Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Thirsty13_CCW

The next Ranked Season

45 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

193
[TF-62]
Members
197 posts
7,253 battles

@iKami @Radar_X @Femennenly

 

So we have seen the announcement that ranked will be T10 and include carriers for the first time. Frankly you really really need to rethink this one. First the community has been pretty clear that we are sick of T10. We’ve had T10 clan, ranked etc to the point where it’s been too much. The last season on arms race T9 was actually a fun and engaging ranked season and it’s a formula you should have perhaps refined a bit and stuck with. And as I recall the reviews were pretty positive. T10 standard battle ranked is a bad choice. 

But what’s worse is adding carriers. Post after post after post has been telling you the player base doesn’t like these ships. Not long ago I started a thread here asking if CV’s made the game better or worse and responses were overwhelmingly negative. The rework, contrary to what you may think, has not been an unqualified success. The decline in people playing since the rework is a pretty strong indication of how most of us feel. So adding this unliked and still broken ship class to ranked is a quite poor idea. Especially when the counter to carriers your offering is to all lemming train together. Is that really what your looking for? A ranked Meta that demands the entire group stay huddled together for protection against the CV’s And one where a single player has the potential to create a vastly outsized impact on the result.

WG it’s time to walk this one back and start over.

Here is what I’m going to suggest. Go back to T9 arms race. We know that was well liked by most people and it offered something different and fun. Drop the star system and go to a point system similar to clan battles. You earn points for a win and lose them for losses like what we see in clan battles. Unlike clan I would have no leagues and unlike past seasons no irrevocable ranks. The point system should look at player performance so that when you play well against good opponents and still lose your point loss is small. Similarly play poorly and win against bad opponents and your gain is small. This should eliminate the save a star mentality and reduce the impact of MM not accounting for player skill. It should also greatly reduce one of the most frustrating elements of ranked where you can fall far and fast even when playing well because your getting paired with potatoes against unicums. 

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,121
[WOLF7]
Members
12,189 posts

WG has always suffered from the belief that they know what you want better than you do....:Smile_sceptic:

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,660
[ARGSY]
Members
12,893 posts
8,245 battles

I second the objection to T10. I don't mind it being the last five or ten ranks out of 23 or whatever, but we have so much other T10 stuff going on now that we need something else. Badly.

I'm going to pass on the no-carriers criticism because this will be the first Ranked with CV since the rework, and we really do need to see what will happen before we start demanding that it not happen again.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,127
[SALVO]
Members
21,703 posts
22,016 battles
21 minutes ago, Ski206 said:

@iKami @Radar_X @Femennenly

 

So we have seen the announcement that ranked will be T10 and include carriers for the first time. Frankly you really really need to rethink this one. First the community has been pretty clear that we are sick of T10. We’ve had T10 clan, ranked etc to the point where it’s been too much. The last season on arms race T9 was actually a fun and engaging ranked season and it’s a formula you should have perhaps refined a bit and stuck with. And as I recall the reviews were pretty positive. T10 standard battle ranked is a bad choice. 

But what’s worse is adding carriers. Post after post after post has been telling you the player base doesn’t like these ships. Not long ago I started a thread here asking if CV’s made the game better or worse and responses were overwhelmingly negative. The rework, contrary to what you may think, has not been an unqualified success. The decline in people playing since the rework is a pretty strong indication of how most of us feel. So adding this unliked and still broken ship class to ranked is a quite poor idea. Especially when the counter to carriers your offering is to all lemming train together. Is that really what your looking for? A ranked Meta that demands the entire group stay huddled together for protection against the CV’s And one where a single player has the potential to create a vastly outsized impact on the result.

WG it’s time to walk this one back and start over.

Here is what I’m going to suggest. Go back to T9 arms race. We know that was well liked by most people and it offered something different and fun. Drop the star system and go to a point system similar to clan battles. You earn points for a win and lose them for losses like what we see in clan battles. Unlike clan I would have no leagues and unlike past seasons no irrevocable ranks. The point system should look at player performance so that when you play well against good opponents and still lose your point loss is small. Similarly play poorly and win against bad opponents and your gain is small. This should eliminate the save a star mentality and reduce the impact of MM not accounting for player skill. It should also greatly reduce one of the most frustrating elements of ranked where you can fall far and fast even when playing well because your getting paired with potatoes against unicums. 

1. I agree with you on tier 10 Ranked.  After a season of tier 10 clan battles, the last thing I want is tier 10 ranked!!!  Personally, I'd rather that Ranked be even lower in tier than 9.  Tier 8 or 6 would be better IMO.

2. I disagree here.  CVs have been in every season of Ranked except the last one, and that was only because it was on an odd numbered tier while CVs only exist at even numbered tiers.

3. I disagree on tier 9 and on Arms Race.  I don't like Arms Race, though I don't oppose it in the game.  I happen to think that Arms Race should be added as a battle mode map variation, just like domination, epicenter, or standard battle modes.  I would rather see Ranked be at tier 6-8 and well away from tier 9 or 10.

4. You make an interesting suggestion, BUT in my opinion you screwed the pooch with it.  This is what I would suggest.  

I'd suggest a Ranked model very much like the Clan Battles model.  But I would keep leagues, though without the "struggle" between leagues.  And I'd make leagues irrevocable!!!  If you get promoted to a higher league, you should NOT be able to fall back.  All this whining about irrevocable ranks is elitist nonsense.  The people who whine the loudest and want irrevocable ranks removed are the elitist unicums who don't want to have to deal with the hoi polloi.  But the most common complaint among non-unicum players is the LACK or not enough irrevocable ranks.  Having plenty of irrevocable ranks makes Ranked Battles a lot more fun for a lot more people, plain and simple.

So you could have 5 leagues (Gale, Squall, Storm, Typhoon, and Hurricane), each having 5 sub groups (total of 25 sub-groups).  The trick at this point is how many points is required to graduate from one sub-group (rank) to the next.  And how those points are determined after the battle.  Would they be a function of base XP earned? I think that'd be best, because that would be a very open way for all players in the battle to gauge their effectiveness in battle as well as their awarded points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
718 posts
9,074 battles

Maybe I am in the minority.  But I would love to see ranked rolled all the way back to T3 or 4.  Sure you will get a lot more inexperienced players but the games are typically fast paced. 

I don't know what to do with CVs. At Tier 4 that is where everything starts and relatively CVs can be very powerful at T4 (given the lack of AA).

I agree with more irrevocable ranks.  So tiresome doing the two steps forward and five steps back due to the nature of PUGs.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,407
[-BRS-]
Members
3,153 posts
17,059 battles
47 minutes ago, T_O_dubl_D said:

OP you really think that WG cares what you or any of us really think?  

 Yeah I said basically the same thing just a little bit ago and they wiped it from the forum all ready 

Edited by silverdahc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
171
[FTH]
Members
999 posts
14,312 battles

I'm one of the few that actually enjoys it at T10 more, since the ships are more capable...but hey, if we're not doing T10...make it T7 just to annoy as many folks as possible..lol.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
900 posts
3,912 battles
1 minute ago, silverdahc said:

 Yeah I said basically the same thing just a little bit ago and they wiped it from the former all ready 

Doesnt surprise me at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,407
[-BRS-]
Members
3,153 posts
17,059 battles
Just now, T_O_dubl_D said:

Doesnt surprise me at all

 Rainbows and sunshine is only thing they wanna hear

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
181
[WOLF5]
Members
741 posts
26,395 battles
1 hour ago, Crucis said:

<snip>

I'd suggest a Ranked model very much like the Clan Battles model.  But I would keep leagues, though without the "struggle" between leagues.  And I'd make leagues irrevocable!!!  If you get promoted to a higher league, you should NOT be able to fall back.  All this whining about irrevocable ranks is elitist nonsense.  The people who whine the loudest and want irrevocable ranks removed are the elitist unicums who don't want to have to deal with the hoi polloi.  But the most common complaint among non-unicum players is the LACK or not enough irrevocable ranks.  Having plenty of irrevocable ranks makes Ranked Battles a lot more fun for a lot more people, plain and simple.

So you could have 5 leagues (Gale, Squall, Storm, Typhoon, and Hurricane), each having 5 sub groups (total of 25 sub-groups).  The trick at this point is how many points is required to graduate from one sub-group (rank) to the next.  And how those points are determined after the battle.  Would they be a function of base XP earned? I think that'd be best, because that would be a very open way for all players in the battle to gauge their effectiveness in battle as well as their awarded points.

Here's why we do NOT need MORE irrevocable ranks. Top 10 games played last ranked season. Notice what ranks they ended at.

In your model these people would rank out because they were able to "gauge their effectiveness in battle" because they ground lots of games, not because they helped their team win. And yes, I ended up in games with several of these players and all I'll say is never underestimate someone's ability to throw a game because they were "saving their star" from the beginning of the match. 

Ranked is supposed to be an indicator of how well you play the game as an individual in a random group. It's not a pro-am scramble golf event where everyone gets a trophy. It's supposed to be a baby competitive tourney where you will not progress much further than your ability. 

Capture.JPG

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,127
[SALVO]
Members
21,703 posts
22,016 battles
18 minutes ago, h9k_a said:

Here's why we do NOT need MORE irrevocable ranks. Top 10 games played last ranked season. Notice what ranks they ended at.

In your model these people would rank out because they were able to "gauge their effectiveness in battle" because they ground lots of games, not because they helped their team win. And yes, I ended up in games with several of these players and all I'll say is never underestimate someone's ability to throw a game because they were "saving their star" from the beginning of the match. 

Ranked is supposed to be an indicator of how well you play the game as an individual in a random group. It's not a pro-am scramble golf event where everyone gets a trophy. It's supposed to be a baby competitive tourney where you will not progress much further than your ability. 

 

I disagree.

1. Gauge their effectiveness was meant to refer to how many points they'd earn from their efforts if those points were directly derived from BXP.  Period.

2. I've never thrown a game to "save a star".  I always play my best, and let things fall as they may.  And I have a pretty decent record of saving stars because of it.  Saving a star doesn't advance you in rank.  If you don't play to win, you'll never advance at all.  And people who aren't producing damage, kills, and caps aren't doing squat to help their teams win, let alone saving a star.

3. Ranked is supposed to be … Says who?  Seriously!  SAYS WHO?   This is actually at the core of everything related to Ranked.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
939
[CUTE]
Members
2,302 posts
10,644 battles
19 minutes ago, h9k_a said:

Here's why we do NOT need MORE irrevocable ranks. Top 10 games played last ranked season. Notice what ranks they ended at.

In your model these people would rank out because they were able to "gauge their effectiveness in battle" because they ground lots of games, not because they helped their team win. And yes, I ended up in games with several of these players and all I'll say is never underestimate someone's ability to throw a game because they were "saving their star" from the beginning of the match. 

Ranked is supposed to be an indicator of how well you play the game as an individual in a random group. It's not a pro-am scramble golf event where everyone gets a trophy. It's supposed to be a baby competitive tourney where you will not progress much further than your ability. 

Capture.JPG

I’m in favor of more irrevocable ranks. I can see your point that having idiots stuck in the rank X-V bracket hinders others trying to get there, but irrevocable ranks are one of the big ways that stars get generated in ranked. As a player trying to make it to rank 1 every season every additional star put into the system represents an increased chance that it will trickle up to the higher ranks and is a big help.

Simply put, a lot fewer people would make it to rank 1 if there were no irrevocable ranks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
528
[JASH]
Members
3,735 posts
10,919 battles

It all comes down to accountability all around. If you don't like it then simply don't participate in ranked battles.

Look at what happened when Arms Race mode (the original non-ranked battles version) was introduced. It died fast.

If ranked battle draws low enough participation due lack of interest by the player base then WG may not be able ignore the issues that their decisions have created. 

Edited by MrKilmister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
61
[R-F]
Members
236 posts
11,587 battles
2 hours ago, Siegewolf said:

Maybe I am in the minority.  But I would love to see ranked rolled all the way back to T3 or 4.  Sure you will get a lot more inexperienced players but the games are typically fast paced. 

I don't know what to do with CVs. At Tier 4 that is where everything starts and relatively CVs can be very powerful at T4 (given the lack of AA).

I agree with more irrevocable ranks.  So tiresome doing the two steps forward and five steps back due to the nature of PUGs.

 

You are definitely in the minority.  Doubly so if you think T4 CVs are powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
61
[R-F]
Members
236 posts
11,587 battles
56 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I disagree.

2. I've never thrown a game to "save a star".  I always play my best, and let things fall as they may.  And I have a pretty decent record of saving stars because of it.  Saving a star doesn't advance you in rank.  If you don't play to win, you'll never advance at all.  And people who aren't producing damage, kills, and caps aren't doing squat to help their teams win, let alone saving a star.

 

People that play to save a star from the very start will ALWAYS move up because you're just playing the odds on your team carrying you to victory despite your selfish gameplay.  This player will invariably rank out (especially in the early days of the season) because he'll get carried by the core of unicum players that rank out within the first 7 days.  The worst part about the chronic save a star player is that his methodology is rewarded more than your gameplay efforts of attempting to win every game (especially if you play a destroyer or other similar cap-contesting/squishy boat).

Edited by PrivateJoker13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
181
[WOLF5]
Members
741 posts
26,395 battles
31 minutes ago, Crucis said:

I disagree.

1. Gauge their effectiveness was meant to refer to how many points they'd earn from their efforts if those points were directly derived from BXP.  Period.

2. I've never thrown a game to "save a star".  I always play my best, and let things fall as they may.  And I have a pretty decent record of saving stars because of it.  Saving a star doesn't advance you in rank.  If you don't play to win, you'll never advance at all.  And people who aren't producing damage, kills, and caps aren't doing squat to help their teams win, let alone saving a star.

3. Ranked is supposed to be … Says who?  Seriously!  SAYS WHO?   This is actually at the core of everything related to Ranked.  

 

 

Regarding #2, I'm sure those 10 players will tell you they didn't think they threw the game either, but the fact remains that lost more than they won. I'm also sure they "played to the best of their ability to win" because a few of them after getting blown up in the first 5 minutes, commented on how bad the team was.

Saving a star may not advance you in rank, but more importantly it allows you not to fall back. I know that one of those players with over 800 games actually made it to rank 2 and couldn't close out (because he repeatedly stated so in chat after blaming the inability on others). When WG awards XP primarily based on damage done instead of playing the objectives, you have a bunch of damage farmers because that's how they score higher XP (and occasionally save a star) yet don't understand why they can't consistently win. 

Your idea of giving points based on base XP means that EVERYONE can fail their way to rank 1 if they are willing to spend the time to do it. Once that happens, then there will be complaints off how much of a marathon ranked is and how it should be shortened (look at all the complaints regarding the last few campaigns to earn premium ships in game). Why should we redraw the line from where it currently is? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
803 posts
1,286 battles
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

But the most common complaint among non-unicum players is the LACK or not enough irrevocable ranks.  Having plenty of irrevocable ranks makes Ranked Battles a lot more fun for a lot more people, plain and simple.

The only people who complain about not enough irrevocable ranks are those that rely on luck and being carried to higher ranks. If you can play well enough, you will be able to progress or at the very least stay in the league you're deserving to be in. When they made R10 irrevocable a few seasons back, it bloated the second league with a bunch of players with win rates in the 40%s and playing through that league a miserable experience. There is no point in having a competitive ranked mode if it's going to be made impossible to lose progress and everyone ends up with a R1 trophy.

Edited by USS_Taylor_Swift
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,127
[SALVO]
Members
21,703 posts
22,016 battles
14 minutes ago, USS_Taylor_Swift said:

The only people who complain about not enough irrevocable ranks are those that rely on luck and being carried to higher ranks. If you can play well enough, you will be able to progress or at the very least stay in the league you're deserving to be in. When they made R10 irrevocable a few seasons back, it bloated the second league with a bunch of players with win rates in the 40%s and playing through that league a miserable experience. There is no point in having a competitive ranked mode if it's going to be made impossible to lose progress and everyone ends up with a R1 trophy.

Boo-frickin'-hoo.  Cry me a river.  The tears of unicums matter to me not at all.

The reality is that the great majority of players rely on luck to advance far in Ranked, because only unicums have the ability to carry a team so hard that they can nearly do it by themselves (but not really).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,744
[WOLFG]
Members
5,977 posts
3,841 battles

They ought to have a ranked season having all 10 tiers.

3 stars per tier.

Rental ships available (for those that do not have every tier in port).

Free captain respec at every tier.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
718 posts
9,074 battles
38 minutes ago, PrivateJoker13 said:

You are definitely in the minority.  Doubly so if you think T4 CVs are powerful.

There was a total damage competition a bit ago in WoWS.  My apologies as I don't remember the name.  Guess what the top ship was, overall played and damage?  The T4 Langley.  It is true the meta for CVs has changed a lot.  I am not a CV player but I have played them along with being here a while.

Ranked battles is a testament to masochism.  More fixed levels in the competition would lead to a better experience.  All teams are PUGs.  So good or bad are thrown together.  This whole see saw experience to ranking up is less skill more a determination to finish.  You can still be a bad player and make it to Rank 1, just takes more time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
150 posts
6,221 battles
3 hours ago, Crucis said:

But the most common complaint among non-unicum players is the LACK or not enough irrevocable ranks.  Having plenty of irrevocable ranks makes Ranked Battles a lot more fun for a lot more people

No, no, no. 

Trapping players in more irrevocable brackets is really not good. Every ranked season you see many posts on the forums of players wondering why they are getting bad MM. Wondering why they made it to rank 9 and are back at 10 for 50 matches in a row. 

These are the players that have been trapped above their skill level.  They don’t understand that. They they think they are better than that but the truth is they are not impactful on a match in that skill bracket. 

This is totally fine for good players. They will dunk on these players, rank out and move on. The more of these players on their team, the more likely they are to save a star. 

For players above their skill level it’s total bewilderment.  They don’t understand why people go certain places on the map. They complain in the chat box or here. They get toxic.  Really, really toxic.  Players that rank out in 100 games don’t bother other people.  More irrevocable ranks equals more frustration for the players trapped in those ranks. 

They should do away with irrevocable ranks altogether. That way everyone finds their own level. The player pool degrades overtime. I think last time 50% players were ranking out at the end of the season which is great.  Everyone can rank out, just do it at your level. Irrevocable ranks only fuel frustration for those trapped there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
150 posts
6,221 battles
32 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Boo-frickin'-hoo.  Cry me a river.  The tears of unicums matter to me not at all.

It is not the unicums who cry.  In ranked, the matches you make progress in are the matches where you are one of the best two or three players in the match. 

That is when you carry and win or assuredly save your star. When you are not the best player in the match you get the WLLLW pattern going because you are not skilled enough to be impactful. They are at the mercy of the MM in that situation. 

Trapping players in a bracket where they are weeks away from being impactful creates a bad environment for everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
243
[-GPF-]
Members
770 posts
4,186 battles

I'm cool with the carriers, I have the unpopular opinion that they are fun ships that need to stay in the game. However, we do have too much tier 19 stuff, and why not do tier 8? That's where a majority of the fun ships are, and they just released the premium CVs, so why not give us a chance to use those in ranked? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,214
[PHASE]
Members
4,709 posts
16,143 battles
52 minutes ago, Sir_Orrin said:

I'm cool with the carriers, I have the unpopular opinion that they are fun ships that need to stay in the game. However, we do have too much tier 19 stuff, and why not do tier 8? That's where a majority of the fun ships are, and they just released the premium CVs, so why not give us a chance to use those in ranked? 

Concerning ranked, especially now it will be to easy to farm xp as a carrier to save stars. You can damage farm, you can only target ships that are capping for defender ribbons... you can earn tons of unearned xp late game by shooting down enemy planes as the enemy cv finally focuses all the while you continue to get meaningless damage as you chip away at the ships chasing you or trying to find you.

CV's in ranked will be very bad if they are included.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×