A new Rank System. - One that actually Ranks players

[RedDragonEmporer]

Let's face it. Rank matches are not even Ranking you as a player but as a team. When I think Rank I think how well I - as a player - did. The current system catches NONE of what ranking should be. It's random battles but you get a reward for not getting a crapteam. You can do an amazing job but still be unable to rank up because you can't carry by yourself (not saying I'm this good but I've had 1 or 2 matches here and there where this happens).

So what am I proposing as a replacement? A Rank mode that measures your INDIVIDUAL abilities in a match (got this idea from the Personal Missions).

How would this work?

1. You're given a mission or damage threshold or other tasks you need to meet in order to rank up. If you meet it, you earn your star. You don't meet it, you lose a star.
2. Similar to personal missions it could be "Do this much damage" or "Capture this many objectives" depending on your ship type.
3. You can take it a step further that you have to do a combination of these missions to rank.

How would this help?

1. It forces players to engage aggressively in an attempt to earn their star.
2. Even if you lose you can still earn your star because of your performance (which is what RANKING IS ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO BE).
3. It won't be nearly as frustrating since it'll only be your fault if you fail your missions.

What do you guys think? How would you do this if given the chance?

[VeatherVitch]

I think an even easier system would be to use base XP minus the win modifier. The top 8 players gain a star, the middle 8 retain their stars, and the bottom 8 lose a star. It would make it less painful for those who are playing well but not great, and punishes the bad players even if they are on the winning side.

[Prothall]

Problem is...how would a DD ever rank up if a CV is in the match?

[RedDragonEmporer]

7 minutes ago, Prothall said:

Problem is...how would a DD ever rank up if a CV is in the match?

By playing smarter? Sounds easy enough.

 

*EDIT* by this I mean don't get yourself separated from your group unless absolutely necessary or stick with another DD if there is one.

[jags_domain]

21 minutes ago, RedDragonEmporer said:

Let's face it. Rank matches are not even Ranking you as a player but as a team. When I think Rank I think how well I - as a player - did. The current system catches NONE of what ranking should be. It's random battles but you get a reward for not getting a crapteam. You can do an amazing job but still be unable to rank up because you can't carry by yourself (not saying I'm this good but I've had 1 or 2 matches here and there where this happens).

So what am I proposing as a replacement? A Rank mode that measures your INDIVIDUAL abilities in a match (got this idea from the Personal Missions).

How would this work?

1. You're given a mission or damage threshold or other tasks you need to meet in order to rank up. If you meet it, you earn your star. You don't meet it, you lose a star.
2. Similar to personal missions it could be "Do this much damage" or "Capture this many objectives" depending on your ship type.
3. You can take it a step further that you have to do a combination of these missions to rank.

How would this help?

1. It forces players to engage aggressively in an attempt to earn their star.
2. Even if you lose you can still earn your star because of your performance (which is what RANKING IS ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO BE).
3. It won't be nearly as frustrating since it'll only be your fault if you fail your missions.

What do you guys think? How would you do this if given the chance?

Thats a really great idea. You are right that it is a random battle with steel as a reward.

It would be great to have somthing else other than win or lose.

[Cpt_Cupcake]

11 minutes ago, Prothall said:

Problem is...how would a DD ever rank up if a CV is in the match?

It's not an impossible task... I've been running shima and have consistently been in the top 3 spots, even beat out a midway and conqueror in one for the top top.

[jags_domain]

12 minutes ago, Prothall said:

Problem is...how would a DD ever rank up if a CV is in the match?

first off go Walter!

2. If I am not in a CV I dont seen them.

Dont know why but I can't one. I want then but cant find them.

[Cpt_Cupcake]

14 minutes ago, VeatherVitch said:

I think an even easier system would be to use base XP minus the win modifier. The top 8 players gain a star, the middle 8 retain their stars, and the bottom 8 lose a star. It would make it less painful for those who are playing well but not great, and punishes the bad players even if they are on the winning side.

Agree wholeheartedly with this.

[skillztowin]

23 minutes ago, RedDragonEmporer said:

• You're given a mission or damage threshold or other tasks you need to meet in order to rank up. If you meet it, you earn your star. You don't meet it, you lose a star.
• Similar to personal missions it could be "Do this much damage" or "Capture this many objectives" depending on your ship type.
• You can take it a step further that you have to do a combination of these missions to rank.

Each of these feel familiar to the way rewards are in the game for random battle. They rip apart the incentives for team play for individual reward and create chaos in the battle.  In part, these missions ensure the game never gets stale because you never know what the motives of your opponent. 

WG doesn't need to create a separate game mode to get your player ranking. Go check your stats and the leader boards do that for each game mode. Take a look at your own stats and take a moment to reflect upon your recommendation.  

[skillztowin]

1 minute ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

16 minutes ago, VeatherVitch said:

I think an even easier system would be to use base XP minus the win modifier. The top 8 players gain a star, the middle 8 retain their stars, and the bottom 8 lose a star. It would make it less painful for those who are playing well but not great, and punishes the bad players even if they are on the winning side.

Agree wholeheartedly with this.

If this was implemented why would you even attempt to win? Why attempt to play as a team? The fact that you both feel strongly about this idea, reveals the basis to your problems in ranked play. that team play comes second to you both.

[Cpt_Cupcake]

1 minute ago, skillztowin said:

If this was implemented why would you even attempt to win? Why attempt to play as a team? The fact that you both feel strongly about this idea, reveals the basis to your problems in ranked play. that team play comes second to you both.

Character assassination... cute.

Team play and playing the objective is my primary focus. The reality is that isn't everyone's goal and  is, in the current system, punished by damage farmers playing the odds.

[RedDragonEmporer]

11 minutes ago, skillztowin said:

WG doesn't need to create a separate game mode to get your player ranking. Go check your stats and the leader boards do that for each game mode. Take a look at your own stats and take a moment to reflect upon your recommendation.  

Except this game has a rank mode and therefore needs to properly rank players based on skill and not because you were lucky enough to get a good team.

 

Quote

If this was implemented why would you even attempt to win? Why attempt to play as a team? The fact that you both feel strongly about this idea, reveals the basis to your problems in ranked play. that team play comes second to you both. 

Because that's what Random Battles and Clan Battles are for. This is RANKING. It's not fair to good players that have bad luck with crap teams that they can't rank because of matchmaking. A player should be ranked based on their own skill. Farmers can still farm damage if that's their prerogative but other players shouldn't be punished for it.

[VeatherVitch]

12 minutes ago, skillztowin said:

If this was implemented why would you even attempt to win? Why attempt to play as a team? The fact that you both feel strongly about this idea, reveals the basis to your problems in ranked play. that team play comes second to you both.

Chances are if you're on the winning team you're in the top 8 XP earners. All that my proposed change would do is not punish decent players as much. With my proposal if you're an average player some games you'll come out ahead, many games you'll stay at your current star count, and some games you'll lose stars.

It would incentivise players to participate in ranked more often, would help reduce the salt/toxicity, and would better reflect the skill of the players.

[RedDragonEmporer]

Then how about this.... if your team wins you get another star. so you can at max get 2 stars in the match.

Players can get 1 star (win or lose) for meeting some goal in the match. So players don't miss out because of bad teams.

Players can get another star for winning.

To make it even: Players that don't win or meet their goals lose 2 stars. But there's a couple more irrevocable ranks.

 

[JustAdapt]

8 minutes ago, RedDragonEmporer said:

Then how about this.... if your team wins you get another star. so you can at max get 2 stars in the match.

Players can get 1 star (win or lose) for meeting some goal in the match. So players don't miss out because of bad teams.

Players can get another star for winning.

To make it even: Players that don't win or meet their goals lose 2 stars. But there's a couple more irrevocable ranks.

 

This is a terrible idea and your proposed changes to rank only incentivize passive play and damage farming. The goal of every game should be to WIN. The only constant in every game is you - so if you play well you will rank out. There is no RNG or MM luck about it and there is a reason why the same people rank out every season.

The only change I would make to ranked is to remove the save a star system. This would promote more objective play and priority target focus rather than the usual damage farm mentality to save your star if things go bad. 

[skillztowin]

35 minutes ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

Character assassination... cute.

noted and unintended. sorry. 

[Cpt_Cupcake]

1 minute ago, skillztowin said:

noted and unintended. sorry. 

I appreciate and accept your apology.

Now back to the topic, do you think OP's proposed system would at least allievate some of the issues that the current one has, such as AFK's, farmers, and bad plays greatly reducing the chances for otherwise good players to progress?

[skillztowin]

1 hour ago, Cpt_Cupcake said:

Do you think OP's proposed system would at least allievate some of the issues that the current one has, such as AFK's, farmers, and bad plays greatly reducing the chances for otherwise good players to progress?

In short. no. Op's recommended changes to ranked will not help the observed issues of afk, farmers, bad plays, and good player progress. 

to elaborate: 
AFK- no, this issue will transfer and stay the same. there are no in game motives, especially in ranked, that rewards AFK. Even maliciously going AFK is boring. 
Farmers - farmers in Ranked are Farming stars. the credit and exp rewards are arguably the same or better in random for farmers and easier to farm in random for the farming player. You play ranked for the steel and prestige and both are farmed by winning. 
Bad Plays - I get it. we all get frustrated here. Can you always tell the difference between a bad green play vs amazing red play? regardless. the OP suggestions does nothing to address bad play. 
good players progress - Ranked is brutal. and just like life, it is not fair (ill get to this in a bit). good players are going to progress down the ranks.  The players that can influence the battle the most will progress the fastest. Players that achieve R1 do not get handed R1. They have the exact same MM, They technically have no special gimmicks, Everyone is on the same grind. to Reach R1 means something in this game. the OP suggestions dilute that meaning.

Side note:
I ran a monty carlo simulation and posted my results in the forum. The WR had the most impact on the grind length (despite the save a star misconception). to secure a good win rate you have to work as a team and/or be good enough to carry any team. In both options, ranked is rewarding those who can influence battles. 

At not being fair:
The minimum criteria for ranked play is at fault here. to be clear.  I am in favor for a low bar for inclusion. I love a good david vs goliath story. The majority of the observed issues i see on the forums are self imposed. captains are choosing to sail 'handicapped'. playing ships that are not properly set up with low point captains sometimes forgetting to mount camo and i bet that extends to things like premium consumables. Some captains refuse to look up game mechanics. These captains are expecting to win and progress against captains who came prepared.

I would be willing to bet that any who makes it to R1 has min/maxed there ships and capabilities and strategies. Which in effect has correctly ranked them as the best on the server. 

[skillztowin]

3 hours ago, RedDragonEmporer said:

How would this work?

1. You're given a mission or damage threshold or other tasks you need to meet in order to rank up. If you meet it, you earn your star. You don't meet it, you lose a star.
2. Similar to personal missions it could be "Do this much damage" or "Capture this many objectives" depending on your ship type.
3. You can take it a step further that you have to do a combination of these missions to rank.

Just came to me that you are describing "campaigns"... mission thresholds, combinations of missions. even progression is measured in stars. 

[RedDragonEmporer]

5 hours ago, JustAdapt said:

This is a terrible idea and your proposed changes to rank only incentivize passive play and damage farming. The goal of every game should be to WIN. The only constant in every game is you - so if you play well you will rank out. There is no RNG or MM luck about it and there is a reason why the same people rank out every season.

The only change I would make to ranked is to remove the save a star system. This would promote more objective play and priority target focus rather than the usual damage farm mentality to save your star if things go bad. 

I have to disagree. You could be an amazing player and still not earn your star because you ended up with 3 - 6 potatoes as team mates. This system would alleviate that by evaluating an individual's performance rather than the team's. You want that go to Random or Clan Battles. That's what they're there for. For me (as I've stated several times) Ranked should be rewarding or punishing me for MY capabilities or lack thereof. It's not "Team Ranking". I'm not with the same team every single game so it's a moot point to make it truly a team affair.

 

Quote

Just came to me that you are describing "campaigns"... mission thresholds, combinations of missions. even progression is measured in stars. 

I've stated that. But that threshold is for the current game. Let's say in a BB I have to do 100,000 damage to get the star, if I manage it I can rank up, if not I lose one. The next match would have something different.

If you really want to make it about team play (which you shouldn't as you're not ranking with a team but yourself). As a team get a cap and hold it uninterrupted for 6 minutes. If your team can manage that everyone gets a star. I don't see why this is such an issue.

[JustAdapt]

19 minutes ago, RedDragonEmporer said:

I have to disagree. You could be an amazing player and still not earn your star because you ended up with 3 - 6 potatoes as team mates. This system would alleviate that by evaluating an individual's performance rather than the team's. You want that go to Random or Clan Battles. That's what they're there for. For me (as I've stated several times) Ranked should be rewarding or punishing me for MY capabilities or lack thereof. It's not "Team Ranking". I'm not with the same team every single game so it's a moot point to make it truly a team affair.

The reason ranked is setup the current way is to promote team play where you all either win together or lose together. If everyone could just damage farm their star, then what is the point of the game mode? In addition, sometimes you get shafted but the better you are the easier and faster it is to rank out. If you are blaming RNG/MM/Teams for your losses all of the time then you are not as skilled as you think you are...

[RedDragonEmporer]

29 minutes ago, JustAdapt said:

The reason ranked is setup the current way is to promote team play where you all either win together or lose together. If everyone could just damage farm their star, then what is the point of the game mode? In addition, sometimes you get shafted but the better you are the easier and faster it is to rank out. If you are blaming RNG/MM/Teams for your losses all of the time then you are not as skilled as you think you are...

So ranked is set up to be just like Random and Clan Wars. All 3 modes are EXACTLY the same thing. Tell me the difference between them. only Clan Wars has any real difference being it's teams of clan members instead of teams of random players.

I disapprove of having to be able to carry a whole game myself to be able to win.

The current system punishes good players for bad team mates. Just wanting to make it more fair.

[JustAdapt]

11 minutes ago, RedDragonEmporer said:

So ranked is set up to be just like Random and Clan Wars. All 3 modes are EXACTLY the same thing. Tell me the difference between them. only Clan Wars has any real difference being it's teams of clan members instead of teams of random players.

I disapprove of having to be able to carry a whole game myself to be able to win.

The current system punishes good players for bad team mates. Just wanting to make it more fair.

Well...

 

[RedDragonEmporer]

While I appreciate that you came out admitting your problem via YouTube I don't think it's fair to call yourself or anyone else names to make a point because all you're doing is proving you have no argument against any opinion or idea you don't agree with. Thanks for commenting.