Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MrConway

Matchmaker Improvements

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WG-EU]
WG Staff
2,120 posts
2,232 battles

Captains,

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[COMA]
Players
138 posts
6,998 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
2,211 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
[10GO]
Players
350 posts
9,540 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
Players
2 posts
11,809 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
8,766 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
2,772 posts
12,699 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
13 posts
7,557 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
345 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
Players
3 posts
4,166 battles

To times in row: T8 Cruiser and just T10 Ships around! that makes not fun!

The balancing of the MM is just pain!

 

Update: and again just one T8 CA on each side and the rest are T10 Ships ...

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IPSM]
Players
12 posts
4,030 battles

Please back my money Tirpitz and Roma have this ships  one year and still play Vs T10 no posible play this ship vs T10 back my money   Omg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,179 posts
6,766 battles
1 hour ago, Dorotka said:

Please back my money Tirpitz and Roma have this ships  one year and still play Vs T10 no posible play this ship vs T10 back my money   Omg

Well, looking at your stats you can't really play anything past t5 anyway, and if we look at BBs - you just can't play them. So how exactly is this different?

 

Derpitz and Roma are just like other t8 BBs - absolutely fine in a t10 game as long as there's not a Yamato / Musashi focusing them. And at that point even being t10 doesn't help if you don't know how to angle. Armour is the same 32mm base plating for all of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[4_0_4]
Players
4,294 posts
10,731 battles
2 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

absolutely fine in a t10 game as long as there's not a Yamato / Musashi focusing them.

 

Don't forget the Monqueror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,179 posts
6,766 battles
56 minutes ago, Zemeritt said:

Don't forget the Monqueror.

If it's a competent one he's firing AP, and neither 419s nor 457s can overmatch 32mm

 

If he's firing HE - t8 BBs are way smaller than t10s resulting in less hits taken, they often have less free deck spaces (a.k.a. more of the deck is covered with turrets) to score dmg on, and in cases like Amagi - they can comfortably tank the HE with their spaced armour.

 

Most of the time it's really not that bad, at least not in my experience

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×