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

Can we get an official answer from WG why they won't do this for ranked?

100 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,672
[OO7]
Members
2,229 posts
9,733 battles

@Notser @NoZoupForYou Or anyone else that has a direct line to WG, can we please get an official answer as to why they call this game mode "Ranked" and yet they create a format of star rewards/penalties that doesn't effectively do what the definition of ranked is?

Right now, it should be called "Grind."  Because anyone can fail their way to Rank 1.  All WG needs to do to make this an EFFECTIVE "Ranked" mode is to do something along the lines of:

  • Top 2 players on winning team get two stars.  Rest win 1 except bottom two neither lose or gain a star (deals with the rampant afk players and those who are not deserving of being carried).
  • Top player on the losing team loses no stars.  Rest lose 1 star except botttom 2 players on the losing team lose 2 stars.

If the concern is that very skilled players will rank out too quickly, all you need to do is increase the number of stars needed per rank.

If the concern is that very poor players will leave the game in frustration because they cannot get to rank 1, that is insanity.  The game mode is inactive most of the year and taters always like to use the excuse, "I just play for fun."  So they can't also claim they care enough to rage quit and uninstall if they can't progress through the ranks.

A wider star distribution in rewards/penalties is how you properly separate the wheat from the chaff.  So what's the deal?  What's WG's reasoning for not making Ranked mean what the word is supposed to mean?

 

EDIT:  Until proven otherwise by manning up and revealing themselves, downvoters will be considered cowards with overwhelmingly below average performance histories who would deservedly be hurt by this change in format.  

Edited by VGLance
  • Cool 5
  • Funny 2
  • Boring 3
  • Bad 29
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,308 posts
21,107 battles

I think if that's implemented you may see only people with your skills competing.  Good luck with that.

  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,799
[SYN]
Alpha Tester, Beta Testers
30,523 posts
4,500 battles

Your idea really doesn't change anything but time. So why do it?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,648
[BIAS]
Members
3,154 posts
9,265 battles
3 minutes ago, slokill_1 said:

I think if that's implemented you may see only people with your skills competing.  Good luck with that.

Face it if a player is consistently on the low end of both winning and losing teams, the likeliness of them ranking out is extremely slim.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,976
[SYN]
Members
14,456 posts
10,465 battles

You can't go negative in stars, right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,672
[OO7]
Members
2,229 posts
9,733 battles
1 minute ago, MrDeaf said:

You can't go negative in stars, right?

 

No because you'd still have the initial ranks up near 20 be protected.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,731
[TBW]
Members
6,410 posts
12,057 battles
20 minutes ago, Feminist said:

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

The only thing broken is the name, it should be called Duncan or Grind season. It really has nothing to do with rank except that it is called that. You could also call it Do I Feel Lucky season, well do ya Punk?

But then again a terd by any other name still stinks.

Edited by Sovereigndawg
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,792
Members
9,980 posts

About 600 players ranked out last season, with your plan, you'd have 600 players playing? How long to you intend to wait in the queue to get to rank 1?:Smile_teethhappy:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
285
[BLUMR]
Members
2,049 posts
7,233 battles
10 minutes ago, awiggin said:

About 600 players ranked out last season, with your plan, you'd have 600 players playing? How long to you intend to wait in the queue to get to rank 1?:Smile_teethhappy:

try dat

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[SF-3]
Members
1,536 posts
8,138 battles

Not sure how many ranked seasons the OP has played, however, at the end of each season you can see how many games / WR people had that ranked out. You can probably count on one hand the number of people who ranked out with less than 50% WR, it just doesn't happen that often.

Now, in to your point, I agree, there needs to be changes to make the ranked season less "grindy", but I think really less frustrating. Take season 1 of CW, I really enjoyed this mode. There were a few times we fell back, but we made gradual progress. Nothing like in the current ranked structure where you can fall back several ranks at a time, causing you to have to win many more games in a row, to get back into that rank.

I would like to see the ranked mode less punitive. Here is my plan to a better ranked season.

1. Removal all irrevocable ranks

2. No one loses a star

3.Only top 5 of winning team gain a star

4.Increase number of stars needed to rank out.

 

The whole premise is to eliminate the back and forth that is so frustrating.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,594 posts
12,485 battles

I wouldn't mind some scoring changes but two examples from yesterday really makes it hard to discern who earned what and who didn't. 

1) In  Mountain range? the map where C has all the islands and A and B are now North and South of each other...anyway, there were no dds and I played an Atago as a DD and rushed c and camped behind an island for as long as possible, I was getting hit from all 7 ships, backing up, forward using as much cover as possible...I lasted long enough for our ships to pick off two of theirs before dying. We won, due to an educated sacrifice and I got last place, and barely 2k in damage. I also got complimented and thanked in game for what I did. But to look at the xp board you would think I was useless.

2) In my Lo Yang, I did the Lo yang thing in the cap until I got pushed out, smoked my teammates and after each team traded a few ships, I found the enemy z-23 and shadowed him at 5.9k till he was killed, then it was an easy win. I probably did 10k of garbage time damage at the end and was still last on the board.

In both cases, my actions were extremely important to our wins, if not the main reason for the win...but the xp board doesn't know that. I am all for screening potatoes, but the XP standings as it stands right now needs to be tweaked before its used to determine who gets more or less stars per game, just my .02

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,672
[OO7]
Members
2,229 posts
9,733 battles
1 minute ago, Kevs02Accord said:

Not sure how many ranked seasons the OP has played, however, at the end of each season you can see how many games / WR people had that ranked out. You can probably count on one hand the number of people who ranked out with less than 50% WR, it just doesn't happen that often.

Now, in to your point, I agree, there needs to be changes to make the ranked season less "grindy", but I think really less frustrating. Take season 1 of CW, I really enjoyed this mode. There were a few times we fell back, but we made gradual progress. Nothing like in the current ranked structure where you can fall back several ranks at a time, causing you to have to win many more games in a row, to get back into that rank.

I would like to see the ranked mode less punitive. Here is my plan to a better ranked season.

1. Removal all irrevocable ranks

2. No one loses a star

3.Only top 5 of winning team gain a star

4.Increase number of stars needed to rank out.

 

The whole premise is to eliminate the back and forth that is so frustrating.

The problem with that is it's a participation trophy system.  Rewards mean something when not everyone achieves them and especially when they applied intelligence and wisdom to the process instead of brute force.

 

14 minutes ago, awiggin said:

About 600 players ranked out last season, with your plan, you'd have 600 players playing? How long to you intend to wait in the queue to get to rank 1?:Smile_teethhappy:

And no, that assumption is false.  It's the same thing as saying no one would ever play co-op because the credit and xp rewards are so low.  The same lack of awareness and self-regulation that causes potatoes to play team games without care or consideration of how much they drag down their team mates is the same lack of awareness and lack of self-regulation that will keep them playing ranked mode.  Remember, they're just playing for fun.  So their stats (e.i. rank) mean nothing to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,807
[SALVO]
Members
17,093 posts
17,761 battles
31 minutes ago, VGLance said:

@Notser @NoZoupForYou Or anyone else that has a direct line to WG, can we please get an official answer as to why they call this game mode "Ranked" and yet they create a format of star rewards/penalties that doesn't effectively do what the definition of ranked is?

Right now, it should be called "Grind."  Because anyone can fail their way to Rank 1.  All WG needs to do to make this an EFFECTIVE "Ranked" mode is to do something along the lines of:

  • Top 2 players on winning team get two stars.  Rest win 1 except bottom two neither lose or gain a star (deals with the rampant afk players and those who are not deserving of being carried).
  • Top player on the losing team loses no stars.  Rest lose 1 star except botttom 2 players on the losing team lose 2 stars.

If the concern is that very skilled players will rank out too quickly, all you need to do is increase the number of stars needed per rank.

If the concern is that very poor players will leave the game in frustration because they cannot get to rank 1, that is insanity.  The game mode is inactive most of the year and taters always like to use the excuse, "I just play for fun."  So they can't also claim they care enough to rage quit and uninstall if they can't progress through the ranks.

A wider star distribution in rewards/penalties is how you properly separate the wheat from the chaff.  So what's the deal?  What's WG's reasoning for not making Ranked mean what the word is supposed to mean?

The problem I see with this is, from my experience, DDs have a significant advantage in base XP earnings.  A well played DD that's doing capping, defending, and counter-DD work (perhaps doing most of the damage to and killing at least one DD, perhaps more) can practically write himself a ticket to the top XP earned spot, while it practically requires a spectacular game to earn a top spot in a BB.

Furthermore, what you're describing will remove just about all hope of team play when everyone is scrambling to do as much as possible to get a top base XP spot.

 

Now, mind you, I've suggested something sort of along these lines before, but I think a fairer suggestion.  I think that my idea went like this.

First, the starting point.  There are 14 players between the two teams.  After the battle, pool the 14 players and order them by the base XP earned into two groups, the top 50% of base XP earners (called group A) and the bottom 50% of base XP earners (called group B).

Second, if you were on the winning team and were in group A, you earn a star.  If you were on the winning team but in group B, you neither win nor lose a star.  If  you were in group A but on the losing team, you also neither win nor lose a star.  And lastly, if you were on the losing team and in group B, you do lose a star. 

Also a possible option, if you earn 0 XP (probably because you were AFK), you lose a star, above and beyond what you'd win or lose.  (AFK and on winning team, you'd lose 1 star.  AFK and on losing team, you'd lose 2 stars.)  And heck, beyond this, as a further incentive against AFK's, if you are AFK and happen to be at a normally irrevocable rank, but losing the star(s) would cause you to drop a  rank otherwise, the normal rank irrevocability is ignored and you can drop in rank.  

 

Note that when you pool all 14 players and order by base XP earned and form two groups, normally I'd think that most of group A would be from the winning team, probably 5 or 6, sometimes even all 7.  To get into group A from the losing team, you'd have to have a really good game, i.e. earn more base XP than at least 1 players on the winning team.  The general idea here is to reward both good play AND winning.  Players who play well and lose don't get dinged for a star.  Players who win but don't contribute all that much may not earn a star.  But unlike your suggestion, VGLance, my suggestion isn't so elitist that it's harshly limiting.  It gives people a chance to move up.  Also, if you're a somewhat average player who regularly plays well enough to earn a star in wins, the chances are pretty good that in losses you may not do enough to earn not losing a star.  And if you're someone who is just along for the ride and contributes little, chances are that you may not earn many stars at all.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,807
[SALVO]
Members
17,093 posts
17,761 battles
14 minutes ago, Kevs02Accord said:

Not sure how many ranked seasons the OP has played, however, at the end of each season you can see how many games / WR people had that ranked out. You can probably count on one hand the number of people who ranked out with less than 50% WR, it just doesn't happen that often.

Now, in to your point, I agree, there needs to be changes to make the ranked season less "grindy", but I think really less frustrating. Take season 1 of CW, I really enjoyed this mode. There were a few times we fell back, but we made gradual progress. Nothing like in the current ranked structure where you can fall back several ranks at a time, causing you to have to win many more games in a row, to get back into that rank.

I would like to see the ranked mode less punitive. Here is my plan to a better ranked season.

1. Removal all irrevocable ranks

2. No one loses a star

3.Only top 5 of winning team gain a star

4.Increase number of stars needed to rank out.

 

The whole premise is to eliminate the back and forth that is so frustrating.

The problem with this idea is that it removes all pretense at it being about rank.  What you suggest is just a mode where it's all about who has the patience to play enough games.

Furthermore, if you think about it, in your idea, even bothering to write out point #1 is moot.  If you never lose stars, you can never go backwards, therefore there's not even a purpose for irrevocable ranks.  Including point #1 makes it look like it's a big deal when it's exactly the opposite.  It's turned into a complete and total moot point.

Honestly, I don't see how this system is any better than what we have today. never lose a star, but increase the stars needed to advance?  People will be just as frustrated when their teams lose as they are now.  You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.  

And on top of everything else, there's be no ranking to ranked.  Or at least no pretense of it being a "ranked" mode.  And I'm not sure that that's a good thing.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,792
Members
9,980 posts
10 minutes ago, VGLance said:

And no, that assumption is false.  It's the same thing as saying no one would ever play co-op because the credit and xp rewards are so low.  The same lack of awareness and self-regulation that causes potatoes to play team games without care or consideration of how much they drag down their team mates is the same lack of awareness and lack of self-regulation that will keep them playing ranked mode.  Remember, they're just playing for fun.  So their stats (e.i. rank) mean nothing to them.

What part of my assumption is false? 600 players made it to ranked one...that was well documented. 

You really think that if you remove all the so called "potatoes", this game would still have lots of players? :Smile_amazed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,672
[OO7]
Members
2,229 posts
9,733 battles
5 minutes ago, Crucis said:

The problem I see with this is, from my experience, DDs have a significant advantage in base XP earnings.  A well played DD that's doing capping, defending, and counter-DD work (perhaps doing most of the damage to and killing at least one DD, perhaps more) can practically write himself a ticket to the top XP earned spot, while it practically requires a spectacular game to earn a top spot in a BB.

Furthermore, what you're describing will remove just about all hope of team play when everyone is scrambling to do as much as possible to get a top base XP spot.

 

Your first point only works if the DD is well played, you said it yourself.  There are no guarantees either.  Just got out of a game where the enemy team had two unicum Bensons.  One finished first, the other finished second.  One of them lost a star.

The idea that people would forgo winning to focus on being first is a false narrative.  The very things you need to do to finish first (capping, massive amounts of damage, etc.) are the exact same things that lead you to win the match.  If everyone on your team was busting their [edited]to put out massive damage, cap when they can, and protect their health so they are still alive in the second half of the match, you're going to be a winning team.

Also, there is a significant two star difference between being top on a losing team and being top on a winning team which requires winning the match to benefit.  Frankly  you can easily argue that this proposal causes more players to be focused on winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
183
[CAST]
Members
1,209 posts
7,396 battles
9 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Now, mind you, I've suggested something sort of along these lines before, but I think a fairer suggestion.  I think that my idea went like this.

First, the starting point.  There are 14 players between the two teams.  After the battle, pool the 14 players and order them by the base XP earned into two groups, the top 50% of base XP earners (called group A) and the bottom 50% of base XP earners (called group B).

Second, if you were on the winning team and were in group A, you earn a star.  If you were on the winning team but in group B, you neither win nor lose a star.  If  you were in group A but on the losing team, you also neither win nor lose a star.  And lastly, if you were on the losing team and in group B, you do lose a star. 

This isn't a bad idea.  It does reward good play that goes towards a win and doesn't detract from good play on a bad team.  It rewards based on play which is what ranked should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,672
[OO7]
Members
2,229 posts
9,733 battles
4 minutes ago, awiggin said:

What part of my assumption is false? 600 players made it to ranked one...that was well documented. 

You really think that if you remove all the so called "potatoes", this game would still have lots of players? :Smile_amazed:

I did not say your claim of 600 players ranking out was false, I was saying your claim that only those 600 players would play ranked given my proposal is false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,731
[TBW]
Members
6,410 posts
12,057 battles
6 minutes ago, VGLance said:

while it practically requires a spectacular game to earn a top spot in a BB.

Lots of BB's lots of DD's the Cruiser is the loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,313
[-TAB-]
Members
1,611 posts
5,180 battles

or, you could base it on a system somewhat similar to WTR for ranked battles played, weighted for # of battles played. 

if that were used, we could be arguing about the flaws of the rating system, rather than the star system. this could lead to a much better rating system, that might actually have some relevance to player skills in the game.

or just keep WTR, and the star system used for ranked the way they are, and continue to wonder and argue about the validity and relevance of both/each in turn.

gotta give credit to WG for keeping it interesting !  :o)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
904 posts
4,261 battles

I look at ranked rewards and think, why would I spend so much time and effort in frustration to get what? A Jolly Roger flag? The rest can easily be purchased with real money that I can make in one day of work... So, once again, I will probably ignore the ranks.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,792
Members
9,980 posts
22 minutes ago, VGLance said:

I did not say your claim of 600 players ranking out was false, I was saying your claim that only those 600 players would play ranked given my proposal is false.

 

But you can go to ship comrade, and clearly see the issue.

qiTHan2.png

The top players ranked out in 100 games or so. Then it starts falling off fast. There aren't many quality players who didn't make it to rank 1. And only about 1% of the player base, 5500 players even TOUCHED ranked.

There's your real issue, the player base isn't filled with Unicums, and many of those that were here got bored and left long ago. 

Not sure how you can see this player base as competitive in any sense, when you've watched this game progress over the last two years.

You've watched Team battles fail. You've watched Clan wars take two years to get implemented, and it's time limited to 3 hours per night 4 days a week. You've seen that WG pit Typhoon league teams against the bottom league.

I'm sorry, but even WG sees who the player base is now, even though they'd like to change it. Trying to force Ranked into an actual competitive environment, will accomplish nothing but really long wait times....

Edited by awiggin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[SF-3]
Members
1,536 posts
8,138 battles
27 minutes ago, Crucis said:

The problem with this idea is that it removes all pretense at it being about rank.  What you suggest is just a mode where it's all about who has the patience to play enough games.

Furthermore, if you think about it, in your idea, even bothering to write out point #1 is moot.  If you never lose stars, you can never go backwards, therefore there's not even a purpose for irrevocable ranks.  Including point #1 makes it look like it's a big deal when it's exactly the opposite.  It's turned into a complete and total moot point.

Honestly, I don't see how this system is any better than what we have today. never lose a star, but increase the stars needed to advance?  People will be just as frustrated when their teams lose as they are now.  You're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.  

And on top of everything else, there's be no ranking to ranked.  Or at least no pretense of it being a "ranked" mode.  And I'm not sure that that's a good thing.

Really constructive replay their ol'chap. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×