Ranked Battles Season 9 - Discussion Thread

[loppantorkel]

The biggest issue is that 95% of the players want to reach rank 1 quicker than they do and think they deserve to do so, while believing 80% of the players have reached higher ranks than they deserve. WG can't balance the game based on these numbers...

[SDGsteve]

How About not making it not for stars but points as bellow example only (this would have to be worked out)

 

Just showing example of what it could look like

 

Game Winners	Points
1st	10
2nd	9
3rd	8
4th	7
5th	2
6th	2
7th	2
AFK	0

 

 

Game Losers	Points
1st	5
2nd	4
3rd	3
4th	0
5th	0
6th	0
7th	0
AFK	0

 

Rank Level	Points	Comments
1	1000
2	800
3	750
4	700
5	650	Irrevocable
6	600
7	550
8	500
9	450
10	400	Irrevocable
11	300
12	250
13	200
14	150
15	100	Irrevocable

[Lootboxer]

4 godziny temu, SDGsteve napisał:

How About not making it not for stars but points as bellow example only (this would have to be worked out)

 

Just showing example of what it could look like

 

Game Winners	Points
1st	10
2nd	9
3rd	8
4th	7
5th	2
6th	2
7th	2
AFK	0

 

 

Game Losers	Points
1st	5
2nd	4
3rd	3
4th	0
5th	0
6th	0
7th	0
AFK	0

 

Rank Level	Points	Comments
1	1000
2	800
3	750
4	700
5	650	Irrevocable
6	600
7	550
8	500
9	450
10	400	Irrevocable
11	300
12	250
13	200
14	150
15	100	Irrevocable

What for irrevocable ranks if with this system one cannot lose already gained points?  Game losers 5th 6th 7th should lose points, afk as well, maybe worst one on winning team too.

 

[robihr]

6 hours ago, SDGsteve said:

How About not making it not for stars but points as bellow example only (this would have to be worked out)

 

Just showing example of what it could look like

 

Game Winners	Points
1st	10
2nd	9
3rd	8
4th	7
5th	2
6th	2
7th	2
AFK	0

 

 

Game Losers	Points
1st	5
2nd	4
3rd	3
4th	0
5th	0
6th	0
7th	0
AFK	0

 

Rank Level	Points	Comments
1	1000
2	800
3	750
4	700
5	650	Irrevocable
6	600
7	550
8	500
9	450
10	400	Irrevocable
11	300
12	250
13	200
14	150
15	100	Irrevocable

 

this deserves a potato award

 

@Boris_MNE can you kindly give it to the man

 

[Boris_MNE]

7 hours ago, SDGsteve said:

How About not making it not for stars but points as bellow example only (this would have to be worked out)

 

Just showing example of what it could look like

 

Game Winners	Points
1st	10
2nd	9
3rd	8
4th	7
5th	2
6th	2
7th	2
AFK	0

 

 

Game Losers	Points
1st	5
2nd	4
3rd	3
4th	0
5th	0
6th	0
7th	0
AFK	0

 

Rank Level	Points	Comments
1	1000
2	800
3	750
4	700
5	650	Irrevocable
6	600
7	550
8	500
9	450
10	400	Irrevocable
11	300
12	250
13	200
14	150
15	100	Irrevocable

 

 

 

If you don't explain me: Why Irrevocable ranks exist  if you dont lose points at all (and according to your system I dont see that anyone is losing point), I am going to stick you one cute, round, red, potato seal.

Cheers

 

[Wilkinson87]

This methood is good but need to be something like the first 3 place gaines points like 1.st 6 points, 2nd 3 points, 3rd 1 point.below players like 4th lose 1 point, 5th lose 3 points, 6th lose 6 points, 7th lose 10 points.this seem to be optimal, and no irrevocable ranks.

 

Let me explain a bit more, and be a bit more fair.What I wrote earlier is for the team who lost, the team who win, need to bew a bit different like the first gets 10 points, second get 6 points, 3rd get 3 points, 4th gets 1 points, 5th gets 1 points, 6th gets 1 point, and 7th 0.Technicly the winner team wont lose, the 7th player gets 0.This system realy mirrors of the players performance, and would be rly about ranked game!!!Not about team work, cuz at the moment Ranked is about team work.So with this point system good players can climb up rly quickly, bad players stay at a lvl with no irrevocable ranks.I think this might work.

[Ouzo11]

Winning team: 4 first should get 1% of their base xp in points.
The rest get 0 or 0.2%.

Losing team:3 first dont loose points. The rest loose (base xp of the 2nd player in the winning team) x 20% points and also loose 20 random flags.
Remove rewards for reaching each rank and remove irrevocable ranks and lets see how many people wanna really play ranked seriusly.
You dont need to reward milestones that can be accomplished by just having enough time and or enough persistence, but you need to punish bad play.
 

[loppantorkel]

I think people are too scared of bad-mediocre players climbing the ranks. What if aside from the ranks, there was some extra bonus to a number of those who performed the best, reached rank 1 with the lowest amount of battles, highest WR, did it in crappiest/the lowest WR ship, etc. Special flags for completing rank 10-1 in under 100 battles/150 battles/etc. Some extra achievements that shouldn't take away from those who are happy to reach rank 1 no matter what.

 

I'm not sure players would appreciate it though.. it might add to the frustration of not achieving these goals....

[SDGsteve]

On ‎08‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 11:14 PM, robihr said:

 

this deserves a potato award

 

@Boris_MNE can you kindly give it to the man

 

 very constructive comments

  

[Ysterpyp]

Ez solution is limit players to 350-400 battles, if they dont rank out by then they are just bringing the team down most of the time. if they want more battles they have to pull out the wallet

[mrk421]

reserved

Spoiler

actual post to be added at a later time

 

[Kenliero]

On 6/8/2018 at 4:05 PM, loppantorkel said:

You'd get a lot less people playing ranked if you took away irrevocable altogether. I don't think that's a good option. Irrevocables aren't the issue, imo.

I disagree. Irrevocable ranks are the main reason I don't find motivation to play ranked all the way to 1. Trying to get past that cluster of bad players would be just too frustrating. That said this season I didn't even have time to reach 10. Played only in 1 day, before travelling to Asia.

 

So, at least in my case... having irrevocable ranks, decreases players...

 

EDIT: I mean. it might feel more comfortable for bad players to play with better skilled players in irrevocable rank, but for better skilled players it is more frustrating, which balances it out... Also, I don't believe that bad players always enjoy playing with better players, specially if they are in opposite teams and slaughter them and ruin their chances to any progress... It would be much better for everyone to play in their own level....

[loppantorkel]

8 hours ago, Kenliero said:

It would be much better for everyone to play in their own level....

It would be better for everyone if all recognized their own level....

[Xinyue]

I really enjoy the T10 rank.

 

Before this rank season, I have never got any rank 1 because T8 ships are just not strong enough to carry or to prevent losing a star. It was so very frustrating to lose stars when you are at rank 5 or above. Getting rank 1 does not depend on your skills but on your patience. I just can't bear it.

 

T10 ships are completely different. When the team needs you, you can always do something to help. And it was way easier to prevent losing a star in T10 ships. What you need to do is just focus and do your best, then you will either win or lose while reserving your star. The process of getting rank1 with T10 ship is just more enjoyable. If you have the skill, then you don't need to suffer (a lot). 

 

It took me 95 games to get rank1 with T10 ships. I have no id how many games I have to play to get that rank1 if I have to use T8 ships.

[Daisai]

The matchmaking is absolute crap, being matched vs teams from a higher league makes absolutely no sence.

What is the point of even having different leagues if you just end up being matched against higher league teams ?

 

How is it possible that there are plenty of developers able to create a proper ranking system and Wargaming is not able to do the same?

 

[Aragathor]

1 hour ago, Daisai said:

The matchmaking is absolute crap, being matched vs teams from a higher league makes absolutely no sence.

What is the point of even having different leagues if you just end up being matched against higher league teams ?

 

How is it possible that there are plenty of developers able to create a proper ranking system and Wargaming is not able to do the same?

 

Clan battles aren't Ranked battles mate. So wrong topic. I really would love for someone to clean up topics about ranked/clan battles after the season ends...

But to reply to your concern, this is the second day of the new season. So matches will be jumbled together, with clans that will reach Hurricane fighting clans that will stay in Gale and Storm. Best tip is to wait two weeks for the sweaty competitive clans to rank up and leave the lower leagues.

[Daisai]

And if they would have made a discussion topic in this same sub forum for feedback on the current season of clan battles i would have posted it there.

 

The situation you are describing has nothing to do with the matchmaking, in your situation it would be a clan that in season 2 might have reached the highest league and starts over and faces a clan that never got passed squal in season 2.

This example is not a problem of a matchmaking system.

 

I am talking however about a squal league clan facing a gale league clan, this is simply a problem with the matchmaking and makes having different leagues completely useless.

It also shows another example of incompetence by the developers of this game, where other developers from other games with ranking systems and balancing their matchmaking around it.

 

[Yxkraft]

 

The problem with the top player on the losing team saving his star is that it promotes negative teamplay. It would be better that the top player on the winning team gets two stars, the rest of his team one and the losers all lose one star.  The current system rewards selfish people who play to keep their star, not people who play to win the game for the team. This leads to a poor metagame based around damage farming with zero interest given to team oriented gameplay.  

 

Irrevocable ranks are another bad idea that should go - people who are carried by random chance to a certain rank only distort gameplay for the interval covered by that rank. The gameplay in rank 10-6 was very different from rank 5-2 because of all the people who were stuck at rank 10 with no stars and unable to climb but protected from dropping out. It is always like that when there is an irrevocable rank in in the rank intervall you play in. 

 

 

 

[Excavatus]

9 hours ago, Yxkraft said:

 

The problem with the top player on the losing team saving his star is that it promotes negative teamplay. It would be better that the top player on the winning team gets two stars, the rest of his team one and the losers all lose one star.  The current system rewards selfish people who play to keep their star, not people who play to win the game for the team. This leads to a poor metagame based around damage farming with zero interest given to team oriented gameplay.  

 

Irrevocable ranks are another bad idea that should go - people who are carried by random chance to a certain rank only distort gameplay for the interval covered by that rank. The gameplay in rank 10-6 was very different from rank 5-2 because of all the people who were stuck at rank 10 with no stars and unable to climb but protected from dropping out. It is always like that when there is an irrevocable rank in in the rank intervall you play in.