Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kelorn

Episode 121: Was Tier 9 Arms Race Ranked a Success?

7 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

209
[-K-]
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
317 posts
6,655 battles

Episode 121: Was Tier 9 Arms Race Ranked a Success?

Note: Timestamp links only appear to work in Microsoft Edge and Safari. Please use them as a guide to scrub forward to the times you'd like to start listening! Thanks!

00:31 KoTS

07:07 Vanessaira on the Spot

09:11 Was Arms Race Ranked a Success?

32:17 Hotfix 0.8.0.3

41:41 Meduim Term CV Rework plans

50:10 USS Georgia, Monarch, and Conqueror

58:33 Listener Questions of the Week

Hi listeners, for this weeks episode of the Warships Podcast. We have special guest SeaRaptor join us to discuss recent changes and the new King of the Sea Tournament coming up. The Ranked Season with the new Arms Race mode is discussed and debated. As well as the new Hot Fix 0.8.0.3 which changes interaction between CVs and the other surface ships. The new Tier 9 USS Georgia is brought up and its possible game play, stats, and potential discussed. New listener questions for this week are answered and the show wraps up closing thoughts.

Want to thank the Warships Community for supporting our show and the King of the Sea Tournament. Look forward to seeing you again on the Warships Podcast!

USS Texas Event info: https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/community/mighty-t/

New Forum for the Podcast: https://forum.worldofwarships.com/forum/307-the-warships-podcast/

Podcast Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFs8t5v-yXYl9utoiJyPHkQ

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
209
[-K-]
Retired WoWS Community Contributors
317 posts
6,655 battles

For those who prefer Youtube: 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,445
[NDA]
Supertester
5,231 posts
15,639 battles

I have a problem listening to people say Rank isn't that bad when they haven't spent much time in the Rank 5 to Rank 1 bracket. Because some of the worst players and player behavior I've encountered in Rank is in the last bracket. I've seen ships purposely throw a game because they don't like a player on the team or they are a griefer. Case in point I was once in a Tier 8 Rank battle where two ship had a previous beef with each other so they Team Killed each other. They than spent the rest of the match telling the enemy team where the last 3 remaining ships where. I'm still not sure how we managed to win that Rank game but it has always bothered me that all the effort we expended to win that game also meant those two Toxic Team Killers also gained a Star. 

I've won games where my cruiser had to carry a team with an AFK and I ended the game with 5 kills. But I've also seen games where most of the team did their best to win the game but because of one bad player the team got screwed. Of course I've also been in those games where the whole team derps around me and it becomes a race to save your Star because you know its going to end badly. Just this season a Battleship told the team to "F*** Off", sailed off on its own, rammed a battleship and still managed to save its Star. The rest of us scrubs who were trying to play together got massively screwed. 

I strongly disagree with Aerroon. We can measure an individual player and their performance. The Hall of Fame component of the the Directive Missions measures an individual player performance on a weekly basis as to the games won, the medals earned and the ships sunk. I personally would rather see a Rank progression system bases on metric like the Hall of Fame than the one we currently have where its all about the win. Where players can abuse the Save a Star feature and playing for the win is hardly ever a good idea. Also Aerroon its pronouncing Jutland wrong, I know because Jingles said so. 

The population of Rank is also an interesting subject. Season 11 of Rank had two things going in its favor; 1st there is the novelty of Arms Race with Tier 9 ships, 2nd Rank didn't have Carriers and became a haven from those who didn't want to suffer the Carrier re-balance period. These two factors might have increased the Rank Population but I'm not really sure because the numbers of people I saw in queue and the wait times between battles didn't seem to differ much from Rank season 10. There has been a declining player base in Rank. If you look at the numbers WG published for Rank Season 7, 8 and 9 you will see less people are playing and less battles are being played. For some reason WG did not publish the numbers from Season 10 and I've never heard why. I suspect it wasn't good news, because soon after we got Rank Sprint that had less numbers of stars needed to be earned and the ability to take a Div Mate.  Now with Rank Season 11 we have a whole new game mode at the same time players are looking to avoid the Carrier Rework. 

The Problem with Rank hasn't changed in all 7 seasons I've reached Rank 1. The problem is the Rank Star Progression System is crap and is the reasons so many players either avoid Rank or become Toxic Players who make Rank worst for the rest of us. I asked a lot of people I met in Rank and none of them are happy with the Progression system. The only reason they are playing Rank is for the Steel. But even then many questioned the value of the Steel that is gained by playing such a grindy and toxic game mode. 

This is my message to WG concerning Rank. I hope they Listen because I enjoy Small Teams of same Tier ships that is the Rank Format but I grow tired of the Star Progression system. 

Quote

Dear WarGaming,

To whom it may concern your Rank Progression system is a painful grind that causes players to become toxic and leads to more players losing interest in this game mode. The Star system promotes bad play as some have given up on playing for the win and are abusing the "Save a Star" feature. When a single Battleships can tell its team to "F Off" and than yolo charge the enemy, Die and yet save its star the progression system is terrible. A player can play their guts out one game helping their team to victory only for the next game to be an utter disaster in which they lose their progress from the last game. All Because MM stuck them on a bad team. This loss of progress creates frustrated and angry players. Which leads to players either abandoning the mode or becoming more toxic. 

I think its high time for a rework of the Rank Progression system. We need a system that rewards the individual player based on their performance that is not tied to the teams performance. You already have the system in game in the Hall of Fame part of the Directive Missions. A player gains points for Winning games, Earning Medals and Sinking Ships. Use this system to rework Rank. A player who Wins, gets Medals or secures kills gets points and points add up to advance your Rank. Gain enough points and you Rank out. However there should also be punishments for poor behavior in rank. AFKs should lose points. Team Killers should lose points. Those who earn points faster Rank out faster. You could even have a special achievement for those who Rank out the Fastest. 

I like small team, same tier battles, but I can't stand the Rank Star Progression system.
Signed a very frustrated player.

 

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,903
[SALVO]
Members
21,342 posts
21,550 battles
2 hours ago, RedSeaBear said:

Dear WarGaming,

To whom it may concern your Rank Progression system is a painful grind that causes players to become toxic and leads to more players losing interest in this game mode. The Star system promotes bad play as some have given up on playing for the win and are abusing the "Save a Star" feature. When a single Battleships can tell its team to "F Off" and than yolo charge the enemy, Die and yet save its star the progression system is terrible. A player can play their guts out one game helping their team to victory only for the next game to be an utter disaster in which they lose their progress from the last game. All Because MM stuck them on a bad team. This loss of progress creates frustrated and angry players. Which leads to players either abandoning the mode or becoming more toxic. 

I think its high time for a rework of the Rank Progression system. We need a system that rewards the individual player based on their performance that is not tied to the teams performance. You already have the system in game in the Hall of Fame part of the Directive Missions. A player gains points for Winning games, Earning Medals and Sinking Ships. Use this system to rework Rank. A player who Wins, gets Medals or secures kills gets points and points add up to advance your Rank. Gain enough points and you Rank out. However there should also be punishments for poor behavior in rank. AFKs should lose points. Team Killers should lose points. Those who earn points faster Rank out faster. You could even have a special achievement for those who Rank out the Fastest. 

I like small team, same tier battles, but I can't stand the Rank Star Progression system.
Signed a very frustrated player.

RedSeaBear,

I can appreciate your frustration at the Ranked Battles' Star system and the long, painful grind that comes with it.  But I don't think that the directive's Hall of Fame progression is any better.  To me, the HoF system rewards just playing a lot.  And "sinking ships" only rewards and encourages kill stealing, rather than playing to win.  I'm not entirely sure about this but I suspect that the HoF model would only incentivize just playing a lot, spamming battle after battle ad nauseum. I'm also not convinced that medals mean squat when it comes to determining quality performance.  I don't really care whether someone wins a Kraken.  To me, it just means that someone may have "worked" really hard to get 5 kill steals.  Confederate seems more valuable insofar as it shows a certain consistency of production across a number of enemy ships.  Earning a dev strike doesn't float my boat much because it seems to value a certain degree of luck, whether it's the luck of RNG favoring you with multiple citadels (not to mention an enemy that may have foolishly presented his broadside to you), or an enemy dumb enough to eat a whole lot of torpedoes.   And exactly how is winning games any different when it's done under an HoF model rather than a Star model?  You can have good and bad teams either way.

It seems to me that if one wants to encourage individual performance, then a system is needed that removes the luck of the draw for teams and focuses on individual performance, win or lose.

I agree with you on Team Killers and a little less so on AFKs.  True team killers are making a conscious effort to kill friendlies.  Accidental team killers aren't.  It's difficult to separate the truly intentional from those making an honest mistake, though I suppose that one way might be to measure how much friendly damage you did to the team mate that caused him to be sunk.  And if you did over a certain percentage, then the punishment would be more severe.  But if you happened to kill a friendly who was already on low HP, chances may be good that it really was accidental.  Either way, there should be penalties for team killing, whether there's a differentiation between intentional and accidental, or not.  As for AFK's, I don't think that the punishment should be that severe, because IMO, more often than not, the AFK is due to forces beyond the player's control.  I truly doubt that truly intentional AFK's are really close to a majority of AFKs, thus, I don't support any kind of severe penalty for having to deal with the consequences of real life.

 

 

I could go on (and on and on), Bear, but I think I'll stop here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,445
[NDA]
Supertester
5,231 posts
15,639 battles

@Crucis Any system is going to be open to abuse. Yes scoring a player by how many kills or medals they get would lead to people Kill stealing Securing and Medal Farming. My point about the Hall of Fame is you still earn points even when you get defeated in battle but most importantly that defeat Does Not take away your progress. 

In Rank if you don't win the game or manage to be the first loser your progress is gone. Its the lost progress that creates the most frustration, this leads to players either becoming Toxic or giving up on the game mode. If we had a system that rewarded players for playing well but didn't punish them for losing a game Rank would be so much better. I've had games where my Destroyer did everything to help the team; I secured caps, spotted torpedoes and the Destroyers, Sank ships and tried to keep ships alive. But because I was playing for the win and not the highest Base Exp I was screwed when the team lost. 

Currently with Rank you can reach Rank 1 with a bit of luck, a lot of skill and some patience. Or you can do what some players do and keep pushing the Battle button hoping to throw enough Ships at the Rank wall till they get past it. When a player has reached Rank 1 with around 1800 battles you know they were playing a numbers game. 

My ideal Rank Progression system would reward players for playing not just for the win or saving their star. But it would not overly punish them for getting stuck on a bad team on its way to Defeatsville. Yes good players would reach Rank 1 faster but unlucky players wouldn't be punished by seeing a Defeat screen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,903
[SALVO]
Members
21,342 posts
21,550 battles
2 minutes ago, RedSeaBear said:

@Crucis Any system is going to be open to abuse. Yes scoring a player by how many kills or medals they get would lead to people Kill stealing Securing and Medal Farming. My point about the Hall of Fame is you still earn points even when you get defeated in battle but most importantly that defeat Does Not take away your progress. 

In Rank if you don't win the game or manage to be the first loser your progress is gone. Its the lost progress that creates the most frustration, this leads to players either becoming Toxic or giving up on the game mode. If we had a system that rewarded players for playing well but didn't punish them for losing a game Rank would be so much better. I've had games where my Destroyer did everything to help the team; I secured caps, spotted torpedoes and the Destroyers, Sank ships and tried to keep ships alive. But because I was playing for the win and not the highest Base Exp I was screwed when the team lost. 

Currently with Rank you can reach Rank 1 with a bit of luck, a lot of skill and some patience. Or you can do what some players do and keep pushing the Battle button hoping to throw enough Ships at the Rank wall till they get past it. When a player has reached Rank 1 with around 1800 battles you know they were playing a numbers game. 

My ideal Rank Progression system would reward players for playing not just for the win or saving their star. But it would not overly punish them for getting stuck on a bad team on its way to Defeatsville. Yes good players would reach Rank 1 faster but unlucky players wouldn't be punished by seeing a Defeat screen. 

Rather than look at production stats, you might as well just look at base XP.  Maybe reward players a number of rank points equal to their base XP?  Of course, this would require a ranked progression model that was scaled very differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
171
[FTH]
Members
999 posts
14,232 battles

At the risk of getting flamed...just get rid of the Save a Star system altogether...simply put, either you win, or you lose...

I've seen more games than I want to think of lost because 3 minutes in everyone and their cousin switched to damage farming to try to save their star...and at that point you may as well just try to outfarm them for pure damage, or go on back to port and hop in a different ship to get on a different team, because there's no way that one ends well. Knowing you either win or lose will put the fire to win back in, because it literally is a case of winning is it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×