Jump to content


The ranked battle feedback - as expected I guess.


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

HundeWurst #1 Posted 28 September 2017 - 02:02 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 68712 battles
  • 4,306
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

Well some might have waited for this, most wont as they have far better things to do and take care of than to wait for my analysis of the second "ranked battle" season.

Its going to be an epic wall of text with maybe a TL;DR at the end. However it will also be my (first and) last longer topic I will ever write any more as I feel like I would want something in return from Wargaming to actually offer them some "well explained feedback". Also how likely is it going to be that any of this will ever be considered? I guess the answer would be 0.0000000000000001% if you are very generous.

So enjoy the last wall of text I most likely will ever create for WoT.


 

1. The bond system - former pay2win complaint

I did not even know where to start so I picked this topic to discuss first as I also mentioned that during my feedback of the first season in the beginning: Is there still pay2win? I would say no! However that is not due to changes to the ranked mode but the fact that bonds are now also obtainable in random battles. Considering the next patch (Bonds for tier 9 10 and medals) the rate to grind Bonds should significantly increase so it is not unthinkable any more to gain access to improved equipment via only playing Random Battles.

Still one could argue that the majority of the player base is still not able to sustain, hence play this mode. The more hostile environment "ranked battles" has to offer makes earning credits very hard in that mode which effectively excludes most of the free2play accounts (something like 75% of the player base)? Ofc I do not know the exact numbers but I would strongly suggest to do something so every player can enjoy ranked battles.

Just an idea, not even thought through, would be to remove any credit incomone and experience income. At the same time remove repair costs, prices for standard ammo and the small consumables.

(Ofc thats just an idea and if that works, I dont know, frankly not my job to figure that out. But if you lack any other and better idea you might as well give it a try).

Now I would like to talk about the Bond system

I do think that the Bond system can be a good thing, if developed further. However !!! you, Wargaming, could not have introduced that new system in a worse way. Since that is in the past there is no real point talking or discussing that any more but for future projects like that PLEASE consider how you are going to introduce new content.

I still strongly disagree with the improved equipment. Nobody asked or wants to gain advantages over other players via improved gear. Something to be frank which could be considered more than stupid. The directives are a bit different though. I dislike the ones offering additional performance for the mounted equipment but I do like the ones which enhance the crew skills. Thats a decent feature. Also the costs for these are alright allowing the player to use them on a daily basis.

Another however: In the current state of the Bond system, or Bonds, really dont make any sense. It looked like they are only be given out a reward which then could be exchanged for other rewards. Now since they are also obtainable in Randoms (a good thing!) that reward aspect is gone. So why introduce them in the first place one might ask.

Now I can see the Bond system adding some true value to the gameplay experience if developed further. So much can be done. And I will not even talk about entire new features which could be introduced into the game later on:

Bonds could be used as an alternative currency to buy consumables, such as 1 or 2 or x for a big repair kit. They could be used to gain access to permanent camo, training good crews from the get go, demounting equipment, all the small things. Even things like premium time and premium tanks could be obtained via Bonds. All of that to reward long term players who stick with the game. There are many other options how Bonds could turn into a success though. However is that likely to happen? No most certainly not as that would cut into the revenue WoT is generating and we all know that thats never going to happen ever.

Yet there is a lingering fear for me. I feel like instead of turning the Bonds into something good Wargaming will try to turn it into something awefull trying to make more money and milking the players as much and hard as possible. Their track record most certainly point directly towards this. Lets hope and pray that thats not going to be the case.

  • TL;DR: The Bond system could not have been introduced in a worse way. Currently Bonds dont make any sense but there is a good potential to turn them into a success. Yet there is a very real fear for me and other that this new system is going to only be abused by WG to make more money.


2. Ranked battles - Is it any better?

Short answer: No, long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I guess all the problems which drive WoT players away from ranked battles can be divided further into two subgroups: Problems caused by the ranked system and problems caused by the game itself. Now the latter one is extremely complex and most likely is not going to change anytime soon as that might as well require an entire redesign of the game which is not going to happen either way.


 

2.1 Problems caused by the ranked system

First things first. Yet again asked yourself the question what you do understand when you hear the words "skill based ranked battles/gameplay/another fancy work". Once you have done that compare it to what ranked means in WoT. Are you happy with that? I for one for sure not.

How do I and MANY other players define "ranked battles"? Ranked battles are supposed to show skill. A player will be values based on their skill and then put in an order. Best players on top worst down at the bottom at that list.

Now we will consider two players A and B. If A is better than B he will be higher in the ranking and vice versa. If they are equally skilled they will be at the same rank (or at least very close to each other). As our base we want to create that ranking is skill only skill should be considered! Now lets have a look at what WG calls "ranked".

Ranked can be divided further into 2 stages. Getting to Rank 5 (General) and then starting to grind vehicle points to climb further up the ranking. Waaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiitttttttttttt a second... Is this not supposed to be all about skill? That doesnt sound like it make any sense....

So In WoTs ranked system player A who is more skilled than player B can be surpassed on the ranking ladder by player B because he just has more time to compete? Does that make sense. No.

  • TL;DR Ranked battles is not (only) about skill but much more about how much time a player can invest. For me at least that doesnt make any sense since this competition was sold as the ultimate competition based on skill what it clearly is not. Skill can only be seen as a catalyst that speeds up the process but not as the enabler itself.

So the question remains. What could should or has to be done in order to fix that? First of all the second stage or part (grinding vehicle points needs to go. There is no way around that. If this is entire mode is about skill then there is no point for grinding. End of story.

Now we need to take proper care for the first stage or part: The current chevron system has major problems and I cannot see a way to make it work. I will cover the current bad influence the system has in an own point as it is of high significance.

Gaining and losing Chevrons is much more luck based than it is skill based - this leads to two more problems:

1. The difference between someone on Rank 2 with 1 Chevron and someone on Rank 4 with 3 Chevrons is barely existent. It might be at best 2 till 3 hours of gameplay, and on that level luck is more dominant that skill. I dont quit know how to say it but the current system is way to absolute: A single battle either gains a player way to much progress or loses a player way to much progress. Like this it can never work as the current system is way to much about luck and not about skill.

2. The decision who wins and loses Chevrons after a battle. Why is it 10:5: 5:10 and not 8:7; 7:8? or any other split? In most cases the top 8 player will have dealt the combined damage of more than 75%? So why 10:5? Why is the line there? On what base is tha decision made? I dont know.

As mentioned before this current way of gaining and losing Chevrons after the battle has still a major negative influence on the gameplay. So lets hop right to the next point.

  • TL;DR The Ranked system is to absolute. Winning and losing Chevrons (which can be considered a huge step on the leaderboards) is more luck based than it actually is skill based.


 

2.1.1 Influence of the Ranked system on the gameplay

To start this off I would like to post a link to a replay of mine of a ranked battle: http://wotreplays.eu/site/3849121#fjords-wunderwurst-is-7Dont mind what I do or my team but have a closer look at what the enemy team did. You can fast forward quit a bit till you actually can see what the enemy team did. Have you ever seen something like that in a random battle? I for sure have not, yet it showcases a huge problem.

A ranked system (the leaderboards or whatever you want to call them) should not have the tiniest influence on the gameplay itself. Everyone in the team should only work for the one major goal there is in the game: Winning the battle. Yet this system influences the gameplay heavily. And that has to do with the fact that not everyone is winning and not everyone is losing – 10:5; 5:10.

A system which is rewarding the losing side for not working for the primary goal is a failed system (And yes not losing a Chevron upon a lose is a reward in a way.) At the same time not every player on the winning side will gain something.

Now that somewhat has to be like that considering the current screwed up Rank and Chevron system as it would be even worse if that would not be the case. However in return the system influences the gameplay in a highly negative way.In general everyone of the winning team needs to gain something and every loser needs to lose something to ensure that everyone is working to their personal maximum capabilities towards the supreme goal: Winning the battle.

What I expected gameplay wise was the following: In the lower (less skilled ranks) the gameplay would lean towards the chaotic random battles as obviously nobody has an idea how to play. The higher you climb the more the gameplay would lean to something similar to CWs/Skirmishes and such. That also was (at least to a certain extend) the case during the first few days of the first beta season. After that it vanished and never came back.

  • TL;DR The current system has a major negative impact on the gameplay.


 

(2.1.2 A possible (maybe only) solution for the current "ranked battles" system)

I out that in brackets as its not actually my job to come up with a solution for all these problems. Neither might I be qualified enough, yet I might at least be able to offer some hints what could be done to get rid of all the problems and mistakes:

1. The season length could be extended to two month time, or keep it at the one month time we have right now (a bit longer would be nice however as that would allow less active players to compete as well).

2. The stages need to be removed.

3. As said earlier: Vehicle ranks need to go.

4. Installing a proper ELO-system: WG! Talke a look to the left, or one to the right. There are plenty of games with good ELO-systems out there already. You just need to copy and adjust!

(How such a good ELO-system looks like, figure that out yourself. I most certainly dont need to tell you that at all.)

Yet the point of an ELO-system has to be to make single battles far less important. Would you mind losing lets say 1/20 of a Chevron if you lose in the current system even though you might have performed on point and only lost due to your team? Well yes and no. Ofc you would be dissapointed but it wouldnt really be that dramatic would it now?

The ELO-system would bring skill to the center of attention and not lucky streaks.

5. Remove the current Ranks and Chevrons (system). Well their names can stay. Create the 5 ranks (they now will be 5 leagues) and the Chevrons will be the subleagues to increase the depth of the skill differences even further.

6. Rewards should be based on what Rank and Chevron a player achieved in the end of the season. The highest rank with the most Chevrons would get the best. Lower Chevrons and Ranks obviously less rewards.

  • TL;DR Not this time. Either read what I wrote or dont. Your call.


 

2.1.3 Map(rotation)

Well we joined this season with the announcement that the “map rotation” was now fixed. But what did truly happen? A bunch of maps got removed, some for good reasons others for god knows what reason. In return new maps where added. There was this topic on the forums showing all the map rotation changes, sadly I cannot find it any more, maybe one of you guys still has it somewhere!?

Now to the point: I dont know Wargaming, I dont know community coordinators, I dont know Developers, but do you ever read the forums and the feedback players regarding the maps and the mapdesign. For sure that seems not to be the case at all.

Whos bright idea was it to add maps like Windstorm, Pilzen, Paris into the ranked rotation? If you would have read the forums you would have figured out that the WoT community is hardly as united in any other case than when its about the maps. Nobody likes your (recent – last 2 years) mapdesign and maps. NOBODY. So why would you ever even consider adding these badly designed maps to the mappool?

It could be technical issues. But since you were willing to make a “new” and adjusted matchmaker for the ranked I cannot really belive that.

Now I dont want to go into to much detail about why certain maps are good or bad for ranked as I could most likely write an entire essay about every single map 3 times the size of this one. But I want to say one thing:

There is no shame in only allowing a small number of handpicked maps into the ranked rotation!

Hell go to any other game which has a ranked mode and multiple maps. Something you will soon figure out. In the ranked mode only a fraction of the overall maps are used. Hell dont even leave WoT. Look at WG league. They only use a small amount of the maps available. Maps which offer diversity and are overall balanced.

Out of all the maps in the current random rotation maybe just maybe 10 can be used in ranked. These would offer diverse gameplay and would also be balanced in all the other ways.

  • TL;DR The majority of the maps in the current ranked map pool are not capable enough for rankd battles. Out of the 40 maps there are at best 10 maps are suitable for ranked.


 

2.1.4 Matchmaking

Well at least the MM in general is better. The teams are basically mirrored right now. Still I would strongly suggest to make Superheavies a new class and mirror them as well in at least ranked as due to the recent balancing changes they are a very own power on the battlefied.

Who doesnt like to play with his 50B against a Type 5 on a city map?

Yet there is an elephant in the room. Artillery

There is a very good reason that lots of players requested the removal of arty from this mode. The ultimate compromise they were willing to go with was the limitation of one arty piece per side and battle. That needs to happen. Arty still has a bad influence on the gameplay. That is amplified in randoms. Deny that or dont. But a fact stays a fact whether you like it or not.

What I still dont understand is your way of thinking (at least of ranked). What would be more beneficial? 26 disappointed players (standard tank players) and 4 heppy plejas (arty players) or 28 happy players and 2 disapointed ones (disapointed since they had to wait for a bit in the queue to get into a game)? Your call.

Could you for once just listen to the players? Please…. PLEASE!

PS: Ranked should not allow reward tanks of any kind. The odds have to be as “fair” as possible. Allowing tanks into ranked no everyone has access to is a bad move. Everyone should have the same chances (There is a good reason why reward tanks are not allowed in WGL as well).

  • TL;DR MM is better now just arty needs to either be removed or limited to 1 per side and battle.

2.2 Problems caused by the game itself

This will be rather short as most of this is not even fixable, or would mean that in the end of the day WoT would be a different game. It is just understandable that this is never going to happen. However to finish the overview I will at least mention all the things which have a negative impact on the gameplay of ranked battles:

  • Arty mechanics: Extremely limited impact of skill on arty gameplay, yet arty is part of ranked. This could also be considered a problem of the ranked battles MM. The “rework” of arty actually did not make arty any better, if anything a lot of the problems are now ever more present. It is not a fix but a mere change of problems.

  • Premium ammo: Makes as much sense to have in ranked battles (not that it makes much more sense to have it in its current state in the game at all) as a mans nipples.

  • Balancing: Ranked would require proper balancing. We are VERY far from that. Type 5. Maus, 907, WZ5a not balanced just better than anything else out there. That a big problem.

  • Excessively high amount of RNG and skill dont really go hand in hand, do they now? Thats also the biggest reason why I can only mildly smile when someone takes about WGL. This game cannot be taken seriously as an E-Sports game with such a massive layer of RNG in the mix. Also one of reasons why I got so frustrated about ranked: You do everything the way you are supposed to do: Aim your shot carefully, have a 90% chance to deal damage, yet your shot misses. The enemy turns his turret while fully on the move, snapshots the impossible shot, deals damage, ammoracks you and sets you on fire. Thats such a bummer in ranked. Not even funny any more. Then again thats nothing new to be honest.

 

So after all that I am to tiered for anything else. I might add more tomorrow if I still have the will to look at it but for today thats it.

 

 

 

 

 

 



yun9 #2 Posted 28 September 2017 - 02:57 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 5105 battles
  • 504
  • [GO-IN] GO-IN
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012

I gave up on ranked after 3 days of the first season. I'm sure I would have gotten within League1 if I just played it, and I even had the time to invest in it. The simple reason for it is that the entire chevron system draws out the worst in everyone. Everyone wants one so nobody's willing to do anything that might hurt their chances of getting one. The further up I got the worse the gameplay got, and that's a very bad sign. The whole idea of having quality gameplay simply doesn't work when the actual quality gameplay itself goes against the nature of chevron efficiency. Nobody's willing to go aggressive and everyone literally plays over a 100m further back than they normally would. It might have been a thing in 2012 but the camping meta simply doesn't work with our map pool, and simply not when 30 people all want to camp because it improves their chances. 

 

What's needed is a longterm system, not one that affects single battles in an up or down manner, but more of a league sense not only in the amount of chevrons but in how they're earned, perhaps with a rating like ELO based on longterm average winrates, stopping single games from having such a huge impact on your progress will dial the whole thing down a lot. I honestly think just removing that chevron screen after every game would help a lot with the horrible camping. Seeing your progress getting yanked from under your feet feels awful so then people start to play safer, and safer, and safer until they finally hit that red line and the gameplay deteriorates. 

 

I just feel like when random battles with what's supposed to be worse players on average have a higher gameplay quality regarding aggression, teamplay and carry potential compared a 29 other rank5 players who supposedly know what they're doing the whole idea has been misimplemented and ranked battles are nothing but an RNG grindfest of luck. Having to inch your way forward completely regardless of player skill is absolutely stupid. Having a 49% winrate in ranked and being rank 5 at the same time are just two things that shouldn't be possible at the same time. If someone with less winrate in a ranked format than the average of the active players in the random format has reached the top rank it really invalidates everything the ranked battles were implemented to do in the first place.


Edited by _yung, 28 September 2017 - 02:58 AM.


Homer_J #3 Posted 28 September 2017 - 03:08 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 28249 battles
  • 29,474
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

Quote

might have performed on point and only lost due to your team?

 

How do you determine who performed well and only lost due to their team and who sat at the back farming damage while allowing their team to die and who just had that one lucky battle, or ten battles?

 

You can't measure skill in playing a lottery, which is what one single WoT battle is.  You need hundreds or thousands of battles, then the few where that one player makes a difference start to show.

 

 



kiolvi #4 Posted 28 September 2017 - 06:13 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 50210 battles
  • 228
  • [T-BAD] T-BAD
  • Member since:
    09-02-2013

As an arty player I give my 2 cents about arties in ranked mode. And this is not about why arties are in the first place in ranked mode or does arty even need skill to play.

 

The way current chevron system works, no one wants to be the first, second, third, fourth or even fifth to die. That leads people going to obvious places which normally would be pretty safe from artillery fire. But as it happens, more often than not, no one is pushing or even trying to be proactive, arties can now go quite safe to places where they normally would not and get shots to those "safe" places.

 

Secondly, the map rotation. I really wonder why in earth some of the maps were added to rotation. Normally some of those maps are god awful to play with arties. But in these corridor maps combined to the fact that if there are superheavy tanks like type 5s, you know instantly where the softer targets go in the map. And again you can pretty safely locate your arty the way you can shoot those softer targets. And arties do like to shoot the softer targets, as more often than not you do zero damage to superheavy tanks with your arty or at least very little damage. I play with obj261 which has quite limited number of shells (If the game lasts more than 10 minutes, often I am out of shells) so superheavies are my targets only if there is nothing else to shoot at.

 

No need to tell me how arty sucks and is hated by everyone, just wanted to give one aspect why the second season might be worse than the first one for those who are in the receiving end of artillery fire.

 

 

 

 


Edited by kiolvi, 28 September 2017 - 06:13 AM.


truoste #5 Posted 28 September 2017 - 06:39 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 37518 battles
  • 1,353
  • Member since:
    08-20-2013

View PostWunderWurst, on 28 September 2017 - 01:02 AM, said:

Well some might have waited for this, most wont as they have far better things to do and take care of than to wait for my analysis of the second "ranked battle" season.

Its going to be an epic wall of text with maybe a TL;DR at the end. However it will also be my (first and) last longer topic I will ever write any more as I feel like I would want something in return from Wargaming to actually offer them some "well explained feedback". Also how likely is it going to be that any of this will ever be considered? I guess the answer would be 0.0000000000000001% if you are very generous.

So enjoy the last wall of text I most likely will ever create for WoT.


 

1. The bond system - former pay2win complaint

I did not even know where to start so I picked this topic to discuss first as I also mentioned that during my feedback of the first season in the beginning: Is there still pay2win? I would say no! However that is not due to changes to the ranked mode but the fact that bonds are now also obtainable in random battles. Considering the next patch (Bonds for tier 9 10 and medals) the rate to grind Bonds should significantly increase so it is not unthinkable any more to gain access to improved equipment via only playing Random Battles.

Still one could argue that the majority of the player base is still not able to sustain, hence play this mode. The more hostile environment "ranked battles" has to offer makes earning credits very hard in that mode which effectively excludes most of the free2play accounts (something like 75% of the player base)? Ofc I do not know the exact numbers but I would strongly suggest to do something so every player can enjoy ranked battles.

Just an idea, not even thought through, would be to remove any credit incomone and experience income. At the same time remove repair costs, prices for standard ammo and the small consumables.

(Ofc thats just an idea and if that works, I dont know, frankly not my job to figure that out. But if you lack any other and better idea you might as well give it a try).

Now I would like to talk about the Bond system

I do think that the Bond system can be a good thing, if developed further. However !!! you, Wargaming, could not have introduced that new system in a worse way. Since that is in the past there is no real point talking or discussing that any more but for future projects like that PLEASE consider how you are going to introduce new content.

I still strongly disagree with the improved equipment. Nobody asked or wants to gain advantages over other players via improved gear. Something to be frank which could be considered more than stupid. The directives are a bit different though. I dislike the ones offering additional performance for the mounted equipment but I do like the ones which enhance the crew skills. Thats a decent feature. Also the costs for these are alright allowing the player to use them on a daily basis.

Another however: In the current state of the Bond system, or Bonds, really dont make any sense. It looked like they are only be given out a reward which then could be exchanged for other rewards. Now since they are also obtainable in Randoms (a good thing!) that reward aspect is gone. So why introduce them in the first place one might ask.

Now I can see the Bond system adding some true value to the gameplay experience if developed further. So much can be done. And I will not even talk about entire new features which could be introduced into the game later on:

Bonds could be used as an alternative currency to buy consumables, such as 1 or 2 or x for a big repair kit. They could be used to gain access to permanent camo, training good crews from the get go, demounting equipment, all the small things. Even things like premium time and premium tanks could be obtained via Bonds. All of that to reward long term players who stick with the game. There are many other options how Bonds could turn into a success though. However is that likely to happen? No most certainly not as that would cut into the revenue WoT is generating and we all know that thats never going to happen ever.

Yet there is a lingering fear for me. I feel like instead of turning the Bonds into something good Wargaming will try to turn it into something awefull trying to make more money and milking the players as much and hard as possible. Their track record most certainly point directly towards this. Lets hope and pray that thats not going to be the case.

  • TL;DR: The Bond system could not have been introduced in a worse way. Currently Bonds dont make any sense but there is a good potential to turn them into a success. Yet there is a very real fear for me and other that this new system is going to only be abused by WG to make more money.


2. Ranked battles - Is it any better?

Short answer: No, long answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

I guess all the problems which drive WoT players away from ranked battles can be divided further into two subgroups: Problems caused by the ranked system and problems caused by the game itself. Now the latter one is extremely complex and most likely is not going to change anytime soon as that might as well require an entire redesign of the game which is not going to happen either way.


 

2.1 Problems caused by the ranked system

First things first. Yet again asked yourself the question what you do understand when you hear the words "skill based ranked battles/gameplay/another fancy work". Once you have done that compare it to what ranked means in WoT. Are you happy with that? I for one for sure not.

How do I and MANY other players define "ranked battles"? Ranked battles are supposed to show skill. A player will be values based on their skill and then put in an order. Best players on top worst down at the bottom at that list.

Now we will consider two players A and B. If A is better than B he will be higher in the ranking and vice versa. If they are equally skilled they will be at the same rank (or at least very close to each other). As our base we want to create that ranking is skill only skill should be considered! Now lets have a look at what WG calls "ranked".

Ranked can be divided further into 2 stages. Getting to Rank 5 (General) and then starting to grind vehicle points to climb further up the ranking. Waaaaaaaaaaaaiiiiiiiiitttttttttttt a second... Is this not supposed to be all about skill? That doesnt sound like it make any sense....

So In WoTs ranked system player A who is more skilled than player B can be surpassed on the ranking ladder by player B because he just has more time to compete? Does that make sense. No.

  • TL;DR Ranked battles is not (only) about skill but much more about how much time a player can invest. For me at least that doesnt make any sense since this competition was sold as the ultimate competition based on skill what it clearly is not. Skill can only be seen as a catalyst that speeds up the process but not as the enabler itself.

So the question remains. What could should or has to be done in order to fix that? First of all the second stage or part (grinding vehicle points needs to go. There is no way around that. If this is entire mode is about skill then there is no point for grinding. End of story.

Now we need to take proper care for the first stage or part: The current chevron system has major problems and I cannot see a way to make it work. I will cover the current bad influence the system has in an own point as it is of high significance.

Gaining and losing Chevrons is much more luck based than it is skill based - this leads to two more problems:

1. The difference between someone on Rank 2 with 1 Chevron and someone on Rank 4 with 3 Chevrons is barely existent. It might be at best 2 till 3 hours of gameplay, and on that level luck is more dominant that skill. I dont quit know how to say it but the current system is way to absolute: A single battle either gains a player way to much progress or loses a player way to much progress. Like this it can never work as the current system is way to much about luck and not about skill.

2. The decision who wins and loses Chevrons after a battle. Why is it 10:5: 5:10 and not 8:7; 7:8? or any other split? In most cases the top 8 player will have dealt the combined damage of more than 75%? So why 10:5? Why is the line there? On what base is tha decision made? I dont know.

As mentioned before this current way of gaining and losing Chevrons after the battle has still a major negative influence on the gameplay. So lets hop right to the next point.

  • TL;DR The Ranked system is to absolute. Winning and losing Chevrons (which can be considered a huge step on the leaderboards) is more luck based than it actually is skill based.


 

2.1.1 Influence of the Ranked system on the gameplay

To start this off I would like to post a link to a replay of mine of a ranked battle: http://wotreplays.eu/site/3849121#fjords-wunderwurst-is-7Dont mind what I do or my team but have a closer look at what the enemy team did. You can fast forward quit a bit till you actually can see what the enemy team did. Have you ever seen something like that in a random battle? I for sure have not, yet it showcases a huge problem.

A ranked system (the leaderboards or whatever you want to call them) should not have the tiniest influence on the gameplay itself. Everyone in the team should only work for the one major goal there is in the game: Winning the battle. Yet this system influences the gameplay heavily. And that has to do with the fact that not everyone is winning and not everyone is losing – 10:5; 5:10.

A system which is rewarding the losing side for not working for the primary goal is a failed system (And yes not losing a Chevron upon a lose is a reward in a way.) At the same time not every player on the winning side will gain something.

Now that somewhat has to be like that considering the current screwed up Rank and Chevron system as it would be even worse if that would not be the case. However in return the system influences the gameplay in a highly negative way.In general everyone of the winning team needs to gain something and every loser needs to lose something to ensure that everyone is working to their personal maximum capabilities towards the supreme goal: Winning the battle.

What I expected gameplay wise was the following: In the lower (less skilled ranks) the gameplay would lean towards the chaotic random battles as obviously nobody has an idea how to play. The higher you climb the more the gameplay would lean to something similar to CWs/Skirmishes and such. That also was (at least to a certain extend) the case during the first few days of the first beta season. After that it vanished and never came back.

  • TL;DR The current system has a major negative impact on the gameplay.


 

(2.1.2 A possible (maybe only) solution for the current "ranked battles" system)

I out that in brackets as its not actually my job to come up with a solution for all these problems. Neither might I be qualified enough, yet I might at least be able to offer some hints what could be done to get rid of all the problems and mistakes:

1. The season length could be extended to two month time, or keep it at the one month time we have right now (a bit longer would be nice however as that would allow less active players to compete as well).

2. The stages need to be removed.

3. As said earlier: Vehicle ranks need to go.

4. Installing a proper ELO-system: WG! Talke a look to the left, or one to the right. There are plenty of games with good ELO-systems out there already. You just need to copy and adjust!

(How such a good ELO-system looks like, figure that out yourself. I most certainly dont need to tell you that at all.)

Yet the point of an ELO-system has to be to make single battles far less important. Would you mind losing lets say 1/20 of a Chevron if you lose in the current system even though you might have performed on point and only lost due to your team? Well yes and no. Ofc you would be dissapointed but it wouldnt really be that dramatic would it now?

The ELO-system would bring skill to the center of attention and not lucky streaks.

5. Remove the current Ranks and Chevrons (system). Well their names can stay. Create the 5 ranks (they now will be 5 leagues) and the Chevrons will be the subleagues to increase the depth of the skill differences even further.

6. Rewards should be based on what Rank and Chevron a player achieved in the end of the season. The highest rank with the most Chevrons would get the best. Lower Chevrons and Ranks obviously less rewards.

  • TL;DR Not this time. Either read what I wrote or dont. Your call.


 

2.1.3 Map(rotation)

Well we joined this season with the announcement that the “map rotation” was now fixed. But what did truly happen? A bunch of maps got removed, some for good reasons others for god knows what reason. In return new maps where added. There was this topic on the forums showing all the map rotation changes, sadly I cannot find it any more, maybe one of you guys still has it somewhere!?

Now to the point: I dont know Wargaming, I dont know community coordinators, I dont know Developers, but do you ever read the forums and the feedback players regarding the maps and the mapdesign. For sure that seems not to be the case at all.

Whos bright idea was it to add maps like Windstorm, Pilzen, Paris into the ranked rotation? If you would have read the forums you would have figured out that the WoT community is hardly as united in any other case than when its about the maps. Nobody likes your (recent – last 2 years) mapdesign and maps. NOBODY. So why would you ever even consider adding these badly designed maps to the mappool?

It could be technical issues. But since you were willing to make a “new” and adjusted matchmaker for the ranked I cannot really belive that.

Now I dont want to go into to much detail about why certain maps are good or bad for ranked as I could most likely write an entire essay about every single map 3 times the size of this one. But I want to say one thing:

There is no shame in only allowing a small number of handpicked maps into the ranked rotation!

Hell go to any other game which has a ranked mode and multiple maps. Something you will soon figure out. In the ranked mode only a fraction of the overall maps are used. Hell dont even leave WoT. Look at WG league. They only use a small amount of the maps available. Maps which offer diversity and are overall balanced.

Out of all the maps in the current random rotation maybe just maybe 10 can be used in ranked. These would offer diverse gameplay and would also be balanced in all the other ways.

  • TL;DR The majority of the maps in the current ranked map pool are not capable enough for rankd battles. Out of the 40 maps there are at best 10 maps are suitable for ranked.


 

2.1.4 Matchmaking

Well at least the MM in general is better. The teams are basically mirrored right now. Still I would strongly suggest to make Superheavies a new class and mirror them as well in at least ranked as due to the recent balancing changes they are a very own power on the battlefied.

Who doesnt like to play with his 50B against a Type 5 on a city map?

Yet there is an elephant in the room. Artillery

There is a very good reason that lots of players requested the removal of arty from this mode. The ultimate compromise they were willing to go with was the limitation of one arty piece per side and battle. That needs to happen. Arty still has a bad influence on the gameplay. That is amplified in randoms. Deny that or dont. But a fact stays a fact whether you like it or not.

What I still dont understand is your way of thinking (at least of ranked). What would be more beneficial? 26 disappointed players (standard tank players) and 4 heppy plejas (arty players) or 28 happy players and 2 disapointed ones (disapointed since they had to wait for a bit in the queue to get into a game)? Your call.

Could you for once just listen to the players? Please…. PLEASE!

PS: Ranked should not allow reward tanks of any kind. The odds have to be as “fair” as possible. Allowing tanks into ranked no everyone has access to is a bad move. Everyone should have the same chances (There is a good reason why reward tanks are not allowed in WGL as well).

  • TL;DR MM is better now just arty needs to either be removed or limited to 1 per side and battle.

2.2 Problems caused by the game itself

This will be rather short as most of this is not even fixable, or would mean that in the end of the day WoT would be a different game. It is just understandable that this is never going to happen. However to finish the overview I will at least mention all the things which have a negative impact on the gameplay of ranked battles:

  • Arty mechanics: Extremely limited impact of skill on arty gameplay, yet arty is part of ranked. This could also be considered a problem of the ranked battles MM. The “rework” of arty actually did not make arty any better, if anything a lot of the problems are now ever more present. It is not a fix but a mere change of problems.

  • Premium ammo: Makes as much sense to have in ranked battles (not that it makes much more sense to have it in its current state in the game at all) as a mans nipples.

  • Balancing: Ranked would require proper balancing. We are VERY far from that. Type 5. Maus, 907, WZ5a not balanced just better than anything else out there. That a big problem.

  • Excessively high amount of RNG and skill dont really go hand in hand, do they now? Thats also the biggest reason why I can only mildly smile when someone takes about WGL. This game cannot be taken seriously as an E-Sports game with such a massive layer of RNG in the mix. Also one of reasons why I got so frustrated about ranked: You do everything the way you are supposed to do: Aim your shot carefully, have a 90% chance to deal damage, yet your shot misses. The enemy turns his turret while fully on the move, snapshots the impossible shot, deals damage, ammoracks you and sets you on fire. Thats such a bummer in ranked. Not even funny any more. Then again thats nothing new to be honest.

 

So after all that I am to tiered for anything else. I might add more tomorrow if I still have the will to look at it but for today thats it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nicely "summarized" but I am afraid this will be considered as "homophobic slur" by WG. If I remember correctly a member of their forum police team warned you for being too negative. One simply cannot say a bad word about great leader, right?
 

View Postkiolvi, on 28 September 2017 - 05:13 AM, said:

As an arty player I give my 2 cents about arties in ranked mode. And this is not about why arties are in the first place in ranked mode or does arty even need skill to play.

 

The way current chevron system works, no one wants to be the first, second, third, fourth or even fifth to die. That leads people going to obvious places which normally would be pretty safe from artillery fire. But as it happens, more often than not, no one is pushing or even trying to be proactive, arties can now go quite safe to places where they normally would not and get shots to those "safe" places.

 

Secondly, the map rotation. I really wonder why in earth some of the maps were added to rotation. Normally some of those maps are god awful to play with arties. But in these corridor maps combined to the fact that if there are superheavy tanks like type 5s, you know instantly where the softer targets go in the map. And again you can pretty safely locate your arty the way you can shoot those softer targets. And arties do like to shoot the softer targets, as more often than not you do zero damage to superheavy tanks with your arty or at least very little damage. I play with obj261 which has quite limited number of shells (If the game lasts more than 10 minutes, often I am out of shells) so superheavies are my targets only if there is nothing else to shoot at.

 

No need to tell me how arty sucks and is hated by everyone, just wanted to give one aspect why the second season might be worse than the first one for those who are in the receiving end of artillery fire.

 

 

 

 

 

I do not think this season is any worse in regards of arty. I would say it is a bit better but still terribly bad. Mode is campy to begin with and throw arty on top of that and you have pure pleasure for all. Why would anyone want to be the solitary spotted tank? Even braindead monkey can deduce what will happen when there are two arties eagerly waiting for target..no rocket science there. 
 

shishx_the_animal #6 Posted 28 September 2017 - 06:48 AM

    Colonel

  • WGL PRO Player
  • 30885 battles
  • 3,861
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    04-06-2013

A FAME player writing a constructive post?

 



ZlatanArKung #7 Posted 28 September 2017 - 06:59 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 1529 battles
  • 5,112
  • Member since:
    12-20-2014
I played to get rank 5 two or three times during first beta season.

And what I wished for then, is same as now, that losing in ranked should be penalised while winning should be rewarded. No matter how well you played, a loss is a loss, and thus a failure from you and your team to achieve what was asked for (a win). And a loss of rating points/chevrons/something should come after battle. There should never exist tactics which aim for being one of the highest xp losers and thus not get penalised for losing a battle.
Likewise, winners should always get rewarded, no matter how good or bad they played.

What you can do is alter gain/loss in rating for winners/losers depending how good they did in the battle.

Also, no such thing as chevron for tanks, that is just not skillbased in any way.

Another problem is the bad map pool and bad tank balance, but these things take more time to fix.

LR130 #8 Posted 28 September 2017 - 07:20 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 15919 battles
  • 163
  • [DECOY] DECOY
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015
I had one evening with 6 losses in a row...without loosing any chevron...top 3 on XP and damage every game...but the teams sucked big time. I think i should NOT get punished by loosing chevron for being on a utter crapteam. Come on, 6 games in a row!?! That could have brought me back to start...

adameitas #9 Posted 28 September 2017 - 07:57 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 62655 battles
  • 824
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011

agree more or less with everything what OP wrote. Personally i play till first victory every week then i quit. Rewards are crap compare how much you need invest. Without PA it is normal to loose 30-50k in every lost battle if it takes longer then 3 mins and you fired more then 10 rounds.. and if you use food.. 

 

but the most hated part in this mode are chevrons.. Atm it is like to grind tank 2 hours and at the end realize that you now need even more xp then before you started.. really wtf.. even if you are better the average player you still gonna have nigh/st when you will spend 2 hours loose 200k creds and earn nothing.. what can be more disappointing... and all that scene with adding or loosing chevron after every game that cant be turned off fast is just...

 

i really think that chevrons system should be changed. What about ranking players by average base xp in every stage (with atleast lets say 40 games)? Or create special personal rating only for this mode? Lets say 100 or 200 or 300 players with best PR ends in league 1? Sure such a system would have its own downs. It would be much better for good players and average players would have no hope to end in top even if they would play 5 hours per day.

 

Another suggestion would be classified players by leagues at the beginning. Like it was or still is with company battles (if they still exist) where players where classified by total PR. For example top league would be with players from 9k PR, 1st league from 8k till 9k and so on. At the rewards system could be same. 100 or so best players by average base xp gets best rewards and so on. Sure i guess rewards in top league should be a bit better then in league 1 and so on. Sure it would hurt rerolled players or those who managed to master this game really fast. But i guess it is impossible to create system that would suit everyone.

 

all in all i think this mode must be reworked. Since now it isnt worth playing. It dont bring any joy it dont bring decent reward either. WG really must try harder since in all those 6 years all other modes but randoms more or less failed or atleast are/were not popular.



Obsessive_Compulsive #10 Posted 28 September 2017 - 08:53 AM

    General

  • Player
  • 25212 battles
  • 8,048
  • [ADUK] ADUK
  • Member since:
    09-09-2014

Well it was hard reading and the TL:DR were hidden amongst the content forcing me to read the majority of the content to find the parts that I can read so I do not have to read the majority of the content.

Spoiler

.

 

What happened to German efficiency?

 

Still I share your thoughts and opinions more or less. WG has the soviet block mentality with regards to performance. They want you to harvest potato's for 3 decades for 18 hours a day until you drop and die and add your compost for glorious maximum potato.

 

 

 

 



DaddysLittlePrincess #11 Posted 28 September 2017 - 08:56 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 24303 battles
  • 205
  • Member since:
    08-14-2012
Another problem with ranked battles is it's based on experience gained in battle, but the exp system is not clear. You often see someone making half your dmg and still gets higher on exp. I'd like to be able to click on player's result and see for what exactly he got his exp points.

BoTheGreat #12 Posted 28 September 2017 - 09:13 AM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 28370 battles
  • 110
  • [IDEAL] IDEAL
  • Member since:
    01-25-2013
Op covered the problems of the ranked battles. I surely agree to most of them. Nice constructive post and I hope it will be taken into consideration.:medal:

NOPANs_Bicycle #13 Posted 28 September 2017 - 09:26 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 1471 battles
  • 58
  • [NOPAN] NOPAN
  • Member since:
    03-11-2017

it's the same campfest as season 1 because even though you can't make chevrons on defeats, it's still much better to keep what you have instead of losing it.

also it highlights the bad xp distribution system. doing 5k spotting is more risky and less valuable than doing 1k damage and holding shots to steal 2 kills, so it's no wonder everybody stays back.



avr7002 #14 Posted 28 September 2017 - 10:15 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 31988 battles
  • 276
  • Member since:
    02-28-2013

Exp system is just unfair in RB. Watch replay. How IS4 got chevron, but I not? I alone hold flank, all my dmg was spotted only myself. IS4 hugging hill, all battle, with less dmg, with no blocked dmg, with no spot or kill, but get chevron. RB must be renamed survival rating battle.

http://wotreplays.eu...c3b8f13bcae1bac

 



Geno1isme #15 Posted 28 September 2017 - 10:16 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 41882 battles
  • 7,509
  • [TRYIT] TRYIT
  • Member since:
    09-03-2013

Some very good points, some others I don't fully agree with. Anyway, I've also come up with an alternate proposal for this mode as some input for WG: http://forum.worldof...esign-proposal/

 

Not as much pointing out the major flaws of the current system (which I think are well known at this point) but focusing on how to solve them.



alienslive #16 Posted 28 September 2017 - 10:21 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 86590 battles
  • 1,805
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

Paris and Pilsen at least fast win/loss.

 

But Erlenberg! I guess this map has the most draw battles. Gameplay is so dynamic with the 15 min camping.



Excavatus #17 Posted 28 September 2017 - 10:49 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18897 battles
  • 1,653
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    07-28-2013

Something wrong...

FAMU player wants to be the game state (which makes them look good) changed..

Something wrong..

 

On the other hand,

This is the BEST wall of text I've ever read for a long time..

Actually this was a very professionally constructed wall. Even some civil engineers may fall in love with the beauty of the wall..

Thanks for that..

 

For the content part..

The ranked is just garbage.. too much random variables in ranked..

You cannot measure skill with so short, randomized tests..

you need long, equally designed tests to measure individual skills..

you need to make controlled environment to get the results you need...

you cannot put a guy in a LT into the himmelsdorf (for example) and compare his skill with a guy with maus..

or you cannot put a guy in type 5 heavy in steppes and measure his skill by comparing him with a guy in jageroo

 

With this current system of the game, mechanics and RNG factor...

WN8 is even a better skill measurement then ranked battles..

 


Edited by Excavatus, 28 September 2017 - 10:50 AM.


HundeWurst #18 Posted 28 September 2017 - 11:13 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 68712 battles
  • 4,306
  • [FAME] FAME
  • Member since:
    02-06-2012

View PostConor_Notorious_McGregor, on 28 September 2017 - 08:53 AM, said:

Well it was hard reading and the TL:DR were hidden amongst the content forcing me to read the majority of the content to find the parts that I can read so I do not have to read the majority of the content.

Spoiler

.

 

What happened to German efficiency?

 

Still I share your thoughts and opinions more or less. WG has the soviet block mentality with regards to performance. They want you to harvest potato's for 3 decades for 18 hours a day until you drop and die and add your compost for glorious maximum potato.

 

 

 

 

Well I was late at night, I couldnt sleep hence the quality of all that.

I wanted to explain stuff in greater detail and better language but well my brain shut down at some point and that is what you get.

I might rework all of that but for what?



arthurwellsley #19 Posted 28 September 2017 - 12:05 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 51445 battles
  • 2,879
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

View Post_yung, on 28 September 2017 - 01:57 AM, said:

I gave up on ranked after 3 days of the first season. I'm sure I would have gotten within League1 if I just played it, and I even had the time to invest in it. The simple reason for it is that the entire chevron system draws out the worst in everyone. Everyone wants one so nobody's willing to do anything that might hurt their chances of getting one. The further up I got the worse the gameplay got, and that's a very bad sign. The whole idea of having quality gameplay simply doesn't work when the actual quality gameplay itself goes against the nature of chevron efficiency. Nobody's willing to go aggressive and everyone literally plays over a 100m further back than they normally would. It might have been a thing in 2012 but the camping meta simply doesn't work with our map pool, and simply not when 30 people all want to camp because it improves their chances. 

 

What's needed is a longterm system, not one that affects single battles in an up or down manner, but more of a league sense not only in the amount of chevrons but in how they're earned, perhaps with a rating like ELO based on longterm average winrates, stopping single games from having such a huge impact on your progress will dial the whole thing down a lot. I honestly think just removing that chevron screen after every game would help a lot with the horrible camping. Seeing your progress getting yanked from under your feet feels awful so then people start to play safer, and safer, and safer until they finally hit that red line and the gameplay deteriorates. 

 

I just feel like when random battles with what's supposed to be worse players on average have a higher gameplay quality regarding aggression, teamplay and carry potential compared a 29 other rank5 players who supposedly know what they're doing the whole idea has been misimplemented and ranked battles are nothing but an RNG grindfest of luck. Having to inch your way forward completely regardless of player skill is absolutely stupid. Having a 49% winrate in ranked and being rank 5 at the same time are just two things that shouldn't be possible at the same time. If someone with less winrate in a ranked format than the average of the active players in the random format has reached the top rank it really invalidates everything the ranked battles were implemented to do in the first place.

 

As WunderWurst and _yung have observed RB has become too campy.

WG has a new PR system in game.

RB should be based off that. If you perform better than 65% of the player base over four weeks, you get to rank 1, and if better than 99% you get to rank 5, similar to moe, but includes bounced damage more weighted on heavies, and spotting more weighted on lights.

 

Winning the battle should result in each particular element ;- damage, spotting, bouncing, assisting etc getting a multiplier not applied on a loss. This is a PvP game. All players in RB should understand the premium on winning, and the advantage that it will give them.

 

At present I go into RB win a single game, get the chevron and thats it for the week. I know it will give 100 bonds, and in the present scheme thats as much as I can bear.



superfly2000 #20 Posted 28 September 2017 - 02:49 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 77685 battles
  • 1,533
  • [SFLY] SFLY
  • Member since:
    12-25-2011

I don't know where this hunt for egocentrical and personal achievments originates from...well actually I do....but it has nothing to do in a game that is supposed to be about cooperating.

 

When will you all understand that?

 

Before the game is destroyed?


Edited by superfly2000, 28 September 2017 - 02:50 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users