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

MM is completely broken

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

332
[VETSN]
Members
661 posts
5,537 battles

Thought id take a break from pulling my hair out in Ranked, but after this game, I feel much better about Ranked play.  What a nightmare of a game.  Not to point fingers, but the two CV's on my team did squat, and never spotted the enemy DD... not once...  this was a 30 second queue BTW.

Thought id share,

Cheers.

WTF.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,054
[O_O]
[O_O]
Members
3,776 posts
16,445 battles

Looks like that DD was waiting in queue for 3 minutes and MM decided to put it all together. That lineup looks like a DD dream and if the CV didn't tag him he must've done well. How did he do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
332
[VETSN]
Members
661 posts
5,537 battles
5 minutes ago, Khafni said:

Looks like that DD was waiting in queue for 3 minutes and MM decided to put it all together. That lineup looks like a DD dream and if the CV didn't tag him he must've done well. How did he do?

Only 2200 xp I think.  He could of had a field day but he protected the caps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,135
[SALVO]
Members
21,733 posts
22,069 battles
45 minutes ago, BarneyStyle said:

Thought id take a break from pulling my hair out in Ranked, but after this game, I feel much better about Ranked play.  What a nightmare of a game.  Not to point fingers, but the two CV's on my team did squat, and never spotted the enemy DD... not once...  this was a 30 second queue BTW.

Thought id share,

Cheers.

WTF.png

Just because you were on the queue for only 30 seconds doesn't mean that everyone else was.  There may have been others in there for 5 minutes.   This looks very much like a queue dump to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
572
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
1,758 posts
18,207 battles

Hmmm, it looks fun to me ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,161
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
4,763 posts
15,494 battles

I don't know why, but there were a huge number of battleships in the queue last night. Guess somebody got to 5 minutes of waiting, and the queue dumped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,452
[WGA]
Administrator
1,501 posts
14,079 battles

Heyo Captains,

This looks like an outlier case in terms of matchmaking. While these lineups do occur, its usually very very rarely (In my memory of the game I think I've seen a similar line up <10 times in 15k games). While we are very much aware of player discontent in terms of how matchmaker currently is, and have acknowledged we are working on making changes (particularly to around T8) to ease concerns. These changes do take time and testing before implementation. 

It is likely in this scenario, the first person who entered Q was in for over 3 minutes, which is what prompted matchmaking to revert to the previous "less-conditioned" system to speed up getting players into a game. 

More details can be found on the system here: https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/game-guides/mirror-mirror/

(this is slightly out of date as some tweaks have been made to MM since but is generally a good and detailed explanation of MM logic)

Fem, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
728
[SOFOP]
Members
1,254 posts
8,831 battles

I saw upwards of 40+ BBs in queues at times the last few days.  Lots of people grinding the OP Russian boats I guess.  this looks like the matchmaker just punted and said "Fine, go have fun BBs and get out of my queue!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,751
[EGIRL]
Beta Testers
4,340 posts
13,110 battles

With this many food bbs for farm dmg why go lose time for spot the dd?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,161
[-K-]
[-K-]
Members
4,763 posts
15,494 battles
5 minutes ago, Old_Baldy_One said:

I saw upwards of 40+ BBs in queues at times the last few days.  Lots of people grinding the OP Russian boats I guess.  this looks like the matchmaker just punted and said "Fine, go have fun BBs and get out of my queue!"

I thought that too, but when I actually got into the game, it was only 1-2 Russian BBs per team. There's a lot of other BBs sitting in queue too for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[DHO-2]
Members
28 posts
3,062 battles

Man, that must be what heaven looks like to an Asashio driver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,477
[WORX]
Members
5,074 posts
15,603 battles

Man if this was the old RTS CV game play, it would've been  glorious battle.

Instead, we have two side filled with cavemen throwing rocks at each other. With the WORC/Moskva/Ogne only there for moral/aggravation support....

It happens mid to low tiers as well.. It does produce interesting outcomes. Interesting is not the same as "good"

Edited by Navalpride33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
919 posts
33,307 battles
1 hour ago, Sevari said:

Man, that must be what heaven looks like to an Asashio driver.

Not really - 2 cv per side. (If the losing side CV’s knew importance of spotting)

3 hours ago, Edgecase said:

I thought that too, but when I actually got into the game, it was only 1-2 Russian BBs per team. There's a lot of other BBs sitting in queue too for some reason.

Reason is simple: current CV mechanics making playing dd not fun -> bb thrive 

3 hours ago, HyenaHiena said:

With this many food bbs for farm dmg why go lose time for spot the dd?

Thats exactly what losing side CV’s thought, unfortunately

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,447
[YORHA]
Members
4,273 posts
7,638 battles
4 hours ago, Femennenly said:

Heyo Captains,

This looks like an outlier case in terms of matchmaking. While these lineups do occur, its usually very very rarely (In my memory of the game I think I've seen a similar line up <10 times in 15k games). While we are very much aware of player discontent in terms of how matchmaker currently is, and have acknowledged we are working on making changes (particularly to around T8) to ease concerns. These changes do take time and testing before implementation. 

It is likely in this scenario, the first person who entered Q was in for over 3 minutes, which is what prompted matchmaking to revert to the previous "less-conditioned" system to speed up getting players into a game. 

More details can be found on the system here: https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/game-guides/mirror-mirror/

(this is slightly out of date as some tweaks have been made to MM since but is generally a good and detailed explanation of MM logic)

Fem, 

Outlier?  Seriously?  That's the company line?

Well here are a couple of more "outliers" for you.

 

Rw41siL.jpg

 

bHiVBfH.jpg

 

I just finished 3 games in the Massachusetts  where I was the only tier VIII in the battle and the queue was less than 30 seconds each time.

Never ever buying a tier VII Premium again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,135
[SALVO]
Members
21,733 posts
22,069 battles
2 hours ago, JCC45 said:

Outlier?  Seriously?  That's the company line?

Well here are a couple of more "outliers" for you.

 

Rw41siL.jpg

 

bHiVBfH.jpg

 

I just finished 3 games in the Massachusetts  where I was the only tier VIII in the battle and the queue was less than 30 seconds each time.

Never ever buying a tier VII Premium again.

JCC, you should have looked more closely at the initial post's image.  The problem he posted about wasn't a pile of tier 10's.  It was that there were 2 CVs per team in a tier 10 battle, and 17 BBs split between the  two teams.  And as I said earlier, I think that the reason for the OP's MM was that someone was in the queue for at least 3 minutes (or more), which as Fem pointed out, triggers the secondary MM team building model.

Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

Your two posted battles are completely normal.  1 CV per team, no more than 5 BBs per team, and so on.  The only anomaly was in having only 1 tier 8 per team, but that's actually fairly normal because it can be triggered by the current state of the MM queue.  After all, if there are 22 tiers 10's waiting in the queue, of course MM is going to toss a tier 8 onto each team to fill them out.  You should damned well know that that's normal!!!

Frankly, the weirdest thing about your first battle was that all ten tier 10 BBs were Yamatos.    The odds against that happening have to be astronomical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,447
[YORHA]
Members
4,273 posts
7,638 battles
11 hours ago, Crucis said:

JCC, you should have looked more closely at the initial post's image.  The problem he posted about wasn't a pile of tier 10's.  It was that there were 2 CVs per team in a tier 10 battle, and 17 BBs split between the  two teams.  And as I said earlier, I think that the reason for the OP's MM was that someone was in the queue for at least 3 minutes (or more), which as Fem pointed out, triggers the secondary MM team building model.

Stop making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

Your two posted battles are completely normal.  1 CV per team, no more than 5 BBs per team, and so on.  The only anomaly was in having only 1 tier 8 per team, but that's actually fairly normal because it can be triggered by the current state of the MM queue.  After all, if there are 22 tiers 10's waiting in the queue, of course MM is going to toss a tier 8 onto each team to fill them out.  You should damned well know that that's normal!!!

Frankly, the weirdest thing about your first battle was that all ten tier 10 BBs were Yamatos.    The odds against that happening have to be astronomical.

Never mind. I just recalled the old adage about teaching a pig to sing.

Edited by JCC45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44
[S0L0]
Members
104 posts
20 hours ago, Femennenly said:

Heyo Captains,

This looks like an outlier case in terms of matchmaking. While these lineups do occur, its usually very very rarely (In my memory of the game I think I've seen a similar line up <10 times in 15k games). While we are very much aware of player discontent in terms of how matchmaker currently is, and have acknowledged we are working on making changes (particularly to around T8) to ease concerns. These changes do take time and testing before implementation. 

It is likely in this scenario, the first person who entered Q was in for over 3 minutes, which is what prompted matchmaking to revert to the previous "less-conditioned" system to speed up getting players into a game. 

More details can be found on the system here: https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/game-guides/mirror-mirror/

(this is slightly out of date as some tweaks have been made to MM since but is generally a good and detailed explanation of MM logic)

Fem, 

Thank you Fem. I hope WG starts taking into account player skill and experience as well as removing the +/-2 MM as those seem to be the most often reported issues with MM. I just played a game where the opposing team showed teamwork, communication and strategy while my team hid in the back, ran away and didn't even contest the caps. It's getting to be where the bad players seem to prioritize "staying alive" over teamwork and team objectives. WG should really consider changing the way they calculate points and stats to reward teamwork and focusing on objectives versus running away and occasionally firing over islands.

I haven't been here as long as many of you but I've never seen it remotely as bad as it is right now. The Derp is real.

Some ideas we were bouncing around for changing how points and stats are calculated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,135
[SALVO]
Members
21,733 posts
22,069 battles
3 hours ago, JCC45 said:

Never mind. I just recalled the old adage about teaching a pig to sing.

Dude, you're comparing the OP's game which was CLEARLY a case of MM forming a team after the 3 minute  threshold and ending up with 2 teams that fall outside the less than 3 minute team building rules, with your games which are 100% according to the less than 3 minutes team building rules.  The only one with a problem here is you.  These two situations are completely different!!!

If you don't like the current, less than 3 minute team building MM rules, then SAY SO.  But DO NOT try to make a case that your issue is comparable to the OP's situation, because IT IS NOT.  Note that I don't mind complaints about being the sole tier 8 in an otherwise 100% tier 10 battle.  I have no problem with +/-2 tier MM, but I do see a bit of an unfairness when there's only one bottom (tier -2) tier ship when the remaining 11 ships on the team are top tier. 

OTOH, some ships are more than capable of dealing with it.  But clearly some PLAYERS are not.  They are so convinced of the unfairness of being bottom tier (tier -2) that they're blind to the reality that it's nowhere near as difficult as they make it out to be.  Frankly, it seems to me that most of the time when I check the stats of players who complain about +/-2 tier MM, it seems that most are players with rather substandard stats, below 50% WR (often well below as in closer to 45% than to 50%) and below 30k average damage.  (You're ok in this BTW.  You're aggressively average, which is fine.)  Note that I'm almost 60 years old, so I'm no longer the typical spry youngster playing a computer game.  But when I see those substandard stats coupled with complaints about things like "Oh how hard it is to play bottom tier!", what I'm seeing is not how bad or unfair it is.  Rather I see constant operator error being hidden behind complaints about game difficulty and unfairness and so on.

Also, for what it's worth, for all the complaints (that aren't entirely unjustified) about being the lone tier 8 ship on teams with 11 tier 10 ships, I think that you should consider the following.  Have you played WoT since they went to their newish MM a year or 2 back?  The WoT MM that forced tier 10 battles (with tiers 8-10 ships) to have 3 tier 10's, 5 tier 9's, and 7 tier 8's.  Looking at that, it looks pretty good for the tier 8's, at least compared to the idea of being the lone tier 8 with 11 tier 10's filling out the team  But there's a dark cloud behind that silver lining.  Because those WoT tier 10 battles require so many tier 8 tanks to fill out the teams, the chances of getting a tier 8 battle in a tier 8 tank go way down, since there'd be only 3 tier 8, 5 tier 7, and 7 tier 6 tanks on tier 8 battle teams.  So, if WG tried to do the same thing with WoWS, you might very well end up with a lot fewer tier 8 battles for your tier 8 ships.  The reality is that there may not be a great solution here, at least not one that involves some form of tier +/-2 tier MM.

 

Anyways, maybe you should take that old adage to heart because it seems to me that you're doing your level best to take on the role of the pig here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,900
Members
23,232 posts
5,865 battles
17 hours ago, JCC45 said:

Outlier?  Seriously?  That's the company line?

Well here are a couple of more "outliers" for you.

 

Rw41siL.jpg

 

bHiVBfH.jpg

 

I just finished 3 games in the Massachusetts  where I was the only tier VIII in the battle and the queue was less than 30 seconds each time.

Never ever buying a tier VII Premium again.

That's not what he meant by outlier though. Pretty sure he was referring to the fact that only 1 side had a DD.

And we were warned to expect more of what you're showing, as a side effect of tweaking MM to put T8s in fewer T10 battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7,307 posts
3,248 battles

BBs are the most played class period. Happens when you keep nerfing their "counter" and leave the CVs to dominate other ship types (BBs are the only ones that can absorb strikes and shrug them off).

div name class players total battles average of rates
battles win draw lose exp damage
caused
warship
destroyed
aircraft
destoryed
base
capture
base
defense
survived kill /
death
agro
damage
spot
damage
hit
ratio
1 BB Higher Tier 29588 3332062 112.62 50.29 0.04 49.67 1504 62627 0.74 4.85 3.75 4.52 33.17 1.11 1253445 16479 27.25
1 CA Higher Tier 26413 2962917 112.18 50.25 0.03 49.72 1489 51263 0.66 4.63 6.74 7.04 30.45 0.95 840528 14987 30.45
1 CV Higher Tier 5486 585145 106.66 50.29 0.05 49.66 1784 68714 0.93 6.24 0.57 12.34 73.57 3.52 246339 50563 0.00
1 DD Higher Tier 16640 1829048 109.92 50.35 0.03 49.62 1438 36673 0.67 2.15 28.68 5.74 27.72 0.93 494091 24582 41.60

These are tiers 7-10. I guarantee you the higher you go, the fewer DDs are played. Pay attention to how BBs literally double DD numbers and out number CAs as well.

edit: These are numbers over 2 months. Source for the curious:

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20190615/na_2month/average_class.html

 

 

Edited by 10T0nHammer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,135
[SALVO]
Members
21,733 posts
22,069 battles
1 hour ago, Code_Slinger said:

Thank you Fem. I hope WG starts taking into account player skill and experience as well as removing the +/-2 MM as those seem to be the most often reported issues with MM. I just played a game where the opposing team showed teamwork, communication and strategy while my team hid in the back, ran away and didn't even contest the caps. It's getting to be where the bad players seem to prioritize "staying alive" over teamwork and team objectives. WG should really consider changing the way they calculate points and stats to reward teamwork and focusing on objectives versus running away and occasionally firing over islands.

I haven't been here as long as many of you but I've never seen it remotely as bad as it is right now. The Derp is real.

Some ideas we were bouncing around for changing how points and stats are calculated

I think that you're dreaming, Code_Slinger.  WG has steadfastly refused to drop tier +/-2 MM for WoT's entire existence, not to mention WoWS' existence.  I don't see that ever happening at this point.

Also, I doubt that they'll every do any form of skill based matchmaking either because they've been just as adamantly opposed to doing that over the years (sadly).

As for "WG should really consider changing the way they calculate points and stats to reward teamwork and focusing on objectives versus running away and occasionally firing over islands.", now you're going from merely dreaming to the utterly delusional.  Players will be players.  And there are players who steadfastly REFUSE to play to win, players who only care about shooting stuff and sinking ships.  There's no way that players with that sort of attitude are going to pay attention to things that incentivize team work and objectives.  The only objective for those players is, again, shooting stuff and sinking ships.  Period.

Furthermore, methinks that you've never heard of the old saying that discretion is the better part of valor.  Sometimes the smart play IS to run away.

 

 

12 hours ago, Code_Slinger said:

Good point. I think ships could be monitored through scripts for staying outside of a specified area like you said, or retreating outside of the specified area and failing to shoot (and hit) the other team on a regular basis, failing to attack with some regularity depending on ship type, etc. It's something that would require careful thought to create a system that rewarded team play and punished running or hiding. I think supporting, defending and attacking caps and the enemy around them should reward better too. Maybe visibility of and proximity to the cap could be used as a factor in calculating score and stats.

So I don't have all the answers but I do know the system as it stands todays rewards bad sportsmanship. Much like Ranked where players will abandon their team and the objectives and focus on "saving their star", rewarding players for running away, staying alive and refusing to actively engage has a negative impact on the game and discourages teamwork.

And to respond to the linked stuff, I disagree with these ideas.  What if you're in a  BB that's badly wounded and needs time to hide and heal up?  Are you going to punish him for doing the smart thing?  Also, not every ship is meant to fight "in proximity" of a cap, and I resent people trying to tell me how to fight my ship.  Long range kiting ships should NOT be forced to fight up close because some know it all thinks he knows better.   Now, should German BBs be kiting?  Hell no.  But if they do, they'll be not only hurting their team, but they'll be hurting themselves because their German BB won't be landing many hits and doing much damage (unless RNG is being VERY generous).  But it should NOT be up to WG or a scoring system to force players tgo play the way certain people think the game should be played.

If I'm in a sniping cruiser, I'm going to be sniping.  If I'm in a brawling BB, I'm going to move in closer.  If I'm in a BB that's not really a strong secondaries brawler, I am NOT going to move into secondary range of a German BB because that's stupid.  Play to your own ship's strengths.  And do your best to deny the enemy HIS strengths.  And I don't give a damn about any scoring system that tries to punish me for playing my ships intelligently, because what I see in the above quite goes against playing one's ships intelligently.  It's trying to force players to play a certain way that may NOT be intelligent at all.

 

 

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,135
[SALVO]
Members
21,733 posts
22,069 battles
3 minutes ago, 10T0nHammer said:

BBs are the most played class period. Happens when you keep nerfing their "counter" and leave the CVs to dominate other ship types (BBs are the only ones that can absorb strikes and shrug them off).

div name class players total battles average of rates
battles win draw lose exp damage
caused
warship
destroyed
aircraft
destoryed
base
capture
base
defense
survived kill /
death
agro
damage
spot
damage
hit
ratio
1 BB Higher Tier 29588 3332062 112.62 50.29 0.04 49.67 1504 62627 0.74 4.85 3.75 4.52 33.17 1.11 1253445 16479 27.25
1 CA Higher Tier 26413 2962917 112.18 50.25 0.03 49.72 1489 51263 0.66 4.63 6.74 7.04 30.45 0.95 840528 14987 30.45
1 CV Higher Tier 5486 585145 106.66 50.29 0.05 49.66 1784 68714 0.93 6.24 0.57 12.34 73.57 3.52 246339 50563 0.00
1 DD Higher Tier 16640 1829048 109.92 50.35 0.03 49.62 1438 36673 0.67 2.15 28.68 5.74 27.72 0.93 494091 24582 41.60

These are tiers 7-10. I guarantee you the higher you go, the fewer DDs are played. Pay attention to how BBs literally double DD numbers and out number CAs as well.

edit: These are numbers over 2 months. Source for the curious:

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20190615/na_2month/average_class.html

 

 

BBs do not have "literally" double the number of DD battles.  "Literally" double would be something around 3.6M battles, not 3.3M battles.  You should have said "roughly" double.  

And yes, I'm picky!!!  I get annoyed at how poorly people use the language when it's so easy to do it properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
7,307 posts
3,248 battles
7 minutes ago, Crucis said:

BBs do not have "literally" double the number of DD battles.  "Literally" double would be something around 3.6M battles, not 3.3M battles.  You should have said "roughly" double.  

And yes, I'm picky!!!  I get annoyed at how poorly people use the language when it's so easy to do it properly.

Fair enough, it's a 4% difference between literal and roughly so I'll concede to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,135
[SALVO]
Members
21,733 posts
22,069 battles
2 minutes ago, 10T0nHammer said:

Fair enough, it's a 4% difference between literal and roughly so I'll concede to that.

Cool.  "Roughly double" works.  "About double" works.  I'm sure that there are other ways to say it that work too.

 

It just annoys me that people throw around the word "literally" so much when it seems that they either don't know what it really means or they're just too lazy to use the right word.  Hell, "roughly" is 2 letter shorter, so it even seems to me that the "lazy" approach should favor using "roughly".  But one never knows.  Oh well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×