Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
deltatrooper653

A simple fix for division anchoring

30 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
55 posts
5,807 battles

To those unfamiliar with "division anchoring", it is the practice of exploring the mirror CV MM by putting a CV one tier below the rest of the div  "eg:, 1 tier 7 CV + 2 tier 8 ships of any kind". This is done to ensure the div is less likely to see games with opponents 2 tiers above them. This is an exploit that makes it especially unfun for the opposing team, especially the opposing team. 

 

A really simple fix aside from disallowing CV's to partake in div's, is to simply make it such that the CV must be the highest tier ship in the div. That way, people can no longer exploit the mandatory mirror CV matchmaking by intentionally using a down tiered CV. 

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
575
[PLPTV]
Members
1,457 posts
9,077 battles
51 minutes ago, deltatrooper653 said:

To those unfamiliar with "division anchoring", it is the practice of exploring the mirror CV MM by putting a CV one tier below the rest of the div  "eg:, 1 tier 7 CV + 2 tier 8 ships of any kind". This is done to ensure the div is less likely to see games with opponents 2 tiers above them. This is an exploit that makes it especially unfun for the opposing team, especially the opposing team. 

 

A really simple fix aside from disallowing CV's to partake in div's, is to simply make it such that the CV must be the highest tier ship in the div. That way, people can no longer exploit the mandatory mirror CV matchmaking by intentionally using a down tiered CV. 

If WG fixed their [edited] MM, people would have no reason to "division anchor". Until that day arrives, people will continue to try to get fair matchmaking. 

I dont want to fight tier Xs when I play tier 8, so if WG doesn't indulge me - I'll keep playing my Saipan in a division with 2 North Carolinas or 2 Kutuzovs or 2 Richleus or etc.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
[WOLF2]
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

You could also treat the CV as if it were the the highest tier ship in the div. Want to bring a 788 div with a Saipan? Ok, but be ready to face a t8 CV.

  • Cool 5
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,053
[OPG]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
2,872 posts
10,416 battles

I've never had an issue with this Division anchoring. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
55 posts
5,807 battles
1 minute ago, Fog_Battleship_NCarolina said:

I've never had an issue with this Division anchoring. 

Even if you don't, it is still an exploit that takes advantage of "favored" MM 

 

3 minutes ago, cometguy said:

You could also treat the CV as if it were the the highest tier ship in the div. Want to bring a 788 div with a Saipan? Ok, but be ready to face a t8 CV.

That idea is so hilariously sadistic. I like it:Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,036
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,160 posts
8,772 battles
1 hour ago, deltatrooper653 said:

To those unfamiliar with "division anchoring", it is the practice of exploring the mirror CV MM by putting a CV one tier below the rest of the div  "eg:, 1 tier 7 CV + 2 tier 8 ships of any kind". This is done to ensure the div is less likely to see games with opponents 2 tiers above them. This is an exploit that makes it especially unfun for the opposing team, especially the opposing team. 

 

A really simple fix aside from disallowing CV's to partake in div's, is to simply make it such that the CV must be the highest tier ship in the div. That way, people can no longer exploit the mandatory mirror CV matchmaking by intentionally using a down tiered CV. 

That is one thought but another way would be to treat the CV as the same tier as the other ships in the division. So using your 7/8/8 example the CV would become a tier 8 for all MM purposes and would mirror against tier 8 CV's. Either way would stop the abuse of the CV MM.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,252
[RIPQP]
Members
3,706 posts
14,509 battles

Improvements to my matchmaking system? How about no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,317
[TF16B]
Members
8,063 posts
16,992 battles
15 minutes ago, Ulthwey said:

If WG fixed their god damn MM, people would have no reason to "division anchor". Until that day arrives, people will continue to try to get fair matchmaking. 

I dont want to fight tier Xs when I play tier 8, so if WG doesn't indulge me - I'll keep playing my Saipan in a division with 2 North Carolinas or 2 Kutuzovs or 2 Richleus or etc.

Exactly.

With everything I’ve read about this over the last week; nobody’s written anything that convinces me that I should care.

To use the above example; how is that any different than a normal 6-7-8 MM spread?

The CV is mid tier? So what; the other CV is as well.

Divisioning gives an advantage? That happens anyway, and I’ve seen some pretty pathetic divisions.

15 minutes ago, cometguy said:

You could also treat the CV as if it were the the highest tier ship in the div. Want to bring a 788 div with a Saipan? Ok, but be ready to face a t8 CV.

No?

11 minutes ago, deltatrooper653 said:

That idea is so hilariously sadistic. I like it:Smile_great:

Not particularly, no.

If the Reds don’t play like brain dead idiots, it’s not that hard to screw with a CV.

14 minutes ago, Fog_Battleship_NCarolina said:

I've never had an issue with this Division anchoring. 

 

11 minutes ago, deltatrooper653 said:

Even if you don't, it is still an exploit that takes advantage of "favored" MM.

Again, I should care why?

I’m not one of those who believe T8s see T10s ‘all the time,’ (my experience says a T8 is bottom tier in about 40% of its games,) but it’s still often enough to suck wind.

’Wah! I can’t attack the enemy CV because of their AA div buddies!’ then stop wasting time trying to snipe the CV, and go attack something else; that, or convince your team to delete the AA ships.

5 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

That is one thought but another way would be to treat the CV as the same tier as the other ships in the division. So using your 7/8/8 example the CV would become a tier 8 for all MM purposes and would mirror against tier 8 CV's. Either way would stop the abuse of the CV MM.

As always; if CVs have it easy; it’s because their targets make it so.

CVs get screwed enough by insane AA, DF, and float fighters that refuse to be shot down; and that’s without taking strafing into account. All something like this or the above similar suggestion does is reverse things and hack off a different part of the player base.

  • Cool 3
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,036
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,160 posts
8,772 battles
4 minutes ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Exactly.

With everything I’ve read about this over the last week; nobody’s written anything that convinces me that I should care.

To use the above example; how is that any different than a normal 6-7-8 MM spread?

 

Because unless they run into another division anchoring division the other ships in the division will be top or at worst middle tier.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
724
[0456]
[0456]
Members
2,809 posts
7,992 battles
1 hour ago, Fog_Battleship_NCarolina said:

I've never had an issue with this Division anchoring. 

Of course not since it's a straight line to purple stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
367
[XBRTC]
Members
1,199 posts
7,163 battles

Up until the last thread on the subject I had no idea that CVs had anything special about matchmaking at all, other than that there had to be the same number of carriers on both sides and they had to be the same tier. I didn't know division anchoring was even a thing.

If it hasn't caused a problem for me in 5k+ battles, I suspect it's probably not going to cause any real challenges in the future, either. 

Share this post


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

This Rigging that takes place is laid at the WG Doorstep. With the MM as is +2-2 this reason alone is why it happens. The Fiddling around is proof the MM needs to be addressed.{+0-0 is good enough for Ranked and Clan and Operations } Why are so many Players against this MM? {Could be the Spankings the elite would suffer?}

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
309
[KRAB]
Members
615 posts
5,794 battles

The mirror-MM for CVs should not apply to ships in a division, regardless of their tier. The CV should count as the highest tier ship in the division, just like how every other fail division ends up working. 

Either that, or ban CVs from divisioning entirely until the MM algorithm can be patched to accommodate them better. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
200 posts
4,141 battles

Maybe just ban a division of different tier CV and shipmates. Everyone should be the same tier in a division anyway.  If i go Shokaku my buddy takes a Bismark and the third take a benson all of us tier 8.  If i take Taihou my friends bring a Missouri and Fletcher all three of us tier 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
367
[XBRTC]
Members
1,199 posts
7,163 battles
2 hours ago, MaxL_1023 said:

 The CV should count as the highest tier ship in the division, just like how every other fail division ends up working. 

 

Whoa now, no no no.

Think about that one for a minute.

Independence gets in a division with 2 Kutuzovs, or--even worse--2 Bismarks or NoCars. Independence gets counted as the high-tier ship for MM, and all of a sudden you've got Bismark up against Clemsons and Wyomings.

... though that might actually be kind of entertaining, in a really sick and twisted kind of way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[NWNG]
[NWNG]
Members
1,903 posts
3,292 battles

I have thought about potentially doing this, just to keep myself from seeing T10 battles with my T8 ships. But then, I thought against it, because "that would just be cruel." I may not have a whole lot of battles, but I do know some things concerning this:

1. Division Anchoring isn't all that common. If it was, I would be seeing it far more often than I have (which is 0).

2. Carriers being matched against same tier carrier, at least means both teams are still equal in that regard.

3. The anchoring team, won't be the only team with higher tier ships. 6-7-8, and 7-8-9 are already possible MM outcomes. So either the carrier will be bottom tier, or the carrier would be mid-tier... UNLESS...

4. The only time carriers would be screwed, is if you have two divisions trying to division anchor, and suddenly you get 7-8-9-10, the two carriers being the only tier 7. Hence why it is not all that common. Because if it was, 7-8-9-10 would also become very common.


Is it an exploit? YES. Is it a widely utilized exploit? NO. Does it need to be fixed? YES. How? Carrier must be equal to or greater than highest tier in division, simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
217 posts
8 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

. Either way would stop the abuse of the CV MM.

Yeah... people will still do it for the same reasons they used to div T2-3s with a T10 - either for the lolz or just to troll their own team.

I remember some fun 2x Chikuma + Yamato divs back in the day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
[WOLF2]
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
2 hours ago, LT_Rusty_SWO said:

 

Whoa now, no no no.

Think about that one for a minute.

Independence gets in a division with 2 Kutuzovs, or--even worse--2 Bismarks or NoCars. Independence gets counted as the high-tier ship for MM, and all of a sudden you've got Bismark up against Clemsons and Wyomings.

... though that might actually be kind of entertaining, in a really sick and twisted kind of way.

You can only div up with ships within a tier. So that Indy would see Rangers, Hiryus, Kagas, and Saipans.  Seems fair to me, since they apparently want to make sure they're in a t7 game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
55 posts
5,807 battles
8 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

Again, I should care why?

I’m not one of those who believe T8s see T10s ‘all the time,’ (my experience says a T8 is bottom tier in about 40% of its games,) but it’s still often enough to suck wind.

’Wah! I can’t attack the enemy CV because of their AA div buddies!’ then stop wasting time trying to snipe the CV, and go attack something else; that, or convince your team to delete the AA ships.

 

Oh, but yr perfectly ok with exploiting the MM to give yourself favorable games. Everyone gets bad MM from time to time. That still does not give reasons for u to game the system

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,907
[-K-]
Supertester
3,086 posts
6,827 battles

Ban carriers from divisioning.  Problem solved.  Or just remove them from the game.  Lots of problems solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
573
[KP]
Beta Testers
1,700 posts
11,112 battles

If it's a fail div, then treat it as such, the cv might be t7 but if its with t8's then it can be dragged into a t10 game, 

57 minutes ago, Pope_Shizzle said:

Ban carriers from divisioning.  Problem solved.  Or just remove them from the game.  Lots of problems solved.

This is unfair for people who div up, who don't game the system, by doing this t7cv and 2 x t8 in a sense its cheating, this was prominent when the Kidd came out with its DF

Removing CV from the game, would be like me saying, "remove all usn ships from the game because I don't play them, and they're rubbish compared to other nations ships"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
247 posts
11,873 battles

I vote we get + - 3 tier mm back and remove the low tier protection. :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,317
[TF16B]
Members
8,063 posts
16,992 battles
2 hours ago, deltatrooper653 said:

Oh, but yr perfectly ok with exploiting the MM to give yourself favorable games. Everyone gets bad MM from time to time. That still does not give reasons for u to game the system.

No, because I don't division with carriers this way; it's simply that I feel non-unicum carrier drivers get screwed over enough by tonnes of other things already, and nobody has given me enough of a reason to care that some players try to limit that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
55 posts
5,807 battles
9 hours ago, Estimated_Prophet said:

No, because I don't division with carriers this way; it's simply that I feel non-unicum carrier drivers get screwed over enough by tonnes of other things already, and nobody has given me enough of a reason to care that some players try to limit that.

All the more that i feel this issue needs to be addressed. Cos like u said, they already have enough to worry about without going up against a div-anchoring div. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×