Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
MrConway

Matchmaker Improvements

9 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WG-EU]
WG Staff
1,854 posts
2,148 battles

Captains,

 

Please leave any feedback regarding the new improvements to our Matchmaker here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FDE]
Players
126 posts
6,360 battles

Do this, equal setup per side:

1 carrier

4 battleships (max) - or maybe 5 once there's no carriers in queue

3 destroyers (max, but the same amount of gun-boat / torp-boat and high / low stealth ships per team)

the rest filled with cruisers (with the same number of radar CAs per side)

 

I'm willing to wait 1 minute more to have balanced teams and healthy gameplay.

More: Punish AFKs with this: 1 AFK battle means ban for 1 hour (if you have issues with the client, PC or internet connection that would be a perfect time to have it fixed). Next subsequent AFK'aing (2 or 3 more): ban for 6 hours. Still AFK? Out for 1 day. AFK problem would be solved in no time...

 

  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[MOSW]
Players
1 post
2,018 battles

What did you change?

Been a long while since I saw so lopsided side balance in game for the whole evening, both in ranked and random.

Tried to take a sceenshot of the most "interesting" fight where the opposition had one more DD than we did and had the torp equipped ships 8 against our 6 with longer ranges and generally better stealth. Same number of division members on both sides. Screen shot came out as just a black 2560x1080 rectangle, unfortunately. My bad.

Cannot say we enjoyed the evenings setups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
218 posts
8,733 battles

The limit for 4 Destroyers seems in effect still so many matches evolve into litteral roflstomps because one side is favored with more experienced players than the other. It is so out of hand that no matter how hard one tries there is little to influence on how the Battle turns out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[K1NGS]
Players
2 posts
11,174 battles

You need to improve the MM of the crusers and bb's with RADARS. They have to be the same, for excample 3 vs 3 or 2 vs 2 etc.

In the last games the MM puts my team 1 radar vs 3 and I m playing DD's mostly. I' m ok with radars but I HATE when the MM gives the enemy team more chances.

Please fix this ASAP.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
7 posts
8,302 battles

You need to restrict RADAR AT HIGH TIERS. Is it fair or is it balanced to see a DD going to get the cap and as soon as it gets in the cap guess what happens. It gets RADARed and suddenly it sinks or it retreats with 1/3 of it's HP. There needs to be a restriction to RADAR and also it needs to be the same number of radar cruisers on each team. Battleship players tend to be useless and camp at the edge of the map and do nothing. So there is no counter to cruisers. You need to take action already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,656 posts
12,077 battles

The MM changes for Coop were a big step in the right direction. :Smile_honoring:

To improve them still further may I suggest the following?

 

Replace the limitation of four BATTLESHIPS per team with four CAPITAL SHIPS (BB or CV) per team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HELSD]
Players
11 posts
6,793 battles

I still get some games with 5 dds on each side. Rare, but happens. What is also amazing is that 3 days ago there were 4 dds on enemy side, and only 3 on mine, (where 1 of us was a khaba) so... what improvements?

shot-18.11.03_09.19.39-0047.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
282 posts

When WG will fix that aufull MM with tier 8 ships that play mostly against tier 10 ones and only in rare occasions play in tier 8 battles and even MORE RARE as top tier ones?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×