Ranked needs a change!

[timmyg1004]

I think ranked needs a huge overhaul to suit all levels of players! my idea is there should be 3 lvls of ranked. tier 5-6 for novice lvl players, tier 7-8 for intermediate lvl players and tier 9-10 for advanced lvl players. How this would work could go something like this. tier 5-6 could be for players who have ranked out to rank one in at least one season thus unlocking certain rewards and allowing them to have the opportunity to rank out in the current 5-6 bracket to advance to tier 7-8. the same would go for the tier 7-8 and 9-10 brackets i.e you rank out in those tiers you can advance up to collect better rewards and play different ships with more advanced players further bettering your game play and actually learning more advanced tactics. all the time being able to dip back to play other ranks/tiers if u feel you need more work and or wish to play your favorite ships. the current meta/game play model/ship selection/player base in season 7 is filled with flaws such as 1- inexperienced players(lack of game mechanics understanding-tactics-experienced captains to name a few) 2-limited ship selections (serious lack in quality tier 6 premium ships and overall team comps to make tier 6 viable at true "team" play). i honestly dont think iam the only one who thinks ranked needs a overhaul to better the experience for all players of all skill lvls. this change could open TONS of opportunity for players of all lvl since we no longer have TEAM BATTLES and nothing for clans do do officially yet. just my thoughts. feel free to voice your opinion

[Crucis]

I kinda agree with having 3 different leagues for players of different skill levels. However, I don't think that the leagues should be at different tiers. Ranked Battles, regardless of league, should be at the same tier.

 

[Unabletony]

They did this before. It was bad for the lower tier players.

[Estimated_Prophet]

11 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I kinda agree with having 3 different leagues for players of different skill levels. However, I don't think that the leagues should be at different tiers. Ranked Battles, regardless of league, should be at the same tier.

 

Kind of a skilled based MM, but at the same time not; since many have cited examples of players they encountered that are suspected of 'failing their way to the top,' even in Ranked, due to low quality of witnessed gameplay.

 

At the same time; if OP means three levels of Ranked play to possibly avoid having to deal with less experienced players; it may increase wait times; forcing players back into the lower brackets in order to get games in; or wouldn't really do any good, as per the above.

[Admiral_Cirno]

I like the idea of dividing Ranked into 3 groups - Heavyweight, Welterweight & Lightweight.

WoWs needs an Admiral Don King!

[Macabe]

It would be the same song and dance but a variety of tiers. Low skill level players are just going to eventually make it up the tiers albeit slower. The only way to get around this is to do something like rainbow six siege and other games and have some form of skill based matchmaking but we don't have the playerbase for that unfortunately so matchmaker flushes will likely be frequent returning us to the initial problem.

[Czevak]

Delet ranked and let us have clan battles dammit.

 

Ranked Clan Battles.

[TheKrimzonDemon]

WG will do nothing that increases queue time. Period. They want short queues and short matches.

[CombatBoss]

The current system of Ranked play already has three tiers.  The poorer players will not make it past level 15, the average players won't make it to level 5. and only the best players make it to levels 5 and beyond.

 

I'm an average player who enjoys the 7 v 7 format.  I play Ranked as a break from the Standard battles.

[Shadowrigger1]

The whole problem with any of this is,  Ranked isn't about skill, it's about perseverance,    As the saying goes,  Throw enough $$%@ Against the wall and eventually some is gonna stick.   Same with Ranked,  play enough games and you will rank out.

 

I don't know why you all seem to think Ranked is anything BUT random with extra rewards and smaller teams.

[Crucis]

I made this suggestion a little earlier, or thought I did.  Change the criteria for awarding stars thusly.

 

 Instead of the current system, award one star to the top 7 base XP earners in the battle, regardless of team.  After that, if you weren't in the top 7, but were on the winning team, you do not gain nor lose any stars. And if you weren't in the top 7 and were on the losing team, then you would lose a star.

 

Because winning increases the amount of base XP earned, there would still be a strong incentive to win. And even if you were on the losing feam, there'd still be an incentive to do your best, knowing that you could still win a star if you did well enough.

 

This system would seem to reduce having mediocre players being carried up through the ranks, since gaining stars would require good play, while at the same time it wouldn't punish players too severely if they didn't do all that well but were on the winning team.  The only players who would lose stars would be the lesser performing players on the losing team.

[Crucis]

35 minutes ago, Shadowrigger1 said:

The whole problem with any of this is,  Ranked isn't about skill, it's about perseverance,    As the saying goes,  Throw enough $$%@ Against the wall and eventually some is gonna stick.   Same with Ranked,  play enough games and you will rank out.

 

I don't know why you all seem to think Ranked is anything BUT random with extra rewards and smaller teams.

 

I don't think that your saying is true for ranked. To get to rank 1, you need to win a lot more than you lose, particularly after you reach the final irrevocable rank (12).  I don't think that random bleep throwing is going to get you that winning record. Only skill or luck.

[MrKilmister]

One main problem I find in ranked is a general lack of effective communication where it matters. 

[Shadowrigger1]

30 minutes ago, Crucis said:

 

I don't think that your saying is true for ranked. To get to rank 1, you need to win a lot more than you lose, particularly after you reach the final irrevocable rank (12).  I don't think that random bleep throwing is going to get you that winning record. Only skill or luck.

Correct, you have to win more, but with ranked all you have to do is keep playing, eventually you are going to win enough, not by you being the man, but your team just being slightly better than the other team.   Good players are going to rank out faster, bad ones, slower, it's proven Season after season,  even players with Sub 48% will rank out if they just play enough and beat the end of the season in most cases.

[Raptor_alcor]

This was tried, it was PROVEN a bad idea. 

[timmyg1004]

i think alot of you are missing the point. this post is an idea of how to expand ranked for 6 different tiers of ships and 3 different leagues of play. it does not exclude anyone but limits your interaction with others based on either games played and failed to the top or general solid team play and individual skill. this gives players something to strive for and to advance up tech trees rather than sit on tier 6 ships/tier 8 ships (premiums) and actually grind to get tier 9-10 to compete at a high lvl.

 

[awiggin]

22 minutes ago, timmyg1004 said:

i think alot of you are missing the point. this post is an idea of how to expand ranked for 6 different tiers of ships and 3 different leagues of play. it does not exclude anyone but limits your interaction with others based on either games played and failed to the top or general solid team play and individual skill. this gives players something to strive for and to advance up tech trees rather than sit on tier 6 ships/tier 8 ships (premiums) and actually grind to get tier 9-10 to compete at a high lvl.

 

 

But you fail to understand the side effects of such a system.....

According to Shipcomrade there are only 1260 players playing ranked in NA. Even assuming it's only showing 80%, that's about 4k players less than last season, which was also a low.

So where do you think all these players are going to come from, if you try to segregate this tiny player base? The more likely response to your change would be very few people playing ranked, due to queue times....

 

[Swine_007]

1. Multiple tiers in a given game of ranked is a bad idea.  Even with Operations in PvE you get people being angry about lower tier ships making it harder to succeed.  

2. If WG wanted to offer 3 concurrent levels of ranked in one season it would fracture the player base more and as has been pointed out above, lengthen the wait times.  If players want to play ranked in other tier ships then I could sort of understand WG offering the choice in a given season for people to play ranked in ( as an example ) one queue for t6 , one for t8 and one queue for t10.  But I would expect them to limit the rewards to each player to once per season.  So for season 7 if you reach rank 12 in t6, then switch to t10 you would have to move from your start rank up past rank 12 before getting more rewards.

 

I don't think your idea is bad although it does seem to carry a whif of elitism.  I disagree with the idea that higher tier equates to higher skill level.  

 

I have to say that so far I have enjoyed this season of ranked more than any of the past just because at T6 the ships are closer in overall performance and there seem to be fewer occasions " oh god why are we saddled with THOSE ships on our team ".  

 

Or maybe I am just a potato who enjoys the mid tiers more. 

[Pope_Shizzle]

I think timmy's motivations are good.  I don't think segregating people based on tier will achieve the goal he wants.  

 

Ranked play, in any of the described forms is not about skill level.  It's about perseverence.  

 

What is really needed is a decaying ladder system.  Everyone starts off at a 1000 or whatever arbitrary rating.  When you win, you gain rating points.  When you lose, you lose rating points.  You will only play against people in your own rating bracket.  So, you could have 600-800, 800-1000, 1000-1200, 1200-1400, etc.  As you progress your competition gets tougher.  You are likely to be playing against people of similar skill levels.  As time passes, your rating will decay, thus encouraging people to remain active throughout the season in order to maintain their rating.  Rewards can then be disbursed on which rating bracket you end up in with the top folks getting something special.

 

[timmyg1004]

56 minutes ago, awiggin said:

 

But you fail to understand the side effects of such a system.....

According to Shipcomrade there are only 1260 players playing ranked in NA. Even assuming it's only showing 80%, that's about 4k players less than last season, which was also a low.

So where do you think all these players are going to come from, if you try to segregate this tiny player base? The more likely response to your change would be very few people playing ranked, due to queue times....

 

they are not playing because it is tier 6

[YeOldeTraveller]

8 minutes ago, timmyg1004 said:

they are not playing because it is tier 6

That is interesting.

I'd think better balance would encourage folks to play more than a tier with power premium ships (looking at you, Belfast).  Making this more about the captain than the ship should be a plus.

This is the second season since I started playing (and I didn't have any Tier 7 ships for the last one), so I may not understand.

[SeaQuest_]

The main problem with ranked is the fact that every i don't care if a win player, I have not spent 1 minute learning the game mechanics player, i refuse to work as a team player....etc feel that they need to play competitive ranked. I know i am going to hear the they have every right to play it as anyone else does. Sure they do, but that does not make it right. Ranked should be about and for the players who want the competitive aspect of the game they are not getting in random do to the players i have already mentioned. The ships players are using should have to be fully upgraded which i am not seeing even at rank 9 which means they are already at a disadvantage from the start of the match. I am not sure how WG can fix this, but something needs to be done. 

[Defiler_of_Reds]

6 minutes ago, SeaBreeze_ said:

The main problem with ranked is the fact that every i don't care if a win player, I have not spent 1 minute learning the game mechanics player, i refuse to work as a team player....etc feel that they need to play competitive ranked. I know i am going to hear the they have every right to play it as anyone else does. Sure they do, but that does not make it right. Ranked should be about and for the players who want the competitive aspect of the game they are not getting in random do to the players i have already mentioned. The ships players are using should have to be fully upgraded which i am not seeing even at rank 9 which means they are already at a disadvantage from the start of the match. I am not sure how WG can fix this, but something needs to be done. 

 

I don't really see it as an issue. As you progress through ranks you leave the potato lobbies behind. I'm currently rank 15 and only play against comparably ranked players. We had to make it though the the first few games which were basically no different to random. Now there is communication and a plan, and different people are providing insight into the different maps. The small scale and low tiers without any really broken ships is quite fun. Tier 10 with Khabs would be hilarious - if you have a Khab. 

[Vaidency]

24 minutes ago, SeaBreeze_ said:

I know i am going to hear the they have every right to play it as anyone else does. Sure they do, but that does not make it right.

You're just going to have to accept that it is right. 

The point of ranked games, especially at ranks below the Premier League, is to give everyone a reason to play a lot by offering lots of rewards for getting in on the grind.  Even bad players can score a couple hundred useful signal flags, some camos, a day of premium time and half a million credits just for fumbling their way up to rank 12, even if they can't get any higher than that without irrevocable ranks.  That's a lot more than they'd get for playing random games, so of course they're going to do it.

More competitive players need to just get over the notion that the mode should exclude players who are less experienced or take the game less seriously because that's clearly not what WG thinks.

If WG wanted ranked mode to cater to highly competitive players only, there would be no rewards below rank 1.

[SteelClaw]

8 minutes ago, Vaidency said:

You're just going to have to accept that it is right. 

The point of ranked games, especially at ranks below the Premier League, is to give everyone a reason to play a lot by offering lots of rewards for getting in on the grind.  Even bad players can score a couple hundred useful signal flags, some camos, a day of premium time and half a million credits just for fumbling their way up to rank 12, even if they can't get any higher than that without irrevocable ranks.  That's a lot more than they'd get for playing random games, so of course they're going to do it.

More competitive players need to just get over the notion that the mode should exclude players who are less experienced or take the game less seriously because that's clearly not what WG thinks.

If WG wanted ranked mode to cater to highly competitive players only, there would be no rewards below rank 1.

When Clans wars come if they are like in Tanks then the elite clans will shine reaping great rewards and the clans full of players like he is talking about will pretty much get nothing. Clan wars will be the game mode for those type of hardcore players if they do them like in tanks.