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

928
[INTEL]
Members
1,521 posts
12,582 battles
1 hour ago, Hobobeast said:

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.  

Thoughts?  

 

 You ask for it so..

NO!... @@@@ NO... @@@@ NO WITH A SIDE OF WAKE THE #### UP!

Back to being serious, I get the reasoning and often share your frustration but think it through. Think how many times you've experienced a screaming jack@@@ directing his ire are you because he has no idea why you're doing something or you didnt save him from his own stupidty. Do you really want players like that affecting you ability to play a certain mode?

Edited by Ares1967
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[TWFT2]
Members
45 posts
5,970 battles

Great point.  Happened to me 2-3 times in ranked.  That is why I would set a high threshold.  I can also people unfairly ganging up on a poster that says something out of the norm. 

 

Anyway, my points are just for discussion.  There is no way any of them would actually be implemented except maybe the rental.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,143
[ARGSY]
Members
13,656 posts
8,789 battles

Meh... maybe it's because I'm just dabbling at the edges and still in the Irrevocable Zone (17, I think), but I decided last night to see Ranked (at least to Rank 10) in this light - it's Tier 8 randoms, but with no Tier 9 or 10 ships to deal with, EVER, and five fewer people trying to kill you from the get-go.

I just hope the next season is Tier 8 or under, and no Tier 10 at the top. The cost of grinding must be driving some people up the wall. I reckon give us a pure season at T6 or T8 and all the salt we've seen this season will go away.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
640
[13TH]
Members
4,872 posts
8,465 battles
22 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.

Rank is not designed to make you a great player nor find out we’re you stand rank wise or if your capable to get to rank 1 .. bottom line it’s designed to suck ... er get as much $$$ out of the players and give you a game challenge to keep you interested and spending $$$

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[LCDN]
Members
7 posts
7,222 battles

Sorry, I'm an USO (unidentified sailing object)

I'm now level 10. So I need a tier 10.

But my best tier is 9 (Iowa). 
I feel I will need 150 games to get Montana. :-)

And Wow does not sell any tier10.

How can I do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
928
[INTEL]
Members
1,521 posts
12,582 battles
26 minutes ago, MajorHavoc said:

How playing ranked feels to me:5afc5364eee98_fallingdown.gif.7d552ad1467568a89fca766706c8a48a.gif

I wonder how many get the reference. Lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,396
[NGAGE]
Supertester
2,118 posts
12,178 battles
9 hours ago, Ares1967 said:

 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.

A valid point, but more to the line that certain ships have been "keep a star" machines due to their XP bonus ratio (we all remember the Sims in tier 7 ranked).   

As to ranking out, 5th on a winning team would still likely mean a star gain.   

 

That isn't to say that the XP system especially in ranked can't also be adjusted.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,396
[NGAGE]
Supertester
2,118 posts
12,178 battles
9 hours ago, intixw said:

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.

I can understand how you come to the conclusion.   If you look at it closer however playing with inconsistent skill would still tend to level off the yo-yo effect.  Some games a player screwing up would win but no longer gain a star or rank with this method.  Likewise some games they play well but get a weak team, they would not lose a star.   It would be mostly only when they play bad consistently AND worse than their team that they would drop rank, or when they play well consistently and better than their team that they would move up.
 

6 hours ago, HMCS_Devilfish said:

Rank is not designed to make you a great player nor find out we’re you stand rank wise or if your capable to get to rank 1 .. bottom line it’s designed to suck ... er get as much $$$ out of the players and give you a game challenge to keep you interested and spending $$$

True, that is why I suggest this method, as it would still mean many players have to play as much as they do now to get to the ranks they do.  Just minus the frustrating yo-yo that often seems to be a reason cited when people quit playing ranked.   In other words WG doesnt lose out on their revenue.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
246
[-GPF-]
Members
772 posts
4,222 battles

All these rant thread about ranked, I don't get it.

I'm at rank 13 right now, kicking serious butt with the Eugen. Top of my team all but two matches so far. Sure, lots of defeats, but as long as you do ok you don't lose your star. So... the bottom line is git gud. Having trouble? Try a new ship. Take a break if you're on a losing streak. I'm not that great a player, just found a ship that's perfect for me, and have been hitting it hard. It also helps that I really enjoy the smaller teams, love having 1 v 1s or heck even 1 v 2s which I still can win. 

You got two options

1: Keep working at it, and try to enjoy it.

2. Just don't do it. You only need to get like 3-4 wins and you get a ton of flags, why bother continuing if your not having fun?

Everyone just complains about the system, I say adapt and overcome! :Smile_izmena:

Sorry if that's harsh but it's also true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
640
[13TH]
Members
4,872 posts
8,465 battles
42 minutes ago, SyndicatedINC said:

I can understand how you come to the conclusion.   If you look at it closer however playing with inconsistent skill would still tend to level off the yo-yo effect.  Some games a player screwing up would win but no longer gain a star or rank with this method.  Likewise some games they play well but get a weak team, they would not lose a star.   It would be mostly only when they play bad consistently AND worse than their team that they would drop rank, or when they play well consistently and better than their team that they would move up.
 

True, that is why I suggest this method, as it would still mean many players have to play as much as they do now to get to the ranks they do.  Just minus the frustrating yo-yo that often seems to be a reason cited when people quit playing ranked.   In other words WG doesnt lose out on their revenue.

 I agree the yo-yo is a killer it’s basically the reason I lost interest in playing ranked, my thought is that Wows looses players because of the frustration that rank games can cause,

however Wows Data must show other wise or they would change it

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,396
[NGAGE]
Supertester
2,118 posts
12,178 battles
27 minutes ago, Sir_Orrin said:

All these rant thread about ranked, I don't get it.

I'm at rank 13 right now, kicking serious butt with the Eugen. Top of my team all but two matches so far. Sure, lots of defeats, but as long as you do ok you don't lose your star. So... the bottom line is git gud. Having trouble? Try a new ship. Take a break if you're on a losing streak. I'm not that great a player, just found a ship that's perfect for me, and have been hitting it hard. It also helps that I really enjoy the smaller teams, love having 1 v 1s or heck even 1 v 2s which I still can win. 

You got two options

1: Keep working at it, and try to enjoy it.

2. Just don't do it. You only need to get like 3-4 wins and you get a ton of flags, why bother continuing if your not having fun?

Everyone just complains about the system, I say adapt and overcome! :Smile_izmena:

Sorry if that's harsh but it's also true. 

Not saying this in a nasty way, but rank 13 is not even halfway thru the star count.   You are doing well because you have a ship well suited for it and are at a low level.   The majority of ranked (ie rank 10-2) it is not so simple.  Doing good doesnt mean keeping a star, because someone else is going to do great (and the other 5 are going to potato).  Most losses mean a lost star, even if you were the second best player in the entire match across both teams.  

This creates frustration and people quit, which is exactly the problem.   WG wants people playing the mode more.   Instead the method means people play it less.   They get to rank 10 or 5 and stop.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
120
[AR]
Members
360 posts
15,130 battles

Having a ranked season with T10 ships was an incredibly BAD idea.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,716
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
17,521 posts
12,810 battles
On 5/15/2018 at 12:27 PM, SyndicatedINC said:


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.

Removing irrevocable ranks is a poor idea.  Frustration is caused by going backwards.  Remove revocable ranks and make stars harder to get, so that people don't get carried to higher ranks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,082 posts
3,570 battles

I for one have no intention of Going over Rank 10. From everything Ive seen or read, its a total Radar fest just like I knew it would be. The only Tier 10 ship I have is Gearing, so no thank you. If I can ever find the time, I still may work up to 10 though for the flags and goodies. Life happens............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[1NJS]
Members
28 posts
1,932 battles

If they want this to be competitive lessen the affect of RNG for BB's and possibly better match making , win 1 star 1 battle the next battle loose the same star rinse and repeat. :( I do enjoy ranged when  everyone works as a team . Also there have been a sever number of win one game and get totally decimated the next. totally lopsided most of the time with  a few good battles in between? I cant be the only one seeing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7
[1NJS]
Members
28 posts
1,932 battles
1 hour ago, Sir_Orrin said:

All these rant thread about ranked, I don't get it.

I'm at rank 13 right now, kicking serious butt with the Eugen. Top of my team all but two matches so far. Sure, lots of defeats, but as long as you do ok you don't lose your star. So... the bottom line is git gud. Having trouble? Try a new ship. Take a break if you're on a losing streak. I'm not that great a player, just found a ship that's perfect for me, and have been hitting it hard. It also helps that I really enjoy the smaller teams, love having 1 v 1s or heck even 1 v 2s which I still can win. 

You got two options

1: Keep working at it, and try to enjoy it.

2. Just don't do it. You only need to get like 3-4 wins and you get a ton of flags, why bother continuing if your not having fun?

Everyone just complains about the system, I say adapt and overcome! :Smile_izmena:

Sorry if that's harsh but it's also true. 

Getting good is very acheiveable in a cruiser or DD. BB is so much based on luck aka RNG :) FYI i try and have fun in ranked 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
116
Members
309 posts
15 hours ago, khazz_1 said:

and possibly better match making, win 1 star 1 battle the next battle loose the same star rinse and repeat

All the people complaining about this don't seem to realise that this is exactly the w/l pattern (with some randomness thrown in) a good MM SHOULD be generating.

50% W/R is what happens when you're consistently being matched against players of equal skill.

Of course, WG's MM isn't actually programmed to take skill into consideration (aka, why ranked isn't actually competitive), thus, on average, so the average skill of the players you're playing against is just the average for the MM bracket you're in. If you stuck perpetually in a win/loss cycle, it's not MM's fault, you're just not as good as you think you are.

Edited by intixw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,396
[NGAGE]
Supertester
2,118 posts
12,178 battles
3 hours ago, intixw said:

All the people complaining about this don't seem to realise that this is exactly the w/l pattern (some some randomness thrown in) a good MM SHOULD be generating.

50% W/R is what happens when you're consistently being matched against players of equal skill.

Of course, WG's MM isn't actually programmed to take skill into consideration (aka, why ranked isn't actually competitive), thus, on average, so the average skill of the players you're playing against is just the average for the MM bracket you're in. If you stuck perpetually in a win/loss cycle, it's not MM's fault, you're just not as good as you think you are.

Agreed, thus this suggestion to change the star scoring.  Currently someone who has hit their skill ceiling has every incentive to simply stop playing further ranked games (which is contrary to what WG wants), as the current system can find them easily running into a bad streak and slipping back many ranks down to a point that is lower than their actual skill.   Less movement would limit this effect (essentially hiding the outliers more) and allow peopel to continue to play at the skill level they should be at.  The result is less player frustration thus more inclination to play more (which is good for players and WG).

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,396
[NGAGE]
Supertester
2,118 posts
12,178 battles
15 hours ago, crzyhawk said:

Removing irrevocable ranks is a poor idea.  Frustration is caused by going backwards.  Remove revocable ranks and make stars harder to get, so that people don't get carried to higher ranks.

That is literally the suggestion.  

For example taking myself.   The last 10 games of ranked I played I won 7 and lost 3 (2 of them with top XP on losing team).  So I net gained 6 stars.  However if using this system, one of those losses I had the highest score of the match (thus would have gained a star on that), but was only in the top 7 overall on XP in 4 of the wins, thus would have gained only 4 stars from wins.   On both the other losses I was top 7 overall on XP so would have lost no stars.   Thus my net gain would have been less (5 stars) but it would have been entirely up or stay.   

That is the point, this makes it take longer fro most people to gain stars, but makes it harder to lose stars when playing at or below your skill level.   The result is you play the same or more games on average to go up in rank, but you rarely go down a rank, and nearly never go down multiple ranks.  The entire going from Rank 3 back to Rank 8 then climbing back to rank 4 in a bad weekend would be done away with.  A bad weekend would mean going from Rank 3 to rank 4, or just going from Rank 3 with 4 stars down to rank 3 with zero stars.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,065
Members
23,722 posts
5,978 battles
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 1:05 PM, Dr_Dirt said:

SST55GO.jpg?width=328&height=297

You're right. Get rid of Ranked entirely, nobody wins the prize through skill, just endurance. All skill does is reduce the endurance necessary.

Make a truly competitive mode, that only the better players have a chance of competing in. That way, lesser players won't waste their time.

Then make it so only the best of the best get prizes. If you were good enough to compete, but not good enough to win, take heart in the fact that nobody's getting participation ribbons.

Seriously, there's a pattern here. It's not the handing out of "participation awards" that bothers people, it's that they feel that those they consider less skilled don't deserve them, yet they themselves should get something for their efforts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,065
Members
23,722 posts
5,978 battles
23 hours ago, idbx said:

Sorry, I'm an USO (unidentified sailing object)

I'm now level 10. So I need a tier 10.

But my best tier is 9 (Iowa). 
I feel I will need 150 games to get Montana. :-)

And Wow does not sell any tier10.

How can I do?

You can't. Rank 10 is the highest rank you're qualified to achieve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
85
[AOI]
Members
175 posts
11,470 battles
On 5/15/2018 at 1:14 PM, Sovereigndawg said:

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.

Yeah that is the trend now my Grandson plays in a no score soccer league..They do not keep score and everyone wins..I know now what its like to live in a Country in pursuit of the perfect utopia where we our all politically correct think the same and you must fall in line to build a perfect society of all equal and happy winners..This all started to pick up steam after 9/11..Anyways I do not play ranked because its not want I want to get out of the game..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,225
[RKLES]
Members
10,009 posts
11,767 battles
On 5/16/2018 at 10:21 AM, Ensign_Cthulhu said:

Meh... maybe it's because I'm just dabbling at the edges and still in the Irrevocable Zone (17, I think), but I decided last night to see Ranked (at least to Rank 10) in this light - it's Tier 8 randoms, but with no Tier 9 or 10 ships to deal with, EVER, and five fewer people trying to kill you from the get-go.

I just hope the next season is Tier 8 or under, and no Tier 10 at the top. The cost of grinding must be driving some people up the wall. I reckon give us a pure season at T6 or T8 and all the salt we've seen this season will go away.

Yeah they did a Season of Tier 6 Ranked that I participated in and it was fun. A lot less complaints about that season from players as well since more maps, no radar, larger selection of ships, and did not bankrupt your credits as easily.

I am continuing to level up my Captains for my tier 6 and 7 ships for the next time Ranked is tier 6 or 7. For that matter even tier 5 would be ok for Ranked.

Edited by Admiral_Thrawn_1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×