Jump to content


Fixing Ranked Battles


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

Poll: Ideas - Yes or No? (24 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Personal Rating 4000 minimum to qualify

  1. Yes (13 votes [54.17%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 54.17%

  2. No (11 votes [45.83%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 45.83%

Improved Map rotation to be used (why the hell wasnt it in the first place?!)

  1. Yes (21 votes [84.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 84.00%

  2. No (4 votes [16.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 16.00%

Ranks cannot be lost but 4 Chevrons required for next rank

  1. Yes (17 votes [68.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 68.00%

  2. No (8 votes [32.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 32.00%

Vote Hide poll

Aim_Away_From_Face #1 Posted 06 June 2017 - 09:31 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 17 battles
  • 709
  • Member since:
    09-10-2011

3 simple things which will make ranked battles so much better. We should be levelling out with players of roughly equal ability but sadly this is not the case. 

You get a few teams of utter idiots and suddenly your rank is gone, even with the top 3 losers because all of your good work is being outdone by some muppet sat soaking up spotting in a Maus or Type 5.

Making it a minimum 4000 personal rating will make the quality much better to start with; yes it might be harder to win battles but it will be so much mroe rewarding and frankly, why the hell should the useless leeches that plague this game get the fun of it?



Enforcer1975 #2 Posted 06 June 2017 - 09:36 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 20668 battles
  • 10,565
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
How does MM actually decide which players to pick when matching them up? PR, wr, battlecount or a combination of everything? Looks like it's not really working well having players of similar "skill" ( skill as in similar wn8 i assume? ) in both teams. O doubt it will work well for above average players since there are always more bad players waiting in queue to be matches up an MM probably being more tolerant when matching players.

qpranger #3 Posted 06 June 2017 - 09:54 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 31500 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013
Qpranger enthusiastically votes in the poll and only then remembers to check his own personal rating.

Homer_J #4 Posted 06 June 2017 - 10:26 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostEnforcer1975, on 06 June 2017 - 09:36 PM, said:

How does MM actually decide which players to pick when matching them up? PR, wr, battlecount or a combination of everything?

 

None of the above.  it's based on your results in ranked battles.  It will be a bit messed up until it has some results to use and should get less messed as the season progresses.  If it lasts long enough.

 

I would have started with some kind of seeding, even if it used PR.


Edited by Homer_J, 06 June 2017 - 10:27 PM.


NiemandXL #5 Posted 07 June 2017 - 09:49 AM

    Major

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

What's the point? The bot level player likely will never reach the higher ranks anyway so once you rank up a few times you do not have to play with them again. And what "improved map rotation" are you talking about? Imho the map rotation in ranked battles is much better because it seems to be limited and most of the really bad maps are not in the map pool. You don't have to play garbage maps like Paris, Pilsen, Windstorm and most of the other hardcore corridor maps in ranked battles apart from Mountain Pass.

 

The better map pool alone is a good enough reason to play ranked battles.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users