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

Survey: What MatchMaking spread would you prefer to see in WoWS?

What MatchMaking spread would you prefer?  

198 members have voted

  1. 1. What MatchMaking spread would you prefer?

    • ±1 tier
      114
    • ±2 tier
      52
    • Bacon
      32

73 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

524
[TSG4B]
Volunteer Moderator Coordinator
2,449 posts
13,418 battles

we use to games where CV vs non CV and when manual drop is still allow at low tier, man that menace matches and scary when game started and knowing the enemy team had a CV and out own team got none.

 

Or when

1 team have 5 players, vs the red team with 8 players .... oh boy, the good old time when you really hit the wall, so then you going to make a decision of get gud or get lost!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,010
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,439 posts
8,204 battles
1 hour ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

+/-3, no Tier Protection.

Ah, like in the good old Beta days. We even had +4 for some things back then, good times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,983
[SALVO]
Members
22,937 posts
23,528 battles
1 hour ago, _cthulhu_ said:

Invalid poll - you need single tier as an option

Invalid poll.  The OP needs to include +/-3 tier MM, as that was what was used during Open Beta.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[SIMP]
Members
1,081 posts
9,535 battles
5 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Invalid poll.  The OP needs to include +/-3 tier MM, as that was what was used during Open Beta.

Yes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,470
[H_]
Members
2,914 posts
13,368 battles

What +3.  pock that.  Retention is hard enough !  + or - ONE 1...........not 2 not 3 not 6 but 1 and 1 only.............AND, radar should not be allowed below tier 7: period.

This crap is killing retention and now, our clan has lost several new players............  We've about had it with the meta nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,983
[SALVO]
Members
22,937 posts
23,528 battles
27 minutes ago, Asym_KS said:

What +3.  pock that.  Retention is hard enough !  + or - ONE 1...........not 2 not 3 not 6 but 1 and 1 only.............AND, radar should not be allowed below tier 7: period.

This crap is killing retention and now, our clan has lost several new players............  We've about had it with the meta nonsense.

Oh good grief, Asym.  Try recruiting people with more spine and less whine.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,158
[INTEL]
Members
11,367 posts
31,838 battles
2 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

Actually +/- 2 means plus or minus 2 tiers maximum.

This is our current match maker tier spreads.

tier tiers seen   tiers in a match
1 - 1              one tier max
2 - 2,3            two tiers max
3 - 2,3,4               "
4 - 3,4,5               "
5 - 4,5,6,7        three tiers max                 
6 - 5,6,7,8             "
7 - 5,6,7,8,9           "
8 - 6,7,8,9,10          "
9 - 7,8,9,10            "
10 - 8,9,10             "

Along with being historical, USS Washington vs the IJN Kirishima although that was like Ali vs a middleweight in a phone booth. I actually did better WR wise with that MM than with the three tier MM, go figure.

The ships that don't up tier well can and should be addressed individually because on the flip side there are ships that up tier extremely well that would then perform even better in a two tier environment. Look what happened to the Nikolai when the MM was changed for tiers 1 - 4, it was over performing when it could see tier 6.

There are few ships like Nik. There are many like the Omaha clones....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,059 posts
6,046 battles

+2/-2 is fine. It just needs to always be bottom heavy rather than top heavy. So a t5-7 match would be 7xt5 3xt6 2xt7 rather than what everyone is actually upset with... being the ONLY t5 in a t5-7 match. Or the ONLY t8 in a t8-10... and in a stock boat for some poor folks. My two cents. :dance_turtle:

Edited by Xanshin
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47
[ANIME]
Beta Testers
123 posts
3,977 battles
3 hours ago, Nergy said:

The option was given as ±1 tier ..

Ex. a 100 ohm resistor ±10% means it can be 100 + 10 and 100 - 10. so 110 to 90. a spread of 20.

This is wrong, that 100 ohm would be between 90 to 110, not be 90 to 110. The first is a set value. The other is the entire spread. Things can be within a spread, but they cannot be the spread. The way things a worded, even if slightly different, can change the meaning completely.

+/-2 is what we have, I would like to see +/-1, but is is not as big a deal as in tanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,210
[GWG]
Supertester
22,867 posts
12,799 battles
32 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

There are few ships like Nik. There are many like the Omaha clones....

The Nikolai is extreme but there are regular tech tree ships that are over performing abit at less extreme levels. Also there are ships that don't over perform currently but will if the tier range is restricted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,981
[WOLF9]
Privateers
11,537 posts
4,550 battles
3 hours ago, _1204_ said:

+/-10 matchmaking please

Hmmm.  Weighted by number of games played in the presented ship type?  That could be interesting.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,981
[WOLF9]
Privateers
11,537 posts
4,550 battles
53 minutes ago, Xanshin said:

what everyone is actually upset with... being the ONLY t5 in a t5-7 match.

I don't mind being a T5 in a T7 match.  When I do well it's proof that the player is better than the bote.  When I explode, it's the bote's fault.

BTW, there is the scoring bonus of shooting a higher tier ship.  I can make more XP (and Cr?) against higher tier botes.  My limiting factor to global domination is TIME.

 

 

Edited by iDuckman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
3 posts
2,986 battles

shot-18_09.22_11_04.51-0417.thumb.jpg.f9774f6243de95248c6c4a4ba6681c39.jpg

I feel like matchmaker should just do a better job then just throw me into these kind of games when I'm only in queue for less then 5 seconds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,983
[SALVO]
Members
22,937 posts
23,528 battles
1 hour ago, Taichunger said:

There are few ships like Nik. There are many like the Omaha clones....

Tai, the Omaha clones can do just fine against tier 7's.  You just have to use a bit of caution and pick your spots.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,983
[SALVO]
Members
22,937 posts
23,528 battles
1 minute ago, PikachuXll said:

shot-18_09.22_11_04.51-0417.thumb.jpg.f9774f6243de95248c6c4a4ba6681c39.jpg

I feel like matchmaker should just do a better job then THAN just throw me into these kind of games when I'm only in queue for less then THAN 5 seconds

I feel like you need to learn the difference between then and than.

Also, you're in a DD.  DD's generally uptier pretty well.  That said, I agree that that sort of MM (i.e. 10 t10's, 1 t9, and 1 t8 per team) is really over the top.  In a situation like that, MM should consider just leaving out the tier 8's and 9's and let it be a battle with 10 t10's on each team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,158
[INTEL]
Members
11,367 posts
31,838 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

Tai, the Omaha clones can do just fine against tier 7's.  You just have to use a bit of caution and pick your spots.  

No doubt some players are fine with them. But when they restricted the T4 MM I went back and got the numbers for ships whose first week of play I could identify. Most of them had fallen, people had halved their play time in them. 

Many people have decided to curtail the play of certain ships...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
151
[WOLFD]
Members
707 posts
5,481 battles
4 hours ago, vak_ said:

I would like to gauge people's opinion regarding the MM spread. Don't vote on what you believe might be better for new players, etc. Vote for the MM that you personally would prefer to have.

Vak,

I am tired of being the only bottom tier cruiser in an otherwise high tier match.

i.e.

one T5 cruiser per side in a heavily weighted T7 match - replace T5 and T7 with T6/T8, T7/T9, T8/T10

I even had one match where I was dropped as the only T8 cruiser in the whole match, none on the other side, the other team had an extra BB, it was T8, not even close to equal MM.  That match was immediately followed up by one where I was the only T5 cruiser in a T7 match. signed off and did not play more than 2 games that day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[DAS]
Members
714 posts
6,227 battles

I chose +-1, but I don't really have problems with how it is right now.

Well, maybe I have one problem and that is with CVs. If they are top tier and you are in a ship with poor AA, you can be in for a very short game, unless you can glue yourself to something with great AA all game. However, with the upcoming changes to CVs, this "problem" might go away very soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,169
[NMKJT]
Members
3,972 posts

The current MM, doesn't work for me. I am in fact on the fence whether to continue in the game because of it. 

I am okay in theory with +2/-2. But when 60-70% of the matches are bottom tier, it gets tiring. And when you are the only bottom tier ship on the team, it's painful. And that happens several matches in a row these days. 

And it's going to get worse. Legendary modules make it worse. You buff your T10 against another T10 it's no big deal, but it's a big deal when a T8 faces off. 

So if I was top tier 1/3 of the time  and mid tier 1/3 of the time, I'd be okay. But that's not what we have, and it's not working

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,927
[WOLF3]
Members
22,448 posts
20,530 battles
3 hours ago, vak_ said:

Ah, like in the good old Beta days. We even had +4 for some things back then, good times

I liked it because there a lot more ships that could establish dominance yet be schooled in another game.  No tier protection meaning everybody was fair game.

 

The only other MM I'd tolerate is +/-2 with no tier protection, which was basically what we had before the current MM.  I was fine with that also.  But I liked the crazy wild +/-3 MM spreads.  The sheer variety was nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
795
[GREEK]
Members
1,007 posts

T1-5 and T10 should be +1/-1.  The rest a 2 point spread is fine.  This will filter out and protect the newbies along with solving the power creep that is T10.  Most T9s can handle a T10 game.  Only a few T8s can handle a T10 game.  Ideally I would love to see T10 stuck in their own games and balance ships around that.  It gets people ready for Ranked and keeps the lesser tier players from getting stomped by Power Creeped ships.

 

If you make T8 for the first time and get stuck in back to back games with purely T10s who crap on you, you will stop playing.  

Edited by JonnyFreedom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
188
[JUICE]
Members
824 posts
6,375 battles
15 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

I liked it because there a lot more ships that could establish dominance yet be schooled in another game.  No tier protection meaning everybody was fair game.

 

The only other MM I'd tolerate is +/-2 with no tier protection, which was basically what we had before the current MM.  I was fine with that also.  But I liked the crazy wild +/-3 MM spreads.  The sheer variety was nuts.

I would like  to see that return as well but, the forums would melt.......................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,980 posts
1,448 battles

Id take + - 1, with 4/11 spread, or something that left it mostly the same tier.

2 tier would be something like 2, 3, 10 so the higher tiers arent prevalent enough to be op and the lower tiers have sufficient numbers to keep it reasonable for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,010
[-K-]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
6,439 posts
8,204 battles
30 minutes ago, HazeGrayUnderway said:

But I liked the crazy wild +/-3 MM spreads.  The sheer variety was nuts.

I did too. Unlike WoT, where going in a T-34-85 against a T-54 is just a sick joke, in WoWS a three tier spread is not insurmountable. Fuso (heck, even Kongo) can still wreck an Iowa with vengeance if the latter ship broadsides, and so on.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,210
[GWG]
Supertester
22,867 posts
12,799 battles
18 minutes ago, vak_ said:

I did too. Unlike WoT, where going in a T-34-85 against a T-54 is just a sick joke, in WoWS a three tier spread is not insurmountable. Fuso (heck, even Kongo) can still wreck an Iowa with vengeance if the latter ship broadsides, and so on.

This, even the tier 1's can damage tier 10's although their life would be short if the tier 10 got tired of the irritating bug. The biggest issue with the three tier MM is when it grabs one or two bottom tier to fill up the match. One factor in the MM issues this game has is it is quite possible with permanent camouflages to play nothing but tier 10 which is not possible in WoT where playing the middle tiers is required to finance playing the top tiers. The devs need to find a way to make the middle tiers more popular which would go a long way to reducing the frustration that come from playing tier 8 and even tier 5.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×