Ranked mechanics need an overhaul

[Flosen8000]

New ranked season started and its the same **** as always. To give ranked a purpose beyond steel and doubloons grabbing it should make a difference from random battles. But the only actual difference is team size and tier limitations. What league or rank somebody is at, has no meaning whatsoever. And that is because it is all centered around win rate while the teams are made up completely randomly. Most matches can be won while doing nothing or lost while carrying hard. That's not what "ranked" should mean. Gaining and losing stars should depend on personal performance, not random team composition.

 

It could instead be (assuming team size 6):

- first two players on both teams earn a star

- bottom two on both teams lose a star

- no changes for the other four players

[stefanorgano]

16 minutes ago, Flosen8000 said:

To give ranked a purpose beyond steel and doubloons grabbing

Ranked has no other purpose apart from steel and dubs hoarding. Oh and avoiding subs and superships (yet).

[Flosen8000]

4 minutes ago, stefanorgano said:

Ranked has no other purpose apart from steel and dubs hoarding. Oh and avoiding subs and superships (yet).

No doubt, that's correct. But my point is, thats not what it should be.

[KhorneFlake]

The only problem with ranked is that you have to grind through bronze with shitty Tier 6 ships

[PaxtonQuigly]

58 minutes ago, Flosen8000 said:

To give ranked a purpose beyond steel and doubloons grabbing it should make a difference from random battles. But the only actual difference is team size and tier limitations.

[ReDiR20]

24 minutes ago, KhorneFlake said:

The only problem with ranked is that you have to grind through bronze with shitty Tier 6 ships

Wouldn't say so. One of the best balanced and fun tier

[Flosen8000]

18 minutes ago, PaxtonQuigly said:

Ok, the no-subs-situation might make up for one more difference right now. However, as you may remember we already had subs in ranked before their final release into random and I'm pretty sure they will come to ranked as well sooner or later.

[ReDiR20]

1 minute ago, Flosen8000 said:

Ok, the no-subs-situation might make up for one more difference right now. However, as you may remember we already had subs in ranked before their final release into random and I'm pretty sure they will come to ranked as well sooner or later.

 

Subs would nice to play in ranked, hopefully soon

[Flosen8000]

1 minute ago, ReDiR20 said:

 

Subs would nice to play in ranked, hopefully soon

I wouldn't mind really. I'm not hating on subs. Ranked could be with or without them for me, dont care. But the match making and star mechanic buggers me. I'd prefer two different types of games modes rather than twice the same. If ranked was truly ranked in the sense of the word as random is truly random, that'd be great.

[SurfaceFish]

6 hours ago, Flosen8000 said:

It could instead be (assuming team size 6):

- first two players on both teams earn a star

- bottom two on both teams lose a star

- no changes for the other four players

So no reward for winning? What if the 1st 2 players on the losing team have lower basic xp than the last player on the winning side? Why should those two losers get participation trophy?

 

Also WG basic XP don't reward risky play, a DD dies early but spott and help to take out 2 red DD don't get as much basic XP as HE spamming BB at the back. 

 

Now, which ship had bigger impact in winning, should the DD get no star if finishing 3rd on basix XP?

 

WG have the right solution, winner takes all!

[Macross_]

For example, in the six-person competition system, I think the top three in the winning group and the top three in the loser group will be given a star, and those who do nothing and make trouble will be eliminated

[Yedwy]

12 hours ago, stefanorgano said:

Ranked has no other purpose apart from steel and dubs hoarding. Oh and avoiding subs and superships (yet).

This

[Flosen8000]

9 hours ago, SurfaceFish said:

So no reward for winning? What if the 1st 2 players on the losing team have lower basic xp than the last player on the winning side? Why should those two losers get participation trophy?

Yes, no reward for winning as long as personal performance has nothing to do with who wins. And the losing team WILL get less XP than the winning team. You can't compare those numbers 1:1. In case you haven't ever noticed: You get a bonus on base XP for winning.

"winner gets all" currently is nothing but a lottery. Draw the better team mates - you win in 9 out of 10 cases. Sure, sometimes the worse team gets lucky.

If that was to be a fair mode it would need to have some skill balancing in the match maker. But that won't ever happen. Would be hard to do, since WR alone isn't good enough as an indicator as everybody would get close to 50% over time. And the queue times would probably increase quite a bit as well.

 

And regarding your DD example: If he dies early he played bad and doesn't deserve a star for being carried by his team afterwards. DDs are a challenging class to play, but if you play them well, you don't die early, but instead spot, cap and do damage yourself, all of which gives XP.

[Flosen8000]

2 hours ago, Yedwy said:

This

We all know that. But I didn't meant to repeat what ranked IS, but what it COULD BE. And how to make it better and actual fun to play for other reasons than there already are. Which really isn't a lot right now. Besides, avoiding subs and superships is only partially true.

[SurfaceFish]

18 minutes ago, Flosen8000 said:

Yes, no reward for winning as long as personal performance has nothing to do with who wins. And the losing team WILL get less XP than the winning team. You can't compare those numbers 1:1. In case you haven't ever noticed: You get a bonus on base XP for winning.

"winner gets all" currently is nothing but a lottery. Draw the better team mates - you win in 9 out of 10 cases. Sure, sometimes the worse team gets lucky.

If that was to be a fair mode it would need to have some skill balancing in the match maker. But that won't ever happen. Would be hard to do, since WR alone isn't good enough as an indicator as everybody would get close to 50% over time. And the queue times would probably increase quite a bit as well.

 

And regarding your DD example: If he dies early he played bad and doesn't deserve a star for being carried by his team afterwards. DDs are a challenging class to play, but if you play them well, you don't die early, but instead spot, cap and do damage yourself, all of which gives XP.

 

Like it or not, this is a team based game, more so in Ranked with smaller teams. You win as a team and lose as a team.

 

Why give the reward for losing as the winner, did you got used to getting participation trophies growing up?! If you are good, you will win more than losing, there is already a save a star to reward your performance as the biggest loser, why make it complicated? 

 

Why do you deserve to have the same reward as the winner if you are on the losing team?!

 

[Flosen8000]

2 minutes ago, SurfaceFish said:

Why do you deserve to have the same reward as the winner if you are on the losing team?!

Because the best players on the losing team usually played better and did more for their team then the worst players on the winning team.

[SurfaceFish]

Just now, Flosen8000 said:

Because the best players on the losing team usually played better and did more for their team then the worst players on the winning team.

Entitlement much, they are not the "Best" if they lost, and best players of the losing team mean jack sh*t!

[Seraphice]

Basing ranked exclusively on the battle performance regardless of win or loss is not the way to go with this, especially if a full ranked revamp is what you are looking at.

the win condition should be the only thing that matters in the end. I don't know of any other team based games where you win but end up losing points/rank.

Another part to this is that in some matches, the actions necessary to win are not always the same as those necessary to get the highest XP on your team.

Right now there are no major revamps for ranked planned either way.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

[SurfaceFish]

16 minutes ago, Seraphice said:

I don't know of any other team based games where you win but end up losing points/rank.

 

If OP's idea applies to any spot. Can you imaging the dressing rooms after the game, if you team won, you can't celebrate too much because some of your teammates did not get the rewards. In the losers dressing room, those did not get the rewards are hating on some of their teammates got rewarded for losing. Perfect way to build team spirits and corporations no?

 

16 minutes ago, Seraphice said:

Another part to this is that in some matches, the actions necessary to win are not always the same as those necessary to get the highest XP on your team.

 

Ture, I had a Ranked game one of our low health BB ram killed the red BB at other side of the map so we retained that cap and won the game on points. He did not finish top two, but his last action won the game for us as there was no time for us to get that cap back.

 

I'd hate if he did not get a star if WG did what OP suggested.

[Flosen8000]

15 minutes ago, Seraphice said:

the win condition should be the only thing that matters in the end

And thats fine as long as everybody gets the same fair chance to win. But thats not the case in the current system. Still hope it's gonna be changed someday.

[SurfaceFish]

15 hours ago, KhorneFlake said:

The only problem with ranked is that you have to grind through bronze with shitty Tier 6 ships

Don't listen to the bad man my T61, you are special, WG says so in the Santa container drop list!

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

29 minutes ago, Flosen8000 said:

Because the best players on the losing team usually played better and did more for their team then the worst players on the winning team.

Yeah, can't wait for the masses of long range damage farmers, all being entirely useless the whole match but coming up on top of the scoreboard - on the losing side, of course. We will have 6 vs 6 hindenburg games, every single one of them humping the border.

 

And there is no fixing this, as WG doesn't touch exp for some reason, apart from overcompensating for playing toxic like supershits and submarines.

[Seraphice]

10 minutes ago, Flosen8000 said:

And thats fine as long as everybody gets the same fair chance to win. But thats not the case in the current system. Still hope it's gonna be changed someday.

How is it not the case?
Over many battles you are the only consistent factor who can decide the outcome of a large number of your own battles.
At a positive winrate, you will climb. And in the current system its even possible to climb with a slightly negative winrate.

In your case, its possible to rank out with a 0% winrate.

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

[Flosen8000]

8 minutes ago, Seraphice said:

How is it not the case?
Over many battles you are the only consistent factor who can decide the outcome of a large number of your own battles.
At a positive winrate, you will climb. And in the current system its even possible to climb with a slightly negative winrate.

In your case, its possible to rank out with a 0% winrate.

Fair seas captain!
~Sera

Sure, if you do 2000 matches in one sprint that math totally checks out...

But that's just the lottery i mentioned earlier. And games modes which are 90% luck are not terribly motivating. And again that's all fine for random matches, but it would be nice for ranked (or some other new mode) to be different. Nobody needs the same thing twice.

[Seraphice]

4 minutes ago, Flosen8000 said:

Sure, if you do 2000 matches in one sprint that math totally checks out...

But that's just the lottery i mentioned earlier. And games modes which are 90% luck are not terribly motivating. And again that's all fine for random matches, but it would be nice for ranked (or some other new mode) to be different. Nobody needs the same thing twice.

I have a hard time believing that ranked is 90% luck.
If anything, in ranked your share of contribution to the team is a lot higher because of the smaller format, meaning that you have more influence on the outcome of a match.
Hardly a lottery.

 

Fair seas captain!
~Sera