Ranked needs Divisions

[Madwolf05]

Or I'm going to need therapy after this season.

 

I'm so done playing with people that are this bad. It's not that they are just bad, it's that they DON'T communicate at all. There is no way to get through to them. They don't help you, they don't do much of anything really. They're bad against the enemy, and they don't know their ships. I'm fine with bad players, because that's just a fact of life, but please let me get on a team of my own people so I can have an enjoyable time.

[SaltyBarnacle]

That's a terrible idea.

 

I do, however, feel your pain on the skill level, or lack thereof on many players out there currently in ranked play.

[crzyhawk]

No, divisions is about the last thing that ranked needs.

[alexf24]

No. Nope. No.

Can you imagine the OPness?

Ranked is about what YOU do. Provided the team is not full of potatoes (a tall order these days, I know).

[Montana_Prussian]

1 minute ago, crzyhawk said:

No, divisions is about the last thing that ranked needs.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Montana_Prussian]

Just now, alexf24 said:

No. Nope. No.

Can you imagine the OPness?

Ranked is about what YOU do. Provided the team is not full of potatoes (a tall order these days, I know).

And this^^^^^^

[Madwolf05]

Why would that be a bad thing? Let the people who want to work together do so. I don't see how it's a bad thing. They'd rank out quickly, and it wouldn't affect anyone else.

[TheRadicalMomo]

Could you imagine if you get into a division with your friends and then you don't do well and people start blaming each other?  I think ranked not having divisions shows what you can do to communicate with random people and come together play a great game... I wouldn't want people to lose friendships based on doing a highly competitive mode.

[crzyhawk]

because I don't want to be cannon foddered down by salty and opg divs.  Not interested at all.  Nor am I interested in making friends to form divs up just so I can play and be competitive.

[Montana_Prussian]

1 minute ago, crzyhawk said:

because I don't want to be cannon foddered down by salty and opg divs.  Not interested at all.  Nor am I interested in making friends to form divs up just so I can play and be competitive.

My view exactly.

[Bill_Halsey]

There 2 opposing ideas in ranked.

 

1. It depends team play.

2. You don't lose a star if you're top play, therefore encouraging yoloing.

 

Now I would like the idea of having voice chat with the tm.

 

Edit: the problem I see is that most folks have no interest in communicating.

[crzyhawk]

The biggest problem I see is that losing is too painful.  You should not lose ranks, only stars.  It should take more stars to get a rank, and maybe not all players on the winning team should get stars, but you shouldn't go backwards.

It's that backwards movement that makes people so salty.

[Bill_Halsey]

4 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

The biggest problem I see is that losing is too painful.  You should not lose ranks, only stars.  It should take more stars to get a rank, and maybe not all players on the winning team should get stars, but you shouldn't go backwards.

It's that backwards movement that makes people so salty.

Actually having more irrevocable ranks between 12 and 1 sounds good to me.

[renegadestatuz]

2 minutes ago, Bill_Halsey said:

Actually having more irrevocable ranks between 12 and 1 sounds good to me.

Sounds good to me as well.

[Madwolf05]

13 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

because I don't want to be cannon foddered down by salty and opg divs.  Not interested at all.  Nor am I interested in making friends to form divs up just so I can play and be competitive.

 

They would rank out almost immediately and then you couldn't see them.

 

The idea works on the pure selfishness of most players.

 

All of the players who want to work together to win get to. Everyone who wants to play for fun gets to.

I don't see who loses here.

[aAkula]

Salty Division in ranked? Yes please. 

[crzyhawk]

5 minutes ago, Bill_Halsey said:

Actually having more irrevocable ranks between 12 and 1 sounds good to me.

the way I see it, a 50%er is going to have a harder time getting say, 10 stars to advance (which losing stars) than with the current system.

[crzyhawk]

1 minute ago, aAkula said:

Salty Division in ranked? Yes please. 

Ran into one of you guys this morning.  Kept his Fuso smoked up in my Perth so he could keep moving forward.  I didn't do much damage, but he topped the exp charts by a long shot.  I'll gladly take my second to last place finish and my star.

[lskid]

Absolutely not. One good player can not combat 3 on the other team. Ranked is about how you carry your team. Teams are smaller for this reason, so that team RNG is lower.

[renegadestatuz]

5 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

Ran into one of you guys this morning.  Kept his Fuso smoked up in my Perth so he could keep moving forward.  I didn't do much damage, but he topped the exp charts by a long shot.  I'll gladly take my second to last place finish and my star.

SALTY players may get salty in randoms sometimes, but most of them are top notch players and great teammates/players in ranked.

[yashma]

25 minutes ago, crzyhawk said:

The biggest problem I see is that losing is too painful.  You should not lose ranks, only stars.  It should take more stars to get a rank, and maybe not all players on the winning team should get stars, but you shouldn't go backwards.

It's that backwards movement that makes people so salty.

I agree with this.  For me personally ranked would be a lot more palatable if they changed the model to make it a challenge to move forward, but difficult( if not impossible) to move backwards.  I'd also like it if progression was based more on individual performance than team performance.  I don't know, maybe they could equalize the win/lose base XP, and make it so only the top percentage of players in the entire game earned a star, regardless of what team they were on.  They could add a slight bonus for the winning the team.  Say the top 4 highest scoring players are guaranteed to get a star, but the top 2 on the winning team will also be guaranteed to get stars regardless of their overall placing.

This way ranking out would mean finishing in the top four X amount of times, rather than getting enough wins with out going backwards.  This would actually mean ranking out would depend on player skill, and it might have a chance of raising the overall level of high ranked gameplay. 

Just my two cents.  

*edit

I have no clue if this a good idea or not, but on first thought it sounded good on my head 

[Crucis]

31 minutes ago, Madwolf05 said:

Why would that be a bad thing? Let the people who want to work together do so. I don't see how it's a bad thing. They'd rank out quickly, and it wouldn't affect anyone else.

 

If you can't see why it's a bad thing, you never will.  It IS a Bad Thing! And it would affect every player on every losing team who were placed at a disadvantage.

 

No. Ranked play is all about what yiu as an individual can do, not what yiur division of unicums can do.

 

[Crucis]

5 minutes ago, yashma said:

I agree with this.  For me personally ranked would be a lot more palatable if they changed the model to make it a challenge to move forward, but difficult( if not impossible) to move backwards.  I'd also like it if progression was based more on individual performance than team performance.  I don't know, maybe they could equalize the win/lose base XP, and make it so only the top percentage of players in the entire game earned a star, regardless of what team they were on.  They could add a slight bonus for the winning the team.  Say the top 4 highest scoring players are guaranteed to get a star, but the top 2 on the winning team will also be guaranteed to get stars regardless of their overall placing.

This way ranking out would mean finishing in the top four X amount of times, rather than getting enough wins with out going backwards.  This would actually mean ranking out would depend on player skill, and it might have a chance of raising the overall level of high ranked gameplay. 

Just my two cents.  

 

Arguably, you could give the top 7 players on eiether team a star. Obviousky winning would earn you more XP than losing, thus meaning that players on the losing team would have to do VERY well to earn enough XP to get into the top 7. 

 

OTOH, this could hurt team play in favor of more selfish play thast earns more XP.

 

[Madwolf05]

8 minutes ago, Crucis said:

 

If you can't see why it's a bad thing, you never will.  It IS a Bad Thing! And it would affect every player on every losing team who were placed at a disadvantage.

 

No. Ranked play is all about what yiu as an individual can do, not what yiur division of unicums can do.

 

 

But we would win and get Rank 1 very quickly. So you wouldn't lose very much at all, other than how much your normally do.

 

The only reason I can see not doing this is so you can have really good players carry others to a win. I mean, that's not a very fun time.

[IronWolfV]

Instead of divisions in ranked. I'd like to see a ranked team format of somekind. I know opness of all kinds, but there was a team SBMM(that was attempted in tanks at tier 8) that mostly went by the team WoT skill rating average, and did a decent job of matching teams up against similarly skilled teams.

 

Wouldn't mind seeing that kind of SBMM team ranked come about.

 

Just my 2 cents. And yes this is Talon actually arguing for a form of SBMM, not overall.