How to improve ranked gameplay

[Blitzhagel]

Hello, I wanted to discuss some suggestions on how to make ranked play better before I post it into the correct suggestions thread.

We all know that the matchmaker doesn't take player skill into account.
There are already some good suggestions in the according thread to make MM better.
What I don't understand is why on some matches, the enemy has two Shinonomes and my team has two Fubukis, seems not well-balanced.

In my opinion "ranked battles" should be all about communication with your team and doing what is best for it and ofc knowing the strengths and weakness of your ship.
The strengths and weaknesses of the ships and the perfomance of the player in it should be the main point on how to balance teams.

To accomplish that:

Playable ships in "ranked battle":
- Premium ships (questionable, Pay2Win?! )
- Elite Ships
Maybe some minimum battles fought with that ship as well
You don't want to have teammates who play stock or don't know the ship
Ofc there would be people who use free xp to unlock the modules but not many will spend 70k or more free xp to make it an elite ship.

Captain skills:
- Deactivate all the captain skills or leave only the first 3 skill Points active.
There are some People who don't have that high skilled captains, and they often struggle in ranked battles. For example if the same DD outspots you because he has a higher skill point captain.

These are my thoughts on ranked, in clan battles you will always have people with 19 Point captains and in random Battles it doesn't matter, I just want to make ranked more balanced/competitive.

If you do all these changes, it now really comes down to the player and how familiar he is with his ship and his ships role.

Getting and loosing Stars:
The last patch changed the exp gaining in the game to reflect the roles of the different ship types better.

But except spotting there is no exp benefit if you are doing something for the team (for example: laying down smoke)
It is really frustrating if you see the enemy focusing you as a DD and your team doesn't do that.

Maybe give bonus exp if you shoot a target that is already been targeted by a team member or so.

Change the way exp is given in ranked battle, focus it more on teamplay than on selfishness, maybe later you can adapt the changes for other game modes as well.

Ranked battle EXP Gain:

All ship types:
- Focus Fire
- maybe bonus for the time you stay near your own fleet

Battleships:
- Tanking DMG
- Pushing (Maybe give BBs more EP for the time spent near or in cap points, enemy bases) maybe we won't see so many BBs at the map border anymore or DDs chasing CVs

DDs:
- Capping, Cap contesting
- Spotting
- Smoke exp bonus if your team uses it, or spotted ships from your team become "undetected" because of your smoke

- hydrod ships get damaged
- chase away ships with your torps (dodging is already rewarded, so why don't give DDs exp for making enemies turn, or is this already regarded in "potential dmg"?)

CL:
- Bonus EP for playing the role of a DD if no DDs are in the match
- If your consumables do something (DAA effects planes, Hydro spots something = Bonus exp)

CV:
- Spotting
- Securing own fleet (maybe give them more exp for shooting down loaded planes than for empty planes)

Just make the exp gain more related to the contribution for the team.

If you have done that you could potentially use the avg exp players get in ranked battles for the matchmaker. you can put Players with nearly the same exp in the same match.
People with high avg exp will end up in the higher ranks and People who don't contribute to the team in the lower brackets.

 

I will edit this post and adding your suggestions as long as they are explained ;)
 

[Tekacko]

I pretty much gave up on ranked for this season.

Cruisers are mostly worthless, DDs do not get properly rewarded for their actions.

 

The meta is even worse than last season. Sure, there was smoke everywhere too, but at least you had radar to break it up.

 

Also, T6 ships are crap and you can´t reliably carry games in them yourself.

 

- Double post -

[Gojuadorai]

19 minutes ago, Blitzhagel said:

Ranked battle EXP Gain:

Battleships:
- Pushing 

 

nobody sane would bring BB's any more.

your thought is heavily biased from random battles.

 

Pushing agressively or on the wrong moment looses you the game right there.

ranked is waiting for the otrhers to expose themselves!

pushing is a desparation move you do when youre behind, the team who has to push is on a big disadvantage.

 

[Blitzhagel]

so basically you say: if the enemy team leads pushing should be rewarded, if you lead, defending should be rewarded?

[lup3s]

39 minutes ago, Blitzhagel said:

Captain skills:
- Deactivate all the captain skills or leave only the first 3 skill Points active.
There are some People who don't have that high skilled captains, and they often struggle in ranked battles. For example if the same DD outspots you because he has a higher skill point captain.

 

No.

Taking a low-skilled captain into Ranked is as dumb as taking a stock ship into Ranked. Or a ship without camouflage or signal flags.

 

CE is a must for DDs, and so is camouflage.

I really can't believe how many DDs I've seen in Ranked without camouflage. Those few 100 metres do make a lot of difference.

[Oely001]

Ranked is simple: If you win you progress, if you loose you go down the ladder. This is so simple that there is no point in putting so much effort to make XP gain better only for Ranked. XP gain could more team-oriented, but in all modes.

 

Main problem in Ranked in my eyes is that even bad players can reach Rank 15 without problems. So in Rank 15-11 league you have lots of potatoes stranding and making battles mostly random.

 

Skilled captains: I don't like your idea. Ranked is the most/only competetive mode, why artificially buffing new/unexperienced players?

[Gojuadorai]

19 minutes ago, Blitzhagel said:

so basically you say: if the enemy team leads pushing should be rewarded, if you lead, defending should be rewarded?

 

well if you could reward this yes, and only if you like the status quo.

 

a totaly diffrent aproch would be ranked games on a dynamic map lets say a  2 teams scenario where both teams compete with each other about symetrical objectives. (not only fighting against each other)

that way you could force teams to not camp or they loose the objective and make things more intresting less stationary.

[tank276]

On 7/12/2017 at 3:51 PM, Gojuadorai said:

 

nobody sane would bring BB's any more.

your thought is heavily biased from random battles.

 

Pushing agressively or on the wrong moment looses you the game right there.

ranked is waiting for the otrhers to expose themselves!

pushing is a desparation move you do when youre behind, the team who has to push is on a big disadvantage.

 

Gojuadorai could not have put it better, that is the essence of Ranked for me.

This is the first Season I was "serious" about it. Managed it to R5 a few days ago, still struggling at R6 today, R9 was my best ever previous Seasons.

Problem is , most players, (and I put myself with them some times when adrenaline pumps for extra kills) dont understand it.

I had my most frustrating losses, when we were 1 or sometimes 2 caps ahead, 2 or sometimes even 3 frags ahead, and the team throwed for no reason at all by attacking to kill off fast well "dug in" remaining enemy forces.

I prefer to get stomped over by a more competent team, not this unecessary throws.

 

 

On 7/12/2017 at 4:23 PM, Oely001 said:

Ranked is simple: If you win you progress, if you loose you go down the ladder. This is so simple that there is no point in putting so much effort to make XP gain better only for Ranked. XP gain could more team-oriented, but in all modes.

 

Main problem in Ranked in my eyes is that even bad players can reach Rank 15 without problems. So in Rank 15-11 league you have lots of potatoes stranding and making battles mostly random.

 

Skilled captains: I don't like your idea. Ranked is the most/only competetive mode, why artificially buffing new/unexperienced players?

And not only R15-R11 I can assure you of that, R10-R6 is some times even worse cause all become "professional" of sorts and want their opinion to prevail even if it is 1-6 against them.

My brief experience this year in R5-R2 is not very promising either.

[Blitzhagel]

I my eyes to make ranked competitive you need to put some limits to what players have access to.
not everyone has 10+ skill Point captains. The Point is to make ranked enjoyable for everyone.
Even for players that are unexperienced or do not play as often as others, they will have lower ranks.
You could argue, that if they are unexperienced they should not play ranked. But why? Shouldn't the game be for everyone?
They won't climb the ranks as fast as experienced players do, but if they want to they need to improve their gameplay.
Ranked should be different from Random battles. You don't learn how to play as a team in Random battles.

At Tier VI one should have at least a 3-6 skill Point captain, if you limit the captain skills that are active you ensure that nobody has an advantage because of his captain.
For camouflage, it would be the same, just disable camo in ranked and all have the same. No advantage for anyone.

If your are an experienced player, you know the strengths and weaknesses of your ship, you play your role, you get better avg exp than a less skilled player, you climb ranks.

@Gojuadorai
Some sort of map with different caps that become "active" from time to time, and only if they are "active" capping them gives Points? Or People Need to stay in the cap to get Points?

[Kashuken]

Ranked is not for competitve gameplay or even teamwork, only in the later ranks does it happen but as soon as crap its the fan it is everyone for themselves.

 

Ranked should really be just a solo mode tbh

 

In the solo ranked it simply would be on XP, no bonus for the winning team, top 7 players gain a star and bottom 6 players lose a star  and the one in the middle keep the current star this then removes the AFK/TK and also BOT morons and the bad players will weed themselves out generally, sure this method is very [edited]you your on your own jack but you still need to pull your weight to finish in the top 8 which will be harder because even if you win does not mean you will get your star and this also helps boost the better players from the losing team.

 

Basically if you are good enough and pull your weight more often that not you would gain a star even if your team lost.

 

If we want ranked for teamwork then it would have to be for teams, clans, or 7man divisions like in PVE OPS, i thought about 3-4 divisions but even that has alot of problems.

[Gojuadorai]

8 minutes ago, Blitzhagel said:

I my eyes to make ranked competitive you need to put some limits to what players have access to.
not everyone has 10+ skill Point captains. 

@Gojuadorai
Some sort of map with different caps that become "active" from time to time, and only if they are "active" capping them gives Points? Or People Need to stay in the cap to get Points?

 

- youre missusing the word competetive.... ranked is already highly compettetive, nobody doesnt want to win and does what he thinks is the best thing to do to win.

  what you mean is ranked isnt well balanced 

- if you dont have 10 points captain youre lacking experiance in you ship and shouldnt bring it. seriously 10 points should even be a basic requirement.

 

as for the dynamic map:

i was thinking about some ship convoi that tour the map and you have to defend yours  or loose points for ever ship lost and loos the map if all yours are dead,

or something like you suggested woud work too there are lost of options aslong as you make it 100% symetrical it should make ranked way more dynamic.

 

[Oely001]

@Blitzhagel: If I think your basic idea about Ranked to the very end, then the next season should like the easter bathtube event. Same ships, no nothing else. I don't agree to this. WoWs is about grinding: grinding ships, grinding captains, collecting signals, collecting special modules, buying premium ships. Ranked should be the opportunity to use that stuff. It's always about the degree of influence this stuff has but no influence is... weird.

 

About XP: AFAIK WoT is mainly about XP and not about winning or losing. I've never heard from anyone in WoT being really happy about this. No, in WoWs a victory should be everything, and XP should be unimportant. XP gain will always be unfair. And the main reason for "best-loser" is about mathematics and not about fairness.

 

[Blitzhagel]

16 minutes ago, Kashuken said:

Ranked is not for competitve gameplay or even teamwork, only in the later ranks does it happen but as soon as crap its the fan it is everyone for themselves.

 

Ranked should really be just a solo mode tbh

 

In the solo ranked it simply would be on XP, no bonus for the winning team, top 7 players gain a star and bottom 6 players lose a star  and the one in the middle keep the current star this then removes the AFK/TK and also BOT morons and the bad players will weed themselves out generally, sure this method is very [edited]you your on your own jack but you still need to pull your weight to finish in the top 8 which will be harder because even if you win does not mean you will get your star and this also helps boost the better players from the losing team.

 

Basically if you are good enough and pull your weight more often that not you would gain a star even if your team lost.

 

If we want ranked for teamwork then it would have to be for teams, clans, or 7man divisions like in PVE OPS, i thought about 3-4 divisions but even that has alot of problems.

 

Actually I like this idea ;) Although it would end up like a kind of deathmatch.

 

15 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

 

- youre missusing the word competetive.... ranked is already highly compettetive, nobody doesnt want to win and does what he thinks is the best thing to do to win.

  what you mean is ranked isnt well balanced 

- if you dont have 10 points captain youre lacking experiance in you ship and shouldnt bring it. seriously 10 points should even be a basic requirement.

 

as for the dynamic map:

i was thinking about some ship convoi that tour the map and you have to defend yours  or loose points for ever ship lost and loos the map if all yours are dead,

or something like you suggested woud work too there are lost of options aslong as you make it 100% symetrical it should make ranked way more dynamic.

 

 

- at least 10 Skill Point Captain for Ship A

- at least 50 Battles ( or more ), to ensure the captain wasn't trained on ship B

- elite ship or premium

= able to Play ranked battle with Ship A

 

at Tier VII+ it is very uncommon to not have a 10+ captain, so the Balance Thing only Comes to Play at lower Tiers

 

and yeah, Maps with real objectives like in the operations would be nice, like defend or attack mode ;)

[Blitzhagel]

15 minutes ago, Oely001 said:

@Blitzhagel: If I think your basic idea about Ranked to the very end, then the next season should like the easter bathtube event. Same ships, no nothing else. I don't agree to this. WoWs is about grinding: grinding ships, grinding captains, collecting signals, collecting special modules, buying premium ships. Ranked should be the opportunity to use that stuff. It's always about the degree of influence this stuff has but no influence is... weird.

 

About XP: AFAIK WoT is mainly about XP and not about winning or losing. I've never heard from anyone in WoT being really happy about this. No, in WoWs a victory should be everything, and XP should be unimportant. XP gain will always be unfair. And the main reason for "best-loser" is about mathematics and not about fairness.

 

I don't want to take away everything the Players grinded. I only want to make some cuts for "ranked battle" so it gets better balanced.

Or the requirements to enter "ranked battle" must be higher, not just like "bring a Tier 6 ship".

 

More like: "Bring a Tier 6 Elite or Premium ship, with a 10+Point Captain and 50+ Battles played in it".... Welcome to Ranked Battles.

Players who meet the requirements will have to deal with less unexperienced players.

 

I know it is about grind, the problem with the 10 Point captain only effects Tier VI or lower, at Tier VII+ you wouldn't have that problem because the higher the Tier than the faster you get your captain up, normally.

 

@Oely001

 Would you change the way exp is currently gained?

 

 

[Oely001]

Should everyone be able to play Ranked, or should not everyone be able to play Ranked??? Example: I play Cleveland with 10-point-captain, and my Cleveland hasn't elite status yet. Why shouldn't I be able to play Cleveland (and my stats on her are ok)?

 

Again: The Problem is that the actual ranking system does not separate the different qualities of players efficiently.

 

About XP gain: IMHO some people try to force other players to some adapt a playstyle which is the best in their eyes. I don't like this "educational" approach. When you win you did right, when you loose you did something wrong. Looking at XP is some attempt to evaluate who deserved the loss most.

[Gojuadorai]

theres also one improvement i would suggestion, which will be unpopular:

 

Drop all safe ranks but  one at rank 7 *mid 10-5 bracket

[lup3s]

1 hour ago, Blitzhagel said:

At Tier VI one should have at least a 3-6 skill Point captain, if you limit the captain skills that are active you ensure that nobody has an advantage because of his captain.
For camouflage, it would be the same, just disable camo in ranked and all have the same. No advantage for anyone.

 

At T6 you should already have a 10+ skill point captain.

At T6 you should already know the benefits of using camouflages.

And camouflages are cheap anyway.

 

If you're too cheap to use camouflages, don't play Ranked.

 

If you don't use camouflages in Ranked, don't cry about the disadvantage you have.

If you don't use a high skilled captain in Ranked, don't cry about the advantages other have.

 

Just now, Gojuadorai said:

theres also one improvement i would suggestion, which will be unpopular:

 

Drop all safe ranks but  one at rank 7 *mid 10-5 bracket

 

I oppose this; in fact I'd rather have no safe ranks at all.

[Blitzhagel]

@Oely001 @Kashuken Maybe you could combine your two thoughts and make it about xp and win Bonus. Bots/AFK-People won't get up.

 

for example:

Winning Team:

top 4 Players in XP earn 1 Star

bottom 3 don't loose a star

 

Loosing Team:

top 2 Players get 1 star,

3rd and 4th don't loose a star,

bottom 3 loose a star 

 

So there would still be a reason to win, but you won't feel that you got punished if someone on your Team screws up and makes you loose the match.

Maybe it will force DDs to Play more defensivly, because if they get focuses heavily at the start they will loose a star.

Thats why I think the exp gaining must be changed, last patch was a good beginning.

 

I think Players should be ranked according to their avg exp, and the matchmaker should consider this to Balance Teams.

 

 

[Gojuadorai]

7 minutes ago, lup3s said:

I oppose this; in fact I'd rather have no safe ranks at all.

 

well safe ranks reduce the efficiency of the sorting thats why they should be droped,

but when you break  the half of the rank 10-5 bracket (without any previous safe ranks!) its pretty safe to assume it wasnt by accident

and ONE safe rank can reduce frustration for players that got tehr but get unlucky (which can happen)

[Kashuken]

6 hours ago, Blitzhagel said:

@Oely001 @Kashuken Maybe you could combine your two thoughts and make it about xp and win Bonus. Bots/AFK-People won't get up.

 

for example:

Winning Team:

top 4 Players in XP earn 1 Star

bottom 3 don't loose a star

 

Loosing Team:

top 2 Players get 1 star,

3rd and 4th don't loose a star,

bottom 3 loose a star 

 

So there would still be a reason to win, but you won't feel that you got punished if someone on your Team screws up and makes you loose the match.

Maybe it will force DDs to Play more defensivly, because if they get focuses heavily at the start they will loose a star.

Thats why I think the exp gaining must be changed, last patch was a good beginning.

 

I think Players should be ranked according to their avg exp, and the matchmaker should consider this to Balance Teams.

 

 

 

Fine with that.

 

[Oely001]

About "best loser": This is the worst rule of all in Ranked! It makes players look at their XP instead of focusing on the victory. It rewards losses. There is only one simple reason for this rule, which is that it produces lots of stars on all ranks. I see absolutely no reason to extend this bad rule even more.

 

Safe ranks are the ladder on which bad players climb up. One safe Rank 15 would be ok, all others are only to feed the monkeys and should be deleted.

[Culiacan_Mexico]

15 hours ago, Blitzhagel said:

 

for example:

Winning Team:

top 4 Players in XP earn 1 Star

bottom 3 don't loose a star

 

So in my DD, I smoke up my team mates and scout, so they can cause damage(gain experience points)... we win I get nothing?  Why would any DD support his team vs causing damage?

 

 

[Doghunt101]

already posted this in another thread:

 

split ranked seasons up:

 

1. Random (potatoe league)

2. Division (clan ranked battles)

 

Would fix frustration for many ppl.

[Greek_Patriot]

The biggest issue is damage. YOU CANT HAVE A TEAM that more than half of the players got an avg dmg of 25-30k and the enemy team has double that avg dmg. A good way of making a better MM is to EXCLUDE ALL THE PLAYERS THAT HAVE AVERAGE DMG BELOW 45-50k. Average damage is a good way of knowing if a player plays somewhat good in a game OR at least isnt a liability to his team. I mean guys i have seen players with 5000 battles that had 25k average damage. How *Edited must you be to do so littlle damage. Even with a lucky shot (or 2) you can do more than that! I also agree with oely. If a team loses then all the players should lose a star. That way the guys would be forced to fight for the win rather than just hide and try to do more damage just to keep their star. Also premium ships should be allowed in ranked. We all saw last season. Every fight had 3-4 belfast (at least). Now we have dunquerke, duca d'aosta etc etc.

[Kehldon]

Do I see a Fuso player above ? :)