Jump to content
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
kindarinvincible

Two Level Difference Matchups, Time to Reconsider

51 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
7 posts
4,953 battles

It's time to reconsider the two-level difference when building matchups in Random Battles.  As the game matures and more and more players reach Level 7 and above it becomes less necessary to pit the higher level ships with those ships that are two levels lower.  The difference between a Level 6 ship and a Level 4 ship is reasonable and a good captain of a Level 4 ship can make up the difference.  However the difference between a Level 8 ship and a Level 6 ship is enormous.  The range, accuracy, detection ability, impact of rounds and the armor of the Level 8 ships makes the competition almost pointless and far beyond the ability of a skilled captain to make up the difference. This is also true with aircraft carriers where the difference between fighters makes it nearly impossible to compete.  Needless to say it is enormously frustrating to start a battle only to find that I'm merely cannon fodder as the one of the "filler" Level 6 ships among a crowd of Level 7 and 8s. I'm strongly recommending that the criteria for matchups be changed to one Level difference for ships of Level 7 and above. That way a Level 7 ship will only face Level 6 through Level 8 and a Level 8 will only face Level 7, 8 and 9 competition, etc. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
449 posts
12,213 battles

People have been making this argument at least twice per week over the last two years. It doesn't matter which side of the fence you are on. It will not happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,584
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,298 battles

No.  It's time for WoWS'  version of special snowflakes to grow a backbone and man up to the challenge of being down 2 tiers.  

In fact, I'd say that when comparing tiers 6 to 8 your argument was a complete and total failure because every point you hit was just plain wrong.  The one item where you might have a point that I could have agreed with is the exact one that you left out.  And for now, I'll leave it out because I'd rather that you (or someone else) figure it out.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,584
[SALVO]
Members
16,618 posts
17,298 battles
6 minutes ago, Kapitan_Wuff said:

No. It's time to consider getting over it and git gud.

 

Wuff, the thing is that you don't have to be "gud" by unicum standards to hold one's own when 2 tiers down.  The first thing one has to do is not see yourself as a freakin' victim of MM.  If that's your mentality, then you're halfway sunk before the countdown is even over.  And second, stop trying to think that you have to carry the team when 2 tiers down.  Just try to carry your weight and adapt to being bottom tier.  The problem I see with people who complain about this is that they're unwilling to  adapt.  They want to be able to play the exact same way no matter the circumstance, and that's just plain stupid.

For god sakes, in open beta, MM was +/-3 rather than +/-2, and I managed to do OK.  I had to fight a Yammy in a Colorado, for crying out loud.  Not 1v1.  I was only supporting higher tier ships who did the real fighting.  I just hung back and HE spammed him (because my AP did nothing but bounce, given his angle, etc.).  But I hung in there and did a lot of damage on that Yammy with nothing but HE and fires.  I adapted and manned up to the challenge, rather than coming over here to the forum and crying a river about the injustice of it all.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,014
[PVE]
Members
5,311 posts
17,798 battles
20 minutes ago, kindarinvincible said:

It's time to reconsider the two-level difference when building matchups in Random Battles.  As the game matures and more and more players reach Level 7 and above it becomes less necessary to pit the higher level ships with those ships that are two levels lower.  The difference between a Level 6 ship and a Level 4 ship is reasonable and a good captain of a Level 4 ship can make up the difference.  However the difference between a Level 8 ship and a Level 6 ship is enormous.  The range, accuracy, detection ability, impact of rounds and the armor of the Level 8 ships makes the competition almost pointless and far beyond the ability of a skilled captain to make up the difference. This is also true with aircraft carriers where the difference between fighters makes it nearly impossible to compete.  Needless to say it is enormously frustrating to start a battle only to find that I'm merely cannon fodder as the one of the "filler" Level 6 ships among a crowd of Level 7 and 8s. I'm strongly recommending that the criteria for matchups be changed to one Level difference for ships of Level 7 and above. That way a Level 7 ship will only face Level 6 through Level 8 and a Level 8 will only face Level 7, 8 and 9 competition, etc. 

Wargaming is fine with the way matchmaking works even though we lose lots of players because of the +2/-2 and the forums are full of people who do not care for it either. Many marginal players love it because they can pad their stats by farming lower tier ships that may have less experienced captains so they put up a vigorous defense of the policy that in any other game would be called cheating... For the average player it is a frustrating experience and leads many to just leaving the game. For me I just go into PvP to farm rewards, don't care about gameplay there. Just stay mission focused and if your team loses, so be it. Don't sweat anything, it is just a game. Play to get what you want out of it. If you enjoy the gameplay, then grind up as quickly as you can to tier 9 or 10, that way you are always top tier. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,014
[PVE]
Members
5,311 posts
17,798 battles
2 minutes ago, Crucis said:

For god sakes, in open beta, MM was +/-3 rather than +/-2, and I managed to do OK.  I had to fight a Yammy in a Colorado, for crying out loud.  Not 1v1.  I was only supporting higher tier ships who did the real fighting.  I just hung back and HE spammed him (because my AP did nothing but bounce, given his angle, etc.).  But I hung in there and did a lot of damage on that Yammy with nothing but HE and fires.  I adapted and manned up to the challenge, rather than coming over here to the forum and crying a river about the injustice of it all.

Defending a crappy policy with the argument "it used to be crappier" is hardly a valid defense. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
270
[TSG4B]
[TSG4B]
Members
1,713 posts
9,458 battles

I would post popcorn emoticon, this

:Smile_popcorn:

 

But it mean that I am a POP member

So, how about No, not consider any change to the MM. 1st it a good intense training for a t6, have your mind set adapt and learn quickly; 2nd it is as good as it can get; 3rd ppl learn more through training, then put a protected shield over .....; 4th the XP and the credit is ka-ching, good for later when you are low in credit

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,014
[5D7]
Alpha Tester
2,716 posts
4,076 battles
2 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

Defending a crappy policy with the argument "it used to be crappier" is hardly a valid defense. 

 

Defending what has been used as standard since what? 2012...  Maybe players should either learn how to deal with the fact that they aren't owed something because they cry or there is this thing called Co-Op that is more fitting for their not too hard play style.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,014
[PVE]
Members
5,311 posts
17,798 battles
2 minutes ago, Batwingsix said:

Defending what has been used as standard since what? 2012...  Maybe players should either learn how to deal with the fact that they aren't owed something because they cry or there is this thing called Co-Op that is more fitting for their not too hard play style.

Or they quit the game. IMHO it is why WoWS bleeds players.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,295
[HINON]
Members
8,838 posts

You seem to preface your argument as if you are 1 on 1 with a ship 2 tiers higher. When uptiered you should never to the best of your ability put yourself in a position where you are 1 v 1 against your opposite number 2 tiers higher than you. Instead you support your team and get in a position where you can damage the enemy ships usually from a side. Even a BB 2 tiers higher can get hurt heavily by a ship 2 tiers below it. Often my best scoring T6 matches are when downtiered because you get that juicy bonus.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,975
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,742 posts
7,373 battles

Ah, no. Also, thinking T4, and it is Tier, not Level, ships match up well with T6, and that T6 doesn't match up with T8 is completely 180 degrees away from reality. Many T6 ships not only survive, but also thrive against T8, whereas virtually no T4 has any chance against T6. That's the reality, so I'm unable to follow your...let's call it "reasoning."

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,764
Members
9,864 posts
1 hour ago, kindarinvincible said:

It's time to reconsider the two-level difference when building matchups in Random Battles.  As the game matures and more and more players reach Level 7 and above it becomes less necessary to pit the higher level ships with those ships that are two levels lower.  The difference between a Level 6 ship and a Level 4 ship is reasonable and a good captain of a Level 4 ship can make up the difference.  However the difference between a Level 8 ship and a Level 6 ship is enormous.  The range, accuracy, detection ability, impact of rounds and the armor of the Level 8 ships makes the competition almost pointless and far beyond the ability of a skilled captain to make up the difference. This is also true with aircraft carriers where the difference between fighters makes it nearly impossible to compete.  Needless to say it is enormously frustrating to start a battle only to find that I'm merely cannon fodder as the one of the "filler" Level 6 ships among a crowd of Level 7 and 8s. I'm strongly recommending that the criteria for matchups be changed to one Level difference for ships of Level 7 and above. That way a Level 7 ship will only face Level 6 through Level 8 and a Level 8 will only face Level 7, 8 and 9 competition, etc. 

 

Wasting your time...the elitists on the forums hate the very idea....and are oblivious to who the player base is....:Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,014
[5D7]
Alpha Tester
2,716 posts
4,076 battles
41 minutes ago, Taylor3006 said:

Or they quit the game. IMHO it is why WoWS bleeds players.

 

Who's crying has already destroyed the IJN DD line, buffed BB's, destroyed CV play won't be missed and will be replaced by someone else the same day. If someone cant come to terms with how a game is designed they don't have a gun held to their head telling them to play it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,014
[PVE]
Members
5,311 posts
17,798 battles
7 minutes ago, Batwingsix said:

Who's crying has already destroyed the IJN DD line, buffed BB's, destroyed CV play won't be missed and will be replaced by someone else the same day. If someone cant come to terms with how a game is designed they don't have a gun held to their head telling them to play it.

LOL says you. Personally I think it is playing players whining about changes like that. Frustrated players just quit for the most part, few bother to post in the forums. I personally don't care what changes they make to PvP play and would care less if it went away. You are right, players leave and are replaced, that has been the cycle. It is why WoWS's growth is so pitiful. Eventually that will end as the word gets out that the game is not all that good (for whatever reasons). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[EGI]
Beta Testers
1,170 posts
17,846 battles

Other than potentially longer queue times, what is the downside to +1/-1 compared to the current MM ?   I am ok either way really, I'm just curious why so many people come out against it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,014
[PVE]
Members
5,311 posts
17,798 battles
Just now, Swine_007 said:

Other than potentially longer queue times, what is the downside to +1/-1 compared to the current MM ?   I am ok either way really, I'm just curious why so many people come out against it.  

I think the big reason is the player base is about evenly split on the issue. If it isn't quite 50/50 it is pretty close. There are lots of threads about the upside/downside to matchmaking, not going to bother rehashing what has been said a thousand times. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,391
[O_O]
Members
4,333 posts
9,284 battles

In Tier 6, 7, and 8 I don't mind being -2 in tier.  Hmm, I didn't realize I am a unicum elitist. :cap_hmm:  I wouldn't want to play every game that way, but as I am finding out, I am not anyway.  Not even close.  Less than 50% of my games in any of those tiers am I low tier.

As Crucis said above, if you are low tier, you have to change your strategy.  It's part of what I find enjoyable about this game.  You can't play the same way, every time, for every ship.  There are many subtle aspects you need to modify if you want to contribute and earn a win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,391
[O_O]
Members
4,333 posts
9,284 battles
3 minutes ago, Swine_007 said:

Other than potentially longer queue times, what is the downside to +1/-1 compared to the current MM ?   I am ok either way really, I'm just curious why so many people come out against it.  

I'm not patently opposed to it as long as I don't have to wait forever to get into a game.  However, I do often enjoy the challenge of being -2 tiers.  The feeling when I can score 1st or 2nd on my team (even if it's a loss) when I am bottom tier is oh, so gratifying!  :cap_win:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,975
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
6,742 posts
7,373 battles
9 minutes ago, Swine_007 said:

Other than potentially longer queue times, what is the downside to +1/-1 compared to the current MM ?   I am ok either way really, I'm just curious why so many people come out against it.  

The queue times are a part of why most of us are against it. We ain't got a million people online at one time on this server. The part that causes us to come out so forcefully against it isn't that, however, it's the moaning and whining, like from the mouths of 5 year olds, over a free to play game, the entitlement displayed by an alarming percentage of the playerbase, the "I don't like it so it's wrong now change it because if I don't like it then no-one does and that's just how it is!" attitude.

 

THAT is why I'm against it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,014
[PVE]
Members
5,311 posts
17,798 battles
3 minutes ago, TheKrimzonDemon said:

The queue times are a part of why most of us are against it. We ain't got a million people online at one time on this server. The part that causes us to come out so forcefully against it isn't that, however, it's the moaning and whining, like from the mouths of 5 year olds, over a free to play game, the entitlement displayed by an alarming percentage of the playerbase, the "I don't like it so it's wrong now change it because if I don't like it then no-one does and that's just how it is!" attitude.

 

THAT is why I'm against it.

That is pathetic. The people behaving like 5 year olds are the ones defending +2, just look at this thread.... We assume queue times will go up, there is zero data on that. 

Player retention is the problem, matchmaking contributes to people leaving the game. Fewer players playing means longer queue times especially for upper tiers that is why +2/-2 exists to treat the symptoms of the problem, not to cure it. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×