should rank progression be tied to personal success or stay like it is?

[MrWastee]

 

 

 

hey all,

 

wouldn't it more appropiate to have:

- ranks tied to personal progress, not to that of randomly created teams. so more like the actual missions we get ingame are designed (earn x xp, lay fires and such)

- missions for (randomly created) teams, progress tied to that of the whole team. seems at least ot me more appropiate, as "missions" in a military sense barely is tied to the success of individual-play/-progress/-whatever, but to that of good teamplay within a team.

 

good teams win missions, good players progress in ranks. sounds good, does it?

[SkybuckFlying]

Here is a nice personal mission for cruiser players:

 

1. Be within 10 KM range of carrier and shoot down 50 planes !

 

or

 

2. Be within 10 KM range of carrier and destroyer 10 destroyers ! ;)

 

^ Talk about a good support role ! ;) ^

 

[eliastion]

hey all,

 

wouldn't it more appropiate to have:

- ranks tied to personal progress, not to that of randomly created teams. so more like the actual missions we get ingame are designed (earn x xp, lay fires and such)

- missions for (randomly created) teams, progress tied to that of the whole team. seems at least ot me more appropiate, as "missions" in a military sense barely is tied to the success of individual-play/-progress/-whatever, but to that of good teamplay within a team.

 

good teams win missions, good players progress in ranks. sounds good, does it?

 

As for ranks - no, absolutely not, it's a terrible idea. The Ranked mode as it is is exactly about individual effort and progress HOWEVER said effort is approximated the only way it can be done: by looking at how the teams progress when the player is in them as opposed to enemy teams that don't have that. A good player will help his team win. A bad player will help his team lose. Pretty straightforward, really. No other way to measure actual contribution to the team that not that rarely requires actually giving up on a bit of that juicy XP or some damage - in order to do something that helps the team win.

 

Group missions, on the other hand, are a nice idea in and of themselves. I imagine Randoms could possibly be made more interesting if there were some side quests with additional reward appearing now and then. I'm not sure what these quests should be, however, to make them interesting and not disrupt the matches.

[MrWastee]

 

As for ranks - no, absolutely not, it's a terrible idea. The Ranked mode as it is is exactly about individual effort and progress HOWEVER said effort is approximated the only way it can be done: by looking at how the teams progress when the player is in them as opposed to enemy teams that don't have that. A good player will help his team win. A bad player will help his team lose. Pretty straightforward, really. No other way to measure actual contribution to the team that not that rarely requires actually giving up on a bit of that juicy XP or some damage - in order to do something that helps the team win.

 

Group missions, on the other hand, are a nice idea in and of themselves. I imagine Randoms could possibly be made more interesting if there were some side quests with additional reward appearing now and then. I'm not sure what these quests should be, however, to make them interesting and not disrupt the matches.

 

i can see the point, but isn't it too random for ranks? i mean, u can be a godlike player, but if mm keeps grouping you with not so godlike players u stand no chance in progressing in ranks. it feels like a lottery, but it shouldn't.

personal rank, in the sense of a personal achievement, should be tied to personal success, something one can control by oneself. not something that randomly gets set by something u can't influence at all, and that's team creation.

i just f.e. have bf(4) in mind, where ranks are tied to personal progress. one can argue the system there ofc, but in the first place it just feels more appropiate to me.

 

in here could be f.e. only get a star if certain marks are matched, like certain ammount of xp gained in one match. win or lose wouldn't matter and something like this would create incentive to play good, while not being punished for bad teams.

own team win could add on top, f.e. extra xp/credits or even a star more (maybe if certain marks are matched for team). thinking of soccer: win get 3 points, draw 1 and loss none.

much examples one could build a system for wows from, that not would feel that random.

as for me, i worked my way up to rank 5, got thrown back on rank 8 and feel sooo much like "for what". indeed my playtime got cut short a lot last days, only because of not wanna play ranked. but wanna play ranked (and only ranked as long it is possible), if ya know what i mean ;D ...

 

(no talk of plzzzz irrevocable rank 5 in current system :x)

 

team missions are somehow already in, in some kind of sense (+50% xp on first win). a way to build some more incentive on these f.e. could be, to only match players who are on their first match on a ship. so everyone in a match has the incentive of getting the bonus. could be fledged more out in whole imo as well, aye .

 

Here is a nice personal mission for cruiser players:

 

1. Be within 10 KM range of carrier and shoot down 50 planes !

 

or

 

2. Be within 10 KM range of carrier and destroyer 10 destroyers ! ;)

 

^ Talk about a good support role ! ;) ^

 

 

u have a point there. indeed level of support could be a good factor to measure progress in ranks as well imo.

[eliastion]

 

i can see the point, but isn't it too random for ranks? i mean, u can be a godlike player, but if mm keeps grouping you with not so godlike players u stand no chance in progressing in ranks. it feels like a lottery, but it shouldn't.

personal rank, in the sense of a personal achievement, should be tied to personal success, something one can control by oneself. not something that randomly gets set by something u can't influence at all, and that's team creation.

i just f.e. have bf(4) in mind, where ranks are tied to personal progress. one can argue the system there ofc, but in the first place it just feels more appropiate to me.

 

in here could be f.e. only get a star if certain marks are matched, like certain ammount of xp gained in one match. win or lose wouldn't matter and something like this would create incentive to play good, while not being punished for bad teams.

own team win could add on top, f.e. extra xp/credits or even a star more (maybe if certain marks are matched for team). thinking of soccer: win get 3 points, draw 1 and loss none.

much examples one could build a system for wows from, that not would feel that random.

as for me, i worked my way up to rank 5, got thrown back on rank 8 and feel sooo much like "for what". indeed my playtime got cut short a lot last days, only because of not wanna play ranked. but wanna play ranked (and only ranked as long it is possible), if ya know what i mean ;D ...

 

(no talk of plzzzz irrevocable rank 5 in current system :x)

 

team missions are somehow already in, in some kind of sense (+50% xp on first win). could be fledged more out imo as well, aye .

 

 

u have a point there. indeed level of support could be a good factor to measure progress in ranks as well imo.

 

As for Rankeds - no, it's not too random. There's only so much luck people can have. Once you get past all the irrevocable ranks and into 6-10, 2-5 leagues, you still win some undeserved victories and suffer undeserved defeats but it does even out with 7v7 pretty quickly. What's left is these games that would be victorious if not for some mistake of yours or that WERE victorious because you pulled it off. Yes, it's a marathon but if you play, say 300 games, you can expect very close to 50% win ratio IF you were always the average player in each match. Now, each time you manage to make small defeat into small victory, that's +2 stars (one star not lost for defeat and one won for victory instead). Then there's the boost for sometimes loosing as #1, +1 star each time (compared to your expected 0 that you get for losing as much as you win ).

Once you get to higher leagues you get better teammates and enemies, ultimately those that reach rank 1 are people who are really pretty good and pretty persistent or at least somewhat good and VERY persistent (especially in case of late arrivals).

 

 

And any additional "marks" to reach in Ranked are a bad idea. There is that "#1 doesn't lose a star" thing and that actually is nice but in practice even that has some negative impact. It's the game. You are put in teams to try and win. Any goals that distract players from that are a bad thing. Do you really want it to devolve to 7 people competing for the place in team or damage (need to farm that XP somehow) instead of trying to work together to win? Makes no sense - we have lots of that in Randoms, thank you very much.

And yes, there are good streaks and bad streaks and the latter hurt a lot. I only played Season 2 so far and I did fall from rank 2 to 6 then once... It was disheartening.

But frankly, I do have the feeling that they have often more to do with disposition of the day than luck, actually. And, let's be honest - current system works. Not everyone needs to reach Rank 1 and I do feel that people who do reach it deserve it. If we changed that so that you only accumulate progress... what's the point of having any form of Ranked then? It just becomes pretty much another grindy mission-based event.

[MrWastee]

 

As for Rankeds - no, it's not too random. There's only so much luck people can have. Once you get past all the irrevocable ranks and into 6-10, 2-5 leagues, you still win some undeserved victories and suffer undeserved defeats but it does even out with 7v7 pretty quickly. What's left is these games that would be victorious if not for some mistake of yours or that WERE victorious because you pulled it off. Yes, it's a marathon but if you play, say 300 games, you can expect very close to 50% win ratio IF you were always the average player in each match. Now, each time you manage to make small defeat into small victory, that's +2 stars (one star not lost for defeat and one won for victory instead). Then there's the boost for sometimes loosing as #1, +1 star each time (compared to your expected 0 that you get for losing as much as you win ).

Once you get to higher leagues you get better teammates and enemies, ultimately those that reach rank 1 are people who are really pretty good and pretty persistent or at least somewhat good and VERY persistent (especially in case of late arrivals).

 

 

And any additional "marks" to reach in Ranked are a bad idea. There is that "#1 doesn't lose a star" thing and that actually is nice but in practice even that has some negative impact. It's the game. You are put in teams to try and win. Any goals that distract players from that are a bad thing. Do you really want it to devolve to 7 people competing for the place in team or damage (need to farm that XP somehow) instead of trying to work together to win? Makes no sense - we have lots of that in Randoms, thank you very much.

And yes, there are good streaks and bad streaks and the latter hurt a lot. I only played Season 2 so far and I did fall from rank 2 to 6 then once... It was disheartening.

But frankly, I do have the feeling that they have often more to do with disposition of the day than luck, actually. And, let's be honest - current system works. Not everyone needs to reach Rank 1 and I do feel that people who do reach it deserve it. If we changed that so that you only accumulate progress... what's the point of having any form of Ranked then? It just becomes pretty much another grindy mission-based event.

 

while i see your point to me it is about randomness. it's random if the cv on your team is afk, it's random if u get set in the team with one dd less and such.... also being like 3 times in a row best player on losing team (or even the whole match) does not feel right to not have progression.

 

it's not that there were no alternatives, like f.e. take the server-average of a ship, add 10% and if hit by a player: yay, progress (with raised odds for each rank ofc). that way only good players could progress, while the frustration of back-throws could be avoided for everyone. u improve, u progress. no randomness at all.

measures could be improved as well, like f.e. fulfilling support roles.

 

in a mission that fails there still can be individuals that stand out and deserve promotion, while on successful missions there isn't necessarily one that stood out.

for you it works, for me it does not. i really liked to get some other feedback as well.

i just stopped ranked now, being on rank 7 (highest, as said, 5), sold the ships i only got for ranked and enjoy the -20% flag on my t9's for 8 days. this jojo-system just does not feel right to me (never saw such in a game before btw) in terms of progressing in ranks. nowhere in military u get promoted and demoted on a daily basis (yeah, it's arcade, but still...)

 

 

edited topic and added poll to make it easy for everyone to express opinion

[eliastion]

 

while i see your point to me it is about randomness. it's random if the cv on your team is afk, it's random if u get set in the team with one dd less and such.... also being like 3 times in a row best player on losing team (or even the whole match) does not feel right to not have progression.

 

it's not that there were no alternatives, like f.e. take the server-average of a ship, add 10% and if hit by a player: yay, progress (with raised odds for each rank ofc). that way only good players could progress, while the frustration of back-throws could be avoided for everyone. u improve, u progress. no randomness at all.

measures could be improved as well, like f.e. fulfilling support roles.

 

in a mission that fails there still can be individuals that stand out and deserve promotion, while on successful missions there isn't necessarily one that stood out.

for you it works, for me it does not. i really liked to get some other feedback as well.

i just stopped ranked now, being on rank 7 (highest, as said, 5), sold the ships i only got for ranked and enjoy the -20% flag on my t9's for 8 days. this jojo-system just does not feel right to me (never saw such in a game before btw) in terms of progressing in ranks. nowhere in military u get promoted and demoted on a daily basis (yeah, it's arcade, but still...)

 

Sorry, but that's BS. Even the greatest noobs get good games once in a while and having a good game often has much to do with the team you're in - if the CV is AFK, as you suggested, it's highly unlikely that any DD (or anyone at all in a small team, for that matter) is going to have a good game.

The system that relies on victories measures literally everything. The random factors even out and what you're left with is the contribution to victory whether it's spotting where and when needed or screening your ships, or putting smoke for allies, or killing right things at the right time... Hell, even creating good atmosphere that lets the team perform better is counted. It's literally impossible to measure all these things in any other way.

 

 

And if you want just progress with no way of loosing what you already achieved, no way to "jojo" back down when your results worsen - well, this simply suggests that you're better suited for Random than Rankeds. There you progress, unlock ships, accumulate achievements and flags - and your skill is rewarded by your progress simply being faster. It's perfectly ok if that's the kind of thing you want from the game - but I really see no reason why exactly similar approach should be extended onto the one mode that was literally created to NOT work like that...

 

 

PS: And I have no idea why exactly you're comparing it to the military in the first place. If you want your "military rank", check out your service record level - that's kinda it. You got to the top and are allowed to participate in all these exclusive things a new recruit doesn't get to try. Ranked is a variation about ranked/ladder play. Only, in fact, significantly shifted towards your ideal since - unlike typical ranked game - it does include a significant upwards "current" with people exiting the system once they reach the top. Which is why we have ranked seasons rather than a typical ELO ladder that would just stay there.

[MrWastee]

 

Sorry, but that's BS. Even the greatest noobs get good games once in a while and having a good game often has much to do with the team you're in - if the CV is AFK, as you suggested, it's highly unlikely that any DD (or anyone at all in a small team, for that matter) is going to have a good game.

The system that relies on victories measures literally everything. The random factors even out and what you're left with is the contribution to victory whether it's spotting where and when needed or screening your ships, or putting smoke for allies, or killing right things at the right time... Hell, even creating good atmosphere that lets the team perform better is counted. It's literally impossible to measure all these things in any other way.

 

 

And if you want just progress with no way of loosing what you already achieved, no way to "jojo" back down when your results worsen - well, this simply suggests that you're better suited for Random than Rankeds. There you progress, unlock ships, accumulate achievements and flags - and your skill is rewarded by your progress simply being faster. It's perfectly ok if that's the kind of thing you want from the game - but I really see no reason why exactly similar approach should be extended onto the one mode that was literally created to NOT work like that...

 

 

PS: And I have no idea why exactly you're comparing it to the military in the first place. If you want your "military rank", check out your service record level - that's kinda it. You got to the top and are allowed to participate in all these exclusive things a new recruit doesn't get to try. Ranked is a variation about ranked/ladder play. Only, in fact, significantly shifted towards your ideal since - unlike typical ranked game - it does include a significant upwards "current" with people exiting the system once they reach the top. Which is why we have ranked seasons rather than a typical ELO ladder that would just stay there.

 

while u call BS, i'd rather say: let's agree that we don't agree ^^?!... u say winrate evens everything out and takes everything into account. i say winrate is most about randomness, no matter if in random or ranked. streaks possible in all directions, while under a system like suggested good players simply would progress while not so good ones wouldn't until they improve their play. the season thing is on another sheet imo, but yeah... let's just agree on disagreeing and hope for some more input from others ...

 

edit: for me actual system would be more appropiate for teambattles btw :x

[RUSSIANBlAS]

The XP system needs a re-vamp then it can be suitable for personal progression.

 

Or have the bottom two (or more) players on the winning team gain no stars, or even lose them with the top two on the losing side with the same no loss or a gain.

 

 

[Bortasqu]

I don't join ranked gameplay so I can carry my other dead team mates in the end game, and they get rewarded for being bad.

[MrWastee]

The XP system needs a re-vamp then it can be suitable for personal progression.

 

Or have the bottom two (or more) players on the winning team gain no stars, or even lose them with the top two on the losing side with the same no loss or a gain.

 

 

 

any idea on how such a revamp could look like?

[RamirezKurita]

 

any idea on how such a revamp could look like?

 

 ​There's a lot of things that would help such a revamp. Here's a few things off the top of my head:

 

Firstly, give increased bonuses for shooting down aircraft, including further increased bonuses for shooting down aircraft that still have ammunition.

 

Secondly, give spotting bonuses. This could be a combination of giving a bit of XP when a ship is originally spotted (to reward initial scouting to find out where enemies have spawned and are going) as well as giving XP when an enemy ship is shot with the assistance of a spotter. There could also be XP bonuses for little things like spotting torpedoes to help allies avoid them, but that would involve quite a bit of work

 

Thirdly, there needs to be XP bonuses for disabling enemy systems. If a destroyer get their engine taken out then gets gunned down, currently 95% of the reward goes to those that dealt the HP damage rather than the guy who enabled all the damage in the first place by disabling the engine. Likewise, starting fires to increase an enemy's visibility should be treated like spotting damage.

 

The trouble is that in order for such a system to be accurate it has to take into account almost everything. It would involve studying top players (in terms of win rate, not stat whoring pro wannabes) in depth to find out how they achieve their victories and how to translate that into an XP system. Every little thing that they do to increase their chances of victory would have to be factored in, as well as the system being smart enough to identify when something is the right thing to do rather than doing a blanket system of what is good and what is bad, it would have to learn to read the situation.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

 

any idea on how such a revamp could look like?

 

Maybe a different scoring system for each class, would mean that DD don't automatically get top of a losing team. 

 

 

[Panzerblitz]

It should be entirely bound to personal rating. Currenty it's almost unplayable because you often get teams which drag you down.

 

If it was entirely about personal merit it would be the best game mode ever, but in the current state you are completely at the mercy of your team's quality. That random element is what ruins this game mode and it also encourages players to always look at others as reason for their failure instead of trying to improve.

 

There are way too many players who try to cheese the game mode by only caring about getting cap points. Others are playing it as if it was a normal battle and only care about their damage and others yet are trying not to sink so they can save repair costs and spend the whole round running away.

 

The mode is bad and unless you have ludicrous amounts of personal time as well as lucky streaks when it comes to team composition you won't see rank 1 in a season.

[Shaka_D]

Yes, personal rank progression as it currently stands should NEVER be tied in to any factor that relies on the actions or inactions of others with regard to your own team mates, otherwise it is not due to personal results. A randomly selected team is open to too much luck. We already have the RNG in the game, so too much reliance on luck is a factor already. There is only so much carrying of your team you can do and others should not benefit nor suffer due to the actions of someone else in this way, in other words, progression should be due to personal achievement, not team achievement.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

 

There are way too many players who try to cheese the game mode by only caring about getting cap points. Others are playing it as if it was a normal battle and only care about their damage and others yet are trying not to sink so they can save repair costs and spend the whole round running away.

 

 

That would be fine if the ones who capped and the ones who did damage were actually good at their roles!!! 

 

 

[eliastion]

It really eludes me why would anyone want to make Ranked Battles into a GNB event (but where you can show off your diamonds) instead.

 

Git gud. Or stick to Randoms.

It's ridiculous to want to have "ranked" and then not want it to be about winning but about whoring for XP or some other - just as artificial - stats.

 

Also - the poll is useless since it is based on OPs assumption about what Ranked is about and what it's based on.

The question and answers should read:

Should Ranked battles be based on XP or some other stat or on winning games?

1. XP earned in battles or some other similar stat.

2. Winning (as currently, other than the "top loser saves his star" rule)

 

Oh, and since that seems to be major point for OP, another question:

II Should it be possible to lose your progress in Ranked if you don't get the results ?

1. Yes (as currently)

2. No (only progress should be counted)

[MrWastee]

It really eludes me why would anyone want to make Ranked Battles into a GNB event (but where you can show off your diamonds) instead.

 

Git gud. Or stick to Randoms.

It's ridiculous to want to have "ranked" and then not want it to be about winning but about whoring for XP or some other - just as artificial - stats.

 

Also - the poll is useless since it is based on OPs assumption about what Ranked is about and what it's based on.

The question and answers should read:

Should Ranked battles be based on XP or some other stat or on winning games?

1. XP earned in battles or some other similar stat.

2. Winning (as currently, other than the "top loser saves his star" rule)

 

Oh, and since that seems to be major point for OP, another question:

II Should it be possible to lose your progress in Ranked if you don't get the results ?

1. Yes (as currently)

2. No (only progress should be counted)

 

*sigh*

ur suggestion to alter the poll is nothing but the same as i set it up, just in other words. "personal success" can be read in many ways, but is distinct enough from what we have now, as that system not is tied to personal success at all, but ONLY to teamsuccess (as noted, much better fitting for teambattles?!....). i'll edit the poll though, and if only for clarification.

i pointed on a possible system that forces players to overcome certain borders and not is about "not getting the results". so u not improve, u not progress without the frustration of the "jojo".... sure, one more irrevocable rank at least in current system would be nice, but even nicer (and that's the topic) would be to have a complete different system...

 

it's not about havingh another gnb, it's about making ranked attractive to play without the randomness one is tied to right now. u can be superman and still won't ever see rank 1 if rng hates u!

edit: oh, and i don't say that my suggestions are the way to go at all. they're just suggestions, ideas. it's their job to think about possible ways of setting ranked seasons up. i just express my disagreement on the way they did yet and give ideas on which road may better to take to have progression that is fair to the players. to decide which road to take in the end is on them anyway...

[robihr]

i would propose other way of getting/losing stars. you see people that played excellent in your team, but cause of couple of idiots you lost, or you see couple of idiots that didnt contribute anything and got carried by rest of the team.

 

so in losing team there should be option of more people keeping their star cause of performance or none. this would be best done with some xp system where if you perform above team xp average you keep your star.

same thing with winning team, if someone performs way below team xp average they should not gain star for win.

lets say 50% for this example, but this number should be based on statistical data gained by ranked so economy is balanced.

 

think this change would make people with terrible performance unable to get carried to high ranks like we have seen for past few seasons and reward good players.

 

also with this system for ranked i would implement something like karma system for every battle that would award or reduce xp for good/bad teamplay. so e.g. you would get 1 compliment/report per battle that could award/reduce 50xp for a teammate(and only teammate).

[MrWastee]

 

 ​There's a lot of things that would help such a revamp. Here's a few things off the top of my head:

 

Firstly, give increased bonuses for shooting down aircraft, including further increased bonuses for shooting down aircraft that still have ammunition.

 

Secondly, give spotting bonuses. This could be a combination of giving a bit of XP when a ship is originally spotted (to reward initial scouting to find out where enemies have spawned and are going) as well as giving XP when an enemy ship is shot with the assistance of a spotter. There could also be XP bonuses for little things like spotting torpedoes to help allies avoid them, but that would involve quite a bit of work

 

Thirdly, there needs to be XP bonuses for disabling enemy systems. If a destroyer get their engine taken out then gets gunned down, currently 95% of the reward goes to those that dealt the HP damage rather than the guy who enabled all the damage in the first place by disabling the engine. Likewise, starting fires to increase an enemy's visibility should be treated like spotting damage.

 

The trouble is that in order for such a system to be accurate it has to take into account almost everything. It would involve studying top players (in terms of win rate, not stat whoring pro wannabes) in depth to find out how they achieve their victories and how to translate that into an XP system. Every little thing that they do to increase their chances of victory would have to be factored in, as well as the system being smart enough to identify when something is the right thing to do rather than doing a blanket system of what is good and what is bad, it would have to learn to read the situation.

 

nice ideas for not yet implemented stuff, thx .

 

i would propose other way of getting/losing stars. you see people that played excellent in your team, but cause of couple of idiots you lost, or you see couple of idiots that didnt contribute anything and got carried by rest of the team.

 

so in losing team there should be option of more people keeping their star cause of performance or none. this would be best done with some xp system where if you perform above team xp average you keep your star.

same thing with winning team, if someone performs way below team xp average they should not gain star for win.

lets say 50% for this example, but this number should be based on statistical data gained by ranked so economy is balanced.

 

think this change would make people with terrible performance unable to get carried to high ranks like we have seen for past few seasons and reward good players.

 

also with this system for ranked i would implement something like karma system for every battle that would award or reduce xp for good/bad teamplay. so e.g. you would get 1 compliment/report per battle that could award/reduce 50xp for a teammate(and only teammate).

 

and nice ideas on how to alter system without exchanging it for a complete new one, thx for input and keep it coming .

[utg001]

 

As for Rankeds - no, it's not too random. There's only so much luck people can have. Once you get past all the irrevocable ranks and into 6-10, 2-5 leagues, you still win some undeserved victories and suffer undeserved defeats but it does even out with 7v7 pretty quickly.

evens it out? :/

[MrWastee]

 

[...]it's not too random. There's only so much luck people can have.[...]

 

thanks to poster above that line stood out to me. no matter the level of luck is swinging one forth or back, no matter if "not too random" or too random, it is random and in the end randomness is a progression-setting factor in the current system. and that's the point to me (and others in here as it seems), randomness should only be involved in rank progression in-match, so by good ol' rng (to hit, or not to hit).

personal skill, effort and achievement seem much better factors to me to measure good-play/if a player deserves to progress in ranks, than having to rely on the performance of random picked teammates. how it could be done? made suggestions, just as others as well, but it is on them to work something out that fits the shoe.

[MrWastee]

fresh from the "interesting info from RU" thread:

 

"

Latest Q&A's (18 July). Source

---

1. It seems that the people behind the ranked battles matchmaker only play DD's, don't play the game or are too busy developing AAA MMO games to even care.

Since we're nearly through 4 seasons of ranked battles, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts about it and what you plan for the future.

A. All my colleagues and myself that played ranked battles share your pain (that having different ship classes composition between the teams is painful). The RB matchmaker does indeed have some problems. They will soon be resolved when we will implement the new matchmaker (that was introduced in 0.5.8 in random battles) in this mode as well.

 

[...]"

 

at least mm gets some overdue treatment and may lower the factor of randomness. i really hope the system does as well, as still progression willbe tied to that of all teammates and so will stay random.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

I think DD will always be powerful in Ranked aslong as it remains 7v7 and it's cap based. Unless they are nerfed to hell so hard that they become poor in other game modes.

 

It simply makes sense to have at least some of you go stealthy. 

 

Ranked to be more relevant for other classes may need a complete redesign.

 

As much as the utter random nature of Ranked is soul destroying, I've probably learnt a lot about how to play every ship class.

[MrWastee]

I think DD will always be powerful in Ranked aslong as it remains 7v7 and it's cap based. Unless they are nerfed to hell so hard that they become poor in other game modes.

 

It simply makes sense to have at least some of you go stealthy. 

 

Ranked to be more relevant for other classes may need a complete redesign.

 

As much as the utter random nature of Ranked is soul destroying, I've probably learnt a lot about how to play every ship class.

 

ranked shouldn't be the playground to l2p , but i know what ya mean ...

u have a point there, as i'm really not sure how any other system would impact the possible performance-span wthin a new system referring to the gamemode ranked takes place in. though that may could be compensated by the marks to set (for player, or for player regarding shiptype used).