MM Bias against AA spec ship?

[Kraayt]

Just curious, but does anyone else think there is a MM bias against ships spec'd for AA to not match them against carriers?   It seems like whenever I play one of my ships that has been focused on AA defense, I very rarely get a match with carriers in it.  However, can select similar or same vessel spec'd against DDs (specifically with hydro and radar, low AA gun focus)  and frequently (if not nearly always) wind up in a carrier match. 

I'm not piggy backing another thread that has raised a similar issue, this has been on my mind for some time and I think it is a deliberate bias to placate carrier drivers.

[IronWolfV]

More just luck of the draw.

[Macabe]

No, there's just very few carriers actually in queue.

[Nuk_]

There's no such thing as "MM bias." Tier, ship type, and nation are the only things MM takes into account.

[Kraayt]

There's no such thing as "MM bias." Tier, ship type, and nation are the only things MM takes into account

 Not trying to troll, or start an argument, but how can you be so sure of that?

[vak_]

Well, there is no proof of such bias, and purely from the logical standpoint -- why would WG expend man-hours to code something like that?

 

There just aren't that many carriers in the queue, that's all.

[CAPTMUDDXX]

yes MM does its best to see that you get into a battle that is contrary to your ships set up

[klymar8]

Just curious, but does anyone else think there is a MM bias against ships spec'd for AA to not match them against carriers?   It seems like whenever I play one of my ships that has been focused on AA defense, I very rarely get a match with carriers in it.  However, can select similar or same vessel spec'd against DDs (specifically with hydro and radar, low AA gun focus)  and frequently (if not nearly always) wind up in a carrier match.

I'm not piggy backing another thread that has raised a similar issue, this has been on my mind for some time and I think it is a deliberate bias to placate carrier drivers.

 

Just looks that way . Though getting in queue with my fully AAA specced Atlanta ; seeing 7 CV's in the queue and going , 'Oh boy, oh boy the fun ! '  and then being put into a match with no CV's ( and yes the7 CV's where still in queue at that time ) made think REAL hard about putting on a tinfoil hat .  

[LubzinNJ]

 Not trying to troll, or start an argument, but how can you be so sure of that?

 

How can you be sure there isn't? It just doesn't make sense for WG to design a ship with a national flavor of superior AA, then make it so that ship doesn't see the type of ship it specializes against.

[Cpt_RickSchwifty]

 

How can you be sure there isn't? It just doesn't make sense for WG to design a ship with a national flavor of superior AA, then make it so that ship doesn't see the type of ship it specializes against.

 

I dunno, that sounds EXACTLY like something WG would do   ...seriously. 

 

The confirmation bias is strong man, I feel like when ever I play BBs that I get games with no cruisers, when ever I play DDs, I get games with MOSTLY cruisers, and when ever I play CAs I get games with no CVs and No DDs.

 

I know that it's not true overall, but that is certainly how it feels. 

[kerensky914]

I think Murphy works at WG...

[TurboT]

While I don't believe they would go out of their way to do this, it really is funny how that happens.  

 

Last few nights been playing Gearing and EVERY MATCH has a CV in it and I'd go, "Damn, have speed boost still on and not AA barrage."  Told my div mates to remind me next Gearing ready up to put Barrage back on.  So last night I did, BAM, no CV.  I'm not kidding that every single Gearing match I've played with speed boost on there was a CV, and then BAM, no CV...   It's a very, very curious thing.

 

 

[Part_Time_Wolf]

Probably just some confirmation bias. Are are expecting a bias so you only remember the games with no CVs. Also not too many CVs these days so that doesn't help.

[compugeek5150]

<shrug> I *can* say that 9 out of 10 battles in the ArkB (no AA) will see a CV or two.  8 times out of 10 battles in the Texas will see no CV.  17 times out of 20 Atlanta will see no CV. 

 

I've been keeping track.

[IronWolfV]

I think Murphy works at WG...

 

It's who they hired to write MM didn't ya know?

[SkitzoTM]

I generally run AA on everything...But I am more of a defensive player. It's  a  trade off....AA capabilties vs main guns. So until WG decides to let us choose between Guns or AA spec,I will stick with what I do best...Ridding WOWS of  skycancer ...One game at  a  time.

[Kraayt]

<shrug> I *can* say that 9 out of 10 battles in the ArkB (no AA) will see a CV or two.  8 times out of 10 battles in the Texas will see no CV.  17 times out of 20 Atlanta will see no CV. 

 

I've been keeping track.

  I've been watching for the last couple of weeks...I am convinced that my AA spec'd ships are not getting into CV games.   The only reason I can think of is that WG is trying to make more people play the CV...and it is out of balance enough as is.  AA Fletcher...no carriers.   AA Gearing....no carriers.  AA Texas....no carriers  AA Atlanta...no carriers (Plus gets clobbered by all the BB/CA upranking it gets).    Play a ship with little or no AA and its a shooting gallery for aircraft.   Sure, I might exaggerate a small amount, but not enough to matter.

[RogueFlameHaze]

Yes. There is a man in russia specifically assigned to sort through your MM to ensure that your ships don't get into the exact game that you want every single time.

 

Do you really think with the low number of higher tier CV players you will always get a game with them? Maybe 1 in 10 if your lucky.

[Kraayt]

Yes. There is a man in russia specifically assigned to sort through your MM to ensure that your ships don't get into the exact game that you want every single time.

 

Do you really think with the low number of higher tier CV players you will always get a game with them? Maybe 1 in 10 if your lucky.

 

​Hey...talk down all you want.  I don't expect to get into a CV game anywhere near every time and I do think WG's programmers are more than capable of having MM do whatever it appears to do.   They have plenty of map scenarios that truly suck for my preferences...but I get them frequently without complaining.   I'm just annoyed at what I perceive to be a preset bias against AA ships.

[Royeaux]

yes MM does its best to see that you get into a battle that is contrary to your ships set up

 

This would explain a lot.  Like how whenever I buy a new ship and sail it for the first time completely stock, I'm horribly under-tiered every time.  

[Raptor_alcor]

 Not trying to troll, or start an argument, but how can you be so sure of that?

 

Same question can be given to you with you being so damn sure, with zero valid evidence, that there is a bias against AA ships. Until YOU can prove your claim in the OP, we'll stick with what we know. 

[The_Necromancer_015]

I have 494 battles in the Atlanta and I believe that there is some truth to your assertion. I play a lot (to much lol) and I have played 5-10 play straight games as a DD with CV's in the match more than once, ( especially when there could be 2 CV's), then switch to Atlanta, no CV's. Play 3-5 games in row no CV's. Switch to Hydro module and wow CV's again. This is also anecdotal evidence and its streaky his but I do believe MM does consider it with some weight.

[Kraayt]

 

Same question can be given to you with you being so damn sure, with zero valid evidence, that there is a bias against AA ships. Until YOU can prove your claim in the OP, we'll stick with what we know. 

 

​I'll bite on your troll.   I don't have to prove anything to suspect a bias.   You know full well that nothing can be proved short of WG coming out and showing it one way or the other.   What I do know is that the game I play appears to have a bias against AA spec'd ships of mine being matched in games with carriers.   Take it or leave it, your opinion is worth squat over mine.

[Raptor_alcor]

 

​I'll bite on your troll.   I don't have to prove anything to suspect a bias.   You know full well that nothing can be proved short of WG coming out and showing it one way or the other.   What I do know is that the game I play appears to have a bias against AA spec'd ships of mine being matched in games with carriers.   Take it or leave it, your opinion is worth squat over mine.

 

Wrong, you made the claim that a bias exists without having any data to back you up, you make the claim, you prove it, otherwise you are full of crapand are just crying about something not going your way. 

[Compassghost]

Matchmaking doesn't take loadout into account. It wasn't smart enough to take into account fail divs, making an exception to take into account AA loadout is laughable at best and insane at worst.