MM of the day

[urr027]

I have never complained about MM before, it's OK if it's a bit unfair, but now I cannot help it. Mathematically, a total of -9 tier disadvantage for our team. My apologies for complaining :-)

 

[IamTroublemaker]

The blame is to put on those divisions. If I'm not mistaken, if there is a certain tier difference in the division, it won't matter for the MM because it will count them all as the highest tier in that division.

[D7v]

How did that Kolberg end ?

[Adwaenyth]

You lose 4 tiers alone by the divisions.

[TheCinC]

The blame is to put on those divisions. If I'm not mistaken, if there is a certain tier difference in the division, it won't matter for the MM because it will count them all as the highest tier in that division.

 

I respectfully disagree.

 

ANY tier difference means the division is matched according to the highest tiered ship, which is just silly.

Imho MM should be changed to allow for three ship divisions with tiers that fall within the highest tiered ship (-s) normal spread and adjust accordingly.

So if you have a division of a tier IV and a tier III, which is within the normal spread, fine, put them in a tier II-IV battle.

But noooo, that would give them a huge advantage, so let's screw their team and give the other team an advantage!

Wait.

What?

That makes no sense at all.

Look, if you make a division of a tier X and a tier I, sure, you're going to get shafted, but then you should only do that in coop battles.

But it is things like this that make me scratch my head, is this so hard to grasp?

No, things like this have been around since WoT and -no one- gets why it works that way, we all just shake our heads at the 'noobs' who do not know any better.

But people want to play with their friends, nothing wrong with that and not all their friends have ships the right tier, so they form a division with tiers that would appear in the same game.. then end up shafted and their team with it to.

Does WG not -want- us to play with our friends?

Does WG want this to be a bad experience for new players?

No, obviously not, so why isn't matchmaking changed to allow this?

OR put in a warning: this division makes no sense, you're going to have a bad time and your team is going to have a bad time.

OR disallow divisions like this categorically.

But DON'T just dump people in a game that members of that division will have a hard time with, screwing their teammates in the process.

 

Another effect divisions have on matchmaking is that it results in a distortion of the number of ships of each type on each team.

A lot of people complain about the effects of matchmaking when divisions are involved, but so far nothing has been done about this, with the exception of carriers.

But battleships, destroyers and cruisers are not interchangeable either!

Why not enforce that same restriction for all classes of ships?

If that increases my waiting time by a whole minute, I still would think it is worth it.

If that still doesn't work, that just means that ships of the same tier aren't properly balanced.

 

Also: you might want to edit out the names of the players involved, to avoid the 'no shaming' rule.

[WhoCares01]

The divisions themself are fine with me, the MM should just have moved one of the two T4/T3 divisions to the other team, which currently has only T5/T6 ships.

[AndyHill]

OR put in a warning: this division makes no sense, you're going to have a bad time and your team is going to have a bad time.

OR disallow divisions like this categorically.

We've been asking for this since the beginning of WoT. Divisions should only ever have max spread of one tier.

[TheCinC]

To add to this, I can list many examples of divisions being thrown into a battle haphazardly, screwing up the division of the teams.

 

Just now I had a battle where the teams were divided as follows:

 

Our team:                                                Their team:

 

Iowa - BB - IX                                            Yamato - BB - X

Tirpitz - BB - VIII                                        Iowa - BB - IX

Tirpitz - BB - VIII (Div 1)                             Izumo - BB - IX

Tirpitz - BB - VIII (Div 1)                             Zao - CA - X

Tirpitz - BB - VIII (Div 1)                             Ibuki - CA - IX

Des Moines - CA - X                                 Atago - CA - VIII

Hindenburg - CA - X                                 Atago - CA - VIII (Div 1)

Ibuki - CA- IX                                            Atago - CA - VIII (Div 1)

New Orleans - CA - VIII                            Gearing - DD - X

Shimakaze - DD - X                                 Shimakaze - DD - X

Khabarovsk - DD - X                               Shimakaze - DD - X

Kagero - DD - IX                                      Fubuki - DD - VIII

 

So, whichever way you look at it: Max DPS, number of ships per tier, the other team had an advantage, despite all ships being in the tier VIII-X bracket.

It didn't help that two of our Tirpitzes and our New Orleans were confronted with the best ships on the enemy team, the Yamato, the Iowa, the Zao, plus at least one Shimakaze and the Gearing, which all, apparently, started on the same side as them instead of on the side of our Iowa and Des Moines.

I had hardly suggested we turn back, or they were gone and I was alone, firing torpedoes at range towards the Iowa, Yamato and Zao, while intermittently spotted by the Gearing.

As expected, this turned into a very lopsided battle, we lost all our ships, versus the other team losing.. three (3).

 

Short of nerving tier X ships in order to better fit them in the the tier VIII-X bracket, or taking tier VIII ships out of tier X battles (although that might be an option IMHO, the differences are simply too big), MM should be adjusted, ships should be matched type for type AND tier for tier.

 

If they get a tier X BB, so should we, et cetera, that is how it should work, just as it does for carriers.

[TheCinC]

We've been asking for this since the beginning of WoT. Divisions should only ever have max spread of one tier.

 

The spread is not the problem, as I pointed out.

The top tiered ship will drag the lower tiered ship into a battle with ships it was never designed (by virtue of balancing) to face.

Matchmaking is at fault.

As long as you stay within the normal spread, as shown here, you should stay within the spread of the LOWER tiered ship AND the higher tiered ship.

I don't see how this would result in any unfairness to anyone.

Combined with matching ships type for type and tier for tier, as already done for carriers, this should reduce the number of lopsided battles and frustration among players about matchmaking.

 

Also note how even the official matchmaking allows for exceptions during times when there are lower numbers of players available.

In those cases, it is much more preferable, to just make smaller teams, rather than letting go of the rules of matchmaking.

[t3h3th32]

The blame is to put on those divisions. If I'm not mistaken, if there is a certain tier difference in the division, it won't matter for the MM because it will count them all as the highest tier in that division.

 

This.

 

Cheers,

~t3h'Pâr4d0x

[BadGene616]

 

The spread is not the problem, as I pointed out.

The top tiered ship will drag the lower tiered ship into a battle with ships it was never designed (by virtue of balancing) to face.

Matchmaking is at fault.

As long as you stay within the normal spread, as shown here, you should stay within the spread of the LOWER tiered ship AND the higher tiered ship.

I don't see how this would result in any unfairness to anyone.

Combined with matching ships type for type and tier for tier, as already done for carriers, this should reduce the number of lopsided battles and frustration among players about matchmaking.

...

Big bag of nope right at ya.

By virtue of that I could take a t8 with a mate in a t6 and guarantee being top tier to fit the spread.

Unfair mm distribution would absolutely result.

A mutsuki is absolutely still competitive if handled well against t8.

[Crysantos]

Divisions are to blame, MM just takes the highest Tier into account. WG simply doesn't want to fix it.

[urr027]

How did that Kolberg end ?

 

Kolberg, sadly, was sunk while engaging in heroic combat against an overwhelming enemy force. We did lose the match in less than 12 mins.

[AndyHill]

The spread is not the problem, as I pointed out.

The top tiered ship will drag the lower tiered ship into a battle with ships it was never designed (by virtue of balancing) to face.

Matchmaking is at fault.

As long as you stay within the normal spread, as shown here, you should stay within the spread of the LOWER tiered ship AND the higher tiered ship.

I don't see how this would result in any unfairness to anyone.

I do. If I took My Ryujo into battle with a friend in an Isokaze I would be guaranteed top tier position in ever match - a huge deal for carriers - and that monster of a DD would still be very competitive. Also I don't remember how the low tier matchmaking works, but would it be possible for a St. Louis to pair up with a Tier 1 or 2 to guarantee proper seal clubbing opportunities for every game if the matchmaker started pampering troll platoons?

[Adwaenyth]

Divisions are to blame, MM just takes the highest Tier into account. WG simply doesn't want to fix it.

 

That is in there to prevent abuse. Otherwise you take a T10 combine it with a T1 and you end up in a T6 battle.. YAY!

[MaxxyNL]

Troll divisions should receive lower XP/Credits and/or WG should make it impossible to create divisions with certain Tier combo's.

 

[Crysantos]

 

That is in there to prevent abuse. Otherwise you take a T10 combine it with a T1 and you end up in a T6 battle.. YAY!

 

Yes, but why should anyone get into division with a greater Tier difference than +/- 1? It's just trolling or newbs. I'll never understand why WG doesn't fix this to prevent stuff like that. It hurts the whole team, not just the division and there are absolutely 0 reasons to go into division like that.

[TheCinC]

Big bag of nope right at ya.

By virtue of that I could take a t8 with a mate in a t6 and guarantee being top tier to fit the spread.

Unfair mm distribution would absolutely result.

A mutsuki is absolutely still competitive if handled well against t8.

 

No, it would not be unfair, it would be within the spread and it would be a normal game for everyone.

 

I do. If I took My Ryujo into battle with a friend in an Isokaze I would be guaranteed top tier position in ever match - a huge deal for carriers - and that monster of a DD would still be very competitive. Also I don't remember how the low tier matchmaking works, but would it be possible for a St. Louis to pair up with a Tier 1 or 2 to guarantee proper seal clubbing opportunities for every game if the matchmaker started pampering troll platoons?

 

As for the first example: the enemy team would still have a same tier carrier, so you would not have an unfair advantage.

Yes, the St Louis would be guaranteed the top spot, but again, that is in the spread and when I play her on my own, that happens often enough.

If that is unfair, that is a balancing issue.

 

 

That is in there to prevent abuse. Otherwise you take a T10 combine it with a T1 and you end up in a T6 battle.. YAY!

 

No, that would be outside of the spread and would never happen.

 

 

Yes, but why should anyone get into division with a greater Tier difference than +/- 1? It's just trolling or newbs. I'll never understand why WG doesn't fix this to prevent stuff like that. It hurts the whole team, not just the division and there are absolutely 0 reasons to go into division like that.

 

ANY tier difference more or less guarantees you a bad game.

Without explanation, without warning, without matchmaking trying to put you in the right spread, if it happens, it is by accident, not by design.

 

 

 

As I pointed out, people should be placed within the normal spread as illustrated here, as long as their division allows for that.

As long as they stay within those boundaries, MM should stay within them so that everyone can have a normal game and the team the division is on is not immediately disadvantaged, the players in the division don't have a bad game.

 

Seriously, I don't get why that would be a problem.

I would much rather have a tier III and a tier I or II put into a tier III match, than have them put on my team in a tier V match so my team has a bad game.

Those tiers are meant to fight together, are within the spread, but tier I or II should not be put in a tier V match, so they should not be put in that position.

Being in a division does not mean that those guys can clean up and deal with the entire enemy team on their own, and if they can, balancing is the issue, not the division.

Even if people took advantage of such a rule, then more people would do so and it would balance out in the end, I often see both teams with one or more divisions on each side.

I would rather give those guys a (slight) advantage, in a game where all ships will at least belong to the same spread, than put the team they get put in at a disadvantage.

And yet again, we WANT people to play together, especially newbies, or don't we?

Do we want new players to be discouraged and more experienced players frustrated by losing a game due to those 'noobs' making the 'stupid' division?
Of course not.

 

The advantage of a St Louis in a tier III match isn't great enough to banish a tier II-III division to tier V battles and it is not if that is a consistent rule.

If you want to prevent seal clubbing so bad, that is not going to work!

Experience players, myself included, will still fire up their St Louis, it is just a fun ship to play with, due to its awesome rate of fire.

I wouldn't mind being put in a battle with same tier ships, but with more experience players, but that is not an option.

 

It sounds almost as if you guys think divisions are unfair, period and want them done with altogether, because you seem to think all divisions have an inherent advantage.

But divisions of the same tier are also common and they fail/break matchmaking just as hard, as pointed out above (a three ship Tirpitz division).

Something needs to be done to address these issues.

 

As for a division consisting of a tier X and tier I being put in tier VI battles, that is, of course, nonsense, that falls outside of the normal spread and should just result in a tier X game.

 

So, I reiterate:

 

The way matchmaking treats divisions regularly puts the team they are put in at a disadvantage and I can see the following solutions:

 

1. Match all divisions that stay within the normal spread according to that spread, even if it means they have a longer load time.
2. OR either put in a warning along the lines of: "this division makes no sense, you're going to have a bad time and your team is going to have a bad time," or disallow divisions like this categorically.
3. OR match all ships type for type and tier for tier just like carriers.
4. OR remove tier VIII ships from tier X games to avoid lopsided games like illustrated in my above post.
5. OR all of the above.

 

I think the impact of matching ships within the normal spread would be acceptable, if not negligible.

[Beardroid91]

Played a ranked game yesterday that, never seen this many BB's in a ranked match, and of cause we lost it as we had the most premium noobs in their brand new Tirpitz's.

 

 

[AndyHill]

As for the first example: the enemy team would still have a same tier carrier, so you would not have an unfair advantage.

Yes, the St Louis would be guaranteed the top spot, but again, that is in the spread and when I play her on my own, that happens often enough.

If that is unfair, that is a balancing issue.

But they would never have a bigger carrier. Nor would they ever have loads of ships my planes simply couldn't handle. Or I could just doublebox (well of course I wouldn't because I always obey all rules and play fair etc. but in theory I could) a tier 2 Umikaze with my Arkansas Beta to guarantee that I would never ever have to face carriers and I bet my doubleboxed DD would be as effective as (if not more so) than an average beginner at tier 2. Also if my friends wanted to level up their high tiers there's no match I wouldn't take my Minekaze into, guaranteeing them the big dog top spot.

 

I'm sure I don't have to tell you just how much of an advantage privileged matchmaking is in Wargaming games, especially for shiptankplanes that do fine without it. And that's exactly what you'd get if the matchmaker tried to balance troll platoons.

[TheCinC]

But they would never have a bigger carrier. Nor would they ever have loads of ships my planes simply couldn't handle. Or I could just doublebox (well of course I wouldn't because I always obey all rules and play fair etc. but in theory I could) a tier 2 Umikaze with my Arkansas Beta to guarantee that I would never ever have to face carriers and I bet my doubleboxed DD would be as effective as (if not more so) than an average beginner at tier 2. Also if my friends wanted to level up their high tiers there's no match I wouldn't take my Minekaze into, guaranteeing them the big dog top spot.

 

I'm sure I don't have to tell you just how much of an advantage privileged matchmaking is in Wargaming games, especially for shiptankplanes that do fine without it. And that's exactly what you'd get if the matchmaker tried to balance troll platoons.

 

Seriously, I don't mean to sound insulting, but this argument makes no sense at all but maybe you didn't understand my proposal or didn't check the chart.

Not only are you saying: don't do this, because people could break the rules and take advantage, which makes no sense, people will break the rules anyway and gain an unfair advantage, that is why there are rules in place.

But also you're under the impression that a tier IV Arkansas Beta never encounters carriers, which is just plain wrong, for reference, see chart.

I am very aware that my Arkansas Beta has no AA and was surprised earlier this week that the opposing cv player didn't seem to know, because he left me alone instead of taking me out at the start of the game with a torpedo bomber attack.

 

And how does your tier V Minekaze guarantee your high tier friends the top spot? They would be top spot if they were tier VII, yes, sure, but if you go beyond the spread (V to VII) you end up in tier VIII, IX and tier X matches anyway.

But no, getting them a tier VII game every time would give them a horrible advantage?

No, it would not, there would be opposing tier VII players, probably at least one division, so what would be so unfair and if it is so unfair, how do you feel about the fact that this happens every day and is considered normal balancing?

 

Seriously, none of these arguments make sense.

Too many bad games I've had were at least partially attributed to MM lopsidedly throwing tier X and IX ships around, giving one team a clear advantage.

That must be stopped.

I also see many people complain about divisions with multiple tiers disrupting their game as a much lower tiered ship is dragged into a game where it has no place.

That must be stopped.

 

Why on earth would you want to keep the system as it is and even resort to such odd reasoning in order to defend it?

People who are going to break the rules, will.

People who want to go seal clubbing will take their fully upgraded St Louis with their high-skilled captain and do it.

Changing the matchmaking to assign divisions according to the normal spread will not change that, nor will it make it much easier for people to take advantage.

I don't care if a St Louis is in a division or not, I don't care if he is in a tier III match, that is where he is supposed to be, what it was designed for.

But in a division, in a tier III match and matched against other tier IIIs designed and balanced to be able to engage a St Louis, a St Louis is suddenly OP and that needs to be stopped by maintaining a MM system that not only guarantees lopsided games for everyone but also specifically allows for that exact match to happen anyway?

You think the current matchmaking is discouraging seal clubbing?

Hardly.

I think it is discouraging players, no matter what tier they play and that is not a good thing.

 

Do you guys want to get rid of all divisions or something?

Because that is the impression I am getting.

Divisions are OP, so people in divisions and the team they are on should be punished for them, so keep matchmaking the way it is, I like lopsided games where two Yamatos hunt down our one Iowa because we have a division and they do too, but they got a division of tier X destroyers and we got a division of poor guy in an Atago and his friend in a Mutsuki?

No, I disagree, this is not optimal.

I just had another match where my team had 4 tier X, 2 tier IX and the rest tier VIII, while the other team had 4 tier X and 4 tier IX and the rest tier VIII.

They had a Montana supported by an Izumo and an Iowa, while I had a Montana and was supported by 2 Tirpitzes.

How is that perfectly fair and in need of being protected?

 

So, I am sticking to my guns here:

 

The way matchmaking treats divisions regularly puts the team they are put in at a disadvantage and I can see the following solutions:

 

1. Match all divisions that stay within their normal spread according to that spread, even if it means they have a longer load time. This does not mean that combining a tier I with a tier IV will put you in a tier III match or anything like that, that would be out of spread, check the chart in the linked topic.
2. OR either put in a warning along the lines of: "this division makes no sense, you're going to have a bad time and your team is going to have a bad time," or disallow divisions like this categorically.
3. OR match all ships type for type and tier for tier just like carriers.
4. OR remove tier VIII ships from tier X games to avoid lopsided games like illustrated in my above post.
5. OR all of the above.

 

I think the impact of matching ships within the normal spread would be acceptable, if not negligible. If people somehow think this is unfair, they should realize that this already happens all the time and that they are basically arguing that all divisions are OP.

 

[BadGene616]

You really don't get it do you? If I could be assured of being top tier in a ship by running a broken toon with a mate in a DD I would do this every. Single. Game.

It's a massive advantage.

So I run an amagi with a friend in a mutsuki...

To fit your spread I would never be in a t 9 or t10 game as it would have to cater for both players on the division.

I would take that any day of the week and be happy to run a loltorp boat to do the same for my friends.

 

You don't see this as an advantage?! 

 

You are fundamentally wrong. Fundament, as in, the thing you are sitting on is doing your thinking.

 

Troll platoons should be punished, not rewarded by sympathetic matchmaking.

It's annoying when they are on your team (stock Kongo vs 2x Tirpitz last night...) But it also happens to the other team.

 

[TheCinC]

You really don't get it do you? If I could be assured of being top tier in a ship by running a broken toon with a mate in a DD I would do this every. Single. Game.

It's a massive advantage.

So I run an amagi with a friend in a mutsuki...

To fit your spread I would never be in a t 9 or t10 game as it would have to cater for both players on the division.

I would take that any day of the week and be happy to run a loltorp boat to do the same for my friends.

 

You don't see this as an advantage?! 

 

You are fundamentally wrong. Fundament, as in, the thing you are sitting on is doing your thinking.

 

Troll platoons should be punished, not rewarded by sympathetic matchmaking.

It's annoying when they are on your team (stock Kongo vs 2x Tirpitz last night...) But it also happens to the other team.

 

 

So you're saying that divisions are OP, period?

That being the top tiered ship in a battle automatically means your side wins or at least you'll have an easier time, despite the other team having same tiered ships as well?

That it is better to punish divisions like that AND the team they are on at the same time, in an attempt to discourage this kind of behavior, even though it obviously doesn't work, not here and it never has in WoT?

And that you'd rather suffer games where your team gets shafted, because it happens to other people too?

Which, statistically speaking, is just not true.

So who is thinking with what now?

At least I am trying to come up with several solutions, I don't see you doing that.

 

Even if everyone suddenly started to play divisions like that, I wouldn't necessarily see that as a disadvantage, maybe there would finally be some cooperation and team play in this game.

But I think you are way overestimating the advantage of playing in a division, or being top tier in a match.

[BadGene616]

 

So you're saying that divisions are OP, period?

That being the top tiered ship in a battle automatically means your side wins or at least you'll have an easier time, despite the other team having same tiered ships as well?

That it is better to punish divisions like that AND the team they are on at the same time, in an attempt to discourage this kind of behavior, even though it obviously doesn't work, not here and it never has in WoT?

And that you'd rather suffer games where your team gets shafted, because it happens to other people too?

Which, statistically speaking, is just not true.

So who is thinking with what now?

At least I am trying to come up with several solutions, I don't see you doing that.

 

Even if everyone suddenly started to play divisions like that, I wouldn't necessarily see that as a disadvantage, maybe there would finally be some cooperation and team play in this game.

But I think you are way overestimating the advantage of playing in a division, or being top tier in a match.

 

Divisions offer a number of major advantages. Not that they are OP, but they are an advantage:

1) I have direct coms with my divison mates.  Ships that act together, win more.

2) I can discuss prior to the battle what ships we're taking, how we're going to run them etc.  I can make sure that the ships are complimentary.

3) I can guarantee that at least one other player on the team isn't a mouth breather.

 

That guaranteeing being the top tiered ship is an advantage is a blatantly obvious statement.  I can guarantee that there will not be a ship one or two tiers higher than me.  Are you honestly suggesting that taking an Amagi and KNOWING that you're not going to meet Shimakaze or Yamato isn't an advantage?  Or Midway?  There is no "automatic win" but there is stacking the decks in your favour, and knowing you'll not face something far superior to your ship is a massive advantage.  I totally agree with the other poster who mentioned what a big deal this is in a carrier as well.

 

Actually some fail platoons did use to work in WOT - the old Bison pre-arty nerf could hammer IS-3s with the premium round.  But this is a digression.  

The low incidence of fail toons I see in both WOT and WOWS show that it DOES work.  There will always be noobs, people who think that toons work the way you describe, or people who accidentally pick the wrong tank/ship and someone presses "battle".  And yes, I am saying explicitly - Punish fail toons.  It's rubbish when they are on your side but it's the ONLY fair and reasonable solution.  And enjoy it when the enemy are lumbered with them.

It used to be a problem in ships that the ship you looked at as you left the port would be the one selected automatically for the next battle, not the one you just battled in.  This caused a few face palm toons but I've not noticed it so much recently - either I've adapted or they've fixed it.

 

Of COURSE it's statistically true that you get fail toons in your favour and against you in equal amounts.  There is no conspiracy here that means only you get the fail toons on your side.  If you disagree with this I challenge you to prove it - statistically.  The issue is human nature - you simply notice it when something you perceive as causing your defeat "isn't fair" and "only happens to me".  It doesn't.  I suppose you get only stupid people, afk people, people with 40%wr and a Tirptiz they bought two days after playing the game for the first time on your team too?

 

You could instigate a limit on tier differences between ships in a division, but why would you impose a control of this sort?  It's up to players what they play and most players like to win. 

 

You are trying to treat the incidence of fail toons as a failure of the match maker, not the fact that it's stupid players who are either trolling or don't know better.  You're dreaming up solutions to treat the symptom and not the cause.

But I can assure you, if toons that bracketed a spread of ships as you suggest existed, all you would see would be toons of this sort.  

 

[TheCinC]

You really don't get it do you? If I could be assured of being top tier in a ship by running a broken toon with a mate in a DD I would do this every. Single. Game.

It's a massive advantage.

So I run an amagi with a friend in a mutsuki...

To fit your spread I would never be in a t 9 or t10 game as it would have to cater for both players on the division.

I would take that any day of the week and be happy to run a loltorp boat to do the same for my friends.

 

You don't see this as an advantage?! 

 

You are fundamentally wrong. Fundament, as in, the thing you are sitting on is doing your thinking.

 

Troll platoons should be punished, not rewarded by sympathetic matchmaking.

It's annoying when they are on your team (stock Kongo vs 2x Tirpitz last night...) But it also happens to the other team.

 

 

Actually, you already made my case for me with this.

You agree with me that having ships on your team that don't belong in that spread are bad for your game.

You just disagree that something needs to be done about it, ironically despite the fact that you would immediately take advantage of one of the solutions that I am proposing, because you like it that much!

If you agree such divisions are bad and that your game suffers when they are on your team, what are you proposing?

Let us all suffer in silence and hopefully, the problem will go away?

Well, I disagree with that attitude.

There will always be new players, or players trying divisions for the first time and if they happen to be on your team and not doing well because they brought a low tier ship into a high tier battle, then that simply isn't fun .

It will not go away magically.

 

If that one solution, matchmaking according to the standard spread when applicable, was implemented and it resulted in people actually working together a bit more, that would be great!

If everyone really took advantage of that, fine, then the other team gets the same 'advantage' and it all balances out anyway but even if they didn't and/or the other team doesn't get the exact same division, at least they will receive the same tier ships and the 'unfair' division will be in ships they should be able to handle, that is what balancing is for.

Meanwhile we are finally rid of battles where our team (or the opposing one) is dragged down by people who do not belong in the spread, despite forming valid platoons.

In addition, new players, who do not yet have access to certain ships, can play with their friends and actually enjoy themselves and get to know the game in another way than by going through a disastrous battle where at least one of them is hopelessly outclassed.

On average, more people will actually enjoy their games, that is what it sounds like to me.

 

As for the other solutions, such as at least a warning or even an inability to select different tiers, what is so bad about that?

If you insist on such a division, you can still do that in coop battles, where it is much less bad because you will be matched exactly, ship for ship and where your team won't be hurt by it.

Seriously, since you agree this is a problem and this happens to everyone, why shouldn't we actually try to solve this issue instead of waiting for it to magically go away?

It won't, as you admit it still exists, in WoT, despite the fact that you learn how this works often enough the first time you try it.

 

As for carriers having an unfair advantage being top-tier, I don't see that either.

The opposing carrier player will not go down without a fight and no matter what assistance you bring, there is not that much support that you can bring for a carrier.

Even if you bring your Hiryu, your friend brings an Atlanta for AA cover and to counter DDs, or whatever it is good for, and another friend his Mutsuki or something like that, the other CV player has to take his planes near the Atlanta and let the DD get close to him.

Meanwhile ideally the other team has their Ranger or Hiryu, a tier VII cruiser, a tier VI DD and likely at least one or more division.

Is that a horrible scenario?

No, not exactly.

 

Let's just agree that matchmaking often sucks and some divisions screw up matchmaking, then find the best solution to that, not sit back and wait for it to naturally resolve itself.

There will always be noobs and trolls, always.

The best we can do is find a way to deal with them and minimize their impact, not try to ignore them and pretend there is no problem with matchmaking.

In game people complain every other game about matchmaking, but when I come here and try to come up with ways to solve the problem, people suddenly seem to prefer keeping the current system?

Odd, to say the least.

Come up with a better proposal, but don't defend the current system after already admitting it screws up regularly.