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

Ranked joke

118 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
209 posts
14,791 battles

Guys, why is it not possible to have a Ranked system where the progression is done based on accumulating some sort of Ranked Points, or something? For instance those points would be gained/lost based on battle performance of both losers and winners? The current system rewards exclusively the winners which aren't necessarily the best players, and makes it frustrating.

 

Honestly, this system is a pure joke currently, I am not even taking it seriously anymore... I did an experiment last week, I charged in suiciding in a DD, in  twenty games. Exactly half were wins. My win rate was better than before - seriously -... 

 

Ranked system is entirely luck based, depending on the Match Making to place you in good teams. WG admits the system is frustrating, but they do nothing to change it. You can find a lot of bad players at high ranks and good players never even playing ranked due to all the luck and frustration involved.

 

So why not change it and make it fair?

 

 

  • Cool 12
  • Boring 1
  • Bad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
6,552 posts
24,729 battles

They wont, 2 many still just play it no questions asked for them to even consider starting to care

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,791 posts
19,103 battles
1 minute ago, aviaxis said:

Guys, why is it not possible to have a Ranked system where the progression is done based on accumulating some sort of Ranked Points, or something? For instance those points would be gained/lost based on battle performance of both losers and winners? The current system rewards exclusively the winners which aren't necessarily the best players, and makes it frustrating.

 

Honestly, this system is a pure joke currently, I am not even taking it seriously anymore... I did an experiment last week, I charged in suiciding in a DD, in  twenty games. Exactly half were wins. My win rate was better than before - seriously -... 

 

Ranked system is entirely luck based, depending on the Match Making to place you in good teams. WG admits the system is frustrating, but they do nothing to change it. You can find a lot of bad players at high ranks and good players never even playing ranked due to all the luck and frustration involved.

 

So why not change it and make it fair?

 

 

Because fair will make bad players (majority of wows playerbase) feel bad

  • Cool 6
  • Funny 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
209 posts
14,791 battles
6 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Because fair will make bad players (majority of wows playerbase) feel bad

 

yeah, unfortunately you are probably right... 

also they probably don't care about good players because they don't leave the game and probably buy less premium... stuff...

 

I didn't see it this was... I thought they wanted a fair system... I feel kinda' silly now...

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DAVY]
Players
525 posts
8,341 battles

Yup, I'm done with the ranked system. I can have more fun doing other things and steel just ain't worth my time. Won't play it again until it changes. 

 

I top teams, with high calibre and still can't scrape a win because of suicidal ships. Keeping a star just is not enough of a balm for wasting 20 minutes of your life on an impossible task. It gives such a sour taste it makes me think negatively about the whole bloody game.

Make wargaming employees rank out each season. See how long it takes them to change that garbage fire of a system then!

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
6,552 posts
24,729 battles

Muh enough steel can be had by relaxed poking around and just limiting your goal to about up to rank 6 after which you need 10 stars for next steel package...

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRK3N]
[GRK3N]
Players
1,171 posts
6,295 battles

50 games played and Im still rank 10, started at 13. That kinda says enough of what I feel about ranked in this game.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,892 posts
1 hour ago, Floofz said:

50 games played and Im still rank 10, started at 13. That kinda says enough of what I feel about ranked in this game.

Man I started at 13 too, played 2 games, lost the second (an unlossable) and quit on the spot to preserve my sanity

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
[THESO]
Moderator
3,887 posts
10,506 battles
3 hours ago, aviaxis said:

I am not even taking it seriously anymore.

wellcome to the club then :) 

  • Cool 5
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
209 posts
14,791 battles
20 hours ago, Floofz said:

50 games played and Im still rank 10, started at 13. That kinda says enough of what I feel about ranked in this game.

 

my record is 21 lost in 26 games.... the current system is a pure joke, has nothing to do with the players' skill

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,489 posts
17,356 battles
Am 11.6.2020 um 12:39, aviaxis sagte:

 

So why not change it and make it fair?

 

 

Maybe the WG staff is just not good enough to come up with a better game mode?

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Tournament Organizer
451 posts
15,424 battles
On 6/11/2020 at 12:39 PM, aviaxis said:

Guys, why is it not possible to have a Ranked system where the progression is done based on accumulating some sort of Ranked Points, or something? For instance those points would be gained/lost based on battle performance of both losers and winners? The current system rewards exclusively the winners which aren't necessarily the best players, and makes it frustrating.

Well, the game is about winning, so why not reward winning? How can the better players be on the losing team? That makes no sense at all, because if you are good, you know how to win. If you are an average or bad player and only know how to farm meaningless damage, you are not supposed to progress.

 

 

On 6/11/2020 at 12:39 PM, aviaxis said:

 

Honestly, this system is a pure joke currently, I am not even taking it seriously anymore... I did an experiment last week, I charged in suiciding in a DD, in  twenty games. Exactly half were wins. My win rate was better than before - seriously -... 

 

Ranked system is entirely luck based, depending on the Match Making to place you in good teams. WG admits the system is frustrating, but they do nothing to change it. You can find a lot of bad players at high ranks and good players never even playing ranked due to all the luck and frustration involved.

 

So why not change it and make it fair?

 

If there are 7 bad players in the enemy team and 6 bad players in your team, its all up to you to make the difference. You cant win all games, but if you are average, you win ~50%, if you are good more than 55% and very good over 60%. Over a sufficient number of games MM and luck are no factor.
Ranked mode is fair. Sometimes frustrating, but intirely fair. If you are good, you carry your teams to wins. If not, you win 50% and dont progress.

 

On 6/11/2020 at 12:41 PM, Europizza said:

Because fair will make bad players (majority of wows playerbase) feel bad

First of all explain why ranked is not fair. You are the better team => you win and progress. You are the worse team => you lose and go back. Sounds fair to me. This is not a single player game.

Your statement is just wrong on so many levels. Why would bad players profit from an unfair system?

Good players are good because they know how to abuse the system. In the case of ranked: They know how to win. Bad players dont know how to win.

If you would introduce another system, like dealing max damage regardless of the outcome, good players will quickly learn how to do more damage instead of winning. They will be better at abusing the new system than bad players. So your statement is just wrong.

Bad players would only profit, if the game is just a flip of a coin. But the game isnt, you can clearly see it by the sepertion of good players vs bad.

  • Cool 2
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
6,552 posts
24,729 battles
16 minutes ago, TobiAssho said:

If you would introduce another system, like dealing max damage regardless of the outcome, good players will quickly learn how to do more damage instead of winning.

And thats exactly what we have now as the majority of players in Ranked dont even try for the win they go for the max damage and saving star hoping they will end up on a team that can carry them often enough to progress, thats why you have 3-4 bbs per team of 7 with additon of at least one spamming cruiser...

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
209 posts
14,791 battles
1 hour ago, TobiAssho said:

Well, the game is about winning, so why not reward winning? How can the better players be on the losing team? That makes no sense at all, because if you are good, you know how to win. If you are an average or bad player and only know how to farm meaningless damage, you are not supposed to progress.

 

 

 

If there are 7 bad players in the enemy team and 6 bad players in your team, its all up to you to make the difference. You cant win all games, but if you are average, you win ~50%, if you are good more than 55% and very good over 60%. Over a sufficient number of games MM and luck are no factor.
Ranked mode is fair. Sometimes frustrating, but intirely fair. If you are good, you carry your teams to wins. If not, you win 50% and dont progress.

 

First of all explain why ranked is not fair. You are the better team => you win and progress. You are the worse team => you lose and go back. Sounds fair to me. This is not a single player game.

Your statement is just wrong on so many levels. Why would bad players profit from an unfair system?

Good players are good because they know how to abuse the system. In the case of ranked: They know how to win. Bad players dont know how to win.

If you would introduce another system, like dealing max damage regardless of the outcome, good players will quickly learn how to do more damage instead of winning. They will be better at abusing the new system than bad players. So your statement is just wrong.

Bad players would only profit, if the game is just a flip of a coin. But the game isnt, you can clearly see it by the sepertion of good players vs bad.

 

 

 

You speak like a player who is very lucky with the Match Making and defending an obviously broken / unfair system that works for you!

It's clear that you are a good player, but you also have a metric ton of luck and you do not even realize it. You probably think you are just good and the MM is giving a lot of validation for that believe. If you had the match making of the majority of the players, your stats would look totally different, I assure you.

These are strong reasons for you to defend the system, clearly, but the majority of the players do not think like you do because they are not lucky like you.

 

Players like you are put in the game by WG exactly to prove wrong the majority of the people experiencing the game. There are only few though, good players and lucky. Being in this situation it is clear why you defend the system... I would too.

 

Thinking that winning is everything is toxic for a game where:

- you do not have open world

- you practically do not have PvE... or the rewards there are in-existent there

- PvP content  is almost exclusively all you do and - PvP content is highly reliant on RNG / MM, which are out of anyone's control

 

So winning cannot be everything, as long as it's not in your control.

 

My experiment showing MM is not fair:

- sprint 5 - I get 60% win rate - rank out in 25 games - unium win rate

- sprint 6 - 45% win rate - I rank out in 80 games - bad win rate

 

Remember, those 2 sprints were the same level. I played exactly the same ships, exactly the same strategy, everything was identical, 2 weeks apart.

 

So which one am I? unicum or bad? I tend to believe my skill doesn't actually matter, just the MM. 

 

And about how this unfair system could be fixed? I think it should be done with ranked points based on anyone's battle performance like in WoW. Since they copied the name, they should copy the other good things there, imo.

 

 

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,791 posts
19,103 battles
2 hours ago, TobiAssho said:

First of all explain why ranked is not fair. You are the better team => you win and progress. You are the worse team => you lose and go back. Sounds fair to me. This is not a single player game.

Your statement is just wrong on so many levels. Why would bad players profit from an unfair system?

Good players are good because they know how to abuse the system. In the case of ranked: They know how to win. Bad players dont know how to win.

If you would introduce another system, like dealing max damage regardless of the outcome, good players will quickly learn how to do more damage instead of winning. They will be better at abusing the new system than bad players. So your statement is just wrong.

Bad players would only profit, if the game is just a flip of a coin. But the game isnt, you can clearly see it by the sepertion of good players vs bad.

Ranked is specifically designed to make sure average and even bad players get a chance to rank out. Good players rank out faster, that's what skill means in ranked: speed in ranking up. It's a marathon for amateurs. Bad players can play hundreds of battles in order to get to rank 1 by being carried and because all the good players already ranked out and stopped playing at that point in the season.

 

Also, please learn to debate. Making up an example of an alternate system, proving it wrong and using that as an argument to tell me I'm wrong is just silly. I didn't propose an alternate system and certainly not your bad example.

 

Whats is fair about an absolute crap player at 7th position in a winning team of randomly selected players earning a star over a good player ending up second on a losing team losing his? Just lol. Ranked in WOWS is a bad joke as are your arguments about what is fair.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
514 posts
15,131 battles
Vor 5 Minuten, Europizza sagte:

Ranked is specifically designed to make sure average and even bad players get a chance to rank out. Good players rank out faster, that's what skill means in ranked: speed in ranking up. It's a marathon for amateurs. Bad players can play hundreds of battles in order to get to rank 1 by being carried and becasue all the good players already ranked out and stopped playing.

By the end of the season, somewhere between 2 and 3% of participants will have ranked out. Yes, a few of them will be bad. But if the purpose indeed was to prop up bad and average players, a better system should be available?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,791 posts
19,103 battles
2 minutes ago, thisismalacoda said:

By the end of the season, somewhere between 2 and 3% of participants will have ranked out. Yes, a few of them will be bad. But if the purpose indeed was to prop up bad and average players, a better system should be available?

 

 

Sure, WG would if they could. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XTREM]
Players
1,672 posts
13,793 battles
58 minutes ago, aviaxis said:

 

It's clear that you are a good player, but you also have a metric ton of luck and you do not even realize it. You probably think you are just good and the MM is giving a lot of validation for that believe. If you had the match making of the majority of the players, your stats would look totally different, I assure you.

 

 

So what about the people who played thousands of battles below-average and in next thousand battles started playing to level of consistent blue, then after that, even unicum? 

There are examples of that among players in the WoWs help-me discord, where said players got help and mentoring from stronger players. 

 

Did their statistical performance change because WG flipped a switch and gave them ''better MM'' and better luck, because they associated with unicums? 

Or is there another explanation? :cap_hmm:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Tournament Organizer
451 posts
15,424 battles
1 hour ago, aviaxis said:

 

 

 

You speak like a player who is very lucky with the Match Making and defending an obviously broken / unfair system that works for you!

It's clear that you are a good player, but you also have a metric ton of luck and you do not even realize it. You probably think you are just good and the MM is giving a lot of validation for that believe. If you had the match making of the majority of the players, your stats would look totally different, I assure you.

These are strong reasons for you to defend the system, clearly, but the majority of the players do not think like you do because they are not lucky like you.

Winning 1 games is luck, winning 600 out of 1000 games is not. Are you seriously telling me that I am ranking out faster than you that this is because of luck? Why are always the same ppl lucky?

 

1 hour ago, aviaxis said:

So winning cannot be everything, as long as it's not in your control.

 

My experiment showing MM is not fair:

- sprint 5 - I get 60% win rate - rank out in 25 games - unium win rate

- sprint 6 - 45% win rate - I rank out in 80 games - bad win rate

 

Remember, those 2 sprints were the same level. I played exactly the same ships, exactly the same strategy, everything was identical, 2 weeks apart.

 

So which one am I? unicum or bad? I tend to believe my skill doesn't actually matter, just the MM. 

That is the issue of people trying to get data from experiments. With just basic knowlege of statistic you would know that 1 season is not sufficient to get any relayable data from. 25 games give you know clue about your expected winrate.

Overall you played 1500 ranked games with a winrate of 48,25%. That is a big enough number to draw some conclusions. With a 95% certainty your expected winrate is between 45,47% and 50,53%. There is a 2,5% chance that you are way better than your statistic suggests.

Especially looking at your performance in Belfast which has an average winrate of 55% and damage of 47k makes me believe that you are no able to play the game on a level to say that this is all determined by luck.

 

1 hour ago, aviaxis said:

And about how this unfair system could be fixed? I think it should be done with ranked points based on anyone's battle performance like in WoW. Since they copied the name, they should copy the other good things there, imo.

I guess you mean WoT? Well first of all WoWs had ranked befor WoT had. Second there are multiple videos explaning why the WoT ranked system is completely stupid and leads to a very bad gameplay. Nobody is focusing on winning, it is all about surviving and letting your team die for you. I have not played it myself, so it is a 2nd hand opinion, more explanations here:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LSCA]
Players
1,098 posts
9,263 battles
On 6/11/2020 at 3:27 PM, Floofz said:

50 games played and Im still rank 10, started at 13. That kinda says enough of what I feel about ranked in this game.

50 games? hahahahahahahahahaha, you not even have a idea how much i played and still cant go rank 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
925 posts
9,380 battles

I think it's funny how people defend our current ranked system. It's awful.

Take a look at the quickest player to get to rank 1 this season; he won absolutly every single game from rank 10-1. Skill? Perhaps. Luck? Yes.

 

I'd rather want induvidual points based on the class you're playing, but I guess that's too complicated for WG. *Cough* LoL, CS:GO, Overwatch, World of Warcraft." *cough*

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GRK3N]
[GRK3N]
Players
1,171 posts
6,295 battles
2 hours ago, Europizza said:

Ranked is specifically designed to make sure average and even bad players get a chance to rank out. Good players rank out faster, that's what skill means in ranked: speed in ranking up. It's a marathon for amateurs. Bad players can play hundreds of battles in order to get to rank 1 by being carried and because all the good players already ranked out and stopped playing at that point in the season.

 

Also, please learn to debate. Making up an example of an alternate system, proving it wrong and using that as an argument to tell me I'm wrong is just silly. I didn't propose an alternate system and certainly not your bad example.

 

Whats is fair about an absolute crap player at 7th position in a winning team of randomly selected players earning a star over a good player ending up second on a losing team losing his? Just lol. Ranked in WOWS is a bad joke as are your arguments about what is fair.

 

Are you saying Im crap then? All my other stats from either previous ranked, ranked sprint, random and even clanbattles says I am the very opposite of crap. Yet after 50 games in this ranked season I am STILL rank 9. Yet I know worse people than me thats been able to rank out, and better players that has the same issue as me.

There is ZERO skill involved in ranking out, especially in this season. All that is required is patience and persistance. In previous ranked seasons I would agree with you, but this season is something else entirely. Ive never ever seen so many players that are either AFK, or join the battle without camo, or the very basic camo, and no flags. Rush into a cap and dies within 2-3 minutes of the game where as the other team has a bunch of tryhards who are actualy good at the game.

Sometimes you get into the team with good players and you win, Ive won 3-4-5 games in a row. But then the MM switches around and you get put with the suiciding bots for a few games and youre back to where you started.

The only way for your skill to actualy matter is if the teams are better balanced towards eachothers skill but it isnt, because ranked has been infested with the same steamroll algorithm MM that has plagued randoms for a few months now.

 

Ive said this since the very first ranked season in this game. A competitive system that relies on teamwork where only winning is rewarded is good, but the same system on an individual level where your teammates are randoms is completely idiotic. Therefor the ranked system needs a complete and total overhaul. I would rather have a system where for example only the top 3 people in the winning team gets a star, but the losing team doesnt lose a star. To balance it out so that not everyone gets to rank 1 you could drasticly increase the amount of stars needed. I would much prefer if the losing a star system goes, it would relieve players of a LOT of stress, anger and frustration I think. But to be honest it feels like wargamings products are built on such things.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[LSCA]
Players
1,098 posts
9,263 battles

problem is that there is so many players in server who still not have the skills, even if you good you can screwed at full team

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CKBK]
Players
317 posts
17,049 battles

 

It could have been nice if there was a balance system in this game but there isn't because reasons, nonetheless if you play well enough you can help your team and make a difference, in worse case scenario you will save your star.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,296 posts
11,488 battles

My silent way to rebel against the star saving mechanics is letting the last enemy do damage to me or kill me so he gets the star. Try to make sure the worst player gets to save their star muahahah.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×