Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Leo_Apollo11

Re-Post of my original 2015 idea - Proposal: Simple and elegant solution for better fairness in "Ranked Battles"...

27 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
3,405 posts
9,965 battles

Hi all,

 

This is re-post of my original idea from 2015 - bit it is still relevant and actual! :Smile_Default:

 

 

IMHO it is great that WG introduced the change in spring 2016 for top player of losing team not to lose the star (and I hope that my proposal several months earlier played a role there) but I still believe that my original proposal is better because it helps with biggest problem in "Ranked" - the "carry" of not so good players up the ranks due to belonging to winning team...

 

For me, personally, this (the "carry" of not so good players up the ranks due to belonging to winning team) is the biggest problem with "Ranked" and something really should be done about it!

 

 

 

 

Quote

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:

 

313g7wi.jpg

 

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

 

2dwgrio.jpg

 

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"

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

  • Cool 4
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,698 posts
19,168 battles

So can you explain what you want to fix with this. Is this just proposal to stop players placed at the bottom of the wining team to get carried or what? Do you think this proposal will prevent people for just trying to prevent losing the star no matter will they win or not or care for team? Do you think this will make games less toxic and more enjoyable? Don't see how is this much better than the system we have now. If radar cruiser find a good spot and use its tools to help a team by radar caps or shooting down enemy planes while itself don't have a big damage impact on enemy team and end last does that mean it didn't contributed enough of get carried? Or dd which did a good job in supporting its team but wasn't lucky in landing its torps? I think that solution is more in the valuing actions of different class and their roles. For example dds get more point for spotting, blocking the caps, bbs for tanking and so and so.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
3,405 posts
9,965 battles

Hi all,

 

1 minute ago, fumtu said:

So can you explain what you want to fix with this. Is this just proposal to stop players placed at the bottom of the wining team to get carried or what? Do you think this proposal will prevent people for just trying to prevent losing the star no matter will they win or not or care for team? Do you think this will make games less toxic and more enjoyable? Don't see how is this much better than the system we have now. If radar cruiser find a good spot and use its tools to help a team by radar caps or shooting down enemy planes while itself don't have a big damage impact on enemy team and end last does that mean it didn't contributed enough of get carried? Or dd which did a good job in supporting its team but wasn't lucky in landing its torps? I think that solution is more in the valuing actions of different class and their roles. For example dds get more point for spotting, blocking the caps, bbs for tanking and so and so.

 

 

 

I think that we can all agree that:

 

There are more than enough players positioned rather high in Ranked who have no place there (and the reason they are where they are is only because they were "carried" by their winning team)!

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,698 posts
19,168 battles
6 minutes ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

 

 

I think that we can all agree that:

 

There are more than enough players positioned rather high in Ranked who have no place there (and the reason they are where they are is only because they were "carried" by their winning team)!

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

True but you can't completely prevent that from happening, can you? If he play enough game he will sooner or latter progress high enough. Getting 50% of the wining team average XP is not that hard and that doesn't mean you'll prevent bad play like the one we have now that many players just play so prevent loosing the star no matter what would be outcome of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AAO]
Players
401 posts
7,549 battles

This would still reduce players past R10 who dont belong there. Worth of refining since im done with ranked untill its rewamped. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
535 posts
6,302 battles

there should also be a hard limit of battles - for example if you after 150 battles didn't get past rank 10 ( to rank 9 ) you can not advance anymore and if you after 250 battles didn't get past rank 5 than you can not advance anymore and final 350 of max battles per season ( that is by far more than average player would ever need - 150-250 is average battles to rank 1 ) ..

 

Now ATM a lot of players play ranked because it is a tier 8 and there is a lot of premium and in ranked they will get tier 8 only no vs tier 10 like they will in 70-80% of random battles, and ofc players who grind to get to t9 it is a lot easier to play in ranked than in random vs t10 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,698 posts
19,168 battles

I doubt that WG will go with this. Problem is that you restrict number of players who can play ranked which will bring longer waiting time and probably complains of the people who would not be able to participate in the ranked. Sure some increase in requirement for higher rank could be introduced but limiting number of battles or researched tier requirement is just unrealistic. Nobody can't reach rank one just to be carried all the way. As the best players start the reach Rank 1 it is expectable that people who would take their places in R2-10  would not be equally skilled.  Longer you play, the number of players that are average or bellow average  will increase. This system will not prevent those players to reach R10, it will just prolong the time they would need to reach it.

 

Yes ranked is competitive game but it should be open for everybody or at least majority of the player base. But some things could be improved, most importantly MM. It should be better in placing ships in the teams, take into account their tools too, especially radar ships. For example having Fiji or Belfast, Pensacola or Indianapolis, Benson or Loyang could be a huge difference and give advantage to one team. It could also be a somewhat skill based placing equal number of average/below average players in teams. 

 

What I want to say is Ranked should change but not in elitist way where people who are really good look down upon people who are not equally skilled and tell them that they don't have a right to take part in the Rank season just because their stats are not up to somebody standards. Maybe ranked should be, just like CW only tied to T10 so that every player at least have to grind his ship on his own but even that wouldn't prevent similar things as we have now. It's not an easy task to find solution, but system as it is now is definitely not good and have to be improved/changed. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[WGB]
Players
37 posts
139 battles
5 hours ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

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).

TBH, I have never played Rank Battles, not quite at the Tier required yet,

In regards to your qualification system to gain or lose a star, I played the T5 Podvoisky in a T7 Random battles game  2 days ago where I took 3 solo caps, spotted for my team and smoked for assisting cruisers, but I finished mid table with MEH basic XP, but all the guys I assisted had double my XP, so my question is, would your qualification for a star system be fair to the likes of a DD player like me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
721 posts

Sounds a good idea, I would additionally suggest that premium ships shouldn't be allowed in ranked OR in alternative force mirrored in each team.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Quality Poster
3,405 posts
9,965 battles
20 hours ago, fumtu said:

True but you can't completely prevent that from happening, can you? If he play enough game he will sooner or latter progress high enough. Getting 50% of the wining team average XP is not that hard and that doesn't mean you'll prevent bad play like the one we have now that many players just play so prevent loosing the star no matter what would be outcome of the game.

 

Something... at least something should be done...

 

 

BTW, I was using the "MatchMaking Monitor" is last "Ranked #8"" and to my great horror I found out:

  • most of my teammates were in 35% - 45% WinRate bracket (I can count battles where we had around 50% WinRate on fingers of one hand)
  • most of my team mates had below average damage:
    • DDs with barely 10K average damage (even after 10-20 ranked games)
    • CA/CLs with barely 20K average damage (even after 10-20 ranked games)
    • BBs with barely 30K average damage (even after 10-20 ranked games)
    • and what is worst CVs with barely 25K average damage (even after 10-20 ranked games)

All in all... just terrible experience... :Smile-angry:

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,698 posts
19,168 battles
1 hour ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

 

Something... at least something should be done...

 

 

BTW, I was using the "MatchMaking Monitor" is last "Ranked #8"" and to my great horror I found out:

  • most of my teammates were in 35% - 45% WinRate bracket (I can count battles where we had around 50% WinRate on fingers of one hand)
  • most of my team mates had below average damage:
    • DDs with barely 10K average damage (even after 10-20 ranked games)
    • CA/CLs with barely 20K average damage (even after 10-20 ranked games)
    • BBs with barely 30K average damage (even after 10-20 ranked games)
    • and what is worst CVs with barely 25K average damage (even after 10-20 ranked games)

All in all... just terrible experience... :Smile-angry:

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

I agree with you. Current system desperately needs improvements. Yes there are a lot of bad players but you can hardly prevent them to play ranked or get into R2-10 bracket. Unlike CW, people who reach R1 where out of pool of available players for games and somebody has to replace them or you will have longer and longer queue time for battle, and it's more probable that those people will not be as good as the ones that already reached R1. System you proposed could only prolonged the time they need to get bellow R10 but will not prevent them to reach it. Also it could have some negative consequences too. If you are dd and you are doing your job by spotting enemy ships and torps, contesting caps,  denied areas by you torps but not be lucky with landing any hits on enemy you could end not getting a star which would be really bad and unacceptable.

 

WG should clear things about how XP is calculated so that people know which actions with each class is awarded more or less. Also MM must be improved. Having Belfast instead of Fiji or Indianapolis instead of Pepsi or Loyang instead of Benson could be a huge difference between teams. Having more radar ships in the randoms is annoying but same thing in ranked is unacceptable. It gives a huge advantage to one team, will that profit from that is totally different thing. Also teams should be better balanced, one of the team shouldn't be composed of uniqum players  while other team has average WR of 50%.

 

There is many ways that Ranked could be improved. Question is what WG wants to do. I don't think that they will choose some solution that will prevent large part of the player base from participating in Ranked or do things like excluding premium ships. Expecting that is not realistic. But they need to improve it that is sure. If things stays the same I doubt that I would try any further season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
980 posts
6,184 battles

As stated by the devs the system must be easily understandable and transparent, I think your system has too many variables and doesn't meet these criteria.

 

Also experience is just another 'bad' metric for performance. For example I could sit in my LoYang behind one island blocking a cap and using several cycles of hydro while our cap ticks to a 300 point lead. This would give me few points but puts the team at a significant advantage. Or you might have a cruiser that rushes the cap for an early kill on the DD's but the killing blow comes from someone else. This could leave you with 1 dead cruiser teammate, 2 dead enemy DD's but no cap or kills for the cruiser. He gets almost no points but makes the game very much in favor of his team. Same for area denial torps or BB presence, it might yield very low damage but could hold back an entire flank. The point scoring system is very much in favor or damage (and capping) so judging only contributions by looking at XP score, seems flawed to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,528 posts
9,851 battles

As long as you barely get xp for anything other than damage or caps, going with XP as measuring stick will only force people who wants to rank up to pick ships or fight for the things that gives XP. It's already enough toxic play with people literally playing against their own team to max out xp before even looking for a win.

 

Penalizing someone who spent most of a battle spotting, kiting or whatever else by not even giving them a star on a win, and guarantee it on a loss is a really bad idea.

 

A simpler idea would be to just hand out bonus stars for X amount of stars gained, and remove a star for X amount of stars lost. Thus it's less frustrating for those who do reliably win more than they lose, and it would make it nigh impossible to get to high ranks by just spamming battles until they get a nice lucky win streak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
980 posts
6,184 battles
6 minutes ago, AgarwaenME said:

A simpler idea would be to just hand out bonus stars for X amount of stars gained, and remove a star for X amount of stars lost. Thus it's less frustrating for those who do reliably win more than they lose, and it would make it nigh impossible to get to high ranks by just spamming battles until they get a nice lucky win streak.

 

But the rage would be tenfold once you hit a bad streak. And ranked will serve you a nice round of losses along the way, guaranteed. Everyone hits that one rank where you are stuck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,528 posts
9,851 battles
31 minutes ago, walter3kurtz said:

 

But the rage would be tenfold once you hit a bad streak. And ranked will serve you a nice round of losses along the way, guaranteed. Everyone hits that one rank where you are stuck.

 

Ye, but the point there is that your overall extra wins would help you get past that point even against a bad streak of games.

 

And in the case of those who have these streaks way more often due to their own failings, will ensure they can't just fish for one lucky streak to progress.

 

Anyhow, it was just an example of some idea to help reduce frustrations, I'm sure there's better ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,170 posts

Without a drastic rework of the scoring system where teamplay is represented rather than damage then this is a non starter.

With your proposal you will end up with a scenario that actively encourages team killing or at best negative competition within the team to ensure getting a star.

 

Plus it's probably a bit complicated and would lead to many threads of "why didn't I get a star on a win where I played well?" on here and various other media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,633 posts
4,216 battles

Base XP is an extremely bad metric to use to determine team performance anyway.

It's supposed to be based on multiple different stats in battle, but in the end only really takes into account kills and damage done.

So, say the allied IJN DD has been doing his job of area denial, sending a near-constant stream of torpedoes across the ally cap, preventing the enemy DDs from getting too close for fear of being obliterated, BUT hasn't scored a single point of damage. He's doing his job, he's even doing something advantageous for the team, in fact it might even be so sucessful that the enemy team makes a concentrated push to sink him specifically, succeed and cap the zone, but by then the ally team has already capped theirs, and sunk many of them who were spotted by the IJN DD. End result? IJN DD bottom of his team because he scored ZERO damage himself.

 

How, then, is base XP as a metric fair?:cap_hmm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TAW]
Players
57 posts
21,154 battles

The save-a-star concept is not going away for reasons. Same for base xp scheme, deal damage, cap points and what not, also for reasons.

So how would WG improve the player experience in ranked?

 

Create more MM ladders. The only thing horde learns in R10 -R6 MM is how to save-a-star. In R5- players are decent, but the R6/R5 border is a pain since hordes keep slipping through (and falling back again dragging your star with them).
 

So I propose more MM ladders (leagues?):  -R11, R10-R8, R7-R5. R4 -R2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,528 posts
9,851 battles
6 minutes ago, Schmidt_zxc said:

The save-a-star concept is not going away for reasons. Same for base xp scheme, deal damage, cap points and what not, also for reasons.

So how would WG improve the player experience in ranked?

 

Create more MM ladders. The only thing horde learns in R10 -R6 MM is how to save-a-star. In R5- players are decent, but the R6/R5 border is a pain since hordes keep slipping through (and falling back again dragging your star with them).
 

So I propose more MM ladders (leagues?):  -R11, R10-R8, R7-R5. R4 -R2.

 

Tbh a better way there would be some sort of border to not make it just about getting one win to slip over it.

 

Maybe take a note from CW. When you're one star away from say, getting to r5, you have to win 3 out of 5 battles against a mix of teams with higher and lower MM, and if you do, you go to r5 with the those stars "banked" or back to r6 with those stars lost.

 

/it might be the lateness of me getting to top MM that made it look like it, but I couldn't see some massive difference between r5 and r6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,698 posts
19,168 battles
9 minutes ago, Schmidt_zxc said:

The save-a-star concept is not going away for reasons. Same for base xp scheme, deal damage, cap points and what not, also for reasons.

So how would WG improve the player experience in ranked?

 

Create more MM ladders. The only thing horde learns in R10 -R6 MM is how to save-a-star. In R5- players are decent, but the R6/R5 border is a pain since hordes keep slipping through (and falling back again dragging your star with them).
 

So I propose more MM ladders (leagues?):  -R11, R10-R8, R7-R5. R4 -R2.

 

Aren't we already have those. You can only get players from certain bracket, R2-R5, R6-R10 and so on.

 

1 minute ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

Tbh a better way there would be some sort of border to not make it just about getting one win to slip over it.

 

Maybe take a note from CW. When you're one star away from say, getting to r5, you have to win 3 out of 5 battles against a mix of teams with higher and lower MM, and if you do, you go to r5 with the those stars "banked" or back to r6 with those stars lost.

 

/it might be the lateness of me getting to top MM that made it look like it, but I couldn't see some massive difference between r5 and r6.

 

Difference is that in ranked players that reach R1 are out of competition. If there is not enough players that reach R2 to R5 bracket queue time for battle will became longer and longer as more and more players get R1. How waiting for 10 to 20 minutes for battle could be enjoyable. Also than star system should be changed or totally removed. Getting 4 stars to be able to move from R6 to R5 and then again getting 3 out of 5 stars just to be able to play at R5 would ridicules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,528 posts
9,851 battles
1 minute ago, fumtu said:

 

 

Difference is that in ranked players that reach R1 are out of competition. If there is not enough players that reach R2 to R5 bracket queue time for battle will became longer and longer as more and more players get R1. How waiting for 10 to 20 minutes for battle could be enjoyable. Also than star system should be changed or totally removed. Getting 4 stars to be able to move from R6 to R5 and then again getting 3 out of 5 stars just to be able to play at R5 would ridicules. 

 

Sure, but there would really be no lack of people coming up from below. And again, the point would just be to limit you to that t6 MM a little longer, and the stars you won from those battles would carry forward. Ie, if you're promoted you actually have both 2-3 stars to start out with, and would need to lose 3/5 if you lost those to get demoted. Ie you'd have less jumping up and down between the brackets without having to add ranks you can't drop down from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,698 posts
19,168 battles
1 minute ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

Sure, but there would really be no lack of people coming up from below. And again, the point would just be to limit you to that t6 MM a little longer, and the stars you won from those battles would carry forward. Ie, if you're promoted you actually have both 2-3 stars to start out with, and would need to lose 3/5 if you lost those to get demoted. Ie you'd have less jumping up and down between the brackets without having to add ranks you can't drop down from.

 

That sound to complicated to be viable. Also how there would be no lack of people coming from bellow when you will need to play three to five more battles just to join R5. It would be like you added another intermediate rank that just have somewhat different rules  how to pass it. And when you are out of R5 you have to do all process again and again. Does that sound very fun to you. And for what, to prevent very small number of people to reach R5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,528 posts
9,851 battles
1 minute ago, fumtu said:

 

That sound to complicated to be viable. Also how there would be no lack of people coming from bellow when you will need to play three to five more battles just to join R5. It would be like you added another intermediate rank that just have somewhat different rules  how to pass it. And when you are out of R5 you have to do all process again and again. Does that sound very fun to you. And for what, to prevent very small number of people to reach R5.

 

It's basicly how CW works, so it's hardly too complicated. And since you'd play those battles against other at your rank, it would at most make for a small delay until you have the top rank fully populated. And sure, while it might be annoying to have to do it if you drop under, the process required to drop down would make it far less likely for a capable player. And again, you would not actually lose (or gain) any stars from this. And while it might not stop many terribads from reaching r5 (or r12 or wheverever else you might add such a rank) it would give them the same issues every time they had to try it again, and again, and keep the worse players in the lower MM for more of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TSCC]
Players
1,698 posts
19,168 battles
1 hour ago, AgarwaenME said:

 

It's basicly how CW works, so it's hardly too complicated. And since you'd play those battles against other at your rank, it would at most make for a small delay until you have the top rank fully populated. And sure, while it might be annoying to have to do it if you drop under, the process required to drop down would make it far less likely for a capable player. And again, you would not actually lose (or gain) any stars from this. And while it might not stop many terribads from reaching r5 (or r12 or wheverever else you might add such a rank) it would give them the same issues every time they had to try it again, and again, and keep the worse players in the lower MM for more of the time.

 

You'll just make them play more games to get there. If they have a will to play as much games as they need with such a low WR just to get to R1you want be able to prevent them for advancing to R5 or lower. You'll give yourself a day maybe more but your queue time will also increase as more and more players reach R1 and less and less players take their place. It will also probably create a lot of complains from all those how will not like this system. Unlike CW where leagues usually have similar number of clans per league as some clans enter the league while other leave it, in Ranked you must take into account number of people that finish or simple stop participating in battles.

 

I would rather see some improvements in XP gains based on class, at least only for Ranked, and improvements in MM, taking in count such a things like radar or hydro or even the players WR for more equal teams. If you do your best than you should be awarded no matter were you in the good or bad team. If Ranked, unlike CW, were competitive mode for individuals then there must be something that will also award your skill as individual player not just as a part of team created randomly by MM engine. Getting additional star in win or star in the loss if you really do your part but get dragged by your team maybe wouldn't be a bad idea. But in that case WG really need to create system of XP which will not be so heavily dependable on damage and kills. If you get more XP for things that promote team-play lake capping, tanking, spotting or whatever than maybe you will be more interested to do that without fear that if you do all that but end losing the star just because someone decided to s*** the team and go for his personal goal of not loosing the same completely ignoring objective and go for max damage.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
4,528 posts
9,851 battles
2 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

You'll just make them play more games to get there. If they have a will to play as much games as they need with such a low WR just to get to R1you want be able to prevent them for advancing to R5 or lower. You'll give yourself a day maybe more but your queue time will also increase as more and more players reach R1 and less and less players take their place. It will also probably create a lot of complains from all those how will not like this system. Unlike CW where leagues usually have similar number of clans per league as some clans enter the league while other leave it, in Ranked you must take into account number of people that finish or simple stop participating in battles.

 

 

CW had a very similar situation as the higher leagues had to be populated, and there weren't really at all a very similar amount in each league or group within leagues, probably as CW seemed to give out a lot more points for wins than what was lose to losses.

 

Queue times really shouldn't be affected much at all, at most there would be a slight extra delay to populate higher MM groups. People stopping to play ranked during a season really shouldn't affect this at all. Again it's just a slight buffer between the different tiers of MM.

 

And people complaining isn't really something worth considering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×