Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Focke66

CV matchmaking silliness.

9 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
344 posts
17,556 battles

Why are double CV games the matches with 1 T8 and 1 T6 or 2 T8's vs T6's-T8's, then when up-tiered its a single T8 vs. T10s?

The GZ tiers up decent so that isnt my concern. It just seems to make more sense that double CV matches be while up-tiered and not clubbing T6 seals.

 

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
712
[NUWES]
Members
3,298 posts
11,877 battles
33 minutes ago, Focke66 said:

Why are double CV games the matches with 1 T8 and 1 T6 or 2 T8's vs T6's-T8's, then when up-tiered its a single T8 vs. T10s?

The GZ tiers up decent so that isnt my concern. It just seems to make more sense that double CV matches be while up-tiered and not clubbing T6 seals.

 

I suspect it just looks that way due to small sample size. My understanding is MM will double T6 regularly with no hesitation and T10 only if it is a queue dump. My observation is T8s don't seem to double with another CV often and when they do it tends to be a T6. I have seen a few double T8 matches but I don't know if it is a queue dump or it is normally allowable. Unfortunately the sample size is too small for any of us to really know just based on observation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,696
[WORX]
Members
11,997 posts
19,508 battles
1 hour ago, Focke66 said:

Why are double CV games the matches with 1 T8 and 1 T6 or 2 T8's vs T6's-T8's, then when up-tiered its a single T8 vs. T10s?

The GZ tiers up decent so that isnt my concern. It just seems to make more sense that double CV matches be while up-tiered and not clubbing T6 seals.

 

The procedure for this situation is

Basically you're going to hand salute your fleet:Smile_honoring:, then you're going to sail to your faith :Smile_izmena: because you're going to get sunk. :DD:.

GL next time.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,491
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
27,513 posts
14,829 battles
1 hour ago, Vangm94 said:

Gotta learn to accept a challenge.

It is a double sized challenge for CV's because they don't up tier well and they never really did. A tier 6 CV in a tier 8 match isn't horrible but an 8 in a 10 is hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
344 posts
17,556 battles
1 hour ago, Vangm94 said:

Gotta learn to accept a challenge.

Re-read what i said. I dont care about the up-tiering. GZ tiers OK 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
158
[RBMKI]
Members
371 posts
6,248 battles

Better yet, I would like to know when WG is going to reintroduce 3 CV platoons? :Smile_trollface::Smile_unsure::Smile_trollface:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
344 posts
17,556 battles
2 hours ago, Tzarevitch said:

I suspect it just looks that way due to small sample size. My understanding is MM will double T6 regularly with no hesitation and T10 only if it is a queue dump. My observation is T8s don't seem to double with another CV often and when they do it tends to be a T6. I have seen a few double T8 matches but I don't know if it is a queue dump or it is normally allowable. Unfortunately the sample size is too small for any of us to really know just based on observation. 

MY experiences over the past at least 100 CV matches is T10 rare double up and T6,7,8 pretty often.  Makes no sense. When T8's are in a T10, that is when MM should look for a double up. Im telling you, usually a GZ in a double low tier CV game is clubbing seals. usually, there are those games that go poorly  lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[55UP]
Members
407 posts
3,395 battles

For a while, only one CV in a T10 match unless the wait time is long (3+ minutes, I think). Doesn’t matter what tier the carriers are, 8 or 10 (as long as they match each other). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×