Jump to content


Ranked Battles Developer FAQ


  • Please log in to reply
235 replies to this topic

JRTolbert15 #221 Posted Sep 21 2017 - 18:40

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 11673 battles
  • 1
  • Member since:
    12-16-2014
Hey WG think about removing  premium rounds in ranked battles,so that it will really be a test of skill. and not just hitting that 2 key to win. please remove arty from the game thanks.

Goblins #222 Posted Sep 25 2017 - 21:08

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 12087 battles
  • 14
  • [GOONZ] GOONZ
  • Member since:
    04-19-2012

I would love to see the following areas of change:

 

  1. Reward chevrons to the ENTIRE winning team.  This will mirror EVERY skill-based competitive game mode and genre.  Example titles: Counter Strike: Global Offensive, League of Legends, DOTA 2.  All of these have legitimate E-sports leagues unlike the poor performing Wargaming League.  This removes chevron gain or loss from the strange, and unreliable experience metric and puts it into what is the most important: winning the game.
    1. Even Wargaming League focuses ONLY on wins and losses.  You don't see match experience contributing ANY factor to league placement and standings.
    2. Create a true MMR rating system based on Win/Loss record, again like EVERY other skill-based competitive game mode.  The excellent players (unicum) will rise to Leagues 1 and 2, decent players will likely fill out League 3, majority will not be placed in leagues at end of season.
  2. It would be nice to improve the silver economy so that it is not such a credit sink.  However, this is a very complex issue given the terrible balance between rediculous Armor profiles and gold-rounds for credits.  This is a "nice to have" feature and not nearly as important as changing the Chevron system.

 



Cruiser133 #223 Posted Sep 26 2017 - 17:24

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 29498 battles
  • 478
  • [5LINE] 5LINE
  • Member since:
    05-28-2013
Imo chevron's should go to the top 10 on the winning team to help manage bots and speed exploiters, the bottom five lose nothing. On the losing side the top 10 should not lose anything. The bottom 5 should lose a Chevron. Let's be honest, most players at this point contribute towards the team when they place in the top 10. If you truly wish to penalize poor play or lack of team work, the bottom 5 xp earners usually fill that roll. The top 20 on both sides are trying and shouldn't be punched in the nuts because of the actions of a few. It is very frustrating to rack up over 3.5k damage and still lose cheverons. I get the idea behind rewarding spotters but obviously I was contributing to the cause.

smoke563 #224 Posted Sep 28 2017 - 23:44

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 31081 battles
  • 110
  • Member since:
    08-29-2012
i personally am not liking this ranked battles mode, Yes it was fun at first and yes i still somewhat love the idea but it seems almost every battles its just as bad as pubs or worse then pub matches, i can never get passed ranked 3 cause BOOM you guess it i get [edited]teams and its a one sided butt kicking and i start losing chevrons, Im sure i am not the only player who is not pleased with spending so many credits on matches that turn out to be over fast and ranks lost.... Other then it being full of bad teams like pubs the ranked battles would be a good thing

FredSmith #225 Posted Sep 29 2017 - 02:21

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 26077 battles
  • 96
  • [GUNS6] GUNS6
  • Member since:
    05-09-2012
I personally think there is way too many tanks in ranked battles. It is like playing a random battle where you know you are going to get tier ten every single time. 10 v 10 sounds much better the teams need to be smaller.

Panzerr83 #226 Posted Oct 02 2017 - 17:13

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 33236 battles
  • 27
  • [CLAWS] CLAWS
  • Member since:
    06-20-2013

Here are my thoughts on this mode after only participating in the first beta, which says something about weekday I think of the mode without the impending extrapolation. 

 

First, I applaud you for trying to being competitive play and a ranking system to the game.  Now for the burns. You did a horrible job of implementing this mode and I'm not even sure the modes parameters are solid to begin with. Look at other games that have competitive play or ladders built in. Much smaller teams and a common complaint there is teammates being bad, derpy, selfish. So what did you (WG) do?  You made that issue worse by a factor of 2 or 3 by having it be 15v15.  We need solutions to this, mostly the chevron system in my opinion. You also need transparency in how xp is being awarded in ranked if that is how we earn chevrons. I'd suggest that the top 10 regardless of team win chevrons, 10 get no change, and 10 lose one, while treating both teams xp as if they (won) the match. That way an 8k damage (losser) will get a chevron, but that 1.5k damage (winner) might not. If this does not fix the selfish play you might have to tweak the chevron system more, at the cost of some people being "carried".

 

Next you need to address the times you can actually participate. I'm not sure the reasoning for limiting the time. If you are afraid of rigging just get a couple of volunteers to help you catch them, it can't be that hard or take that much time. The size of the player base is also am issue here for NA. How many players do we have compared to a game like LoL that has 24/7 ranked? What other game play issues should you be focused on in order for ranked to be successful? If we had tank "bans" in ranked if put money on arty and super heavies being banned every match, doesn't that say something? Maybe adjustments are needed there. 

 

Anyway if you want help with this my services are available. I'd like to see the game grow again and change the trajectory from the current downward spiral. That's a whole different rant too; the game needs to be easy more friendly to new players as they quit too fast atm.



Apache1990 #227 Posted Oct 02 2017 - 18:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 32699 battles
  • 6,290
  • [ATKRE] ATKRE
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
I like the idea of ranked battles a lot, but not the chevron system.  Seasons are just a grind to get chevrons, a test of endurance, not skill.  This second season did a better job with distribution of chevrons, but doesn't help with the inherent flaws compared to a traditional ranked rating system (which pretty much every other competitive game uses some variation of).

HeavySparks #228 Posted Oct 04 2017 - 06:58

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 10002 battles
  • 6
  • [ORYX] ORYX
  • Member since:
    12-13-2012

Third week in and ranked battles just keep getting worse.  It's just random battles with the same match maker that can't even divide the tanks of the same type into two even teams.  There are lots of players sitting in the back to soak up damage on a losing team.  Changes to the chevron system needs to be made.  Its broken because one team always losses so its based on a match maker that will never be prefect.  Award chevrons to participants based on their play not which team wins.  The chevron system needs to be based on Damage caused, spotting, assistance damage, tanks destroyed, damage blocked, etc....  The system also needs a set number of battles all players have to play to qualify to get ranked.  50 battles a week  would be a great number.  A minimum number of battles to qualify a week (50) and a maximum number (50) of battles a week that count towards ranking.  Keep the time frame or schedule the same and let players play as many games as they can.  The system would have a weekly winner and after averaging the three weeks an over all winner.  You could take the top 50% and award gold rank to the top 10%, Silver to 11%-20% and so on. 

I did get a chance to use the bonds and bonus equipment!  Equipment works fine but it is a bad idea.  Dev's want to give them out with medals which is just a bad idea.  Only the best players will get enough bonds making them a little better.  They don't need the bonus.  The idea of giving the best players a buff is just lame and may cause players to go find a different game to play.  Please just don't do it. 



Cruiser133 #229 Posted Oct 04 2017 - 22:25

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 29498 battles
  • 478
  • [5LINE] 5LINE
  • Member since:
    05-28-2013
I went one win and twelve losses last night. I got tired of tryharding just to maintain my rank. If you read this wg, your new mode sucks. Thank you.

Viserion_Dies #230 Posted Oct 05 2017 - 18:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 30174 battles
  • 4,850
  • [FADED] FADED
  • Member since:
    06-19-2013

View PostJRTolbert15, on Sep 21 2017 - 17:40, said:

Hey WG think about removing  premium rounds in ranked battles,so that it will really be a test of skill. and not just hitting that 2 key to win. please remove arty from the game thanks.

 

and banning is7 type 5 mous e100 pzkpw strv wz1-5 all artillery

 

so good suggestion. lets get this rolling. but question is, what tank will you play then?



Apache1990 #231 Posted Oct 05 2017 - 18:56

    Major

  • Players
  • 32699 battles
  • 6,290
  • [ATKRE] ATKRE
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011

View PostViserion_Dies, on Oct 05 2017 - 12:52, said:

 

and banning is7 type 5 mous e100 pzkpw strv wz1-5 all artillery

 

so good suggestion. lets get this rolling. but question is, what tank will you play then?

 

Object 268



SplatterMonkey77 #232 Posted Oct 06 2017 - 17:32

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 39383 battles
  • 193
  • [KON] KON
  • Member since:
    09-29-2012

Why, in ranked battles, do we see teams made up of players of all ranks?  This seems to me to defeat the purpose of "ranked" battles.

 

If you're a rank 2 player trying to get to rank 3, having a number of rank 4 or 5 players on your team generally tilts the odds against you getting closer to the top of the team list at the end of a battle, win or lose, because (surprise) those players are better than you are, and will generally tend to out-perform the rest of the team.

 

OK, OK, I know... "there aren't enough people playing at rank 4 or 5 to make up a full roster of two teams."  That's a problem that needs to be addressed by some method other than offering up rank 1s and 2s as sacrifices.



Jolly33 #233 Posted Oct 07 2017 - 06:18

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 37628 battles
  • 223
  • [REL2] REL2
  • Member since:
    11-14-2012

2 problems with second iteration of Ranked Battles:

 

1. 12 points to qualify for league....fixed half way through, but too late for most folks.  Any average player with a brain could see that trying to make the league was a fools errand.  6 points was much more realistic. 

 

2.  Zero sum Chevrons:  10 up, 10 no change, 10 down.   The only way someone moves up the ranks if for some foolish soul to keep slaving away and failing.  For every person earning rank 5, several fools must continue to slug away and stay stuck at rank 1.  I understand not giving chevrons to the losing team, but there needs to be a net gain of chevrons in every match.  A distribution of 12/8/10 would be better.



scoutsout7 #234 Posted Oct 09 2017 - 19:12

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 51091 battles
  • 45
  • [TCDBD] TCDBD
  • Member since:
    12-09-2012

Season three has ended on the second ranked battles 

 

Yes there are still problems in the event for people do not play as a team but for themselves. This really brings out the worst in players instead of promoting teamwork within the battle.  

 

About the map rotation I saw the same maps over and over and never once saw Live Oaks 

 

Also it took longer to get into a battle the higher I got making rank three and then losing it the next night for the teams went south, not sure what happened but it was like Pub match's very unbalanced player wise. 

 

I did enjoy it and to me once you receive rank three it should remain with you like four and five or is this based on points now? 

The one thing that sticks out in my mind from the beginning is the basing of 50% or higher players. Having been a 50% player at one time, until I started platooning with a friend and teaching her how to play better I lost my percentage by a few points but I enjoyed the game and in the end that is what it is about, yes as the video said those of us below will have to play good if not great games, which I had a few good ones nothing stellar but good enough. This all depends on the team if no one works together you suffer hard. but when a team works well then you can rule over the opposing team(Well I just answered my question earlier ...LOL ... TEAMWORK) 

 

Yes the bashing of players that are in high ranking clans that if not for their clan supporting their win rate percentage they would be no better than the rest of us. 

 

Yes this will most likely bring on bashing from them if they read this but it is a game after all people so enjoy.the game. 

 

Oh yes looking at the web site I should have my bronze marker now for I have achieved enough points and this drives me to do even better next time around 

 

Scoutsout 

   



josevladimir #235 Posted Oct 14 2017 - 11:35

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 38950 battles
  • 74
  • [CAPAC] CAPAC
  • Member since:
    11-01-2013
2 nd beta , a complete disaster , only 139 players reach 12 points to enter in the league ( changed to 6 in 3 rd week ) , that s about 12 % of the players in 1 st beta , a lot of battles with players from rank 1 to 5 ; wrong way Wargaming ...

LpBronco #236 Posted Oct 14 2017 - 16:54

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 36736 battles
  • 2,036
  • [_F_] _F_
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010

Played for first rank each week and ended up in the didn't win/didn't lose too many times to make this an enjoyable exercise although I stuck it out a couple of weeks in the first, here I never got the played 10 games bonus. I like the concept but between the economy and general lack of teamplay (even though that should weigh heavily in xp received), I really found the game play to be lacking the edge that makes for compelling gameplay and end up just playing for a few bonds and moving back to strongholds, advances, and clan wars. 

 

If they bring it back, maybe they'll let it play on the grand battles map.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users