Jump to content


Opinions On Ranked Battles

Ranked Ranked Battles Rework Change Rankings Ranks

  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

Poll: Should "Ranked Battles" be changed? (46 members have cast votes)

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

Should "Ranked Battles" be changed?

  1. Yes, I think they should come up with a new system. (23 votes [50.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  2. No, I think they should refine this system. (12 votes [26.09%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 26.09%

  3. No, I like ranked battles the way it is right now. (11 votes [23.91%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 23.91%

Vote Hide poll

WinningWolves #1 Posted 28 February 2018 - 06:47 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 23486 battles
  • 64
  • [PZNT] PZNT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

​Getting to the question.

As you probably understand from the title on this forum post im hoping to find the communities opinion on "Ranked Battles". This question arose after i just had my first few games of ranked in season 3 of "Ranked Battles". In short, after playing 5 games I was still stuck with 0 chevrons, reason for this being was 3 draws and 2 lost games, in every single one of these games I came atleast top 5 of my team which meant that while impossible at my rank even in a higher rank game I wouldnt have lost any chevrons. Now you could say well mate this just shows your a bad player and while I wouldnt say that I'm good by any means I think my stats show that I atleast somewhat know what I'm talking about. Now I thought alright lets see if theres any other community members that want to share their opinion on this matter and either because I didnt look well enough or because theres simply no other topics on the "Ranked Battles" system I decided to make a topic of my own.

In my opinion there are 2 main things wrong with the current ranked system.

  1.  Due to teams being way to big players get rewarded to little for their results, if your team performs very poorly you will most likely lose and due to the way the game works with players only having one life each you simply get punished way to hard for something that isnt your fault.
  2.  The Chevron System Entirly. I believe the chevron system was created to make "Ranked Battles" easy to understand for everyone playing this game, this sounds like a good plan however it makes it very difficult to properly reward the individual player. Instead of rewarding/punishing a player accordingly to their results it either punishes them way to hard or rewards them with something they dont deserve.

 

​This is where my question comes in, what does the community think of the current ranked system, do you guys like it, hate it, or possibly even do you not know because you have never tried it out.

 

​Please do leave a vote and if you want to help the people at wargaming even more share youre opinion on how to perfect "Ranked Battles" below.


Edited by WinningWolves, 28 February 2018 - 07:00 PM.


IncandescentGerbil #2 Posted 28 February 2018 - 06:52 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35597 battles
  • 1,443
  • Member since:
    11-24-2015
I played a ranked battle once. I insta unclicked it on re-entering the garage. Best thing about it is that it gives me a better chance of avoiding OP tier Xs when tootling about in Randoms. Honestly, I couldn't care less about chevrons and bonds. Speaking of which I seem to have picked up 7000 of them, by not playing Ranked. Does that mean I get an improved toaster or something?

MaxxyNL #3 Posted 28 February 2018 - 06:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10768 battles
  • 595
  • [RANGX] RANGX
  • Member since:
    04-05-2013
I voted for all the poll options, just because i can. :trollface:

brumbarr #4 Posted 28 February 2018 - 07:00 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38626 battles
  • 6,290
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    07-30-2012

We need an elo system, where each battle you get +-a certain elo based on your battle. And values vary wildly.

Not some binary system with either lose or gain.



WinningWolves #5 Posted 28 February 2018 - 07:03 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 23486 battles
  • 64
  • [PZNT] PZNT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View Postbrumbarr, on 28 February 2018 - 06:00 PM, said:

We need an elo system, where each battle you get +-a certain elo based on your battle. And values vary wildly.

Not some binary system with either lose or gain.

 

​Exactly my thoughts, I believe the current system is easy to understand but that is exactly what makes it bad. I agree that losing a match should make a player lose points and winning a match should make a player win points but with an ELO system in place players who did well but still lost will simply lose a smaller amount of ELO.

Dava_117 #6 Posted 28 February 2018 - 07:04 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17598 battles
  • 2,193
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

IMO, the only change would be on chevrons distribution. All the winning team should get a chevron, the top 3 get 2 chevron, the top 5 on enemy team lose no chevron and the last 10 lose a chevron. So you have the push to win, even if it may cost you the tank, hence the exp, knowing that you will sure get a chevron, while not penalizing bad team selection, because top 5 in a loss keep their rating.

Everything esle is fine to me.


Edited by Dava_117, 28 February 2018 - 07:06 PM.


WinningWolves #7 Posted 28 February 2018 - 07:06 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 23486 battles
  • 64
  • [PZNT] PZNT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostMaxxyNL, on 28 February 2018 - 05:58 PM, said:

I voted for all the poll options, just because i can. :trollface:

 

​While being very childish and voting for all the options i still want to thank you cuz you allowed me to change it right away

LordMuffin #8 Posted 28 February 2018 - 07:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 47010 battles
  • 10,035
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011
If we use chevron system I think this would be better.
Everyone on winning team get 1 chevron.
Top 7 get 2.
Top 5 get 3
Top 2 gets 4.

Everyone on losing team loses 1 chevron.
Bottom 7 lose 2.
Bottom 5 lose 3.

TankkiPoju #9 Posted 28 February 2018 - 07:17 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 19651 battles
  • 6,090
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostWinningWolves, on 28 February 2018 - 06:47 PM, said:

  1.  Due to teams being way to big players get rewarded to little for their results, if your team performs very poorly you will most likely lose and due to the way the game works with players only having one life each you simply get punished way to hard for something that isnt your fault.

 

If WG make teams smaller, we get even more steam rolls because individual skill or tank will affect end result more. One 46% hero on your team with a crap tank could mean autolose and your team is wiped before you can do anything.

 

WG should forget the entire concept of rewarding chevrons based on win or loss. Just put all players in same list based on XP and don't reward for winning at all. Reward top players. No one grinds tanks or crews in ranked anyway so XP gain itself is pretty meaningless.

 


Edited by TankkiPoju, 28 February 2018 - 07:19 PM.


WinningWolves #10 Posted 28 February 2018 - 07:21 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 23486 battles
  • 64
  • [PZNT] PZNT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostTankkiPoju, on 28 February 2018 - 06:17 PM, said:

 

If WG make teams smaller, we get even more steam rolls because individual skill or tank will affect end result more.

 

One 46% hero on your team with a crap tank could mean autolose and your team is wiped before you can do anything.

 

 

​this would indeed be the case if the teams were chosen completely random however were talking about a ranked system where players with equal skill are supposed to be matched against one another. This is why most games with a ranked system have a state in each ranked season where after usually 5 or 10 battles you get assigned a rank close to your own skill level.

MaxxyNL #11 Posted 28 February 2018 - 07:44 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10768 battles
  • 595
  • [RANGX] RANGX
  • Member since:
    04-05-2013

View PostWinningWolves, on 28 February 2018 - 07:06 PM, said:

 

​While being very childish and voting for all the options i still want to thank you cuz you allowed me to change it right away

 

You are very very very welcome. :honoring:

WinningWolves #12 Posted 28 February 2018 - 08:02 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 23486 battles
  • 64
  • [PZNT] PZNT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

Here are my thoughts on what the perfect WoT ranked system would look like.

 

Reduce the amount of players in each team
I think a good place to start of with is reducing the amount of players from 15 to 5, yes I know damn that changes things a lot however I believe its the only way to properly test teamplay and ones individual skill. This wont only help with problems during battle but it will also help with getting into the battle because 5vs5 will be easier to match then 15vs15

 

Special Ranked Battles map​s
​Just reducing the amount of players in each team wont work if we keep using the current fullsize maps, instead wargaming could create a few new smaller maps. When creating these maps wargaming should completely focus on making the maps balanced instead of trying to make them look pretty as well, sure its nice if the map looks good but if it plays like crapnoones gonna enjoy it.

 

​Allow players to pick tanks after the map has been picked

Im sure we're all familiar with those times in random battles where you pick a super heavy and end up in and open map or the other way around when you pick a paper tank such as a light and end up in a city map. To prevent this from happening wargaming should allow players to pick their tanks after the map has been chosen.

 

Switching Sides

One of the most common ways to make sure both teams get an equal opportunity is to switch sides after each round. This could work in a similar way to how it works in a game title like Rainbow Six Siege.

 

The ELO System

This is probably the most used ranked battle system in all of gaming and thats for a good reason, it has proven itself over the ages to award teams for playing well together while also allowing individuals to stand out more and get rewarded for it. Ofcourse making your very own ranked battles system sounds impressive but why put so much effort into something if theres already a good option ready to put in place. There is no shame in copying the ELO system.

 

Better Communication

Adding voicechat (with option to mute certain players) into the entire team is a great way to allow a team to communicate their tactics. This could ofcourse also just be done by using chat however typing out a tactic will take some time so why not add both just in case.

 

Tactics Phase

Add a phase just before the battle where both teams get to talk through their tactics either by chat or voicechat this way the fights will be more coordinated and actual tactics and knowledge will start to show more.

 

Multiple Tiers

Also very important, dont limit ranked battle to just tier X, make it viable for multiple tiers (main tiers to focus on VI-VIII-X) this way players get introduced into the ranked system earlier on in their tanking carreer. The difference between different tiers would be in the rewards where higher tiers get better rewards then lower tiers.

 

No specific times for playing ranked

Remove the timezone system where you can only play between certain times because some players have to got to work/school etc. This simply makes it impossible for a part of the community to play ranked battles.

 

For when everything works well

Add a different ranked matchmaker which allows full 5 man teams to join the matchmaker, this will allow friends to together but wont ruin the experience of someone whose playing on his own by getting absolutely stomped by a well coordinated team.

 

 

 

Some of the things ive been talking about might seem familiar, in fact I got a lot of inspiration from games like Raibow Six Siege, Overwatch, League of Legends etc. This is quite simply because these games already have a good working ranked system or atleast a system that works a lot better then the current system in WoT (thats my opinion anyway) As i mentioned earlier, I dont see any shame in copying a system that works.

 

Please do let me know what you think of my thoughts on the perfect "Ranked Battles" system and maybe give tips on stuff you think could be changed or refined in the system i have in mind.

 

P.S. If you have a different system in mind you can ofcourse share it as well.


Edited by WinningWolves, 28 February 2018 - 08:04 PM.


Etre_ #13 Posted 28 February 2018 - 08:33 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 50758 battles
  • 1,286
  • [WEBOB] WEBOB
  • Member since:
    04-21-2014

They should start by reverting the XP formula.

Placing among top of the team while shooting only HE in WZ1115A is kind of stupid.

 

And then maybe change to beta ranked 2 system or implement some kind of elo.



Simeon85 #14 Posted 01 March 2018 - 10:44 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 1,406
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

Yeh the XP system clearly needs a re-work, it needs to reward actual game winning stuff (spots, damage, assistance, kills etc.) not just being close to the action which is basically a big FU to any tank that is not good at brawling.

 

Once you have done that then I'd like to see a system where you have XP targets to hit across a certain amount of games, hit that target you progress a rank, miss the target by a lot you drop a rank, miss it by a bit you stay where you are and start again.

 

That way winning is important, and trying to win is important, but also making riskier moves is not punished as much, nor is having a terrible team that just folds, because you can make up XP in the other games so you could have a zero damage game because you tried to get a key map spot, but then next game you do lots of spotting and damage to get 1k base XP so you still hit your XP target. 



Axelfoley666 #15 Posted 01 March 2018 - 11:19 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21666 battles
  • 356
  • [TWD] TWD
  • Member since:
    04-17-2012
Get rid of the losing team +chevron at least.

WinningWolves #16 Posted 02 March 2018 - 06:16 PM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 23486 battles
  • 64
  • [PZNT] PZNT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostAxelfoley666, on 01 March 2018 - 10:19 AM, said:

Get rid of the losing team +chevron at least.

 

I dont think that will fix the problem, you see right now players are to scared to actually make risky plays or even somewhat agressive plays so a lot of games end in either a rofflestomp or a stalemate because neither of the teams wants to take the risk required to potentially enhance their teams chance of winning because if they fail with that move theyle have a higher chance of losing a chevron by not ranking at least top 5 of their team.

 

This is one of the reasons why I think multiple small battles would be better then one fight to decide it all. A system like in rainbow six siege is perfect for that because you can do poorly in one round even in 2 if worst comes to show but you make a comeback in the following rounds.


Edited by WinningWolves, 02 March 2018 - 06:18 PM.






Also tagged with Ranked, Ranked Battles, Rework, Change, Rankings, Ranks

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users