+2/-2 or +1/-1 mm

[imperialis6]

hello plz vote and give your reasons for or against,  

[Prospect_b]

Well you fixed the option to reply.

 

There's not really that much of a problem with the +2/-2 matchmaking, though it is painful for a lot of ships.

The problem is more the frequency where you will be uptiered.

 

A Hipper might do ok in a tier 10 game. Though when you're grinding it, play ten games and only be top tier 2 times, it'll get old really fast.

 

Imho the protected matchmaking at low tiers should be fixed, more so than the +2-2 rules.

[Guillotine]

Its not problem for surface ships most of cases, yes t8 will strugle against t10 due lack of heal in cruisers. 

 

But only class that suffer the most in +2 is CV, the power spike at t10 is massive in eyes of T8 CV. It also would prevent some carry potential from CV if its limited to +/-1. 

[Procrastes]

If MM is changed to +1/-1, this will result in far less diversity as to the types of ships involved in a given battle. This would make the game less dynamic, and also less fun, in my opinion.

So I think MM should stay as it is, at +2/-2.

[WashedandDeceased]

Please bring back +/- 3.

While we're at it, with so few CVs in game return the possibility of having a CV only on one team! 

 

[Lord0]

1 hour ago, Procrastes said:

If MM is changed to +1/-1, this will result in far less diversity as to the types of ships involved in a given battle. This would make the game less dynamic, and also less fun, in my opinion.

So I think MM should stay as it is, at +2/-2.

What this guy said

[eliastion]

1 hour ago, Freyr_90 said:

Please bring back +/- 3.

While we're at it, with so few CVs in game return the possibility of having a CV only on one team! 

 

You know what, this might actually increase the number of CVs...

I mean, really, with the number of CVs at high tiers we'd see 1-vs-0 CV matches more often than 1v1. In an environment this inviting we'd actually see the CV participation on the rise, I'm sure of it

 

EDIT
Please, WG, I know you're capable of that but PLEASE don't take my post as a serious support for the proposition. That you shouldn't take seriously either, while we're at it. Please.

[AnotherDuck]

This is not WoT where being two tiers down can render you almost completely incapable of damaging enemy tanks. In WoWs, the biggest factor is still your own skill, even for the ships that struggle in bottom tier. I much prefer the diversity we have now over something much more similar, which is also more likely to increase queue times.

 

As mentioned, the frequency is more of an issue. There should be some kind of preference for giving you a varied spread of tiers. It's shouldn't be a simple hard-coded limit, like if you get one or two bottom tier matches you're guaranteed a top or middle tier match, since that can be abused.

[VC381]

+2/-2 for variety, as others have said.

 

Besides, some ships struggle but others are really fun and can offer different strengths and role/playstyle when bottom tier compared to top.

 

Frequency is a bit of an issue, but IMO not the main one. Biggest issue (and easiest to solve) is distribution. Single T8 ship that every T10 in the game wants to farm? Hell. Most of the teams T8 with some 9s and only a couple of 10s? No problem!

[lafeel]

Not only should the game stay +2/-2, the "protected" mm of tiers 2-4 needs to go.

 

All that has done really is *edited* up the mm for tiers 5 and 6 something awfull.

[Flavio1997]

4 hours ago, Guillotine said:

Its not problem for surface ships most of cases, yes t8 will strugle against t10 due lack of heal in cruisers. 

 

But only class that suffer the most in +2 is CV, the power spike at t10 is massive in eyes of T8 CV. It also would prevent some carry potential from CV if its limited to +/-1. 

this, i'm grinding the Lexington ( alm0ost stock), and so far i had 10 games on it, on 1 i was top tier, and on another one i was against tier 9, all the other's battle were against tier 10...sometimes i did manage to do only 12k of damage before all my planes vanished ( find 2 aa specced DM).

[MrFingers]

+2/-2 is playable and fine as it is, but there should be a modified algorithm for T5/6 & 8 that prevents them from being bottom tier most of the time. Even if that means longer wait-times (the population is healthy enough, it should only add a few seconds, and is thus barely noticable).

[Culiacan_Mexico]

On 5/15/2018 at 10:26 AM, imperialis6 said:

hello plz vote and give your reasons for or against,  

I vote +1/-1.  Easier for WG to balance.

 

As for diversity, variety, whatever...  I play solo randoms, I get plenty of that in the players.

[JapLance]

In my opinion +/-2 is OK.

 

The problem lies in the frequency: it happens too often.

[OddyB]

I vote 1/1

for the simple fact the amount of times I get bottom tier when playing. It is happening way to often to be enjoyable

But nothing will change because it does not need to as far as WG are concerned. Just like a lot of things. So this poll is pretty useless 

 

 

[Culiacan_Mexico]

Just saying. 

 

I don't mind being bottom tier, but more often than not, I get fairly annoyed with the top tier players on my team.

[Shaka_D]

There really is no point discussing anything relating to the MM's tier spread, WG will never do anything. This same argument has been hashed and rehashed for years.

[Lin3]

I love killing Colorados in my Omaha and then seeing him raging in chat. Making mm +/- 1 would deny me this simple pleasure.

 

As Jingles would say: Omaha don't care tier 7 matchmaking. Omaha spam HE. Omaha lob shells over islands. Omaha hunter killer tier 7 DD's. Omaha smart. Omaha sneaky. Omaha most annoying little ship in battle.

[WeGreedy]

Vor 12 Stunden, JapLance sagte:

In my opinion +/-2 is OK.

 

The problem lies in the frequency: it happens too often.

So you want +/-2 only sometimes?

Of course it happens often, i'd say <5% of my games are +/-1.

 

I also like the diversity of +/-2. I've played alot of T-VIII recently and being in a T-X game is actually pretty okay.

[_Kettenbeisser]

16 hours ago, Freyr_90 said:

Please bring back +/- 3.

While we're at it, with so few CVs in game return the possibility of having a CV only on one team! 

 

how trollish this answer may Sound i was fine with that you used your brain and made it work. the problem for players today is the brain part

[AndyTheCupid]

Please explain what reduction in variety you would see if it was +/-1? Would still be 5 v 5 BBs and a random number of DDs/CAs/CLs. I used to play T6 & 8 for fun, now I only really go there when grinding. DDs are an exception at T8, they tend to cope ok with being up tiered +2. 

[VC381]

1 hour ago, Andy_the_Cupid_Stunt said:

Please explain what reduction in variety you would see if it was +/-1? 

Erm... approximately 50% reduction in how many different ships of each type you can meet in a battle. Given at each tier some ships are quite rarely played, it would be close to each game being the same ships over and over.

 

And reduction in variety of how your own ship needs to be played against different tier opponents.

[_DeathWing_]

bring old +/- 3 back! 

[Starchy_Tuber]

Both.

The issue for me is not that there exists +2/-2 but the frequency of those games.

With my first ever Tier 8 ship I was so disillusioned with the game I almost quit - 20+ games as bottom tier, always fighting Tier 10 ships before I got a single game where I was top tier....and then another 20 games as bottom tier.

 

Alle 5/16/2018 alle 15:28, Procrastes ha scritto:

If MM is changed to +1/-1, this will result in far less diversity as to the types of ships involved in a given battle. This would make the game less dynamic, and also less fun, in my opinion.

So I think MM should stay as it is, at +2/-2.

Not following you on this - as every tier has the same spread of ship-types(DD, CA, BB, CV), and each (full) nation has that spread, how could it reduce the variety of types of ships?

[Procrastes]

4 minutes ago, antenociti said:

Not following you on this - as every tier has the same spread of ship-types(DD, CA, BB, CV), and each (full) nation has that spread, how could it reduce the variety of types of ships?

Well, I struggled a bit with how I should phrase that one. I admit I've been unclear. What I meant was, that the +2/-2 MM gives acess to one whole extra tier of ships for a given battle, as compared to what the case would be with a +1/-1 MM.