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

Ranked battles rework - Stars retirement

68 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[IDDQD]
Players
178 posts
7,658 battles

looking at the queues past R5, i assume many ppl (even good players) don't play ranked for some reason - for plenty its the toxicity and the progression system that sets you back two steps after making one forward.

 

New ranked model:

- 400k-500k base EXP to reach R1 (with milestone ranks after 15k/35k/50k  EXP etc)

- 4-5 weeks duration

- Wins will provide 50%/100% base exp bonus

- you need to earn at least 400 base EXP for it to count for progression (optional, but its anti-abuse & anti-spam system)

- no longer locked to single tier (T9+T10, T5+T6, T6+T7 etc). Picking up lower tier ship will provide EXP bonus just as in randoms. Higher risk, higher reward model + some ship diversity would not hurt in ranked.

 

Good players will win more and earn more EXP = rank out faster

Average players lot slower

bad players may not rank out in time at all.

 

chain of bad luck with 10 losses? sucks, but at least week long progression is not lost

Can't play next weekend due to IRL stuff but already at 300k after 2 weeks? u can push it after if you plan the game time right

 

YES IT IS A GRIND. It always was and always will be. But grinding like crazy just to be punished by RNG and keep sitting on the same spot after 100 more games is retarded. Grinding means SLOW progression, not going backwards just cuz your teammates or you sometimes fail hard.

 

###

Numbers are subject to tuning to make it challenging, maybe impossible for some as intended.

Core aim is to make progression slower or faster based on player skill and try to deal with frustration and hate in ranked caused by loosing streaks.

Its similar to Clan battle - you win and you progress the mission. You loose, you won't. Time limit guarantees that you can't fail your way to top league.

 

open to suggestions

  • Cool 18
  • Bad 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
81 posts
963 battles

Excellent idea.

Cannot agree more..

The fundmental flow with ranked we have now that system is about to measure single players performance basing on team performance.

There is no logic in it.

XP based system will remove toxic "star farming" and rage on "wrong teammates"

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,833 posts
6,919 battles
53 minutes ago, RAYvenMP said:

looking at the queues past R5, i assume many ppl (even good players) don't play ranked for some reason

Seeing how you have made this post at approximately 4 AM CET... Do you really expect those queues to be populated so late in the night? Especially a mid-week one, not a "leading into holidays" one?

 

Play during the day, you'll suddenly see queues filled

 

55 minutes ago, RAYvenMP said:

New ranked model:

- 400k-500k base EXP to reach R1 (with milestone ranks after 15k/35k/50k  EXP etc)

57 minutes ago, RAYvenMP said:

- you need to earn at least 400 base EXP for it to count for progression (optional, but its anti-abuse & anti-spam system)

So even more of a "just spam something" than current system? Including removal of "you should win" completely

 

Yeah, no

 

57 minutes ago, RAYvenMP said:

- Wins will provide 50%/100% base exp bonus

Wins already provide 50% more BaseXP

 

58 minutes ago, RAYvenMP said:

Good players will win more and earn more EXP = rank out faster

Average players lot slower

bad players may not rank out in time at all.

Going by WoWS Numbers in the current season "top" player is at 591 battles with what looks like around 1121 average XP, 47.72% WR

 

With your version of 500k XP, keeping the same number of games, he'd need to average 846 xp per battle

 

I'm pretty sure 1121 > 846, so he would have long since outranked instead of being R6.

 

So no, bad players will still outrank by being patient enough. Meanwhile for good ones this would be significantly more annoying as the goal is put further away.

Even if you average 1.6k XP per battle 500k would be 313 battles. Most R1s currently seem to revolve around 100...150, often going as low as 60...70

 

All this does is make the season more annoying for good players, and far easier for bad ones

 


 

TL;DR - no, this is a terrible idea at every single point of it

 

49 minutes ago, Myszauke said:

XP based system will remove toxic "star farming" and rage on "wrong teammates"

Or you could unify teams rewards just like it's in CB, and get rid of the "save a star". Put an actual emphasis on "get a win"

  • Cool 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
153 posts
8,719 battles

I agree there should be limit. I am bad and can rank out in 200 battles.

So limit at 150 battles would be perfect.

I agree that star system needs rework, but that was said many times.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
163 posts
2,037 battles
Vor 4 Stunden, wilkatis_LV sagte:

Or you could unify teams rewards just like it's in CB, and get rid of the "save a star". Put an actual emphasis on "get a win"

 

Oh great, you mean then I can't even save the star when MM puts a bunch of 600 WTR clowns on my team?

 

Or can I choose my teammates just like in clan battles?

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,833 posts
6,919 battles
1 minute ago, Besserwisser3000 said:

Oh great, you mean then I can't even save the star when MM puts a bunch of 600 WTR clowns on my team?

 

Or can I choose my teammates just like in clan battles?

You win as a team or lose as a team

 

Removing the most popular playstyle - "save a star > winning" - will go a long way towards fixing a lot of issues ranked has

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IDDQD]
Players
178 posts
7,658 battles
4 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

Seeing how you have made this post at approximately 4 AM CET... Do you really expect those queues to be populated so late in the night? Especially a mid-week one, not a "leading into holidays" one?

 

Play during the day, you'll suddenly see queues filled

 

So even more of a "just spam something" than current system? Including removal of "you should win" completely

 

Yeah, no

 

Wins already provide 50% more BaseXP

 

Going by WoWS Numbers in the current season "top" player is at 591 battles with what looks like around 1121 average XP, 47.72% WR

 

With your version of 500k XP, keeping the same number of games, he'd need to average 846 xp per battle

 

I'm pretty sure 1121 > 846, so he would have long since outranked instead of being R6.

 

So no, bad players will still outrank by being patient enough. Meanwhile for good ones this would be significantly more annoying as the goal is put further away.

Even if you average 1.6k XP per battle 500k would be 313 battles. Most R1s currently seem to revolve around 100...150, often going as low as 60...70

 

All this does is make the season more annoying for good players, and far easier for bad ones

 


 

TL;DR - no, this is a terrible idea at every single point of it

 

Or you could unify teams rewards just like it's in CB, and get rid of the "save a star". Put an actual emphasis on "get a win"

there are fundamental flaws in pretty much all your statements.

- first, a guy who "generated" 600 ranked games over 10 days (playing 20hrs/day?)  is far from average player capabilities and i am pretty sure his behavior in battles is abusive at best 

- he is definitely not averaging 1121 base EXP per battle. Game statistics don't track it and neither the API (caused by premium account modifiers etc)

- "play during the day" well, thanks for advice.

- yes wins do provide 50% extra base EXP now - hence why i wrote 50%/100% to imply it can be increased to make it less grindy or to value wins more

- bad players will rank out if they are dedicated enough. That's the fact in current system also. Question is, how many games do they have to ruin to achieve so, 800?1000? example you gave shows us he can go up to 2000. Nothing will stop him, he will beat RNG by brute force. New system would make his 200exp yolo rushes irrelevant, so he either starts playing normally or not progress at all.

- 500k base EXP may seem like a lot (did i mention its subject to tuning based on Tier/season duration etc). Good players can rank out in ~100 games, but mainly because they already start at rank ~8 effectively skipping half of the grind. I am not aware of anyone ranking out in 60 games starting from rank 18.

- wins are not good measure of skill if the sample is too low (like 200) and at the same time the game encourages players to NOT play for the win, because it is riskier. For many, saving the star is absolute priority.

- base EXP will be always pure measure of game performance as it allows to play ships to their full potential even in unfavorable game mode - aka Ibuki farming damage is detrimental in radar meta, but ppl chose it for selfish reasons

 

whole point is not to make it longer or shorted - that is something WG can tune up.

point is to encourage to always play to win, nothing else matters. But when you loose u wont feel like killing a puppy

Ranked will open up to more choices (cross tier ranked) and lower amount of toxicity, largely caused by frustration.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester, In AlfaTesters
434 posts
7,951 battles

I ranked out in 109 games. I played Lion because during the first few days of ranked it had the lowest winrate and the idea of playing Musashi or Kron or Missouri was pretty boring. I thought it might be a challenge.

 

I saw very little toxicity, infact I think I had more friendly encounters than negative. But I never had the mentality of trying to work out if someone was playing just to save a star, it always seemed to me that if a game was winnable people were playing to win. Because regardless, you can't rank up by star saving, you just stay where you are.

 

The progression style does not bother me, seems anyone can rank out in the end, the star system is a measure of winrate, I regularly found that as long as my own contribution to a game was enough that the rest of the team would usually turn that into a win.

 

Your idea sounds like a complete downgrade in my opinion. I would rather ranked was not demoted to yet enough number grind of needing hundreds of thousands of something that you can slowly but inevitably achieve regardless of anything. By your logic may as well just make ranked a campaign of 20 missions to earn 25k base exp each and call each mission a rank. The star system as a measure of winrate works fine to me. The system is already like a safer version of CBs, it's like a continuous promo series that never ends. Instead of making ranked shorter perhaps they should make ranked longer and introduce actual league advancement and promotion series. But instead WG chose to pack ranked out with valuable currency for exclusive ships and had to make it into an accessible grind for everyone with mechanics like star saving and irrevocable ranks so that everyone can already get to rank 1 if they just try hard enough as long as they can attain any sort of >50% winrate.

 

Another issue with your concept is that the speed you rank up is still based upon winning but when people can grind out progress then the people who are good players with limited time will often be surrounded by worse players who have had enough time to grind up to their rank. It removes most of the skill component from the mode in exchange for whoever has the most time and overall quality through the ranks will be lowered because higher ranks that were typically gated behind win/skill requires of needing consecutive stars is replaced by grind X exp.

 

I'd prefer if they took steel out of ranked, partly or completely, distributing it out as a reward for something else alongside CBs, and made ranked more about winning because as it is atm people don't play it to reach a high rank, they play it for the rewards. It doesn't really deserve to be called ranked, theres nothing competitive about it, it's just another grind.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,833 posts
6,919 battles
1 hour ago, RAYvenMP said:

there are fundamental flaws in pretty much all your statements. 

There is a fundamental problem with your idea - it would never work

 

You either make it more frustrating and significantly longer for good players, or make it so easy that literally everyone can get R1 without playing even half the days of the season

 

 

Oh, and another thing about XP - diminishing returns. The more you do, the less extra you receive for it.

Effectively any XP based ranked system would punish those performing well vs those just spamming games for their 400...500 XP result.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,392 posts
10,416 battles
Vor 8 Stunden, RAYvenMP sagte:

looking at the queues past R5, i assume many ppl (even good players) don't play ranked for some reason - for plenty its the toxicity and the progression system that sets you back two steps after making one forward.

To be honest, I have much less of a problem with that AND with the Arms race mode than with all of this taking place on Tier IX, specifically because of existence of Black and Kitakaze.

 

If you really want a Ranked competition where it's absolutely, definitely, 100% the rider and not the ride, you must exclude severely OP ships from participation, especially ones that not anybody can simply go and acquire themselves.

 

Otherwise it will always remain a farce.

 

The closest recent approximation of that was Ranked Sprint on Tier VI, even though they allowed carriers.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
163 posts
2,037 battles
Vor 3 Stunden, wilkatis_LV sagte:

You win as a team or lose as a team

 

Removing the most popular playstyle - "save a star > winning" - will go a long way towards fixing a lot of issues ranked has

 

Oh, you mean like the matches where one DD gets killed with 200 xp and the other one decides to drive around the map border? Just to get killed in a 1on1 later on? Great team, really.

Your suggestion sounds really smart, but no thanks. I don`t save stars due to playing for it. I save them because I am often the only human being on my team.

This is at least true above rank 10, it`s a [edited]joke.

 

4 games today, 3 losses, 2 stars saved. Progress = zero. Who in his right mind would endure this crap without being able to save a star.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NATOA]
Beta Tester
27 posts
3,331 battles
51 minutes ago, Nautical_Metaphor said:

To be honest, I have much less of a problem with that AND with the Arms race mode than with all of this taking place on Tier IX, specifically because of existence of Black and Kitakaze.

 

If you really want a Ranked competition where it's absolutely, definitely, 100% the rider and not the ride, you must exclude severely OP ships from participation, especially ones that not anybody can simply go and acquire themselves.

 

Otherwise it will always remain a farce.

 

The closest recent approximation of that was Ranked Sprint on Tier VI, even though they allowed carriers.

 This got me thinking.
IF WG were to select say 8 (any number but just as an example) of ships of whatever tier they decide that season of Ranked to be as the only ships available for that mode 
Essentially a bit like the original Halloween scenario only had the IGOR, BLADE and JACKAL
A set of ships exclusively for Ranked battles.(Even if they are just carbon copies of the tech tree ships or premiums it means everyone has access to them and is thus on an even playing field)
Adds the option of WG Rotating the selection every X week/s like the clan battles rentals as well should variety be desired.

 

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
512 posts
9,662 battles
1 hour ago, Nautical_Metaphor said:

To be honest, I have much less of a problem with that AND with the Arms race mode than with all of this taking place on Tier IX, specifically because of existence of Black and Kitakaze.

 

If you really want a Ranked competition where it's absolutely, definitely, 100% the rider and not the ride, you must exclude severely OP ships from participation, especially ones that not anybody can simply go and acquire themselves.

 

Otherwise it will always remain a farce.

 

The closest recent approximation of that was Ranked Sprint on Tier VI, even though they allowed carriers.

No thanks, i earned my Black through 5 rank 1's and wish to play it where I can, or what was the point?  If you think its so OP, you can get it far easier now with steel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,392 posts
10,416 battles
Vor 12 Minuten, BuccaneerBill sagte:

No thanks, i earned my Black through 5 rank 1's and wish to play it where I can, or what was the point?  If you think its so OP, you can get it far easier now with steel.

Thank you for illustrating my point.

 

Also note if you couldn't play it in ranked, that obviously - your own words - wouldn't seem to bother you. So I don't see what the fuss is about.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,392 posts
10,416 battles
Vor 1 Stunde, DisorderZ55 sagte:

Essentially a bit like the original Halloween scenario only had the IGOR, BLADE and JACKAL
A set of ships exclusively for Ranked battles.(Even if they are just carbon copies of the tech tree ships or premiums it means everyone has access to them and is thus on an even playing field)

Or remember Space Battles.

Without the fancy skins, it was essentially a small selection of Tier X rental ships where you couldn't install upgrades, couldn't use camos (and not even signals iirc) and everybody even got the same number of commander skill points.

It all depends on what you want. If you want it to be about playing skills, this is the kind of format you need.

 

I'm not even sure what the current Ranked format is supposed to be about.

 

(Which doesn't mean I can't be grateful there are no carriers there.)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NATOA]
Beta Tester
27 posts
3,331 battles
1 minute ago, Nautical_Metaphor said:

Or remember Space Battles.

Without the fancy skins, it was essentially a small selection of Tier X rental ships where you couldn't install upgrades, couldn't use camos (and not even signals iirc) and everybody even got the same number of commander skill points.

It all depends on what you want. If you want it to be about playing skills, this is the kind of format you need.

 

I'm not even sure what the current Ranked format is supposed to be about.

 

(Which doesn't mean I can't be grateful there are no carriers there.)

I think this hits the nail on the head though. What is the Ranked season supposed to be about?
IF its meant to be on player skill, then having them need to be dependant on X other players whom they have no control over sort of prevents that.
IF its meant to be team based then Clan battles already fits that slot.

Whilst I enjoyed playing the sprints a bit. I feel they , like arms race mode are more to try and draw players in to try the mode out than any serious attempt at a competitive battle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,392 posts
10,416 battles
Vor 2 Minuten, DisorderZ55 sagte:

IF its meant to be on player skill, then having them need to be dependant on X other players whom they have no control over sort of prevents that.

Sort of true but that should be evened out statistically by stretching it over a whole tournament with lots of matches.

At least a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
1,290 posts
18,742 battles

thx no! only alternative, and a pretty good one imo, would be a system similar to cb's. so, "leagues" and promotional/relegation rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IDDQD]
Players
178 posts
7,658 battles
3 hours ago, wilkatis_LV said:

There is a fundamental problem with your idea - it would never work

 

You either make it more frustrating and significantly longer for good players, or make it so easy that literally everyone can get R1 without playing even half the days of the season

 

 

Oh, and another thing about XP - diminishing returns. The more you do, the less extra you receive for it.

Effectively any XP based ranked system would punish those performing well vs those just spamming games for their 400...500 XP result.

you are still looking at just one aspect - how much longer or shorter it will be. That's just the game of numbers, easy to tune to be comparable to the length to current model 

how about the fact that ppl who will put 3x more effort into battle will get also 3x more rewards, win or loss.

why you think its OK to carry some of the team mates who sometimes have 0 intention to contribute to win, just so in the end they get the SAME star as you do with 4 times more effort.

Or you loose because of them, and no matter how much better you did, you still get nothing out of it.

 

how many losses being #1 or #2 can one person endure to become volatile blob of nerves? Yolos deciding the game in first minute, and border campers playing the "save star" since the very start.

There is so many shitty and unrewarding mechanics in current ranked, yet all u see is "but it may make the grind for super unicums longer"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
512 posts
9,662 battles
2 hours ago, Nautical_Metaphor said:

Thank you for illustrating my point.

 

Also note if you couldn't play it in ranked, that obviously - your own words - wouldn't seem to bother you. So I don't see what the fuss is about.

 

If you played this game as well as you twist my words, you would also have the Black ;)

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
4,833 posts
6,919 battles
27 minutes ago, RAYvenMP said:

how about the fact that ppl who will put 3x more effort into battle will get also 3x more rewards, win or loss.

No they won't, because diminishing returns.

 

29 minutes ago, RAYvenMP said:

how many losses being #1 or #2 can one person endure to become volatile blob of nerves? Yolos deciding the game in first minute, and border campers playing the "save star" since the very start.

There is so many shitty and unrewarding mechanics in current ranked, yet all u see is "but it may make the grind for super unicums longer

As I said - remove the "save a star" feature. This eliminates that playstyle making everyone focus on a win. Just how it should be

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,392 posts
10,416 battles
Vor 1 Stunde, BuccaneerBill sagte:

 

If you played this game as well as you twist my words, you would also have the Black ;)

You couldn't play the Black in Space Battles. Why didn't you raise a fuss then?

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[KRAKN]
Players
45 posts
10,183 battles

current rank system is just fine.

if you want it altered better ask for a new mode .

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
1,351 posts
17,305 battles
52 minutes ago, wilkatis_LV said:

As I said - remove the "save a star" feature. This eliminates that playstyle making everyone focus on a win. Just how it should be

 

Sorry but no. Are you saying that people from the start just play to save a star? Well I have a different experience. I personally always play for victory.  You can't force people to play as you wish them to play. You can't expect that six random people with different skill play as good as clan team could play. Quite often they won't even understand what are you telling them.

 

Just removing the star wouldn't change a thing and just make them waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay longer and more suffering. Save star was introduced in first place because good players continually complained how they were punished just because MM give them bad team.

 

Ranked games needs rework, but just removing the "keep star" rule won't improve them but make them even more toxic and campy. If your team lose two or three ships why would you bother if you know that you will lose the star anywhy. Just suicide and start new one. Gameplay would only became worse not better.

 

Ranked in first place needs improved MM which will take into account both all ship strengths and skill. You can't have skill based competitive mode were your success depends on random MM were you can get team of noobs vs team of uniqums or team with 4 radar ships vs team with none. 

 

WG need to find better system. For example increase number of stars to 100 or 200 or whatever, give the first in win team 3 stars, second one 2 stars, all other 1 star, the best in losing team 1 star and all the others 0. give people reason to fight more or better not just to waste hour and hours just in hope that MM will give them competent team.

 

So I am for Ranked Battles rework but strongly against removing the "Keep the Star" rule in the current state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SM0KE]
Players
2,635 posts
6,481 battles

The fundamental 'problem' with Ranked is always going to be that you are heavily dependent on others for your results (a few god-tier unicums excepted, perhaps), whilst it is still possible to rank out by simply throwing enough time at the mode.

 

If I were thinking about tweaking Ranked, I might consider the following:

  • Remove saving a star for being First Loser, to encourage playing to win, rather than playing to save a star.
  • Increase the number of irrevocable ranks to maybe every other rank (bear with me here...); I don't know how typical I am, but I more or less give up on Ranked when I reach the point where there is a long stretch of non-irrevocable ranks (the frustration levels become simply too high for a poor-average player).
  • Reduce the rewards for simply going up the ranks (the previous point would make it easier), and extra (scaled) rewards for going up the ranks quickly.
  • Basically, getting to Rank 1 is no longer the key aim, but rather getting to Rank 1 *quickly* is what marks the better players out from the potatoes.

Ranked, in my view, should more heavily reward the better players (it's supposed to be competitive after all), but it should also try and avoid heavily discouraging the average (and worse) players, if only for reasons of queue length etc. As others have pointed out, reaching Rank 1 currently doesn't necessarily automatically mean you're good - you could just as easily be very persistent, and, with the sprints, we've already seen competition for how fast you can rank out.

 

I may be wrong, but the above might reduce one's vulnerability to a streak of bad luck with one's team-mates, but would still mean that a bad player would take ages to rank out (or not do so at all); persistent players would be rewarded, but the more 'epeen-worthy' stuff would only be available to the very good (or spectacularly lucky) who can rank out fast enough - requiring consistent above-par play.

 

The only bit requiring careful judgement would be defining how fast is fast enough for the better rewards...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×