Solumn petition to WG re: access to ranked

[Camperdown]

There are a couple of things that seriously deteriorate having fun with WoWs. One of which is the often atrocious quality of gameplay as a result of very low player competence.

 

Therefore I address this modest petition to WG, to make the following modification to access of players to ranked levels.

• Bronze: no limitations.
• Silver: a minimum of 500 battles with an average winrate of 50% or above.
• Gold: a minimum of 1000 battles with an average winrate of 52% of above.

 

This will have the effect of keeping players at bronze who have 40-45% WR who currently spam and blunder their way into silver and gold. Players who do at least have modest skill can thus really enjoy silver and gold gameplay. 

 

May we have your aye or nay.

 

 

Edit: I am referring to random WR.

[ColonelPete]

The access to higher leagues should be managed by the league system. WG just needs to adapt the system.

[Khaba_Gandalf]

I voted with abstain, because I a) dont understand which WR you want to use and b) dont think this has any chance of working except for blowing up the queues. 

 

According to maplesyrup last statistics about WR and player distribution, 50% would prohibite 2/3 of the playerbase from playing silver and 80% from gold. While you may think that's a great move, im pretty sure WG could tell you a bunch of reasons why this isn't one from their pov, so this aint happen... 

 

 

[ObiWankov]

why not 55% and 60%?

[Khaba_Gandalf]

Vor 14 Stunden, ObiWankov sagte:

why not 55% and 60%?

Because he "only" has 53%...lobbying for a change that exclude yourself from ranked would be a pretty stupid move. 

[MementoMori_6030]

Just give the top 3 of the winners and the MVP of the losers the star, and be done with it. As long as you can enter Ranked without any prerequisite number of PVP games played (or without any at all), WR is quite useless.

[Camperdown]

3 minutes ago, Khaba_Gandalf said:

Because he only has 53%...lobbying for a change that exclude yourself from ranked would be a pretty stupid move. 

No you charming fellah . If you limit it too much waiting times would skyrocket. Also, it is intended to exclude people who don't know how to play, not make it some kind of super exclusive club. Iirc, some 20% of players have a better than 52% WR, that's exclusive enough.

 

Off topic, you have some kind of ego thing with WR?

[lup3s]

I would not restrict Ranked to certain players, but I would like to see the "star system" reworked, with more focus on consistent good or bad play; 

e.g. give a star to the top 5 XP on the winning team, and deduct a star from the bottom 3 on the losing team. All other players neither gain or lose a star.

Imo this should reward players who actively try to win (since they can expect +1 or +0 stars), while punishing consistently bad players (mainly AFK players - those can really grind my gears).

[Khaba_Gandalf]

Vor 43 Minuten, Camperdown sagte:

No you charming fellah . If you limit it too much waiting times would skyrocket. Also, it is intended to exclude people who don't know how to play, not make it some kind of super exclusive club. Iirc, some 20% of players have a better than 52% WR, that's exclusive enough.

 

Off topic, you have some kind of ego thing with WR?

I'm always charming, I just happen to sometimes write on my phone and let me tell you that well-worded and well-thought answers to not rather easy questions and smart phones don't mesh well. Esp if you don't answer in your native language. So no harm intended.

 

Tbh I think your WR ain't bad, I mean judging from those maplesyrup numbers that puts you in the upper 14% of the EU server pop, so this ain't nothing.  I can understand your 50% number for Silver  (in terms of logic), but the one for gold nah... not only too small of a player base in terms of waiting times, but also quite arbitrary (hence why Obi made that pun on 55 and 60% WR, which I would guess wasn't completely earnest). Doesn't mean I think your purposefully picked that one because its below your solo WR, but it looks.

 

And to answer your off-topic: No, I do watch my own stats to see if I still progress, yet I don't have an ego thing with it. I'm not the worst player on the server, but I fully understand that I'm way way off from said super exclusive club and I know that I will never get there. Which I'm fine with.

 

I just happen to think that gating the ranked mode is kind of a bad idea, I'd rather go for an approach like the one @MementoMori_6030 posted. Baring player from playing silver despite having reached or passed qualification over a statistical number like WR that hasn't any direct connection to his ranked performance doesn't looks like a good idea to me. So I'd rather limit how easy it is to rank up and maybe introduce a way that people can get demoted if they perform too bad in silver.       

[General_Alexus]

The last player of the winning team should not get a star, that would help alot, realy frustrating to carry hard just to give the suiciding idiot in your team a star as well.

To keep the total economy of stars same you can give one star to the loosing teams P1 and P2 does not loose a star as well.

 

That beeing said, in my dream-world players in the loosing team would vote on who does not loose a star (and  if everybody votes for himself Exp is the deciding factor).

I am sick and tiered of people, after thinking a win is impossible, turn around and Farm EXP (aka snipe from the back) the rest of the game without playing objectives.

[Camperdown]

15 minutes ago, Khaba_Gandalf said:

I'm always charming, I just happen to sometimes write on my phone and let me tell you that well-worded and well-thought answers to not rather easy questions and smart phones don't mesh well. Esp if you don't answer in your native language. So no harm intended.

 

Tbh I think your WR ain't bad, I mean judging from those maplesyrup numbers that puts you in the upper 14% of the EU server pop, so this ain't nothing.  I can understand your 50% number for Silver  (in terms of logic), but the one for gold nah... not only too small of a player base in terms of waiting times, but also quite arbitrary (hence why Obi made that pun on 55 and 60% WR, which I would guess wasn't completely earnest). Doesn't mean I think your purposefully picked that one because its below your solo WR, but it looks.

 

And to answer your off-topic: No, I do watch my own stats to see if I still progress, yet I don't have an ego thing with it. I'm not the worst player on the server, but I fully understand that I'm way way off from said super exclusive club and I know that I will never get there. Which I'm fine with.

 

I just happen to think that gating the ranked mode is kind of a bad idea, I'd rather go for an approach like the one @MementoMori_6030 posted. Baring player from playing silver despite having reached or passed qualification over a statistical number like WR that hasn't any direct connection to his ranked performance doesn't looks like a good idea to me. So I'd rather limit how easy it is to rank up and maybe introduce a way that people can get demoted if they perform too bad in silver.       

Frankly, I don't even want to play gold ranked right now, so you can make that bar 55% as far as I am concerned 

I am just searching for some way to have a PvP game mode that does not match you up with players that have no understanding of the game. If you have a better idea, I would love to know 

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

I don't think it makes any difference. The players that told me I suck had a win rate between 50 - 60%, after they died and I was full hp in the back with my BB.

[lafeel]

As much as you like to think otherwise OP, these players have just as much of a right to play this game as you, or indeed anyone else  here.

 

Should come as no surprise that my vote is a emphatic nay.

[GarrusBrutus]

Sounds like something a statpadding elitist would say. 

The only way ranked could really be a ranked game type is when we remove starsaving.

 

No more damage farming to save a star. 

Without coordination you don't win, so you don't advance. 

Without good play you don't win, so you don't advance. 

[LemonadeWarriorITA]

38 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Sounds like something a statpadding elitist would say. 

The only way ranked could really be a ranked game type is when we remove starsaving.

 

No more damage farming to save a star. 

Without coordination you don't win, so you don't advance. 

Without good play you don't win, so you don't advance. 

Remove star saving, carriers & subs. 

[Yedwy]

Abstain

 

Star saving should go as well as Safe ranks and safe leagues…

 

IMHO Ranked Season should run continuously for x amount of time, you rise and drop with your performance, mission chains such as there are in place for CB can Handle dishing out whatever prizes WG deems fit for participating…

 

Top 2-3 players (depending on the team size in that Season) on the winning team get 2* rest get 1* unless they are below 500 base XP in which case they dont get a star, Losers all lose a star

[MannequinSkywalker]

52 minutes ago, GarrusBrutus said:

Sounds like something a statpadding elitist would say. 

The only way ranked could really be a ranked game type is when we remove starsaving.

 

No more damage farming to save a star. 

Without coordination you don't win, so you don't advance. 

Without good play you don't win, so you don't advance. 

It still wouldn't be a ranked mode that measures skill.

The name of the mode is "ranked" but it doesn't indicate what the mode classifies players and ranks them according to?

According to how much they abused the CVs and griefed players cuz they suck in surface ships (or not any better than a regular  Joe for that matter)?

Or according to how much they camped, how many times they capped, how many times they were AFK, how many times etc.?

If it was a mode that ranks players according to their skills, there would be a cap limit for entering the ranked games; be it 50% silver and 55% gold or 55% silver and 60% which is an unimportant detail.

First WG has to want to implement a skill ranked system. But they don't want that. That means segregation of potatoes from good players and since potatoes are the majority and run this game, sorry unicorns, and go F yourselves WG is not giving it and you're not getting it...

[SkollUlfr]

the only way to improve ranked would be to have an ai driven player skill assessment system that was as clever as the players in spotting effective play and actions and identify key plays in a game.

 

i dont doubt the devs could do this, and to a level that they could field bots to trash player teams if they wanted.

 

in the past i would have viewed deploying such as toxic to the game, but as it stands, it would be an improvement in context of the mmorpg p2w monetisation wg corpo are pushing.

[Aethervoxx]

Your requirement for Silver & Gold Rank play is too exclusionary & it still leaves all the bottom feeders with the half decent players exclusively for bronze.

This is unfair for the 47 - 50% half decent players. It's questionable what to do with the 45 - 46 %ers. 

Of course, the 44% & below types (especially the certifiable below 40 % window lickers) must be excluded completely from Ranked play.

[MannequinSkywalker]

3 minutes ago, Aethervoxx said:

This is unfair for the 47 - 50% half decent players.

Bro, define "decent".

[Aethervoxx]

6 minutes ago, MannequinSkywalker said:

Bro, define "decent".

The players who have around 47 - 50% WRs as far as that statistic means anything - the middle players - not good or great but neither are they poor or abysmal

[MannequinSkywalker]

2 minutes ago, Aethervoxx said:

The players who have around 47 - 50% WRs as far as that statistic means anything - the middle players - not good or great but neither are they poor or abysmal

I see but are you aware that definition will change greatly from person to person?  To me, minimum decency in this game starts with 56-60% Solo WR.

There can be tons of decency definitions. Which one to pick?

 

[Aethervoxx]

1 minute ago, MannequinSkywalker said:

To me, minimum decency in this game starts with 56-60% Solo WR.

To me, that would be a very good player - my definition of a minimally decent player would be like I said 46 - 48 % solo WR.

[tfrtm]

The stars should not go to the winning team.

The top 7 BASE XP earners (  victory bonus NOT INCLUDED ) in both teams must get a star and the rest must lose a star.

This way if you play well you get a star no matter if your team wins or lose.

Too many times 2nd place in loosing team gets more XP than 5th place in winning team.

And that only helps bad players to advance.

[GarrusBrutus]

7 minutes ago, MannequinSkywalker said:

To me, minimum decency in this game starts with 56-60% Solo WR.

56% overall winrate is already top 3%. Let alone solo winrate.... 

That is like saying only Champions league football players are "decent".