WG Please : Put a limit on Tier difference between Division members

[Kalstein]

I've been seeing this occur too many times lately for me to really enjoy this fine game that I know so many of you've worked so hard to create, where a very higher tier division member(8,9,10s) will bring a very low tier division mate(2,3,4s) into their match thereby creating an unfair game which, according to your very own words, 'Everyone knows the outcome of the match even before it starts'.

 

Needless to say, this creates a very uncomfortable and undesirable environment for everyone else involved who will be punished for no good reason other than their unlucky match making with that Division.

 

You've already proven that you are willing to improve your Match Making system so that everyone can enjoy random battles knowing they will have a fair chance to compete and win,

putting the limit, I would suggest plus minus 2, on tier difference between division mates would be that one last step towards achieving that goal.

 

I sincerely hope that this is one of the things to do on your docket,

and I do thank you again for the improved MM that was implemented with the last patch.

 

 

p.s. Umikaze in a tier 10 game, while not as disastrous, is still not a desirable ship you want to see in a T10 game.   

[gurudennis]

If you couldn't take a tier 1 into a tier 10 match, it would interfere with the social interaction between players. ™ © WG 2016

[crzyhawk]

If you couldn't take a tier 1 into a tier 10 match, it would interfere with the social interaction between players. ™ © WG 2016

 

This, there would be one less thing to complain to your teammates about.

[BubbleRapper]

TBH I've only seen this happen about twice, but I agree there should be a tier difference restriction because a large difference shouldn't be allowed in the first place.

[Lert]

I agree. Limit it to like +/- 2 at the most. Yes, that's still a 'fail division', but tiers in floaty boats matter a lot less than in clanky tanks, and a 2 tier difference isn't as bad as, say 7+ tiers.

[gurudennis]

I agree. Limit it to like +/- 2 at the most. Yes, that's still a 'fail division', but tiers in floaty boats matter a lot less than in clanky tanks, and two tiers isn't as bad as 7+ tiers.

 

Actually +/-2 tiers in a division means +/-4 tiers in MM, which is a big deal. For instance, a division of T3+T5 can see T7. Even something as OP for her tier as St. Louis is utterly useless in a tier 7 match.

 

My opinion: Even +/-1 is generous and can only be allowed with a significant XP penalty. +/-2 is unacceptable. Yes, I know about preferential MM. Hence why +/-1 shouldn't be outright banned, only penalized.

[goldeagle1123]

They need to have it like it is in WoT. You have to have the exact battle tiers to platoon up.

[gurudennis]

They need to have it like it is in WoT. You have to have the exact battle tiers to platoon up.

 

That's not how it is in WoT. WoT rewards same-tier divisions but allows for a significant disparity (+/-3 if memory serves) before you hit any (minor) penalties. It's not strict enough.

[goldeagle1123]

 

That's not how it is in WoT. WoT rewards same-tier divisions but allows for a significant disparity (+/-3 if memory serves) before you hit any (minor) penalties. It's not strict enough.

 

It's how it is in WoT Console.

[gurudennis]

It's how it is in WoT Console.

 

Ah! I didn't know that. Very progressive.

[VTAdmiral]

I agree. Limit it to like +/- 2 at the most. Yes, that's still a 'fail division', but tiers in floaty boats matter a lot less than in clanky tanks, and a 2 tier difference isn't as bad as, say 7+ tiers.

 

I'd say division members must be within 1 tier of one another, (tiers 4/5, 5/6, etc. It would disallow a 3-ship division of tiers 4/5/6 since 6 is too far from 4)

 

Additionally I personally would adjust MM for divisions to work within this restriction and only place the division +/- 1 tier as well. So in a theoretical tier 4 + tier 5 division, the highest they'd see is tier 6 (Tier 4's highest possible encounter) and no lower than tier 3 (Tier 5's lowest possible encounter).

 

I don't see this causing problems. I see it solving a lot of problems. That's probably why WG won't do it. Too much logic.

[gurudennis]

Additionally I personally would adjust MM for divisions to work within this restriction and only place the division +/- 1 tier as well. So in a theoretical tier 4 + tier 5 division, the highest they'd see is tier 6 (Tier 4's highest possible encounter) and no lower than tier 3 (Tier 5's lowest possible encounter).

 

No no and no. It would be a clear exploit. Division a scalable T7 ship (e.g. Blys) with a T8 and guarantee that you never see T10.

[VTAdmiral]

 

No no and no. It would be a clear exploit. Division a scalable T7 ship (e.g. Blys) with a T8 and guarantee that you never see T10.

 

So you'd rather what happens now, Umikaze in tier 10? Eerie in tier 10? Mikasa in tier 10?

[gurudennis]

So you'd rather what happens now, Umikaze in tier 10? Eerie in tier 10? Mikasa in tier 10?

 

You misunderstand. Please read my comments above. I'm pro restricting divisions to +/-1 with penalties or same tier with status quo rewards. It's just that divisions should continue to be matched according to their top tier.

[VTAdmiral]

 

You misunderstand. Please read my comments above. I'm pro restricting divisions to +/-1 with penalties or same tier with status quo rewards. It's just that divisions should continue to be matched according to their top tier.

 

And if Nagato winds up in tier 10 due to divving with Fubuki or Benson or North Carolina, it's still a fail division that is detrimental to the Nagato's team.

[gurudennis]

And if Nagato winds up in tier 10 due to divving with Fubuki or Benson or North Carolina, it's still a fail division that is detrimental to the Nagato's team.

 

Yep. I view +/-1 as a compromise for those who cry bloody murder at the prospect of forced same-tier divisions because some ships have preferential MM. Personally, I never division different tiers and don't encourage others to do so because it's still a fail.

[VTAdmiral]

 

Yep. I view +/-1 as a compromise for those who cry bloody murder at the prospect of forced same-tier divisions because some ships have preferential MM. Personally, I never division different tiers and don't encourage others to do so because it's still a fail.

 

Same here. In my hypothetical model, preferential MM is discarded entirely, but I see the point you're making.

[SergeantHop]

Sometimes, I'll embrace the fail division and protect the low tier player. Had a game in my Iowa that had an Atlanta and a Wyoming. Told Wyoming to keep his distance and not draw attention while I was on the other side of the map. Needed to win my flank, but thankfully the enemy didn't push.

 

Once secure, I sped down to him just as the enemy was becoming aware of his position, and made it in time to distract the enemies and repel the CV. Told him to focus on cruisers while I took the attention of the enemy Iowa. We wound up winning by a pretty large margin, and he placed fifth on the team. Did some 60k damage, which is certainly respectable for a five tier disadvantage. 

 

Point is, sometimes fail divisions don't matter. If the player listens, they can still do a lot to help.

[Taichunger]

 

Yep. I view +/-1 as a compromise for those who cry bloody murder at the prospect of forced same-tier divisions because some ships have preferential MM. Personally, I never division different tiers and don't encourage others to do so because it's still a fail.

 

That's how I see it too. Even with a +/- 1 tier, you get Omahas facing Hippers or Wyomings against Nagatos. Basically you're starting a ship down...

 

Tiers

[Raven114]

And I think you are looking at it the wrong way, How many times in WW2 did older ships take on new ships, and battled, some won, some lost, The Destroyers and Destroyer escorts in the Atlantic convoys were mostly WW1 built ships.

[gurudennis]

And I think you are looking at it the wrong way, How many times in WW2 did older ships take on new ships, and battled, some won, some lost, The Destroyers and Destroyer escorts in the Atlantic convoys were mostly WW1 built ships.

 

This has no relevance in an ahistorical competitive online multiplayer game.

[KaptainKaybe]

Divisions should be composed of ships no more than one tier apart. More than that and you penalize your team. Restrictions should absolutely be in place.

[Cruiser_CleveAniki]

I'll div up with some friends who are new to the game who are using their Chuuni-boats, but I'll use my Yubari, which has limited MM, so we don't drag each other around.

[VGLance]

Almost every time there is a fail division and you respectfully ask for them to keep it to 1 tier max difference in future games they spew all sorts of toxic troll foul language hate in response. 

 

They know they are being evil, socially awkward #$_$'s and they need to be punished for it. I say a good jolt of electric shock therapy. Nothing serious, maybe just 1.21 gigawatts. 

[HMS_TaterTots]

It's such a stupid idea to allow a tier x to team with a tier I in any case. WG never fix this issue after 5 years since the release of WOT, and now they're bring it to WOWs, I can't see any reason except that they actually like to see players suffer from a fail team/platoon, which make me sick.