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

[T0byJug]

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

 

 

You dont get it!! the people that only win 50% of time wont get out of the low ranks so as you progress you wont see them.

 

[Yorkshire_Arty2016]

 

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...

 

good leadership and constructive chat should be rewarded as part of the compliments system, as should bad play/chat behaviour be punished by the report system, maybe a credit reward or fine i personally use compliments a lot but have no idea what it achieves or gives the complimented player

[Sake78]

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."

 

Even if it is like this, it`s still skill matchmaking, so that alone should make up for the poor sods not playing their tier 10`s.

 

Damned if you do, damned if you don`t is real in this game and no wonder we`re getting trolled by devs. 

[Yorkshire_Arty2016]

 

You dont get it!! the people that only win 50% of time wont get out of the low ranks so as you progress you wont see them.

 

 

i Do get it Toby, im an average player and win just over 50% normally but having 6 great players or 6 bad players will keep me at a certain level whatever i personally do, sometimes i get multiple kills and 200+ hits, sometimes i m dead in a heartbeat without doing a thing, either way i sometimes win sometimes lose, its random, so relies on team not player performance. win/lose only works for clan or team stuff not for personal ranks

[T0byJug]

 

i Do get it Toby, im an average player and win just over 50% normally but having 6 great players or 6 bad players will keep me at a certain level whatever i personally do, sometimes i get multiple kills and 200+ hits, sometimes i m dead in a heartbeat without doing a thing, either way i sometimes win sometimes lose, its random, so relies on team not player performance. win/lose only works for clan or team stuff not for personal ranks

 

But players that do work as a team (that is possible with just ingame chat) will progress up the ranks. and as you progress there will be more and more of these team players in each team! so you will have more chance to progress.

 

Ok non of this may work but its defiantly a good attempt at some sort of ranked battles in WOWS.  All game performance like damage will encourage (in my opinion) is campers and snipers. Players not taking one for the team as it will hurt there chance of progression

 

Lets give the MODE a chance before we all condem it shall we..

 

This thread shouts back to the ones on last patch release and the new CV match making. Players posting screen shots of match making Fails as they got in to a battle with a different tier CV than there's.   Pic taken at 7am on relase day with 1k players onliner and 5 mins+ wait time for a game

[xCaptainObviousx]

@GrimWristler

 

Do you ever do anything but whine? All I ever see you do is create 200 post threadnaughts about how everything is unfair to YOU in person.

[Shaka_D]

I like the opportunity to choose to play ranked battles or not, and smaller fleets are welcome too. +1 for WG in this regard, let's hope it develops further.

[GrimWristler]

@GrimWristler

 

Do you ever do anything but whine? All I ever see you do is create 200 post threadnaughts about how everything is unfair to YOU in person.

 

If you want one. here it comes.

 

Its very rare i do post on forums, but when i do, i like to make my views clear. If it means writing a few long paragraphs, to explain myself, then so be it. Its your choice amongst others to read what i have to say or not. The other reason is i often get personal attacks, and trolling, when its not needed. People dont respect that someone may feel like a game is going in a bad direction, yet wants to voice it. Isnt that a good thing? If people like myself dont voice about the good the bad and the ugly, then how do you expect wg'ing to make things better? for any game for that matter. Its just down to sheer luck if they take note of it.

 

I dont come on the forums with positive threads because, i spend my time playing and enjoying my games. the only time i feel things need to be improved, ill voice my opinion. if people like or dislike it, thats upto them. Ive said my peace and hope wg'ing takes note.

 

this thread has nothing to do with "ME" persay, as i dont think ill even bother with this pointless ranked mode. But what iam saying here, is that winrate means nothing as a stat, and being an individual activity within ranked battles, without divisions. It promotes personal play more. that means showing yourself to the community with how good you are. but on winrate alone, it has no value to me. i wish to be judged on how i perform as an individual within each and every battle. not dictated by win or lose, thats dictated heavily on my team which is out of my hands.

You also get the same xp from co-op, according to ingame discussions.

theres no insentive for me in this mode other than signals. but im not here for signals. Im here for great battles. battles i can enjoy without bad team selections, and with players my own skill level. Like you and me. im here for fun. thats the whole point in a game. fun. so if i feel something isnt quite right. ill voice it.

 

I got slammed on here before about sea mines, and cv's being heavily broken. all of which i just got trolled and judged upon. Im merely here voicing what i feel needs to be improved and what would be cool for the game. If people like the game in its current state, then great fails to you. but like all players. you want a game to do well. people hate change. you think those cv player who own and troll people ingame wants me voicing about how bad cv;'s are and for them to get nerfed at tier 9 and 10? ofc not. those players wish to keep owning. hense why they troll.

 

and btw. theres a difference between whining and constructive criticism. how could this be a whine when this mode has just come out, and doesnt interest me having read the patch notes prior to release?. I prefer skilled matchmaking. this isnt.

 

If Wg'ing really listened 5 plus years ago. there would be a MM that would exist in this franchise for the better good. we wouldnt be ranting and raving about XVM either, as it wouldnt exist as we know it. Players are crying out for clans and clan activities too. personally clan stuff should have come first over this mode, and so far theres been very little positives about ranked battles, notebly players voicing their thoughts about never playing it again. thats their choice, and so they should have the freedom of speech to critisize and comment about it.

so why not me?

[DreadArchangel]

I think ranked battles will be very good for the game, if you're willing  to fight, to win, you should do well, its those that tend to hang back, that won't do so good in it., if you're bold, you'll do well.

[bismark121]

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. 

 

this is only to a certain extant as this isnt wot and you cant go toe to toe with 9 ships and win as it is almost impossible unless they are all afk i mean look at my stats and see i do well over 60k on average and a 2.22 average kills per game and yet i only have a 52% and most of the losses were when i do my absolute best yet our team just dies and there isnt a hope in hell i could change that

[GrimWristler]

 

this is only to a certain extant as this isnt wot and you and go toe to toe with 9 ships and win as it is almost impossible unless they are all afk i mean look at my stats and see i do well over 60k on average and a 2.22 average kills per game and yet i only have a 52% and most of the losses were when i do my absolute best yet our team just dies and there isnt a hope in hell i could change that

 

which is exactly the reason why winrate means nothing, and therefore stars should be dealt with differently, like top scores gain a star. bottom score lose a star

[GrimWristler]

Oh and for the record of a released product. i just had a game where before i knew it my game lagged to the point i had no FPS, only to find i was dead by a torp fest.

come back to port, and a game bug meant i could see my ship, but no UI. nothing. i couldnt geto ut of it. so i had to quit game and restart.

Release quality they say... Sure.

 

[Xmen]

 

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.

 

lol now i understand what you re whining about .what  a ridiculous statement.

 

The fact is that you are totally delusional .

 

Where you belong is 56 % because you can't carry enough to do more ..

People that are better than you and can carry more will have a better win ratio it is as simple as that .

And guess what they will have better average stats (damage,  K/D or whatever ) than you because they are better

 

[GrimWristler]

 

lol now i understand what you re whining about .what  a ridiculous statement.

 

The fact is that you are totally delusional .

 

Where you belong is 56 % because you can't carry enough to do more ..

People that are better than you and can carry more will have a better win ratio it is as simple as that .

And guess what they will have better average stats (damage,  K/D or whatever ) than you because they are better

 

 

So what? your now attacking me? nothign new there then from a forum troll. twist through the text.

Like i said before. i have no intention on ever playing ranked battles, so who gives a crap.

 

and for the record mate, ive been 68% so stfu about whether i can carry or not. certin ships mean im unable to carry games, where most teams cannot for the life of them, do it themselves.

and who cares if someone is better than me. great on them. whoop de doo. and yet again, your judging someone based on winrate, which has nothing to do with how good a player is. winrate is dictated by 14 players on your team. not a 1v1.

Im not condoning that ill get to account rank 1. Its not my arguement. I could be the worst player going, yet im not stupid to know winrate means nothing.

[KptStrzyga]

You had 68% once so you belong in 70% range despite having 56%? Lol, what a guy.

You aren`t only one who has bots and afkers, bad teams, or disconnects. Everyone else does. And everyone plays stock ships with untrained captains sometimes. You aren`t that special. Guess what. I had 100% once. So I belong to 160% WR range? 

You have 56% because that is your WR. Exactly what you deserve. It`s amount of games you made difference between win or loss. Deal with it.

[Blixies]

 

good leadership and constructive chat should be rewarded as part of the compliments system, as should bad play/chat behaviour be punished by the report system, maybe a credit reward or fine i personally use compliments a lot but have no idea what it achieves or gives the complimented player

 

I wholeheartedly agree.

[gronaAnkan]

 your judging someone based on winrate, which has nothing to do with how good a player is. winrate is dictated by 14 players on your team. not a 1v1.

Im not condoning that ill get to account rank 1. Its not my arguement. I could be the worst player going, yet im not stupid to know winrate means nothing.

 

Win rate means something. It is not a perfect 1 correlation, but the correlation exists.

 

Suppose we build a simple model. Take 14000 players who plays in random teams of 7, each with a normally distributed skill value normalized between 0 and 1. In this model the total ability of a team is the sum of the skill of the players in a team. To simulate a good amount of RNG in the game, a uniform distributed random number is drawn between 0 and each team's total ability and the winner of the two teams is the one drawing the higher number. The probability of a team with total ability t1 winning over a team with a lower total ability t2 is

A team having 10% more total ability results in a probability to win of about 55%. Have all the players play repeatedly in teams that are randomly selected each time and plot individual win rate vs the individual skill level. The result looks something like this:

The blue being after 1000 games played each and the red after 10 000 games.The point is that even if each player is a small part of a team and even if the outcome is largely random anyway, given enough time, win rate will still correspond to individual skill simply because individual skill is the only variable that is constant for all the games an individual plays.

[LMN118]

 individual skill is the only variable that is constant for all the games an individual plays.

 

Except not even individual skill is constant. 

 

Winrate as a determination of "skill" is affected by too many variables. An aggregate based on personal values would have been an intelligent way to do things. Since you are talking of ranked battles most people would assume you are ranked by player skills but all it is you can achieve a rank in essentially smaller random battles. 

[Sake78]

 

Except not even individual skill is constant. 

 

Individual skill IS constant, or rather it should be. You see, you want a player that is constant  / consistent over a player that is brilliant only half the time. 

 

Case 1: It is better to have a player with a consistent 2 KDR over any match, than a player that gets to it by doing large differences, like 4 and 0 over 2 matches.

Case 2: It is better to have a player wwhich is consistent at 70k dmg dealt in all matches or very close than one that does it by doing 140k or 0 over 2 matches.

[RepSrb]

 

Win rate means something. It is not a perfect 1 correlation, but the correlation exists.

 

Suppose we build a simple model. Take 14000 players who plays in random teams of 7, each with a normally distributed skill value normalized between 0 and 1. In this model the total ability of a team is the sum of the skill of the players in a team. To simulate a good amount of RNG in the game, a uniform distributed random number is drawn between 0 and each team's total ability and the winner of the two teams is the one drawing the higher number. The probability of a team with total ability t1 winning over a team with a lower total ability t2 is

A team having 10% more total ability results in a probability to win of about 55%. Have all the players play repeatedly in teams that are randomly selected each time and plot individual win rate vs the individual skill level. The result looks something like this:

The blue being after 1000 games played each and the red after 10 000 games.The point is that even if each player is a small part of a team and even if the outcome is largely random anyway, given enough time, win rate will still correspond to individual skill simply because individual skill is the only variable that is constant for all the games an individual plays.

 

interesting how that elypse is geting tighter as more games accumulate. what is even more interesting is how even if you are god of war- you cant go over 60^% win,

or if you megasuck- you just cant go below 40%...

and 90 % of players will be between 45% and 55%.

just 10% difference.

[Hummus]

You can only play ranked battles solo... so you can't get carried.

And WR is the only measure that matters. Every sport or Esport looks at wins and win alone .... was the enemy team better then your team all game, but it scored less? ... to bad for them, the team that scores gets the prize.

 

And MMO games never stop expanding and progressing ... so according to OP's way of classifying them they would never leave 'beta'.

 

[mtm78]

Hi everyone.

 

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.

 

I would be in favor of a formula to calculate a player's 'worth' in a battle but there is no formula yet available. There is no reward for spotting, and a DD who spots targets for his team can be invaluable ( same for a carrier which parks his fighter over a DD ) for one.

 

When all factors are known and tangible, there can be a discussion by some brighter minds than me about how all those numbers correlate to a players 'weight'.

 

Until then, using XP would suit me fine in ranked battles but that can be 'cheated' as well ( as I can get XP by not going for a game objective but concentrating on damage ). In the end, the objective of the game is those goals ( cap/kill/defend ) and not (spotted)damage/xp so win rate in that light makes a lot of sense.

 

edit:

 

Individual skill IS constant, or rather it should be. You see, you want a player that is constant  / consistent over a player that is brilliant only half the time. 

 

Case 1: It is better to have a player with a consistent 2 KDR over any match, than a player that gets to it by doing large differences, like 4 and 0 over 2 matches.

Case 2: It is better to have a player wwhich is consistent at 70k dmg dealt in all matches or very close than one that does it by doing 140k or 0 over 2 matches.

 

Sorry but those fluctuations you're wanting to rule out are actually part of normal statistical occurrences/results 

[gronaAnkan]

 

interesting how that elypse is geting tighter as more games accumulate.

Actually, it is entirely predicted by the Berry–Esseen theorem which states that convergence will be proportional to the root of the sample size. 10 000 is 10 times larger than 1000, the root of 10 is about 3 and the width of the red pattern is about a third of the blue one.

 

what is even more interesting is how even if you are god of war- you cant go over 60^% win,

or if you megasuck- you just cant go below 40%...

and 90 % of players will be between 45% and 55%.

just 10% difference.

All the actual values are made up, they don't correspond with anything from the game. The whole thing was simply an exercise in showing that the statistics work even if the individual only has a very small contribution given enough time. A player probably has much more power over the outcome of a game than this model gives credit for which would result in much larger range of win rates and thinner distribution sooner.

[CrniVrag]

 

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.

 

Why doesn't it work? I mean the first couple of ranks are team and luck dependent, yes of course, but as you move up you get ranked against and with a team of players of the same rank. You can not tell me that getting to rank 10 or rank 1 is luck related or team related. You have to carry hard every battle to get up to those ranks. Good players will do it, bad players will blame luck and RNG...

 

[mtm78]

RNGezus has a role in a relatively small pool off players getting into rng dependent mixed teams.

 

This should alleviate itself when more people enter the player pool, since with a larger pool a more uniform distribution is to be expected.