Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
glock60

Tier 8 Battles

  • You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.

97 posts in this topic

You can can this post crying, whining, [edited] or whatever. But Wargaming needs to look into improving MatchMaker. Everytime it seems you play tier 8's they always put anywhere from 6 to 8 tier tens in the same battle. Yeah I know you would have to wait a bit longer for que but its kinda ridicoulous to have to try and play when you are 2 tiers below more then half of the enemy ships. 


6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I relish the opportunity for more damage, more credits and more XP.


5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not as big an issue as you think it is.  In my last 48 games of Tier 8 play, I have been bottom tier only 37% of the time.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to start having to put this in my sig.

 

T8 ships are able to handle T10 ships just fine.

 

Seriously, you're not going to be leading the charge, but it's not hard to be effective, and serious damage to T10 ships makes you A LOT of money. I had a NO battle where I did 30K damage total. But 15K of that was to T10 DDs, and I had 2 solo caps. We won, I felt my radar and presence in the caps were effective. I was third on the team, with over 2K BXP and a very nice chunk of credits. No problems being effective in T10 with a NO, and it's not exactly the strongest ship in it's tier.


2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matchmaker is fine.

 

The only time I've felt like I've really been screwed by MM was today in my Scharnhorst.

 

Dropped into a Tier 9 game.  All the enemy battleships, except 1 Nagato are Tier 8s. . . all the cruisers are Tier 9s.  Ugh.

 

Still did ok.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After spending about six hours mowing my lots this morning, I booted up the computer and got into a tier X game with my North Carolina. On the other team were two Montanas. I came in first on the winning team. That's not saying I always come in first playing tier VIII ships in tier X matches but I'm generally in the top five or so. The only tier VIII ship that I have troubles with is the New Orleans. However, the other day I saw one that came in second on the winning team in a tier X match. 

Edited by Snargfargle

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, glock60 said:

You can can this post crying, whining, [edited] or whatever. But Wargaming needs to look into improving MatchMaker. Everytime it seems you play tier 8's they always put anywhere from 6 to 8 tier tens in the same battle. Yeah I know you would have to wait a bit longer for que but its kinda ridicoulous to have to try and play when you are 2 tiers below more then half of the enemy ships. 

 

choke.gif


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When are people going to realize when you're two tiers down, you're not leading the charge but are a support ship.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lert said:

Frankly I relish the opportunity for more damage, more credits and more XP.

Precisely, I get loads of credits and XP when I mange to do well. I solo capped in my Bismarck, harassed the DD, followed behind the friendly yamato and rained secondaries on the enemy yamato and also citadeled his broadside. Even in bad matches I don`t go into losses unless I wander off and the carrier strafes me at the beginning of the match.

 

And just as @AJTP89 said Tier VII ships can handle Tier X ships just fine, you need to support and not be the spearhead of the charge.

 

The Images for the battle I mentioned above is below....

Spoiler

Wows1.thumb.PNG.6839558a4d1ad22eb2ea53b716e703a9.PNGWows2.thumb.PNG.a360a02fbbcaaafc0810c86516a012cd.PNGWows3.thumb.PNG.2225987b6ad1dc55e167faa96c21d1b6.PNG5a0f60a725865_Finalwows.thumb.PNG.97f895c908edd5b424beb5421bfaacec.PNG

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, glock60 said:

You can can this post crying, whining, [edited] or whatever. But Wargaming needs to look into improving MatchMaker. Everytime it seems you play tier 8's they always put anywhere from 6 to 8 tier tens in the same battle. Yeah I know you would have to wait a bit longer for que but its kinda ridicoulous to have to try and play when you are 2 tiers below more then half of the enemy ships. 

 

OP, you're wasting your time. Most of the people in the forums think this is a competitive game, all evidence to the contrary. :Smile_teethhappy:

Deep down they know this game is filled with casual players, but can't admit that those players aren't like them, and can't handle the two tier difference.

And to those claiming tier 8's are competitive with tier 10's....The data doesn't seem to add up. (Your personal data is meaningless to the average player in this game)

All you have to do is go to warships.today and look at the top 100 players by number of battles played to see who plays the game. Since they play more battles, they are also more heavily represented in games. 

And none of that data even covers the players who have hidden their stats.....


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Lert said:

Frankly I relish the opportunity for more damage, more credits and more XP.

 

Except I seem to have a big target on my ship, and the instant I'm spotted even for a second it seems like "A ROACH!!! KILL IT!!!" which means hide and do what I can...

 

46 minutes ago, desmo_2 said:

This is not as big an issue as you think it is.  In my last 48 games of Tier 8 play, I have been bottom tier only 37% of the time.

 

Lucky you, more like 90% or more of the time I'm bottom tiered.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with the constant uptiering is not the difficulty required to compete, its the constant and consistent ALWAYS having to fight ships superior to your own.  It's like the Cleveland Browns having to play the New England Patriots EVERY SINGLE WEEK.  Yes, they are in the same league.  Yes, they are eligible to see each other on the field.  Yes, they might have a good game.  But never playing anyone else is just tiresome.  Does that make any sense?


8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Lucky you, more like 90% or more of the time I'm bottom tiered.

I'd very much like you to accumulate your next, say, 50 tier 8 battles (or even better, 100) and tally how often you are bottom tier in a T10 match, middle tier in a T9 match and top tier in a T8 match. I am quite certain that your 90% is exaggerated.


2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Silver_kun said:

Precisely, I get loads of credits and XP when I mange to do well. I solo capped in my Bismarck, harassed the DD, followed behind the friendly yamato and rained secondaries on the enemy yamato and also citadeled his broadside. Even in bad matches I don`t go into losses unless I wander off and the carrier strafes me at the beginning of the match.

 

And just as @AJTP89 said Tier VII ships can handle Tier X ships just fine, you need to support and not be the spearhead of the charge.

 

The Images for the battle I mentioned above is below....

  Reveal hidden contents

Wows1.thumb.PNG.6839558a4d1ad22eb2ea53b716e703a9.PNGWows2.thumb.PNG.a360a02fbbcaaafc0810c86516a012cd.PNGWows3.thumb.PNG.2225987b6ad1dc55e167faa96c21d1b6.PNG5a0f60a725865_Finalwows.thumb.PNG.97f895c908edd5b424beb5421bfaacec.PNG

 

 

So you claim one good game proves your point? Not even going to point out how foolish that is.:Smile_facepalm:


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lert said:

I'd very much like you to accumulate your next, say, 50 tier 8 battles (or even better, 100) and tally how often you are bottom tier in a T10 match, middle tier in a T9 match and top tier in a T8 match. I am quite certain that your 90% is exaggerated.

 

Lert, 67 of my last 100 tier 8 battles have been bottom tier. 12 Mid, 21 top tier.

Now admittedly I haven't played much tier 8 recently, but it never really seemed to change. I could play 5 battles one night bottom tier. Play the next night and get 3 more, before I finally saw a mid or top tier. In that entire sequence only one instance of two top tiers in a row.....


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

The issue with the constant uptiering is not the difficulty required to compete, its the constant and consistent ALWAYS having to fight ships superior to your own.  It's like the Cleveland Browns having to play the New England Patriots EVERY SINGLE WEEK.  Yes, they are in the same league.  Yes, they are eligible to see each other on the field.  Yes, they might have a good game.  But never playing anyone else is just tiresome.  Does that make any sense?

 

This is an excellent example of why people are getting fed up with the matchmaker, yes.

 

It's not that players who dislike the situation can't play in it. It's that doing it all the time sucks the fun out of the game.

 

Who here plays Dark Souls? Do you want every enemy to be wheel skeletons?


4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lert said:

I'd very much like you to accumulate your next, say, 50 tier 8 battles (or even better, 100) and tally how often you are bottom tier in a T10 match, middle tier in a T9 match and top tier in a T8 match. I am quite certain that your 90% is exaggerated.

 

Five games in Akizuki last night and this morning; 4 tier 10, 1 tier 8, (with tier 6 ships.) Than micro-example alone is 80%

 

 Going one tier down; the five games I played using Kaga; 3 tier 9, 1 tier 8, 1 tier 7, 80% of those game were uptiered. 

 

90%? Even if it is exaggerated, whoever is getting these  games where they say they aren't always getting up-tiered, it isn't me.

 

Z-23, Kidd, Benson, Akizuki, Micky K, Atago, all tier 8s I played over the last several days, pretty much every game was tier 10, 9, or 8... Games where I'm clearly top tier? So few they don't stand out. The ships above represent 25 games, maybe 1-2 i was top tier.

 

If you want anything more than that; I'll have to do as you said and keep track. Still don't believe anyone who says they get so few uptiered games.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

If you want anything more than that; I'll have to do as you said and keep track.

I'm just sick and tired of people throwing out numbers they sucked out of their thumb after pulling said thumb out of their behind and presenting them as fact, without doing even the absolute basic actual fact collecting.

90%?

I'll buy you 5000 dollars worth of gold if you get 90% bottom tier in tier 10 battles over your next 100 battles in tier 8 ships.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lert said:

I'm just sick and tired of people throwing out numbers they sucked out of their thumb after pulling said thumb out of their behind and presenting them as fact, without doing even the absolute basic actual fact collecting.

90%?

I'll buy you 5000 dollars worth of gold if you get 90% bottom tier in tier 10 battles over your next 100 battles in tier 8 ships.

Someone did just post their numbers which you're kind of ignoring.

 

67 out of 100 games bottom tier vs tier 10, with the remaining 33% divided between mid-tier and bottom tier? That's significant. It's not 90%, but it's significant.

Edited by AraAragami

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AraAragami said:

Someone did just post their numbers which you're kind of ignoring.

 

67 out of 100 games bottom tier vs tier 10, with the remaining 33% divided between mid-tier and bottom tier? That's significant. It's not 90%, but it's significant.

I'm ignoring nothing.

If anything, 67% is not 90%.


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lert said:

I'm ignoring nothing.

If anything, 67% is not 90%.

Congratulations, you told me the exact same thing I told you.

 

Congratulations, you also ignored that two thirds of the sample are occupying one third of the chart.


1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AraAragami said:

Congratulations, you told me the exact same thing I told you.

 

Congratulations, you also ignored that two thirds of the sample are occupying one third of the chart.

Congratulations, you seem to be incapable of understanding that I just want people to actually count instead of throwing out numbers that they pulled out of their [edited].

You also seem entirely incapable of grasping that I was not talking about you.

You provided actual numbers. Congratulations! You can count! I was talking about people who are incapable of doing so and think that just throwing a number they literally pulled out of thin air supports their argument.

I am ignoring nothing.

 

 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe a graphic will help you.

 

kql77a5.png

 

Again: No, it isn't 90%. I already acknowledged this. As did the source of the data. You're ignoring the data in favor of arguing "But it's not 90%!" which is a strawman you're throwing up to try and downplay the issue being discussed.

 

If this isn't the basis of your argument, then acknowledge that people have gathered the numbers you're demanding and aren't just talking out of their butt.

Edited by AraAragami

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone needs to look at why the +2/-2 exists. The most common response is "small player base" or "we don't have the player numbers to support +1/-1". The question should be "Why?". There are lots of new players joining all the time but the playing base stays small, I have seen only a tiny growth since I started playing. Player retention beyond tier 4 is a problem and needs to be addressed. IMHO the big reason is matchmaking, it can be frustrating for new players to fight superior ships a large portion of the time. Granted I agree with Lert, 90% is a bit high, but just from my experience it has been north of 75% when I get up tiered. I am sure there are lots of other reasons people leave the game but if you look at the "I Quit" forum posts, you see that MM is almost always mentioned as a reason. Granted that few people bother to make those posts so it is hard to really extrapolate much from them but it is the data available and should not be ignored. I suppose most people just leave the game without bothering to say why publicly, we could use a "exit survey" like businesses use. 

WoWS bleeds players, retention needs to become a priority and focused on before anything can be done about matchmaking. The game is growing, but at a snail's pace. Keeping players interested and playing and reducing the frustration level of newer players should be something Wargaming examines. Current players need to think about this as well the next time they start berating a player who isn't playing up to their expectations. The next time you feel the need to be a twerp to someone in chat, may want to remember we need to keep players and that being nasty only adds to the frustration of others. 


0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.