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

How tier 7-8-8 CV MM anchoring should be dealt with

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,633
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
3,225 posts
13,027 battles

Here's a better solution:

No anchoring, no fishing divs, no padding. Does it suck? Yes. But every solution is going to suck until WG actually does the full CV rework.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
15 posts
8,532 battles

That is a very good point and the best idea I've seen thus far. Or change it so everyone in the Div has to be the same tier would also solve the issue of fail divs with tier 7's in tier 10 games etc.

Edited by AR1391
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59
[WOLF2]
Members
202 posts
14,722 battles
6 minutes ago, Edgecase said:

Here's a better solution:

No anchoring, no fishing divs, no padding. Does it suck? Yes. But every solution is going to suck until WG actually does the full CV rework.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,090
[SYN]
Members
14,619 posts
10,949 battles

CV div should only ever be matched up against another CV div.

Alternatively, if they go 788, then they should only ever be matched against T8 or 9 or 10 CVs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,718 posts
7,416 battles
28 minutes ago, AR1391 said:

That is a very good point and the best idea I've seen thus far. Or change it so everyone in the Div has to be the same tier would also solve the issue of fail divs with tier 7's in tier 10 games etc.

This is an easy, effective, and relatively fair fix by the way. :cap_like:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,008
[SALVO]
Members
17,705 posts
18,486 battles
1 hour ago, MrDeaf said:

CV div should only ever be matched up against another CV div.

Alternatively, if they go 788, then they should only ever be matched against T8 or 9 or 10 CVs

MrDeaf, if they went 788, I'd suggest treating the tier 7 CV as if was a tier 8 CV for MM's purposes.  The last thing they should do is pull in some poor schmuck tier 7 CV into a tier 10 battle, just to match up against the 788 div's tier 7 CV.  And if it was always getting matched up against tier 8 CV's, I think that it would end this practice rather quickly.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
416
[C-CA]
[C-CA]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,544 posts
3,645 battles

Or just, y'know, require all division members to be the same tier. Can't have a fail platoon if the whole platoon is the same tier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
174
[IXM]
Members
187 posts
4,336 battles

I really don't see a problem with Wargaming just putting in an extra restriction in division queueing to only allow CVs to que if they are of same tier as other ships in the division. Anchoring problem solved, fail divisions can still que if they want to.

Edited by Aessaya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[WOLFB]
Beta Testers
1,446 posts
6,995 battles
56 minutes ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

Do you really think the CV's will get the rework in our lifetime?

The Chinese are doing a better job  :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
511
[4HIM]
Members
1,944 posts
4,769 battles
5 hours ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

Do you really think the CV's will get the rework in our lifetime?

raw

 

 

Edited by ZARDOZ_II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,360
[SYN]
[SYN]
Members
7,014 posts
10,699 battles

a) Don't let carriers division

b) Why is even a 1-tier spread allowed? Sure occasionally a Yamato-Fletcher division is no real disadvantage, but for every time I see one of those I see a 6-6-7 division in a T9 match, or a 4-4-5 enjoying T7 matchmaking, or the aforementioned carrier issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

I look at that MM and think to myself, it could be a lot worse. Basically 1-2 ships that could hurt the CV that they wouldn't normally see. Yamato and Shima wouldn't be too bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
177
[JUGS]
Beta Testers
1,371 posts
15,306 battles
6 hours ago, CLUCH_CARGO said:

Do you really think the CV's will get the rework in our lifetime?

Not one that really makes overall sense for the game.  How do you balance CVs with other ship classes when they are basically playing "different" games in practice?  Won't be happening imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,008
[SALVO]
Members
17,705 posts
18,486 battles
2 hours ago, mofton said:

a) Don't let carriers division

b) Why is even a 1-tier spread allowed? Sure occasionally a Yamato-Fletcher division is no real disadvantage, but for every time I see one of those I see a 6-6-7 division in a T9 match, or a 4-4-5 enjoying T7 matchmaking, or the aforementioned carrier issue.

b) The 1 tier division (ignoring CVs) is ok when the lowest tier is 8 or 9, since tier 10 battles are quite possible for tier 8's.  However, a 788 division can suck the tier 7 into a tier 10 battle, and should be disallowed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
576
[PLPTV]
Members
1,457 posts
9,077 battles
10 hours ago, The_first_harbinger said:

6N5S3kg.png?2

 

If WG doesnt want to deal with anchor divs, they should fix the god damn matchmaker. 

At this point, bringing a lower tier CV into a division is the only way to get consistently fair MM. You cant blame people for doing it.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
459
[STP]
[STP]
Beta Testers
2,126 posts
11,546 battles

hahá if become popular everone going do that.

Its sad... not for 'win' factor but for not always put T8 div in TX match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
[ARGSY]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
5,392 posts
19,430 battles

2 CV tried the same crap. Justice is done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×