Autoloss/Autowin by bad matchmaking - fix needed now.

[G01ngToxicCommand0]

The matchmaker in its current iteration is still bad and still produces autowin/autoloss by providing one team a far superior or inferior team setup resulting in so dissimilar teams that the inferior one with unfavourable team composition can only win if the stonger team with favourable setup is composed only of incompetent players. As the skill level of the majority of players is rather low the probability of the weaker team turning certain defeat to victory is slim to nothing at best meaning that the matchmaker is nothing more than a roulette wheel that  determines the winner by spinning the wheel rather than the combined effort of a team which is nothing short of gambling IMO and greatly takes away a pleasurable game experience and leads to frustartion, toxicity, distrust in Wargaming and a disinclination to spend money on a product which is just another form of gambling.

 

What I am talking about is when one of the teams in multiobjective domination mode battles have 2 or more destroyers than the other team which means that the capping game is alredy won or lost before the battle have already begun. This is compounded if the team with more DDs also have either more battleships and/or they are also higher tiers which, as a rule, means that those will have better guns, better armour and more hitpoints.

 

The problem is that the side with the least amount of destroyers will be limited in the number of objectives they can effectively capture as in order to cap 3 or 4 objectives with only 1 destroyer vs 3 or higher numbers of destroyers on the enemy team requires cruisers or battleships to do the destroyers job which they as a rule can't as the enemy destroyers will torpedo them or the enemy battleships which wont have to worry about enemy destroyers invisi-torping them can citadel them to death at their own leisure.

 

I do not take aircraft carrier into account here as they have mirror matchmaking, not that many play CV and only pro CV players use their planes to scout for enemy destroyers which means that for all intends and purposes they can not be counted on to scout for and neutralise enemy destroyers.

 

What is required to give each team equal, on paper, chance of winning is mirror matchmaking with regards to DDs and BBs in both numbers and tiers when it comes to multiobjective Dominatiob mode battles. The current situation where the outcome of tha game can be determined before the battle begins simply due to one team having a favourable setup for the battle mode at hand.

 

The current iteration of the matchmaker is stupid and unfair and have to be changed for one that provides all teams with an on paper equal chance to win - and no we don't want to be 'challenged' by having bad matchmaking just because we won a few games more than the average player, we want equal chance and opportunity all the time so that it is the sum of all the players individual level of skill on a team that determines the battle's outcome and not the matchmaker.

[ColonelPete]

There is no autowin/autoloss.

[anonym_EFwxJOPWzlER]

There is no autowin/autoloss.

 

I think means: the MM so heavily favours one side it's a loss before the start. He is spot on, i frequently see this happening, a recent thread i posted highlighted exactly what he is saying, the only way MM can be fair is by mirror matching. Constantly i see 2, 3 or 4 Bensons against Fubuki's, 3 or 4 BB's v 2 BB's often lower tier. MM is incredible bad

[Kartoffelmos]

There is no autowin/autoloss.

 

Of course not, but the matchmaker seems to be distributing ships mostly based on the sum of the tiers as opposed to tier balance. In the match below, the total tier difference is only 2 points, but one side is clearly superior:

[ColonelPete]

Not really

[anonym_EFwxJOPWzlER]

Not really

 

Are you serious ?

[Kartoffelmos]

Not really

 

Care to explain why? They have both advantage in battleships and destroyers, while we have the dubious honour of having a better cruiser line-up. Since our battleships and destroyers are going to get outplayed by theirs (which actually happened), our cruisers will be forced to engage the enemy battleships. Since battleships are the hard counter to cruisers, you can imagine how well that will go (or in this case, played out).

 

The only real chance we had to win was if our team had on average better players, but that holds true for any line-up. The issue here is that you first have to be better to make up for the tier-disadvantage and then be better to make up for the skill of the opposing team. 

[Admiral_noodle]

You could also try team work.

 

But seriously while I've seen some - interesting - MM I've never thought "this is an autowin/loss". If you have no DDs in domination and the enemy has lots, you need to defend the caps and focus DDs first. In fact I've had this very game and by killing DDs we got a healthy ship lead and capped later to win.

 

The only issue I have with some MM games is finding myself an irrelevance. Like St. Louis on ocean in a tier V game. Or New Orleans - in any game

[daki]

I also support the "not really" camp.

The claimed "unfairness" basically assumes that there is a huge power and impact difference depending on ship tiers. Furthermore, it assumes that "counters" are extremely strong (e.g. cruisers do not stand a chance against battleships...).

Since none of the above is actually the case, the mentioned issues in MM a greatly exaggerated.

Furthermore, mirror matchmaking would just make the games more "simplistic" and hence "boring", since any existing disbalance can be rather easily compensated by adjusting the playstyle.

 

2 days ago I was in a team where we were 2 DDs vs. 5 enemy DDs (domination mode). Furthermore we had 1 less BB. At the beginning of the game the team agreed to first focus on DDs. Our DDs scouted well and cruisers picked off one by one the enemy DDs.

Long story short, we stomped the enemy team with only 3 ships lost (they lost I believe 10) before we won on points with all caps in our hands.

 

All in all, I understand that it is always easier to blame the MM (or teammates) than to actually try to adjust the playstyle, but that is not the reason to ask to "dumb down" the game.

Lastly, I would say that the most exciting and thrilling games I had were when there were "imbalanced" teams so NO TO MIRROR MATCHMAKING from my side

 

 

[Venatacia]

Totally agree and have done so for years. It's the same in WoT, I can predict a win or loss based on the tanks/boats here and I don't use XVM at all, never have. It does lead to a lot of frustration which is why I have 3 - 6 month breaks from this game and many of them. Knowing your going to lose before the battle starts is depressing and not fun.

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

I also support the "not really" camp.

The claimed "unfairness" basically assumes that there is a huge power and impact difference depending on ship tiers. Furthermore, it assumes that "counters" are extremely strong (e.g. cruisers do not stand a chance against battleships...).

Since none of the above is actually the case, the mentioned issues in MM a greatly exaggerated.

Furthermore, mirror matchmaking would just make the games more "simplistic" and hence "boring", since any existing disbalance can be rather easily compensated by adjusting the playstyle.

 

2 days ago I was in a team where we were 2 DDs vs. 5 enemy DDs (domination mode). Furthermore we had 1 less BB. At the beginning of the game the team agreed to first focus on DDs. Our DDs scouted well and cruisers picked off one by one the enemy DDs.

Long story short, we stomped the enemy team with only 3 ships lost (they lost I believe 10) before we won on points with all caps in our hands.

 

All in all, I understand that it is always easier to blame the MM (or teammates) than to actually try to adjust the playstyle, but that is not the reason to ask to "dumb down" the game.

Lastly, I would say that the most exciting and thrilling games I had were when there were "imbalanced" teams so NO TO MIRROR MATCHMAKING from my side

 

 

 

You argue the case against mirror matchmaking very well. I am convinced by your arguments.

However the key element that comes out of your account is that your team was clearly superior to the other one in terms of being organized (and I suspect better players individually also).

 

The fact remains that if two teams are of equal ability then the team with less material (e.g 4 tier 6 BBs against 4 tier 7 BBs) is at a disadvantage.  However, if the team with the tier 6 BBs has better players then it sets up an interesting battle).

In the worst case scenario, the team with the tier 7 BBs are ALSO BETTER PLAYERS.   What you get then is a one-sided stomping which is no fun for anyone except sadists.

[Kartoffelmos]

In the worst case scenario, the team with the tier 7 BBs are ALSO BETTER PLAYERS.   What you get then is a one-sided stomping which is no fun for anyone except sadists.

 

My point exactly. I do not want mirror matchmaking, nor do I want "perfectly" balanced teams. What I want is more balanced teams. Pitching 3 Yamatos against 3 Izumos just because you have an advantage in tier 8 cruisers/destroyers (tier-wise) does not make fun games. Especially since battleships are supposed to go against the enemy battleships and the difference between each tier is rather large (not so much for cruisers, at least until you reach tier 9). I'd rather have a difference in the number of ships of certain classes than a difference in tiers.

 

In my game/screenshot above, would giving our side just one Iowa really make the game boring? Not really, but it would surely make it more balanced.

[Slargmann]

I frequently see teams being outmatched tremendously (to the tone of several T7 BBs vs only <T7 BBs) and I frequently see them win.

 

It's not as big a problem as you make it out to be.

[daki]

To add an additional example to my previous post:

Just finished a game a few minutes ago where the enemy had 5 DDs vs 3 on our side. Furthermore, one DD on our side was rather useless (me to be more precise ).

Luckily, we had quite aggressive cruisers which managed to stomp the majority of enemy DDs in the first 10mins of the game.

So yeah, we could have started the match with "OMG drunk MM, too many DDs, all is lost", and it would have probably happened.

However instead we tried to communicate and coordinate which led to a rather easy win. 

 

[B010011A]

I finally can stop complaining about MM since I bought the Yamato haha but yeah, in top tiers sometimes you have to struggle and play really well or a bad decision of yours will make you die quite fast (like playing against more shimas on the enemy team or more Yamatos).

[Aotearas]

Well, I've already seen my share of interesting matchmaking and though I wouldn't go as far as to say there have been any such huge discrepancies as to decide the match result, I most certainly have seen matchmaking that was disastrous for some individuals (single CV per team, yet one team had five Cleavelands and the other only one / Kolberg as single tier III ship in a mostly tier V match).

 

I'm not in favour for mirror matchmaking as variety is the spice of life as the saying goes, but I am convinced the matchmaking needs a huge tweak in the way of recognizing and managing other balancing factors than tier difference. In games with CVs, matchmaking shouldn't give one team a lot of air defence escorts cruisers and hardly any to the other team to call back my earlier example.

And even though the tier difference doesn't mean much by itself, it's absolutely true that some ships are worse than others and something like a Kolberg in a tier V match where everything is faster, has better guns and far better gunrange is no fun. A St. Liouie can do it by virtue of hits high healthpool and better guns, but a Kolberg with its DD guns and low health is only good if the enemy DDs are stupid enough to try and gunfight the Kolberg. If they don't and instead simply spot the Kolberg until their superiour cruisers or battleships have sunk it, it's GG for the Kolberg player.

[TheCinC]

I think matchmaking should be much closer to mirroring at least, it is the only real solution.

Cruisers do not equal battleships and DDs don't equal battleships.

If one side has a tremendous advantage in battleships OR destroyers, or worse, both, someone is going to have a bad game, if only because of the yelling and screaming.

On occasion people leave a game like that, because they feel it would be a waste of their time.

I always take the challenge, sometimes we come out on top, but having the deck stacked against you, just isn't that much fun.

One mistake and you're entire team is screwed, if the other team doesn't make mistakes to take advantage of, if you don't get that lucky torp hit or citadel early on, all your effort is wasted.

Even if you do well, there can always be players on your team that manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Admiral_noodle]

In still in the "not really" camp. I like variety and challenge. I'm not bothered with 2v5 DDs for example, that's doable.

 

But things like Kolberg in a tier V match - frustrating. Perhaps ship tier MM needs relooking at. Even a per ship tier MM.

[EmilyFara]

Dont really agree, I have had many matches where the enemy had more/better BBs and DDs and we still won.

People just figured the enemy was too strong and played defensively while the enemy underestimated us and rushed in for the kill, only to die.

And that didnt just happen once, but quite often.

 

But sometimes it seems that a team just consists of fail. Where you have quite consistent good games, and then you're in a team where everyone just dies and gets no kills. And since I play USN DD, I need to scavage. But no oppertunities arrise to exploit. Few and far between, but [edited]infuriating.

[bloodynicknames]

not really...what a load of BS

 

try playing with 3 x T8 BBs. vs 3 x T10 BBs and then tell me its not a big deal

 

or 2 x Atagos getting matched by 2 x Zao ...

 

They need to tone it down to 1 Tier difference max.

[slipzen]

On occasion people leave a game like that, because they feel it would be a waste of their time.

 

If that's the case, then it's hardly an argument for mirror MM. There is no reason whatsoever to listen to those types of players.

[ColonelPete]

not really...what a load of BS

 

try playing with 3 x T8 BBs. vs 3 x T10 BBs and then tell me its not a big deal

 

or 2 x Atagos getting matched by 2 x Zao ...

 

They need to tone it down to 1 Tier difference max.

Matches can go either way.

Player Skill is more important than tier difference.

[anonym_EFwxJOPWzlER]

Matches can go either way.

Player Skill is more important than tier difference.

 

Why are some players against mirror MM ? is it because it lessens their chances of being dominant, Benson v Fubuki, Hatsuharu is obviously one sided, but Benson v Benson makes life much more difficult, only the best will succeed with mirrored MM in my humble opinion.

 

Putting the most powerful ships against each other in mirrored MM is the only fair way in ranked matches, at the moment it's too easy for the likes of Benson, Tirpitz etc. but random games should not be mirrored, we need to keep random as it is.

 

I can't see any reason to argue against mirrored MM in ranked other than the ships that dominate at present will no longer dominate due to the opponent matching them ship for ship, as i say; the best will soon be evident, it will sort out the ranking system quite nicely

[ColonelPete]

Ranked battles might be a different matter, but in random you need mirrors only for CV.

[anonym_EFwxJOPWzlER]

Ranked battles might be a different matter, but in random you need mirrors only for CV.

 

I agree mate, random should never be mirrored, it makes it more fun, but ranked is taken more seriously by players wanting to progress on a fair basis. I don't play CV's but looking at all the comment over the last month i would also agree that CV's should be mirrored, but leave the rest random