Jump to content


Ranked battles - worst of both worlds?(with some suggestions)


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

snowlywhite #1 Posted 01 November 2019 - 06:01 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 25656 battles
  • 469
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018

I've decided to try this mode for the 1st time; without high expectations. After 1 week I'm almost 2nd division, so a fair amount of battles. And well, the design seems to be... not so good.

 

the 2 worlds: random battles vs clan wars

 

- I'm not interested in clan wars, but the design here is pretty self explanatory: two teams, voice coordination, etc. Everything is team related; action, rewards, so on. Your job is to implement, at the best of your abilities, the gameplan and adapt to the situation.

 

- random battles. Everything is individual player related.

Here imho the structure is like this: 1-5 decent players each side + the farmable material. Trick being to lose as little hp as possible to the farmable material and inevitably trade with the decent players. Hopefully from a favorable position.

 

This game design already starts to fail in tier 10. Due to permanent buffing(with close to 0 nerfing) of tanks, tier 10 tanks are too good for how the game was designed. You take the correct counter position, fire with little exposure, etc and the other guy snapshots and hits. Or you bounce. And so on. Because... tanks are already too good and maps are already too small for their capabilities.

 

Ranked battles - worst of both worlds.

 

1. Rewards are heavily team based(winning or losing dramatically alters the rewards). Yet incentives are heavily player based. I'm not really sharing hp with you because:

- I need the hp and to survive for the rewards.

- you're my direct competitor for the top places. Which have higher rewards. so if my teammate dies... I might be happy. Especially on a steamroll.

 

Which is contrary to the idea of clan wars. Noone cares if you died when your team steamrolled theirs. You just happened to be the one focused and that's that.

 

2. the game now lacks the farmable material(most players are reasonable) and there simply aren't enough useful positions on maps. Think el-haluf for instance. How many tanks can you cram in b2 and c2(or the respective opposite corners) and still be effective? Or hill on malinovka? Or... insert random map key position.

On the other hand, you can't try a different strategy from the random battles meta. Push 1-2 line on himmel, push ice road on mountain pass, do... whatever non meta strat. It's not clan wars, you don't have a FC, it's still a bunch of 15 random dudes. Yes, it happens sometimes, but rarely.

 

End result is either a steamroll or a very campy and stale game. To boot, 2 arties/game makes all your heavies camp.

 

suggestions:

 

1. 1 arty/team. Games are already super campy. Already the tanks that can breakthrough(279, chieftain) are trained to be arty focused. Give them 2 arties and an open map and few will push(and they'll be wrong to push anyway).

 

2. by a business/game design decision, 4 and 10 are the magic numbers. We can't alter that since it's probably a business decision. There are 4 chevrons created in the system/game. Players lose 10 chevrons/game.

 

But - alter the way chevrons are distributed to promote more teamplay. 1st guy in losing team doesn't get anything. 3rd guy in winning team gets 1 chevron. 11-13 in winning team get 1 chevron. Or something along those lines. There are many situations in which someone should sacrifice his gameplay given the map designs. Noone will do it with the current incentives system.

 

3(controversial probably). make games 12 vs 12, still 1 arty/game, and only 3 chevrons created in the system/game. Yes, it'll cost a tad more, since more games, more server time, etc. But maps aren't viable for 15vs15 in tier 10 when those are reasonable players, yet they lack voice coordination.

 

feel free to add


Edited by snowlywhite, 01 November 2019 - 06:04 PM.


sniper_pixie #2 Posted 01 November 2019 - 06:26 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 60094 battles
  • 286
  • Member since:
    12-15-2011
The design is just bad. People aren't playing to win, they're playing to avoid being in the bottom 5 of the winning team or to be in the top 5 of the losing. You achieve that by trundling along at the rear of a lemming herd and using your teammates as ablative armour. I've actually seen players on lost games pushing others out into the line of fire so that they die first and can then be used to conceal their lower plate.

deivio82 #3 Posted 01 November 2019 - 06:29 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 54743 battles
  • 183
  • [LDTO] LDTO
  • Member since:
    05-20-2012
rubbish mode not for every player. 

Stimpeltje #4 Posted 01 November 2019 - 06:58 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 29219 battles
  • 1,146
  • [SI-S] SI-S
  • Member since:
    09-06-2010

got trough the 20 battles

Played 4 battles trying to get some levels done

Decided to not bother anymore

 

Its even more toxic as randoms.

People bitching against eachother for 15 minutes straight aint my idea of fun.


Edited by Stimpeltje, 01 November 2019 - 06:59 PM.


NUKLEAR_SLUG #5 Posted 01 November 2019 - 06:59 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34294 battles
  • 4,581
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

Simple fix, winning team all get a chevron, extras for the top players. Losing team all lose a chevron. 

 

Ranked fixed.



Crashzi #6 Posted 01 November 2019 - 07:00 PM

    Corporal

  • Player
  • 7249 battles
  • 186
  • Member since:
    12-09-2016
Its a gold fest

Bordhaw #7 Posted 01 November 2019 - 07:40 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 15042 battles
  • 5,029
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017

View Postsnowlywhite, on 01 November 2019 - 05:01 PM, said:

I've decided to try this mode for the 1st time; without high expectations. After 1 week I'm almost 2nd division, so a fair amount of battles. And well, the design seems to be... not so good.

 

the 2 worlds: random battles vs clan wars

 

- I'm not interested in clan wars, but the design here is pretty self explanatory: two teams, voice coordination, etc. Everything is team related; action, rewards, so on. Your job is to implement, at the best of your abilities, the gameplan and adapt to the situation.

 

- random battles. Everything is individual player related.

Here imho the structure is like this: 1-5 decent players each side + the farmable material. Trick being to lose as little hp as possible to the farmable material and inevitably trade with the decent players. Hopefully from a favorable position.

 

This game design already starts to fail in tier 10. Due to permanent buffing(with close to 0 nerfing) of tanks, tier 10 tanks are too good for how the game was designed. You take the correct counter position, fire with little exposure, etc and the other guy snapshots and hits. Or you bounce. And so on. Because... tanks are already too good and maps are already too small for their capabilities.

 

Ranked battles - worst of both worlds.

 

1. Rewards are heavily team based(winning or losing dramatically alters the rewards). Yet incentives are heavily player based. I'm not really sharing hp with you because:

- I need the hp and to survive for the rewards.

- you're my direct competitor for the top places. Which have higher rewards. so if my teammate dies... I might be happy. Especially on a steamroll.

 

Which is contrary to the idea of clan wars. Noone cares if you died when your team steamrolled theirs. You just happened to be the one focused and that's that.

 

2. the game now lacks the farmable material(most players are reasonable) and there simply aren't enough useful positions on maps. Think el-haluf for instance. How many tanks can you cram in b2 and c2(or the respective opposite corners) and still be effective? Or hill on malinovka? Or... insert random map key position.

On the other hand, you can't try a different strategy from the random battles meta. Push 1-2 line on himmel, push ice road on mountain pass, do... whatever non meta strat. It's not clan wars, you don't have a FC, it's still a bunch of 15 random dudes. Yes, it happens sometimes, but rarely.

 

End result is either a steamroll or a very campy and stale game. To boot, 2 arties/game makes all your heavies camp.

 

suggestions:

 

1. 1 arty/team. Games are already super campy. Already the tanks that can breakthrough(279, chieftain) are trained to be arty focused. Give them 2 arties and an open map and few will push(and they'll be wrong to push anyway).

 

2. by a business/game design decision, 4 and 10 are the magic numbers. We can't alter that since it's probably a business decision. There are 4 chevrons created in the system/game. Players lose 10 chevrons/game.

 

But - alter the way chevrons are distributed to promote more teamplay. 1st guy in losing team doesn't get anything. 3rd guy in winning team gets 1 chevron. 11-13 in winning team get 1 chevron. Or something along those lines. There are many situations in which someone should sacrifice his gameplay given the map designs. Noone will do it with the current incentives system.

 

3(controversial probably). make games 12 vs 12, still 1 arty/game, and only 3 chevrons created in the system/game. Yes, it'll cost a tad more, since more games, more server time, etc. But maps aren't viable for 15vs15 in tier 10 when those are reasonable players, yet they lack voice coordination.

 

feel free to add

 

Are you asking us something or telling us something ?

 



N00BT00B #8 Posted 01 November 2019 - 08:20 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 51281 battles
  • 760
  • [3NRGY] 3NRGY
  • Member since:
    12-19-2012

People say this is near to skill-based mm but that's crap, mostly because the ranks indicate how much you've played and how lucky you have been, not about playing against people of the same level as you.

 

a unicum can have started to day and be at the first levels, in games where his skill is above those he's playing with.

conversely, some unemployed grinder can spend all day mostly losing and still grind to the first division



snowlywhite #9 Posted 01 November 2019 - 08:27 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 25656 battles
  • 469
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 01 November 2019 - 06:59 PM, said:

Simple fix, winning team all get a chevron, extras for the top players. Losing team all lose a chevron. 

 

Ranked fixed.

 

yeah, probably something around that. Problem is when you're offering an incentive for a player to compete with the rest of his team.

 

though, again, if I'd be the developer, I'd also reduce the number of players/team. Anyway, reducing/discarding the incentive for players to compete with the rest of their team at least would improve the situation.

 

I.e. - I'd more easily leave you this key position if you have a better tank suited for the position. Versus the current "I got here 1st, it's my corner/ridge, if you want feel free to play the wide angle". And let's face it, usually you don't really want to play the wide angle.


Edited by snowlywhite, 01 November 2019 - 08:30 PM.


war4peace #10 Posted 01 November 2019 - 08:51 PM

    Colonel

  • Translator
  • 29958 battles
  • 3,907
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    01-31-2011

View PostNUKLEAR_SLUG, on 01 November 2019 - 07:59 PM, said:

Simple fix, winning team all get a chevron, extras for the top players. Losing team all lose a chevron. 

 

Ranked fixed.

 

So if you played beautifully, done a lot of damage, killed 5 enemy tanks, fought like a lion but lost because your team mates were simply bad... you should be punished. Because somehow you deserve it. Right?



snowlywhite #11 Posted 01 November 2019 - 11:01 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 25656 battles
  • 469
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018

View Postwar4peace, on 01 November 2019 - 08:51 PM, said:

 

So if you played beautifully, done a lot of damage, killed 5 enemy tanks, fought like a lion but lost because your team mates were simply bad... you should be punished. Because somehow you deserve it. Right?

 

there's a thing called confirmation bias, you know? So, when you played like crap and your team carried you, you should still keep the chevron/wr/whatever, right? ;)



NUKLEAR_SLUG #12 Posted 02 November 2019 - 07:36 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34294 battles
  • 4,581
  • [FISHY] FISHY
  • Member since:
    06-13-2015

View Postwar4peace, on 01 November 2019 - 08:51 PM, said:

 

So if you played beautifully, done a lot of damage, killed 5 enemy tanks, fought like a lion but lost because your team mates were simply bad... you should be punished. Because somehow you deserve it. Right?

 

Yes, you deserve it because you lost. You don't get rewarded for failure. 

 

 

What I suggested fixes a lot of the main problems of ranked :

1. If everyone on the winning team gets a chevron then people won't camp so hard, too scared to move because they don't want to risk getting killed and not getting a chevron.

2. If your team starts losing then everyone is going to lose one chevron anyway so there is no incentive for selfish play leaving your team mates to die to try and be the 'best loser'. Instead there's every incentive to fight harder to try and turn it around and win your chevron.

3. So long as the system is still chevron positive then play well and win and you will progress up the ranks much faster. 

4. Everyone on the winning team is rewarded so the sniper at the back that did great damage isn't going to fail to get a chevron because of some weird xp calculation that overly rewards mashing your face into the enemy. 

5. AFK'ers won't get rewarded as they'll lose just as many chevrons from losses as those that they get from being carried. 

 

It's really not hard. 

 

 



kaneloon #13 Posted 02 November 2019 - 08:32 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 31018 battles
  • 3,766
  • [RHIN0] RHIN0
  • Member since:
    11-18-2011

I played only 3 games but I didn't notice a big difference with classic FFA.

Chevron won in IS4 btw ;)



Ricky_Rolls #14 Posted 02 November 2019 - 08:32 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 73168 battles
  • 1,860
  • [3PX] 3PX
  • Member since:
    11-10-2010
Wait, peoples are finally realizing that ranked is one of the most unfun mod? 

splash_time #15 Posted 02 November 2019 - 08:34 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13128 battles
  • 650
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-20-2018

Honestly? RB has crap based mm as randoms, my friend installed xvm yesterday, he was telling me, all good players are on one side, and he wasn't telling me right while playing the battles but after he ends them, and after 5-6 battles, he said that no wonder we were losing (his teams), most of the enemy teams are full of good players. 

 

Anyway, why I'm saying this? Because I'm sure that people have XVM as well, so when they see that? No wonder that they'll push or use their teammates as a cover to get a chevron or two. 

 

And I'm currently close to division 2 (rank 14) and I'm grinding because of the gold and bonds, and I won't continue after I get the 3days of prem + gold.


Edited by splash_time, 02 November 2019 - 08:36 AM.


Stevies_Team #16 Posted 02 November 2019 - 09:02 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13575 battles
  • 1,393
  • Member since:
    07-14-2016
All sounds like Toxic Tanks finest moments

TankkiPoju #17 Posted 02 November 2019 - 09:40 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 23726 battles
  • 7,333
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

It's a 15 vs 15 mode in full tier 10 games on stupidly small map selection. It's not going to get better no matter how chevrons are handed out.

 

The main problem of ranked game mode IMHO still is WoT was designed originally for max tier 8 tanks.



splash_time #18 Posted 02 November 2019 - 09:52 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 13128 battles
  • 650
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    02-20-2018

View PostTankkiPoju, on 02 November 2019 - 12:10 PM, said:

It's a 15 vs 15 mode in full tier 10 games on stupidly small map selection. It's not going to get better no matter how chevrons are handed out.

 

The main problem of ranked game mode IMHO still is WoT was designed originally for max tier 8 tanks.

 

I think T10s need at least 1400x1400 maps, at least! 

Why I say so, because they have the best possible options!  The maximum tier, so they have to create new ones.

Plus, with bigger maps, players well actually learn to find places where they can use as advantage, now there's only a few spots that all can be predicted and blind fire them! Even arty players learned to blind fire some LTs lol! 

 

I'm really not soo good at offering suggestions for games but I know that WoT need a loooot of reworking stuff not only prem ammo.. there's a lot problems, unbalanced tanks, small maps, gold spam, unbalanced numbers of artys (yesterday I had a game with three T10 b-c artys for enemy team!...) and etc. 

 

I really hope to see some good changes in this game, it's really a pity to ruin such good game. 



Stevies_Team #19 Posted 02 November 2019 - 09:57 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 13575 battles
  • 1,393
  • Member since:
    07-14-2016

Mines with Tier X tanks....

 

*sigh*

 

The bottom line is

 

because it is genuinely a clever game much of the player base is tolerating the stupidity and BS


Edited by Stevies_Team, 02 November 2019 - 10:00 AM.


snowlywhite #20 Posted 02 November 2019 - 02:26 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 25656 battles
  • 469
  • Member since:
    01-05-2018

View PostTankkiPoju, on 02 November 2019 - 09:40 AM, said:

It's a 15 vs 15 mode in full tier 10 games on stupidly small map selection. It's not going to get better no matter how chevrons are handed out.

 

The main problem of ranked game mode IMHO still is WoT was designed originally for max tier 8 tanks.

 

I agree, but up to a point. Imho, the permanent buffs also made the problem worse. Look at bc gun handling(or any non buffed old tier 10). Maps aren't so big anymore, are they? Now look at proseco gun handling. Do you think I bring the bat or the proseco in ranked...

 

Guns are becoming more and more laser, armor becomes more and more weakspot free. Aim for these 2 pixels on the left and that 1 pixel on the right cupola; really... 1 hull down tank holds one flank. Maps won't ever be big enough if 1 tank with 1-2 ppl. behind hold 1 flank.

 

All WG is doing is buffing. Tank X is out of meta? Fine, let's buff it. It's never "let's nerf tank Y"; it's always, "let's buff tank X". From a business perspective, it's normal. Yet, on the long run, it becomes more and more unplayable. Thank God they're very slow to buff tanks out of meta, otherwise we'd be f...

 

That's why imho 12 vs 12 would probably be the best solution.

 

1. nerfing tanks? not really possible. The player base will riot.

2. increase map size? Costs. And a lot.

 

What's left? Decrease the # of tanks. Again, that also costs; servers cost. But it's the cheapest option.

13:34 Added after 8 minute

View Postsplash_time, on 02 November 2019 - 08:34 AM, said:

Honestly? RB has crap based mm as randoms, my friend installed xvm yesterday, he was telling me, all good players are on one side, and he wasn't telling me right while playing the battles but after he ends them, and after 5-6 battles, he said that no wonder we were losing (his teams), most of the enemy teams are full of good players. 

 

Anyway, why I'm saying this? Because I'm sure that people have XVM as well, so when they see that? No wonder that they'll push or use their teammates as a cover to get a chevron or two. 

 

And I'm currently close to division 2 (rank 14) and I'm grinding because of the gold and bonds, and I won't continue after I get the 3days of prem + gold.

 

yeah, that's also a huge problem. Had a ton of battles when the "xvm experts" decided we have no chance.

 

And they didn't move. And it became a self fulfilling prophecy. Because, guess what, if you camp, you won't exactly win many games. Though you still win too many by simply camping.

 

thankfully, the rewards are rather mediocre if you're not f2p. 2.5k gold? For this?! I'd pay instead of play any time...


Edited by snowlywhite, 02 November 2019 - 02:35 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users