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

Are you happy with current Ranked System?

Are you Happy with current Ranked Mechanic?   

203 members have voted

  1. 1. Are you Happy with current Ranked Mechanic?

    • Yes
      30
    • No
      173
  2. 2. If you could choose the system that rewards players for their performance, what will you chose among the following?

    • XP Base only. The best 50% in base XP will get promoted, no matter if they are on winning or losing side.
      90
    • Base XP same for all players like in clan battles. The winning Team gets Promoted the losing team lose 1 star: no one save the star.
      63
    • Other System : please take a minute to propose your idea.
      20
    • I am happy with the current system.
      30
  3. 3. At which Tier Ranked should be played?

    • Tier X
      57
    • Tier IX
      20
    • Tier VIII
      70
    • Tier VII
      24
    • Tier VI
      17
    • Tier V
      3
    • Tier IV
      3
    • Tier III
      3
    • Tier II
      1
    • Tier I
      5
  4. 4. Should CV be allowed to play Ranked?

    • Yes
      79
    • No
      124
  5. 5. How many BB there should be in a team?

    • 1
      16
    • 2
      92
    • 3/4
      27
    • no limit
      68
  6. 6. How many players there should be in a team?

    • 6
      49
    • 7
      76
    • 8
      64
    • 9+
      14
  7. 7. Would you consider playing ranked in a single class format ? For example all teams will be formed by DD only or CA/CL only or BB only ?

    • Yes
      70
    • No
      133

106 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[-YR-]
Players
465 posts

Fellow Captains

Reading the Forum and the Post about current Ranked Season, as every time happens, there is a lot of frustration around. 

Now WoWs is 4 years Old. And many things that were adressed by players have been changed, and I think we can all recognize it takes time and effort to make things better,

So it puzzles me as WoWs never TRIED to improve the Ranked battles. Perhaps we the players should propose something instead of RANTING only:

For example a system more tailored to performance rewarding than to a pure lottery. 

As a matter of fact right now if a player stays AFK and his team win the match,  he gain the star. While the people in the other team will ALL lose their  star (except the best one). 

Is this really the way to reward players for their effort? I honestly don't like the current system. 

So please take a minute to answer the questions below and lets try to give our opinion on a topic that has become important to more and more players.

Perhaps we will help to make the game better. 

Thanks for your time and please lets keep the discussion in constructive terms.

:Smile_honoring: 

 

Edited by Alfa_Tau
  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-YR-]
Players
465 posts

Day 2 of the poll 

please keep voting.

Many thanks to all 

:Smile_honoring:

 

Edited by Alfa_Tau
correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W-C]
Beta Tester, Players, In AlfaTesters
2,548 posts
7,036 battles

Honestly, I just wish they'd add the ability to play as a 2 (or hell even 3) man division in ranked (and no, forget sprints), because I find playing alone a lot less fun than with friends.....oh the dreams

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,538 posts
245 battles

Ranked, doesn't feel like ranked in other games so it would be nice if it was changed to reflect this in general, but i guess to compensate maybe somewhat bigger rewards at other ranks, maybe.

Also i wouldn't mind having tier 6 or tier 8, but banning certain ships from ranked play and limiting BB's to 2 a side in general.

 

Plus for ranking up individual performance should be taken into consideration and whether you won or not. Guess the first 3 or top 2 players on the losing team rank up while the rest either rank down or stay where they depending on their position on the board.

 

Also limit to 6 players per side maybe even 5 per side. Also no CV's as well and i guess subs whenever they come out.

For the actual ranks it would be nice if they used maybe actual ranks combined with different metals as well.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
3,354 posts
18,792 battles

Actually the base xp based ranking would make most sence as this what we have now has absolutely nothing to do with ranking your play as much of persistance and level of bs you can take before going ape...

Additionally as there are no failsafes from R12 upwards your progression is completely dependant on saving stars on losses and you either play like that from the getgo or you fail at "ranking out" miserably which generates this sniping BB meta bs we have, many teams are uncarryable the mistakes some people do cannot be compensated by anyone alone and teamplay is a joke...

 

The best option for ranked IMHO would be something similar to the Savage and Twilight Battels - 3-4 teams with 3 players each (maybe divs of 2 allowed maybe not) and base XP ranking as in first by base xp gets 2 stars, next 3-4 get one star the members of the "team" (remember these are 3 player teams) with best average base xp between them dont lose a star even if below the treshold and everone else loses one...

This way all boxes are ticked for WG and for players - unicums can walk through and carry by high basexp averages, potatos can get carried so they are happy, average players are not shafted any you can play notmally instead of saving stars...

 

Oh yes and no cvs until their match impact is tweaked to the level of every other ship class - keep them away from ranked and cw

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,928 posts
4,801 battles

A couple of things with the poll: the tier question in my mind should be a multi-choice question. I like to vary the tiers of ranked, between most mid-high tiers.

 

"Base XP same for all players like in clan battles. The winning Team gets Promoted the losing team lose 1 star: no one save the star." that in itself isnt a complete system for ranked, if you think about, the current save-a-star is the only influx of stars that we get. Without a mechanic similar to save-a-star, the results of a match would be +-0 stars, aka the amount of people that could feasibly rank out would be about 5% of the ranked playerbase, and they could only do it by stealing everyone elses stars.

 

Im thinking keep save-a-star, but rather than base-xp, base it on a mandatory vote after the battle, something like this: battle ends, everyone gets a popup with their teams names on, they have to pick a name other than themselves before they can enter ranked again. There are of course multitudes of inherent flaws with this design aswell(tactical voting, sync drop voting, no one remembers which of the two gearings that did heroics etc) but it cant possibly be worse than the current damage farming system, i mean at the base of it, you would have to be nice and helpful to save-a-star.

 

I would love divisions of two allowed in normal ranked seasons, it would cut down on so much frustration and anger, and would be a lot more fun.

 

and as a little snack: “We are not ready to announce the dates and format of the next ranked season (15th season, 14th still will be held in 0.8.10), but it will not begin until February. The reason is that we have plans to improve the current ranking system, however, we are not ready to share any details yet, as it is all in the early concept and may not go into the game”

Thats wargamings comment on reddit about the ranked system. There is hope for the future, although knowing wargaming rework skills, they will probably turn ranked into a hippopotamus 

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SWTP]
Players
1,190 posts
9,631 battles

Ok

It should be on different tiers 5-10.

OP premiums from the mighty lootbox armada should be excluded.

CVs also not needed.

Teams of 6-7 with limits: BBs 2 max, DDs 3 max.

No star save, with smaller teams one should carry enough on average to progress plus rewards like in clan wars should promote team play. Should...

2 stars for top winner.

No rentals ;)

Or make it totally individual with accumulated XP converted to some points as a indication of ranks with XP-points lost after loosing game according to the performance.

 

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,928 posts
4,801 battles
30 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

Plus for ranking up individual performance should be taken into consideration and whether you won or not. Guess the first 3 or top 2 players on the losing team rank up while the rest either rank down or stay where they depending on their position on the board.

Ive seen a lot of people now who want to change ranked to individual play, but it would be such a shame.

 

I want to play to win, i want to have teamplay, and see my team play to win. Trying to win is fun, trying to figure out which cap you need, supporting each other, kiting flank x, push flank y etc. Right now its just not happening, because no-one including myself really play to win, i mean we try to win aslong as it doesnt interfere with saving a star, but thats very limited, and as soon as it starts going a bit badly, everyone just thinks of themselves(including me, im not blaming the players, just the system)

 

Yeah, moving it to individual rewards would probably alleviate a lot of frustration, but it would also lose a lot of interest to me. I already do xp-farming in randoms, when i play ranked, i really just want a gamemode where me and everyone else try to win regardless of individual xp. I dont think it is impossible to achieve, its just that wargaming currently have a system that actively punishes players for trying to win, and awards them for being selfish peanuts like myself, so its not exactly a mystery why ranked is so frustrating at the moment

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,538 posts
245 battles
1 minute ago, thiextar said:

Ive seen a lot of people now who want to change ranked to individual play, but it would be such a shame.

 

I want to play to win, i want to have teamplay, and see my team play to win. Trying to win is fun, trying to figure out which cap you need, supporting each other, kiting flank x, push flank y etc. Right now its just not happening, because no-one including myself really play to win, i mean we try to win aslong as it doesnt interfere with saving a star, but thats very limited, and as soon as it starts going a bit badly, everyone just thinks of themselves(including me, im not blaming the players, just the system)

 

Yeah, moving it to individual rewards would probably alleviate a lot of frustration, but it would also lose a lot of interest to me. I already do xp-farming in randoms, when i play ranked, i really just want a gamemode where me and everyone else try to win regardless of individual xp. I dont think it is impossible to achieve, its just that wargaming currently have a system that punishes players for trying to win, and awards them for being selfish [edited] like myself, so its not exactly a mystery why ranked is so frustrating at the moment

Yeah, i know what you mean. The problem is wargaming clearly doesn't care for teamwork as they have based their exp metrics around damage and basically selfish play. You do get some exp for teamwork or team related performance, but the gains are so small compared to selfish and skillful play which has more of an impact usually in every match anyone plays.

 

I would love, to have more support roles and be rewarded more for tanking, ambushing, hiding and supporting teammates. However wargaming doesn't seem to share our ideals of PVP. Although i guess it would be pretty difficult to get people to play as a team individually unless they were forced to or playing selfisly gained you smaller rewards in comparison to teambased gameplay and work.

 

But yeah i agree with this regardless, im just thinking from their point of view. Wargaming has demonstrated they aren't bothered as the current model makes them too much money to care (never understood the mental illness surrounding having all the money, and not just being satisfied with, some or enough of it).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
467 posts
12,225 battles

They should let us division up with 1 other person like they do in sprints. If you're going to give me bigger teams (thus making it harder to carry) and make me lose a star if the team was uncarriable, which is more likely now, and I happened to not get first spot because some BB managed to farm more damage from max range, then let me have a division mate. These big teams with no divisions are quite a dice roll atm. Either give me 5-6 man teams or give me divisions. Or both. Star saving is a mechanic that players have learned to abuse, tbh.

 

And no :etc_swear: CV's, nobody likes you, go away.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
230 posts
10,411 battles
Vor 52 Minuten, thiextar sagte:

Im thinking keep save-a-star, but rather than base-xp, base it on a mandatory vote after the battle, something like this: battle ends, everyone gets a popup with their teams names on, they have to pick a name other than themselves before they can enter ranked again. There are of course multitudes of inherent flaws with this design aswell(tactical voting, sync drop voting, no one remembers which of the two gearings that did heroics etc) but it cant possibly be worse than the current damage farming system, i mean at the base of it, you would have to be nice and helpful to save-a-star.

 

Most splendid idea. Why have those nasty battles with shooting and torpedo-ing at all - when we can turn it all into a big beauty and popularity contest. Just vote people for Rank 1 and abhore all the pixelviolence. Maybe let people sing. And dance. And declare their dedication to world peace.

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,928 posts
4,801 battles
1 minute ago, thisismalacoda said:

Most splendid idea. Why have those nasty battles with shooting and torpedo-ing at all - when we can turn it all into a big beauty and popularity contest. Just vote people for the Rank 1 and abhore all the pixelviolence. Maybe let people sing. And dance. And declare their dedication to world peace.

Im just saying, id vote for the daring that made some desperate move to try and win game game before i vote for the damage farming conqueror at 20km

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-RDE-]
Players
199 posts
18,984 battles

with their being coal/steel ships, this means some have no idea how to play t10. so i'd maybe think about trying(only allowing) tech tree ships meaning there's a progression/ learning curve(hopefully).

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-GGS-]
Players
398 posts
9,629 battles

My first thought was no CV. But in honesty if WG wants them in the game, they should be in all game modes.

 

The fact that they are unbalanced and unfun to play against should be adressed instead.

  • Cool 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
230 posts
10,411 battles
Vor 2 Minuten, thiextar sagte:

Im just saying, id vote for the daring that made some desperate move to try and win game game before i vote for the damage farming conqueror at 20km

Ya. That sounds coherent and therefore not representative of the playerbase.

  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
3,354 posts
18,792 battles
23 minutes ago, Systergummi said:

My first thought was no CV. But in honesty if WG wants them in the game, they should be in all game modes.

 

The fact that they are unbalanced and unfun to play against should be adressed instead.

The core issue with cvs in competitive is the fact they have 2 much influence and espec some ships (haku, big e) that can outright delete a key ship and the copmetitive boils down to who has better cv and not who has better team...

 

For instance - I am not esp good in cvs but I played a Haku ranked match yesterday, several dds and cruisers and only one bb per side, shards map. Enemy Salem takes the position at the NE side of the B cap northern island with a dd for capping and venezia as his support little farther back and even a BB positioned between b and c (a bit closer to c) as well... Now they are well positioned to cap (and they do it) and def the B cap - our DDs cant move in becouse of radar and cruiser cant push or flank the salem becouse of venezia and the bb... Perfect checkmate situation for them as they only need to wait for the push or the points to win, right? Wrong! What happens in reallity I fly over there with DB and kill the Salem in 2 passes citting him to death... What happens now is - the entire cap defence colapses couse there is ko radar, poor Venzia (that got some bobms soon after as well) cant help with spotting in any way and my dds just kick the enemy dds out from the cap and take it... We won with like 1000/200 pt in the end even though are GK was parked beside me the entire match and did nothing, thats how much influence a cv has in a competitve enviroment, it only needs to have most basic of skills to wreck the tactic you set up

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CZSL]
Players
10 posts
3,244 battles

I suggest to play ranked in silver ship from tech tree only. They can be balanced. And at least we should see more competent players in tier IX or X. I had one game recently where our Thunder did basically nothing. Hiding behind islands , shooting once pre minute... If someone grind to tier X, I believe he would perform better. Coal, freeXP or premium ship can have anyone...

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-YR-]
Players
465 posts
1 hour ago, thiextar said:

I like to vary the tiers of ranked, between most mid-high tiers.

Thanks for your feedback, I will keep in mind for next time. Not so familiar with polls. And I am not sure I can modify a single question. 

 

1 hour ago, thiextar said:

"Base XP same for all players like in clan battles. The winning Team gets Promoted the losing team lose 1 star: no one save the star." that in itself isnt a complete system for ranked, if you think about, the current save-a-star is the only influx of stars that we get. Without a mechanic similar to save-a-star, the results of a match would be +-0 stars, aka the amount of people that could feasibly rank out would be about 5% of the ranked playerbase, and they could only do it by stealing everyone elses stars.

This was just a proposal, and I know there are issue with that.  I am trying to brainstorming the community  to get some thought on Ranked. 

 

1 hour ago, thiextar said:

and as a little snack: “We are not ready to announce the dates and format of the next ranked season (15th season, 14th still will be held in 0.8.10), but it will not begin until February. The reason is that we have plans to improve the current ranking system, however, we are not ready to share any details yet, as it is all in the early concept and may not go into the game”

Thats wargamings comment on reddit about the ranked system. There is hope for the future, although knowing wargaming rework skills, they will probably turn ranked into a hippopotamus 

That was really fun :Smile_teethhappy: I don't go often on reddit so I missed that. But hey it took only a year to complete CV rework. .. so perhaps they meant Season 25 :Smile_hiding:

Thanks a lot for your comment

:Smile_honoring:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-YR-]
Players
465 posts
1 hour ago, Yedwy said:

The best option for ranked IMHO would be something similar to the Savage and Twilight Battels - 3-4 teams with 3 players each (maybe divs of 2 allowed maybe not) and base XP ranking as in first by base xp gets 2 stars, next 3-4 get one star the members of the "team" (remember these are 3 player teams) with best average base xp between them dont lose a star even if below the treshold and everone else loses one...

This way all boxes are ticked for WG and for players - unicums can walk through and carry by high basexp averages, potatos can get carried so they are happy, average players are not shafted any you can play notmally instead of saving stars...

I totally agree with you. Yes it needs to be tested and perhaps the "point system" need also to be revised but I believe the base XP progression would be much better.

I have in mind something similar to World of Tanks Marathon for getting the premium tank (I don't know if you are familiar with it) there are steps. First are easier and as you progress to get the last 3 require skill or a thousand game :Smile-_tongue:

Thanks for your feedback

:Smile_honoring:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-YR-]
Players
465 posts
6 hours ago, CptBarney said:

I would love, to have more support roles and be rewarded more for tanking, ambushing, hiding and supporting teammates.

Well said! But I think we as players, should have asked for this more often. If WG don't get pushed they tend to be lazy. 

do you remember the time of stealth firing? Players started a big discussion and WG adjusted it. 

Anyway CptBarney thanks for your positive feedback.

:Smile_honoring:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHAR]
Players
54 posts
1,332 battles

Just do a normal bloody ranked. 6 Ships (such that you have a high influence on whether you win), no CVs (for obvious reasons), get MMR for winning, lose MMR for losing. Allow up to Divisions of 2 on each team (if one team has a div, the other one has one as well), preferably no premium ships (WG would probably never do this).

 

Like any other PvP game.

 

Edit: Base Exp Ranking is a horrible idea, as somebody who has played multiple games where it was tried to give people rank points based on in-game performance, it failed miserably every time. You get good Exp for Surviving, so why would I ever push? You get Exp for Damage but not really much for consumable use, ships with higher average damage will be prefered. In short, this would destroy any incentive for teamwork, especially if you give the opportunity for the losing team to get rank points based on Base Exp.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ITA]
Players
313 posts
6,573 battles

In my opinion, the main problem is the same of random, so letting people which have completely no idea of how to play this game to partecipate to this kind of battles. 

The system should block users to partecipate ranked if the PR/avg exp/avg damage are behind the minimum threshold. What kind of "help" can give a player with 10 battles on a Yamato,5k avg dmg on her and 15% WR?

If you are not able to use a ship you should be stopped to use it in ranked (that applies also in random)..but there should be a check on the "trend" of the player..there should be a way to let partecipate people who had a bad start in the past but which is improving day by day and needs lot of time to balance again his stats..maybe a check on the last 20 battles?

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHAR]
Players
54 posts
1,332 battles
21 minutes ago, Aetius85 said:

In my opinion, the main problem is the same of random, so letting people which have completely no idea of how to play this game to partecipate to this kind of battles. 

The system should block users to partecipate ranked if the PR/avg exp/avg damage are behind the minimum threshold. What kind of "help" can give a player with 10 battles on a Yamato,5k avg dmg on her and 15% WR?

If you are not able to use a ship you should be stopped to use it in ranked (that applies also in random)..but there should be a check on the "trend" of the player..there should be a way to let partecipate people who had a bad start in the past but which is improving day by day and needs lot of time to balance again his stats..maybe a check on the last 20 battles?

 

 

There is a higher chance to get somebody on the enemy team that doesn't know how to play than to get someone like that on your team.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×