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

Match Making needs Further work

26 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

41
[3COWS]
Members
99 posts
6,517 battles

Hi Guys, 

 

Obviously this is a regular topic however after the most recent changes it still needs further work. 

 

Today myself and my friend were both running Nagato's and we were put into a Tier 9 game. 

Not being able to take a tier 9 ship myself because I am in a division is fair but then to be put into these games is just not fair at all, especially tending that 

I have limited choice when playing in a  Random battle with friends in how far apart our tiers are but then to be put into a game 2 tier's higher is not a logical step. 

Surely there are enough players playing this game now to just pull from one tier above and below. 

The original implementation of this was so that the tier X players could get a game as there were so few back in the day. 

 

This needs to be reworked and not just ignored. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,194
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,570 posts
8,995 battles

Nagato's should do fine in a tier 9 match if you play smart. You do realize that +-1 would not help your win rate and could hurt it as while it would make it easier for you it would at the same time make it easier for the unicums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,065
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,173 posts
11,691 battles

It doesnt have to improve his winrate if it improves his funrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,194
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,570 posts
8,995 battles
1 hour ago, crzyhawk said:

It doesnt have to improve his winrate if it improves his funrate.

True but most people that ask for this deep down whether they realize it or not think they will do better, more wins equals more fun. If they are going through tier 5 it is more understandable but even with that the win rates as far as I can tell for tier 5 has not changed much if at all since the MM change protecting tier 3 & 4 which is when the +-1 went into overdrive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
599
[ARRGG]
Members
4,731 posts
7,565 battles
1 hour ago, Deus_Drone said:

Hi Guys, 

 

Obviously this is a regular topic however after the most recent changes it still needs further work. 

 

Today myself and my friend were both running Nagato's and we were put into a Tier 9 game. 

Not being able to take a tier 9 ship myself because I am in a division is fair but then to be put into these games is just not fair at all, especially tending that 

I have limited choice when playing in a  Random battle with friends in how far apart our tiers are but then to be put into a game 2 tier's higher is not a logical step. 

Surely there are enough players playing this game now to just pull from one tier above and below. 

The original implementation of this was so that the tier X players could get a game as there were so few back in the day. 

 

This needs to be reworked and not just ignored. 

 

There is one absolute given here MM generates the most $$ for the owners otherwise they would change it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,194
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,570 posts
8,995 battles
4 minutes ago, HMCS_Devilfish said:

There is one absolute given here MM generates the most $$ for the owners otherwise they would change it

There is also the fact that while it would work just fine during prime time in most tiers what will happen during off hours when matches are already small and que dumps are common?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11
[NFW]
Members
47 posts
819 battles

I would settle for teams that were not camping potatoes......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,731
[INTEL]
Members
8,567 posts
25,652 battles
2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

True but most people that ask for this deep down whether they realize it or not think they will do better, more wins equals more fun. If they are going through tier 5 it is more understandable but even with that the win rates as far as I can tell for tier 5 has not changed much if at all since the MM change protecting tier 3 & 4 which is when the +-1 went into overdrive.

Lol. People want one tier because being constantly uptiered is no fun, but a trial.

It also limits what ships are brought to matches, reducing game variety. After WG ruined T5 players reduced their play of ships that do not uptier well. I documented that with easy to find numbers. I play almost none of my T5 premiums save Okhotnik, and none of my T6 prems except Shino. I look at my T8s and laugh, playing Kutuzov if I expect to get uptiered, and little else. I do not buy premiums at those tiers since they are decorations.

The two tier spread exists because WG wants ships dead ASAP so that players get back into the queue ASAP. The bottom tier ships are there to be fodder.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
259
[NOBS]
Members
521 posts
5,860 battles

It's funny that no one complains when they are the top tier in a battle. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
459
[BOTES]
Members
1,919 posts
6,654 battles
1 hour ago, Taichunger said:

Lol. People want one tier because being constantly uptiered is no fun, but a trial.

It also limits what ships are brought to matches, reducing game variety. After WG ruined T5 players reduced their play of ships that do not uptier well. I documented that with easy to find numbers. I play almost none of my T5 premiums save Okhotnik, and none of my T6 prems except Shino. I look at my T8s and laugh, playing Kutuzov if I expect to get uptiered, and little else. I do not buy premiums at those tiers since they are decorations.

The two tier spread exists because WG wants ships dead ASAP so that players get back into the queue ASAP. The bottom tier ships are there to be fodder.

Matter of opinion. I purchased all of my T5-6 premiums after T3-4 were protected and I've never had a problem with any of them.

If there's a ship that doesn't uptier well, it typically wasn't good to begin with. I know this isn't our first rodeo on this subject, but the only ships I take issue with are genuinely terrible ships, like Huang He and Krasny Krym.

9 minutes ago, Capt_h2o said:

It's funny that no one complains when they are the top tier in a battle. 


Depends on the ship. Sometimes when I'm top tier in Neptune, I wish I was in Edinburgh or Fiji instead for their concealment and armor. Keep in mind that I don't like Neptune in most situations, so that's not really a tiering issue, but my point stands. There's a lot of matchups like that.

Edited by awildseaking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
352
[NAVY]
Members
1,007 posts
3,756 battles

I know that how well WG's MM works has been a matter of debate for as far back as I can remember, but I don't see much of an issue with it.

Sometimes you are top tier and sometimes you are on the bottom. There are times when everyone is the same tier or there is just a -/+ 1 spread. It all balances out over "x" number of games.

You can still contribute and do well if you are a tier 5 in a tier 7 match or a tier 8 in a tier 10.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
259
[NOBS]
Members
521 posts
5,860 battles

And I also "complained" about being uptiered, but I don't always get uptiered, and even when I end up in a tier 10 battle with my tier 8, they are on both sides, you just need to pick your fight with caution. Those Yamamoto's aren't all that tough when you ram a Bizmarck into the side of them! Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
115
[SAINT]
[SAINT]
Members
300 posts
9,800 battles

I see both sides of the argument but have to agree that the +2/-2 system gets old fast when you never see your own tier. As a quick example take two of the most disliked ships to play against in the game: Atlanta and Belfast. Both ships at Tier 7 are monsters but at Tier 8 lose a lot of effectiveness. The Belfast however can still function fairly well but the Atlanta has to be even more cautious and pick it's fights more carefully. At Tier 9 The Belfast with it's smoke and radar can still harass destroyers and cruisers but has to be more cautious about being exposed. The Atlanta, with it's DD guns, has trouble penetrating armor and getting close enough to successfully engage. Yes, they can set pretty much anything on fire but in a Tier 9 game, when spotted, don't last long. This is just my experience with these two ships and I'm sure better players, well, play them better. 

I know, get gud, yadda yadda and I've had good games with both ships at Tier 9 so yes it can be done. But, I'd still rather see +1/-1 matchmaking so it feels more even, I guess would be the best description. I'd also guess that the New Yorks and Fusos don't care to square off against an HE spamming machine gunboat like a Lolanta either. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,731
[INTEL]
Members
8,567 posts
25,652 battles
19 hours ago, awildseaking said:

Matter of opinion. I purchased all of my T5-6 premiums after T3-4 were protected and I've never had a problem with any of them.

If there's a ship that doesn't uptier well, it typically wasn't good to begin with. I know this isn't our first rodeo on this subject, but the only ships I take issue with are genuinely terrible ships, like Huang He and Krasny Krym.

It's not you or me that's the issue. It's the actual behavior of the player population, which has voted with its feet. It's not disputable. I had numbers out on that a few months after the changes. Most of the premiums that do not uptier well were being played at half the rate they had been before, as were many of the tech tree ships. Konig, which is survivable, was impacted the least, but even it saw a big fall in matches.

That's just the way it is. When WG decided to turn all T5 ships into de facto T7s, but not adjust them for that role, it decided that many ships would be far less played. 

I'd like to dig up the recent numbers but unfortunately warships.today has been down for two weeks. So we are like two guys arguing in a bar with no access to google :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
821
[CUTIE]
Beta Testers
4,274 posts
7,830 battles
8 hours ago, HMCS_Devilfish said:

There is one absolute given here MM generates the most $$ for the owners otherwise they would change it

If that was the case T8 MMing should be the best instead of being constantly bottom tier. T8 premiums being the most expensive in the game and almost always facing higher tier opposition says otherwise. Now this is not me defending the implementation of a +1/-1 Matchmaking like the OP wants, but from a purely financial point of view, making T8s not see T10s would boost their purchase attractiveness immensely and also increase the number of sales for T5s which currently face similar issues seeing T7s -- Money is not the motivation behind +2/-2 matchmaking, just them wanting to have more ship variety in battles and keep queue times acceptably fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
599
[ARRGG]
Members
4,731 posts
7,565 battles
42 minutes ago, Woofship said:

If that was the case T8 MMing should be the best instead of being constantly bottom tier. T8 premiums being the most expensive in the game and almost always facing higher tier opposition says otherwise. Now this is not me defending the implementation of a +1/-1 Matchmaking like the OP wants, but from a purely financial point of view, making T8s not see T10s would boost their purchase attractiveness immensely and also increase the number of sales for T5s which currently face similar issues seeing T7s -- Money is not the motivation behind +2/-2 matchmaking, just them wanting to have more ship variety in battles and keep queue times acceptably fast.

You may be right, there was a pole done some time ago asking would you wait in Q for a little longer for better MM and the overwhelming response was yes, my thinking is players playing a V in against Vll ships one would think would get frustrated and move to Vl and so on just what Wows wants

my favorite ship is the V Murmansk with 2600 games in it, my % of facing Vl-Vll ships in MM is like in the 90+%(tracking my Algorithm perhaps?)takes away from the fun factor facing other Cruisers that shoot further with better armor and more guns constantly, so what do I do play my higher tier ships more ... just what Wows wants, so your right facing same tier may boost sales of certain ships but it’s never that simple,in a game we’re every shot, turn, what you do every second every game is tracked, recorded I doubt when it comes to $$ very little is left to chance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
213
[PS1HQ]
Members
621 posts

+2 / =2 is actually a lot better in this game than tanks.  when you're down 2 tiers in tanks you're more or less useless.  that said, +1/-1 would be optimal for play-ability.   Sadly WG is stubborn and won't address.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
88
[BORK]
Members
256 posts
5,567 battles

I thought mm was supposed to split up 2 ships like say two Atlantas in the queue and put them on opposite teams instead of putting them both on one side vs say 2 non premium t7 cruisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
259
[NOBS]
Members
521 posts
5,860 battles

I've changed my mind, MM needs fixing, a tier 6 CV in a tier 8 battle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
88
[BORK]
Members
256 posts
5,567 battles
Just now, Capt_h2o said:

I've changed my mind, MM needs fixing, a tier 6 CV in a tier 8 battle. 

one of the reasons I stopped playing cv.

 

nothing like facing a bunch of bbs with 80-90+ aa ratings. and thats aside from the cruisers with their aa specials.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,065
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,173 posts
11,691 battles
10 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

True but most people that ask for this deep down whether they realize it or not think they will do better, more wins equals more fun. If they are going through tier 5 it is more understandable but even with that the win rates as far as I can tell for tier 5 has not changed much if at all since the MM change protecting tier 3 & 4 which is when the +-1 went into overdrive.

Being bottom tier is demoralizing, and it's costing players.  Many players quit over the matchmaking.  There's no valid reason to keep things the way they are, yet here we are.  +/- 2 is flat out bad for the game.  When players feel the game is lost from the get go, they usually find a way to make that happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,065
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,173 posts
11,691 battles
2 hours ago, Taichunger said:

It's not you or me that's the issue. It's the actual behavior of the player population, which has voted with its feet. It's not disputable. I had numbers out on that a few months after the changes. Most of the premiums that do not uptier well were being played at half the rate they had been before, as were many of the tech tree ships. Konig, which is survivable, was impacted the least, but even it saw a big fall in matches.

That's just the way it is. When WG decided to turn all T5 ships into de facto T7s, but not adjust them for that role, it decided that many ships would be far less played. 

I'd like to dig up the recent numbers but unfortunately warships.today has been down for two weeks. So we are like two guys arguing in a bar with no access to google :)

I quit playing all of my T5 premiums except Gremyaschy and Kamikaze.  I generally will not touch t5 with a 10 foot pole, although I'd rather play t5 down two tiers, than play a t10 game with any ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,900
[CNO]
[CNO]
Members
3,833 posts
13,050 battles
11 hours ago, Deus_Drone said:

I have limited choice when playing in a  Random battle with friends in how far apart our tiers are but then to be put into a game 2 tier's higher is not a logical step. 

Surely there are enough players playing this game now to just pull from one tier above and below. 

 

I personally like the +/- 2 tiering.  A good T7 player will often outperform a poor T9 player.  So it's not just volume of players that drive the MM.  Part of the WOWS challenge is to figure out how to contribute when bottom tiered.  

If you were running a T7 division, then the MM (unless it had to fall back to the old method) would have had two other T7 BBs matched against you.  So don't think "Oh crap, I'm bottom tier and will get owned by the T9s) instead think..."Cool, two T7s to pounce on".  Not to mention all those glass cruisers.  Use your assymetric advantages.  A Negato will overmatch ALL other T7 opponents in the game.  And it can put a lot of hurt on CAs...any tier...and has the early game range to do it.  As for the the T9 players...especially the T9 BBs...yeah...they have an advantage in general, but they still have to respect you.  Look for mistakes...make them pay.  And don't forget, for every T9 BB the reds have...there will be a green BB to match it.  So you don't have to overcome the big guys.  Just help your big guys do it.  You will be surprised how high on the scoreboard you rate...even in a T9 match.  

Edited by Soshi_Sone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,194
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,570 posts
8,995 battles
30 minutes ago, Capt_h2o said:

I've changed my mind, MM needs fixing, a tier 6 CV in a tier 8 battle. 

The terrible up tiering of CV's is one of the reasons for the revamp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,194
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,570 posts
8,995 battles
32 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

Being bottom tier is demoralizing, and it's costing players.  Many players quit over the matchmaking.  There's no valid reason to keep things the way they are, yet here we are.  +/- 2 is flat out bad for the game.  When players feel the game is lost from the get go, they usually find a way to make that happen.

It is only demoralizing if you let it and in a +-1 format you will still be bottom tier about half the time.

26 minutes ago, Soshi_Sone said:

I personally like the +/- 2 tiering.  A good T7 player will often outperform a poor T9 player.  So it's not just volume of players that drive the MM.  Part of the WOWS challenge is to figure out how to contribute when bottom tiered.  

If you were running a T7 division, then the MM (unless it had to fall back to the old method) would have had two other T7 BBs matched against you.  So don't think "Oh crap, I'm bottom tier and will get owned by the T9s) instead think..."Cool, two T7s to pounce on".  Not to mention all those glass cruisers.  Use your assymetric advantages.  A Negato will overmatch ALL other T7 opponents in the game.  And it can put a lot of hurt on CAs...any tier...and has the early game range to do it.  As for the the T9 players...especially the T9 BBs...yeah...they have an advantage in general, but they still have to respect you.  Look for mistakes...make them pay.  And don't forget, for every T9 BB the reds have...there will be a green BB to match it.  So you don't have to overcome the big guys.  Just help your big guys do it.  You will be surprised how high on the scoreboard you rate...even in a T9 match.  

I had my Nelson out some time ago and when I loaded in there were two tier 9 BB's on each team and 3 tier 7's. When the smoke cleared the tier 7 BB's on both teams were in the top five. It is the attitude you bring and not the ship with very few exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×