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

Ranked season 9 conjectures?

45 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,980
[OO7]
Members
4,240 posts
10,903 battles

So likely around the end of next month, shortly after the end of CB, we will see WG release the next season of ranked. Yay???

I personally would prefer a bit more break between CB and Ranked than what they have been giving us, but I guess not. the last 2 times we have had 2 weeks or less before the start of the next.

Anyways, any conjectures on what this season will entail for tiers and what those tiers would be like? I think that there are only 3 viable tiers that WG would consider: 6, 7, and 8. The last 2 seasons have been 6 and 7, so I personally think that we will be going back with tier 7 again. Why not the other tiers?

1-3: Limited types of ships, limited premiums to sell.

4-5: All types of ships available, OP ships in tiers. CV's are limited. Lots of premiums to sell. Not likely

6: CV's are free to play manually, lots of premiums to sell, nothing super OP at the tier. Has been used before

7: OP ships at tier have been nerfed, lots of premiums to sell. Been used before

8: Lot's of premiums to sell, been used before. Was just used, however.

9-10: Too far out of reach for a good portion of the player base, no premiums for WG to make money off of. 10 already has CB tied to it.

 

So if it is indeed tier 7 (as much as I would like to see tier 9 or even tier 4 and tier 5 with ship restrictions) what has changed since last year and season 6?

Well, Shira got nerfed hard, losing the ability to have TRB and smoke at the same time.

Belfast got a smoke nerf, still stronger than most ships at the tier.

Indianapolis and Pensacola received buffs.

New ships in the game include Algerie, Lyon, Nelson, Hood, Duke of York, KGV, GM, Ashitaka, and Kaga.

I think that Belfast would still be seen a lot along with Fiji and Atlanta. however newcomers in the BB dept could be interesting contenders... Nelson and Lyon especially. I don't see the GM being especially powerful in ranked as you can have a lot of dd's in the game and the lack of a torp deterrent would allow it to be rushed easily by other dd's ganging up on it. Kaga could definitely be interesting until it comes up against a Saipan.

 

What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles

I wouldn't be surprised to see tier 7 be the tier for ranked every other season, since it would drive sales. But I'd like to see tier 6. Even though CVs are virtually non-existent in ranked (which I hate) Kaga and Saipan's power over Hiryu and Ranger doesn't need any amplification from weaker surface AA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,980
[OO7]
Members
4,240 posts
10,903 battles
1 minute ago, Elegant_Winter said:

I wanna play tier 5. I don't care if I see tons of Cesares.

What about kamikaze? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
906
Members
5,579 posts
3,952 battles
Just now, Ducky_shot said:

What about kamikaze? 

I knew someone would bring that up. I really enjoy tier 5. I can handle a Kamikaze and Cesare every match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,980
[OO7]
Members
4,240 posts
10,903 battles
1 minute ago, Elegant_Winter said:

I knew someone would bring that up. I really enjoy tier 5. I can handle a Kamikaze and Cesare every match.

I'd be playing a kamikaze if it was allowed, so I have no problem with it. Shoot, I'd play a kami in t6

Edited by Ducky_shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
Just now, Elegant_Winter said:

I knew someone would bring that up. I really enjoy tier 5. I can handle a Kamikaze and Cesare every match.

But what about 3-4 of each per match?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
906
Members
5,579 posts
3,952 battles
Just now, Ducky_shot said:

I'd be playing a kamikaze if it was allowed, so I have no problem with it

I'd probably go with Konig. Such a comfy ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
906
Members
5,579 posts
3,952 battles
Just now, cometguy said:

But what about 3-4 of each per match?

It wasn't that way with any other ship at any other tier, was it? I seriously doubt it would be that extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
371
[SUCIT]
Members
1,018 posts
4,278 battles

I'm really down for any tier other than T8 for ranked.  Every tier has something different to offer, but T8 just gets stale after the first 20 battles.  Yes there is a good variety of ships, but BBs vastly overpower CA at that tier, and DDs can run rampant as a result.  Most games ended up as 3 BBs, 1 CA tops and 3 DDs.  Not a good meta IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,326
[CUTE]
Members
5,202 posts
3,461 battles
5 minutes ago, cometguy said:

But what about 3-4 of each per match?

I don't think that would be a trend. Someone has to win the matches, right? It's not a whole lot different from any season of Ranked though, is it? There are always plenty of "it" boats at all the tiers, every season. Lo Yang/Alablamma/Kidd all ended up being seen quite frequently at T8, and we all know who came to dinner at T7, and again, T6 had it's "go-to" ships.Why would you expect 5 be any different in this sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,259
Members
2,992 posts
5,204 battles
1 minute ago, Elegant_Winter said:

It wasn't that way with any other ship at any other tier, was it? I seriously doubt it would be that extreme.

No, but the cost tends to be influenced by ship type and tier. I think I got the Belfast for around $35-40, where as t7 DDs are going for mid-20's. The Fujin only cost $13 when on sale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
906
Members
5,579 posts
3,952 battles
Just now, cometguy said:

No, but the cost tends to be influenced by ship type and tier. I think I got the Belfast for around $35-40, where as t7 DDs are going for mid-20's. The Fujin only cost $13 when on sale.

I see, I see. Well it's something to wonder about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,155
[SPTR]
Members
3,551 posts
6,413 battles

I think tier 6 is the most suitable balance wise - aside from CVs, all tier 6 ships are fairly balanced IMO.

Almost all players have access to tier 6 ships, and since we already have clan wars, ranked become less of a competitive seriousness but more of a casual passtime so ranked doesn't have to happen in a competitive tier...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
2,085 posts
5,737 battles
5 hours ago, The_first_harbinger said:

I think tier 6 is the most suitable balance wise - aside from CVs, all tier 6 ships are fairly balanced IMO.

Almost all players have access to tier 6 ships, and since we already have clan wars, ranked become less of a competitive seriousness but more of a casual passtime so ranked doesn't have to happen in a competitive tier...

This assumes that every competitive player can participate in Clan Wars.  Prime Time rules significantly limit or exclude players who's available time does not fall within the Prime Time window nor do all players who would like to be competitive belong to a clan that fields a Clan Wars team. For those players, Ranked remains the competitive venue in WOWS.  Don't make the mistake of thinking that because you belong to a clan which participates in Clan Wars that everyone is in the same boat.  

*Edited*  Oh goodie, I got a negative thingee for this one.  Guess at least one Clan warrior extraordinaire took exception to the idea that not everyone can play in their pond and that others might need to turn to Ranked for any semblance of competitive play.  Perish the thought.  

Thanks for making my day and, in a way, helping me make my point.  :Smile_honoring:

Edited by BB3_Oregon_Steel
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LHG]
Members
2,085 posts
5,737 battles

As far as tiering goes, I think most tiers have something special to offer.  I think I enjoyed the more recent Ranked Battles at tier 7 and 6 the most but there's always sort of a teeter totter dynamic going on.  The lower you set the bar, the more you end up on teams that think Ranked is Random Battles where everyone just goes off and does their own thing making defeat certain unless the red team has similar problems.  The higher tiers tend to reduce this problem quite a bit but also means that few players will be involved. 

One interesting idea is one which was used in the 1st season of Ranked battles.  Ranks 23 - 16 were played with Tier V ships, Ranks 17 - 10 with Tier VI ships, ranks 9 - 1 with tier VII's I think.  Something like that would allow most players to experience ranked but would create different challenges are different levels.  Might be fun to revisit that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,155
[SPTR]
Members
3,551 posts
6,413 battles
13 minutes ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

 

My point being, only clan wars can truly provide a team play cooperative environment. Ranked by essense is still random battle with random teammates, only with a cumulative and selective system to elevate and reward players' skill and dedication. Gameplay wise Ranked offers nothing more than playing consciously and competitively in random battles.

Of course, with the incentives of losing ranked players would be more cautious and serious about winning, but the individual players still receieve individual ranks and rewards, and the best performing player does not lose his rank, meaning that the emphisis still lies with the individual's competitiveness, a different level with competitive teamplay that I was trying to infer but apparently failed.

17 minutes ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

One interesting idea is one which was used in the 1st season of Ranked battles.  Ranks 23 - 16 were played with Tier V ships, Ranks 17 - 10 with Tier VI ships, ranks 9 - 1 with tier VII's I think.  Something like that would allow most players to experience ranked but would create different challenges are different levels.  Might be fun to revisit that.  

 

That's a great idea! However I would argue for skipping tier VII -- Belfast, Kaga, Saipan, Nelson, Blyskawica, Leningrad...it's a p2w dumpster fire. Not to say that the tech tree ships aren't good and players can't do well, but the players are always better off playing a premium that were better significantly in some fields, if not in every way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,980
[OO7]
Members
4,240 posts
10,903 battles
5 minutes ago, The_first_harbinger said:

That's a great idea! However I would argue for skipping tier VII -- Belfast, Kaga, Saipan, Nelson, Blyskawica, Leningrad...it's a p2w dumpster fire. Not to say that the tech tree ships aren't good and players can't do well, but the players are always better off playing a premium that were better significantly in some fields, if not in every way.

Blysk lost a lot with the removal of OWSF and did not get any buffing. It's easily spotted and terrible at contesting caps compared to the other dd's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
561
[CVA16]
Members
2,763 posts
7,529 battles
37 minutes ago, BB3_Oregon_Steel said:

As far as tiering goes, I think most tiers have something special to offer.  I think I enjoyed the more recent Ranked Battles at tier 7 and 6 the most but there's always sort of a teeter totter dynamic going on.  The lower you set the bar, the more you end up on teams that think Ranked is Random Battles where everyone just goes off and does their own thing making defeat certain unless the red team has similar problems.  The higher tiers tend to reduce this problem quite a bit but also means that few players will be involved. 

One interesting idea is one which was used in the 1st season of Ranked battles.  Ranks 23 - 16 were played with Tier V ships, Ranks 17 - 10 with Tier VI ships, ranks 9 - 1 with tier VII's I think.  Something like that would allow most players to experience ranked but would create different challenges are different levels.  Might be fun to revisit that.  

That's what I'd like to see again. Breaks the monotony of having to play a single tier. Would also like to see a few more irrevocable levels. Sliding back 4-5 is painful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,242
Members
4,094 posts
15,015 battles
3 minutes ago, Ducky_shot said:

Blysk lost a lot with the removal of OWSF and did not get any buffing. It's easily spotted and terrible at contesting caps compared to the other dd's

Blyskie is a damn good DD. It's only the players who relied on the OWSF crutch that claim that she sux. As for cap contesting, she's pretty good. Those 7 accurate hard hitting guns can ruin a Red DD's day PDQ and her torpedoes are good at close range, and not bad at long range either.

I'd drive Blyskie in tier 7 Ranked. I have other good ones to pick from as well; Scharnhorst, Belfast, and Fiji.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,083
[SALVO]
Members
20,049 posts
19,944 battles
15 minutes ago, The_first_harbinger said:

My point being, only clan wars can truly provide a team play cooperative environment. Ranked by essense is still random battle with random teammates, only with a cumulative and selective system to elevate and reward players' skill and dedication. Gameplay wise Ranked offers nothing more than playing consciously and competitively in random battles.

Of course, with the incentives of losing ranked players would be more cautious and serious about winning, but the individual players still receieve individual ranks and rewards, and the best performing player does not lose his rank, meaning that the emphisis still lies with the individual's competitiveness, a different level with competitive teamplay that I was trying to infer but apparently failed.

That's a great idea! However I would argue for skipping tier VII -- Belfast, Kaga, Saipan, Nelson, Blyskawica, Leningrad...it's a p2w dumpster fire. Not to say that the tech tree ships aren't good and players can't do well, but the players are always better off playing a premium that were better significantly in some fields, if not in every way.

 

Just a friendly FYI, Harbinger.  You were trying to "imply", not "infer".  When you are the person writing something, you're making implications.  When you're the person reading something, you're "inferring".

Anyways...

The problem with having different (let's say) "leagues" playing different tier ships is that many more serious players of ranked will pay gold to move a highly skilled captain into their ranked ship of choice (if it's not a premium ship).  But if you have multiple tiers in a season of ranked, you're increasing those players' cost of moving captains into their ranked ships.

As for tier 7 premiums, I'm not so sure that I'd think of the  Blys and the Leningrad as OP p2w ships.  Ditto for the Nelson.  Nice as the Nelson is, the KGV may be better (except, I suppose, for the lack of a Super-heal).  The advantage the Nelson has is that being a premium means that you can move a highly skilled captain into her freely.  Oh what a terrible crime that is, to be able to move captains into premiums with paying gold! 

I very much agree with you on the Belfast, Kaga, and Saipan.

BTW, I notice that you left out the Sims, which, while not really OP, is a very potent DD for Ranked since it's such a good cap brawler.  I also notice that you left out the Scharnhorst.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×