Jump to content


Ranked Battles - Final Feedback and Suggestions


  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

fighting_falcon93 #1 Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:33 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 29335 battles
  • 3,328
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

The first season of ranked battles has now passed. With that I'd like to propose some changes to the game mode in order to make it better and more enjoyable. I really hope that WG can listen to these suggestions, because the mode itself is interesting and has great potential, it just needs some changes.

 

Remove the aspect of grinding

Problem: Right now ranked battles doesn't only measure skill, but also the amount of time that the player is able to put into the game. Considering that the game mode is supposed to measure skill between players, time should not be part of the measurement. This leads to situations where a player with a much higher chevron efficency will get a lower ranking on the leaderboard, simply because the player didn't pump out enough battles.

Suggestion: Remove both the ranks and the vehicle ranks, and instead use the chevron efficiency value to rank players on the leaderboard. In order to avoid cases where players play 1 or a few battles and win all of them by luck, you can add a treshold value to get into the rankings, for instance 10 battles per week or 50 battles in total.


Remove the limited time window
Problem: Not all players can play in the same time of the day, and even those of us who usually can play during the time window, might sometimes have other things to do during a few of those hours, or even during the entire time frame. This creates an extremely unfair situation where not all players can participate in ranked battles even if they want to, just because their real life collides with the time window.

Suggestion: Instead allow players to play whenever they want, and thanks to removing ranks as mentioned above, playing more battles will not gain you any real advantage. In other words, regardless if you play 100 battles or 1000 battles in one month, if you don't increase your chevron efficency, you'll not move up in the rankings.

 

Reward all players at the end of a season
Problem: The majority of players in World of Tanks are average players. The main problem however is that almost all rewards from ranked battles are handed out to the top 0.01% of players. This is a very unfair reward system, that completely stops the  iniative for average players to take part in ranked battles at all. It's good that skill is rewarded, but even the skill levels between average players should be rewarded.

Suggestion: Extend the league system to 10 different leagues. League 1 will be the top 10% of players, league 2 will be the next 10% of players, league 3 will be the next 10% of players, and so on, until league 10 that will consist of the bottom 10% of players. All leagues should get the same type of rewards, but the higher league the bigger reward, and it should increase linearly. As an example. the difference between each league could be 500 bonds. In that case, league 10 would get 500 bonds, league 9 would get 1000 bonds, league 8 would get 1500 bonds, and so on, until league 1 that would get 5000 bonds. The same principle would apply to gold rewards. The main point is to make the difference between each league linear and to reward all players depending on how skilled they are.

 

Modify the way that chevrons are handed out
Problem: Giving a chevron to players that are top 3 in xp on the losing team is not very good, because it promotes a playstyle where players start to play selfish just to make sure that they get into the top 3 in xp in case the team would lose. After all World of Tanks is a team game where you play together with 14 other players, and the primary goal should always be to win.

Suggestion: The top 3 players on the losing team should not gain a chevron. Instead make it so that the top 5 players on the losing team doesn't lose a chevron. Also, all players on the winning team should get a chevron, and the top 5 on the winning team can get 2 chevrons.

 

Remove artillery from ranked battles

Problem: Artillery takes close to no skill at all to play, and therefore shouldn't be a viable class in a gamemode about skill. The player can sit safely in the base and click on enemy vehicles, farming xp, and then end up in the top of the team. It also makes it very frustrating to enjoy the game mode when you want to play actively to help your team to win, but as soon as you get spotted or leave cover, 3 artilleries will focus the player down.

Suggestion: Stop players from entering a ranked battle with artillery. If this is not a viable option, please atleast limit it to 1 artillery per team, and lower the amount of xp that artillery gets.

 

Make it profitable to actually play

Problem: Playing ranked battles every day costs a lot of credits. Each rank rewards us with a bit of credits, but in comparison to how much credits that are spent on repairs and premium ammo, it doesn't take many battles until those credits are gone and the player is starting to run out of credits.

Suggestion: Vehicle repairs should be free in ranked battles. Players should not need to worry about avoid making a push because the repair will be too costly. Also, implement more daily missions with better rewards. For instance, you could have a repeatable daily mission that gives you 200'000 credits for every 5 victores. Another mission example could be to get 200'000 credits for being top 1 on xp on the winning team.

 

Introduce a shop where bonds can be used

Problem: All players have different needs. While some players might be in massive need of more garage slots, some other players might already have all garage slots they need. Some players want improved equipment, some other players would really love to get a small amount of gold. Another group of players might want to buy permanent camo for their tanks.

Suggestion: Implement a small bonds shop in the game. In this shop, you'll be able to exchange your bonds to different kinds of rewards. For instance, you could be able to convert bonds to improved equipment, directives, gold, permanent camo, credits, personal reserves, premium tanks that are not aviable ingame, free xp etc.



Zhongze_Li #2 Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:38 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8454 battles
  • 201
  • [HAV0C] HAV0C
  • Member since:
    10-29-2015
I would also say drastically increase season and stage time. Spread the battle over e.g. a month a stage and 3 month per season would make the large number of battles needed to remove the random factor out bearable.

clixor #3 Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:42 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 49617 battles
  • 2,929
  • Member since:
    08-07-2011

View PostZhongze_Li, on 03 July 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

I would also say drastically increase season and stage time. Spread the battle over e.g. a month a stage and 3 month per season would make the large number of battles needed to remove the random factor out bearable.

 

This would only work if the amount of battles is limited at the same time. Otherwise you'd just be more or less forced to play EVEN more. So, if you have, say, a max of 100 battles, over the course of a month, then it's more realistic that more players can find the time to play. And skill becomes a more important aspect then as well.

Zhongze_Li #4 Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:48 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8454 battles
  • 201
  • [HAV0C] HAV0C
  • Member since:
    10-29-2015

View Postclixor, on 03 July 2017 - 02:42 PM, said:

 

This would only work if the amount of battles is limited at the same time. Otherwise you'd just be more or less forced to play EVEN more. So, if you have, say, a max of 100 battles, over the course of a month, then it's more realistic that more players can find the time to play. And skill becomes a more important aspect then as well.

True and my solution depends on the fact that wg sort out the grind element. It simply shouldn't be a factor in a game mode which is focused on skill (after a certain battle count of course).



fighting_falcon93 #5 Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:48 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 29335 battles
  • 3,328
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostZhongze_Li, on 03 July 2017 - 02:38 PM, said:

I would also say drastically increase season and stage time. Spread the battle over e.g. a month a stage and 3 month per season would make the large number of battles needed to remove the random factor out bearable.

 

IMO each season should still be 1 month, it feels like it's enough to take out the random factor, but also short enough to give a decent rewards/time ratio. However, with the removal of ranks, the 1-week stages will also be removed. So the entire season will consist of just 1 stage.

fighting_falcon93 #6 Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:51 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 29335 battles
  • 3,328
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View Postclixor, on 03 July 2017 - 02:42 PM, said:

This would only work if the amount of battles is limited at the same time.

 

The nice thing with ranking players by their chevron efficiency is that you won't benefit from playing more battles, so no maximum limit on battles is needed. After all it's good that people keep playing, because then it's easier for the MM to create battles :)



ZlatanArKung #7 Posted 03 July 2017 - 02:53 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
I think chevron has to go in favor of a ELO-based system. Winners get a ELO gain depending on how much XP they got.
Losing team lose ELO depending on how much XP they got.

I also think credits and XP should be removed from system.
No credit gain/loss and no XP gain/loss.

Rewards depending on which league you get into.

Remove improved equipment, but make it possible to buy fancy tank esthetics for bonds, or garage slots, or prem tanks, or convert it for credits/XP.


Game balance.
Remove premium ammo concept from game.
Give ALL tanks weakspots frontally and from sides which can be reliably (70%+) penned by same tiered and 1-2 tiered lower tanks. Make these weakspots visual AND large enough to matter.


Unkel_Dolan #8 Posted 03 July 2017 - 04:06 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 24392 battles
  • 2,685
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    12-14-2010

problem: entire game mode is trash

suggestion: never bring it back



fighting_falcon93 #9 Posted 03 July 2017 - 11:03 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 29335 battles
  • 3,328
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostRenamedUser_500212111, on 03 July 2017 - 04:06 PM, said:

problem: entire game mode is trash

suggestion: never bring it back

 

Please, when claiming that something is bad or that someone is wrong, make sure to explain why, or else the argument loses all its weight.

Why do you think the mode is trash? Isn't it interesting that players can compete against each other who's the better and earn rewards etc?



fighting_falcon93 #10 Posted 03 July 2017 - 11:06 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 29335 battles
  • 3,328
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostZlatanArKung, on 03 July 2017 - 02:53 PM, said:

I think chevron has to go in favor of a ELO-based system. Winners get a ELO gain depending on how much XP they got.
Losing team lose ELO depending on how much XP they got.

 

That could also work as long as the system is fair and not grind based. By fair I mean that not only kills and damage is rewarded, but also winning actions like capping or even blocking damage, or that classes actually can play as they're supposed to, for instance TDs not spotting for themselves.

 

This also got me thinking about the MM. With removed ranks, we'd need a new way to match players against each other. The MM could use players with similiar ELO-rating (or chevron efficiency) to create battles :)


Edited by fighting_falcon93, 03 July 2017 - 11:10 PM.


Cry__Hav0c #11 Posted 03 July 2017 - 11:20 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 11159 battles
  • 37
  • Member since:
    05-18-2016

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 03 July 2017 - 11:03 PM, said:

 

Please, when claiming that something is bad or that someone is wrong, make sure to explain why, or else the argument loses all its weight.

Why do you think the mode is trash? Isn't it interesting that players can compete against each other who's the better and earn rewards etc?

 

You are right m8, but, cmon, do you still need any explanation about why this mode is trash? In 1 month of ranked battles i've only read negative comments and topics, and the complains were always the same.

Edited by Cry__Hav0c, 03 July 2017 - 11:21 PM.


fighting_falcon93 #12 Posted 03 July 2017 - 11:26 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 29335 battles
  • 3,328
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostCry__Hav0c, on 03 July 2017 - 11:20 PM, said:

You are right m8, but, cmon, do you still need any explanation about why this mode is trash? In 1 month of ranked battles i've only read negative comments and topics, and the complains were always the same.

 

Yes, but those things can be fixed if WG can listen for once. It's not like the mode is irreparable :)



ZlatanArKung #13 Posted 03 July 2017 - 11:27 PM

    Major General

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

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 03 July 2017 - 11:06 PM, said:

 

That could also work as long as the system is fair and not grind based. By fair I mean that not only kills and damage is rewarded, but also winning actions like capping or even blocking damage, or that classes actually can play as they're supposed to, for instance TDs not spotting for themselves.

 

This also got me thinking about the MM. With removed ranks, we'd need a new way to match players against each other. The MM could use players with similiar ELO-rating (or chevron efficiency) to create battles :)

 

Just use similar ELO rating. Eventually all should get roughly 50% WR, and thus have a pretty stable ELO.

 

Grinding is really irrelevant unless you alook improve with this system.

Since, the better you perform, the higher ELO you get, and thus the harder your opposition get.

 

One flaw though, since current T10 is very unbalanced, people will only use top performing tank. Or the tank they are best in, etc. To hunt these ELO points.

So some tanks....MAUS....will be very common.

 

And one of the main issues with creating a skillbased MM is the severely imbalances at T10 which forces teams to be identical.



fighting_falcon93 #14 Posted 03 July 2017 - 11:32 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 29335 battles
  • 3,328
  • Member since:
    02-05-2013

View PostZlatanArKung, on 03 July 2017 - 11:27 PM, said:

One flaw though, since current T10 is very unbalanced, people will only use top performing tank.

 

Yeah, but I think that's a general problem and not only a problem in ranked battles. WG needs to balance vehicles better, and looking at what the most popular tanks in ranked battles are, could be a great way to know which tanks that might be the most critical ones to fix first :great:



Velvet_Underground #15 Posted 04 July 2017 - 12:12 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 22243 battles
  • 3,164
  • Member since:
    12-19-2014

View Postfighting_falcon93, on 03 July 2017 - 11:32 PM, said:

 

Yeah, but I think that's a general problem and not only a problem in ranked battles. WG needs to balance vehicles better, and looking at what the most popular tanks in ranked battles are, could be a great way to know which tanks that might be the most critical ones to fix first :great:

 

The problem is that Wargaming wont ever balance the tier 10 vehicles in a way that every tank is equally viable or atleast so that certain vehicles wont stick out from the other ones, it goes against their usual business practise. Their actions indicate a rather apparent lack of interested in skillbased, balanced and creditwise self-sufficient game mode.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users