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

New suggestion for RANKED

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

113
[WOLFB]
Members
616 posts
21,841 battles

I've played ranked in numerous seasons. And I read all the comments about saving a star and all the rest, including it's a RNG team sport.

My suggestion is to use xp earned to get a star. Top seven XP earners get a star. It would encourage " battle participation" and while I know the losing team gets less xp per player ( if the losers have more xp than a "winning" ship) they have really done a lot more than some lower placed winning ships!

(I know there are some drawbacks to the suggestion, but there are drawbacks to the current system. I think xp earned is a greater measure of who contributed to the battle. Especially, now that spotting is also considered in xp earned!)

It would take some of the "team" RNG away and encourage battles!

Jut my thoughts, what do you think..

Edited by fbrrhd
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,051
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,192 posts
8,798 battles

This and similar suggestions have been brought up every season. Reducing the impact of the team, removing is impossible, would go a long ways to getting the salt out of ranked. The team impact is the main reason that I do not play ranked, got all the way to 19 before walking away last season and haven't queued up yet this season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,589
[SALVO]
Members
16,627 posts
17,300 battles
30 minutes ago, fbrrhd said:

I've played ranked in numerous seasons. And I read all the comments about saving a star and all the rest, including it's a RNG team sport.

My suggestion is to use xp earned to get a star. Top seven XP earners get a star. It would encourage " battle participation" and while I know the losing team gets less xp per player ( if the losers have more xp than a "winning" ship) they have really done a lot more than some lower placed winning ships!

(I know there are some drawbacks to the suggestion, but there are drawbacks to the current system. I think xp earned is a greater measure of who contributed to the battle. Especially, now that spotting is also considered in xp earned!)

It would take some of the "team" RNG away and encourage battles!

Jut my thoughts, what do you think..

Try reading this post:

I've made this suggestion earlier today as well as in past months.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
60
[AAA]
Members
398 posts
5,170 battles

The down side to that idea is it encourages individual play and not winning. There is enough individuals in ranked as it is. No need to encourage it. 

Bonus to save star should include team play aspects like dd spotting etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,489
[PSP]
Members
6,042 posts
8,585 battles

I was just in a Ranked battle (wasn't going to play any more but couldn't help myself) where the team played like a by-golly bona fide team. Of course Ducky_shot was on the team too, which helped.

The players on my team were actually talking about the problems with Ranked essentially being an individual game with many players trying not to lose a star firstly and only trying for a team win as a fall-back. With the luck of the draw, a player who never loses a star will eventually rank out even if he has mostly terrible teams. This makes many, if not most, mainly play for themselves. This is why you get so many camping BBs. 

I still would like to see a game mode where the players themselves selected both maps and teams. Other games have this and I don't see why WOWS couldn't. In a RTS I used to play there were game rooms. One player set up a room and acted as the host. Other players then joined the room and selected what team they wanted to be on. The host was responsible for ensuring that the teams were evenly-matched and could remove a player of they were obstinate about switching teams or choosing another nations ("ship" in WOWS terms). For the most part this worked well, especially as people got to know each other. The game had semi-permanent ranks too, which told other players at a glance whether someone joining a room was either too poor or too good a player to play in that match. The main downside was that it sometimes took a long time before a match actually started. 

Edited by Snargfargle
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,589
[SALVO]
Members
16,627 posts
17,300 battles
2 minutes ago, wstugamd said:

The down side to that idea is it encourages individual play and not winning. There is enough individuals in ranked as it is. No need to encourage it. 

Bonus to save star should include team play aspects like dd spotting etc.

I disagree that it does not encourage winning.  The fact of the matter is that the lower base XP you earn on a losing team would mean that it would require an excellent game to potentially crack into the top 7 base XP earners.  The best way to advance would still, far and away, come from playing fairly well on a WINNING team.  Plus, unlike currently, there'd be no guarantee that being the first loser would earn you a star or not lose you one.  In the model I suggest you would have to outplay at least one member of the winning team by quite a sizable margin to earn more base XP on a losing team than someone on the winning team.  So, I strongly disagree with your assertions here! 

Furthermore, Ranked SHOULD be encouraging more good play and NOT just playing to win.  This idea that winning is the only thing that matters is what ruins Ranked Battles right now!  So, if anything, Ranked needs to move away from a model where winning is the only thing that matters.  And moving towards a model where winning matters, but it's not the only thing that matters.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
581
[OPRAH]
[OPRAH]
Beta Testers
3,764 posts
12,435 battles

In any battle mode If you aren't here to join a team effort to Win then Why are you Here at All?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,589
[SALVO]
Members
16,627 posts
17,300 battles
7 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

I was just in a Ranked battle (wasn't going to play any more but couldn't help myself) where the team played like a by-golly bona fide team. Of course Ducky_shot was on the team too, which helped.

The players on my team were actually talking about the problems with Ranked essentially being an individual game with many players trying not to lose a star firstly and only trying for a team win as a fall-back. With the luck of the draw, a player who never loses a star will eventually rank out even if he has mostly terrible teams. This makes many, if not most, mainly play for themselves. This is why you get so many camping BBs. 

I still would like to see a game mode where the players themselves selected both maps and teams. Other games have this and I don't see why WOWS couldn't. In a RTS I used to play there were game rooms. On player set up a room and acted as the host. Other players then joined the room and selected what team they wanted to be on. The host was responsible for ensuring that the teams were evenly-matched and could remove a player of they were obstinate about switching teams or choosing another nations ("ship" in WOWS terms). For the most part this worked well, especially as people got to know each other. The game had semi-permanent ranks too, which told other players at a glance whether someone joining a room was either too poor or too good a player to play in that match. The main downside was that it sometimes took a long time before a match actually started. 

Snarg, in my experience, it's usually easiest for DDs to lead their teams, particularly losing teams, in base XP and thus not lose a star.  And camping BBs seem to do the worst, if they're too far back.

As for the third paragraph, good god, absolutely NOT.  You should never get to choose your maps. Never ever.  The closest you should come to that is something like WoT's clan Wars where you're fighting over territories and each territory has a map assigned to it.  So, in theory, you could choose only to fight for provinces with maps you liked.  But in reality, clans want to build up groups of territories that are adjacent to each other, and there's no guarantee that you'll like all of the maps assigned to those territories.

I don't know if WG ever intends to develop a true WoWS parallel to WoT's Clan Wars.  The current Clan Battles is not such a parallel because there's no competing for map areas.  Personally, I'd rather not have WoT-like Clan Wars because IMO WoT Clan Wars was always far too toxic and elitist.  I suppose that it might be possible to come up with something vaguely similar to WoT Clan Wars but it might be difficult to remove the toxicity.  

As for teams of selected players, that's called Clan Battles and your team is your clan members.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,589
[SALVO]
Members
16,627 posts
17,300 battles
5 minutes ago, CAPTMUDDXX said:

In any battle mode If you aren't here to join a team effort to Win then Why are you Here at All?

face palm.

 

To advance through the ranks to attain rank one.  THAT is winning in Ranked Battles, not winning any individual battle.  And your attitude is the root of the problems with Ranked, whether you can see it or not, whether you're willing to admit it or not.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,226
[RKLES]
Members
7,106 posts
8,758 battles

I am open to any idea that makes progressing up the Ranks a little less succeptable to of you have the bad luck of getting all the clueless players for the day...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,489
[PSP]
Members
6,042 posts
8,585 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

You should never get to choose your maps. Never ever. 

Games with pre-determined and known maps essentially create a chess board for the players. This balances things about as well as it can be. Random maps, on the other hand, may present an unknown to some players, thus hurting their team. What players in team rooms are trying to do is to create a scenario where it's purely skill and not luck that determines the win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,589
[SALVO]
Members
16,627 posts
17,300 battles
11 minutes ago, Snargfargle said:

Games with pre-determined and known maps essentially create a chess board for the players. This balances things about as well as it can be. Random maps, on the other hand, may present an unknown to some players, thus hurting their team. What players in team rooms are trying to do is to create a scenario where it's purely skill and not luck that determines the win.

The number of maps in Clan Battles is limited.  And while you don't know which you'll be on, there's no reason why a clan can't have set strats for each map.  Besides, WoWS is a lot different than WoT in organized clan play.  Ships move so much slower than tanks in WoT that any real attempts to engage in strats of the same level of detail would be all but impossible.  Tactics in WoWS are a lot more on the fly than in WoT, from my experience.  And it's a lot more about the skill of the individual players and the degree to which they can work as a team in a more free flowing environment than in WoT, where so much of what goes in is pre-determined and choreographed beforehand.  And personally, I prefer the more free flowing environment to the overly structured and choreographed environment of WoT's clan wars.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,666 posts
9,743 battles

They would have to adjust the games XP economy away from being so damaged focused as DDs would be at a major disadvantage even obtaining a star.

I'd rather they keep the win get star mechanic, but eliminate the save a star for the top loser.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[RUSHB]
Members
90 posts
8,305 battles

I had an idea if they made the economy more and more brutal the further into ranked you go, either by number of games you have played or it increases based on the bracket you are in. Scale the money earned from battle to performance in an extreme way such that it will be a massive credit sinkhole to people that consistently play poorly, so people can no longer fail their way to the top without having some kind of consequence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,666 posts
9,743 battles
15 hours ago, RedRushian said:

I had an idea if they made the economy more and more brutal the further into ranked you go, either by number of games you have played or it increases based on the bracket you are in. Scale the money earned from battle to performance in an extreme way such that it will be a massive credit sinkhole to people that consistently play poorly, so people can no longer fail their way to the top without having some kind of consequence.

I understand the intent, but that would be really rough for average players without premium time.  They would feel the pinch first.

Contrast that to the guys that have more credits then the GDP of small counties means nothing to them.  I know I wouldnt care about that, I have a large enough war chest to rank out a few seasons with what I have now.

I had a player playing in a dangerous manner already since zero damage games meant him losing his ability to continue to play ranked already.  I'd rather we remove anything that takes a players focus on progression off getting the win.  Enough credit rewards to pay the bills, reduced XP to disincentivize grinding in ranked we have seen in lower tiers, and removing save a star.  Anything else opens loops for people to exploit and creates a lot of the community's friction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58
[RUSHB]
Members
90 posts
8,305 battles
43 minutes ago, Destroyer_KuroshioKai said:

I understand the intent, but that would be really rough for average players without premium time.  They would feel the pinch first.

Contrast that to the guys that have more credits then the GDP of small counties means nothing to them.  I know I wouldnt care about that, I have a large enough war chest to rank out a few seasons with what I have now.

I had a player playing in a dangerous manner already since zero damage games meant him losing his ability to continue to play ranked already.  I'd rather we remove anything that takes a players focus on progression off getting the win.  Enough credit rewards to pay the bills, reduced XP to disincentivize grinding in ranked we have seen in lower tiers, and removing save a star.  Anything else opens loops for people to exploit and creates a lot of the community's friction.

That's the point, if Rank 1 is supposed to be a competitive achievement it shouldn't be achievable by average players. If you play well in the match the game will reward you so you don't lose much (if any) credits, but if you have a bad game you are punished heavily.  People who perform poorly consistently will hemorrhage credits and be "sorted out".  Whether that credit punishment would be more effective based off number of games played (person playing game 1000 pays more than player on game 100) or based on which bracket (20-16 vs 10-6) idk.  Middle performers should come out even but people who are consistently bad should eventually get sorted out.  As far as removing save a star, all that will change is people will start leaving games (or throwing away their ships if they're forced to stay) at the first sign of a loss like what happened before.  The problem hasn't really been that people play for their star, more that people just don't know how to play and spam games until they make it to rank 1.  As far as grinding in ranked... keeping it high tier should help with that, and the economy thing i proposed would cover that too.  People who have to grind in ranked probably wont have that many credits lying around, and if they do then they're just an [edited] for ruining a "competitive" game mode for their own benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,051
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,192 posts
8,798 battles
16 hours ago, Destroyer_KuroshioKai said:

They would have to adjust the games XP economy away from being so damaged focused as DDs would be at a major disadvantage even obtaining a star.

I'd rather they keep the win get star mechanic, but eliminate the save a star for the top loser.

DD's are actually doing all right experience wise even though their damage output is low.

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20180901/na_week/average_class.html

That still rewards the player that face plants early on because he is on the winning team while punishing players on the losing team that played far better. The advantage of using base experience is it stops failing to the top as winning earns more experience than losing everyone will be playing to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,824
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

Best solution for Ranked is Remove it from the game.

Ranked is a live active Salt Mine.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
58 posts
2,840 battles

I agree ^^^^ Just frustrated right now....

Just not having any fun at all in ranked this season. Once I hit the T10 stage, won maybe one match, been stuck at 15 for about 4 or 5  days. Literally only had 1 team that communicated and played as a team. The rest just had guys not communicating at all and going off and doing whatever they wanted sometimes the "team" split up 3 different ways. Tried playing DD, got no support from the rest of the team and the radar was ridicules. I tried playing my Hindy, do ok and survive mostly, but the team is still a loss. Think I'll just take a break, no point if your not having fun playing a "game" right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,666 posts
9,743 battles
21 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

DD's are actually doing all right experience wise even though their damage output is low.

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/ranking/20180901/na_week/average_class.html

That still rewards the player that face plants early on because he is on the winning team while punishing players on the losing team that played far better. The advantage of using base experience is it stops failing to the top as winning earns more experience than losing everyone will be playing to win.

That appears to be random battle stats or at least includes random battles as well as ranked which differ dramatically from ranked.  Unless I missed something Maple Syrup does not appear to track ranked battles specifically when I just checked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,666 posts
9,743 battles
27 minutes ago, RedRushian said:

That's the point, if Rank 1 is supposed to be a competitive achievement it shouldn't be achievable by average players. If you play well in the match the game will reward you so you don't lose much (if any) credits, but if you have a bad game you are punished heavily.  People who perform poorly consistently will hemorrhage credits and be "sorted out".  Whether that credit punishment would be more effective based off number of games played (person playing game 1000 pays more than player on game 100) or based on which bracket (20-16 vs 10-6) idk.  Middle performers should come out even but people who are consistently bad should eventually get sorted out.  As far as removing save a star, all that will change is people will start leaving games (or throwing away their ships if they're forced to stay) at the first sign of a loss like what happened before.  The problem hasn't really been that people play for their star, more that people just don't know how to play and spam games until they make it to rank 1.  As far as grinding in ranked... keeping it high tier should help with that, and the economy thing i proposed would cover that too.  People who have to grind in ranked probably wont have that many credits lying around, and if they do then they're just an [edited] for ruining a "competitive" game mode for their own benefit.

No I get it.

I am saying it is pay to win with the credit bonus from premium time by raising that threshold if you paid WG.  That is just bad from a PR stand point.  If you remove the premium bonus people are not getting what was advertised.  Catch 22.

Or guys like me could play a few thousand T10 games losing 200k - 300k per game and not give a crap.

I mean what you are saying is already happening now to a few:

Inkedshot-18_08.27_17_56.22-0205_LI.thumb.jpg.e9ae9c8d244ee706b3fdea3e8565ece1.jpg

In this case the threat of a negative return lead a player to play more aggressively than he otherwise would, which in certain situations could lead to us losing.

My observations save a star is far more an issue.  "Scammers" love it since it opens the loop hole to bring a ship that is effective at damage farming, then just play safe and farm damage all game.  Truly good players still play for the win, but the number of games I had where I could have won if some full health damage farmer had pushed with the team is massively annoying.  The save a star champs are playing a different game from the max win people, and that is an issue because the play style of both does not work well together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,051
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
15,192 posts
8,798 battles
21 minutes ago, Destroyer_KuroshioKai said:

That appears to be random battle stats or at least includes random battles as well as ranked which differ dramatically from ranked.  Unless I missed something Maple Syrup does not appear to track ranked battles specifically when I just checked.

No one seems to track over all numbers for ranked, WoWS Stats & Numbers does for individuals, so that is all we have to work with. How ships are doing in randoms should echo how they are doing in ranked though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,867
[CNO]
[CNO]
Members
3,778 posts
12,906 battles

Winning Team:

1-2:  Two Stars

3-4:  One Star

5-6: zero stars

7:  Lose star

Losing Team:

1-2: One Star

3-4: zero stars

5-7: Lose star

 

My recommendation bases stars on BOTH team performance and XP.  Note the bottom on the winning team loses a star.  This is there to stop AFK players from gaming the system.  Sit there and do nothing on a winning team...and you WILL go backwards.  Additional stars will need to be added to each rank to equalize the grind effort to where it is today...if so desired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,666 posts
9,743 battles
1 hour ago, BrushWolf said:

No one seems to track over all numbers for ranked, WoWS Stats & Numbers does for individuals, so that is all we have to work with. How ships are doing in randoms should echo how they are doing in ranked though.

Its not even close.  Damage numbers get way skewed.  Usually I dont do even half the damage I do in randoms because I am playing full team support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×