Ranked Season suggestion

[Charger76]

Wargaming:

 

Today your MM had fun with me by putting me in team after team in which there was never any hope because there were people in those teams who relish losing. People like the Fubuki drivers that refused to cap. The Battleships that sit sideways on to enemy in smoke. The Battleships and Cruisers that are given a smoke screen then proceed to drive through it or worse, shoot at nothing that is spotted on the other side of the smoke. Deeply frustrating and no doubt going to lead to a chat ban soon as my frustrations get the better of me.

 

I have slipped from Level 5 to nearly level 8 in one morning of horrors. Some I could have done better, most I did best I could and still never had a hope.

 

I am not a great or even very good player, but I like the challenge. I do my best for the team every game, often to my own detriment. Ranked is now however feeling beyond me. I am not good enough to carry a team of determined losers with suffucient regularlity to advance without ending all else in my life to play which with a business to run, a wife & children is just not going to happen.

 

I got a fantastic pointer from a Fubuki who refsued to cap: he got top XP by staying alive, torp spamming from map edge then nabbing a few late caps when game was beyond winning. Right idea, play for himself from kick off & ensure that he got top XP for caps & some lucky torp hits. Utterly cycnical, disgusting play from team perspective, completely sensible from selfish perspective.

 

Now I don't want to become such a cynical person, but this morning's gaming going from Level 5 to Level 7 is going to force me to play similarly selfishly. However, if WG were to be SLIGHTLY more generous with their "save points" whewre you cannot lose more stars, it would not be so frustrating. Level 12 is the last "Irrevocable" Level. I would submit to you that Level 5 ought to be too as that is when the dififuclty & number of games per level ramps up. You could also make an argument for same at level 10.

 

What do other players think?

[Oely001]

Irrevocable levels are the best way to flood upper ranks with noobs. Ok, you can move last irrevocable rank from 12 to 10, but that's it! Less is more here.

[Nargoth73]

I think we need less irrevocables. I only voted Yes for the last option (and by doing so also for option 2). Those ranks should be irrevocable. The rest are a bit too easily reached and maintained.

[Loran_Battle]

In my opinion the irrevocable ranks are not the main problem.

 

I'd rather have them actually rewarding people that (try to) win the battle. By that I mean that if 2 players have 2k+ xp and did 80% of the damage and between them got 7 kills, then the other 5 players should not get a star for example. This way you only advance if you actually do something. On the other hand, if 2 players get 1+k xp on the losing team, they definately tried and therefore should not lose a star.

That is if we keep the whole star system, which I think it way to binary to do a ranked game in any case.

 

There is too much dependence on the TEAM in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I love teamwork. But 5 years of WoT have shown us quite clearly that it is not possible in any way to get any amount of players actually playing as a team. Sorry, but it won't happen. What I am trying to say is: actually reward skilled gameplay. And stop letting "bad" players advance on the backs of others.

 

Apologies if I sound really cynical, but I am. Thank WoT and WG for that. We have this thing called teambattles. Combine THAT with ranked and I think it will be a lot better...

[Charger76]

In my opinion the irrevocable ranks are not the main problem.

 

I'd rather have them actually rewarding people that (try to) win the battle. By that I mean that if 2 players have 2k+ xp and did 80% of the damage and between them got 7 kills, then the other 5 players should not get a star for example. This way you only advance if you actually do something. On the other hand, if 2 players get 1+k xp on the losing team, they definately tried and therefore should not lose a star.

That is if we keep the whole star system, which I think it way to binary to do a ranked game in any case.

 

There is too much dependence on the TEAM in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I love teamwork. But 5 years of WoT have shown us quite clearly that it is not possible in any way to get any amount of players actually playing as a team. Sorry, but it won't happen. What I am trying to say is: actually reward skilled gameplay. And stop letting "bad" players advance on the backs of others.

 

Apologies if I sound really cynical, but I am. Thank WoT and WG for that. We have this thing called teambattles. Combine THAT with ranked and I think it will be a lot better...

 

Actually that is a superb idea: top 50% of players in each game go up a star, bottom 50% go down a star.

 

If they did that I would remove most of the irrevocable levels & just keep one at league step ups: Level 10 and Level 5.

[Charger76]

Irrevocable levels are the best way to flood upper ranks with noobs. Ok, you can move last irrevocable rank from 12 to 10, but that's it! Less is more here.

 

Level 5, 6, 7 I have seen more idiots than at any previous level.

 

Not a valid argument.

[AnotherDuck]

Actually that is a superb idea: top 50% of players in each game go up a star, bottom 50% go down a star.

 

The problem with that is that not everything you do for the team gives you xp, but everything you do for the team increases the win chance.

 

On the other hand, you're probably more likely to get in the top 50% if you work for the team.

 

I'd probably modify the suggestion to gives stars to the top 5 of the winning team, and the top 2 of the losing team.

 

Another option would be to increase the condition for not losing a star to the top 3 of the losing team, and not give a star for the bottom 2 of the winning team.

[Slauter]

Irrevocable ranks mean nothing. They might save somebody some time, but that's irrelevant.

I would reduce the number of stars needed, slightly-maybe by 10-15%, and also remove the rule about top loser not losing a star. People often adjust their play to earning most exp. You should think only about how to win a game.

[BadGene616]

I'm intrigued as to what op thinks the fubuki in question should have done when it was just him left alive, from the sounds of it he was still trying to win. Getting some caps, hitting with some torpedoes...

 

Sometimes when you are in a DD you go wide and spot, torp in from the flanks, hope your heavier ships don't over extend.

 

But sometimes they do and you're left with a very rapidly dying bb fleet.

 

What else should the fubuki do in that situation?

 

I appreciate that he may have just gone off and done his own thing right from the start... Everyone gets people in their teams like that from time to time, but op sounds like he just wanted him to suicide so he himself stood a chance of getting first loser.

[dasCKD]

I am a n00b, and I want stuff like credits, flags, and camo and hence I advocate for adding more safe harbors in terms of rank grind.

 

In all seriousness, a long patch of dead space might theoretically keep the n00bs out of the lower ranks, but there's little point in denying that even excellent players have issues when they could grind their way up to rank 3 before a plague of bad teams that just lets them die results in them dropping down to 7 or 8. The ranked system would be much less rage inducing if a patch of bad games wouldn't cost you days or even weeks worth of effort.

[Charger76]

I'm intrigued as to what op thinks the fubuki in question should have done when it was just him left alive, from the sounds of it he was still trying to win. Getting some caps, hitting with some torpedoes...

 

Sometimes when you are in a DD you go wide and spot, torp in from the flanks, hope your heavier ships don't over extend.

 

But sometimes they do and you're left with a very rapidly dying bb fleet.

 

What else should the fubuki do in that situation?

 

I appreciate that he may have just gone off and done his own thing right from the start... Everyone gets people in their teams like that from time to time, but op sounds like he just wanted him to suicide so he himself stood a chance of getting first loser.

 

Nope. He never capped when it counted. By the time he started capping there was a 700 point gap and no hope of any kind to win. He clearly took the view that the best way to get ahead was to be alive at the end and if his team won despite his lack of participation, great, if they lost he'd get top XP through caps & lucky torp hits. With best concealment in game, Fubuki ideal for this.

 

I am criticing him from one standpoint, but from another I absolutely get his cynical approach. Not a whinge in that regard, I just would rather not be so cyncial but the temptation to be cyncial like this guy is getting stronger. I sold my Fubuki before Ranked announced. Otherwise, such is my frustration with teams, I'd be taking a leaf from his book. Cyncism is not nice, but when MM puts you in teams with fools consistently, understandable.

 

BTW, top tip from a friend who reached Rank 1 very quickly:

Make a list of idiots and if you have more than 1 in your team, play accordingly for top XP.

Started doing that this evening. Would love to share with you all, but rules....

[Oely001]

 

Level 5, 6, 7 I have seen more idiots than at any previous level.

 

Not a valid argument.

 

 

You see most noobs where they beach. If there would be less irrevocable ranks before 15 you would see less noobs on the ranks you mentioned. If last irrevocable rank is 10 you would find them on ranks 5 to 3.

 

Generally, the most basic definition of a good player is that he wins more battles than he loses. It is not possible to often win luckily on the long term. This is why it only counts whether you win or lose, no matter how many XP you earn. Irrevocable ranks corrupt this principle, you can reach such a rank "on one good day", what can be pure luck. To get a free star when leveling up works the same way, but at least it gives some motivation to the players.

 

So, less irrevocable ranks in the beginning, at least three stars in every rank. That would be fair. Anything else is just convenient.

[dasCKD]

I think the largest issue with ranked battle right now with the rank retention system is that it is often used when it's not needed. I personally usually top the team in XP when I win and I often lose when I screw up and die early. It'll be nice if I could get a token for coming top in XP gain in a game to retain my rank in a game where I royally screw up.

[Kamikazesushi]

You cant make irrevocable rank 5.....you need people to bring stars up there.

 

Same goes with 10. But there you still get an extra star if you advance so its not so important.

[Nodorf_]

I had a ranked battle yesterday in my Chappy where both me AND the Amagi got High Calibre, but we still lost the game ofc, cos you know, we were probably the only ones that did much dmg to the enemy. I was top score and he was just slightly behind. I got to keep my star but that sorry dude lost his even tho he probably did the game of his life.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

High Calibre doesn't mean a thing in Ranked.

 

I used to get all the damage awards in my Bismarck but could never win and was treading water at R10.

 

Now I've switched to the Benson I'm R5 but my damage/scores are mediocre.

 

 

[ElrogGA]

Wargaming:

 

Today your MM had fun with me by putting me in team after team in which there was never any hope because there were people in those teams who relish losing. People like the Fubuki drivers that refused to cap. The Battleships that sit sideways on to enemy in smoke. The Battleships and Cruisers that are given a smoke screen then proceed to drive through it or worse, shoot at nothing that is spotted on the other side of the smoke. Deeply frustrating and no doubt going to lead to a chat ban soon as my frustrations get the better of me.

 

I have slipped from Level 5 to nearly level 8 in one morning of horrors. Some I could have done better, most I did best I could and still never had a hope.

 

I am not a great or even very good player, but I like the challenge. I do my best for the team every game, often to my own detriment. Ranked is now however feeling beyond me. I am not good enough to carry a team of determined losers with suffucient regularlity to advance without ending all else in my life to play which with a business to run, a wife & children is just not going to happen.

 

I got a fantastic pointer from a Fubuki who refsued to cap: he got top XP by staying alive, torp spamming from map edge then nabbing a few late caps when game was beyond winning. Right idea, play for himself from kick off & ensure that he got top XP for caps & some lucky torp hits. Utterly cycnical, disgusting play from team perspective, completely sensible from selfish perspective.

 

Now I don't want to become such a cynical person, but this morning's gaming going from Level 5 to Level 7 is going to force me to play similarly selfishly. However, if WG were to be SLIGHTLY more generous with their "save points" whewre you cannot lose more stars, it would not be so frustrating. Level 12 is the last "Irrevocable" Level. I would submit to you that Level 5 ought to be too as that is when the dififuclty & number of games per level ramps up. You could also make an argument for same at level 10.

 

What do other players think?

 

It's called tilt. You lost your rank and it affected your emotions towards the game and your ability to make rational decisions. Since you have 50% wr in 4000 games i would say , you should be happy that you got carried all the way up to five. Rank one is not for everyone and you don't have to play ranked- nobody is forcing you. Making 5 irrevocable would simply make you spam games with no penalty and screw over everybody else who really tries to win.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

You really need to fight tooth and nail for every star. Don't just grind.

 

Even killing 2 then dying yourself might not be enough. You need to be able to hard carry every game. Some have already hit R1 in under 200 games. I've hit 5 in 130 games. I would suggest neither are a case of luck or being carried all the way.

[Nodorf_]

High Calibre doesn't mean a thing in Ranked.

Afaik HC is 30% of the enemy teams entire hp pool, right? So if me and him both got HC, we did at least 60% of the entire teams hp, meaning the other 5 on our team didnt even manage to do 40% combined since the enemy team had 2 ships still alive when we died.

What i was trying to say was that it was kinda unfair to the Amagi dude to lose his star even tho he did a hell of a game, but the other 5 in the team failed misserably to deliver. He should have got to keep his star too.

[RUSSIANBlAS]

Afaik HC is 30% of the enemy teams entire hp pool, right? So if me and him both got HC, we did at least 60% of the entire teams hp, meaning the other 5 on our team didnt even manage to do 40% combined since the enemy team had 2 ships still alive when we died.

What i was trying to say was that it was kinda unfair to the Amagi dude to lose his star even tho he did a hell of a game, but the other 5 in the team failed misserably to deliver. He should have got to keep his star too.

 

I can see the point I think maybe the top two of the losing team should keep their star and the bottom of the winning team should lose theirs...

 

It's very much objective based tho. Won quite a  few as DD where we've had far less ships but held caps and sneaked around long enough to win on points.

[Nodorf_]

It was one of those weird mm's with 4 bb's and 3 cruisers per side, so wasnt much capping. Pretty much just a slugfest, hehe.

[passwordistooshort]

We need less irrevocable ranks with higher gaps between them.

[Charger76]

 

It's called tilt. You lost your rank and it affected your emotions towards the game and your ability to make rational decisions. Since you have 50% wr in 4000 games i would say , you should be happy that you got carried all the way up to five. Rank one is not for everyone and you don't have to play ranked- nobody is forcing you. Making 5 irrevocable would simply make you spam games with no penalty and screw over everybody else who really tries to win.

 

Perhaps the most arrogant, obnoxious response you could possibly have written. Also grossly misplaced. I bet in real life you get punched a lot & have no real friends.

[Charger76]

 

 

You see most noobs where they beach. If there would be less irrevocable ranks before 15 you would see less noobs on the ranks you mentioned. If last irrevocable rank is 10 you would find them on ranks 5 to 3.

 

Generally, the most basic definition of a good player is that he wins more battles than he loses. It is not possible to often win luckily on the long term. This is why it only counts whether you win or lose, no matter how many XP you earn. Irrevocable ranks corrupt this principle, you can reach such a rank "on one good day", what can be pure luck. To get a free star when leveling up works the same way, but at least it gives some motivation to the players.

 

So, less irrevocable ranks in the beginning, at least three stars in every rank. That would be fair. Anything else is just convenient.

 

Actually a very good set of points. Would you agree then with what I posed: you get an irrevocable level when you go up a league, but none in between?

[RUSSIANBlAS]

Last Irrevocable Rank as 12 feels fine. Anything higher up would just lower the standard.

 

After you're accustomed to a rank then it's fairly hard to drop too far. I've managed to hold strong on ranks I've gained after a bit of yo yo-ing.

 

Thing is though, every loss of a star potentially needs two wins to make progress again if you don't come top of the losers. So what someone will need to rank up can quickly snowball.