Why players not are climbing the ranks in Ranked as expected

[dCK_Ad_Hominem]

11 minutes ago, RC_8015 said:

All ships from T1 till T6 on elite, leveling all T7 right now. Means? Reached rank 10 with premiums only (*cough* Asashiofunboat *cough*)

Until next season I therefore have to reach T10 with all ships as I dont plan on leaving out any ships! Just rage phase every time I reach a new tier....HoW dO I Do wArShiPss??HoW tHis Ship woRKs?

While t8 takes some getting used to and t9 has some stinkers, the boats get better and the gameplay more intuitive. The higher tiers are generally balanced the best, so you should enjoy the journey ;).

[ghostbuster_]

1 hour ago, eliastion said:

It IS all about individual performance.

Dealing with completely random teams is part of that. The small size of the team emphasizes single player's contribution towards the victory. NOT ALLOWING DIVISIONS puts everyone on equal ground, without giving a free pass to people who div up and without reducing the impact of solo players on the results of their matches whenever a div (or a couple divs) show up.

That's why having 2-man divs in Ranked would be really awful indeed but its never gonna happen.

It is not. You can have the best game ever but if your teammates act like useless apes, you are gonna lose. So its doesnt depend only on your own performance.

"Dealing with random teams" so many times i tried to explain what we as team should do. Why and how and what if enemy does that or that. I tried to explain everything and some "players" are either too dumb to understand or they just dont care. They did absolutely the opposite what we had to do. Sometimes its not the whole team but even one does something stupid, the effect on the outcome is huge. So, its not completely up to you. 

 

What makes you think that there would be divs in only one of the teams. There would be divs in BOTH TEAMS. And MM could be set to distribute divs equally. This wouldnt be giving free pass to people who dived up.  They could even make div members get a half star each after a victory. It can be arrenged. But yeah its never gonna happen. You just showed how "players" would whine about it.

[eliastion]

1 hour ago, ghostbuster_ said:

It is not. You can have the best game ever but if your teammates act like useless apes, you are gonna lose. (...)

But Ranked is not about playing ONE GAME. It's really not difficult to understand how random factors even out over time - and they do so much faster in Ranked than in Random due to small team size. Putting in divisions would sabotage that, however, because

1. People playing in divisions wouldn't have random teammates and enemies anymore - they would have one of ensured quality (not to mention the possibility of coordinating bit in game and in ship choices before it)

and

2. People NOT playing in divisions would have their impact on the results diminished because 2 people in a division have a bigger impact on the result than 2 similarly skilled people who don't know each other and end up in the same match randomly - so even if both teams were equal, the result would be more about which team's divisions perform better rather than about the assorted solo players.

 

This is why divisions in Ranked are a terribad, absolutely unacceptable idea that goes against everything this mode is supposed to be. If playing on your own and taking on everything the MM can throw at you is too hard, just stay away from Ranked - there are Randoms where you can boost your chances by divisioning up with correct people and and Clan Battles that are all about the pre-arranged teams. Ranked is just not compatible with either of these approaches.

[ghostbuster_]

1 hour ago, eliastion said:

But Ranked is not about playing ONE GAME. It's really not difficult to understand how random factors even out over time - and they do so much faster in Ranked than in Random due to small team size. Putting in divisions would sabotage that, however, because

1. People playing in divisions wouldn't have random teammates and enemies anymore - they would have one of ensured quality (not to mention the possibility of coordinating bit in game and in ship choices before it)

and

2. People NOT playing in divisions would have their impact on the results diminished because 2 people in a division have a bigger impact on the result than 2 similarly skilled people who don't know each other and end up in the same match randomly - so even if both teams were equal, the result would be more about which team's divisions perform better rather than about the assorted solo players.

 

This is why divisions in Ranked are a terribad, absolutely unacceptable idea that goes against everything this mode is supposed to be. If playing on your own and taking on everything the MM can throw at you is too hard, just stay away from Ranked - there are Randoms where you can boost your chances by divisioning up with correct people and and Clan Battles that are all about the pre-arranged teams. Ranked is just not compatible with either of these approaches.

Yeah because ranked is "play hundreds of battles until ranked 1"  this is where stupidity starts. You dont get similarly skilled peole in your team. If that was the case, i wouldnt hate the ranked. It would be fun to play. Right now its source of frustration. There is a possibility of getting completely braindead "players" in your team who reached your ranked after 10 times more battles than you. Thats why im claiming that having 2 man divs in ranked is actually not a bad idea.

 

2. Sure it is. Ofc 2 man div would have much bigger impact. Thats why i said mirrored MM. In the other team there would be a div as well. 

You look only from one side...

If the divs were similarly skilled, the result would be about which team got 5 better random solo players.

 

How the ranked battles works right now goes against everthing this mode had to be. Ranked had to be an indicator of skill. But like i said, there is technically no difference between a player who got ranked one in less than 100 battles and a "player" who got ranked one in 2000 battles. They both get same rewards. So ranked 1 indicates no skill at all. If we had more difficult ranking system. Like no irreversible rankes at all, bottom 3 players of winning team lose star as well... (2 examples which came to my mind) we would have only smilar skilled people in same ranked level. And being ranked 1 would indicate skill of the player because not everyone would be able to reach ranked 1 under somewhat harder conditions.

[Shaka_D]

Divisions would ruin ranked too much because you still have the skill imbalance between teams because the mm doesn't even out player skill. You could have a useless div on one team and a pro on the other. Evolution has taught those of us who have evolved that those that have not evolved still swing on vines together and prefer to do so....birds of a feather flock together, together pros achieve more but noobs lose harder. I'd rather have one randomly assigned lowbob halfwit knuckledragger on my team than two in a division.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

I'll save my full opinion for when I finish the season but Ranked hasn't changed at all.

 

It's still a game about DDs, which team's ones are better, which can spot, which can torp, which can cap, which ones have yolo thrown the game etc

 

Everything else still just supports them or farms damage. 

 

You have loads of radar yes but all that does is slow the game down.

[dCK_Ad_Hominem]

Well, from 5.0 back to 6.1.

 

Game 1: get spotted by a desmos radar. Have Monti no. 1 deal 11.5k and Monti no. 2 the remaining 9k. Watch in amazement as your yamato let's himself get rushed by a 20k hp Monti, not turn his guns and get killed with the 2nd salvo. 

 

Game 2: push a on tears of the Desert. Spot their dds and finish a shima. Get in closer to spot the radar mino. Watch your gk shoot the Monti instead. Finally get spotted by the remaining shima and get gunned down. Enemy gearing comfortingly wins the 1 on 2 against Monti and z.

 

Game 3. Sleeping Giant. 4 dds, mino, Moskva, Monti. Rush mid to a. Radar shima on the way and kill it. Cap a. Watch your z trying to rush the mino and die. Deal 30k gun damage to the enemy moskva. Watch your own fail to hit a gearing at 15km. Lose your Monti. Watch the enemy Moskva push your cap. Get behind island to block. Watch your allied Moskva do the same while getting shot in the sides and rear by dds he could deny. 

 

Boy, sure was something. Really hope bb ap finally gets an:"

<if target icon equals triangle = true; turn penetration into overpen>".

 

Some tough luck is to be expected, it just sucks though that playing for the team often means the loss of a star. It sucks more that some bbs still think it was important to shoot their counter parts. 

[dasCKD]

1 hour ago, ghostbuster_ said:

How the ranked battles works right now goes against everthing this mode had to be. Ranked had to be an indicator of skill. But like i said, there is technically no difference between a player who got ranked one in less than 100 battles and a "player" who got ranked one in 2000 battles. They both get same rewards. So ranked 1 indicates no skill at all.

I don't see why that matters. So people want to wear their rank 1 with pride. It's inane quite frankly. And there is a difference between the two players for the exact same reason that there is a difference between someone who pays 100 euros and 2000 euros for the exact same product. Ineptitude is its own punishment in ranked, and it pulls the games of other players down just as often as it gives the same player unjust wins.

Quote

If we had more difficult ranking system. Like no irreversible rankes at all, bottom 3 players of winning team lose star as well... (2 examples which came to my mind)

That would be moronic. It would mean that players who, for example, stayed to defend a flank against an enemy attempted encirclement or deployed at an area that happens to have no enemy would be screwed over. In the long term, it promotes selfish and stupid plays that could end up sabotaging the team simply because players want to ensure that they don't end up last which just leads to more unnecessary losses for games that are already won. The whole point of ranked is to create a game mode where winning the match matters more than personal achievement. This sabotages the very concept of ranked.

Quote

we would have only smilar skilled people in same ranked level.

Which how many people care about exactly? If all people wanted was to fight other people of more or less the same skills, then they would just go play in training rooms. People play ranked for the rewards, and having players of similar skills is directly detrimental to that. I would, for one, like nothing more than an enemy team of nothing more that players who can literally not tell the difference between their bows and their sterns.

Quote

And being ranked 1 would indicate skill of the player because not everyone would be able to reach ranked 1 under somewhat harder conditions.

So ranked 1 would just be an epeen then. Quite frankly, if I could get a Black, Flint, and discount flags and radar modules without ranked then I would not touch ranked with a ten foot pole being held by someone else and I suspect I am not alone. You are just forcing your idea of what ranked should be on the rest of us and will end up making a lot of people miserable in the long term. I quite frankly have enough of a hard time talking my teammates out of suicide charges without the threat of them being dropped a rank if they don't perform well enough compared to not just their enemies but also their allies.

[Needy_Game]

i wish people read the Chat for once..

[Gojuadorai]

if this poll reveals something it is that 90% of the players not advancing  are not able to understand why....

[N00Boo7]

18 minutes ago, dasCKD said:

The whole point of ranked is to create a game mode where winning the match matters more than personal achievement

I think this is clan battle mode.

 

What ever rules will be, ppl will allways complain. To increase the skill of lower ranks maybe the rule should be something like first 3 of wining team gets a star, rest of wining team dont lose a star, losing team lose a star, LAST Place lose 2 stars- so ppl will think twice before suicide in beginning of the game. And u can put more irrevocable places if it sounds to hard.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

9 minutes ago, N00Boo7 said:

I think this is clan battle mode.

 

What ever rules will be, ppl will allways complain. To increase the skill of lower ranks maybe the rule should be something like first 3 of wining team gets a star, rest of wining team dont lose a star, losing team lose a star, LAST Place lose 2 stars- so ppl will think twice before suicide in beginning of the game. And u can put more irrevocable places if it sounds to hard.

CW/CB is not Ranked. They're miles a part. If you play the same in Ranked than in CW then it'll end in tears at least for a DD.

 

WG are better off stopping the top loser keeping a star as farming damage without team play has become a legitimate way to get to the top.

[ghostbuster_]

1 hour ago, dasCKD said:

I don't see why that matters. So people want to wear their rank 1 with pride. It's inane quite frankly. And there is a difference between the two players for the exact same reason that there is a difference between someone who pays 100 euros and 2000 euros for the exact same product. Ineptitude is its own punishment in ranked, and it pulls the games of other players down just as often as it gives the same player unjust wins.

Ofc it matters. It supposed to be a competetiv mod. If everyone can reach ranked one, where is the competition in it? 

Quote

That would be moronic. It would mean that players who, for example, stayed to defend a flank against an enemy attempted encirclement or deployed at an area that happens to have no enemy would be screwed over. In the long term, it promotes selfish and stupid plays that could end up sabotaging the team simply because players want to ensure that they don't end up last which just leads to more unnecessary losses for games that are already won. The whole point of ranked is to create a game mode where winning the match matters more than personal achievement. This sabotages the very concept of ranked.

Well if you manage to do a good job at defending, you will get rewarded. Besides it can be arranged in another way. Conditions to lose a star might be different. Those are the first ideas which came to my mind. You can also limit the battle numbers for each ranked level. For example: if you cant reach premier league in 100 battles, you are out of the ranked. You can not play ranked anymore in that season.

Quote

Which how many people care about exactly? If all people wanted was to fight other people of more or less the same skills, then they would just go play in training rooms. People play ranked for the rewards, and having players of similar skills is directly detrimental to that. I would, for one, like nothing more than an enemy team of nothing more that players who can literally not tell the difference between their bows and their sterns.

Well a lot of people care about this im sure. I do care as well. If we had players with similar skill level, playing ranked wouldnt be a source of frustration. It would actually be fun.

Quote

So ranked 1 would just be an epeen then. Quite frankly, if I could get a Black, Flint, and discount flags and radar modules without ranked then I would not touch ranked with a ten foot pole being held by someone else and I suspect I am not alone. You are just forcing your idea of what ranked should be on the rest of us and will end up making a lot of people miserable in the long term. I quite frankly have enough of a hard time talking my teammates out of suicide charges without the threat of them being dropped a rank if they don't perform well enough compared to not just their enemies but also their allies.

Reward and prestige. A competetiv mod should be played because of these two...

[anonym_j17GKWzHKZAZ]

On 10/05/2018 at 2:27 PM, principat121 said:

next biased poll

 

if you are frustrated, please restrain yourself from opening useless polls

thanks

Why? Does it offend your sensibilities because he tells the truth from his player experience & most others agree..... My how it must be perfect in your planet.....

[RUSSIANBlAS]

29 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

 

Reward and prestige. A competetiv mod should be played because of these two...

The rewards for people who haven't got R1 multiple times are pathetic.

 

5 of those Elite flags and one Special module for R4 to R2. 5 flags... Might as well go AFK on PT, you'll be less stressed and get reasonable rewards. So don't play for the ranked rewards 

[OddyB]

A simple and fairer approach to ranked would be as follows:

 

Win - earn =>1000xp (an example) and you get the star

Win - earn < 1000xp you do not earn a star, but you do not loose a star. 

(base XP)

Loose - earn =>1000xp you save your star

Loose earn < 1000xp loose your star

 

If you get to a certain rank and are not loosing stars but also not gaining stars, then you have found what Rank and skill level you are 

 

I personally have a realistic outlook on ranked, knowing my "skill" level. I would be quite content in remaining around R13-14. Although I would try to find out why i was not progressing and try to improve. Ranked is about have we perform as individuals not only in Wins but in Defeats as well. Learn to accept defeat in a respectable manner makes the victories even more rewarding. There is only so much an individual can do solo! Throwing insults and blame is not the way forward for an individuals.

 

Take care and fair seas....

[BeauNidl3]

I've not progressed (not played Ranked at all in fact) since hitting 10. May well push on when I can be bothered to put up with the lousy teamplay.

I could really use another Radar mod so I'm semi motivated to get to R3.

[RC_8015]

We saw quite often the point of "You can lose your way up to the rank you want"; or better "Your rank is no indicator for real skill as you can reach rank 1 in 100 good fights or tryhard in about 2000 battles and then finaly reach rank 1 with some luck "

 

Let's compare again. Yes, I like that, as comparing games of similar kind is a good way to view how others treat this! Example: League of Legends.

Same concept as we have here, just without the "unremoveable ranks". But if you just play seriously, and tryhard, everyone can make their way up to at least gold. Bronze are the ones who troll and see no reason to stop or have 0 plans about simple stuff as meta-builds and basic tactics, and silver is for the ones who dont take it that seriously or simply have no time/fun for/in ranked. But above that, we have Diamond, Platinum,Master and Challenger. So still a few more ranks above that, for which you need to understand deep mechanics and combos, you need to be able to do multiple things at the same time (watch map, allies, enemies, buff timers, items blablabla)

 

The unremovable ranks are some kind of failsave, and enable that you can lose your way up to rank 15. From there up, you need only ~50% wr and you still advance and climb the ranks, you just have to be team best once in a while. So in my little humble opinion you can lose your way to at least rank 10. Sure, I am rank 10 aswell, but thats also due to ship limit^^ Also thats not part of the point I am trying to make. After this, you need to keep your average 50% wr with a few teams top xp earner to keep climbing. So to be honest, after rank 10 you need a bit of skill to keep advancing, but still tryharding is a substitute for skill, just slows your progress but works aswell.

 

Compared to the industry, we have a pretty normal ranked system with a few flaws therefore. But a solution, that is the problem. Pointing out flaws is easy, bringing up a real working system is hard.

Maybe (sticking to lol a bit) introduce placement matches for some ranks. So to get from rank 11 to 10, you first collect your 3 stars and then you enter placement for rank 10. This means, you have to WIN the next 3 out of 5 matches. Lose with top XP still counts as lose; maybe only matches with an AFK dont count. If you'd have such placements all 5-7 ranks, it would force you to win more than just an average of 50%, as you even have to do the placement again if you drop below this placement-rank again. Which also then would mean: remove unremoveable ranks. If you are bad, or trolling, afking, what ever, and lsoe match after match, then you should dropp in rank, no matter what. I guess we all have seen players sitting in rank 15 or other unremovable ones which just have given up, who start trolling, team attacking, afking when the game is lost in their opionion already. They can do that, because they have nothing left to lose. Someone who cant lose doesnt care, as nothing bad will happen to them. So let the fear of dropping in rank persist and stay on all ranks. Even rank 1 should not be safe. Sure, they get more maximum stars in rank 1, so that 1 lose doesnt mean they drop on rank 2, but still, take everyone their safe spots.

And, to make sure you dont just quit ranked after getting rank 1, you lose one rank after not playing any ranked for lets say 7 days. Only exeption are players who dont log into the game at all, in case you can't play for any reason.

 

This may not be the perfect system, but that way your rank would at least be more proof of skill. It would increase the average win rate needed to climb in rank, and therefore the amount of skill to reach a high rank. You still can replace that with even more tryharding, but tryharding reaches a cap at one point in this system, and even 10000 battles cant let you climb higher if you just lack the skill and knowledge.

 

 

This are just my two cents, take them, leave them, ignore them, look at them and say they are nice, or dirty and ugly, that's just what I thought of right now. And maybe someone gets inspired by it and has a bright idea now. Or not. Dont know...

[ghostbuster_]

1 hour ago, Negativvv said:

The rewards for people who haven't got R1 multiple times are pathetic.

 

5 of those Elite flags and one Special module for R4 to R2. 5 flags... Might as well go AFK on PT, you'll be less stressed and get reasonable rewards. So don't play for the ranked rewards 

I play for 2500 doubloon reward and radar mod. I dont care about black or flint. 

[Gojuadorai]

26 minutes ago, ghostbuster_ said:

I play for 2500 doubloon reward and radar mod. I dont care about black or flint. 

 

well if i wanted the 2500 dubloons id rather suck c*** in a trainstation toilet to get the money buying those than to play ranked for it......

[ghostbuster_]

47 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

 

well if i wanted the 2500 dubloons id rather suck c*** in a trainstation toilet to get the money buying those than to play ranked for it......

Well, then i wish you best of luck with that...

[EgyptOverseer]

Only 6 players in the poll without T10s?

[RUSSIANBlAS]

1 hour ago, ghostbuster_ said:

I play for 2500 doubloon reward and radar mod. I dont care about black or flint. 

You know 2.5k gold is about 10 Euros or £8.50p?

 

That's for easily 150+ battles if not double that...

[loppantorkel]

8 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

You know 2.5k gold is about 10 Euros or £8.50p?

 

That's for easily 150+ battles if not double that...

...and that's like how many minutes at the trainstation toilette?

[dCK_Ad_Hominem]

6 minutes ago, loppantorkel said:

...and that's like how many minutes at the trainstation toilette?

Depending on country and stamina of the client between 2 and 50 I suppose.