Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Shadow_Wolf7

Lower Tier Ranked Battles

6 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

23
[T3I0F]
Members
76 posts
3,528 battles

In the process of getting the snowflakes from all my ships I really enjoyed some of the lower tier ships I have from lines I haven't grinded yet or lower tier premiums I have. The issue is that these lower tier matches either have new players, or bots and so don't feel as exciting and tense as higher tier MM. There are some really fun Tier 5 or 6 ships that I still enjoy playing (just as much as my tier 8,9, and 10's) but I feel like the battles themselves aren't as fun. This could be fixed with a better MM that took skill into consideration but I don't claim to understand game development so have no idea on how complicated this would be. On the other hand, an easy thing to do is to make a ranked season or ranked sprint at lower tiers. Even with the new ranked format we are getting tiers 8,9, and 10. Why not at lower tiers? I also think it could be cool to even shift tiers drastically with the bronze, silver, and gold leagues being tier 8, then tier 5, and then tier 10 or something. I may be alone on this but wanted to put it out there for discussion.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,279
[SIM]
Members
5,916 posts
9,444 battles

Tier V is a hellhole for balance, with Giulio Cesare, the Kamikaze sisters, and Gremyaschchy mucking things up. Tier VI would be far more tenable for low-tier ranked. 

  • Cool 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
148
[WHEE]
Members
175 posts
4,278 battles
56 minutes ago, SkaerKrow said:

Tier V is a hellhole for balance, with Giulio Cesare, the Kamikaze sisters, and Gremyaschchy mucking things up. Tier VI would be far more tenable for low-tier ranked. 

Same could be said with FDR and M. Richthofen at X,  Enterprise and Massachusetts at VIII, Belfast at VII, and E. Lowenheart at VI. 

It’d be nice to each player to get the chance, even less often, to play their favorite tier (V and above) for the Ranked rewards. High tier Ranked is stagnant - same old “ship” over and over again - and it’ll feel even more boring since Ranked is going to be a near continuous thing now. 

Edited by celticboy27
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,279
[SIM]
Members
5,916 posts
9,444 battles
38 minutes ago, celticboy27 said:

Same could be said with FDR and M. Richthofen at X,  Enterprise and Massachusetts at VIII, Belfast at VII, and E. Lowenheart at VI. 

First off, grouping Lowenhardt with those other ships is questionable. Secondly, you’re talking about one or two ships at those other tiers, where there are five at tier V. It’s not even remotely comparable.

WG tried tier V ranked at one point, and it was a disaster. 

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,352
[SALVO]
Members
9,550 posts
6,999 battles
1 hour ago, SkaerKrow said:

Tier V is a hellhole for balance, with Giulio Cesare, the Kamikaze sisters, and Gremyaschchy mucking things up. Tier VI would be far more tenable for low-tier ranked. 

I would gladly change matching against Giulio, Kami and Gremy in exchange for clear skies. Heck I would even play Omaha if it means no flying monkeys.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
196
[KRAK]
Members
1,655 posts
16,958 battles
2 hours ago, ArIskandir said:

I would gladly change matching against Giulio, Kami and Gremy in exchange for clear skies. Heck I would even play Omaha if it means no flying monkeys.

Those were the good old days. I remember when I saw my 1st Cleveland, in a battle I was low tier in. How grand it looked, 5 years ago. And Omaha was a blast back then.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×