Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
SCIVIRUS

We need a rankings system

47 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

14
[OILFA]
Members
123 posts
10,320 battles

Wargaming you need to add a ranking system .Ranked game does not count ..i am sick of getting total noobs mixed with very experienced players ..there are alot of players out there that play for [edited] a giggles and have 10000 battles under beld  but has very low AVG XP and damage .you should qualify  to get in a rank then you get matched up with same skilled players ..The win ration is not a viable way to weigh the skill level ..if he has a hi winrate it just means he got lucky to get a good team that why allot of player hover at 50 % winrate ..AVG damage is a real proof of a players skill level

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
205
[SEP]
WoWS Wiki Editor, Supertester
725 posts
7,792 battles

Average damage doesn't mean anything if you can't win. Just means you can aim. 

 

EDIT: And winrate isn't due to luck... Sure, there are teams you can't carry, but most of the time you can make enough of a difference to impact the outcome. 

Edited by _Fantomex_
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
501
[LOU1]
Members
3,047 posts
8,134 battles

Keep in mind that if all the opposing players are as equally skilled as you, your average damage has a good chance of decreasing.  And with all of your teammates equally being skilled, there will potentially be less damage for you to get because they will get it.

 

Just some thoughts...

Edited by ExploratorOne
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
519 posts
3,350 battles

Random is random and you never have a crap game because of your performance ? so it's just people hovering at or below 50% never you ? hmmmmm

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,216
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,649 posts
9,052 battles
3 minutes ago, Kombat_W0MBAT said:

This thread will go places. 

Another request well, this was more of a demand, for skill based MM from someone that doesn't understand the lack of benefits while adding many negatives. IBTL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
519
[-1]
Beta Testers
1,864 posts
19,063 battles
17 minutes ago, SCIVIRUS said:

Wargaming you need to add a ranking system .Ranked game does not count ..i am sick of getting total noobs mixed with very experienced players ..there are alot of players out there that play for [edited] a giggles and have 10000 battles under beld  but has very low AVG XP and damage .you should qualify  to get in a rank then you get matched up with same skilled players ..The win ration is not a viable way to weigh the skill level ..if he has a hi winrate it just means he got lucky to get a good team that why allot of player hover at 50 % winrate ..AVG damage is a real proof of a players skill level

Stop whining I'm tired  of these whiners  ! ! !

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,119
[NDA]
Supertester
3,896 posts
1,487 battles
5 minutes ago, khorender_1 said:

Random is random and you never have a crap game because of your performance ? so it's just people hovering at or below 50% never you ? hmmmmm

Yes, much like how those drivers that fly past you on the interstate are idiots, and all the ones that are slower than you and in your way are morons. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
519 posts
3,350 battles
1 minute ago, kerensky914 said:

Yes, much like how those drivers that fly past you on the interstate are idiots, and all the ones that are slower than you and in your way are morons. ;)

Oh man I forgot about " those" guys lol thanks !!!!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,637
[PLPT]
Members
9,915 posts
10,443 battles
1 hour ago, SCIVIRUS said:

Wargaming you need to add a ranking system .Ranked game does not count ..i am sick of getting total noobs mixed with very experienced players ..there are alot of players out there that play for [edited] a giggles and have 10000 battles under beld  but has very low AVG XP and damage .you should qualify  to get in a rank then you get matched up with same skilled players ..The win ration is not a viable way to weigh the skill level ..if he has a hi winrate it just means he got lucky to get a good team that why allot of player hover at 50 % winrate ..AVG damage is a real proof of a players skill level

I put those in bold mr "Pot"

there's a call on line 2 from Mr. Kettle.... he would like to have a word with you...

 

 

FANTASTIC first post BTW.... well done

Edited by pmgaudio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,800
[SALVO]
Members
17,069 posts
17,737 battles
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

Another request well, this was more of a demand, for skill based MM from someone that doesn't understand the lack of benefits while adding many negatives. IBTL

He didn't say "skill based MM", but I think that that was the general gist of what he was really looking for, whether he said it or not.

As for SBMM, I have yet to hear any negatives about it.  All I hear is griping about how it would be bad without any actual defense of WHY it would be bad.  I won't say "proof", since it really comes down to opinions.  But I wouldn't mind hearing opinions on why it would be a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,800
[SALVO]
Members
17,069 posts
17,737 battles
1 hour ago, _Fantomex_ said:

Average damage doesn't mean anything if you can't win. Just means you can aim. 

 

EDIT: And winrate isn't due to luck... Sure, there are teams you can't carry, but most of the time you can make enough of a difference to impact the outcome. 

I agree that average damage doesn't mean a lot.  OTOH, I will say that when I see players with AveDam's in the low 20k's or below while they're playing mid tier ships or even higher, I think that it's pretty safe to say that they're not good.

As for WR, I don't buy this "carry" nonsense.  You're part of a team, whether they play LIKE a team of not.  However, I do agree that your WR is affected to a decent degree by your efforts.  Are you playing to win or playing just to farm damage?

I won't claim to be a great player, but I do know that the longer you stay alive and contributing to the team in a positive way, the chances are that you will help your win rate.  You can't help your team win if you're dead.  The way I look at it, the moment your ship sinks, you've put your chances of winning into the hands of the remaining players.  Now, if the match is even when you die, you have roughly a 50/50 chance of getting a win, assuming that all of the remaining players on each team are average.  But if you think that your chances of winning are better if you stay alive, you should be making every effort to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,800
[SALVO]
Members
17,069 posts
17,737 battles

For what it's worth, the game could have had (arguably) an excellent ranking system, IF WG had tracked base XP instead of XP that was affected by premium accounts and who knows what else.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,484 posts
8,969 battles
1 hour ago, SCIVIRUS said:

The win ration is not a viable way to weigh the skill level ..if he has a hi winrate it just means he got lucky to get a good team that why allot of player hover at 50 % winrate

An individual win may be the result of being lucky.  However, over time, everyone gets the same mix of good teams and bad teams, and with a statistically significant enough sample (generally at least 100 battles, preferably more) they cancel each other out, which is why the average player hovers around 50%.

That is, over time, there is only one consistent factor, one non-variable, on all your teams:  you.  If you consistently prove to be a net negative effect on your teams' chances to win, your win rate will drop below that natural 50% average.  If you consistently prove to be a net positive effect on your teams' chances to win, you will have a higher than average win rate, so higher than 50%.  Finally, if you prove to neither be a consistently positive effect on your teams nor a consistently negative effect on the, your wins will be subject to the whims of your team makeup, and your win rate will hover around 50%.

Win rate is a perfectly valid way of judging player skill, but no stat in and of itself is the "one true way" to paint the whole picture.  You need to take them in context of all the measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,216
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,649 posts
9,052 battles
9 minutes ago, Crucis said:

He didn't say "skill based MM", but I think that that was the general gist of what he was really looking for, whether he said it or not.

As for SBMM, I have yet to hear any negatives about it.  All I hear is griping about how it would be bad without any actual defense of WHY it would be bad.  I won't say "proof", since it really comes down to opinions.  But I wouldn't mind hearing opinions on why it would be a bad thing.

The biggest negative is W/R's will tend to 50%. The less skilled players will have better stats while the more skilled will in turn have worse stats. It can also be abused by people wanting to seal club.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,800
[SALVO]
Members
17,069 posts
17,737 battles
2 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

The biggest negative is W/R's will tend to 50%. The less skilled players will have better stats while the more skilled will in turn have worse stats. It can also be abused by people wanting to seal club.

To me, that's not a negative.  It's a positive.  It means that battles would be inherently fair.  It means that every time you hit the battle button, the chances are pretty darned good that you should have a close to 50/50 chance of winning, that you will probably have a good competitive battle. 

Would there still be steam rolls?  Oh, occasionally, because while one assumes that the two teams are fairly evenly balanced, that's not the only causal factor in steam rolls.  The other big one is that once a team has a lead, the chances of winning go up.  And they keep going up as the lead grows.  And for the trailing team, it gets increasingly more difficult to come back from deficits.   Thus, steamroll start and grow and grow.  This is why it's so important to kill wounded ships ASAP, and even more so when you're behind.

You just learn to realize that in a SBMM system, Win Rate means nothing.  Not meaning any offense, but all you're doing is defending is a system (random battles) that's designed to allow rampant seal clubbing much of the time.

In a SBMM, people would learn that they'd have to look elsewhere to determine who the better players are.

Stepping back for a moment, all of the above sounds good (at least to me), but it's all predicated on having some sort of rating system for any SBMM to use to form balanced teams, since obviously without it, you can't do squat.  And short of WG starting to track base XP or coming up with some other sort of ratings system, any talk of a SBMM is a little pointless.  No rating system, no SBMM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,085
[DAKI]
WoWS Wiki Editor
7,321 posts
6,609 battles
2 hours ago, SCIVIRUS said:

The win ration is not a viable way to weigh the skill level ..if he has a hi winrate it just means he got lucky to get a good team that why allot of player hover at 50 % winrate

While it's not perfect, the Solo WinRate (after a good amount of battles) is a very good way to determine how well a player can carry and play for the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
355
[D12]
[D12]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,083 posts
8,969 battles

I can only imagine what my damage average would be if my Fujin didn't have almost more (at one point they were more)games played than my Battleships games combined.

Mo has helped bring that BB number up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
432
[CUTER]
Members
699 posts
19,024 battles

Sounds like gaming socialism...we all need to be equal for me to have a chance...

Get better...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,262
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,801 posts
15,249 battles
3 hours ago, Kombat_W0MBAT said:

This thread will go places.

The locked threads archive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
231
[SYN]
Members
346 posts
6,178 battles
29 minutes ago, PrairiePlayer said:

I wonder what the OP would say if he didn't qualify for a match.  

 

Agreed.  That seems to be the most likely outcome, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×