Jump to content


Ranked Battles Developer FAQ


  • Please log in to reply
213 replies to this topic

spud_tuber #201 Posted Jul 04 2017 - 15:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 39783 battles
  • 3,516
  • Member since:
    08-26-2013
Is there any way to sort the ranked standings by anything other than finish position?  I'd like to be able to sort by chevron efficiency at least.  I'm curious what the best and worst chevron efficiency is within those who got the required 12 points.

Roccandil #202 Posted Jul 04 2017 - 17:27

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5319 battles
  • 241
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

View PostColddawg, on Jul 04 2017 - 00:42, said:

WG, too many players play to lose just to try and earn a chevron on the losing team.  This needs to stop.  Suggest to change the top 3 on losing team from getting a chevron to top 5 on losing team don't lose a chevron while keeping everything else the same.

 

That won't fix it. Players are camping (and acting like beaten puppies) in order to avoid punishment, not to get a reward. Remove chevron loss, and that will fix it.

Apache1990 #203 Posted Jul 04 2017 - 20:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 31214 battles
  • 6,044
  • [ATKRE] ATKRE
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011

View PostRoccandil, on Jul 04 2017 - 11:27, said:

That won't fix it. Players are camping (and acting like beaten puppies) in order to avoid punishment, not to get a reward. Remove chevron loss, and that will fix it.

 

It would also break it, because then instead of being ranked, it would just be a grind mode for whoever plays every day.

mrholsy #204 Posted Jul 04 2017 - 20:10

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 19154 battles
  • 74
  • [DHO-X] DHO-X
  • Member since:
    01-26-2014
I would like to see the rewards be based on a predetermined threshold for points. For instance...

25 pts = gold
20 pts = silver
15 pts = bronze

The qualifications for gold, silver, and bronze were too confusing. It gave alot of people a false sense of hope the first few weeks.

Happy where I finished, but sad for those who didn't realize the confusing rules until too late.

Generally enjoyed the game play, just a huge credit sink. Would like to see the silver economy part tweaked.


Roccandil #205 Posted Jul 04 2017 - 23:22

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5319 battles
  • 241
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

View PostApache1990, on Jul 04 2017 - 14:09, said:

 

It would also break it, because then instead of being ranked, it would just be a grind mode for whoever plays every day.

 

It wouldn't be any worse a grind mode than it is now if you made chevrons harder to get (top three on each side, or something like that).

Apache1990 #206 Posted Jul 04 2017 - 23:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 31214 battles
  • 6,044
  • [ATKRE] ATKRE
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011

View PostRoccandil, on Jul 04 2017 - 17:22, said:

 

It wouldn't be any worse a grind mode than it is now if you made chevrons harder to get (top three on each side, or something like that).

 

Yes, but there would be nothing to keep really bad players from getting into higher ranks, given enough time.

(This ranked season had some very average players who had been reaching rank 5, but at least I never saw any of the people who somehow manage to get less than 100-300 WN8 up there.)



Viserion_Dies #207 Posted Jul 05 2017 - 09:04

    Major

  • Players
  • 29298 battles
  • 4,413
  • [FADED] FADED
  • Member since:
    06-19-2013

View PostApache1990, on Jul 04 2017 - 19:09, said:

 

It would also break it, because then instead of being ranked, it would just be a grind mode for whoever plays every day.

 

well it was already a grind mode. plenty of people have already complained they played well but still didn't get enough pts. you can have a 95% ratio and still be lower than the person who spammed 500 games (me) and got 20% ratio (I think me again, but I cant be assed to check)

Viserion_Dies #208 Posted Jul 05 2017 - 09:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 29298 battles
  • 4,413
  • [FADED] FADED
  • Member since:
    06-19-2013

View PostApache1990, on Jul 04 2017 - 22:45, said:

 

Yes, but there would be nothing to keep really bad players from getting into higher ranks, given enough time.

(This ranked season had some very average players who had been reaching rank 5, but at least I never saw any of the people who somehow manage to get less than 100-300 WN8 up there.)

 

they were there but gave up after week 2.

 

 



Roccandil #209 Posted Jul 05 2017 - 15:10

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5319 battles
  • 241
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016

View PostApache1990, on Jul 04 2017 - 17:45, said:

 

Yes, but there would be nothing to keep really bad players from getting into higher ranks, given enough time.

(This ranked season had some very average players who had been reaching rank 5, but at least I never saw any of the people who somehow manage to get less than 100-300 WN8 up there.)

 

If you can consistently get top three by exp, you've earned it. I don't care what your stats are.

Michele9423 #210 Posted Jul 06 2017 - 00:39

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 9707 battles
  • 45
  • [MAHOU] MAHOU
  • Member since:
    03-16-2015

:) I don't see anything that needed to be change for Ranked battle. Just put it in the premium shop, this mode is gonna instantly die like the Rampage, everything solved. The topic is like "how to make a pile of crap taste better", nobody cares about it is crap indeed.

 

We should focus on some realistic issues like " how much should 10k bonds cost" or "should it bundle with gold and premium time" etc.


Edited by Michele9423, Jul 06 2017 - 00:46.


LpBronco #211 Posted Jul 06 2017 - 01:01

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 35957 battles
  • 1,902
  • [_F_] _F_
  • Member since:
    11-19-2010

"End Game" doesn't necessarily mean tier ten and could apply to any special event meant to challenge our collective skill and determination. Ranked battles could be staged at any tier similar to the different tiers available for clan wars. One of the changes I'd like to see is team selection before map selection and the ability to select a tank based on the map in play.

 

So you pick two sets of 10 to 15 players present the map on a load in screen, give everyone 1 to 2 minutes to set up the line-ups and launch. All in all as the players got to select their tanks I think the overall balance would be better than the random teams formed for these events.



DJMcFlinty #212 Posted Jul 06 2017 - 17:58

    Private

  • -Players-
  • 19676 battles
  • 5
  • [PCAKE] PCAKE
  • Member since:
    11-06-2014
ok ive check for 10 minutes and that's long enough so if asked before I apologize,  but when do we actually get the "end" (silver for me) ranked rewards?  or did I just not get mine?

Roccandil #213 Posted Jul 06 2017 - 22:36

    Sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 5319 battles
  • 241
  • [CARTL] CARTL
  • Member since:
    02-13-2016
Evidently it will be 14 days or so after the end of the season.

TodSoldat #214 Posted Jul 29 2017 - 01:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 32817 battles
  • 4,973
  • [-M4-] -M4-
  • Member since:
    10-04-2011

View PostLpBronco, on Jul 05 2017 - 19:01, said:

"End Game" doesn't necessarily mean tier ten and could apply to any special event meant to challenge our collective skill and determination. Ranked battles could be staged at any tier similar to the different tiers available for clan wars. One of the changes I'd like to see is team selection before map selection and the ability to select a tank based on the map in play.

 

So you pick two sets of 10 to 15 players present the map on a load in screen, give everyone 1 to 2 minutes to set up the line-ups and launch. All in all as the players got to select their tanks I think the overall balance would be better than the random teams formed for these events.

 

I think it should be limited to tier X only so it'll help keep the seal clubbers out of it. The second idea you presented I totally like




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users