Jump to content


Everything wrong with ranked battles in 3 points


  • Please log in to reply
79 replies to this topic

HeathLedger_ #1 Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:31 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 250 battles
  • 1,035
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    01-13-2017

1) Losing is incentivised

Some of the losing team not getting punished for their teams' incompetence is a fair mechanic. The problem with giving away chevrons on losses is that you literally make camping a viable tactic to rise ranks, even if you lose most games. It makes people (even more) risk averse and as soon as the game looks to be on the losing side you get people falling back and farming from the red line. Or you get people who just farm from the red line from the start. Because it works. And it shouldn't.

 

Right now losing can be a win. Also, capping out a game and winning that way should ALWAYS give the cappers a chevron. I don't care they did 0 damage and only did 30 cap points, they won the game. 

 

2) Rank doesn't mean anything

15 people gain chevrons most games. 12 people lose them. What this means is that if you simply PLAY ENOUGH chances are you gain rank 5 by default. Rank 5 isn't so much about skill as it is skill+luck+dedication. It's literally meaningless. And you can tell WG foresaw this by the 16 point requirement to even be counted in the end of season rankings. 16 points is rank 4 every week. That's quite steep were the ranks to actually mean anything. 

 

But then there's also the fact that 48% winrate players are now playing ranked. Case in point:

Spoiler

 

A player like that is playing rank 5. So how is rank 5 supposed to mean anything in terms of "skill". He can't even win 41% of t10 random battles and he's managed to get to rank 5. So considering the point requirement and the (lack of) quality of players seeping in to rank 5 it just turns from a skill contest to a contest of who can grind rank 5 tank ranks the most. It's ranked by dedication not skill.

 

3) arty? seriously?

First off I have no idea why people play arty when you need to win or get high xp to progress, but I guess the tale of the scorpion and the frog applies. What bothers me more is that 3 arty are even allowed. Combine the lack of willingness to push with arty chipping away health and removing flanking opportunities and you just get an experience that's beyond playable. Saw a game today where the enemy team heavily outnumbered us on the malinovka hill, but because nobody wants to initiate the push because god forbid they don't get their precious XP they just got chipped away more by our arty and we won. Not by being the better team, taking the better positions, none of that. We won because 1 player outperformed 1 player on the enemy team, because they let him.

 

The issue here isn't that arty is still a bad thing to the game, if a bit different and arguably better, but that it just doesn't work in a ranked setting. It just detracts from the overall depth of the game, which in a "SBMM" system, even though this isn't, is the only appeal of playing at all. 


Edited by HeathLedger_, 08 June 2017 - 09:55 PM.


tankzman #2 Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:40 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 62021 battles
  • 388
  • Member since:
    06-27-2013
U sure know a lot with 250 battles and no tier 10. 

Shivva #3 Posted 08 June 2017 - 09:52 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 29175 battles
  • 1,909
  • [J_A_G] J_A_G
  • Member since:
    05-20-2012

View Posttankzman, on 08 June 2017 - 08:40 PM, said:

U sure know a lot with 250 battles and no tier 10. 

 

If only he had a something showing his main account eh?.....

HeathLedger_ #4 Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:11 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 250 battles
  • 1,035
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    01-13-2017

View PostShivva, on 08 June 2017 - 09:52 PM, said:

 

If only he had a something showing his main account eh?.....

 

It's bait. It has to be or his father and his sister have something to answer for.

Long_Range_Sniper #5 Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:30 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 29433 battles
  • 7,505
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View Posttankzman, on 08 June 2017 - 08:40 PM, said:

U sure know a lot with 250 battles and no tier 10. 

 

and at no point when you read the first post did you think

 

"interesting, they seem to have an informed opinion and have created a forum thread on the matter, when their actual game stats seem to contradict what appears to be a very sensible post"

 

Stronk analysis.

 

On topic, I agree 100% with what Milki has said. I've only faffed on around rank 3 level, and it was enough for me to just get wound up after 2-3 games. Not enough variety, and when I've checked my finances as I progressed I realised that it was a case of diminishing returns. At best I'm a 2000 Wn8 player on a good day with the wind behind me. So whilst I could probably progress through sheer bloody mindedness, I'd rather put my effort into different tanks in randoms at the moment.

 



RamRaid90 #6 Posted 08 June 2017 - 10:49 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19657 battles
  • 5,841
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View Posttankzman, on 08 June 2017 - 08:40 PM, said:

U sure know a lot with 250 battles and no tier 10. 

 

:facepalm:

 

On the OP, a good post. Having only a played a few ranked battles myself I can see that camping, as you say, is indeed heavily rewarded. There is no "skill based MM" with ranked battles as everyone at some point will reach rank 5, as you said, by default. So what the hell will the MM do then?



jemster #7 Posted 09 June 2017 - 12:01 AM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 34685 battles
  • 247
  • Member since:
    11-18-2010

View PostHeathLedger_, on 08 June 2017 - 09:31 PM, said:

 

3) arty? seriously?

First off I have no idea why people play arty when you need to win or get high xp to progress, but I guess the tale of the scorpion and the frog applies. What bothers me more is that 3 arty are even allowed. Combine the lack of willingness to push with arty chipping away health and removing flanking opportunities and you just get an experience that's beyond playable. Saw a game today where the enemy team heavily outnumbered us on the malinovka hill, but because nobody wants to initiate the push because god forbid they don't get their precious XP they just got chipped away more by our arty and we won. Not by being the better team, taking the better positions, none of that. We won because 1 player outperformed 1 player on the enemy team, because they let him.

 

The issue here isn't that arty is still a bad thing to the game, if a bit different and arguably better, but that it just doesn't work in a ranked setting. It just detracts from the overall depth of the game, which in a "SBMM" system, even though this isn't, is the only appeal of playing at all. 

 

Games are generally slower with a lot more people camping, something that gives arty time to work. It is a good artymans dream and kinda easy to carry. And if your side wins you dont care about exp as long as you are not in the bottom (and no good artyman will ever be), if you lose you will probably be one of the last guys to die and have decent odds of getting into top 3.

 

And srsly, if the enemy team allows arty to farm them they they where not better then your team and deserve to lose.

 

It is working exactly as intended in this ranked setting, it is digging out campers and hard targets. In a mode that is rather campy, this is really needed.



WindSplitter1 #8 Posted 09 June 2017 - 12:32 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 14279 battles
  • 1,716
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

Just another artaphobic thread condemning the less capable players being in another game mode.

Nothing to see here...

 

//closed



Hedgehog1963 #9 Posted 09 June 2017 - 01:25 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 50122 battles
  • 6,904
  • [DIRTY] DIRTY
  • Member since:
    04-26-2011

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 08 June 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

 

and at no point when you read the first post did you think

 

"interesting, they seem to have an informed opinion and have created a forum thread on the matter, when their actual game stats seem to contradict what appears to be a very sensible post"

 

Stronk analysis.

 

On topic, I agree 100% with what Milki has said. I've only faffed on around rank 3 level, and it was enough for me to just get wound up after 2-3 games. Not enough variety, and when I've checked my finances as I progressed I realised that it was a case of diminishing returns. At best I'm a 2000 Wn8 player on a good day with the wind behind me. So whilst I could probably progress through sheer bloody mindedness, I'd rather put my effort into different tanks in randoms at the moment.

 

 

And so ranked Battles has worked as it should in your case..

HeathLedger_ #10 Posted 09 June 2017 - 01:50 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 250 battles
  • 1,035
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    01-13-2017

View Postjemster, on 09 June 2017 - 12:01 AM, said:

 

Games are generally slower with a lot more people camping, something that gives arty time to work. It is a good artymans dream and kinda easy to carry. And if your side wins you dont care about exp as long as you are not in the bottom (and no good artyman will ever be), if you lose you will probably be one of the last guys to die and have decent odds of getting into top 3.

 

And srsly, if the enemy team allows arty to farm them they they where not better then your team and deserve to lose.

 

It is working exactly as intended in this ranked setting, it is digging out campers and hard targets. In a mode that is rather campy, this is really needed.

 

Well sure, so 1 arty has a role. How does that justify the 3 arty cap? What map is so campy that it needs 3 arty? It's just overwhelming when there's 3 arty focusing the 1 or 2 groups that naturally form when a map is played properly. It just arbitrarily inhibits the kind of gameplay that would actually be skillful at that point. 

 

View PostWindSplitter1, on 09 June 2017 - 12:32 AM, said:

Just another artaphobic thread condemning the less capable players being in another game mode.

Nothing to see here...

 

//closed

 

So because I don't see the point of having the lowest skill cap class in a "skill based" gamemode as it lowers the actual depth of the game this thread is a 0 content artyphobic thread? Maybe the less capable players have no place in this kind of competitive setting? Not to be an [insert insult here], but don't rankings mean less able players would automatically be outside of the reward content, regardless of what the reason for their lack of ability is? 

 

We're not discussing a special needs class here. If WG is going to hold up the pretense that this is a cutting edge competitive game mode then what's the point in worrying about disabled people, which according to the implications in your post all arty players are? 


Edited by HeathLedger_, 09 June 2017 - 01:50 AM.


tankzman #11 Posted 09 June 2017 - 02:19 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 62021 battles
  • 388
  • Member since:
    06-27-2013

Reported for kemping bush... 



hedi2222 #12 Posted 09 June 2017 - 02:45 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 28156 battles
  • 7,819
  • [LEWD] LEWD
  • Member since:
    08-12-2013
I agree with all of this

my first reaction was : Arty ? really ?

also the fact that i start to play way more careful and farmy when i smell a loss is so true. But hey , i guess i earned to stay alive that long

5_InchFl0ppy #13 Posted 09 June 2017 - 07:17 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 40706 battles
  • 1,631
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    06-22-2012

WG were never going to make a ranked mode which actually separates the good players from the bad. They would never want to hurt the feelings of a tomato because that tomato might stop playing. To put it bluntly, they are peddling delusion. 

 

I used to watch some WOWS streams from time to time and occasionally a purple dude called Flamu would stream them. The higher ranks were literally infested with crapplayers, but again that is exactly what WG want. Sure the good players may reach the highest rank faster, but WG would never implement a system that actively filters out and prevents bad players from progressing.



Long_Range_Sniper #14 Posted 09 June 2017 - 07:25 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 29433 battles
  • 7,505
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-04-2011

View PostHedgehog1963, on 09 June 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

 

And so ranked Battles has worked as it should in your case..

 

I'd hardly say it's worked as the reward structure and nature of the meta is not enticing me to play. The same for tier 8 at the moment in random battles. 

 

It's this reward/meta aspect that WG need to get right. They appear to have created a skill based mode that anyone can get to the top given enough time, effort and luck. Skill seems to simply reduce the time it takes to get there. 

 

I'll watch how the leagues work, but it's not working for me as a package at the moment. 



h4ctor #15 Posted 09 June 2017 - 08:37 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 16443 battles
  • 1,819
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012

first two points are kinda moot,why would anyone expect WG to make a mode that only skilled players can play? are you crazy? they need everyone to play it,including 48%ers

 

the point about arty is right,slower games give them time to shine,i watched a stream where guy with 261 ranked up easily because he was shooting every 25 seconds straight for 10+ minutes - his biggest fear was running out of shells,it was ridiculous,it actually made me think about getting one tier 10 arty myself because why tryhard in a normal tank,camping somewhere afraid of moving when i can constantly shoot from safe? on randoms arties lost their value but in ranked they are so good 



ZlatanArKung #16 Posted 09 June 2017 - 08:55 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostLong_Range_Sniper, on 08 June 2017 - 10:30 PM, said:

 

and at no point when you read the first post did you think

 

"interesting, they seem to have an informed opinion and have created a forum thread on the matter, when their actual game stats seem to contradict what appears to be a very sensible post"

 

Stronk analysis.

 

On topic, I agree 100% with what Milki has said. I've only faffed on around rank 3 level, and it was enough for me to just get wound up after 2-3 games. Not enough variety, and when I've checked my finances as I progressed I realised that it was a case of diminishing returns. At best I'm a 2000 Wn8 player on a good day with the wind behind me. So whilst I could probably progress through sheer bloody mindedness, I'd rather put my effort into different tanks in randoms at the moment.

 

 

Agreed (also with Milki OP).

 

I don't find it fun.

Played and got to rank 2... Which took 4 or 5 battles.

But getting rank 5? Not a hard task for me, it will take some time, yes. But not difficult by any means.

And getting ranked 5 each season.

 

Bah, I am not sure I can be arsed to play a shitty mode that doesn't reward skill with a useless Xp calculator in an unbalanced tier to get those extra equipments.



ZlatanArKung #17 Posted 09 June 2017 - 08:59 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View PostWindSplitter1, on 09 June 2017 - 12:32 AM, said:

Just another artaphobic thread condemning the less capable players being in another game mode.

Nothing to see here...

 

//closed

 

Lesser player can play.

But having Lesser players get highest rewards and highest rank because they played most battles and not because they are good players is rather stupid. At least if you then advertise the mode as skillbased, which it clearly isn't. This mode is a grinding based mode, grind more, get higher ranks and better equipments. Skill is at most secondary.

 



ZlatanArKung #18 Posted 09 June 2017 - 09:03 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014

View Posth4ctor, on 09 June 2017 - 08:37 AM, said:

first two points are kinda moot,why would anyone expect WG to make a mode that only skilled players can play? are you crazy? they need everyone to play it,including 48%ers

 

the point about arty is right,slower games give them time to shine,i watched a stream where guy with 261 ranked up easily because he was shooting every 25 seconds straight for 10+ minutes - his biggest fear was running out of shells,it was ridiculous,it actually made me think about getting one tier 10 arty myself because why tryhard in a normal tank,camping somewhere afraid of moving when i can constantly shoot from safe? on randoms arties lost their value but in ranked they are so good 

 

First point is.

 

Why advertise a mode as ranked (skill based) If the only skill needed is grinding to het top rank.

 

Isn't the thing with a sbmm/ranked mode to differentiate good players from bad players?

This is something ranked mode doesn't do.



Lomion_EU #19 Posted 09 June 2017 - 09:06 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 34702 battles
  • 573
  • [CSW] CSW
  • Member since:
    08-30-2012

I'm not sure whether you guys are missing the point - ranked battles don't match you only by the number of chevrons that you have, It starts with the chevron/rank then matches based on WG's own PR.  That way you are playing against folks who are roughly as skilled as you so if you are a 55% player, unless you've padded that at low tiers you should be playing against players that are roughly as skilled, or not, as you.

 

I do agree that if you play well enough, and use the right tanks, then you'll get to rank 5 easily.  My issue is the limited window, which doesn't suit my playing schedule.  I understand that they want to run it when the most players are on to ensure that there are big enough pools of PR that players aren't playing against too skilled or less skilled players so I'll take the rewards at whatever rank I get to and earn the bonds by whichever other way that they offer it - eventually



krazypenguin #20 Posted 09 June 2017 - 09:13 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 27097 battles
  • 2,789
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-15-2011

View PostHedgehog1963, on 09 June 2017 - 12:25 AM, said:

 

And so ranked Battles has worked as it should in your case..

 

I guess that depends on the interpretation of how RB should work.  I get the impression that you think the only the best players should get to the top in RB, in effect making it a sort of indicator of skill if you reach the highest rank - if I am wrong, please correct me and accept my apologies.

 

LRS is a good player (not a unicum but still quite a way above the average), got to rank 3 and then, if I read his post correctly, found it was too expensive and frustrating to continue.  Meanwhile, the OP shows a player with an average WR overall, but a very, very poor tier 10 WR (and since RB is only at tier 10 this is particularly relevant) who is at the top rank.

 

So the better player is at rank 3 but the (much) worse player at rank 5.

 

Ranked Battles are not about skill.  They are about grinding.  Why?  Because tier 10 games, especially competitive games one RB where people feel the need to use premium consumables and ammo, are very expensive and will push people to buying premium account (or maybe even credits for cash - Fort Knox anyone?).

 

That's the only point of Ranked Battles - to make money for WG.

 

Is that a bad thing?  No, they are a company and need to make money.  The question is, is this the best\right way to do it?

 

Edit, tidied things up a bit 


Edited by krazypenguin, 09 June 2017 - 10:43 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users