Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
FishDogFoodShack

Divs should only allow same-tier ships

44 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
588 posts
4,770 battles

Sick and tired of having to save reports for the trash that div up with different tier ships. Some worthless *edited* always thinking to carry their crap friend up with a ship one tier higher and end up throwing games and ruining matches for 11 other people. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Edited by NickMustaine
Inappropriate language
  • Cool 6
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DC-DK]
Players
2,391 posts
24,368 battles

Agree your already a ship down when a fail div is on your team

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,349 posts
11,263 battles

Nah. If 45% players make a 3-BB division, it really doesn't matter if they're faildivisioning or not. If competent players faildivision, they probably know what they're doing. The 1 tier difference that's allowed now is enough of a constraint.

 

Although I'd actually be in favor of "banning" CV divs. Which is awful to CV-only players but, unfortunately, sorely needed since there's so few CV players that hardly anyone runs heavy AA spec... unless they're divisioning with a CV, which gives them certainty that they will face another CV. So they spec AA without the usual trade-off (the big chance of being AA-specced with no CVs int he match). Such prior knowledge of enemy team composition is, unfortunately, an unfair advantage that shouldn't be allowed (but can't be prevented when CV divs are allowed and there's forced mirror MM for CVs).

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OCTO]
Players
819 posts
16,079 battles
4 minutes ago, inkedsoulz said:

1 tier difference is okay...

Depends. If the division ends up in +2 game, they are basically screwed.... Imagine T VI  BB in T IX match....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,390 posts
12,013 battles
3 minutes ago, Major_Damage225 said:

The only ship that dosent have a problem if "failplatooning" happenes, is the Kamikaze :Smile_trollface::Smile_hiding:

That's called clubbing up. :fish_boom:

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Players
3,185 posts
12,579 battles

Meh.. it's a non issue. Happens rarely and influences the battle minimally when it does. I want it kept for the comical effect.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
588 posts
4,770 battles
19 hours ago, eliastion said:

If competent players faildivision, they probably know what they're doing.

 

Get your head out of your [edited]. The only reason "competent" players do this is to try to exploit the MM with the 788 trick, which will still end up bringing a T7 into a T10 match on occasion. Both WoT and WoWP have done away with mixed-tier divs and they're better off for it. But for some reason some people here seem to think that gimping your own team for Edited and giggles is on the [edited]level.

Edited by Asklepi0s
This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,349 posts
11,263 battles
1 hour ago, FishDogFoodShack said:

 

Get your head out of your [edited]. The only reason "competent" players do this is to try to exploit the MM with the 788 trick, which will still end up bringing a T7 into a T10 match on occasion. Both WoT and WoWP have done away with mixed-tier divs and they're better off for it. But for some reason some people here seem to think that gimping your own team for shits and giggles is on the [edited]level.

Oh, yes, sure, the mixed t10/9 divisions (t9s being usually Missouris or Fletchers) certainly are trying to exploit a "788 trick". So do 566 divs with a Kamikaze. Not to mention that

1. To actually get something out of the trick with lower tier CV the players in fact DO have to be competent, with no parentheses - otherwise the trick just makes sure that a couple potatoes are (almost) guaranteed to not be bottom tier. Or, on low tiers (where CVs have protected MM) actually even guaranteed be top tier.

2. As you might've noticed, I suggested that CVs shouldn't be allowed to division at all. The main reason was different, but it would also remove the possibility of abusing CV mirrored matchmaking to give pseudo-protected MM for the div (the thing you seem to be calling "788 trick", despite the fact that it's not restricted to these tiers).

 

So... perhaps it's you who should pull your head out of your behind, since throwing a childish fit because someone dared to disagree with your oh-so-enlightened insight doesn't exactly make your "proposition" appear any more valid. If anything, you're just showing everyone that the whole thread is just a simple rant with no value for anyone besides the poster that uses it to vent his frustration over not having the results he (according to himself) deserves.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BYOB]
Players
3,390 posts
12,013 battles
37 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

 

Walrus poking maybe?

Elephant safari. :fish_haloween:

 

Spoiler

elephant-seal-the-lifestyle-and-habitat-

 

Elephant seal safari.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[BONUS]
Beta Tester
2,722 posts
7,564 battles
2 hours ago, Major_Damage225 said:

The only ship that dosent have a problem if "failplatooning" happenes, is the Kamikaze :Smile_trollface::Smile_hiding:

 And her sister Fujin.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
7,712 posts
9,928 battles

A faildivisioning ship de facto ending up in a +3 MM game is in the vast majority of cases a straight-up disadvantage, no matter how you spin it. Even if the player is good enough to make it work, doing the same in a ship one tier higher would typically result in better performance.

 

My main gripe with faildivisions isn't that it can't work (the fact it can work is half as much infuriating because people get stupid ideas and then can't make it work ...), it's the simply fact that it enables ignorance to run rampant. Many faildivisions, particularily in the low and midtier bracket are probably caused by players simply not knowing how MM handles different ship tiers in a division. Those players might not even be aware of the dilemma and as long as faildivisions are allowed, at the very least that part of the playerbase WILL continue faildivisioning ... and you can take a guess at how competent those players tend to be if they don't even know they're faildivisioning.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Community Contributor, Beta Tester
404 posts
17,952 battles

Had a Arizona in a T9 game today. He was reeeeeeally helpful....
Locked to same tier in divisions needs to happen! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
4,349 posts
11,263 battles
52 minutes ago, Aotearas said:

My main gripe with faildivisions isn't that it can't work (the fact it can work is half as much infuriating because people get stupid ideas and then can't make it work ...), it's the simply fact that it enables ignorance to run rampant. Many faildivisions, particularily in the low and midtier bracket are probably caused by players simply not knowing how MM handles different ship tiers in a division.

Well, here we hit our favourite subject: WG explaining how the game works :Smile-_tongue:

 

I believe fail divisions should be allowed - but I also wholeheartedly support an idea of, say, a pop-up window when the div commander tries to hit "Battle":

This division contains ships of different tier. Matchmaking will be performed as for the highest tier ship in the division - the lower tier ships will likely face more powerful enemies than their tier would normally indicate. This can be detrimental to your division's and team's performance. Are you sure you want to proceed?

 

I'm in favor of letting people faildivision if they want to. Even if they don't really know what they're doing and are making a mistake - I don't think we should completely block that possibility. That being said, they should be informed of potential risks involved so they don't screw themselves over without even knowing how/why.

 

Also, as for faildivisions - there are ships that just don't care much about being uptiered a bit more than usual. And, more importantly: there are whole tiers that CAN'T possibly end up uptiered more than their standard worst-case (and also most-common-case :Smile_trollface:) scenario: t8+t9 and t9+t10 divisions can't really get worse MM than t10 battle - and once within the match they won't really suffer (since at that point they're weighted as their tier, not division tier). Faildivisioning in these cases robs them of the possibility of being top tier but doesn't really do anything bad to the team. And frankly, I think the most common faildivision I've seen is Fletcher or Missouri coupled with their t10 friends - and, let's face it, these ships don't exactly struggle by not being top tier...

 

On a completely different note, I just started thinking: how will the new mirror MM handle faildivisions? Now THAT actually concerns me - it would be awful if we ended with the CV-anchoring trick working for EVERY faildivision, even without a CV (at least in the peak hours when the MM manages to find you your match within 3 minutes).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[UNICS]
Alpha Tester
113 posts
6,672 battles

The 1 tier disadvantage is usually not much of a problem when the division still tries to play the game and given that they are not potatoes. Even a t6 bb in t9 game can still contribute to a win. Although she will have a hard time against t9 bb, she can still deal significant damage to enemy cruisers. In fact, I've seen quite a few examples when the team with fail division actually won. Unlike in wot, ships are less sensitive to tier differences (maybe excluding CV, which I rarely play). However, the real problem is that sometimes the fail division simply refuse to even try to win when they are up tiered. What usually happens is that the whole division would just suicide rush or even leave the game, and suddenly our team is 3 ship short, which almost guarantees a loss. So, instead of banning fail division outright, maybe WG should create some incentive for the fail division to try harder no matter what. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
662 posts
10,938 battles

You have same tier ships in already in Ranked and Clan battles, and it gets after some time rather monotonous. So idea for same tier ships in random as well  is not good. Nothing can ruin more game than developers accepting all kind of players suggestions. There has been already several players suggestions that WG implemented in WOWs, and they made game worse. :)

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
588 posts
4,770 battles
21 minutes ago, albinbino said:

You have same tier ships in already in Ranked and Clan battles, and it gets after some time rather monotonous. So idea for same tier ships in random as well  is not good. Nothing can ruin more game than developers accepting all kind of players suggestions. There has been already several players suggestions that WG implemented in WOWs, and they made game worse. :)

You just saw the phrase "same-tier" in the title and went off, didn't you? Why don't you give some of these posts a read and try again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,331 posts
7,740 battles
8 hours ago, CLyDeThaMonKeY said:

Had a Arizona in a T9 game today. He was reeeeeeally helpful....
Locked to same tier in divisions needs to happen! 

Because the same Arizona in game full of Bismarcks is certainly going to have an impact

Share this post


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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×