Jump to content


Quickybaby's thoughts on Ranked...

Quickybaby Ranked Battles

  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

Redcoat #41 Posted Dec 09 2019 - 17:03

    Captain

  • Players
  • 69361 battles
  • 1,211
  • [BETAS] BETAS
  • Member since:
    03-24-2011

View PostAllieOop2, on Dec 09 2019 - 06:16, said:


His typical target market emo sky is falling apocalyptic rage children. He has nothing of substance to say an its only to garner the above types of followers to increase his click count. He has been a flip flop fraud for years.

 

Well, I'm not QB's biggest fan, but at least he doesn't talk unsubstantiated crap about other players while cowering behind an anonymous secondary account like a fail beotch...



BlaqWolf #42 Posted Dec 09 2019 - 17:27

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 22808 battles
  • 577
  • [-W-W-] -W-W-
  • Member since:
    04-21-2011

View PostHOTA_CHATON, on Dec 07 2019 - 19:22, said:


I agree Jake.  Get the OP special tanks out of the action.

They need to get rid of the special 'reward' tanks entirely.
The reward should be a unique 3d style that's put over a standard tech tree vehicle which than then have 2d styles and the like applied to it.  Such vehicles should also be considered 'premium' for credit/XP rewards and crew transfers.



AllieOop2 #43 Posted Dec 09 2019 - 18:11

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 14 battles
  • 1,227
  • Member since:
    02-22-2019

View PostRedcoat, on Dec 09 2019 - 17:03, said:

 

Well, I'm not QB's biggest fan, but at least he doesn't talk unsubstantiated crap about other players while cowering behind an anonymous secondary account like a fail beotch...


This why I come to NA forums you just cant get this playground passive aggressive stuff on EU. Admit it YOU are his biggest fan...come on do it quit hiding.



Mikosah #44 Posted Dec 09 2019 - 18:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,564
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

The big takeaway is that a competitive game mode like ranked is a perfect case study of the current meta. And we can see for ourselves the high emphasis on corridor brawling with the typical heavies and mediums. The percentages of tanks played in ranked bears this out- 67.6% heavies, 26.8% mediums, and the other three classes combined less than 6%. Some might like the corridor brawling meta, but I'm not a fan. The whole purpose is to grind the enemy's push to a screeching halt and for damage to not be dealt. And then there's the whole gold shell debacle to throw a wrench into things which I won't go into here but suffice to say it isn't to anyone's benefit, even WG's.

 

Partially this is an issue of how the tanks themselves have lately been implemented/balanced, with armor being tuned in relation to gold shells rather than standard shells. Alternatively, it could be seen as an issue of map design, where the corridors and key choke points have to be occupied but large swaths of terrain are totally unusable, at least in the early game when they're guarded. But I'll suggest a third possibility- that the existing tanks and maps could play in a much more interesting and dynamic way if there were simply a lower player count per match. If the format were 10v10 rather than 15v15, then that essentially means that there's more unoccupied space, more unguarded routes, more possibilities for movement, positioning, and aggressive flanking.



Imperator_____ #45 Posted Dec 09 2019 - 19:00

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 22567 battles
  • 1,664
  • [ASHEN] ASHEN
  • Member since:
    02-21-2014

View PostMikosah, on Dec 09 2019 - 18:42, said:

The big takeaway is that a competitive game mode like ranked is a perfect case study of the current meta. And we can see for ourselves the high emphasis on corridor brawling with the typical heavies and mediums. The percentages of tanks played in ranked bears this out- 67.6% heavies, 26.8% mediums, and the other three classes combined less than 6%. Some might like the corridor brawling meta, but I'm not a fan. The whole purpose is to grind the enemy's push to a screeching halt and for damage to not be dealt. And then there's the whole gold shell debacle to throw a wrench into things which I won't go into here but suffice to say it isn't to anyone's benefit, even WG's.

 

Partially this is an issue of how the tanks themselves have lately been implemented/balanced, with armor being tuned in relation to gold shells rather than standard shells. Alternatively, it could be seen as an issue of map design, where the corridors and key choke points have to be occupied but large swaths of terrain are totally unusable, at least in the early game when they're guarded. But I'll suggest a third possibility- that the existing tanks and maps could play in a much more interesting and dynamic way if there were simply a lower player count per match. If the format were 10v10 rather than 15v15, then that essentially means that there's more unoccupied space, more unguarded routes, more possibilities for movement, positioning, and aggressive flanking.

 

10v10 is interesting but there would be even more whining about rigged winrates because the individual player would weigh more. There would also probably be even more blowouts because it's difficult for 10 tanks to hold half a map.

 

Also 67% heavies needs to be further examined: is that counting all players? What percent of players didn't get to bronze league or even past division 3? Any meta analysis should really be of successful players only.

 



FineousOrlon #46 Posted Dec 09 2019 - 19:30

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 21765 battles
  • 479
  • Member since:
    11-29-2014

View PostAllieOop2, on Dec 09 2019 - 06:16, said:


His typical target market emo sky is falling apocalyptic rage children. He has nothing of substance to say an its only to garner the above types of followers to increase his click count. He has been a flip flop fraud for years.

 

Well, there must be A LOT of those falling apocalyptic rage children around....  how would I recognize one?

 

As to whether he is a flip-flop artist or not, I am not sure.  He is certainly not perfect, but I do not know if his initial positions are self-centered on his own gaming experience, which should matter a lot to him, or just not well-researched, or not well-directed for his audience [combination of two or three also applicable].

 

Remember that Dunning-Kruger blindspots ALSO apply to people that ARE good at particular activities.  They may not have had to think things completely through to actually be good, so they do not necessarily always know exactly why they are good, and all that that entails.

 

View Post_Xi, on Dec 09 2019 - 16:37, said:

I don't understand the point of complaining about reward tanks when people are going to use next best thing (which people will also complain about) or you could get them yourself? 

 

We really not going to talk about chevron displacement and maps? 

 

Also, somebody needs to help me out. When the top 5% get the majority of the rewards, why is that an issue? The best players should always receive the best awards. What's the point of being good if you don't get anything for it?

 

The issue is that being able to use the best OP tanks that are reward tanks, and not just researchable tanks, brings an excluding dynamic to ranked that is not contingent on one's skill, at that time.



FineousOrlon #47 Posted Dec 09 2019 - 19:35

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 21765 battles
  • 479
  • Member since:
    11-29-2014

View PostDas_Junka, on Dec 08 2019 - 04:52, said:

TLDR waaah Im a pubstar I hate clan tanks

 

LOL, poor attempt really.  "OP reward" tanks should not be allowed in ranked battles does not equal "I hate clan tanks."



AllieOop2 #48 Posted Dec 09 2019 - 20:00

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 14 battles
  • 1,227
  • Member since:
    02-22-2019

View PostFineousOrlon, on Dec 09 2019 - 19:30, said:

 

Well, there must be A LOT of those falling apocalyptic rage children around....  how would I recognize one?

 

Go to as many pub matches as possible and go to any of his You Tube videos. Yes there are a lot of them just post a negative comment about their beloved its brings them out raging. Its simple actually.



Knagar #49 Posted Dec 09 2019 - 21:01

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22762 battles
  • 1,931
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011
While I'm a fan of QB, I find it laughable that he can put out this video complaining about ranked. To complain while he actively took part, and even used the same broken tanks, is mildly hypocritical.

Had he gone into it using regular tech tree tanks and then made the video, sure. It's like complaining about a glitch in a game that gives people an advantage, while you use the glitch.

R_ArcWolf #50 Posted Dec 09 2019 - 21:05

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 12084 battles
  • 93
  • Member since:
    09-16-2016

View Post_Xi, on Dec 09 2019 - 16:37, said:

I don't understand the point of complaining about reward tanks when people are going to use next best thing (which people will also complain about) or you could get them yourself? 

 

We really not going to talk about chevron displacement and maps? 

 

Also, somebody needs to help me out. When the top 5% get the majority of the rewards, why is that an issue? The best players should always receive the best awards. What's the point of being good if you don't get anything for it?

Well, if you remove reward tanks, the "next best thing" is a tech tree tank anyone can unlock given enough time. That alone levels the playing field. 



AllieOop2 #51 Posted Dec 09 2019 - 21:15

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 14 battles
  • 1,227
  • Member since:
    02-22-2019

View PostKnagar, on Dec 09 2019 - 21:01, said:

While I'm a fan of QB, I find it laughable that he can put out this video complaining about ranked. To complain while he actively took part, and even used the same broken tanks, is mildly hypocritical.

Had he gone into it using regular tech tree tanks and then made the video, sure. It's like complaining about a glitch in a game that gives people an advantage, while you use the glitch.


BADA BOOM we have a winner!!!! It took a few pages of his glossy eyes fans before some one made the hypocrisy of that video come to light. Mr Clickbaby at his finest.



_Xi #52 Posted Dec 10 2019 - 01:08

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 20756 battles
  • 717
  • [ALERT] ALERT
  • Member since:
    12-11-2012

View PostR_ArcWolf, on Dec 09 2019 - 14:05, said:

Well, if you remove reward tanks, the "next best thing" is a tech tree tank anyone can unlock given enough time. That alone levels the playing field. 

 

You could always get the reward tanks yourself? Also, no it doesn't, the playing field is never going to be level. The tanks in this game can be acquired if you put the time in, sounds like people don't want to put time in and complain when a "reward" tank beats them. 

 

Tanks and Power creep are always going to be an issue. People need to move on to something else. 



FineousOrlon #53 Posted Dec 10 2019 - 01:14

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 21765 battles
  • 479
  • Member since:
    11-29-2014

View Post_Xi, on Dec 10 2019 - 01:08, said:

 

You could always get the reward tanks yourself? Also, no it doesn't, the playing field is never going to be level. The tanks in this game can be acquired if you put the time in, sounds like people don't want to put time in and complain when a "reward" tank beats them. 

 

Tanks and Power creep are always going to be an issue. People need to move on to something else. 

 

Certainly not, the preferred reward tanks, as illustrated by QB, are also OP.

 

Good and better players in OP tanks is not a test of skill on equal footing, it is also a test of tanks, and with tanks shown conclusively to be OP, that are of limited availability.



Flarvin #54 Posted Dec 10 2019 - 01:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 55602 battles
  • 17,809
  • Member since:
    03-29-2013

As skill between opponents deceases, other things that affect one’s performance will become more influential. 
 

So I expect players to use OP tanks, multiple skilled crews, prem ammo, prem consumables and any other performance beneficial items; to squeeze out every ounce of their “skill.” 



DODGE_2016 #55 Posted Dec 10 2019 - 02:10

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 30612 battles
  • 66
  • [VIXEN] VIXEN
  • Member since:
    04-10-2016
move the rewards tanks to their own tier(11)..,let them play them up against another reward tank,,, leave the rest of us who have NO SNOWBALL CHANCE IN @#$% to ever get a tier 11 reward tank, atleast maybe emjoy the tier10s we do have  in ranked

Mikosah #56 Posted Dec 10 2019 - 02:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,564
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

View PostDas_Junka, on Dec 09 2019 - 12:00, said:

 

10v10 is interesting but there would be even more whining about rigged winrates because the individual player would weigh more. There would also probably be even more blowouts because it's difficult for 10 tanks to hold half a map.

 

Also 67% heavies needs to be further examined: is that counting all players? What percent of players didn't get to bronze league or even past division 3? Any meta analysis should really be of successful players only.

 

 

Implementing a 10v10 format in the randoms might be difficult for that reason, but the whole point of ranked is to attract the sort of player who could handle this problem. Remember that the old team battles mode had even smaller teams than that, 6v6 or something similar and it worked well. As of potential blowouts, that's possible in any case. With smaller teams, each individual player may be a greater liability but that also means that each individual could also be a greater asset with more carry potential. Especially so if, as previously discussed, fewer players on the board means more unoccupied space and therefore more options for outplays based on movement or positioning.

 

I'm not sure where QB found those class percentages, but if you find a way to dig up the numbers exclusively at the gold league then those would be great to see.







Also tagged with Quickybaby, Ranked Battles

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users