Jump to content
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
chaosrealm93

a CSGO-esque ranking system

44 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
444 posts
6,356 battles

wg should implement a CSGO style ranking system, not only for ranked season, but for randoms too.  absolutely sick and tired of invalids going to caps that are a waste of everyones time

 

players of similar skill should play with others of similar skill. saves everyone of the headache of having to tell these players where to go and why.  

the lower skilled player thinks everyone is hostile to them and the better player wont have to pop painkillers.  its a win win

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[YARRR]
Beta Tester
6,644 posts
13,071 battles

Wouldn't work, WoWs doesn't have the player numbers to sustain it.

Unless you want to wait like 30 minutes for a match in high rank games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
[CAIN]
Players
2,706 posts
10,505 battles

Not to mention, not everyone is as good as his stats may indicate.

 

it‘s far too easy to farm e-penor points in this game.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
215 posts

I would explain to you why the idea is retarded but we don't have 2012 anymore so a simple 'how about no' has to suffice

  • Funny 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OSC]
Players
1,991 posts
11,056 battles
2 minutes ago, BattleshipAP said:

I would explain to you why the idea is retarded but we don't have 2012 anymore so a simple 'how about no' has to suffice

Thank you for saving us your "explanations"

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[OGHF]
Players
522 posts
10,031 battles

Although I agree that it would not work as per OP, but the idea of maybe 2-3 tier level ability could work, just a thought.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
215 posts
Vor 14 Minuten, 15JG52Adler sagte:

Thank you for saving us your "explanations"

Not mine but dozens and dozens and dozens of threads should statisfy your curiousity as you are clearly in need of explanations after 10k battles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
Players
2,001 posts

Oh look, another "skill based MM" request thread, not seen one of those in about a week. Novelty!

  • Funny 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,695 posts
10,590 battles
1 hour ago, Jethro_Grey said:

Not to mention, not everyone is as good as his stats may indicate.

 

it‘s far too easy to farm e-penor points in this game.

 

 

The biggest problem isn't with "farming" rank - it's with big inherent differences between classes, lines or even individual ships. A great player of any other line might suck big time in CVs - but it's not limited to that. I personally have a, say Missouri - she's a great ship but, boy, would you be disappointed if you expected me to perform in her on level anywhere close to what I can somewhat reliably deliver with my high tier DDs.

And even within the same class and line - I can contribute in Grozovoi and Khaba but I can assure you - you wouldn't like to have me on your team if I had to play Tashkent or Udalot... even though my winrate in one of them is surprisingly good - but that's mostly a combination of luck and giving up (praise the freeXP) before my, errm, skill in the ship caught up to me.

 

In the end the rating would have to be calculated for each ship mostly separately - and that would only really work for people playing lots of battles in their favorite toys...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,929 posts
7,756 battles

This post has been edited by the moderation team due to inappropriate remarks.

Edited by Hedko1
1. Etiquette
  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
444 posts
6,356 battles
4 hours ago, Cyclops_ said:

Although I agree that it would not work as per OP, but the idea of maybe 2-3 tier level ability could work, just a thought.

exactly.  it doesnt have to be a finely graded system, just enough tiers to separate the truly weekend from those with an inkling of what ship does what and where to go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
444 posts
6,356 battles
4 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

Oh look, another "skill based MM" request thread, not seen one of those in about a week. Novelty!

perhaps enough people think its a problem and wgshould look into it?  what a novel idea right?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
Players
2,001 posts
3 minutes ago, chaosrealm93 said:

perhaps enough people think its a problem and wgshould look into it?  what a novel idea right?

 

It's been discussed dozens of times, with only a small (but vocal in posting terms) minority actually for it, most posts in the threads are anti for a variety of reasons.

 

Either way WG have said no so forget it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
444 posts
6,356 battles
4 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

 

It's been discussed dozens of times, with only a small (but vocal in posting terms) minority actually for it, most posts in the threads are anti for a variety of reasons.

 

Either way WG have said no so forget it.

well what reasons did they cite?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
Players
2,001 posts

Feel free to do some searching, I'm certainly not going to do it for you, there are plenty of threads to chose from. It's a dead issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TCG]
Players
1,226 posts
11,886 battles

Not saying im agreeing with your idea, but as long as you don't have much players as csgo have, it's not gonna happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,460 posts
5,704 battles
edited

 

edited

 

Aaaaaaand... Not to mention that "good" and "bad" players is a matter of opinion: If you did more damage than your ship has HP and what your class was designed for, you "pulled your weight" - everything else is a bonus. Or at least you would, would anyone bother and play the objectives...

edited
This post has been edited due to being offtopic and inappropriate 

Edited by Hedko1
1. Forenetikette
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,695 posts
10,590 battles
1 hour ago, chaosrealm93 said:

well what reasons did they cite?

They are a bit dependent on the approach to the skill-based MM. The most easily shot down is the "balance teams so that they have players of equal skill", but since you opted for a different, slightly less insane approach (I think you did, at least, I have no idea how CSGO ranking system exactly works) I'll list some of the common ones that came to mind on the fly:

 

1. Queue times. When you start splitting the queue into leagues or impose additional rules, the queue times rise. Even on EU in bad hours it takes some time to get a match - to the point where you can get a less-than-full match (say, 7v7 Random battle). And EU is, I think, the second most populated server - NA and Asia have less players. Making it even harder to form a match on THESE servers might really hurt their players.

2. The problems of ELO system with big teams. Basically, a lot depends on your teammates and there's a lot of them - meaning a huge random factor beyond player's control. What it means is that you need LOTS of matches to get anything approaching a proper gauge of their skill. Ranked can have some skill-based stratification because the teams are so much smaller. Clan Battles are even better suited for such systems: because the evaluated "player" is the clan as a whole, so it's basically all 1v1 matches (of course, if the clan puts forth divisions of very different skill, the effect can get awkward - but that's their problem).

3. Player skill is closely tied to what classes, lines and particular ships they're playing. I'm a much better DD player than cruiser player and a better cruiser player than BB player. But even among DDs I have VERY different results between certain lines. Or even between tiers: I suck at both t9 USSR DDs. I'm a solid player with both t10s. And then there are CVs that play completely differently - a great CV player will usually have some experience with other classes, but won't be anywhere near as good in them. A great DD player might never have touched a CV before - and if he ends up in the skill bracket based on his DD prowess, he'll be slaughtered. What it means is that you can't have ONE skill rating: you need at least one for each class and even then - USSR and IJN DDs play so differently that they might be different classes altogether! And then there are the oddballs like, say, Akizuki - she isn't even a premium, but she has a playstyle doesn't fit into any silver line in the game... And let me remind you about the #2: the skill assessment in 12v12 game takes LOADS of battles and we need pretty small sub-sets of ships for the data to be relevant in the first place.

4. There's always the option of "playing the system". Other games that have some form of skill-based MM struggle with this, so WoWs will too: people who just want to feel powerful. So, what would they do? Set up a bot (or just manually enter match -> die -> repeat) to get their skill rating to hit rock bottom. Then they go to actually play and they're the potato gods, slaughtering noobs and new players left and right!

5. What about new players? If you put them in the bottom "bracket", they'll experience the worst the game has to offer - they'll play with and against bots, complete noobs and occasionally a sealclubber (see #4) that will slaughter them. If you start by putting them closer to the middle, on the other hand, they'll be meeting only other complete newbies (not that common) and players much more competent - a better learning environment but probably not that much fun either, since they'll be slaughtered a lot. Not to mention that people will positively hate getting newbies on the team (since, with noobs relegated to "hell", newbies will be the main source of stupid mistakes until their protection expires and they do end up in hell too).

 

The one thing sometimes brought up by pro-skill-based-MM people as supposed reason for the opposition - the "my stats will suffer" - is actually almost never brought up as an argument, and for a very good reason. Sure, the winrate of good players would drop, HOWEVER all these "skill-based MM" proposition implicitly introduce some ranking gauging the aforementioned skill. Now THAT would be one stat to brag about. If anything, such a ranking would be the promised land of everyone overely conscious about their e-peen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,929 posts
7,756 battles
3 minutes ago, Mandalorianer said:

"brown ships"

Given the clear reference to nazi brown shirts I'll let you explain yourself why you throw nazi accusations around before further action is taken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,460 posts
5,704 battles
Just now, G01ngToxicCommand0 said:

Given the clear reference to nazi brown shirts I'll let you explain yourself why you throw nazi accusations around before further action is taken.

 

Nah, if you take a look at the stats here Cruisers are marked brown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,929 posts
7,756 battles
1 minute ago, Mandalorianer said:

 

Nah, if you take a look at the stats here Cruisers are marked brown.

That is untrue, cruisers are coloured olive - it is the German ships that are coloured brown..

You don't even have the guts to call people a nazi directly but used indirect yet clear accusations of such instead and when confronted about it you backpedal by subterfuge and lies.

So boring of you.:cap_old:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,695 posts
10,590 battles

 

22 minutes ago, G01ngToxicCommand0 said:

That is untrue, cruisers are coloured olive - it is the German ships that are coloured brown..

You don't even have the guts to call people a nazi directly but used indirect yet clear accusations of such instead and when confronted about it you backpedal by subterfuge and lies.

So boring of you.:cap_old:

Lol.

It takes @G01ngToxicCommand0 to infer accusation of nazizm from the fact that someone named a certain according-to-him-not-brown-at-all color "brown"...

 

Beware people. Behold an olive rectangle. Be careful not to call it "brown" as that would make you a Nazi.

Or mean that you're accusing someone of being a Nazi. One of these two.

7d6a2c.png

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
68 posts
5,652 battles

In the long and storied history of these forums, there have ideed been quite a few threads about this general topic. And one thing I noticed is the common problem advocates of skill-based MM want to solve : Games lost because of teammates playing badly. I have to admit, that this is perfectly understandable, because anyone who says, he's never felt any frustration with questionable teammates throwing perfectly winnable games, is a filthy liar :Smile-_tongue:

But they are only seeing the, admittedly, really ovious half of the picture. The part they're missing is: How often is the enemy messing up hard? Most of the time it is hard to notice, since you usually don't have perfect information about the enemy positions and behaviour, but still you can safely assume that, over a large enough number of battles, you will be handed at least as many wins by bad enemies, than your bad allies will cost you. Unless you're a Sir Throwsalot yourself, it's a wash.

As was already mentioned, implementation of global skillbased MM is not at all trivial (or even possible) for a game of this scale, and even the best of systems will not change this one fundamental fact that already governs the outcome of games:

The better team is more likely to win.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
390 posts
8,551 battles

Unicorns need greenies to remain unicorns.

 

Greenies need potatoes to remain green.

 

So what is the problem? 

 

Put in short: someone has to lose 1% for you to gain 1%. And of course it is easier to take it from a potato than from a unicorn...

 

gauss-distribution-001.gif.2a1f5d68db80ba30d3b5fddce4b61eeb.gif

 

PS: Personally I super lowered my expectations and got used to useless sub-bot "things" around me long time ago. After all those "things" make me unicorn. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHAOS]
Players
2,251 posts
10,285 battles
Vor 1 Stunde, Exohoritis sagte:

Unicorns need greenies to remain unicorns.

 

Greenies need potatoes to remain green.

 

So what is the problem? 

 

Put in short: someone has to lose 1% for you to gain 1%. And of course it is easier to take it from a potato than from a unicorn...

 

gauss-distribution-001.gif.2a1f5d68db80ba30d3b5fddce4b61eeb.gif

 

PS: Personally I super lowered my expectations and got used to useless sub-bot "things" around me long time ago. After all those "things" make me unicorn. :)

this^

Without all those BoBs (Bot or Braindead) out there, the purple playes would not be purple.

 

I also see a difference between random battles and other modes like clan battles and ranked. Yes i think clan battles and ranked (obviously) need some kind of ELO-System, but oh wonder, they already have that (at least partially).

If someone want a more skill-equalized game experience, they can go and play clan battles (and at some degree even ranked).

Random battles are, and probably always will be, ... welp... random battles.

I also got used to the state that random battles are, and i changed my expectations from "teamwork" to "trying to kill the enemy BoBs faster than their unicums can kill mine".

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×