Divs should only allow same-tier ships

[FishDogFoodShack]

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.

[hgbn_dk]

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

[inkedsoulz]

1 tier difference is okay...

[eliastion]

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).

[Zen71_sniper]

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....

 

 

[hgbn_dk]

Or like the Wyoming I saw in a T-VII match yesterday

[Major_Damage225]

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

[Aragathor]

3 minutes ago, Major_Damage225 said:

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

That's called clubbing up.

 

 

 

 

[principat121]

the "788" problem would also be solved, if only same tier divisions are allowed

[loppantorkel]

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

[FishDogFoodShack]

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.

[BeauNidl3]

1 hour ago, Aragathor said:

That's called clubbing up.

 

 

 

 

 

Walrus poking maybe?

[eliastion]

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.

[Aragathor]

37 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

 

Walrus poking maybe?

Elephant safari.

 

Spoiler

 

Elephant seal safari.

 

 

[Hedgehog1963]

2 hours ago, Major_Damage225 said:

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

 And her sister Fujin.

[Aotearas]

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.

[CLyDeThaMonKeY]

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

[eliastion]

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

 

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 ) 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).

[tamagotchi]

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. 

[albinbino]

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. :)

[FishDogFoodShack]

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.

[Panocek]

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

[dCK_Ad_Hominem]

I like playing t8 dd in tX mm :-X.

[BuccaneerBill]

 My Nelson does very well in Tier 10 thank you.

[robihr]

i miss umikaze in t10 match