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

Seeing so many ranked complaints again

55 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

1,092
[OPG]
Supertester
1,899 posts
10,234 battles

Every season the same.  I still have no idea why WG wants to make it so frustrating for players.  They lose so many customers each season, it seems silly they intentionally keep a system designed to anger their players.

 

So again (been about 4 seasons now I keep saying this), allow the top players to still rank out in 100 games or less, but give the players some leeway against the extreme yo-yo.   Yes people should plateau, but the current system does a poor job of giving them that feel, rather it jerks them around and dangles the prospect that if they just spam more games they can make it.   Rank 1 should be a skill marker, not a marker that half the player base can achieve if given enough games.  Yes WG needs to keep players interested, but do so by alleviating the frustration.  People want to play with the smaller teams, the different maps, etc.   Allow players whom have hit their plateau to effectively remain at a level while they continue to play and you will see many continue to play AT THEIR level.   


Ranked star assignments should simply be post game after win bonus is assigned to each players XP, the 14 players are aligned from highest XP to lowest.  With stars being given as follows

  1. Gain a star regardless of team
  2. Winning team gain a star, losing team keep a star
  3. Winning team gain a star, losing team keep a star
  4. Winning team gain a star, losing team keep a star
  5. Winning team gain a star, losing team keep a star
  6. Winning team gain a star, losing team keep a star
  7. Winning team gain a star, losing team keep a star
  8. Losing team lose a star, winning team keep a star
  9. Losing team lose a star, winning team keep a star
  10. Losing team lose a star, winning team keep a star
  11. Losing team lose a star, winning team keep a star
  12. Losing team lose a star, winning team keep a star
  13. Losing team lose a star, winning team keep a star
  14. Lose a star regardless of team

*Situations of ties, both/all players gain/lose a star as according to their team's placement.

 

 

The result is simply that unlike the current system with 7 stars being given, 6 taken, and 1 kept per match (ie a system designed to create great fluctuation), On average only about 7 stars will be given/taken and 7 stars will be kept.   Players will have far more static placement, and people at or about their skill level maximum will see much slower slides and climbs.   The yo-yo effect will be gone.   Thus even if losing every match in a night, and not being the best player, often a person won't lose a rank at least.  Just as if they are at their skill ceiling, even if winning every game in a night they likely won't climb a rank.   

The system still rewards spammed games and good play, but with less frustration and "helpless feeling;' factor.  Super unicums who top their team every battle can still gain stars, even when MM screws them with a terrible team.  Serial potatoes who drag their team down will have a much tougher time climbing to a level beyond their skill and more quickly be dispatched.  

Heck doing this means you can remove "irrevocable" ranks entirely.  WG still gets what it wants, a game spam fest to burn off player's excess flags and put the pressure on people to spend real world money, and players get to feel like they make actual progress and if not ranking out are getting some sort of numerical assignment of their skill level.

  • Cool 14

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,787
Members
9,966 posts

The problem lies in having a serious competitive mode in a game like this to begin with.....:Smile_amazed:

The problem with this game in single graph....

Spoiler

cooRMit.png

Player distribution.....estimates only...:Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
284
[TSPC]
Beta Testers
1,109 posts
10,253 battles

I've been seeing more purple players complain about ranked after rank 10 than anything else.  I'm wondering what % of the game population they are.  I'm not going past rank ten.... too much headache.  I got the flags I wanted anyway.

  • Cool 3
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
266
[SEOP]
Members
1,286 posts

ranked is intended to be competitive.  why make it something its not?  its not a required play mode.  If you don't like the mode why beat your head against the wall playing it?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
827 posts
2,634 battles
16 minutes ago, awiggin said:

The problem lies in having a serious competitive mode in a game like this to begin with.....:Smile_amazed:

  Reveal hidden contents

cooRMit.png

 

The problem is, why enter competitive mode if you're not competitive & have no intention of being competitive? That falls under unsportsmanship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,787
Members
9,966 posts
Just now, DeathLord1969 said:

The problem is, why enter competitive mode if you're not competitive & have no intention of being competitive? That falls under unsportsmanship.

Because you wouldn't have anyone to play with?:cap_hmm:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,577
[-K-]
WoWS Wiki Editor, Members, Supertester, WoWS Community Contributors
4,724 posts
15,363 battles

The issue here is...  who deserves to rank out?  IMO, EVERYONE does.  But some people want only the "best" players to do so....  making it an insane and frustrating grind for EVERYONE.  

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,092
[OPG]
Supertester
1,899 posts
10,234 battles
12 minutes ago, RobertViktor68 said:

I've been seeing more purple players complain about ranked after rank 10 than anything else.  I'm wondering what % of the game population they are.  I'm not going past rank ten.... too much headache.  I got the flags I wanted anyway.

Indeed, which is entirely reasonable, and honestly what I have done the past few seasons.  Judge how much time I have, what reward I want and basically stop when I get it.   However this is a problem if we are too considered ranked as a competitive mode (which WG says it is), as a good majority are treating it as some sort of mission reward instead.   

From a competitive stand point not to mention the business stand point having people avoid a mode because of its frustration level is a problem.  Thus my confusion as to WG keeps it that way.  

 

4 minutes ago, Dr_Dirt said:

ranked is intended to be competitive.  why make it something its not?  its not a required play mode.  If you don't like the mode why beat your head against the wall playing it?  

 

2 minutes ago, DeathLord1969 said:

The problem is, why enter competitive mode if you're not competitive & have no intention of being competitive? That falls under unsportsmanship.

Ranked is only competitive in the measure of how many few games a super unicum can rank out in.   Outside that it is an endurance mode, wherein the top half of the playerbase can rank out if they put in enough games.   

Do not misunderstand me.  More power to them for it.  I personally do not have the patience for it, so hats off to them.   However this is not a competitive mode when players who are in the top of a skill pool in a match, and play well, can still  lose a star, while players who played worse than them and/or are lower skilled can gain a star.   That randomness creates part of that yo-yo effect which is contrary to any serious competitive designation being legitimately applied to the mode.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,722
[TBW]
Members
6,403 posts
12,034 battles
6 minutes ago, Dr_Dirt said:

SST55GO.jpg?width=328&height=297

My sister lives in a Jesus cult and when the kids play tag no one can be tagged. In soft ball every one gets a hit and scores. It must make for some real fun games.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[BBP]
Members
335 posts
4,330 battles
12 minutes ago, Dr_Dirt said:

SST55GO.jpg?width=328&height=297

I totally get that.  But...the most frustrating thing to me is that lack of cooperation on teams and how one or two bad apples can bring the whole team down.  

Why should that affect how far I get in ranked?  I don't feel like I've reached my skill ceiling at rank 9 but I'm hamstrung by crappy teammates.  Example:

Player 1: Let's go AB
Player 2: No we need to go AC.  AB is too dangerous.
*player A sails towards B, 3 ships go with him*
*player 2 sails towards C, 2 ships go with him*
*Pretty much the entire enemy team is at C and all 3 ships in player 2's group are slaughtered...*

This happened several times this morning.  

Yesterday was in a game where me (in Khaba) and a Gearing were heading towards C cap.  Gearing stupidly eats a blind torp and dies on the way.  The rest of the game the Gearing guy is in the chat complaining about how I'm running away from a fight with a Des Moines who was in C (I ended up with 3 kills and a win btw).  

I know I have the skill to advance past rank 9 but it's so team dependent it's incredibly frustrating.  You have to find teams that will work together and that only happens maybe half of the time.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
459
[GWG]
[GWG]
Members
1,539 posts
7,540 battles
15 minutes ago, _MiDKnighTx_ said:

I totally get that.  But...the most frustrating thing to me is that lack of cooperation on teams and how one or two bad apples can bring the whole team down.  

Why should that affect how far I get in ranked?  I don't feel like I've reached my skill ceiling at rank 9 but I'm hamstrung by crappy teammates.  Example:

Player 1: Let's go AB
Player 2: No we need to go AC.  AB is too dangerous.
*player A sails towards B, 3 ships go with him*
*player 2 sails towards C, 2 ships go with him*
*Pretty much the entire enemy team is at C and all 3 ships in player 2's group are slaughtered...*

This happened several times this morning.  

Yesterday was in a game where me (in Khaba) and a Gearing were heading towards C cap.  Gearing stupidly eats a blind torp and dies on the way.  The rest of the game the Gearing guy is in the chat complaining about how I'm running away from a fight with a Des Moines who was in C (I ended up with 3 kills and a win btw).  

I know I have the skill to advance past rank 9 but it's so team dependent it's incredibly frustrating.  You have to find teams that will work together and that only happens maybe half of the time.  

You just described any Co-op, or Random battle in this game... why is ranked different?

Heck, it sounds like Clan battles I've been in!!

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,092
[OPG]
Supertester
1,899 posts
10,234 battles
34 minutes ago, Dr_Dirt said:

SST55GO.jpg?width=328&height=297

You seem to be confused.   Participation medals is the system that we currently have.   

 

As lord zath states though, some folks want ranked to be such:

38 minutes ago, Lord_Zath said:

The issue here is...  who deserves to rank out?  IMO, EVERYONE does.  But some people want only the "best" players to do so....  making it an insane and frustrating grind for EVERYONE.  

 

Which is fair enough.  In which case I would say at the very least WG could use this method, but not apply a winning bonus to the XP totals.   That way everyone can rank out, for some it will be a grind, but frustrating not so much.

Personally I think it should be more selective, and the rank number should hold meaning more than just how many games you played, but more how good you were.   But I can see your side as well.   Mostly this is just based upon WG comments in Q&A etc, it seems they feel ranked should be a competitive mode.   Currently it is rare to see someone outside WG state that they actually believe it is.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
245
[BBP]
Members
335 posts
4,330 battles
11 minutes ago, OtterWolf said:

You just described any Co-op, or Random battle in this game... why is ranked different?

Heck, it sounds like Clan battles I've been in!!

I was expecting that in ranked teams would be more apt to work together.  It has happened a few times but probably the majority of the team every ship just does their own thing.  If the other team works better as a team you lose.  I can't make my teammates all agree on a plan and work together...  I wish I could...

At least in a clan there's some kind of clan leader that perhaps gives out a game plan that most people tend to follow.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,262
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,797 posts
15,222 battles
1 hour ago, SyndicatedINC said:

I still have no idea why WG wants to make it so frustrating for players.

WG doesn't make it hard on players; PLAYERS make it hard on players, the wounds are all self-inflicted.

  • Cool 2
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 4
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
449
[-AA-]
Members
1,729 posts
6,657 battles

This is a very good idea to fix Ranked, OP.


In its current state Ranked is a failed game mode. It is like playing soccer with random people, which is okay, when everyone know hows to play soccer. 
Well this could be Random Battles as well, when you don't div up.

With Ranked you have this same formulae, but with less players and better rewards, together with calling it "competitive". Where does this "competitive" word come from? What is so "competitive" about Ranked. How "competitive" is it to not get a potato team? Sssh, lets forget detonations for a moment. Ofcourse a good player can make a difference, an even better player more of a difference. Though when you play competitive you deserve to win for being better, right? Sadly at this point you can still be better than the enemy team, but if their team is better in average you will lose. When you pick your team we call it Clan Battles, but in this case we don't. In this case you have to draw a stick for having a better average team.


Another idea to improve Ranked
As a non-Unicum I would not mind when people with the same win rate (is determined on the class you picked) get put into the same team. This way you will have a team that is as good as you and makes losing less frustrating. At this moment I have to team up with a friendly Shimakaze who torps me from behind, while also claiming it was my fault. Even carried him to a win. Yes, I brought him closer to Rank 5. Have fun! I am enjoying my Abruzzi, because Ranked isn't worth it.

 

EDIT: +1 to you OP.

Edited by LemonadeWarrior
  • Cool 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
185
[WOLFB]
[WOLFB]
Beta Testers
1,446 posts
6,784 battles
17 hours ago, Umikami said:

WG doesn't make it hard on players; PLAYERS make it hard on players, the wounds are all self-inflicted.

One of the more sane responses I have read, thus far. +1

  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
72
[PLPTS]
Members
757 posts
13,242 battles

YEAH

+1 to OP

I'd certainly give up the irrevocable spots for a way to get starts based on overall performance. It seems like I've been second best on the losing team several times in cases where I've been better than some of the "winners", Of course better scoring for spotting, "holding", and "blocking" caps, not just  defending them should be taken into account eventually.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
375
[INTEL]
Members
795 posts
8,264 battles
19 hours ago, SyndicatedINC said:

Every season the same.  I still have no idea why WG wants to make it so frustrating for players.  They lose so many customers each season, it seems silly they intentionally keep a system designed to anger their players.

 

So again (been about 4 seasons now I keep saying this), allow the top players to still rank out in 100 games or less, but give the players some leeway against the extreme yo-yo.   Yes people should plateau, but the current system does a poor job of giving them that feel, rather it jerks them around and dangles the prospect that if they just spam more games they can make it.   Rank 1 should be a skill marker, not a marker that half the player base can achieve if given enough games.  Yes WG needs to keep players interested, but do so by alleviating the frustration.  People want to play with the smaller teams, the different maps, etc.   Allow players whom have hit their plateau to effectively remain at a level while they continue to play and you will see many continue to play AT THEIR level.   


Ranked star assignments should simply be post game after win bonus is assigned to each players XP, the 14 players are aligned from highest XP to lowest.  With stars being given as follows

  1. Gain a star regardless of team
  2. Winning team gain a star, losing team keep a star
  3. Winning team gain a star, losing team keep a star
  4. Winning team gain a star, losing team keep a star
  5. Winning team gain a star, losing team keep a star
  6. Winning team gain a star, losing team keep a star
  7. Winning team gain a star, losing team keep a star
  8. Losing team lose a star, winning team keep a star
  9. Losing team lose a star, winning team keep a star
  10. Losing team lose a star, winning team keep a star
  11. Losing team lose a star, winning team keep a star
  12. Losing team lose a star, winning team keep a star
  13. Losing team lose a star, winning team keep a star
  14. Lose a star regardless of team

*Situations of ties, both/all players gain/lose a star as according to their team's placement.

 

 

The result is simply that unlike the current system with 7 stars being given, 6 taken, and 1 kept per match (ie a system designed to create great fluctuation), On average only about 7 stars will be given/taken and 7 stars will be kept.   Players will have far more static placement, and people at or about their skill level maximum will see much slower slides and climbs.   The yo-yo effect will be gone.   Thus even if losing every match in a night, and not being the best player, often a person won't lose a rank at least.  Just as if they are at their skill ceiling, even if winning every game in a night they likely won't climb a rank.   

The system still rewards spammed games and good play, but with less frustration and "helpless feeling;' factor.  Super unicums who top their team every battle can still gain stars, even when MM screws them with a terrible team.  Serial potatoes who drag their team down will have a much tougher time climbing to a level beyond their skill and more quickly be dispatched.  

Heck doing this means you can remove "irrevocable" ranks entirely.  WG still gets what it wants, a game spam fest to burn off player's excess flags and put the pressure on people to spend real world money, and players get to feel like they make actual progress and if not ranking out are getting some sort of numerical assignment of their skill level.

 I like the idea on a general level but the current implementation of xp awards completely destroys its validity. That is unless you believe simple damage stacking is the most important thing a player can do.

 I drive a radar Mino in a full dd hunter/killer build. I simply cannot output high damage totals reliably. Doing what I do means I cant park behind an island doing that Mino thing. I'm often in the open intercepting a Dd or flanking cruiser. Everyone knows a Mino in the open is a Citadel Slot Machine. Its common for me to finish in the bottom three in xp. In one match I spotted 30+ torps, had two caps, a dd and a cruiser kill, and 80kish spotting damage. My.damage total was around 20k finishing 5th in xp. Thats just not right. Under your proposal I'd be unlikely to rank out unless I took vacation for the season.

 DDs have a very similar xp issue. A well played DD can do a lot in a win without doing much damage at all. Your proposal would penalize that even more than it already is. 

Imo implementing this would ensure matches with nothing but BBs, cruisers that can spam HE at long range, and the ocasional Khabarovsk.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
116
Members
309 posts
20 hours ago, SyndicatedINC said:

The yo-yo effect will be gone. 

To conclude your system would do this would require you to make the assumption that people play with consistent skill.

That simple isn't true.

Are SOME yoyo-ing streaks due to bad teams? Sure. But at the same time, people will yoyo on their own simply because their tilted, or just not playing well because they didn't get enough sleep, or something.

Ranked isn't a competitive mode; competitive modes don't remove all the best players over a "season".

WG needs to quit pretending it is acknowledge that it's just a grind for rewards, and restructure it as such to reduce frustration, say, with more irrevocable ranks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[FAP]
Members
42 posts
4,206 battles

Ranked is my favorite part of wows.  With that said I have three complaints:

1.  Going from Tier 8 to Tier 10 ships at Rank 10 puts a lid on a bunch of newer but still good players.  I could grind away and get a Tier 10 ship but it would bore me to no end.  I enjoy playing all types of ships and generally switch after each win.  At this rate it will take me another year to get a Tier X ship.  

2.  Really bad teamwork coming from 1-2 players per game.  It seemed much worse in the beginning of the season but it still annoyed me to no end.  On the flip side, I won my last 4 games straight to get to Rank 10 in part due to having a strong team with the poor guys on the other side having to deal with a camping BB.  I must say the Asashio partially solved this problem as I killed with great delight many a camper with this ship.  

3.  This is a competition.  Playing 1,000 games to get to Rank 1 should not give the same reward as the stud that did it with 100 games,  In fact it is the opposite, the guy that plays 1,000 ranked games gets a huge bonus in XP over those that tap out after 100 and play their next 900 in Random.

 

So my solution which should be taken as a whole is as follows:

1.  Allow Tier X ships to be rented.. They should not be an OP premium nor should they be nerfed .  Just an average ship that a good player could win with 50% of the time.

2.  Allow complaints to be made for bad play.  When someone hits some number of complaints (say 20 from different players) they are bumped from Ranked.  

3.  Having a sliding scale for win percentage to stay in Ranked.  Something like:

  • Greater than 40% after 100 games
  • Greater than 45% after 200 games
  • Greater than 50% after 300 or more games

Obviously my numbers need to be adjusted based on real data, but you get the idea.

 

Thoughts?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
354
[D12]
[D12]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,083 posts
8,964 battles
20 hours ago, Dr_Dirt said:

ranked is intended to be competitive.  why make it something its not?  its not a required play mode.  If you don't like the mode why beat your head against the wall playing it?  

How is the hell it competitive with people play to keep a star?  I probably won't be playing it anymore since I'm currently enjoying a different game than WoWs atm.  I'm keeping stars with my shim?  Teams have to be bad to do that right.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
281
[SUCIT]
Members
825 posts
3,617 battles

If we just went to an elo system, all of these issues would be solved.  You'd have to climb the ladder up to whatever elo would be classified as rank 1 in order to get the rewards.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
177
[PVE]
Members
382 posts
8,602 battles

The game already has clan battles as a form of team based competitive play. 

Call ranked something else, add more irrevocable ranks, and it would be far more enjoyable. Last two seasons of ranked I stopped at rank 12 and only played for the signals. Its way too dependent on teamwork between random players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×