Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
anonym_9qa81sg1ET3c

Lack of ship diversity in MM

15 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
757 posts

Once upon a time matchmaker was just about the tier of ships. It was not uncommon to see imbalanced counts of DDs, BBs and CA/CLs. To suggest it was anything other than random would be akin to being a conspiracy theorist. We now have primary, secondary and tertiary rules based on how much time people wait in queue. Soft and hard limits on ship counts. to name a few. Now there is a rule to provide a more even mix of tiers to prevent that poor single T8 soul from getting sucked into a T10 game.

There is one rule Im still quite fuzzy on because its old. Im not sure its still in effect but it seems like it. WG once had a rule that would match ship types to prevent situations where one side had all torpedo boats and he other gun ships. I'm not sure if this was nation based or if there was a hidden parameter for some ships that labeled them as such. This was during the Khab heyday when it was just laying waste to every DD in sight.. Does this rule still exist? It seems like for sure on the cruiser side it will match how many CA vs CL each side gets.

Lastly , You can take the rarest premium ship out that you never see and match maker will make you face the same ship if possible. Stop playing that premium and never see it again. There seems like there is some secret sauce there causing this.

 

All this together seems like we are slowly getting to the point where its almost mirror copies of teams you play against in efforts to keep the matchmaker perceived as fair. I feel like this is really boring.

Edited by anonym_9qa81sg1ET3c
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
802 posts
12,909 battles

I think I said something like that a long time ago, I may be wrong. It was when everybody was wanting +1/-1 MM. That would be super boring just like having all the same ships on both teams is boring. You have to have diversity to create challenges and fun. Not to compare it to life but what would life be like if everything was just drab and scripted. It would suck and be boring. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,792 posts
23,987 battles
20 minutes ago, T1mb3rWo1f said:

I think I said something like that a long time ago, I may be wrong. It was when everybody was wanting +1/-1 MM. That would be super boring just like having all the same ships on both teams is boring. You have to have diversity to create challenges and fun. Not to compare it to life but what would life be like if everything was just drab and scripted. It would suck and be boring. 

The potatoes barely post now because the finally realize it wasn't MM that was the issue all this time.

And yes it is boring to see a lack of diversity on the map. However, I still miss the days of bringing my Kami R into T10 matches. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,106
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,617 battles
42 minutes ago, Ban_CV_Complainers said:

WG once had a rule that would match ship types to prevent situations where one side had all torpedo boats and he other gun ships.

No one has heard from that rule for years. And it wasn't mirrored MM, what it did in reality was ..... if there were 2 Clevelands in queue and also 2 Aobas, each team got one of each. As no ship is perfectly balanced against any other, it was an attempt to make the matches as balanced as was possible. Since the RTS CV system was in place then, it was more important than it would be now; the differences between USN and IJN CVs was quite noticeable back then, and could definately influence the outcome of matches. The system tried to insure that each team had both torp and gunboat DDs if there were multiple of both in queue; it tried to insure AA cruisers like Cleveland and Atlanta were evenly distributed, it tried to keep each team even with both strike and air superiority CVs. And it failed because there weren't that many occasions of there being doubles of ships in the same queue. Probably why we don't see it any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,637
[RLGN]
Members
15,636 posts
27,325 battles
1 hour ago, Ban_CV_Complainers said:

All this together seems like we are slowly getting to the point where its almost mirror copies of teams you play against in efforts to keep the matchmaker perceived as fair. I feel like this is really boring.

WG is basically eliminating any serious form of pre-battle battle decision-making, (apparently everyone will eventually have ‘Premium’ consumables, and you can just about mount as many signals as you want now,) so why not MM as well?

Sorry if you’re trying to play a Dunkerque or whatever; if nobody else is, then I guess you’ll need to pick something else?

... and they stroll blindly on; wondering why the game has issues, but never looking in a mirror.

Edited by Estimated_Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Guest
0 posts

Random Battle MM is governed by all kinds of ship type/class/tier constraints & rules, this in itself reduces ship diversity. All the recent changes to MM that are in response to complaints such as "+/2 MM is unfair", only serve to reduce diversity further.

On top of the inherent constraints governing MM, events and game content develoments create surges in ship types, so that we see for example 6 CVs at tier 4, more often than we'd like, or this weekend, we will be seeing 5 x Ikea dds per team, just because new Swedish dd line has been fully released. Special missions, such as start 99 fires in one battle, tend to increase the number of HE spamming light cruisers on teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10,393
[INTEL]
Members
13,459 posts
38,163 battles

The lack of diversity is created by the double whammy of aircraft carriers and the two-tier mm spread. Aircraft carriers forced people to play ships they are comfortable with in the face of aircraft meaning that most of their ships remain Port Queens. The two-tier MM spread means that people will only play ships that uptier well for them.

Although there are differences between individual players that means broadly there are some ships that one simply never sees because they do not upteir well and/or because they cannot face aircraft carriers.

The solution is obvious, but unfortunately a large segment of the player base supports policies that are slowly strangling the diversity and fun out of the game.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,848
[SGSS]
Members
5,728 posts
2 hours ago, Ban_CV_Complainers said:

Once upon a time matchmaker was just about the tier of ships. It was not uncommon to see imbalanced counts of DDs, BBs and CA/CLs. To suggest it was anything other than random would be akin to being a conspiracy theorist. We now have primary, secondary and tertiary rules based on how much time people wait in queue. Soft and hard limits on ship counts. to name a few. Now there is a rule to provide a more even mix of tiers to prevent that poor single T8 soul from getting sucked into a T10 game.

There is one rule Im still quite fuzzy on because its old. Im not sure its still in effect but it seems like it. WG once had a rule that would match ship types to prevent situations where one side had all torpedo boats and he other gun ships. I'm not sure if this was nation based or if there was a hidden parameter for some ships that labeled them as such. This was during the Khab heyday when it was just laying waste to every DD in sight.. Does this rule still exist? It seems like for sure on the cruiser side it will match how many CA vs CL each side gets.

Lastly , You can take the rarest premium ship out that you never see and match maker will make you face the same ship if possible. Stop playing that premium and never see it again. There seems like there is some secret sauce there causing this.

 

All this together seems like we are slowly getting to the point where its almost mirror copies of teams you play against in efforts to keep the matchmaker perceived as fair. I feel like this is really boring.

Wg said it would happen.  I really liked having the mm the way it was. Yes it sucked being t8 in t10 but games were different

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
802 posts
12,909 battles
18 hours ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

The potatoes barely post now because the finally realize it wasn't MM that was the issue all this time.

And yes it is boring to see a lack of diversity on the map. However, I still miss the days of bringing my Kami R into T10 matches. 

I'll bet that was interesting lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,848
[SGSS]
Members
5,728 posts
19 hours ago, T1mb3rWo1f said:

I think I said something like that a long time ago, I may be wrong. It was when everybody was wanting +1/-1 MM. That would be super boring just like having all the same ships on both teams is boring. You have to have diversity to create challenges and fun. Not to compare it to life but what would life be like if everything was just drab and scripted. It would suck and be boring. 

Its why t10 sucked. It was always the same. 

T6, 7, and 8 were so fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,848
[SGSS]
Members
5,728 posts
18 hours ago, LoveBote said:

Random Battle MM is governed by all kinds of ship type/class/tier constraints & rules, this in itself reduces ship diversity. All the recent changes to MM that are in response to complaints such as "+/2 MM is unfair", only serve to reduce diversity further.

On top of the inherent constraints governing MM, events and game content develoments create surges in ship types, so that we see for example 6 CVs at tier 4, more often than we'd like, or this weekend, we will be seeing 5 x Ikea dds per team, just because new Swedish dd line has been fully released. Special missions, such as start 99 fires in one battle, tend to increase the number of HE spamming light cruisers on teams.

The thing most seem to not get is being bottom t you can get more xp and do less damage because hitting up t ships is more valuable 

I really did not understand this untill the Itialian line.  I would get close to cap kill the DD then cap repeat then die and same better xp than same t matches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,792 posts
23,987 battles
17 minutes ago, T1mb3rWo1f said:

I'll bet that was interesting lol.

Quite comical. The red BBs were abusing me in chat about screwing my team. Then I went & sank a Monty and Iowa. Monty was one of the loud mouths...lol. After that he was screaming why their cruisers didn't find me...lol. Too bad no one in my division had replays enabled back then. Would still be a classic today even though we lost that match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
802 posts
12,909 battles
47 minutes ago, 1SneakyDevil said:

Quite comical. The red BBs were abusing me in chat about screwing my team. Then I went & sank a Monty and Iowa. Monty was one of the loud mouths...lol. After that he was screaming why their cruisers didn't find me...lol. Too bad no one in my division had replays enabled back then. Would still be a classic today even though we lost that match.

Ha ha, chasing a little destroyer around. That is fun in itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,015
[USA-N]
Members
785 posts
11,544 battles

It would interesting to give people the choice to play high tiers. So, someone might want to take a tier 7 into a tier 10 match, just for lols (and credits and XP also).

Rewards are already linked to tier, which is a solid game design feature. Allowing folks the choice to nominate tier would be another way to add depth, and choice, and allow different folks to play their way.

Choice is awesome. If folks want to play it safe, always being top tier, let them. If folks want to step up and trade risk for reward, let them.

It would also mean you never quite know what you are going to get in a match, which would be neat. 

Edited by SidTheBlade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×