Wargaming, explain to me how this matchmaking is anything but unfair?!

[AnInnocentKitten]

Dear Wargaming,

 

please explain to me, why you consider this matchmaking as fair:

 

 

The match type is Domination. My team is down 1 DD and 1 BB. And the enemy has a radar cruiser.

 

DD is the most important class in Domination. So why the hell is there still a DD imbalance in this game mode?! Why is there a imbalance in ship classes anyway?!

 

Also, the 3-tier spread (+2/-2) does not help. I would not mind longer queue times for a 2-tier spread (+1/-1).

 

But please, please remove this bull**** class imbalance!

[Commander_Cornflakes]

Well, since you lost this game by having all ships sunk and not by capping, I doubt the DD difference in this domination game is to blame.

If that radar cruiser annoys you, spam F3 on him and sink him.

And I don't see the problem with +-2 since it's the same for both teams.

 

21 minutes ago, AnInnocentKitten said:

I would not mind longer queue times

That's one player how doesn't mind. But there are many who prefer to get a match without much waiting.

[Egoleter]

A DD or BB more or less is not the cause for your loss if the enemy still has 6 ships in the end and you have none.

 

If you make such a claim you are essentially telling cruisers have reduced value in comparison to the other classes. Yet you are the best performing player of your team with such a ship.

 

As far as anecdotal evidence goes. I just won a battle where we were a BB and a DD down (4-4-4 vs 5-2-5) with only two ships in our team lost and the enemy wiped out. Both sides had no radar ships. If you would base your post on that then cruisers are clearly OP because the side with less of them was so swift and clearly defeated.

[Drunken_Jedi]

Yeah, I don't see the big issue here. You have good BB's on your team, granted you don't have radar on your Iowas but they are exceptionally tanky bow on. Your DD's were also better cap contesters, GL trying to cap with a Kiev with that detection range..

 

I think this comes down to how the team played and not the MM system. 1 DD down just means that your own DD's have to pull their weight, it's nowhere near as bad as being slung into a domination game and realising your team has NO DD's... while the enemy team has one. THAT is a big issue, remember there are plenty of ways to bait out radar usage and deny them the ability to fire on you, enter a cap and dart behind cover so no one can shoot you etc, wait out the duration and then continue capping and denying their push with torpedoes and spotting.

[T0byJug]

+/- 1 DD/BB/CA is not an issue.. If we had complete mirror MM the game would get very boring very fast. Im sorry 4V5 DD is nothing.. if you had said 1 v 2 or one team had a DD the other 0DD you may have had a point but this is nothing.

+/- 2 Tier MM is also a non issue Also whats your issue here half you games are Tier X so you have no issue.

 

 

[havaduck]

Thb I can see how one would get somewhat uncomfortable if you get +2 shitty T 8 cruisers and the enemy gets a Bismarck + a DD instead; because the latter 2 are actually useful. If the 2 cruisers are well played p2w cruisers, then ofc, but even in the best of situation a cruisers is a xp pinata for everyone - let alone a shitty peasant t8 cruiser driven by a potato. Imagine if on top now the radar distribution is screwed and its domination. It can still be won because shittteamlottery, but damn .......... I cant really complain as long as teams get randomly unstoppable doom raining from the sky, while the other side gets an afker or a bot/human bot instead.

 

 

Still I remember time this was totally fair and balanced - Ocean + domination:

 

 

 

Kids these days! In my time ........

[WolfGewehr]

58 minutes ago, havaduck said:

Still I remember time this was totally fair and balanced - Ocean + domination:

 

 

 

Kids these days! In my time ........

 

Rofl. (When was that match played?) But that's not even +/- 3 MM.

 

 

Kids these days! In my time we played against Fuso in Kawachi and faced 20 torpedoplanes from Haku........

 

[AnInnocentKitten]

1 hour ago, havaduck said:

Kids these days! In my time ........

I remember these times. But it doesn't excuse today's matchmaking.

[AnInnocentKitten]

2 hours ago, Egoleter said:

A DD or BB more or less is not the cause for your loss if the enemy still has 6 ships in the end and you have none.

 

If you make such a claim you are essentially telling cruisers have reduced value in comparison to the other classes. Yet you are the best performing player of your team with such a ship.

 

As far as anecdotal evidence goes. I just won a battle where we were a BB and a DD down (4-4-4 vs 5-2-5) with only two ships in our team lost and the enemy wiped out. Both sides had no radar ships. If you would base your post on that then cruisers are clearly OP because the side with less of them was so swift and clearly defeated.

 

Of course it can cause a match to be one-sided. And that's what I am experiencing more often. This is probably caused by the trend of passive play. Being down one DD puts extra pressure on the remaining DDs. What I see is that the DDs then either are reckless or too passive, causing the entire team to just stop or playing passive/defensive. In Domination, this leads to these rounds, where you end up without any caps. Under this pressure, the friendly DDs are often killed first, putting the team in a worse position before.

 

Making ship classes balanced in numbers at least equalizes pressure.

 

Your example of a won game does not prove that there should not be any changes. It just proves that the players are bad, even when they have the advantage.

[El2aZeR]

1 hour ago, WolfGewehr said:

Kids these days! In my time we played against Fuso in Kawachi and faced 20 torpedoplanes from Haku

 

Meh, Fuso vs Kawachi was almost merciful compared to this:

Spoiler

[darky_fighter]

3 hours ago, AnInnocentKitten said:

Dear Wargaming,

 

Dear AnInnocentKitten. Check win rates of all players. That is the reason why your team lost. Ship Matchmaking doesn't have much influence in chaotic random matches. The skill level in random matches is low. Often very low.

 

There are OM/OMNI Divisons with 90 % win rate. 3 guys can slaughter almost all enemy casual players. All the time. Where is the influence of the ship matchmaking? This influence is to low to stop even only 3 guys.

 

Ship matchmaking is a matter when it comes to clan wars. But not in chaotic random matches.

[MacFergus]

MM +2 tier isn't the issue its the composition of ships involved, With more gimmicks on the horizon and MM unable to deal with it the situation could get worse.

 

The DD in balance is an issue in domination games a huge issue if your one and only DD refuses to cap or is afk , Even if he does cap he could in theory could come up against both red DDs in the same cap  and the fact that the red team could go for 2x caps at once as oppose to 1x , There is also the psychological issue of taking caps , Teams are more willing to defend caps than take them.

 

MM isn't perfect we all know this and player skill dictates you still get one sided games however there is no excuse for in balance in ship types none whatsoever.  

[AnotherDuck]

People who complain about DD difference are usually under the mistaken impression that more = better. That's simply not the case. If there's only one DD, that DD is extremely strong. If there are two DDs, each one is not nearly as strong as the single one. With three DDs, each one is weaker still, and so on. Their collective strength is naturally higher, but for each one you get, the strength of a single DD is lower. You can compare that with BBs and CA/CLs, which aren't nearly as effected by how many others of their type are in the game. CVs are in the other direction, as they get even stronger the more of them there are, which is why they're so limited.

 

Overall, my experience tells me the optimal number of DDs in a game is three. Technically, two is better, but with three you have some leeway if one dies. If there are more than that, the best DD is a Khaba.

[MacFergus]

8 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

People who complain about DD difference are usually under the mistaken impression that more = better. That's simply not the case. If there's only one DD, that DD is extremely strong. If there are two DDs, each one is not nearly as strong as the single one. With three DDs, each one is weaker still, and so on. Their collective strength is naturally higher, but for each one you get, the strength of a single DD is lower. You can compare that with BBs and CA/CLs, which aren't nearly as effected by how many others of their type are in the game. CVs are in the other direction, as they get even stronger the more of them there are, which is why they're so limited.

 

Overall, my experience tells me the optimal number of DDs in a game is three. Technically, two is better, but with three you have some leeway if one dies. If there are more than that, the best DD is a Khaba.

 

Sorry Duck don't get what your saying here? , The team that has the most DDs in a domination games has a distinct advantage for reasons I've stated above , If you expect CAs to cap instead with the amount of BBs about that would be a short cap indeed , spotted focus fire by BBs and dead , maybe in the late game CAs can cap but early game it would be suicide for a CA to cap especially if the red team has more DDs that can spot. 

[Capra76]

14 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

my experience tells me the optimal number of DDs in a game is three.

 

My experience is that the optimal number of DD in a game is one - me!

 

Agree with the rest though, 4 v 5 DD isn't a problem, I worry more about 4 v 5 BB.

[Comodoro_Allande]

Working as intended. I've seen far more one-sided battles with similar team compositions, so I don't see here a relation MM/result. Also your team had most of the time two out of four capture points, so the +1 DD was not much of a deal (yes, I was in that battle too )

[AnotherDuck]

8 minutes ago, MacFergus said:

The team that has the most DDs in a domination games has a distinct advantage for reasons I've stated above

 

Five DDs aren't really better at capping than four DDs, or even three DDs. And instead of that DD, you have a CL, CA, or BB extra. Those are better force multipliers.

 

14 minutes ago, MacFergus said:

If you expect CAs to cap instead with the amount of BBs about that would be a short cap indeed

 

Why would I expect a CA to cap if there's a DD that can cap?

 

[MacFergus]

Just now, AnotherDuck said:

 

Five DDs aren't really better at capping than four DDs, or even three DDs. And instead of that DD, you have a CL, CA, or BB extra. Those are better force multipliers.

 

 

Why would I expect a CA to cap if there's a DD that can cap?

 

 

It was the 2vs1 scenario I was talking about Duck sorry if I didn't make it clear in the post... 

[AnotherDuck]

Just now, MacFergus said:

It was the 2vs1 scenario I was talking about Duck sorry if I didn't make it clear in the post... 

 

So you didn't read the part where I said the best number is three. Gotcha.

[Drunken_Jedi]

I remember the "good old days" when if you took a CV into a game it wasn't guaranteed the enemy team would even have a CV of their own.

 

Made strike setups worth it!

[AnotherDuck]

24 minutes ago, Drunken_Jedi said:

I remember the "good old days" when if you took a CV into a game it wasn't guaranteed the enemy team would even have a CV of their own.

 

Made strike setups worth it!

 

Unless you met two of them. Alone.

[Drunken_Jedi]

True, that MM issue though highlighted how fraked up the loadout system for CV's was. "Oh I picked AS but there isn't an enemy CV and I can't swap..."

[RamirezKurita]

1 hour ago, Drunken_Jedi said:

I remember the "good old days" when if you took a CV into a game it wasn't guaranteed the enemy team would even have a CV of their own.

 

Made strike setups worth it!

 

To be fair, that was partially due to how carriers, even at the height of their popularity, were pretty rare. Even though there's nothing in the matchmaking to force all games to have cruisers and battleships, in practice they normally do due to how those classes are pretty common. As I've mentioned in another thread, the only hard cap for matchmaking I would support in the game is to enforce a minimum of 1 of each ship class in every game.

[Drunken_Jedi]

CV's in CBT were pretty damned popular, at least in my experience. But then again, in CBT I was a CV/CA main. The old strike Essex was utterly bonkers and then WG screwed the pooch when they introduced the IJN CV line which just had alround better loadouts which made them more versatile. 2x TB squads on Essex was fun though, one shotting every BB was easy.

 

This is what ruined CV's I think, BB's complained and they had some justification for it. But instead of just tweaking WG did their usual knee jerk reaction and utterly gutted the USN line and broke CV's in general with constant AAA buffs with every single update.

[AnotherDuck]

10 minutes ago, RamirezKurita said:

As I've mentioned in another thread, the only hard cap for matchmaking I would support in the game is to enforce a minimum of 1 of each ship class in every game.

 

Dunno. I've had a bunch of games with only two types of ships, and most of those games turned out interesting. In a game without DDs, the British CLs pretty much take that role. Without BBs, and you'll see far less camping. Only BBs and DDs is probably the most mismatched.

 

Anyway, the problem comes if only one team is lacking a particular type. Otherwise, not really a problem.