-sided snowball.

f7FdEdG.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
487
[-1]
Beta Testers
1,799 posts
18,743 battles

If I ever have to wait 5 minutes or more to get into a Battle I would leave this game for ever with NO regrets  ! ! !

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,554 posts
6,867 battles

OP your idea has merit but I am not so sure about it in action.

I have many times posted my own idea for improved MM:

Teams composed of comparable WR based on individual ship, NOT overall WR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,353
[SYN]
Members
4,530 posts
11,433 battles

Some people are either blind to the fallacy that is a skill-based MM for this game, or deluded in their thinking that games will get better for them with a skill-based MM.

 

Need to think about what you're really asking for.  You just might get it, and you may not like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
663
[-VT3-]
Members
1,607 posts
3,346 battles
2 hours ago, Vaidency said:

One-sided matches are not caused by uneven distribution of player skill so much as they are caused by a lack of comeback mechanics. 

 

Since the main way you gain an advantage in a game of World of Warships is by removing ships from the opposing team, the further ahead you are, the less likely it is the enemy team can recover.  How often would soccer games turn into one-sided stomps if you got to just remove an opposing player from the field every time you scored a goal?  If you jumped out to 2-0 lead, there'd be very little to stop you from eventually winning by 20-0.  That's how WoWS works, and skill-based matchmaking wouldn't change it.

 

I've played enough ranked games in the top-most ranked bracket (which is a psuedo-skill-based matchmaking system since everyone in that bracket is at least very persistent and experienced) to know that if one team gets the first two kills, they almost always win.  It's my understanding the same thing happens in Supremacy League and clan battles.  In fact, a team of all good players is even more likely to leverage an early advantage into an insurmountable one, so a skill-based matchmaker might lead to even more one-sided stomps.

 

It is an error to believe that one-sided victories are caused by an uneven distribution of skill.  Even if both teams are perfectly matched skill-wise, the WoWS game mechanics will still cause most games to turn into a one-sided snowball.

This, in a nutshell.

 

Basically, the only way to put an end to snowball victories would be to have some sort of respawn mechanic, so that one team doesn't get progressively weaker when it's on the back foot.

 

That, of course, would require major changes to the game as a whole.  As it stands, ships would take too much time to get back into the fray post-respawn, and they have too much longevity to keep that sort of game mode interesting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[KENT]
Members
480 posts
3,037 battles

Not this [edited]crapagain...

 

There are major problems with this:

 

1. You can get boosted to a certain skill level.  Now I'm sure most players don't get boosted, but I'm pretty damn sure that there are grinding services for WoWs somewhere.  That's gonna [edited] up your skill based MM.

 

2. Skill based MM in terms of ranked and the like has not worked, because some ships are better than others.  Who's going to win in a fight, a unicum in a Independence or that exact same unicum in a Cleveland?  I think we all know the answer here.  

 

3. Snowball mechanic, as others above me have mentioned.

 

4. Pitting players of equal skill level will normalize all winrates to about 50% because over time, the good players' winrates will decline to about 50% due to playing against equal skill level players.  This means that the MM brackets will be totally screwed up since everyone will have a 50% winrate.

 

5. It's just not feasible.  Which system do you use? Winrate?  You run into the problem above.  Efficiency? Encourages damage farming.  WTR?  Third party site.  Etc, etc.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,585
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,298 battles
3 hours ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

It is spawned in good intentions. Looks interesting, but I my opinion Stat based MM will eventually end up on a 50% stat. Starts out a legitimate MM. The Stats now are informational and can be padded. The segregation of Stat MM from Random MM would tax the low membership of the server. This would make two separate games.

Assuming that you mean Win Rate when you say ending up on a 50% stat.  of course you'll end up with most players grouping in around a 50% WR.  That's a statistical given.  What I think would happen is that you still end up with the most talented players separating from the 50% pack, BUT they'd end up with WR's somewhere around 53-55% perhaps.  A person with a statistics background could probably explain this better, but I think that what we think of as unicums would be those players around maybe 53-55% and maybe the blues would end up around 51-53%.  And the average players around 49-51%.  And so on.  Honestly, I don't see this as a problem, except perhaps from snobby elitists who want to have massively high win rates built up on the backs of weaker players random teams stacked (by random chance) in their (the elitists') favor.

Regardless, I don't think that it will ever come to pass because I frankly don't think that WG gives a flying bleepity-bleep about trying to maximize the likelihood of evenly matched battles as often as possible.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,585
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,298 battles
3 hours ago, Vaidency said:

One-sided matches are not caused by uneven distribution of player skill so much as they are caused by a lack of comeback mechanics. 

 

Since the main way you gain an advantage in a game of World of Warships is by removing ships from the opposing team, the further ahead you are, the less likely it is the enemy team can recover.  How often would soccer games turn into one-sided stomps if you got to just remove an opposing player from the field every time you scored a goal?  If you jumped out to 2-0 lead, there'd be very little to stop you from eventually winning by 20-0.  That's how WoWS works, and skill-based matchmaking wouldn't change it.

 

I've played enough ranked games in the top-most ranked bracket (which is a psuedo-skill-based matchmaking system since everyone in that bracket is at least very persistent and experienced) to know that if one team gets the first two kills, they almost always win.  It's my understanding the same thing happens in Supremacy League and clan battles.  In fact, a team of all good players is even more likely to leverage an early advantage into an insurmountable one, so a skill-based matchmaker might lead to even more one-sided stomps.

 

It is an error to believe that one-sided victories are caused by an uneven distribution of skill.  Even if both teams are perfectly matched skill-wise, the WoWS game mechanics will still cause most games to turn into a one-sided snowball.

 

I disagree.  There is a comeback mechanic, sort of.  I've seen teams come back from deficits in both Tanks and Warships.  And the think that allows teams to make those comebacks invariably seems to be the fact that there are damaged enemies out there ready to be finished off.  And the difference between a successful comeback and a ROFLstomp is often whether or not the trailing team is able to find and finish off the enemy's wounded ducks.  Furthermore, Another reason you might not see comebacks, is that the leading team didn't lose many HP in the process of killing the ships or tanks that created their lead.  Thus, if you don't have many wounded ducks on the leading team, it becomes a lot harder to find easy kills to close the quickly close the deficit.

You try to argue that the team that gets  a lead almost always wins, but you don't go into WHY they got that early lead.  And it just might be an  edge in talent.

Regardless, I think that your opening statement is in error  because I think that it's the imbalance in talent that's usually, though not always, the root cause for a team gaining an early edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,488
[PSP]
Members
6,041 posts
8,583 battles
1 hour ago, Kuckoo said:

Some people are either blind to the fallacy that is a skill-based MM for this game, or deluded in their thinking that games will get better for them with a skill-based MM. Need to think about what you're really asking for.  You just might get it, and you may not like it.

This is precisely correct. Let's say that you have a 65% win rate in random games and are placed in games only with others with an equivalent win rate. Somebody has to lose the match, or it's going to be a draw and both teams will be credited a loss. Pretty soon, with teams consisting of only players of equal skill, your win rate is going to drop to 50%. Now what is the matchmaker going to do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
294
[O7]
[O7]
Beta Testers
1,252 posts
7,648 battles
4 hours ago, Vaidency said:

One-sided matches are not caused by uneven distribution of player skill so much as they are caused by a lack of comeback mechanics. 

 

Since the main way you gain an advantage in a game of World of Warships is by removing ships from the opposing team, the further ahead you are, the less likely it is the enemy team can recover.  How often would soccer games turn into one-sided stomps if you got to just remove an opposing player from the field every time you scored a goal?  If you jumped out to 2-0 lead, there'd be very little to stop you from eventually winning by 20-0.  That's how WoWS works, and skill-based matchmaking wouldn't change it.

 

I've played enough ranked games in the top-most ranked bracket (which is a psuedo-skill-based matchmaking system since everyone in that bracket is at least very persistent and experienced) to know that if one team gets the first two kills, they almost always win.  It's my understanding the same thing happens in Supremacy League and clan battles.  In fact, a team of all good players is even more likely to leverage an early advantage into an insurmountable one, so a skill-based matchmaker might lead to even more one-sided stomps.

 

It is an error to believe that one-sided victories are caused by an uneven distribution of skill.  Even if both teams are perfectly matched skill-wise, the WoWS game mechanics will still cause most games to turn into a one-sided snowball.

Very good points. I always hate losing multiple ships in the beginning of the match. One, they can contribute any more firepower and two, the can't tank for the team. It means the other side has an advantage in both firepower and an advantage in who they can concentrate fire on. If my BB teammate gets wiped out by a torp spread then he can't help me hold the enemy back and I am far more likely to be targeted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,201 posts
8,185 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

 

You try to argue that the team that gets  a lead almost always wins, but you don't go into WHY they got that early lead.  And it just might be an  edge in talent.

Regardless, I think that your opening statement is in error  because I think that it's the imbalance in talent that's usually, though not always, the root cause for a team gaining an early edge.

Personally, from the observation of over 6000 games, I think the early edge is as much determined by random guesses, lucky dispersion and spawn locations as anything players do deliberately.  I had a perfect example of this happen to me just yesterday.

 

At the start of a game in my Maass on Two Brothers, I sailed to the D cap.  The enemy team had one radar ship, an Atlanta, that had gone to the opposite flank, so I was free to sail into the cap.  Lucky!  Then I saw a Yorck coming and lined up my torpedoes at him.  About 20 seconds later:  First Blood!  Devastating Strike!  A teammate types "Good job, Maass" in chat.  But the York was still alive.  I had accidentally blind-torped the enemy team's Akizuki, who had never even been detected.  Suddenly, the enemy team on this flank was down their best cap contesting ship.  Their Anshan tried alone.  I killed him easily without the Akizuki around to help him.  Then I torpedoed an Alabama because no one was left on that flank to spot me.  The whole flank collapsed, we rolled up the enemy team and ended the game in 12 minutes.  I finished with the high score and I think someone gave me a karma point.  Hooray!

 

Did I win that flank for my team with superior skills?  No.  I didn't cleverly evade the Atlanta.  I just went to the cap point nearest to my spawn and he wasn't there.  Did the Akizuki make a serious blunder getting hit with my torpedoes?  Maybe.  Dodging unexpected low-detection German torpedoes in the sluggish Akizuki is not easy.  But even if he did make a bad play there, it didn't mean I'd made a good one, since I wasn't aiming at him.  I think my performance in the first couple minutes of that game was about 90% dumb luck.  But it started a snowball that turned the game into a one-sided rout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
65
[R-F1]
Members
274 posts
21,306 battles

The biggest MM issue at this point is T5 /6.  The ship speeds  hit points firepower is too great for a + 2 battle at those tiers .

Next issue is DD #s should be equal . The team with more DDs at the start is usually the winner in a domination game . 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×