ranked battles over rated, and Beta will be here for many years.

[GrimWristler]

Hi everyone.

 

So. to start this thread off. Am i the only one here who thinks wargaming has made a right booboo, when it comes to ranked battles?

Ranked battles merely means winrate. thats all. It doesnt represent how good you are, and therefore ranked battles is a pointless term for merely playing for signals.

Now. i dont really know why people hate XVM so much, but it makes sense to have an XVM style rating system implemented into ranked battles, which then gives ranked battles an actual purpase and meaning. It means only good players will reach the later account levels, while lesser players hover in their representative account levels. Love or hate XVM, it gives a far more realistic collective account on how good you are, while winrate does not. we all know you can be an awful player, yet win by havign a good player carry you. That to me doesnt inspire confidence to a game mode, designed around personal account levelling.

I do not understand why XVM is hated so much, but when wargaming implements a game mode that is named "ranked", while having a star system in your personal account levelling. It means a proper ranking system needs implementing.

 

Beta. what is Beta?

Beta is an unofficial certificate stating a game product is still in develpment, whether it means adding content, to refining current content to a finished state.

So... why is tier 8's and above broken in terms of balance? why do cruisers become obsolete past tier 7. why are CV's WAY beyond over powered at tier 9 and 10.

why is the chatroom history so buggy in port?

why hasnt clans been implemented along with clanwars, stronghold and teambattles?

 

The list goes on and on. simple fact is. this game will never have its released title, not until the dev team finishes work on it. and we all know comign from WOT, that even now WOT isnt out of beta. not while tech trees are added, missions and modes are being added. All of which means balancing.

WOWS has yet to implement Royal navy / russian / german and many more tech tree's.

we know the cruisers are getting a second tech tree line.

 

simple fact is wargaming is in denial to think somehow this game is release material, when quite clearly this game is no where near.

[Kenliero]

Ranked battles is a good way to measure player skill, because divisions are not allowed and there is only 7 players, where one player makes significant difference about which side wins the match, making winrate actually matter a lot, unlike in random battles, where you can boost it with divisions, and is much more dependant on your luck, of what quality the rest of the team is. 1/7 player impact is much more than 1/12, giving more accurate results.

 

There is how ever one thing that worries me quite a bit... Even though I mostly like playing CV's, playing one in ranked might be a nightmare, because it will most likely be "battle of Clevelands", which is  horrible for CV.... so even though I voted for playing CV, I think I will actually play BB instead.

[KptStrzyga]

Some community members were crying for years for skill based MM as remedy for everything including cancer so WG is testing ranked battles. It`s a test, it`s not even started yet (it wll in few.. minutes?) and you already started whine topic. Seriously? 

 

[GrimWristler]

Some community members were crying for years for skill based MM as remedy for everything including cancer so WG is testing ranked battles. It`s a test, it`s not even started yet (it wll in few.. minutes?) and you already started whine topic. Seriously? 

 

It doesnt matter about whether its released or not. its been on test servers, and we already know its merely winrate related. nothing more.

[Nagine]

Um, guys, at least wait that 1 hour until the season begins and then start your rants.

[Francois424]

I can only answer one of your questions : "Why do cruisers become obsolete past tier 7?"

Because if Wargaming had gotten the Rock-Paper-Scissors right from the get-go, it would be the same at ALL TIERS.  Originally Cruisers where supposed to be "BB fodder" and not the other way around.  Cruisers's prey was supposed to be DD's but since High tier DD's aren't exactly up to snuff and are barely played, cruisers don't really have preys.

 

If it's any comfort, BB players have to endure what cruisers endure at t7+ from T2 thru 6.

 

Good points tho.

There is still lots of fixing and polishing required to make the game really shine, but it has a solid base, as long as WG can make Mid+high tier DD and low+mid tier BB balanced (they are not).

Let's hope for the best.

[allufewig]

Some community members were crying for years for skill based MM as remedy for everything including cancer so WG is testing ranked battles. It`s a test, it`s not even started yet (it wll in few.. minutes?) and you already started whine topic. Seriously? 

 

 

Precautionary whining from people on why they probably wont reach the rank they feel they should reach.

 

After all, winrate was luck, is luck and will always be luck only.

 

Thats how I read this.

 

Edit: Not disagreeing with everything he said though, especially the balancing-things.

[Yorkshire_Arty2016]

Will ranked battles be based solely on wins/losses? or will it be based on kills and damage done? as its first day only the alpha/beta players will be involved anyway, going to take a week at least for the newbs to get involved, personally i would like this to evolve into a league system with several divisions so good players play good players and seals dont get clubbed by veterans, probably wishful thinking like

[GrimWristler]

I still laugh when the announcer says "we have taken the lead" yet most of the time we losing so hard, he only says it cuz we took a cap zone. lol.

Soooo many issues. lol.

And theres still sound issues, when announcer speaks, or ships fire at the sametime.

 

and lets not talk about a disastor of the strait map where that map could have been great fighting north to south. south to north, rather than side to side.

some maps have cap advantages, like places to hide, which is pretty biased ofr 1 particular team.

 

and in all of that, i never once mentioned how bad MM is in this game on the whole. lol

[Yorkshire_Arty2016]

I still laugh when the announcer says "we have taken the lead" yet most of the time we losing so hard, he only says it cuz we took a cap zone. lol.

Soooo many issues. lol.

And theres still sound issues, when announcer speaks, or ships fire at the sametime.

 

and lets not talk about a disastor of the strait map where that map could have been great fighting north to south. south to north, rather than side to side.

some maps have cap advantages, like places to hide, which is pretty biased ofr 1 particular team.

 

and in all of that, i never once mentioned how bad MM is in this game on the whole. lol

 

Hi grim, i was in battle with u on the map u mean, and it would be way better north to south rather than having teams split either side of the islands, even as it is now it  would be ok if players got moving straightaway instead of sitting in spawn for opening 3 mins, by time they get moving either dd have torped them or planes have, but that is players fault not mm i suppose, what i really want to see is a no bases, to the death mode, afterall were here to kill other ships not capture flags

 

[GrimWristler]

 

 

Precautionary whining from people on why they probably wont reach the rank they feel they should reach.

 

After all, winrate was luck, is luck and will always be luck only.

 

Thats how I read this.

 

Edit: Not disagreeing with everything he said though, especially the balancing-things.

 

Its not so much about personal whining as apposed too how ranked battle should be.

I know im just about above an average player, but i dont condone myself as great, or the best. If i dont ever reach account rank 1. fair enough. thats where the challenge lays. but you cant tell me, that ranked battles should be in someway representative on yourself as a player, when its merely dictated by winrate. winrate, is merely luck. nothing more. bad players and good players can and will still be misplaced, purely by winrate. I often get 4-5 kills yet i still lose them, with no fault of my own. so what. I have to suffer the sameway as random battles? ranked battles should be an attempt to align yourself up with where you belong as a player.

 

as for whining. the only aspect i really whine about is that wargaming have clearly no idea about what their doing, and i know more people who are eagerly waiting for clans, and team battles than some pointless ranked battle mode which means anything but ranked.

Its not about whining about myself and stats. its merely about how wargaming is taking world of warships, and clearly its mind puzzling.

[allufewig]

 

but you cant tell me, that ranked battles should be in someway representative on yourself as a player, when its merely dictated by winrate. winrate, is merely luck. nothing more. bad players and good players can and will still be misplaced, purely by winrate. I often get 4-5 kills yet i still lose them, with no fault of my own. so what. I have to suffer the sameway as random battles? ranked battles should be an attempt to align yourself up with where you belong as a player.

 

 

Why do so little people realize that after few dozens of games the effect of luck diminishes and is completely negligible (four our purposes, we dont need scientific accuracy) after a few hundred?

[GrimWristler]

 

Hi grim, i was in battle with u on the map u mean, and it would be way better north to south rather than having teams split either side of the islands, even as it is now it  would be ok if players got moving straightaway instead of sitting in spawn for opening 3 mins, by time they get moving either dd have torped them or planes have, but that is players fault not mm i suppose, what i really want to see is a no bases, to the death mode, afterall were here to kill other ships not capture flags

 

 

true that mate.

I would prefer a deathmatch style mode as apposed too a ranked battle mode which i dont believe will justify the meaning.

Cap zones does deter players from killing players, and the amount of time where teams hesitate to kill others purely to defend a cap, or even worse, stay no where near caps, and hug the edge of the map. notebly bb's who often end up out of the game.

 

I'd also like to see more life in these maps. having wildlife, like birds, sheep on the hills, something to keep the maps looking life full. the additional intergration of trees have greatly improved the maps, but it still looks lifeless.

Theres also a higher tier map, where teams are plit up to fight over 3 cap point zones. Its a great map, but no-one enjoys it because of how poor the team positions are, and cap zones.

 

salut for seeing you in battle sailor.

[Scilya]

its a ladder system u win u get a star you move up, you lose you lose a star and move down its that simple and fair

[Yorkshire_Arty2016]

winning and losing depends too much on team, i personally feel ranks should be on personal performance, ships spotted, kills and dmg based, or cap points taken/ defended if we have to have bases in this mode. But whatever, i will press the red button, do my best, die and go for next batlle lol

[GrimWristler]

its a ladder system u win u get a star you move up, you lose you lose a star and move down its that simple and fair

 

Ya sure. and it will attempt to categories bad from the good. but it wont. winrate says nothing about a player. 1vs1, sure. but not anything above 5vs5. other dynamics get thrown in, meaning other players. so what if a good player gets tallied with 6 bad players. You think thats fair? because it will happen. like i said above. bad players will still get carried by the better players. even alot of good players would argue that some have bad winrate, purely based on playing style. annoying as it may sound, some players fail to acknowledge cap zones, and go for kills. Kills alone dont get you wins. 5-6 kills, yet enemy team has all cap zones, will win.

 

ranked battles need a more detailed ranked system. A system like XVM, where your personal rating atleast attempts to position you as a good/bad/great or awful player. a system which takes all your efforts into account. Perhaps throw stars at players who end a battle top of the score sheet. those at the bottom lose a star. atleast better players get rewarded for their efforts, and not penalised because 6 braindead players cant help you win.

[Siagor]

I'm afraid Ranked battles are actually this:

 

"Hmmm... most of the players are at tiers 5-6-7. Now let's give them some excuse not to [edited] for 7 x 7 battles, and let's bring poor sods who got their 9's and 10's (and wait in vain for battles) down to 6-7 by explaining now this is skilled fighting. They might fall for this."

[KptStrzyga]

 

 winrate says nothing about a player. 

In short therm it sais nothing, true. WR after 10 games can be luck dependant, but after 100?... WR is only luck untill you learn how to play and how to carry games. It`s much harder to carry in WoWs then it was in WOT, but still... One day we will see player with 80%+ WR on some ships. 

[GrimWristler]

winning and losing depends too much on team, i personally feel ranks should be on personal performance, ships spotted, kills and dmg based, or cap points taken/ defended if we have to have bases in this mode. But whatever, i will press the red button, do my best, die and go for next batlle lol

 

It should be about personal performance. every thing you do as a player should be put into account. and theres only 1 method for that, and thats XVM.

Its funny because, most people dont like XVM, because people hate to be judged on stats. yet ranked battles seem to be supported. although weak in its attempt to rank you, it still tries too. Yet people somehow aprove of a feature that is stat related. hmmm...

 

Oh. theres no doubt ill play it, for more signals, but ill still feel frustrated by the fact its a crap attemept for implementing a ranked mode, that doesnt work, in my personal opinion.

 

I vote for clans, clanwars, team battles and strongholds. thats where priorities lay. not stupid modes that dont do its job. although im here for team play, its reasuring that theres a mode that does atleast try to represent you as a player on an individual level. its just a shame its very weak in doing so.

People critise me for whining about something just released yet, the content put in place defines what its going to be. I dont need to play a mode to understand if it works or not, when clearly winrate is the only factor of gaining a star. All this mode does provide is luck nothing more. Unless the minor few of us are prepared to carry games over and over and over again. Nice as it may sound. even i get frustrated that i have to get 5 kills or more to keep in a battle, all because im in a team full of idiots.

 

A true ranking system isnt about Luck. a ranking system puts you up against other players in relation to stats. Player stats isnt luck, its shows information about who you are as a player, and all the things your good and bad at. It can even tally you in with players your own difficulty for more tactical challenging games.

[N00b32]

 

 winrate says nothing about a player.

 

It says everything. You won't get a high winrate (note the word rate), if you camp the corner in a BB. 

[GrimWristler]

In short therm it sais nothing, true. WR after 10 games can be luck dependant, but after 100?... WR is only luck untill you learn how to play and how to carry games. It`s much harder to carry in WoWs then it was in WOT, but still... One day we will see player with 80%+ WR on some ships. 

 

I disagree. ive played over 1000 battles now, with a winrate of 56% It fluctuates heavily, and i know despite how people would reply to this, that i belong in the 70% range. I think thats about right for me as a player. I dont condone myself as a great player, but i know on the whole, i do play better than alot do. I wouldnt be top of my team score sheets alot if i didnt think that.

I know for a fact that 80% of my overall battles, win or lose, has been dictated by the rest of my team in doing the job to kill or cap. I have an average kill/death ratio of 2.5. I often kill 3-4-5 players, yet still lose. Winrate says nothing about you as a player. Judge me over my kill/death ratio, the effort i go through to cap, spotting damage which isnt in this game. etc etc.

winrate means nothing, because your not in control while there 13 or so others on your team. Its a team effort, and therefore everyone has to pitch in to win. and yes. even if i have whine, and try to bark orders at people in chat in order to win.

Leadership alone is a skill. but yet you cannot measure that in a game such as this, notu nless its tournament or clanwars related. Something im itching for intensely hehe...

[GrimWristler]

 

It says everything. You won't get a high winrate (note the word rate), if you camp the corner in a BB. 

 

Ok. so how many games have i had where a player dc'd at the start, and never returned. Yet we won the battle?!.. Thats BS mate.

as for BB's hugging the edge of the map. that happens every battle lol. theres still a blue line issue in this game that needs to penalize players who do that.

[Yorkshire_Arty2016]

probably wont get a good win rate relying on 6 other people either as half of them are likely to be really bad players, so likely only win 50% of time unless we can carry the game every time.  personal rank should be based on personal achievement, ships spotted, damaged, killed, bases captured /defended and planes killed, end result shouldn't  matter except for overall stats, but will see how it goes, its very early days and there is always room for improvement

 

[T0byJug]

 

Ya sure. and it will attempt to categories bad from the good. but it wont. winrate says nothing about a player. 1vs1, sure. but not anything above 5vs5. other dynamics get thrown in, meaning other players. so what if a good player gets tallied with 6 bad players. You think thats fair? because it will happen. like i said above. bad players will still get carried by the better players. even alot of good players would argue that some have bad winrate, purely based on playing style. annoying as it may sound, some players fail to acknowledge cap zones, and go for kills. Kills alone dont get you wins. 5-6 kills, yet enemy team has all cap zones, will win.

 

ranked battles need a more detailed ranked system. A system like XVM, where your personal rating atleast attempts to position you as a good/bad/great or awful player. a system which takes all your efforts into account. Perhaps throw stars at players who end a battle top of the score sheet. those at the bottom lose a star. atleast better players get rewarded for their efforts, and not penalised because 6 braindead players cant help you win.

 

But XVM is Broken and Crap it ignores so many factors.. example it douse not take in to account light tank game play at all. No scouting or spotting damage is part of your rating. Most people that don't like XVM don't like it because of the Toxic effect it has on game. XVM is also often a self fulfilling proficy! Where players quit as XVM gives them a low win chance.. so indeed there team lose the battle, Mainly due to the fact that the team was a man down before the game even started. sometimes you do get the opposite effect where the enemy team is so confident about there high win chance they Yo low across map and Die. But this is rare

 

This is a team game like it or not! ranked battles Encourages this! Players that try to support there team will win more often. XVM just ecourages stat whores players that will go for damage kills to the detriment of the rest of the team

[DarthMurloc]

its a ladder system u win u get a star you move up, you lose you lose a star and move down its that simple and fair

 

Hypothetical situation:

I played 5 games in which I was the first be be sunk. But every time my team managed to win 7:6. I done sh** towards the victory but hey - 5 stars on me, Ima pr0.

 

Opposite situation:

I played 5 games, single handed sunk 5 enemy ships each battle because that awesome I am. Unfortunately my team mates suck hard so at the end I run on fumes of HP vs 2 full HP enemies. We loose all 5 games at 5:7 or 6:7 state. Another ranked game I get flamed and called noob, bad player (add whatever insult you faced so far) for having 0 stars.

 

"simple and fair" my [edited].

 

And I guarantee that those winning people will start to cry about how they carry those 1st victims as well as those really pro players crying how they kill 80% of enemies and still loose stars due to noobs.

 

System that decide whether you win or loose based on OTHERS performance is far from  being fair.

 

7 people per side, huh? Then it gives 14 people total. Top 3 (highest % of total opposing team HP pool damage) get star award, bottom 3 get star taken away. Rest stay as they were, no gain due to mediocre play, no loss either as they contributed in some way. This way you don't feel you are being punished for every move except awesome play.