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

Darn MM and AA balance

7 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
328 posts
3,496 battles

What could be worse than matches with 4 CVs? Matches with 4 CVs with unbalanced AA! Definite imbalance here that strongly suggests MM does not take AA ratings into account.

Now the Saipan alone causes an imbalance among the CVs but come on, 3 Texas and a Cleveland on one side? Why wouldn't MM trade a Texas for one of our Bretagne?

We can infer some different points from the outcome. More than likely our Ranger attacked the enemy Independence planes with his fighters. The Saipan probably attacked anything he could catch. The enemy Aoba had a large number of planes shot down so he was probably hassled most of the game (probably because of a lack of targets). The 3 enemy Texas only shot down 2 planes between them so they were basically left alone by our CVs (they were sailing together).  The Cleveland also only shot down 5 planes, he was probably left alone too. Doesn't leave many targets for our CVs. Not including CVs, we shot down 25 planes compared to their 36, which is surprising because it looks like our CVs avoided the 3 Texas and Cleveland. Their CVs sank 5 ships to our 1.

Just about every stat shows an imbalance?

Spoiler

MMunbalanced.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
449 posts
12,180 battles

If the MM took into account EVERYTHING that people complain about there would be 1 match every hour or so.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37
[ARC]
Members
444 posts
6,957 battles
1 hour ago, Chrifister said:

What could be worse than matches with 4 CVs? Matches with 4 CVs with unbalanced AA! Definite imbalance here that strongly suggests MM does not take AA ratings into account.

Now the Saipan alone causes an imbalance among the CVs but come on, 3 Texas and a Cleveland on one side? Why wouldn't MM trade a Texas for one of our Bretagne?

We can infer some different points from the outcome. More than likely our Ranger attacked the enemy Independence planes with his fighters. The Saipan probably attacked anything he could catch. The enemy Aoba had a large number of planes shot down so he was probably hassled most of the game (probably because of a lack of targets). The 3 enemy Texas only shot down 2 planes between them so they were basically left alone by our CVs (they were sailing together).  The Cleveland also only shot down 5 planes, he was probably left alone too. Doesn't leave many targets for our CVs. Not including CVs, we shot down 25 planes compared to their 36, which is surprising because it looks like our CVs avoided the 3 Texas and Cleveland. Their CVs sank 5 ships to our 1.

Just about every stat shows an imbalance?

  Reveal hidden contents

MMunbalanced.jpg

 

MM only takes into account ship tier and type. Only with those variables, the MM takes 15-20 sec to make a match (if it is not prime time). How many minutes do you think it will take to make a match if they take into account gun size, AA, smoke and radar?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,858
[CNO]
[CNO]
Members
3,762 posts
12,864 battles

I would have loved to be the QE in that match.  Two enemy CVs is pure Nirvana!  Sadly, most of my QE matches have no CV at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
328 posts
3,496 battles
On 4/9/2018 at 1:06 AM, hanesco said:

MM only takes into account ship tier and type. Only with those variables, the MM takes 15-20 sec to make a match (if it is not prime time). How many minutes do you think it will take to make a match if they take into account gun size, AA, smoke and radar?

15-20 seconds? The rare time I get to play now is in the evenings and I only have a 1-5 second window before I'm thrown into a game. Wonder why it takes so long for you?

Anyway, I truly believe that adding some simple metadata like which ships are AA platforms would not slow down the MM. Heck it could even balance the teams after it selected all of the players. In the above game for example, after all 24 players were selected, MM could have easily balanced the AA platforms.

It's bad enough I'm forced to play with CVs, I shouldn't have to suffer through such unbalanced matches. Like shooting fish in a barrel for one team.

Speaking of imbalances, one of the last games I played in WOWS Blitz had a CV on each team and one team entirely made up of super powered DDs versus a mix of other ships. It was a slaughter. Ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37
[ARC]
Members
444 posts
6,957 battles
17 hours ago, Chrifister said:

In the above game for example, after all 24 players were selected, MM could have easily balanced the AA platforms.

The problem is, the MM asign the teams as they find someone in queue. Not anyone's fault that MM selected all 3 AA ships to go to one team if they did not connect themselves at the same time. Your solution is a good one to evade those type of matches, but putting both variables will tax the MM. How much? No idea, I didn't develop it.

In the 15-20 sec, it ocurres when the population in the server is lower than 4k. I do not live in the US, so it takes longer for MM to patch up a decent team. For whatever reason, geographical proximity is taken into account.

Edited by hanesco

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
717
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
6,024 battles

Texas' AA is overrated.

 

Not only the AA mounts on Texas are easily EASILY broken by any shells. They are only extremely short ranged. The AAs on Texas is more retaliatory than life saving because they only work after the planes have dropped their ordinances. 

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×