Matchmaker is unplayable

[Pekoe_Darjeeling]

Now that I got your attention - yes I know matchmaker is playable.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

+/-2 is fine...

 

Nice to be top of the tree as well as the underdog sometimes.

 

Wouldn't be enough variation if it were only +/-1

[AnotherDuck]

Also prefer +/- 2. It's a nice spread that can promote different playstyles even with the same ship.

[duoinvasion]

+-2 for faster battles and you often learn how higher tier ships play faster from an outside perspective. Also being bottom tier and getting top xp always feels good.

[valrond]

The problem is, right now, if you are tier 5 or 8, you're going to be bottom tier almost every time. There is another thread reporting this, and from tier 5 upwards, there are basically just two types of matches: tier 5 to 7, and tier 8 to 10. Very rarely is a tier 5-6 only match, or a tier 4-5 match, or a tier 7-8-9 match, for example. I had noticed a while ago, but now, almost every time I play it's one of those two matches, so, naturally, I play tier 7 mostly so I can be top dog. It's better to fight in a Myoko than a Furutaka, or a Mahan instead of a Nicholas, and so on.

 

So I think it should be like in ranked battles, just one tier of difference, specially when there are NO ranked battles and all of the players are playing random battles. They could do the +/-2 while ranked battles are in effect, because there are less players, but right now, I'd rather have that one tier difference.

[AnotherDuck]

I wrote a post like that in that thread. Today it's been different, though. Mostly T9 battles (T7-T9 ships), regardless of if I used a T7, T8, or a T9 ship. And my Kamikaze was top tier for one or two games.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

The problem is, right now, if you are tier 5 or 8, you're going to be bottom tier almost every time. There is another thread reporting this, and from tier 5 upwards, there are basically just two types of matches: tier 5 to 7, and tier 8 to 10. Very rarely is a tier 5-6 only match, or a tier 4-5 match, or a tier 7-8-9 match, for example. I had noticed a while ago, but now, almost every time I play it's one of those two matches, so, naturally, I play tier 7 mostly so I can be top dog. It's better to fight in a Myoko than a Furutaka, or a Mahan instead of a Nicholas, and so on.

 

So I think it should be like in ranked battles, just one tier of difference, specially when there are NO ranked battles and all of the players are playing random battles. They could do the +/-2 while ranked battles are in effect, because there are less players, but right now, I'd rather have that one tier difference.

 

True, I've found whenever I play T8, its essentially a top tier game with 9s and 10s a lot of the time. But I always expect that which is why I judge any T8 ship by how well it can cope vs the best that's out there.

 

A part of this has been skewered by people's choices of ship I think. With the most famous example I can think of is the Tirpitz, for awhile it felt like every game between T6 and T10 had atleast 1 if not 3+ Tirps taking part lol...

[AnotherDuck]

A part of this has been skewered by people's choices of ship I think. With the most famous example I can think of is the Tirpitz, for awhile it felt like every game between T6 and T10 had atleast 1 if not 3+ Tirps taking part lol...

 

You mean you don't usually have three Tirpitzes per team currently?

[RUSSIANBlAS]

 

You mean you don't usually have three Tirpitzes per team currently?

 

Well the WG Birthday weekend just gone, I played quite a few games of Tirp. It varied between just myself and SEVEN of the dammn things in any single game. Probably averaged about two per team... 

 

Imagine what it'll be like when the Scharn is released. 5+ in every game between T5 and T9 

[Woofbark]

I'd make it same tier only for gameplay, but... I don't know if it would lead to long queue times and also it would lead to a lack of diversity. In truth this game is generally better than WoT in making tier difference less important.

[300ConfirmedKills]

The matchmaking feels too strict to me currently. I always enjoyed those battles where the two teams had quite different compositions in terms of ship type - it forced you to think a little bit about how to make the most of your team's strengths to overcome those of your enemy. Now that the teams are always quite similar it takes away some of the enjoyment of Random battles for me. +2 never stopped me enjoying a match and I like how it allows for a diverse line-up of ships. Historical battle fleets weren't solely composed of the latest and greatest ships anyway.

 

On the subject of certain battle tiers being more prevalent, I have the same impression. If the problem is an uneven spread of players across the tiers, perhaps a few 'Personal Missions' which reward playing ships of a certain tier would help ameliorate the problem.

[AnotherDuck]

Imagine what it'll be like when the Scharn is released. 5+ in every game between T5 and T9 

 

Especially considering what I've heard people say about the ship, such as iChase's advice: Throw money at the screen.

 

And for a while once the rest of those ships are available, I think we're going to see a heavy influx of battleships. And perhaps destroyers who want to sealclub...

[Mayv]

+3 was fine when we had it.

[ParEx]

+-2 is fine, at +-1 or even +-0 there would be loooooong waiting times...and a lot of ships will need to be rebalanced.

And we all know how WG rebalances stuff.

[kfa]

With Minekaze/kamikaze and my Atago i would actually also be happy with +/-3. Some ships just doesnt care what are you shooting at.

[Admiral_noodle]

I want +/- 2. But I want the 5-7 / 8-10 match "clustering" to stop.

 

And I want MM to stop you being bottom tier > 3 times in a row.

[Vanhal]

Theoretically, +2 is good, for the reason stated by few players above.

 

Practically, the rework of the ships would be needed to remove the balance razor on lower tiers, like the tier 1 and 2 really cannot meet 3's and 4's, it would be completely unfun as they are now. Same, with the lesser extent applies to tiers 3 and 4, which led WG to this change. Which in turn, made 5 and 6 uptiered more often than not.

So either get +1 for every tier, or get +2 for every tier, but rework them to be able to do something there.

[Amon_ITA]

+/-2 is fine...

 

Nice to be top of the tree as well as the underdog sometimes.

 

Wouldn't be enough variation if it were only +/-1

 

 

This.

 

i feel the +/- 2 system is spot on for most of the ships, considering the differencies between the tiers. At - 2 you are at clear disadvantage, but if you are good enough you can still give support to the team, while when at +2 you are in a position to carry the team, but you can never be overconfident.

[basharran]

While I don't hate the +2 spread, I have chosen for the +1 option in the poll. In general most ships are hard pressed against a +2 tier same type of ship by either gun range, armor or speed (and sometimes modules/consumables). I also agree with the fact that it's very annoying to be low tier all the time when playing tier 5 and 6 ships. Funny thing is when I then decide to play tier 7 to be top tier for once, guess what...?

 

[Zed_Von_Toza]

+/- 2 was good for me grinding up the tiers at the moment. I get to see the step changes in game play that come as you progress up the tiers. It means I can try to adapt. learn the new play style.

 

Regarding the new MM I'm not in a position to really make an informed comment yet, I need to play lots more and gather some more data before I can justify anything I say. Gut feel at the moment is that my T5's are being pulled into, on average, higher tier games than before. This might be because some players are now suggesting the 'sweet spot' is T7, so there are more T7's to match with. Still fun and more XP for me to earn on those higher tier targets, but overall a harder grind.

 

Bigger problem for me seems to be the vast range in class balance from match to match, Games seem to be dominated either by DD's or more often BB's, and then you get an all cruiser game. Would much prefer to see a nice balanced game where all the ships can play their roles properly, but I doubt that's going to happen any time soon on a regular basis. 

 

 

[Robert_Parsons]

I prefer +/- 1  

[EdiJo]

+/-2 is fine...

 

Nice to be top of the tree as well as the underdog sometimes.

 

Wouldn't be enough variation if it were only +/-1

 

I just warship.statsed some of "+/-2 supporters". As expected: mostly very skilled players, playing mostly high tiers, frequently destroyers & premiums (which don't have much problem being -2).

So "they like variation". 

As our President said: "point of view depends on point of sitting".

 

Put yourself in a perspective of an "average" player grinding his Colorado, NY or other Aoba/Furu and frequently being slaughtered by way superior +2 tier ships...

I voted +/-1 (for "variation") - but I would preferably make a "checkbox" for you people to allow you to roll -2 MM (if you really like that challenge) 

[Wolfenbane]

i voted +1.Going up against T7 ships in a Furutaka,Marblehead,Omaha,Murmansk is a joke if you are bottom tiered,and you have to sit behind your team until they level out the playing field.You are basically outranged and undergunned.

[thestaggy]

Its been miserable for me lately when playing tier 5 and 6 ships. Almost constantly bottom tier in them.

[Admiral_H_Nelson]

I want +/- 2. But I want the 5-7 / 8-10 match "clustering" to stop.

 

And I want MM to stop you being bottom tier > 3 times in a row.

 

This ^^

 

+/-2 is OK, provided that you get to be top tier roughly equally to compensate for when you have to struggle as bottom tier. That is obviously not happening at the moment.