Jump to content


Losing ranks/chevrons is the main flaw of Ranked Battles


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

R3dBaron #1 Posted 06 June 2017 - 04:22 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 10512 battles
  • 317
  • [ENEMY] ENEMY
  • Member since:
    04-22-2011

Hello all,

 

I sincerely believe that Ranked Battles (both in Wot and WoWs) are a very good idea and have the potential to be extremely fun for all players if WG corrects its main flaw: Demotion.

 

The psychology of demotion is pretty well documented and is used by many companies with various degrees of success.

 

A basic fact present in all demotion studies is that most of the demoted individuals speak about their demotion experience as a demoralizing event from which they fear they might never fully recover. Demotion causes in most cases economic harm, lower well-being, lack of enthusiasm and grief reactions and identity crisis.

 

Is this what WG's wants for Ranked Battles?

 

The motivational potential of demotion when applied to our jobs and careers can not be directly transferred to WoT or WoWs. Our life and our family depend on our job/career. Playing tanks and warships is not the same. Maybe on the very short term, demotion in WoT and WoWs can boost the resolve and the commitment of a few players (luring WG to think they are getting more income because people play more games) but for every newly motivated demoted player how many more will just give up avoiding the demotion negative effects?

 

Viktor Kislyi stated last year that the main slogan of his company is “Happy players” because if players are not happy WG can not prosper.

 

Imho WG needs the vast majority of its players to be happy (I know some people can never be happy...), not only a few that reach the top.

 

So, my proposal is simple: Drop the demotion mechanic from Ranked battles and make everyone happy. Awesome players will still reach the top relatively fast, average and bad players will eventually reach it too after a little bit or a lot of more effort but everyone will be spared to the nefarious effects of demotion.

 

Thanks and best regards.


Edited by R3dBaron, 06 June 2017 - 04:26 PM.


Aikl #2 Posted 06 June 2017 - 04:24 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25141 battles
  • 4,048
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011
Following common profiting logic, if it made people play more battles, it would be implemented. ;)

Xandania #3 Posted 06 June 2017 - 04:27 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34351 battles
  • 710
  • [-DGN-] -DGN-
  • Member since:
    05-16-2013

Sorry, but wouldn't that just mean that these ranked battles would be just regular random battles again?

 

You can't have ranks without dropping people down again if they are outperformed. It's pretty much why you don't see your local football team in any world championship, just cause they played enough games :)

(depending on where you live, this may differ, but I think the point is clear)



Enforcer1975 #4 Posted 06 June 2017 - 04:30 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 18481 battles
  • 9,855
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

I didn't play it yet since i don't have a tier 10 tank but i like the idea of demotion. This way only those who can perform well on a regular basis WILL get the goodies and not the tomato who happens to fail his way through to tier 10 given enough time to grind ofc.

That's why it's skill based and not time based matchmaking. 


Edited by Enforcer1975, 06 June 2017 - 04:32 PM.


HugSeal #5 Posted 06 June 2017 - 04:33 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 22717 battles
  • 1,960
  • [SWEC] SWEC
  • Member since:
    05-10-2012

What an excellent idea! Let's have everyone be at the top, that perfectly puts meaning in having a rank system where player skill gives you different ranks.

 

Now I've been typing at my keyboard for rather long, by your logic that should mean that I am a world renowned author, jsut liek everyone else who's done that.

 

Seriously, remove the demoting and you remove the entire point of having a game mode where people can strive toclimb to the top. If you're not good enough to be at the top then tough, git gud.



unhappy_bunny #6 Posted 06 June 2017 - 04:40 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17410 battles
  • 2,150
  • [-OC-] -OC-
  • Member since:
    08-01-2012

I also haven't played it yet. In fact I am not sure whether I want to or not.

I cannot see the point of a ranking system that just keeps adding people to the top ranks if they play enough battles to eventually gain, possibly through luck, the higher ranks. 

Promotion and demotion (or relegation) is the normal means of deciding ranks. 

Many players clamoured for a "league" or Skill based MM, and now WG have implemented, albeit on a trial basis as far as I know, players are moaning because they realise that they will not automatically rise up the rankings, but could also drop down them. 

If you don't like it, then don't play it. If enough players dislike it enough to not play it, then it will die eventually, 



Gvozdika #7 Posted 06 June 2017 - 04:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 38084 battles
  • 538
  • Member since:
    02-26-2011

The main issue with Ranked Battles isn't the promotion/demotion - it's the fact that often this promotion/demotion is out of the player's hands. 

 

- Scenario 1 - your team is a bunch of knuckle-draggers who kybosh your chances of winning by camping/red-line sniping, not supporting any push and generally being moronic. So straight away your chances of getting a chevron go down the toilet unless you also red-line camp and farm damage like mad. The trouble is that everyone has the same idea and you end up with half the team sitting waaay back while the players who are actually contesting the map get shot to bits.

 

- Scenario 2 - MM decides it's a really funny idea to stack 3x Maus and 3x Type 5s vs a bunch of Leopards and Pattons. On himmelsdorf. Again, your chances of being demoted are very much higher thanks to circumstances beyond your control - does the resulting stomp reflect the fact I was outplayed or the fact that the odds were stacked against my team before the 30s timer even ended?

 

- Scenario 3 - An average player who does the bare minimum can progress up - so long as they get in the top 12 on the winning side (which REALLY isn't hard). I've done less than 1.5k damage and got in the top half of a winning side - is that 'win' and resulting chevron an indication that I was a better player or outplayed the opposing team (esp. if the reds are stuffed over by 1 or 2 of the variables outlined above)?

 

The whole notion of this being 'skill-based' progression is flawed - if you get a streak of good(ish) teams you're laughing. If the MM doesn't bork and stack the teams daftly - you're laughing. All of these 'ifs' are irrespective of your skill, making a mockery of the whole concept.

 

If you really wanted a true skill-based mode you'd make it 1 vs 1 duels where the winner goes up and the loser goes down in ranking - where MM and team composition doesn't matter - because the win/loss entirely depends on the individual. That way it would truly be down to who played better, who shoots better, who makes best use of the map, etc. 



Strappster #8 Posted 06 June 2017 - 04:58 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 23628 battles
  • 8,790
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    10-20-2015
This is a joke thread, right? No one's really that [edited] stupid, are they?

fighting_falcon93 #9 Posted 06 June 2017 - 05:30 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 29341 battles
  • 3,338
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostR3dBaron, on 06 June 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

So, my proposal is simple: Drop the demotion mechanic from Ranked battles and make everyone happy.

 

I vote no. If you couldn't lose chevrons, what stops a tomato from reaching rank 5? Even an afk bot would reach rank 5 eventually. Basically this would make the entire rank system pointless, since we could just have a score system instead where people get rewarded for their score. It would in the end not have anything to do with skill, but who has the more spare time to spam battles.



NiemandXL #10 Posted 06 June 2017 - 05:33 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 37955 battles
  • 2,934
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013
So you want to take the ranking part out of the ranked battles? Please tell what would be the difference to normal randoms then?

Browarszky #11 Posted 06 June 2017 - 05:38 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 14906 battles
  • 2,775
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

IMO too, it should be more individual performance related. Even in real engagements, wars and battles, the troops on the losing side do not get their ranks stripped off just like that and awards are given for bravery regardless of whether they win or not.

 

Personally for me that would very likely mean no rank progression at all, but still I think that kind of set up would be fairer. For top players, not sure if it makes difference either way, though...



NiemandXL #12 Posted 06 June 2017 - 05:49 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 37955 battles
  • 2,934
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013

View PostBrowarszky, on 06 June 2017 - 06:38 PM, said:

IMO too, it should be more individual performance related.

 

That would destroy any chance for teamplay. No one would be willing to take risks anymore.

Browarszky #13 Posted 06 June 2017 - 05:54 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 14906 battles
  • 2,775
  • [I-S-L] I-S-L
  • Member since:
    12-03-2013

View PostNiemandXL, on 06 June 2017 - 04:49 PM, said:

 

That would destroy any chance for teamplay. No one would be willing to take risks anymore.

 

Then.. it would mean there would have to be a way to separate ranks and rewards from each other, which would very likely result in something so complicated that nobody would bother....

Edited by Browarszky, 06 June 2017 - 05:55 PM.


suvicze #14 Posted 06 June 2017 - 06:25 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Tester
  • 19297 battles
  • 641
  • [CS-TB] CS-TB
  • Member since:
    08-07-2010

Removing the demotion is stupid. That way everyone would be at the top eventually given enough battles. What this mode needs is a bit of tweaking in who gets/doesnt lose chevron. Currently it just motivates people to camp or play it very save because if they are killed early or just damaged severely their chance to go up is very small compared to red line snipers especially in tough tanks like maus or type5. My idea would be something along the lines of top 10 people on winning team gets chevron, rest will not lose one and lets say top 10 people on losing team doesnt lose chevron, rest does. That way it should promote more active play and desire to win from more people. With only top 3 people on losing team being save from demotion it just increases the number of players who will just say screw it lets play it save in my OP Maus/type5 and camp in the back, even if my team gets steamrolled I will still survive long enough to get into top three.

 

Lets be honest here, ranked mode is mostly about you being lucky with teams to have enough good people who are trying to win and you being good enough to influence the battle at least a bit. How big is your influence will only speed up the proccess of progressing through the ranks but your skill alone isnt really enough to ensure victory, same as in random battles. Punishing 12 players on losing team when their individual performace doesnt matter enough for victory is too harsh.

If this was something like CoD, CS or good old ET where one player could kill entire enemy team if he was good enough I would be OK with the current setting but when one person cant win alone no matter how good he is, the current setting simply discourages players too much and encourages the selfish play we are seeing.



Jumping_Turtle #15 Posted 06 June 2017 - 06:47 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 58627 battles
  • 5,115
  • [CNUT] CNUT
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013
Perhaps make it that we need a little more chevrons to gain a rank but when you reach the next rank you get to keep that. The way I understand it only rank 1 and 5 are secure. So if you get to rank 3 and the mm is against you or your team sucks you can drop back all the way to rank 1.

Hedgehog1963 #16 Posted 06 June 2017 - 06:49 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 50188 battles
  • 6,938
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

Those who are complaining about the MM in an individual match are missing the point. This game  modewill in the long term sort out the good players from the bad because the good players will win more often.  This doesn't mean you'll win every game because you're the best player, nor that you'll lose because your'e bad.  WoT doesn't work like that, especially at the lowest ranks because the players are all random.

 

Part of what makes ranked battles is people's stick-to-it-ness as weighed against their willingness to give up because they've had a bad experience.  Most people have a limit.  I got to rank 12 last season in the ships but wasn't making any progress so I quit ranked battles.  Still did better than I'd expected.  Right now I wish the season was still on because I think I gave up too early.


Edited by Hedgehog1963, 06 June 2017 - 06:51 PM.


Wille_Wilse #17 Posted 06 June 2017 - 06:56 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 9240 battles
  • 101
  • Member since:
    06-01-2016

I think it is a good idea - not that i have a tier 10 to play these ranked matches with atm.

If you earned a rank - it stay - but it should be difficult to get there. I have no idea how it is atm.

That doesn't mean you can not go up a rank - if it is harder and harder to gain a rank I believe that is enough motivation to keep playing. 

 

Its like saying - this is the level of knowledge you need to have to get approved. No more no less. Shouldn't be easy to get at top standard... 



Jumping_Turtle #18 Posted 06 June 2017 - 06:57 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 58627 battles
  • 5,115
  • [CNUT] CNUT
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostHedgehog1963, on 06 June 2017 - 06:49 PM, said:

Those who are complaining about the MM in an individual match are missing the point. This game  modewill in the long term sort out the good players from the bad because the good players will win more often.

 

Aren't the ranks resetted every week ?

Jumping_Turtle #19 Posted 06 June 2017 - 06:58 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 58627 battles
  • 5,115
  • [CNUT] CNUT
  • Member since:
    10-15-2013

View PostWille_Wilse, on 06 June 2017 - 06:56 PM, said:

 

If you earned a rank - it stay - but it should be difficult to get there. I have no idea how it is atm.

 

Only rank 1 and 5 are secure afaik. You can lose every rank in between. So you could be one victory away from rank 5 and drop back all the way to rank 1.



Wille_Wilse #20 Posted 06 June 2017 - 07:00 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 9240 battles
  • 101
  • Member since:
    06-01-2016

View PostJumping_Turtle, on 06 June 2017 - 06:58 PM, said:

 

Only rank 1 and 5 are secure afaik. You can lose every rank in between. So you could be one victory away from rank 5 and drop back all the way to rank 1.

 

Then it sucks big time in my humble opinion.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users