Jump to content


- - - - -

[Ranked] Ranked Battles Results and Plans


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

CabbageMechanic #1 Posted Oct 19 2017 - 00:45

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 7312 battles
  • 204
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-19-2010
Hey Tankers,

Our second beta for ranked play wrapped up recently and our dev team has some thoughts on what we have learned to take into the creation of Season 1 of Ranked.  If you played Ranked Battles or are interested in their future please take a moment to review our thoughts and let us know yours about where we are heading for Season 1.


Edited by CabbageMechanic, Oct 19 2017 - 00:46.


xSzikll #2 Posted Oct 19 2017 - 00:49

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 7797 battles
  • 254
  • [27-F] 27-F
  • Member since:
    12-23-2016
Limit the premium shells, when even the artillery spams the number 2 you know this is a bad idea.

Redwave11 #3 Posted Oct 19 2017 - 01:47

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 16809 battles
  • 503
  • [RIP-U] RIP-U
  • Member since:
    07-01-2015

Everything in the video sounded great.

 

A couple ideas that might be worth thinking about:

- Why limit the number of chevrons you can earn per game to 1? You could perhaps give 2 or 3 to the top couple players on xp which would make getting up the ranks easier whilst not having to reduce the number of chevrons between ranks.

- You could have a moving 'safety net' for the chevrons so you can only lose 4 below your best? of course you can pick any number for balancing reasons.



Jaspo #4 Posted Oct 19 2017 - 04:59

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24855 battles
  • 308
  • [4HIM3] 4HIM3
  • Member since:
    03-12-2015

Ok whatever, just stop calling it ranked, if this is really how you want it. Because it isn't ranked. Its ladders, without enough time in the season and not enough ranks to even start resembling some sort of rank based play.

Ranked would absolutely need to be a long play thing...months or even a year. Winning or losing a 15 v 15 battle is an atrocious way to measure INDIVIDUAL player skill (which is what we're trying to rank here, fyi) for such a thing so throw that out the window and use normalized base experience instead. Sort player skill by cumulative experience over a certain number of battles...average experience, in other words, but wait, we've hit a critical flaw in the design...oh wait, it was ALREADY a critical flaw in the design: 15 tomatoes vs 15 tomatoes will look just as good (or bad) as 15 unicums against 15 unicums. And this is why the civilized world invented ELO. Give it up, stop trying to reinvent the wheel and just find a way to use ELO already...again, don't use winning or losing as the measurement of success though, in what only appears to be a team game but is actually an individual game, particularly for purposes of player ranking.


Edited by Jaspo, Oct 20 2017 - 02:43.


Jaspo #5 Posted Oct 20 2017 - 02:43

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 24855 battles
  • 308
  • [4HIM3] 4HIM3
  • Member since:
    03-12-2015

Actually, there's another problem here: putting players of the same skill level in the same battle, and judging player skill by winrate, are mutually exlusive. Why? well, because a player can be considered good by winrate if the player consistently carries the team to victory. The player can only consistently carry if he's notably better than his peers. If he's deliberately matched with equal peers, he cannot consistently be notably better than his peers, and cannot carry. As a result, winning or losing becomes the exact equivalent of a coin flip for all players who are successfully placed in a truly ranked scenario. As such, it becomes an utterly useless metric for judging player performance.



Mikosah #6 Posted Oct 20 2017 - 23:25

    Major

  • Players
  • 17520 battles
  • 3,165
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

The idea of trying to make a ranked mode that remains just as team-dependent as the randoms but yet has no option whatsoever for voice comms is an inherent conflict of interests. There's two possible solutions to this problem: 1- Smaller team sizes and full voice comms for all members of the team. Just add a simple UI to mute/unmute individual players should the need arise (as every other game since 1990 has done). And 2- Finally put to rest this laughable farce that is any expectation of teamwork, and score individuals as individuals. To do so, simply score all 30 players as one group rather than two separate teams. Reward the top 10, punish the bottom 10. As an aside, the experience penalty for not spotting your own targets is already a notable disincentive to redline sniping. Should further motivation be needed, simply shift the ratio of experienced earned even more in favor of the spotter and less to the shooter. 

 

Sheer costs of running tier 10s is another notable reason for Ranked's unpopularity. And once one guy lets loose with code 22, food, and other expensive goodies, everyone else has to do the same to compete. Trying to compensate us with credit boosters implies the need to grind for credits elsewhere, which is an even greater drag. Options to solve that problem are to award more credits for matches completed in ranked, give discounts to the costs, or move ranked to a less expensive tier (finally a reason to play tier 8s again perhaps?). I know the whole point of the mode was to get us to spend more credits, but that goal was a pipe dream from the beginning. Then again, WG could cut out the middleman and let us buy improved equipment and directives for an appropriately high price in credits and everyone wins. And simultaneously they could please the newer guys by making just a few items relatively cheap. You know that directive that gives you Sixth Sense if you don't already have it? If that only cost about 3k credits to run each match, then the cancer of having to grind the first perk on new crews would be instantly cured. 



Hillbilly58 #7 Posted Oct 26 2017 - 17:32

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 37060 battles
  • 111
  • [INSNE] INSNE
  • Member since:
    07-04-2011

View PostMikosah, on Oct 20 2017 - 22:25, said:

The idea of trying to make a ranked mode that remains just as team-dependent as the randoms but yet has no option whatsoever for voice comms is an inherent conflict of interests. There's two possible solutions to this problem: 1- Smaller team sizes and full voice comms for all members of the team. Just add a simple UI to mute/unmute individual players should the need arise (as every other game since 1990 has done). And 2- Finally put to rest this laughable farce that is any expectation of teamwork, and score individuals as individuals. To do so, simply score all 30 players as one group rather than two separate teams. Reward the top 10, punish the bottom 10. As an aside, the experience penalty for not spotting your own targets is already a notable disincentive to redline sniping. Should further motivation be needed, simply shift the ratio of experienced earned even more in favor of the spotter and less to the shooter. 

 

Sheer costs of running tier 10s is another notable reason for Ranked's unpopularity. And once one guy lets loose with code 22, food, and other expensive goodies, everyone else has to do the same to compete. Trying to compensate us with credit boosters implies the need to grind for credits elsewhere, which is an even greater drag. Options to solve that problem are to award more credits for matches completed in ranked, give discounts to the costs, or move ranked to a less expensive tier (finally a reason to play tier 8s again perhaps?). I know the whole point of the mode was to get us to spend more credits, but that goal was a pipe dream from the beginning. Then again, WG could cut out the middleman and let us buy improved equipment and directives for an appropriately high price in credits and everyone wins. And simultaneously they could please the newer guys by making just a few items relatively cheap. You know that directive that gives you Sixth Sense if you don't already have it? If that only cost about 3k credits to run each match, then the cancer of having to grind the first perk on new crews would be instantly cured. 

 

​I like this post and agree, I would add tier 6 to the mix as well.




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users