Proposal: Simple and elegant solution for better fairness in "Ranked Battles"...

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

 

Proposal: Simple and elegant solution for better fairness in "Ranked Battles"...

 

Basic idea

The goal is to reward good players in winning team, do not punish the good players in loosing team and sieve-out the bad players!

 

Methodology

 

The only metrics that we can reliably use is "Basic Experience" (i.e. without any modifiers like "Premium" or other multipliers).

 

Here is example of one ranked battle:

 

 

Lets calculate the average for the winning team:

 

(1496 + 1460 + 1078 + 1040 + 1002 + 920 + 25) / 7 = 7021 / 7 = 1003

 

50% of the average for the winning team is 502

75% of the average for the winning team is 752

 

Winning Team

 

All players in winning team with "Basic Experience" above 50% of the average for the winning team will gain one star and will advance.

 

All players in winning team with "Basic Experience" below 50% of the average for the winning team will stay as they are and not gain or loose the star (i.e. they didn't contribute enough).

 

Loosing Team

 

All players in loosing team with "Basic Experience" above 75% of the average for the winning team will not lose their star (i.e. they will not degrade and will stay as they are because they played well).

 

All players in loosing team with "Basic Experience" below 75% of the average for the winning team will loose their star and degrade.

 

 

Our example

 

 

So... in our example the last player in winning team (Cleveland) would not gain the star because it contributed too little and the 1st player in loosing team (Pensacola) will not loose the star because he/she played good enough!

 

 

What do you think guys?

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

 

[captain_sam]

Dude you realize it took WG monthsssss to implement a code for mirrored MM for CVs. Those maths you propose will only bring more bugs into the game.

[OttoKretschmer]

i like the idea.

The only 'con' of the ranked battle is the frustration of losing a star when you played well and lose anyway :/

I will add that it's not always/often my case but when it is i feel so "bad"...

[JapLance]

I like it.

 

I'd take whatever to remove the "lottery players" that launch battles one after the other just to get through ranks, or the ones that use bots to get the same effect. And I like the idea of not losing your hard-earned stars if you did well in a bad team.

[Lowyat]

interesting concept but it doesn't particularly justify those who got focused and sunk too quickly. maybe it was bad luck to him.

however if there is a reward for tanking/angling it might help rebalance it.

But yeah, Ranked battles are kinda getting on my nerves when a random is prophetically showing signs of impending doom.

[vash_hu]

Well, you already calculated with the 1.5x for winning, so not used base xp actually. However I already recommended in another thread (without calculating percentages ) not to give a star for the last player on the winning team, and in exchange the first player should not lose a star on the losing team. However above rank 10 it is unusual that someone is doing nothing, so I would recommend only the last part above 10 (but either way it would be good to be implemented, below rank 10 it would also effectively filter bots).

 

Actually yesterday it took me 4 hours to get from rank 8 1-star to rank 8 1-star (yes, not misspelled), and then 1 hour to get to rank 7 1-star. I'm quite underestimating when I say that I was first in at least 50% of my lost matches (and yes, I was last in a won one once, double ruddered dd :/ ). Seriously it just steals too much from my precious time (and gives quite a lot of anger) to suck because of teams that have no idea of the game (not to mention it does not measure my skills at all). When I went to bed at around 3 am, I was thinking that I would uninstall when this happens next... (really, I could take 2-3 hours of exciting gameplay to gain a rank, but not 4 hours of pure struggling and sucking).

[Ferry_25]

Idea doesn't sound too bad. Only thing: I don't know the circumstances... I have had my share of bad luck in cruisers: taking a massive citadel in the opening phase, reducing my HP to 100... The next salvo would kill me by splash damage alone. I know every cruiser captain must recognise this. After taking such a punch in the groin I have no choice than to play a more passive role in the rest of the battle: rearing up and attack any DD's which might get trough or engage in an all or nothing push if our team is losing. But it also happens that the rest of my team butchers the enemy. The question is: should the player with just bad luck in this situation be punished? 

[ilhilh]

interesting concept but it doesn't particularly justify those who got focused and sunk too quickly. maybe it was bad luck to him.

 

If that happens often that you are 'unlucky' then the reality is that you are charging in and doing it wrong.  If it happens occasionally then... tough?

 

Personally, I like this idea - it might end up with all 7 players getting a star, it might end up with 5... but it will depend on what you have a achieved (or not!).

[JSJooste]

I think its an excellent Idea and would love to see something like this implemented! 

On the whole bad luck thing.. it happens, but whats been proposed is there to reward the players that made significant contributions. If you were unlucky and couldn't contribute as much, the point stays, and you didn't contribute. The way it is now you would loose a star anyway if the team lost. All this does is give you the chance to keep your current rank and I think that's amazing, no "Balancing" of unlucky matches needed. Another option (without math) is to have the two bottom players of the winning team and the two top players of the loosing team stay where they are. Then for every ranked match, 5 people will go up, 5 people will go down and 4 will stay where they are.

[OldGrandad]

It is a great idea and has been mooted previously as like the OP, why punish players that have over compensated due to their own teams lack of effort. This is the main reason I hardly play ranked, it is more lottery than skill to rise through the ranks. Without being a little egotistical, I have never been lower than 3rd in a winning team and always been top on a losing team, that is more than frustrating. I would say that the only reason I would consider to pursue gaining ranks are the flags and not the damn pirate flag!

 

Plus 1 to the OP for being constructive. 

[gm3ntor]

Yup, i like it, i do like it!

 

Some concerns regarding the DDs, though, due to the capping bonus they mostly get

[Takru]

 

Some part of me starts to wonder how this would affect the gameplay in ranked. Could it potentially lead to teamkills so someone who would otherwise not be eligible for a star could sneak his way up to second last rank?

 

You know, you'll have to come up with a system that can not be cheated or at least make the cheating extremely difficult.

 

[ilhilh]

Some part of me starts to wonder how this would affect the gameplay in ranked. Could it potentially lead to teamkills so someone who would otherwise not be eligible for a star could sneak his way up to second last rank?

 

You know, you'll have to come up with a system that can not be cheated or at least make the cheating extremely difficult.

 

The system isn't based on the last person not gaining their star.  The system is based on XP and 6th place could not gain as well if all they did was TK and float around and on the flip side all 7 could get a star if they all pull their weight.  Also, if you TK at the start (and it would need to be at the start to stop them having too much XP) your teams chances of winning drop dramatically.

 

I really think you have found the least likely way of sabotaging this system that is possible!

[Takru]

 

The system isn't based on the last person not gaining their star.  The system is based on XP and 6th place could not gain as well if all they did was TK and float around and on the flip side all 7 could get a star if they all pull their weight.  Also, if you TK at the start (and it would need to be at the start to stop them having too much XP) your teams chances of winning drop dramatically.

 

I really think you have found the least likely way of sabotaging this system that is possible!

 

That might be entirely true, but the point still is: Is there a way to sabotage the system?

[aboch]

 

That might be entirely true, but the point still is: Is there a way to sabotage the system?

 

To sabotage not really, it would lead to more camping in the hope to life longer and make more damage.

It is the same in randoms actually allready. You all know the guy in the biggest ship that is far away to help at all the team, team gets killed as the damage taker (Battleship) is missing. Until the enemy team gets him too he is able while feeling to inflict damage to the enemy, even sunk 1, 2 or 3 ,allready shooten down nearly to death by the rest of the team bevor they got sunk, ships. You know, everybody blames that guy on chat, calls him noob and whatever not. At the end you see him with significant damage and some kills on top of the XP list and the guy thinks he did perfect. Sounds familar?? 

 

The problem here is that the good players MUST risk like they do anyway, the bad players will/would stay even safer. Or the good player has no other choice than to adapt to the new gameplay of the bad players and stats safe too. Both are the most likely scenaries to happen eventually. 

 

It is a good idea, no doubt, if it will work like intented? Not really for a simple reason, the luck factor of which team gets more of the team [edited] is still at place. 

[EsaTuunanen]

Another option (without math) is to have the two bottom players of the winning team and the two top players of the loosing team stay where they are.

That wouldn't work because even in team of total loosers some would have highest score.

While two lst scoring in winning team might have doen damage or capped.

[Cosseria]

This may actually have me playing ranked again if it was introduced. But I doubt it will, it's a too complex system for the average potato player to understand. "Experience? Percentages? Tactics? R U crazy? I logged in WoWs to shoot things, not to play Nelson or to do friggin' maths!"

[SDGsteve]

Ok I am not the brightest star in the sky but how about this solution

Anyone in the winning team has a lower experience than highest player in the losing team a star is not awarded but does not have one taken away (basically they stay where they are (no gain no loss)

The top player in the losing team Gains a star

So in the game screen shot shown

The enemy Pensacola Gains a star

The Cleveland does not gain or lose; the same would go for anyone in the winning team that has a Lower xp than the top loosing player

 

This would promote good play as everyone wants to advance

The top player in the loosing side would not be punished if fact credited,

example a ready good player is on the loosing side get a high EX of 1000 anyone on the winning side with less than 1000 EX does not gain or loose ?

Basicaly the top player in the loosing team is gainng and effecting who in the winning team does not gain

 

 

[CosMoe]

Yeah, good idea. It only punishes those who contribute almost nothing and rewards those who carry their team but lose.

No more <50% winrate players in the top MM bracket that (I guess) do not have a lot of fun getting stomped every match anyway.

[WhoCares01]

I don't think this system works.

Think of these two examples:

Last 5 mins of the match.

1. A BB player sinks two enemy ships in 5 minutes => the score shifts by about 200 points for his team.

2. A DD captain blocks the enemy cap for the full 5 mins => ~240 points less for the enemy (assuming 4 points every 5secs).

While doing more for the score, the latter will receive 0 EXP for his action.

The problem is that not all actions beneficial toward the victory of the team are rewarded equally in EXP. Accordingly, EXP is a bad tool to rate the performance of a player.

Also different ships/classes would be favoured or penalized.

E.g. BBs are favoured because there will be most of the time a target in range, so they have a good potential continuous EXP income by causing damage over time.

DDs are much more situational - spawn at the wrong place, and you are too late to benefit from the initial rush to the "team cap", so it is just the damage output.

Cruisers get the truly short end of the stick - they will be to late for the cap rush and their damage output depends much on what the friendly and enemy BBs do, or allow them to do, and most of the time it will be lower than the damage done by the BBs.

And the few CV - if they neutralize each other, then they just have the plane kills from protecting their teammates...

 

The players have to understand that Ranked is all about the victory, not damage or experience.

Accordingly, also the highest-ranked players on the losing team do not deserve a bonus, because their score is no metric on the value of their action toward victory. Imagine the above BB player scored 100k damage on two enemy BBs, but sinks without sinking any of them => impact on the score -100 points. And exactly those 100 points may have tipped the score in favour of the enemy - do you think this guy deserves a bonus?!

BB captains that consider the match lost would yolo into the enemy team just to maximize their damage output to get into the top slot of the team. DDs on the other hand, with the lowest average damage output, can only hope to get another cap, so may actual play more toward a potential victory than the yoloing BB captains.

[SDGsteve]

I don't think this system works.

Think of these two examples:

Last 5 mins of the match.

1. A BB player sinks two enemy ships in 5 minutes => the score shifts by about 200 points for his team.

2. A DD captain blocks the enemy cap for the full 5 mins => ~240 points less for the enemy (assuming 4 points every 5secs).

While doing more for the score, the latter will receive 0 EXP for his action.

The problem is that not all actions beneficial toward the victory of the team are rewarded equally in EXP. Accordingly, EXP is a a bad tool to rate the performance of a player.

Also different ships/classes would be favoured or penalized.

E.g. BBs are favoured because there will be most of the time a target in range, so they have a good potential continuous EXP income by causing damage over time.

DDs are much more situational - spawn at the wrong place, and you are too late to benefit from the initial rush to the "team cap", so it is just the damage output.

Cruisers get the truly short end of the stick - they will be to late for the cap rush and their damage output depends much on what the friendly and enemy BBs do, or allow them to do, and most of the time it will be lower than the damage done by the BBs.

And the few CV - if they neutralize each other, then they just have the plane kills from protecting their teammates...

 

Agree but this would aply to al the solutions that have been suggested I dont think that it can be solved?

 

So how do you/we come up with a solution? very difficult as there is not a solution to make everyone happy

 

Taking it on stats what stats random? Ranked? it would never work our fair as I have said in anothert post my Ranked stats are far better than my random so, so taking it from random would not be fair one the other hand taking it form Ranked stats would not be fair to the good players that have not played Ranked so much or not at all becasue of the points made in these threads

 

Everyone takes it out on WG but thinking about it how do they do the impossible and make something thats pleases everyone ? it will never happen even looking at these suggedtions form the orther posters and the comments no one has suggested something that everyone likes or agrees,alot of peorple have made some great suggestions and put in possitive thoughts

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[LittleNipper]

Hi all,

 

Proposal: Simple and elegant solution for better fairness in "Ranked Battles"...

 

Basic idea

The goal is to reward good players in winning team, do not punish the good players in loosing team and sieve-out the bad players!

 

Methodology

 

The only metrics that we can reliably use is "Basic Experience" (i.e. without any modifiers like "Premium" or other multipliers).

 

Here is example of one ranked battle:

 

 

Lets calculate the average for the winning team:

 

(1496 + 1460 + 1078 + 1040 + 1002 + 920 + 25) / 7 = 7021 / 7 = 1003

 

50% of the average for the winning team is 502

75% of the average for the winning team is 752

 

Winning Team

 

All players in winning team with "Basic Experience" above 50% of the average for the winning team will gain one star and will advance.

 

All players in winning team with "Basic Experience" below 50% of the average for the winning team will stay as they are and not gain or loose the star (i.e. they didn't contribute enough).

 

Loosing Team

 

All players in loosing team with "Basic Experience" above 75% of the average for the winning team will not lose their star (i.e. they will not degrade and will stay as they are because they played well).

 

All players in loosing team with "Basic Experience" below 75% of the average for the winning team will loose their star and degrade.

 

 

Our example

 

 

So... in our example the last player in winning team (Cleveland) would not gain the star because it contributed too little and the 1st player in loosing team (Pensacola) will not loose the star because he/she played good enough!

 

 

What do you think guys?

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

 

 

And what happens if i remain to defend a BB or CW and shoot down 30planes with my cruiser... i do little damage to other enemy fleet but i don't get exp for protecting BB's or CW's.... this is not fair too!! next time stuff escort missions then, everyone for themselfs.

[Ishiro32]

 

Well written, you have +1 just for that, but... Let me have a jab at it since, I don't really think system like that could work right now.

You are pretty much gamifing the whole process of obtaining stars. The issue here is that your allies actually become the enemy in this situation. If there are two guys in a team who did most of the job (like 2k base exp each) this would make other people harder to get a star. 
Now since the progression is depended on the exp, imagine how people will play around it. They will, there is no doubt about it. Most exp you get by dmg ships and by capping. You are promoting DDs here very hard since in Ranks they are the ones that cap and they can easily top score board just with that. Yes capping is useful, but at the start of the game it's just a pointless race, no skill. Still big part of exp contribution.
What other thing is there, oh yes. Dmg, this would really promote sniping BBs more. People will try to "farm" damage and ignore anything else.
 

so my first argument is that it would promote solo oriented playstyle that would not be usefull to the team.

 

Ok, now other thing. Exp system is just not that good. As I have said capping is strangely profitable, but now let's think about other stuff. Like blocking a cap. It's common tactic for DDs to swim in the cap to block it, it does not give any exp, but generating threat and blocking point capture is very important. At the same time let's talk about planes. Carriers get no exp for spotting even though they are the ones that can shut down DDs from a game passively. They are contributing to the team effort to win, just game does not acknowledge that. Taking damage and beeing shield for your team is also important. Not to mention that 2 North Carolinas are creating bubble to which no sane CV will fly. Zoning is important.

 

my second argument is that exp system is too primitive to use it as rank progression.

I understand what your proposition is adressing and I agree that this is a huge problem. The rank feel too random. Actually there is simple reason for that... mode was designed around people getting to rank 1 with 50% winratio and after getting to rank 1, stoping playing. Extensively this beeing just one big mission that big % of players need to accomplish. Rewards for winning and losing are not a problem, problem is that current rank system does not sort people by their skill at all. You want to fix it, it's simple, you need to do two things:

1.) Make sure that top players occupy top ranks and are not rotated out by weaker ones

2.) Make that so person with 50% winratio has harder time going up and going down. Basically elo system which actively tries to keep you in elo to which you belong.

 

Without those two things, even with your system, ranks will still be randoms with huge disproportion of skill.

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

 

I am only 11/12/13 rank (can't play more than 1-2 games per day) but what I saw from my own experience and what I saw from numerous videos the team that plays as a team will usually win and the EXP will be nicely distributed among victors who actually contributed!

 

For example yesterday I killed 4 in ranked (I managed to do that several times before but never more than 4 kills) in my Cleveland and I was not that far ahead in EXP because we all in our team contributed and we all taken HP out of enemy ships...

 

IMHO my suggestion is step in right direction because it will sieve-out bad players after few ranks (this is the key point here) and only good players will advance (and good players in loosing team will not degrade that easy which is one of the biggest disappointment right now)!

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[ilhilh]

I don't think this system works.

Think of these two examples:

Last 5 mins of the match.

1. A BB player sinks two enemy ships in 5 minutes => the score shifts by about 200 points for his team.

2. A DD captain blocks the enemy cap for the full 5 mins => ~240 points less for the enemy (assuming 4 points every 5secs).

While doing more for the score, the latter will receive 0 EXP for his action.

The problem is that not all actions beneficial toward the victory of the team are rewarded equally in EXP. Accordingly, EXP is a bad tool to rate the performance of a player.

Also different ships/classes would be favoured or penalized.

E.g. BBs are favoured because there will be most of the time a target in range, so they have a good potential continuous EXP income by causing damage over time.

DDs are much more situational - spawn at the wrong place, and you are too late to benefit from the initial rush to the "team cap", so it is just the damage output.

Cruisers get the truly short end of the stick - they will be to late for the cap rush and their damage output depends much on what the friendly and enemy BBs do, or allow them to do, and most of the time it will be lower than the damage done by the BBs.

And the few CV - if they neutralize each other, then they just have the plane kills from protecting their teammates...

 

The players have to understand that Ranked is all about the victory, not damage or experience.

Accordingly, also the highest-ranked players on the losing team do not deserve a bonus, because their score is no metric on the value of their action toward victory. Imagine the above BB player scored 100k damage on two enemy BBs, but sinks without sinking any of them => impact on the score -100 points. And exactly those 100 points may have tipped the score in favour of the enemy - do you think this guy deserves a bonus?!

BB captains that consider the match lost would yolo into the enemy team just to maximize their damage output to get into the top slot of the team. DDs on the other hand, with the lowest average damage output, can only hope to get another cap, so may actual play more toward a potential victory than the yoloing BB captains.

 

You are right.  It should continue as it is now because the current system is better... oh wait...

 

EXP might not not be able to fairly reward all contributions but then again what can?  There is never going to be a system that can pick up the person in a DD who dragged 3 cruisers miles out of position or other such things but it still doesn't mean it isn't a reasonable indicator of contribution and the best available.  This system would be an improvement and work for most situations and that should be a good thing... right?