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

Episode 136: Can We Fix Ranked, Please?

5 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Retired WoWS Community Contributors
317 posts
6,655 battles

Episode 136: Can We Fix Ranked, Please?


NoZoupForYou joins Kelorn and Aerroon as we discuss how to improve Ranked and the buffs and nerfs from Test ships that were announced this morning on the Dev blog. We finish off with two excellent Listener Questions of the Week!


Note: Timestamp links SHOULD now work in all (most?) browsers.

02:30 Ranked
25:52 Test ship changes: Hill
31:04 Test ship changes: Somers
35:38 Test ship changes: French DDs
41:56 Test ship changes: Colbert
46:54 Test ship changes: Yudachi
49:55 Test ship changes: Yoshino
51:33 Test ship changes: Ark Royal
53:47 Questions of the Week

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

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


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,063 posts
3,522 battles

Thanks for the answers, I'll be adding Boisie to my list of ships to buy.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
24,221 posts
24,554 battles



Kelorn, I listened to the podcast where you and some other CCs talked about Ranked, and you had some thoughts I agreed with and others I don't.

I agree that Ranked just isn't fun.  It's too damned grindy, too many battles required to rank out, advancement is too dependent upon team mates, and so on.

Also, I think that the current advancement system is very flawed, because it's too dependent on team mates, and too dependent on winning or losing.  That said, the idea of Ranked's dependency on winning or losing is also strongly linked to the underlying question of what is Ranked supposed to be about in the first place.  Is it about individual achievement or about winning and losing?  If it's about individual achievement, I think that too much of a linkage to winning or losing is almost unfair because you're so dependent on the performance of team mates over whom you have no control.

So, here's my thought.  If it's supposed to be about individual achievement (and since we would still be stuck with a team based format), I suggest a reduction in the amount to which winning and losing counts towards success in Ranked.  Note that I'm NOT saying to completely remove W/L from the mix, but make more room for individual achievement.

What I suggest is this.

Do away with the existing advancement system entirely.  Do Ranked "scoring" in a completely different way.  Have no star system, possibly no obvious advancement system.  Have Ranked be a version of Random battles except with all ships at the same tier.  Maybe even 12v12 like randoms.  And have no post battle star system.  Just do BXP, and regular XP, and so on, same as normal.  

Have Ranked be 100 battles long for each player.  The season might be 30 days long, but you only get to play 100 battles in Ranked. Then after the 30 days are over, sort the list of participants by the base XP earned in their 100 battles, and divide up them up as follows:

  • Top 10% (91% to 100%) of players by BXP have achieved the Admiral rank.
  • The second 10% (81% to 90%) have achieved Commodore rank.  (This could also be the next 20% of players, i.e. 71% to 90%)
  • And break down the remaining players into Captain, Commander, and Lieutenant ranks.

The breakdown could also be just into five 20 percentile point groups (i.e. 1 to 20%, 21-40%, 41-60%, 61-80%, and finally 81-100%).

EDIT 1:  Note that rewards would be based on your Rank (Admiral, Commodore, Captain, Commander, or Lieutenant) after the Ranked season ended.

EDIT 2: There's no reason that the rank structure couldn't be split into 10 ranks (every 10th percentile: 1-10, 11-20, 21-30, and so on up to 81-90, and finally 91-100%).  And then have ten ranks to match.  USN-ish based Ranks would look something like this, from highest to lowest:

  1. Fleet Admiral
  2. Admiral
  3. Vice Admiral
  4. Rear Admiral
  5. Commodore
  6. Captain
  7. Commander
  8. Lt. Commander
  9. Lieutenant
  10. Ensign

And each rank would come with a different level of reward.


Note that there's probably no reason that the rank progress couldn't be kept in some regularly adjusted list, like clan rankings, so that players knew how they stood in the Ranked standings.

Also note that after your 100 battles of Ranked are up for the season, you can't play any more ranked battles for the season.  

I think that some of the upsides of this model might be:

1. There'd be no spamming of battles to rank out.  You'd have only 100 battles in which to do your best.  Also, at 100 battles, the number isn't so high that it's hard work to do all 100 battles in 30 days.  You could literally do just 3.33 battles per day (10 battles every 3 days) and complete the 100 battles.  Or you could spam a good number of battles every few days and have some off days, and still easily finish the 100 battles.  

2. Because you get the best BXP results from winning, it would be most advantageous to play to win, since an average game in a win is still often more productive BXP-wise than a good game in a loss.  To get really good BXP in a loss, you have to have an outstanding game.  Playing to win in this model is important, but not strictly because it's all or nothing, win or lose.  It's just that winning is the best way of maximizing your BXP rewards.

3. The season, while 30 days long would really only be 100 battles in actual length.  And it shouldn't feel like it's as much of a painful grind.


Anyways, I just came up with this idea on the fly.  I was originally going to suggest a different model that I've suggested in previous months, but this idea just popped into my head, and it seems SOOOO much better than my past ideas, and actually quite simple.


@Kami  @Radar_X  @Gneisenau013

I've included this for you guys because I thought that you might want to see this idea.  


Edited by Crucis
  • Cool 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
30 posts
8,267 battles

hey guys, I enjoy the podcast, for ideas on who to invite next week, why dont you guys invite someone from more of a casual non-unicom, CC, etc...just someone from a clan that is average to get feedback from those players? I mean thats where most of the player base is right?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,063 posts
3,522 battles

I wonder if the new mode coming next patch might be incorporated somehow into a ranked format. 

4 teams of 3 against one another, but not with the gimmick ships.

Award stars as follows perhaps?

last team standing, or highest points if time runs out = 3

2nd to last team standing, or second highest points if time runs out = 2

3rd to last team standing, or third highest points if time runs out = 1

Last place team = 0

Have similar brackets as far as advancement.

There would be issues with people who wanted to div together being at different ranks, not sure how that might be addressed. 

Mostly just tossing this out as a very rough idea to see what others may think. 


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.