Jump to content


Ranked Battles Beta Season Ends


  • Please log in to reply
219 replies to this topic

Community #1 Posted 04 July 2017 - 02:59 PM

    Sergeant

  • Content Team
  • 0 battles
  • 25,006
  • Member since:
    11-09-2011
Big shout out to all tankers who joined the fray! Revisit the list of rewards. Stay tuned for the final leaderboard and winners, arriving 7 July.

The full text of the news item

LorduGamer #2 Posted 04 July 2017 - 03:26 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 33154 battles
  • 12
  • Member since:
    12-26-2013
You should expand the percents for every league. Too few will get awards despite doing over 20 rank points.

iKnewIT #3 Posted 04 July 2017 - 03:32 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 70335 battles
  • 643
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012

View PostLorduGamer, on 04 July 2017 - 04:26 PM, said:

You should expand the percents for every league. Too few will get awards despite doing over 20 rank points.

 

Yep,

20% - 50% - 100% instead of 10% - 25% - 50% would be better for us. ;)

And it will cost NOTHING for them at all anyway. ;)



s3thus #4 Posted 04 July 2017 - 03:38 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18789 battles
  • 453
  • Member since:
    11-18-2013
Ranked Battles have been a wonderful experience. 3 SPGs per team, spawn camping, premium ammo spam, pure cancer.

PredsednikVlade #5 Posted 04 July 2017 - 03:39 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 9886 battles
  • 38
  • [KAMEN] KAMEN
  • Member since:
    12-13-2015

View PostMr_Pain_, on 04 July 2017 - 03:32 PM, said:

 

Yep,

20% - 50% - 100% instead of 10% - 25% - 50% would be better for us. ;)

And it will cost NOTHING for them at all anyway. ;)

 

Isn't it 10 - 15 - 25 now? 
25 - 50 - 100 would be too much, everyone who participated in one battle the entire month would then get 500 gold, which would be nice, but really far away from wargamings generosity...
However, 10 - 25 - 40 would work, right now it's just for those people willing to put a crapton of time into the game

BonjiOrongji #6 Posted 04 July 2017 - 03:54 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 39472 battles
  • 836
  • [RMBLE] RMBLE
  • Member since:
    06-10-2011

View PostPredsednikVlade, on 04 July 2017 - 03:39 PM, said:

 

Isn't it 10 - 15 - 25 now? 
25 - 50 - 100 would be too much, everyone who participated in one battle the entire month would then get 500 gold, which would be nice, but really far away from wargamings generosity...
However, 10 - 25 - 40 would work, right now it's just for those people willing to put a crapton of time into the game

 

no, it is 10-25-50 right now ... and you still need 16 rank points to be in last position ... not just one match ;)

 

...that beeing said ... i dont like this system anyway... "grind battles"


Edited by BonjiOrongji, 04 July 2017 - 03:56 PM.


iKnewIT #7 Posted 04 July 2017 - 03:56 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 70335 battles
  • 643
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012

View PostPredsednikVlade, on 04 July 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

 

Isn't it 10 - 15 - 25 now? 
25 - 50 - 100 would be too much, everyone who participated in one battle the entire month would then get 500 gold, which would be nice, but really far away from wargamings generosity...
However, 10 - 25 - 40 would work, right now it's just for those people willing to put a crapton of time into the game

 

Now it's:

0-10%; 10-25%; 25-50% ;)

If they double it, it would be

0-20%; 20-50%; 50-100% :D

 

I wrote last values of intervals, but not the length of them, as WG staff did.


Edited by Mr_Pain_, 04 July 2017 - 03:59 PM.


uglycousin #8 Posted 04 July 2017 - 03:57 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 43179 battles
  • 3,541
  • [TFUK] TFUK
  • Member since:
    09-01-2014

View PostLorduGamer, on 04 July 2017 - 05:26 PM, said:

You should expand the percents for every league. Too few will get awards despite doing over 20 rank points.

 

View PostMr_Pain_, on 04 July 2017 - 05:32 PM, said:

 

Yep,

20% - 50% - 100% instead of 10% - 25% - 50% would be better for us. ;)

And it will cost NOTHING for them at all anyway. ;)

 

I think the current percentages are ok. Some of us are not meant to be on top (fyi I finished in silver league).

 

Your proposal could be better by asking them to lower the points needed to enter the leaderboard. That could help some of the more unfortunate ones that are on bottom and got almost nothing by being below bronze league.

 

 

There are however a lot more thing to fix in ranked before percentages in leaderboards. My 2 cents. :honoring:



SlyMeerkat #9 Posted 04 July 2017 - 04:07 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15540 battles
  • 1,862
  • [FILO] FILO
  • Member since:
    01-29-2013
I only ever played 3 games of ranked battles when it first became playable and though that was enough for me :/

Edited by SlyMeerkat, 04 July 2017 - 04:07 PM.


antal_z #10 Posted 04 July 2017 - 04:14 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20698 battles
  • 52
  • Member since:
    06-06-2013
While there are tons of fixes that could be implemented, the least you could do is make the top 3 losers not lose chevrons, and make all the winners gain one. Currently the hardest campers are rewarded on the losing team, while taking initiative on the winning team is often punished with "chevron not received". This change won't stop the campiness of the mode entirely, but might mitigate it somewhat, and takes very little time to implement.

Horcan #11 Posted 04 July 2017 - 04:22 PM

    The Great Hunter

  • Player
  • 57439 battles
  • 418
  • Member since:
    01-30-2011

Looking at the current standings i see last guy on league 3 is position 4404. So only 8808 people played this garbage? I didnt bothered to read the whole rules, if a minimum points are also required, but over all its a fail event for me ( got 17 points and 56,77% eff ) and i never felt that i could do better without raging and smashing the keyboard or monitor after 5-6 consecutive defeats and going back to rank 2 after reaching 4.Unless some major changes are made, like more ranks, with more unlosable ones, at least decent rewards for the time involved ( seriously, i play 2 games with a tier 8 premium and i can surely buy  more stuff that the rewards for reaching rank 4 in a stage ), most likely this was first and only ranked battles season for me. A complete waste of time. I now have 1700 bonds which are like zero, because i cant buy anything for them ( you have to be completely retarded to use bonds for directives instead of raising enough to get permanent equipment ). If i need to play 3 seasons of 1 month length just to buy one piece of that improved stuff, well they i say no ty , shove this mode where sun dont shine.

As a suggestion, make winning team first 10 gain chevron,last 5 not win chevron, first 5 of losing team win chevron, next 5 no change, last 5 lose chevron. I think it would increase agressivity and decrease camping.And another suggestion, go to next office and ask your fellows at wows how to do decent ranked battle.


Edited by Horcan, 04 July 2017 - 04:25 PM.


BonjiOrongji #12 Posted 04 July 2017 - 04:48 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 39472 battles
  • 836
  • [RMBLE] RMBLE
  • Member since:
    06-10-2011

View PostHorcan, on 04 July 2017 - 04:22 PM, said:

Looking at the current standings i see last guy on league 3 is position 4404. So only 8808 people played this garbage?

 

nope ... 8806 got at least 16 rank points

Marppuli #13 Posted 04 July 2017 - 04:48 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 18222 battles
  • 79
  • [MOTUS] MOTUS
  • Member since:
    01-08-2016
The ranked battles might have been an interesting experience, but it's locked behind a wall of grinding to tier X. Seriously, ranked battles shouldn't be limited to tier X, and same goes for the upcoming 30 vs. 30 game mode.

BonjiOrongji #14 Posted 04 July 2017 - 04:51 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 39472 battles
  • 836
  • [RMBLE] RMBLE
  • Member since:
    06-10-2011

View PostMarppuli, on 04 July 2017 - 04:48 PM, said:

The ranked battles might have been an interesting experience, but it's locked behind a wall of grinding to tier X. Seriously, ranked battles shouldn't be limited to tier X, and same goes for the upcoming 30 vs. 30 game mode.
no, thank you

RenamedUser_500722756 #15 Posted 04 July 2017 - 04:57 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 37269 battles
  • 17
  • Member since:
    05-24-2011

Instead of writing a passive-aggressive one line response, I decided to try and provide some constructive feedback on ranked battles. I will concentrate on the bad parts, so anything I don't mention can be considered to be "good" or at least acceptable (in my opinion).

 

1. Gold spam. This is the obvious giant golden elephant in the room. The issue of p2w in general and gold spam in particular is aggravated in the competitive environment that is ranked battles. Not only is it one more straw on the already struggling camel's back, it is also very bad for game balance. To name just one example, fighting a one-on-one against a type 5 heavy depends exclusively on whether or not your tank has ~310+ pen on its gold rounds and whether or not you are willing to use them. If you do, it's trivial to do damage. If you don't, it's nearly impossible.

 

2. Credit economy. In part a consequence of 1), ranked games are draining the wallet of all but the very best players. I understand that WG can't increase the income from ranked battles too much, since people would then forego premium tanks and just grind their income in ranked (which the best players among us already do to some degree). On the other hand, just giving us extra income reserves to farm back the money we lose doesn't fix the problem for those who don't have infinite time on their hands. Which brings us to:

 

3. Time investment. The way the current system works, you are strongly encouraged to spam ranked games as long as possible, i.e. four hours a day, every day. Then, you still have to spam more games to farm back the credits you spent on gold ammo and premium consumables. This is very discouraging for those of us who have other commitments and can't invest all that time. My humble proposal would be to limit not only the time slot, but also the number of games one can play to improve ranks. All games you play after the first 100 or so would not give or lose you any chevrons for that week. That way, you can still enjoy playing with similarly skilled players but aren't compelled to invest four hours+ every day if you don't have the time.

 

4. Map imbalances. I strongly hope WG has some detailed data on this, but even from my limited, subjective experience it seems like some of the current maps are heavily unbalanced. To name an example, battles on sand river in my experience almost always go the same way: the eastern spawn team sends its mediums along the north flank, which is near impossible to hold from the west. After cleaning up the few people silly enough to try and hold anyway, the mediums advance to the western spawn, thereby flanking and slowly grinding done the western team, which has little to no chance to advance through the much more defensible southern flank. These kinds of 'optimal' strategies are exacerbated in higher ranks as most good players know and understand them, leading to games that are either trivial or near impossible to win, depending which side you spawn on.

 

5. Camping/damage scumming. Quoting from above, since I completely agree:

Block Quote

 While there are tons of fixes that could be implemented, the least you could do is make the top 3 losers not lose chevrons, and make all the winners gain one. Currently the hardest campers are rewarded on the losing team, while taking initiative on the winning team is often punished with "chevron not received". This change won't stop the campiness of the mode entirely, but might mitigate it somewhat, and takes very little time to implement. 

 

6. Purple modules/directives. The current situation with improved modules and directives is frankly unacceptable. There is no good reason to give the best players a huge extra advantage, especially given that both can be used on any tank (including the t67 and other infamous seal clubbers). Granted, the sixth sense directive has some merit while grinding out new crews, but having it cost the same limited currency that is used for permanent upgrades is just silly. Furthermore, given that many players have literally hundreds of tanks, each with three module slots, the current costs of purple modules are way way too high. My proposal to mitigate the issues above would be to shift bond income from the leader board rewards towards the weekly rewards, and reduce the cost of modules by at least 2x and directives by at least 5x (or better yet, get rid of them and make sixth sense base line).

 

This is it so far, but I may edit the post later if I remember the other issues I came across.


Edited by BotUninstallPls, 04 July 2017 - 05:22 PM.


Berto72 #16 Posted 04 July 2017 - 04:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 57265 battles
  • 841
  • [ORKI] ORKI
  • Member since:
    03-22-2011

Unfair reward, Time-to-win instead Skill-To-Win, rollercoster gain/lose chevrons mechanic with often total waste of time finished at the same point of start, after 2 hours of play

without friends....

As told by numbers, 94% of initial partecipants lose interest and leave event as competition.... time to fix somethin?


 

 



TijgernootTank #17 Posted 04 July 2017 - 05:09 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 44127 battles
  • 185
  • [TOURN] TOURN
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013

Besides all the things that could be improved for this mode , it is bad for clans .

It would be better if ranked battles would somehow generate a little income for clans in the form of resources or gold.

Also the focus on tier 10 with ranked and advances etc is bad.

The introduction of new bonds i dont like .

The introduction of new directives \ better equipment i dont like .



iKnewIT #18 Posted 04 July 2017 - 05:10 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 70335 battles
  • 643
  • Member since:
    10-07-2012

View Postantal_z, on 04 July 2017 - 05:14 PM, said:

While there are tons of fixes that could be implemented, the least you could do is make the top 3 losers not lose chevrons, and make all the winners gain one. Currently the hardest campers are rewarded on the losing team, while taking initiative on the winning team is often punished with "chevron not received". This change won't stop the campiness of the mode entirely, but might mitigate it somewhat, and takes very little time to implement.

 

If TOP 3 in a losing team won't lose chevron it wouldn't change a situation and gameplay.....

The distribution of chevrons must be re-thinked.



Dont_HEAT_Me__Its_A_Trap #19 Posted 04 July 2017 - 05:21 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 18735 battles
  • 209
  • [-FREI] -FREI
  • Member since:
    09-02-2012
Finally its over ... Looking forward to see the global map again

Horcan #20 Posted 04 July 2017 - 05:37 PM

    The Great Hunter

  • Player
  • 57439 battles
  • 418
  • Member since:
    01-30-2011

View Postantal_z, on 04 July 2017 - 03:14 PM, said:

While there are tons of fixes that could be implemented, the least you could do is make the top 3 losers not lose chevrons, and make all the winners gain one. Currently the hardest campers are rewarded on the losing team, while taking initiative on the winning team is often punished with "chevron not received". This change won't stop the campiness of the mode entirely, but might mitigate it somewhat, and takes very little time to implement.

 

I guess you were never top 3 loser? Because you actually won a chevron when being top 3 loser. If you want them to actually not win chevron , i dont think its a good idea at all. Average people have 50% win rate that meaning very few people would go up the ranks and instead just yo-yo at rank 1-2.

Edited by Horcan, 04 July 2017 - 05:40 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users