Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
PbKavarovsky

Ranked Battles revamp

Ranked Battles questionnaire  

17 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you play Ranked Battles?

    • Yes, because it is fun.
      1
    • Yes, but only because I want the steel/doubloon.
      12
    • Yes, but I only play Ranked to grind my ships, I don't care about my rank.
      3
    • No, I don't need the rewards.
      0
    • No, I want the rewards, but I don't want to suffer.
      1
  2. 2. Did you like the older Ranked System or the current Ranked System?

    • I like the older one.
      1
    • I like the current one.
      6
    • I like neither, we need a revamp.
      10

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

69
[XSA]
Super Tester_
199 posts
9,898 battles
Quote

Quick Note: This idea has been posted in an internal ST forum before being reposted in this ASIA official forum for further idea and feedback collection.

Quote

Some other threads regarding issues with Ranked Battles, hence this proposal being written:

Spoiler

 

Prologue

The Ranked Battles has been in WoWS for quite a while, it features Random Battles in a smaller team format with the domination game mode, and rewards players with valuable resources like steel and ranked tokens, upon winning battles and advancing to higher ranks. The ranked system has been modified in late 2020 to remove a large number of ranks from the system and splitting players into multiple leagues. The result was easier access to steel rewards, but the core problem of the Ranked System has never been improved, or to a certain extent, has been worsen.

Why was this proposal written?

As a Supertester, we work for the community by helping to deliver a better gaming experience by performing game tests and providing constructive feedbacks. We have more direct communication means with WG. Even though numerous suggestions have been neglected in the past, we will do our utmost to convey our message to the development team/decision-making department and strive for a sustainably improving gaming environment.

Core Problem

Higher rank = better player?

The main issue with the current Ranked System is really about the “Rank”. Ranked Battle is supposed to be a competitive game mode as it rewards players with steel, which is one of the most valuable resource in-game. Meanwhile, attaining a higher rank does not reflect how well a player plays, instead reflects how determined a player is willing to stumble themselves by frustrations.

Season 3 started with one-week in the first league (the bronze league), and two weeks for every league thereafter. If you are reading this as a WG-staff, you can check the spreadsheet and would find that someone from the ASIA server advanced to Rank 1 in the Silver League with 400+ games in three weeks, scoring around 40% WR. In a diligence point of view, they deserve a round of applause; but if “Ranking” reflects how good a player is, they do not deserve their rank.

Star system

The Ranked Battle game mode has been adopting the star system since the introduction of this game mode, and it has been a major issue. When you win a battle, no matter how good or bad you performed, you earned a star. When you lose a battle, you could save your star only if you ranked as the MVP in your team. Performance is highly dependent on damage dealt to the enemy, and hence many players tend to opt in to saving their star even at the start of the battle. Kiting away, reducing the fire in-take, trying to stay alive, prolonging the time they have in dealing damage. Even if they lose the game, they save their star. Such system encourages selfish gameplay.

WoWS is a team game, no one can win alone, or win a game solely by themselves. Meanwhile you can give out everything and lose a game, losing your star because someone is selfishly farming at the back. Such experience then might aggravates you, inducing toxic behavior, being toxic in chat, etc. The vicious cycle starts here.

Matchmaking

Quote

“The MM in WoWS is so bad.” – frequent rant by WoWS players

You have probably heard of this, or even saying this yourself. What is your response to this? “Git gud?”, or “Yes, but it is what it is”? Setting up the MM system with reference to player statistics has been brought up by many players for a long time, but it was never implemented, because it induces a lot of issues. For example, a player could be a unicum in playing a carrier, but below average when playing other ship types, we cannot give ranks to players on individual ship classes (or can we?).

The current matchmaking system already have a lot to take account of when matching players, namely ship tier, ship classes, nation of the ships, etc. WoWS does not have a huge enough player base to setup a more-complicated MM system for effective matchmaking, but consider the following matchmaking:

Spoiler

60dd8b810fd27_rankedmm.thumb.png.be30b35968edaeac1caf909c23364f89.png

60dd8b8859fde_rankedstats.thumb.png.496e2b057159584ddf734e480deccc39.png

Zero radars vs Three radars

Four premium ships vs Five premium ships

Mediocre players vs More competitive players

Green team is already in a losing position before the game even started.

You simply can't let one team have everything and let the other team suffer, that is a manipulation of game results.

Comparing the Ranked Battle System and Clan Battle System

Besides Random Battles and Ranked Battles, the Clan Battles game mode is probably one of the most popular game modes in WoWS, it enables players to team up with their friends and earn steel through advancing the leagues. If you compare the Clan rating system with the Ranked rating system, despite some RMT activities regularly caught by WG that brings some unknown clans to the top of the table, the Clan rating does a better job when trying to determine how a group of people perform compared to the others. Every team member in the battle earns the same XP and hence there are no selfish gameplays, everyone should play for the win, even if it means your ship being sunk in actions.

Of course, when getting matched with randomly assigned players to play in Ranked Battles, some players would perform better than the other, so it would not make sense for the entire team to earn the same amount of XP, but what if we transplant the clan rating system into ranked? What could happen?

Potential Solutions

There are two proposed ideas with similar expected effect:

Easier implementation

Spoiler

Let’s say everyone starts in the lowest league. In general, when they win a game, they earn points; when they lose a game, they lose points. How much points a player gain is determined by how well they performed in the game, and such calculation is undisclosed (like the clan rating). In some extreme cases, you earn points even if you lose a game and performed really well, this enables the system to better distinguish the level of players and move them to the leagues that they belong.

If you still score #1 in both teams with a defeat, you do not deserve a point deduction, don’t you?

Spoiler

60dd8b905e523_WorldRecordXPforsavingastar-Imgur.thumb.jpg.4d9ae938d4ad48d0f3523e44d9e92c91.jpg

In contrast, players who violated the game rules (AFK, TK, etc.) should always have their points deducted, no matter if they won or lost.

Once the system is established, players who consistently perform well are expected to move up the leagues rather quickly, while the rest of the players would remain in the lower leagues, this automatically solves matchmaker’s inability to match players of the similar skills fighting each other. Then the MM can put more focus into balancing the utilities each team gets (mainly radars count, AA ability, etc.)

Note: Players who climbed up the league would be relegated if they consistently lose points in the higher league, otherwise the population of the lower leagues would only decrease, and higher leagues would be flooded eventually.

Harder implementation but with solid scoring ideas

Spoiler

This idea was borrowed from Rocket League, where every player must take part in preliminary unrated games. Each player plays around ten matches before they are formally assigned to a league, these ten games are crucial as they would determine where a player start in the ranked ladder.

With such system, the hidden rating would play an important role as it determines how good a player is expected to perform at their rating. For example, if we use the PR system as a benchmark, 1000 PR is a median rank, and if a player is at 1200 PR, they are expected to be performing better than the average player, hence how much point they receive when they won (or how much point they lose with a defeat) is determined by their performance in battle vs the expected performance they should attain. If the system was designed well, the more games a player play, the more accurate their rating would be.

With such rating, players are more effectively distributed into groups by performance, and the matchmaker is more likely to group players of similar level to play against each other.

Under such proposed system, players can gain steel by winning in each leagues (like how clan battle rewards are designed), but players from the higher leagues are expected to win more resources, thus players are encouraged to improve themselves to obtain more rewards.

Potential Issues

This proposed system is reducing the amount of steel an average player could receive, would it provoke the players?

Steel has always been a valuable resource that was meant to reward the better players, isn’t it? The snowflake event and allowing players to “buy steel” by purchasing dockyard stages and completing missions, steel has already been inflated. If steel reward in Clan Battles is doing fine to reward the better players, why would such system be a problem in Ranked?

As mentioned above, some players are better in one class, and so-so in the others, if they climbed up in the ranked system with their better class, and joined into a battle with a mediocre one, their performance might not meet the standard of their ratings.

In this situation, we might need to split up four different ratings for each classes of ship a player play, i.e. You might be a bronze player for cruisers, but a gold player for CV. If you have already received all rewards from the bronze league with your CV, you would not be able to receive additional rewards with cruiser in the bronze league, but you can still join and play Ranked Battles, trying to advance your cruiser’s rating. This would also enable the game mode to be always available, because players would not be locked out of the game mode when they attained Rank 1. If WG wants to reward players even further, players who topped the board by the end of the season could be further rewarded. The number of leagues added into Ranked would determine how players are split into segments. E.g. If three leagues, then Top 33% are expected in Gold, Top 66% beyond Silver, and the rest in Bronze; if five leagues, Top 20% in Diamond, Top 40% beyond Platinum, Top 60% beyond Gold, Top 80% beyond Silver, and the rest in Bronze.

(More to be included when discussion on this matter takes place.)

Epilogue

If you have read thus far, thank you very much for your patience, I hope you agree with my points above and find this proposal meaningful, please leave a comment down below if you have any ideas regarding this proposal. It would also help if you could share this with other players and grabbing more attention on this issue. I might repost this to other channels such as Reddit if people find this idea positive and feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,637
[TLS]
Member
5,321 posts
22,034 battles
26 minutes ago, PbKavarovsky said:

one of the most valuable resource in-game.

The most. Not "one of"

26 minutes ago, PbKavarovsky said:

Higher rank = better player?

Definitely not. Let's put it that I have seen Ranked 1 players in coop that are questionable.

26 minutes ago, PbKavarovsky said:

Star system

Deserves to go Supernova permanently.

26 minutes ago, PbKavarovsky said:

Matchmaking

Re: your example, that is why I would accept either skill-based MM or +/-1 MM in randoms with complete disregard to matching ship types (too complicated with the roster we have). A good player should be able to make a non-radar ship work and a completely clueless player can made a radar ship useless. The issue is when things are double OP (aka, purple stalingrad)

Formal Discussion here:
I like your proposals (the fact that it has a lot of what I said in the past/present/future is irrelevant). They make sense and level the playing field much more than say.... some flatass "rework". The issue is that steel is too valuable a commodity and the steel locked ships are considered "double OP" ships in that in the hands of a competent player, they are lethal. In the last 2 weeks, I have been demonstrating that an orange (competent player that has read the manuals) Stalingrad player running amok in GB and topping the tables whether winning or losing. It breaks match making system to an extent. Winning doubloons and buying "cash ships" with doubloons I am fine with as it opens up ships to everyone rather than limit it to the 0.01%. Of course that 0.01% will strongly disagree and that they deserve a yacht on par with Jho Low's. But I digress. 

I would propose dividing the ship classes into two: CV and non-CV as both have clear skill differentiations, rather than 4 as you suggested. BB/DD/CA differences have become blurred with the addition of various gimmicks and super(DD/CA) and for the most part apply the same principles. 

Conclusion:
Nice boat sane suggestion.

Edited by dejiko_nyo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,820
[FORCE]
Modder, Member
3,325 posts
14,850 battles

The first iteration of the current system was alright. It was the first time in ages that T8 ships didn't have to contend the higher tier ships in Ranked.

My idea is to add one more league into the system, which will offer wider range of ships that can participate without being completely hammered by the higher tier ships.

  • Bronze = T6
  • Qualification to Silver = T6-7
  • Silver = T8
  • Qualification to Gold T8-9
  • Gold = T9
  • Qualification to Diamond T9-10
  • Diamond = T10

This setup will be more favorable to the average (translation: mediocre) ships. The Gold league would be somewhat problematic as it would be free from CVs, but the amount of removed ships in that league would be overwhelming enough.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,637
[TLS]
Member
5,321 posts
22,034 battles
39 minutes ago, Reinhard_of_Avercland said:

This setup will be more favorable to the average (translation: mediocre) ships.

Weegee will want people to buy premium ships to win. >_>

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,141
[-CAT-]
Member
4,180 posts
15,370 battles
11 hours ago, dejiko_nyo said:

Definitely not. Let's put it that I have seen Ranked 1 players in coop that are questionable.

You noticed that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,141
[-CAT-]
Member
4,180 posts
15,370 battles
6 hours ago, Reinhard_of_Avercland said:

 

  • Gold = T9

I don't think WG will allow this. CV must be / should be included in ranked.

WG is hell bent on making sure that CV must be / should be included.

 

Unless they bring back odd tier CV.

 

6 hours ago, Reinhard_of_Avercland said:
  • Qualification to Diamond T9-10
  • Diamond = T10

Please don't take this as me being nit-picky but Platinum instead of Diamond.

I think metals go with metals and gems go with gems.

 

 

Other than those, the proposal is sound.

Bronze should be forgiving, and new players has to start somewhere. Also a good place to apply Skill based MM. This is to avoid steam rolling / one sided battles.

Silver is for casuals with an additional 1 to 2 irrevocable status. (Skill based MM = ????)

Gold is for competitive. (Irrevocable status at rank 5.)

Platinum is for the elites. (Same stars as gold but no irrevocable status.)
After the season, Gold and Platinum League players will start from Silver League rather than Bronze League.
or
Gold League players will start from Silver League and Platinum League Players will start from Gold League.

Just like in the old system, where veteran players do not need to start from scratch. Leaving the Bronze League forgiving to new players and Silver League for casual players.

 

I also recall that someone mentioned that there are bots (unsportsmanlike players) in raked.

Did WG stopped checking on suspicious players?

Or is the script now better that WG is now having difficulty checking and catching who is who?

Edited by S0und_Theif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,820
[FORCE]
Modder, Member
3,325 posts
14,850 battles
9 hours ago, S0und_Theif said:

I don't think WG will allow this. CV must be / should be included in ranked.

WG is hell bent on making sure that CV must be / should be included.

 

Unless they bring back odd tier CV.

Well, that's the quick solution. Although WG would have to dig what CVs that the British, German, and the upcoming Soviet get at that tier.

Audacious could be demoted, and the T10 will be replaced with Malta for example. No idea about the rest.

9 hours ago, S0und_Theif said:

Please don't take this as me being nit-picky but Platinum instead of Diamond.

I think metals go with metals and gems go with gems.

Good point. I avoided Platinum because it looks very similar to Silver.

 

9 hours ago, S0und_Theif said:

I also recall that someone mentioned that there are bots (unsportsmanlike players) in raked.

Did WG stopped checking on suspicious players?

Or is the script now better that WG is now having difficulty checking and catching who is who?

I'm not sure. I only have encountered those who AFK for the whole game.

WG staffs still post their works about that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,637
[TLS]
Member
5,321 posts
22,034 battles
30 minutes ago, Reinhard_of_Avercland said:

Good point. I avoided Platinum because it looks very similar to Silver.

I propose Paladinum.

Failing that, Adamantium.

32 minutes ago, Reinhard_of_Avercland said:

I'm not sure. I only have encountered those who AFK for the whole game.

I consider anyone that takes more than 2 minutes to start AFK. I have seen players not moving during the game start and this is bad since it effectively means you are already a ship down and initial positioning is important. ESPECIALLY when the said AFK is a lumbering hulk. I propose that if a team has an AFK, the equivalent ship on the other team spontaneously combusts.

Re: AFK because of game crashing: Isn't this supposed to be the dev's job to fix stability issues with their client since we cannot touch the coding? But we all know where the resources go instead of improving stability.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
69
[XSA]
Super Tester_
199 posts
9,898 battles
19 hours ago, Reinhard_of_Avercland said:

Gold = T9

If this happens I think I will stick with the Gold League as far as humanly possible. But with what I have proposed, to stay or not to stay in a particular league is not controlled by the player themselves, because if the system is designed well, players from a higher league should always be better players than players from lower leagues.

 

15 hours ago, S0und_Theif said:

Other than those, the proposal is sound.

Bronze should be forgiving, and new players has to start somewhere. Also a good place to apply Skill based MM. This is to avoid steam rolling / one sided battles.

Silver is for casuals with an additional 1 to 2 irrevocable status. (Skill based MM = ????)

Gold is for competitive. (Irrevocable status at rank 5.)

Platinum is for the elites. (Same stars as gold but no irrevocable status.)
After the season, Gold and Platinum League players will start from Silver League rather than Bronze League.
or
Gold League players will start from Silver League and Platinum League Players will start from Gold League.

Just like in the old system, where veteran players do not need to start from scratch. Leaving the Bronze League forgiving to new players and Silver League for casual players.

Whether a match being forgiving depends on the matchmaker, if you are assigned to a full team of unicum against a team of potato, of course it is forgiving for you. Because all it matters is you (will) win, not how you perform, and vice versa.

The problem with the old and current system is that you could advance to the higher league with enough games played (hundreds), but in my proposed system, it is designed to move the better players up the ladder quicker, because how much points you earn and lose from each battle is dependent on your performance. If you were placed in a harder league (league level > your level), you might lose more points from one defeat than the sum of points you earned from two victories, and eventually sliding down to a league that suits you better, hence it is very unlikely that you are gonna be carried your way up to a higher league that does not suit your level. Once enough battles were played to make the "rating" of a player representational, the current MM can work fine in each league, matching players of similar levels, hence lower chance of one-sided games. However, it is still important to balance team utilities like radar/AA like I mentioned in the proposal.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,141
[-CAT-]
Member
4,180 posts
15,370 battles
19 hours ago, Reinhard_of_Avercland said:

Well, that's the quick solution. Although WG would have to dig what CVs that the British, German, and the upcoming Soviet get at that tier.

Audacious could be demoted, and the T10 will be replaced with Malta for example. No idea about the rest.

Done the assgnment for them, except soviet CV.

However with the recent changes to the game, the Dutch, the suggestion now seems lacking.
Dutch, Spain, and CWoN has the highest chance for a full CV line.

Still hesitant the on Pan-American faction. Since WG can suddenly decide to split Brazil (and Argentina) from Pan-Am if they can find enough ships to fill the tech tree.

 

19 hours ago, Reinhard_of_Avercland said:

Good point. I avoided Platinum because it looks very similar to Silver.

How bout this?

80plus.jpg.dd9311919c8848e5f7adb4eebb303e40.jpg

Based on power supply ratings.

 

19 hours ago, Reinhard_of_Avercland said:

I'm not sure. I only have encountered those who AFK for the whole game.

WG staffs still post their works about that.

 

It feels so few for 1 week.

And since WG does not out right permanent ban them, they can continue to violate the game after the 14 day sanction.

:Smile_sad:

 

And with the auction rewards look lucrative, the bots (unsportsmanlike players) seem to be very attracted to this other than the Dockyard and Ranked.

Why pay when they can cheat.

Edited by S0und_Theif
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
975
[SMOKE]
Member
3,057 posts
19,534 battles

The core issue , still, is how do the system measure so call skill , contribution, and team play ... without a solid set that recognize all and penalize the selfish, its just going to be another system ripe for abuse , just as the stars are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×