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

Why ranked is not competitive at all

80 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
1,175 posts
13,483 battles

I'll simply add a few things, leaving the original post asit was to avoid confusion about that.

There are 72 replies as im changing this, so anything before that is certainly only based on the original post.

1. I amwell aware that in the current XP system using XP as an indicator of battle contribution is flawed. However, it is the most reasonable indicator currently implemented, and as a rule of thumb, if you end up with 25% more XP you will actually have performed better.

2. The issue i think should be addressed first is the priority of battle count (grinding) over skill level. This should be turned around imo, with skill being leading- since were talking about ranked here. Right now XP can IMO be used for that, to be tweaked later.

3. I think bad players simply need a cap where they'll end regardless how much they play, while very good players should be rewarded more. In the old system you would get stars at the start of every season; if we'd introduce a star for each time you score first/second & deduct one for each time you end last three places, you could have a functional mechanic steering towards skill based ranked.

4. Again; my problem is that its a grind-based ranked, lets see if we can address that,without hating too much on the specifics. 

 

Original post:

 

I'll expand this topic a bit later, with further explanation, for now i just want to note my progress in the qualification of Ranked bronze to silver. 

 

My main problem with the current ranked system is that it rewards WINNING only, not playing well. I played 12 battles to qualify, out of which my score on the team was: first 6x, second 5x and third once. I never scored fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh during qualification. 
Still, i lost plenty of stars in losses, and it took me twelve battles instead of a more reasonable 6 or 7 for me to qualify. 

Ranked needs to be reworked such that on the winning team the higher ranking players are better rewarded, and on the losing team the lower scoring players are punished more, while the top players are punished less. 
This would introduce an actual level of skill based progression, rather than the mainly grind-based progression we have now. 

 

Loss- #2 (0)

Win- #1 (1) 
Win- #1 (2) 

Win- #1 (3)

Win- #1 (4)

Loss- #2 (3)

Win- #2 (4)

Loss- #2 (3)

Loss- #2 (2)

Win - #1 (3)

Win - #1  (4) 

Win- #3 (5, passed)

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 4
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SH33P]
Beta Tester
38 posts
7,009 battles

It's only ranked in name, otherwise it's just Randoms with less players, except it's more frustrating, because of the stupid Star system, which is why i don't bother with it.

 

  • Cool 13
  • Boring 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-RAT-]
Players
31 posts
22,585 battles

Bring back the old ranked system and everything will be fine.

This was reworked to potato friendly. Maybe the big wallet potatoes cried that he can not earn to much steel.

  • Cool 9
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,130 posts
12,974 battles

The only thing with Ranked that should be fixed is to enforce strict rules. No ships without camo. No ships without flags. No ships with a commander with less than 15 points. No ships without modules and upgrades. If Ranked is supposed to be competitive, then there should be strict rules to ensure fairness. I hate nothing more than looking around at battle start and see multiple ships without camo and flags. I instantly switch into star-save mode, because i don't trust any of them when it comes to winning this match.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
Players
3,650 posts
18,027 battles

As position on scoreboard is based on XP and XP is hardly a good measurement ofr playing well / playing to win I don't see why we should reward ppl topping the scoreboard even more.

Not unless XP gets a serious overhaul.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,720 posts
15,239 battles
1 hour ago, Isoruku_Yamamoto said:

I'll expand this topic a bit later, with further explanation, for now i just want to note my progress in the qualification of Ranked bronze to silver. 

 

My main problem with the current ranked system is that it rewards WINNING only, not playing well. I played 12 battles to qualify, out of which my score on the team was: first 6x, second 5x and third once. I never scored fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh during qualification. 
Still, i lost plenty of stars in losses, and it took me twelve battles instead of a more reasonable 6 or 7 for me to qualify. 

Ranked needs to be reworked such that on the winning team the higher ranking players are better rewarded, and on the losing team the lower scoring players are punished more, while the top players are punished less. 
This would introduce an actual level of skill based progression, rather than the mainly grind-based progression we have now. 

 

Loss- #2 (0)

Win- #1 (1) 
Win- #1 (2) 

Win- #1 (3)

Win- #1 (4)

Loss- #2 (3)

Win- #2 (4)

Loss- #2 (3)

Loss- #2 (2)

Win - #1 (3)

Win - #1  (4) 

Win- #3 (5, passed)

I agree but first WG should rework XP calculation formula. 

In a current state I hate it due to damage farming selfish :etc_swear:s farming damage while others are trying to win and it would escalate quickly with XP depending on the damage mostly. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,797 posts
33,662 battles

Game overall is nice, ship designs are nice, mechanics can be better but still okay to play the game. Game has many ups and downs. I know it is a cliche to say that, but it has nice things as well as a lot of things we don't like.

 

Now, the game modes primarily should be fun to play, so it can attract enough amount of players.

-CB mode  for instance, I'm sure it's a lot of fun for many clans out there. This is the only competitive mode in the game.

-Operations mode, i haven't played it for a year but it must be fun for some players.

-Coop mode, same,  it has its own player base.

-Random mode, is not fun due to all the changes, reworks, broken cv class, etc. We still do play because it is the main mode, but is it fun? A big NO from me. Some of us don't even bother with random mode anymore and play only CBs, imagine the frustration that was created by WG decisions.

-Ranked mode, this new reworked mode is actually the old Sprint Ranked mode. Compared to old sprint mode, there are more rewards here, anyone who spam enough games will reach rank 1 in any league. Yes, in the old real ranked season it was also possible to spam 1000 games and reach rank 1 but that season was limited to 6-8 weeks, average and below average players usually couldn't climb up to the rank 2-5 within 10 days to first two weeks, people had the chance to play with many good players in this first half of the season in high ranks. Anyway, current sprint ranked season is a joke to some of us and is great for the ones who struggled in the old real ranked seasons. This one is designed to make more people happy and feel like they are achieving something. All in all, is this reworked ranked mode fun? Another big NO from me.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHEFT]
Players
12,663 posts
9,841 battles

When a T8 BB gets most XP for shooting down 22 planes and outside of that doing absolutely nothing, while a T9 Cruiser kills half a DD, half a Cruiser and 80% worth of one BB, then giving them even more rewards sounds just plain wrong.

Planes give so much XP, which is freaking retarded. Noone has a say which target the CV attacks except for the CV himself. At the same time, only the CVs skill decides how many planes he is going to lose.

But ofc thats WG logic, because playing with CVs dont give any benefits to other ships, so to make it worthwhile, lets shower them with XP for shooting down planes :cap_fainting:

 

 

  • Cool 4
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,125 posts
19,234 battles
Vor 1 Stunde, Isoruku_Yamamoto sagte:

 

My main problem with the current ranked system is that it rewards WINNING only, not playing well.

Just substitute the word "Ranked" with "Win Steel And Dubloons" (or short WSAD) and everything is fine.

I call this trick the WSAD hack.

  • Cool 2
  • Funny 5
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,380 posts
5,713 battles
1 hour ago, Kucsek said:

Bring back the old ranked system and everything will be fine.

This was reworked to potato friendly. Maybe the big wallet potatoes cried that he can not earn to much steel.

THat is not solution because even old system had poor activity. No one played Ranked because rewards were worse than they are now (besides usualy potato quantity).

What they should do is to make MM skill based. Or PR based. Because that way good players will never end up in team with red stat leechers, and that (red) type of people can play with their kind without frustrating people who actually try to win games.

 

Someone wanna play Ranked just for phun? - Ok. But don't drag me to the bottom with you.

  • Boring 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHEFT]
Players
12,663 posts
9,841 battles
1 minute ago, Hades_warrior said:

What they should do is to make MM skill based. Or PR based. Because that way good players will never end up in team with red stat leechers, and that (red) type of people can play with their kind without frustrating people who actually try to win games.

 

Aslong as i get more rewards for having to play stronger opponents :Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,380 posts
5,713 battles
2 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Aslong as i get more rewards for having to play stronger opponents :Smile_great:

Hey, at least your team would not suicide in first 3 minutes :Smile_great:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,972 posts
5,228 battles
2 hours ago, Isoruku_Yamamoto said:

Ranked needs to be reworked such that on the winning team the higher ranking players are better rewarded, and on the losing team the lower scoring players are punished more, while the top players are punished less.

Wouldn't work because software can't interpret winning moves, let's say you're in a hipper and you yolo into a rock at the exact right time, catching a DD and two battleships on the other side in your hydro, the DD died fleeing your hydro and both battleships remain pinned behind that rock for 8 minutes worried about eating torps if they leave. Ranking and xp-wise, you didn't do anything but in reality you won the game. What you're suggesting would result in even more J-line sniping, because that, sadly, is how you top the scoreboard.

If you're playing ranked and you want to rank out fast, just make yourself bottom tier in a strong ship. You get way more xp when you're bottom tier, save your star more often than not.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NCDF]
Players
229 posts
6,645 battles
Vor 27 Minuten, Hades_warrior sagte:

What they should do is to make MM skill based. Or PR based. Because that way good players will never end up in team with red stat leechers, and that (red) type of people can play with their kind without frustrating people who actually try to win games.

The problem is that there is absolutely no statistic that shows how skilled a player is.

So Wg would have to 1) first develop a way to track skill and 2) do this in a way that it could work with skillbased matchmaking.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,380 posts
5,713 battles
6 minutes ago, Echo_519 said:

The problem is that there is absolutely no statistic that shows how skilled a player is.

So Wg would have to 1) first develop a way to track skill and 2) do this in a way that it could work with skillbased matchmaking.

Really? You never heard of wows-numbers webpage? Or better to say, stat called personal rating? That can be very helpful and accurate.

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
98 posts
4,669 battles
Vor 2 Stunden, ThePurpleSmurf sagte:

The only thing with Ranked that should be fixed is to enforce strict rules. No ships without camo. No ships without flags. No ships with a commander with less than 15 points. No ships without modules and upgrades. If Ranked is supposed to be competitive, then there should be strict rules to ensure fairness. I hate nothing more than looking around at battle start and see multiple ships without camo and flags. I instantly switch into star-save mode, because i don't trust any of them when it comes to winning this match.

That's, sorry, blatant [edited]. You either make Ranked mode this way "pay to win" as some gentleman club in UK:

- "sorry", no entry for anybody without the bucks to buy big ships and

- no entry for anybody without the wealth to hire mercenaries (aka high point commanders);

or you'll get an quite self centered bubble of players that will call themselves "elite". And making a arbitrary group "elite" won't work at all, history (and fiction! cf. a novel by Morton Rhue) tells us.

 

So, introducing hard limits as "not without camo", "not without modules" and most dire idea of all, "no commander below 15 points" will not be the way to go.

Soft limits as reminders akin of "You're going to enter the battle without any helpful camouflage and flags! Will you still sail right now? If no: [Way to the paint shop here]" may indeed be a nice way to actually promote the selling of those tools and help absent-minded players.

 

Alleviating the uneven skill distribution, actually in every game mode opposing human players, could be done by implementing a system in Matchmaking that works the same way as the mathematics of the Elo rating system, used in in professional chess among others (and as I just found out, even in E-Sports!).

 

But simply barring the access to a complete game mode for a large portion of the player population is totally bad and sure not the way to go.

Out of some random kind of motivation, you ask for the discrimination of players that possibly don't like the little resource earning and slow grinding progresses in co-op and resent the chaos, lack of coordination and egocentric playing in random (yes, this is me), but currently do not have any high-point commanders. I currently prefer playing Ranked as it is more rewarding on the fun point of view and that you'll actually encounter players trying for a coordinated game much more often than in random mode. And I feel like that some learning curve of mine is nicer in Ranked than in Random. Yes, I aim to learn this game and to get better. Should that forbid me to play "Ranked"?

 

Regards, Nightowl

 

 

 

  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,130 posts
12,974 battles
10 minutes ago, Northern_Nightowl said:

That's, sorry, blatant [edited]. You either make Ranked mode this way "pay to win" as some gentleman club in UK:

- "sorry", no entry for anybody without the bucks to buy big ships and

- no entry for anybody without the wealth to hire mercenaries (aka high point commanders);

or you'll get an quite self centered bubble of players that will call themselves "elite". And making a arbitrary group "elite" won't work at all, history (and fiction! cf. a novel by Morton Rhue) tells us.

 

So, introducing hard limits as "not without camo", "not without modules" and most dire idea of all, "no commander below 15 points" will not be the way to go.

Soft limits as reminders akin of "You're going to enter the battle without any helpful camouflage and flags! Will you still sail right now? If no: [Way to the paint shop here]" may indeed be a nice way to actually promote the selling of those tools and help absent-minded players.

 

Alleviating the uneven skill distribution, actually in every game mode opposing human players, could be done by implementing a system in Matchmaking that works the same way as the mathematics of the Elo rating system, used in in professional chess among others (and as I just found out, even in E-Sports!).

 

But simply barring the access to a complete game mode for a large portion of the player population is totally bad and sure not the way to go.

Out of some random kind of motivation, you ask for the discrimination of players that possibly don't like the little resource earning and slow grinding progresses in co-op and resent the chaos, lack of coordination and egocentric playing in random (yes, this is me), but currently do not have any high-point commanders. I currently prefer playing Ranked as it is more rewarding on the fun point of view and that you'll actually encounter players trying for a coordinated game much more often than in random mode. And I feel like that some learning curve of mine is nicer in Ranked than in Random. Yes, I aim to learn this game and to get better. Should that forbid me to play "Ranked"?

 

Regards, Nightowl

 

 

 

This is complete nonsense. Competitive game modes should have strict rules. Everyone who plays this game gets enough camos and signals for FREE just by playing. Anybody who plays up a shipline the regular way, has a 15 point commander when hitting Tier 10 - which is required to play Gold League. This is to ensure that experienced players play ranked. There is literally zero money necessary to fulfil this. There is coop, randoms, scenarios and so on where people can derp as long as they want. Ranked should be an exclusive game mode for those who take the game a bit more serious and competitive. Right now, Ranked is nothing but Random with reduced team size, and this is should not be.

This has nothing to do with elitism or whatever nonsense people want to call it. It's more the other way around. Any potato can buy their way into Tier 10 and Ranked, without having the experience that it necessary to not be free food at tier 10 against good players.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,797 posts
33,662 battles
17 minutes ago, Northern_Nightowl said:

lack of coordination and egocentric playing in random (yes, this is me), but currently do not have any high-point commanders.

How about;

 

- Playing less selfish and more for team?

 

19 minutes ago, Northern_Nightowl said:

 I currently prefer playing Ranked as it is more rewarding on the fun point of view and that you'll actually encounter players trying for a coordinated game much more often than in random mode.

 

- Your fun can be others' nightmare, did you ever consider that or that is also on the egocentric part of you?

 

20 minutes ago, Northern_Nightowl said:

And I feel like that some learning curve of mine is nicer in Ranked than in Random. Yes, I aim to learn this game and to get better. Should that forbid me to play "Ranked"?

How about;

 

- Trying not to learn how to play this game in ranked?

 

 

This is an example why ranked mode has become utter nonsense.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
4,380 posts
5,713 battles
1 hour ago, Unfortunate_Son said:

Luckily Bronze is relaxing. When a defeat is looming, just throw your ship and get into the next match.

Its anything  but relaxing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
98 posts
4,669 battles
Vor 23 Minuten, Execute0rder66 sagte:

How about;

 

- Playing less selfish and more for team?

 

 

- Your fun can be others' nightmare, did you ever consider that or that is also on the egocentric part of you?

 

How about;

 

- Trying not to learn how to play this game in ranked?

 

 

This is an example why ranked mode has become utter nonsense.

First point: put it on some bad wording (English is obviously not my mother tongue), that was not the thing I wanted to say. What I meant is: I am actively looking for some coordinated play for the team's sake. But getting a "Random" where there's enough other people with the same aim is difficult and rare.

That's why I don't feel selfish when I'm going more into Ranked (bronze, that is), because the population of people trying coordination and enjoying cooperation is healthier there than in Random.

 

Vor 29 Minuten, ThePurpleSmurf sagte:

This is complete nonsense. Competitive game modes should have strict rules. Everyone who plays this game gets enough camos and signals for FREE just by playing. Anybody who plays up a shipline the regular way, has a 15 point commander when hitting Tier 10 - which is required to play Gold League. This is to ensure that experienced players play ranked. There is literally zero money necessary to fulfil this. There is coop, randoms, scenarios and so on where people can derp as long as they want. Ranked should be an exclusive game mode for those who take the game a bit more serious and competitive. Right now, Ranked is nothing but Random with reduced team size, and this is should not be.

This has nothing to do with elitism or whatever nonsense people want to call it. It's more the other way around. Any potato can buy their way into Tier 10 and Ranked, without having the experience that it necessary to not be free food at tier 10 against good players.

For the current iteration of the Gold League, OK, your suggested restrictions could work. But their absoluteness includes the lower steps bronze and silver and also any possible future ranking with lower tier ships.

An argument more mellow, e.g. suggesting rules for and restricted to the current setting (T10 + Gold league) could possibly get good support. But using absoluteness is IMHO to be avoided!

 

Regards, Nightowl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NEXT]
Players
6,058 posts
12,152 battles
4 hours ago, djmx1995 said:

It's only ranked in name, otherwise it's just Randoms with less players, except it's more frustrating, because of the stupid Star system, which is why i don't bother with it.

 

Ranked doesn't mean "arranged". Ranked means, that there is a ranking system ^^

 

 

4 hours ago, Isoruku_Yamamoto said:

I'll expand this topic a bit later, with further explanation, for now i just want to note my progress in the qualification of Ranked bronze to silver. 

 

My main problem with the current ranked system is that it rewards WINNING only, not playing well. I played 12 battles to qualify, out of which my score on the team was: first 6x, second 5x and third once. I never scored fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh during qualification. 
Still, i lost plenty of stars in losses, and it took me twelve battles instead of a more reasonable 6 or 7 for me to qualify. 

Ranked needs to be reworked such that on the winning team the higher ranking players are better rewarded, and on the losing team the lower scoring players are punished more, while the top players are punished less. 
This would introduce an actual level of skill based progression, rather than the mainly grind-based progression we have now. 

 

Loss- #2 (0)

Win- #1 (1) 
Win- #1 (2) 

Win- #1 (3)

Win- #1 (4)

Loss- #2 (3)

Win- #2 (4)

Loss- #2 (3)

Loss- #2 (2)

Win - #1 (3)

Win - #1  (4) 

Win- #3 (5, passed)

"Why ranked is not competitive at all" 

 

The reward has nothing to do with competition. And the old system was stupid, because you played ranked for the reward, not for the competition. Now you can decide, you play only for reward, or for the high rank with some extra reward,

 

Every ranked season I gave the feedback, that the dubloon reward should not be a rank 1 reward, because a player will be forced to get this rank just for the reward. It was more frustrating, than fun.

 

Even other games do it like that. League of Legends as example, the high value reward (free skin) is at gold league, I believe, higher leagues are more prestige.

 

 

Quote

 

and on the losing team the lower scoring players are punished more, while the top players are punished less. 

 

Then people will play for score. Which player would go for a risk play, that might give a win, but not a high score, vs. playing safe and farming score.

 

A competitive system works without the rewards and the best systems are with ratings, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,797 posts
33,662 battles
8 minutes ago, Northern_Nightowl said:

First point: put it on some bad wording (English is obviously not my mother tongue), that was not the thing I wanted to say. What I meant is: I am actively looking for some coordinated play for the team's sake. But getting a "Random" where there's enough other people with the same aim is difficult and rare.

 

That's why I don't feel selfish when I'm going more into Ranked (bronze, that is), because the population of people trying coordination and enjoying cooperation is healthier there than in Random.

I understand why you go to ranked but you have to give some in order to get some. In other words, what do you give to the team in return? Nothing. Because you are trying to learn how to play in ranked. That means the team is playing one player less which is a burden for the team. They need to carry you to victory every game. Is this fair to them?

 

Coop is the place if you want to learn the ships and game mechanics. Not even randoms. You should know the ship armor, guns, maps so u know how to position where to position when you go to randoms (let alone ranked). Besides, you won't really learn much from ranked Bronze or  Silver. Heck even in Golden league. People  in general who play ranked have no clue how to use minimap, where to position with which type of ship in which maps. Some go yolo, some are afk, some try to cap with BBs, or some DDs leave their flanks and ships exposed to enemy DDs. If you are looking to learn these things in ranked, all you will see be the wrong role models. Right now golden league is full of bad (i mean very bad) players, i can't imagine bronze or silver. 

 

If you really want to improve yourself and play better, join a clan. Check https://wiki.wargaming.net/en/World_of_Warships

Watch videos, etc. Do division games in a Clan. It will be much better for your improvement than trying to learn in ranked mode.

 

Here you can check some clans; https://forum.worldofwarships.eu/forum/507-clan-zone/

 

I think this is the best option for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[O-V]
Players
105 posts
8,763 battles

Its very simple 

Don't play ranked its toxic as F*&k 

 

And not enjoyable ...to boot  

Share this post


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

×