Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
anonym_2hneAFaIyP4T

Not (quite) another 'Ranked Game mode' discussion

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
606 posts

I was going to post this in suggestions, but thought I'd get input first. Sorry if this is too similar to other threads/ideas etc that are around:cap_hmm:

 

So...

 

There are lot's of requests for same-tier (or +/-1) MM and stat-based MM.

 

How about making ranked battles a permanent game mode with the following changes:

 

- remove the 'save your star' mechanic

- remove irrevocable ranks

- allow all ranks to be played using T7, 8, 9 & 10

- keep team sizes as they are

- POSSIBLY disallow premiums (there are good and bad sides to this... discuss :cap_book:)

 

Something would need to be done to re-work the reward mechanics (Black after 5 R1 seasons for example wouldn't work as there would be no seasons). What else have I not understood/considered that would make this a bad idea? In theory, this should mean we get a game mode where players receive a skill-based and same-tier MM whilst not screwing over randoms and queue waiting times TOO much:Smile_hiding:.

 

caveat: I have not yet played ranked modes, this is more to resolve the 'MM issues' that people have, not a 'fix ranked' suggestion

 

Thanks

 

me

Edited by anonym_2hneAFaIyP4T
feedback
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,565 posts
10,242 battles

Do we have enough members to get all ranks filled? Que is already kinda long in the evening after midnight :P

About premiums, WG will never do it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,564 posts
6,009 battles

So, let me get this straight.

 

You never played ranked, as you yourself admit.

Have a grand total of 500+ games.

Think that premium ships are somehow "I win" buttons, even tho you have none.

 

Why dont come back when you have a clue?

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
606 posts
11 minutes ago, Juanx said:

You never played ranked, as you yourself admit.

Have a grand total of 500+ games.

Think that premium ships are somehow "I win" buttons, even tho you have none.

 

Yup, that's right.

 

Like i said, I wasn't trying to comment on ranked... this was an idea for the suggestion of fixing the complaints which people have about 'unfair' MM.

 

I nearly didn't put that in about prem ships - I personally don't care. I am well aware that most 'premium' ships are not 'I win' buttons. It was actually more to ensure there would be a reason for unicum players to play in Random sometimes!!!

 

Sorry if it is a bad idea - I just wanted comments from those who have more experience and all that :Smile_Default:. I am not blessed with money nor time - it has taken me 6 months with a total of 3 (gifted from WG) premium time days to get to where I am... I am trying :Smile-_tongue:

 

21 minutes ago, Boris_MNE said:

Do we have enough members to get all ranks filled? Que is already kinda long in the evening after midnight :P

Fair enough!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HOO]
Players
1,626 posts
3,169 battles

MM is getting better with the new class tier matching. WG say they have more changes planned.

 

I have only 1  issue with +/- 2 MM and that is in T5 and T8 where more times than not you find yourself bottom tier. I really wish WG would relax their mantra of MM must keep people in queue for the minimum time. I don't know about everybody else but I would be happy to wait a little longer for the MM to build matches if it meant there was a more even distribution of battle tier. +/-2 MM should mean exactly that not the +2 most of the time which players seem to notice or experience.

 

And how does banning Premiums from ranked ensure more Unicums play randoms?

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NIKE]
Beta Tester
3,232 posts
6,550 battles
7 minutes ago, Rusty_9 said:

 

Like i said, I wasn't trying to comment on ranked... this was an idea for the suggestion of fixing the complaints which people have about 'unfair' MM

The problem being in most cases the complaints about "unfair" MM, actually translate as "not on the winning team"

 

For example, have a quick search, see how many complaint threads there are about;

-Came top doing lots of damage, but lost

-Enemy had more radar/dd

-Enemy had more rank 1 players/top clans

-Being the bottom tier ship.

 

Now have a search and find a highly suspicious lack of threads regarding the other side;

-Performed mediocrely, won anyway

-Own team had more radar/dd

-Own team had better players/top clans

-Clubbing some lower tiers

 

The closest you get is when people complain their team won so fast they didnt get to do very much damage

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
946 posts
10,357 battles
49 minutes ago, Rusty_9 said:

- remove the 'save your star' mechanic

- remove irrevocable ranks

- allow all ranks to be played using T7, 8, 9 & 10

- keep team sizes as they are

- POSSIBLY disallow premiums (there are good and bad sides to this... discuss :cap_book:)

1. I am conflicted on the best loser mechanic, I certainly appreciate when I do well and am not penalised for a loss, but there are apparently players who wont even try to win and will just try to farm exp so they dont loose a star to what they believe is a guaranteed loss. This isn't something I have observed myself, or at least not noticed, so I would rather the mechanic stayed.

2. Irrevocable ranks are fine at certain milestones and the current irrevocable ranks are either at the tier changing milestones or at the early end of a bracket (to help you get a sense of progress), which I think are presently essential to get players in to ranked.

3. The tiers used in ranked change each season, see; https://na.wows-numbers.com/ranked/

4. I agree.

5. Premiums are always going to be a point of contention, but I personally would prefer they stayed as there are some I use at certain ranks in place of standard ships, such as Alabama, Tirpitz, Prinz Eugen instead of NoCar, Bismarck and Hipper and I see no benefit in removing them right now.

 

I do not have many complaints about ranked MM, but it certainly does suck when your team is at a clear disadvantage in terms of the actual ships, but I do not expect to see class specific mm.

 

Perhaps if ships, particularly destroyers, were grouped into roles/capabilities and mm used that there would be less disparity.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
606 posts

@Xevious_Red - that is often what I think when reading those threads... I just conveniently 'forgot' that bit when thinking about this :Smile_teethhappy:. That said, I have seen a number of players who seem (to me) to do pretty well and still advocate for a narrower MM spread. Apart from the queue times in ranked, would this not then solve it all (apart from the 'fix radar MM' rants)? People who want 'fair' tier MM play ranked (and probably have to accept that they lose not because of MM but because they suck) with long waits. People who like/dont mind the challenge play randoms.

 

18 minutes ago, Fat_Maniac said:

And how does banning Premiums from ranked ensure more Unicums play randoms?

a bit skewed logic probably, but unicums tend to be players who have the greatest interest in the game, and who want to be challenged to constantly improve. As regular R1 players, they are likely to meet more consistent high-performers and teams, enjoy the gameplay more... so play these 'ranked' battles by default. Forcing 'no premiums' mean those same people who likely to want to play the premiums they own because they ENJOY playing the ship (or the history behind it/whatever) do play randoms from time-to-time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
606 posts
12 minutes ago, Benser said:

*snip

1 & 2 - yeah, this was a bit of a challenge. However, I thought these should be changed because as a permanent game-mode, once you had failed your way up to R1, it would now no longer be the 'sole' home of the truly good players. I did wonder about having 'thresholds' so it would take a few consecutive 'bad' games to drop rank without making them truly irrevocable - everyone has bad days/matches!?

 

3) Ah, I knew they did but wasn't sure how varied it was. I guess the spread of available tiers doesn't matter too much - although you will be watering down the availability in queue the more tier options people have.

 

5 - OK, makes sense. I think this is about to get 'edited' out of my original suggestion - the reason for excluding them doesn't really outweigh the reasons for not (and as Boris said, WG wouldn't do this anyway).

 

31 minutes ago, Benser said:

Perhaps if ships, particularly destroyers, were grouped into roles/capabilities and mm used that there would be less disparity.

That is an idea - although some ships can be fairly swiss-army knife and have multiple 'leanings' based on modules/captain. If these are taken into consideration by MM,  you could even include cross-type comparisons so the AA-invested ships are more likely to be in CV games than their sister non-aa orientated? The hamsters might struggle though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,529 posts
11,480 battles
22 minutes ago, Benser said:

1. I am conflicted on the best loser mechanic, I certainly appreciate when I do well and am not penalised for a loss, but there are apparently players who wont even try to win and will just try to farm exp so they dont loose a star to what they believe is a guaranteed loss. This isn't something I have observed myself, or at least not noticed, so I would rather the mechanic stayed.

The real problem aren't people who just ignore everything and farm XP - I have observed people behaving like this but they're most definitely in minority. The problem is with pretty normal players who do want to win... but just won't take personal risks for the team and won't take up the tactic that promises no XP rewards. Well, why should they, it's stupid, after all - if you sacrifice yourself for victory and don't win, you also give up on your chances of getting that sweet top place!

It was actually pretty clear in the last Ranked - I didn't have nearly enough time to explore all the ranks but I at least got a peak into R2-5 bracket so I can say that it did work like this even there: when there are 3 caps, two guaranteed and 1 contested... have you seen how many DDs go for the "free cap" right away to score some capture points? Usually it would be enough for 1 DD to cap, the rest of the team rushing to positions where they need to be to help with the other one - but everyone seems to have that "I need XP" in the back of their head. For 95% of playrs it doesn't get so bad that they would in noticeably disregard the objectives but it's easy to see how this affects their decision making.

 

Instead... I still remember the first season I played, where on North there was that big cap that was impossible to actually capture because it stretched so far that a DD could safely sit behind that big island and block it. Every team needed a DD there. And every team - almost always - got a DD there. It was a boring job and spending half the battle there guaranteed bottom spot in XP - but people just did this, no complaints, because someone had to.

Imagine if we had a map like this right now:

1. People sitting there would be completely screwed out of their chance of getting top spot despite literally doing a thing necessary for the team to have a chance of victory.

2. The matches where nobody takes up the role of the "sacrifice" would probably be much more numerous than they were back then.

 

It wasn't really a good design, of course (a ship doing the right thing by spending half the match stationary and never firing guns isn't necessarily the sign of a well designed map) but it highlights the problem: there's no way for XP to directly represent the impact on the chances of victory. And this means that there will always, ALWAYS be actions that are more advantageous to the team and those better rewarded. And Ranked is a mode where you really shouldn't be encouraged to take the latter ones.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[POI--]
Players
6,079 posts
7,315 battles
1 hour ago, Rusty_9 said:

- POSSIBLY disallow premiums (there are good and bad sides to this... discuss :cap_book:)

This would imply premiums have broken performance characteristics. So, guess how likely it is to ever happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×