Improving Ranked Battles

[Capt_Ramsey]

I have an idea for the next ranked play season. This would make game play very fair for all, including newer players. As the player base grows, not all of our players have 15+ point captains, so all captain skills will not count for ranked play matches. The captain of each ship still gets the experience from the match added at the end, but this would level the field and so the only difference will be ship upgrades/modules used. The biggest difference would be someone bringing in a stock ship opposed to an upgraded version. We all now get situational awareness free anyways so it will be more of a true test of a players' skill how they perform even up. New/newer players wont be handicapped by not having high skill captains and even the seasoned players would not have to worry about not having a good enough captain in a ship they want to use for ranked. What do you think ?

[Amogussy]

Some players have certain ships set up with upgrades and commander skills, etc; removing the skills from ranked will really screw up a player's play style

[Morpheus29]

With the tiers normally used for ranked, commanders will at least have 6-7 skill points. I dont agree with punishing seasoned players by down grading their skilled commanders. Beside the point, seasoned players would chew up new players regardless IMO

[Capt_Ramsey]

With the tiers normally used for ranked, commanders will at least have 6-7 skill points. I dont agree with punishing seasoned players by down grading their skilled commanders. Beside the point, seasoned players would chew up new players regardless I

​Not looking to punish anyone, just make game more challenging and fun for all who participate.

[Crucis]

With the tiers normally used for ranked, commanders will at least have 6-7 skill points. I dont agree with punishing seasoned players by down grading their skilled commanders. Beside the point, seasoned players would chew up new players regardless I

​Not looking to punish anyone, just make game more challenging and fun for all who participate.

 

 

Doesn't matter whether you're not looking to punish them or not.  The fact is that you ARE punishing them by denying them access to the skills that they justly earned.

[Crucis]

There are plenty of things that might be done to improve Ranked Battles.  This isn't one of them.

[Rusty_Bucket__]

In reality, we are always up against someone with some advantage. That makes defeating them all the sweeter. And should I loose, than I've been given a good lesson. Through the struggle, perhaps we too will become the one to beat. 

[jagdoc]

  If I cant bring a fully upgraded ship with a full Admiral on board I will not play...I earned them I demand to use them.

 

  If they want to fix Ranked battles

1.  Do away with seasons

2.  Reset the tiers so no ship has extreme advantage over same type ship in tier i.e. T6 BB's that have 15km range against a T6 IJN BB that has 21 km range that is [edited]!  Same for CA's and DD's, 

3.  Allow teams in ranked battles w/chat. 

4.  Don't penalize players that contributed to the battle but still lost by sending them back a rank when they are out of stars.  If they are not the lowest ship they stay at the current rank, the top player does not lose a star, if the lowest player is out of stars that player and only that player goes back to the previous rank.

5.  Allow teams to earn ranks as a team

[Nuk_]

  If I cant bring a fully upgraded ship with a full Admiral on board I will not play...I earned them I demand to use them.

 

  If they want to fix Ranked battles

1.  Do away with seasons

2.  Reset the tiers so no ship has extreme advantage over same type ship in tier i.e. T6 BB's that have 15km range against a T6 IJN BB that has 21 km range that is [edited]!  Same for CA's and DD's, 

3.  Allow teams in ranked battles w/chat. 

4.  Don't penalize players that contributed to the battle but still lost by sending them back a rank when they are out of stars.  If they are not the lowest ship they stay at the current rank, the top player does not lose a star, if the lowest player is out of stars that player and only that player goes back to the previous rank.

5.  Allow teams to earn ranks as a team

 

1. Seasons are necessary, otherwise any kind of ranked reward would lose its exclusiveness.

2. US BBs get better concealment, so it is balanced.

3. Team Battles.

4. That ruins the whole concept of ranked.

5. Team battles.

[Crucis]

  If I cant bring a fully upgraded ship with a full Admiral on board I will not play...I earned them I demand to use them.

 

  If they want to fix Ranked battles

1.  Do away with seasons

2.  Reset the tiers so no ship has extreme advantage over same type ship in tier i.e. T6 BB's that have 15km range against a T6 IJN BB that has 21 km range that is [edited]!  Same for CA's and DD's, 

3.  Allow teams in ranked battles w/chat. 

4.  Don't penalize players that contributed to the battle but still lost by sending them back a rank when they are out of stars.  If they are not the lowest ship they stay at the current rank, the top player does not lose a star, if the lowest player is out of stars that player and only that player goes back to the previous rank.

5.  Allow teams to earn ranks as a team

 

1. Seasons are necessary, otherwise any kind of ranked reward would lose its exclusiveness.

2. US BBs get better concealment, so it is balanced.

3. Team Battles.

4. That ruins the whole concept of ranked.

5. Team battles.

 

1. Agreed.

 

2. I don't see that it's the better concealment that creates the balance.  IMO, a tier 6 BB with 20+ km of range isn't that big a deal, because at that extreme range, their accuracy will absolutely stink.  And if the enemy has a BB player who thinks that it's a good idea to snipe from 20 km away, I'm more than happy to take a win from them and their dumb snipey BB.

 

3. Wait... Is jagdoc advocating pre-made TEAMS in Ranked Battles or is he advocating having (voice) chat for the teams that you end up with in Ranked Battles?  It's not really clear.

 

4. Not necessarily true, Nuk.  It all comes back to what I said a couple weeks back when I said that before one starts looking at fixes and tweaks for RkB's, IMO it's necessary to first decide exactly what the point of RkB's is, because some things that would be good for one view of what they are, while others would not. 

 

In other words... 

 

A. Define EXACTLY what Ranked Battles are or are supposed to be, then

 

B. Define the problems that are felt to exist, relative to point A, then ...

 

C.  Come up with ideas for things that would address the problems defined in point B.

 

 

 

5.  Agreed.

 

 

 

[Edgecase]

Ships at each tier are balanced around the kinds of captain skills a typical captain would have. Zeroing them out would create more problems than it solves.

 

Also, competitive modes like Ranked are arguably balanced around 15+ point captains, not 0.

[VGLance]

You cannot lock every tier, people will afk their way to rank 1.  And derps will easily get there too.  Derps should NEVER, EVER get even remotely close to rank 1.

 

Just increase the star rewards for top three finishers, and increase the star penalty for bottom place finishers.  Done and done.  Separate the men from the boys.  That's the whole point of ranking anything in competition.  Skilled vs. the unskilled.  Anything less is a massive failure on the design of the competition.  Average and poor players will whine about it, but that's why they are average and poor.  They are too busy assigning their energy to toxic thoughts and behavior that does anything but develop their abilities.

 

When players who don't care about winning poison the only real competitive mode we have in the game, WG has failed.

 

The other game mode I'd like to see is a cage match last man standing mode with chat disabled.

 

It's time we make the WG player base great again, put some backbone and chest hair on these sorry, sad, weak handshake betas.

[Crucis]

You cannot lock every tier, people will afk their way to rank 1.  And derps will easily get there too.  Derps should NEVER, EVER get even remotely close to rank 1.

 

Just increase the star rewards for top three finishers, and increase the star penalty for bottom place finishers.  Done and done.  Separate the men from the boys.  That's the whole point of ranking anything in competition.  Skilled vs. the unskilled.  Anything less is a massive failure on the design of the competition.  Average and poor players will whine about it, but that's why they are average and poor.  They are too busy assigning their energy to toxic thoughts and behavior that does anything but develop their abilities.

 

When players who don't care about winning poison the only real competitive mode we have in the game, WG has failed.

 

The other game mode I'd like to see is a cage match last man standing mode with chat disabled.

 

It's time we make the WG player base great again, put some backbone and chest hair on these sorry, sad, weak handshake betas.

 

While I agree with your first point, I disagree with basing reward on being in the top 3 or penalties on bottom X finishers.  Increased rewards or penalties should not be tied to placement on the XP earned list.  They should be tied to some hard and fast numbers.  For example, one could say that anyone earning over 1000 base XP was rewarded with an extra star.  Or anyone earning below 200 or 300 base XP lost an extra star.  You should have to play well enough to earn a bonus reward, not simply be in the top 3, which is a very relative thing. If you have some battles where only 1 player earned over 1k base XP, so be it.  If you have some where more than 3 did it, so be it.  And this should be true for being on the losing team too, btw.  If you can earn over 1k base XP on a losing team, more power to you.  Of course, if you lose a star for losing and gain one for earning over 1k base XP, you have a net gain/loss of 0.  But you will have definitely earned it.  On the flip side, if you're AFK and on the losing team, you'd lose 2 stars and will have earned that as well.

 

 

 

As for the cage match idea, absolutely, positively 1 billion percent NOOOOOO!!!!  It's a foolish idea from the get-go.  The only part of your suggestion that makes a bit of sense is turning off chat.

 

As for your rant about toxic thoughts, some people can multi-task, ya know.  This isn't some meta-physical zero sum game.

 

 

[VGLance]

 

While I agree with your first point, I disagree with basing reward on being in the top 3 or penalties on bottom X finishers.  Increased rewards or penalties should not be tied to placement on the XP earned list.  They should be tied to some hard and fast numbers.  For example, one could say that anyone earning over 1000 base XP was rewarded with an extra star.  Or anyone earning below 200 or 300 base XP lost an extra star.  You should have to play well enough to earn a bonus reward, not simply be in the top 3, which is a very relative thing. If you have some battles where only 1 player earned over 1k base XP, so be it.  If you have some where more than 3 did it, so be it.  And this should be true for being on the losing team too, btw.  If you can earn over 1k base XP on a losing team, more power to you.  Of course, if you lose a star for losing and gain one for earning over 1k base XP, you have a net gain/loss of 0.  But you will have definitely earned it.  On the flip side, if you're AFK and on the losing team, you'd lose 2 stars and will have earned that as well.

 

 

 

As for the cage match idea, absolutely, positively 1 billion percent NOOOOOO!!!!  It's a foolish idea from the get-go.  The only part of your suggestion that makes a bit of sense is turning off chat.

 

As for your rant about toxic thoughts, some people can multi-task, ya know.  This isn't some meta-physical zero sum game.

 

 

 

You can do that, it would work with using base xp.  There are many ways you can skin this cat and the outcome would be the same.  I'd make it so that if you score less than 500 on a winning team, you don't gain any point (because you were carried), and if you score less than 400 on the losing team you lose 2 stars.  It's gotta be strong enough to punish and discourage the people that shouldn't even be loading up ranked battles to begin with.

[RoundsDownRange]

I still say the best way to score Ranked Battles is by performance no matter which team they are on;

Top five get Stars

Middle four keep stars

Bottom five lose stars

So if you have a slug that held back and did little to nothing but is on the winning team he'll lose a star, while ships that played their hearts out but lost may end up with a star.

Remember what the title of the mode is "Ranked Battles"  Your ranked from best to last, but instead of two columns of winners and losers, there is just one column.  It's not Team Battle or Division Battle so it should not matter which side won, it should matter what place you came in during the battle, hence the word Ranked.  Clean, easy simple.  Don't have to changes or adjust captains, works with any tier ship.

Everyone still gets the normal stuff, winning team gets their higher pay out none of that changes.

 

WG needs to learn to use the KISS system, Keep It Simple Stupid (no offence intended)

[vak_]

This would make game play very fair for all

 

Who says ranked should be fair? Am I supposed to start aiming like a potato and have zero map awareness to keep it fair?

[Jakob_Knight]

The problem with this suggestion is that captain's skills are more important for some ship classes than others.  Removing those captain's skills will impact the viability of those classes more than others, resulting in an uneven 'nerf', quite different from the idea of fair play that is pointed to as the point in this article.

 

 

As an example, a 15 point captain in a Carrier is much more important than a 15 point captain in a Battleship.  The Carrier captain and the skills in fire prevention/plane allotment have major impacts on the functionality of the ship in combat, whereas the Battleship can pretty much operate at an effective level without the 15 point captain.  And, that is only a very broad example.  Specific ships rely on their captains' skills to be usable (Atlanta anyone?).

 

So, I would say this is an idea that probably wouldn't work, and would only cause more problems than it solves.