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

Ranked Battles

14 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Alpha Tester
982 posts

I lost all five battles I played last night. So far tonight three more losses tonight along with two draws.

Exactly how is this win and get a star, lose/draw lose a star, format going to appeal to me? If this were ranked battles and I was on ten stars I would be all the way back to square one.

 

Exactly how will someone who plays like a unicum in one of these battles, but gets stuck on a noob team, thus losing a star, gonna feel?

Exactly how will someone who plays like a champ in one of these battles, but has one or more noobs on their team, contributing zero towards the win, feel about earning their sorry hulls an undeserved star?

Exactly how will you fill high level (according to the amount of stars you have) battles when the vast majority of the player base is between a 45% and 55% (don't quote me on those exact numbers, just making a point) W/L rate. People are just going to ladder up and down the first five or so ranks. How long will the queue be for those higher level battles? 2 on 2 twelve star ranked battles?

Unless someone comes up with a system where someone performing well on a losing team can still get a star, or be immune from losing one, I don't think this mode is going to work.

 

In fact, without participating in it, I find the whole thing so unsavory I don't even want to give it a go. That's just my opinion & that's what the forums are for.

 

Winning and (mostly) losing in regular battles is frustrating enough without piling this mode, as it stands, on. :sceptic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,634 posts
4,639 battles

There is a reason why most alpha testers and supertesters didn't want this game mode. Not to say the least is that the community is (probably) simply too small right now and ranked battles would feel like Tank Companies on the World of Tanks Asia server.

 

Secondly, and this is, I guess, for the "more inclined" players, the system would probably grind out more draws than usual. This is because if you are, let's say, at a certain skill level, and you played against other people with a similar skill level, you'd have a good idea of how the other team will act and play, and as such, can be less inclined to take risks (and hence decide battles to be either a loss or win).

 

Oh well. They can always pull it back like they did for Historical Battles on Tanks after one patch if it doesn't work. I personally remain cautiously optimistic about the game mode. I will give it a try, but I'm probably not going to like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
317 posts
953 battles

Did you even tried it in the public test server?

 

It is supposed to be battle where you and your opponents matched with same ranked and therefore theorytically same skilled players.... And it is all in domination mode with 800 points instead of 1000, so no draw would be possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
982 posts

Did you even tried it in the public test server?

 

It is supposed to be battle where you and your opponents matched with same ranked and therefore theorytically same skilled players.... And it is all in domination mode with 800 points instead of 1000, so no draw would be possible

 

No mate, I didn't try it on the test server. Weekends are when I don't have a lot of time to play.

 

Let's say that draws are indeed impossible (my recent luck indicates that it's guaranteed I'll find a way to make them happen) to get, it still doesn't nullify my arguments.

 

Let's say that the teams are actually drawn up equally by MM. Won't these just be repeats over & over of Rocky 1 & Rocky 2. Everyone wins a few then everyone loses a few over & over & over. I simply can't see much progress to the higher ranks except by luck, not skill.

 

Again, unless there is a way for someone on a losing team to get a star or be immune from losing one, based on performance, I just don't see this lasting past the next patch.

 

 

 

EDIT: I also think that any non-contributor on a winning team should not get a star. Maybe be immune from losing one, but certainly not earning one.

Edited by Krieg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,634 posts
4,639 battles

Oops. My mistake. Maybe if I just changed it to "results will be pretty much be grinded out," but that isn't really a problem, is it?

 

Before going into the meat of the article, let me just argue semantics; no two players are exactly alike. You can't find 15 exactly equally skilled players; you will always be a burden to someone and/or be saddled with the burden of carrying someone else. For instance, DeathSkyz prefers battleships (his Warspite play, especially, is exemplary). I prefer cruisers (Mogami fire-y screen of death FTW). But we do have statistics that beat the standard deviation. Would you consider that he is definitively better than I, comparing our statistics, without having a common class of ship to play?

 

My problem with skill MM is that players don't learn anything new. Before you throw out "I fight equally-skilled opponents who can give me a challenge, allowing me to develop my skills," let me just say that there is an established map meta by now; people know where to go on maps, what to do, etc. However, if you fight equally-skilled opponents where both teams know exactly where to move, where to place their ships and the same tactics, what do you learn from each other?

 

You need someone who is way out of your league (super unicum or otherwise) to show you something new that you can learn from, and you won't meet them with skill MM. Otherwise...adapt? Adapt to what, exactly? What is there to adapt to if everyone is doing the same thing? People can (and probably will) argue that it will be more fun for everyone involved, but really, it's the bad players who will lose out the most. Skill MM is a place where equally bad players can shell each other with HE incessantly with relative comfort (no citadels to worry about!), without a chance to improve, since they are playing the same skilled players over and over.

 

The point of random battles is to learn. Maybe you aren't the one doing the learning. Maybe if you're above average, you are teaching people how to play their ship properly, but remember that learning goes both ways. The same principle applies when someone owns you really hard. Most of the things i know is when someone owned me (darn you AALG; I will never forget that Alpha game...), I adopted it to my play-style and I improved.

 

Some will argue that "but the noobs will learn game mechanics if they want to progress". That is plausible, but again, ask, if I was the noob, what would I actually learn in terms of game mechanics by getting killed? For example, to this date, no one knows exactly how AA mechanics work (although that has not stopped people from theoreticising). Learning the game mechanics in detail requires me to read the Wiki for the game about it, and let's be honest, most will not do that, if they know that it exists at all. This is an arcade game, where you can plausibly pick it up and start playing immediately.

 

Let me just reiterate my point in one sentence, since this is pretty tl;dr. I think that Wargaming is making a mistake by introducing skill MM, for a variety of reasons.

Edited by Haku

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
982 posts

Oops. My mistake. Maybe if I just changed it to "results will be pretty much be grinded out," but that isn't really a problem, is it?

 

Before going into the meat of the article, let me just argue semantics; no two players are exactly alike. You can't find 15 exactly equally skilled players; you will always be a burden to someone and/or be saddled with the burden of carrying someone else. For instance, DeathSkyz prefers battleships (his Warspite play, especially, is exemplary). I prefer cruisers (Mogami fire-y screen of death FTW). But we do have statistics that beat the standard deviation. Would you consider that he is definitively better than I, comparing our statistics, without having a common class of ship to play?

 

My problem with skill MM is that players don't learn anything new. Before you throw out "I fight equally-skilled opponents who can give me a challenge, allowing me to develop my skills," let me just say that there is an established map meta by now; people know where to go on maps, what to do, etc. However, if you fight equally-skilled opponents where both teams know exactly where to move, where to place their ships and the same tactics, what do you learn from each other?

 

You need someone who is way out of your league (super unicum or otherwise) to show you something new that you can learn from, and you won't meet them with skill MM. Otherwise...adapt? Adapt to what, exactly? What is there to adapt to if everyone is doing the same thing? People can (and probably will) argue that it will be more fun for everyone involved, but really, it's the bad players who will lose out the most. Skill MM is a place where equally bad players can shell each other with HE incessantly with relative comfort (no citadels to worry about!), without a chance to improve, since they are playing the same skilled players over and over.

 

The point of random battles is to learn. Maybe you aren't the one doing the learning. Maybe if you're above average, you are teaching people how to play their ship properly, but remember that learning goes both ways. The same principle applies when someone owns you really hard. Most of the things i know is when someone owned me (darn you AALG; I will never forget that Alpha game...), I adopted it to my play-style and I improved.

 

Some will argue that "but the noobs will learn game mechanics if they want to progress". That is plausible, but again, ask, if I was the noob, what would I actually learn in terms of game mechanics by getting killed? For example, to this date, no one knows exactly how AA mechanics work (although that has not stopped people from theoreticising). Learning the game mechanics in detail requires me to read the Wiki for the game about it, and let's be honest, most will not do that, if they know that it exists at all. This is an arcade game, where you can plausibly pick it up and start playing immediately.

 

Let me just reiterate my point in one sentence, since this is pretty tl;dr. I think that Wargaming is making a mistake by introducing skill MM, for a variety of reasons.

 

All good and valid points Haku - especially the very last one.

 

I think this mode will accomplish almost all you say.

 

However, as far as everything I read, Ranked Battles is being touted as something for people to progress upwards in ranks/stars (someone please come up with a better phrase :hiding:)  to get bragging rights and prizes. I just don't see how that's remotely possible as all this is only going to be is a demolition derby.

 

On a side note, let's say that draws are impossible, as previously stated. Wouldn't there be many times during the latter stages of a game, where the team that is ahead will run away and hide to run out the clock instead of fighting? Sooooo many people now are petrified of getting their ships scratched. What's gonna happen when you add "losing a star" to that equation :teethhappy:

Edited by Krieg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

Ranked battles will be awesome!

I'll play them whenever there's a cool prize and then I won't play them again until a new cool prize is added.


 

Nah, just kidding, they could drop some of my most favourite warships of ww2 in there as rewards and I would still not touch it with a 10-foot pole.

To me the entire mode feels like a shot from the hips to statisfy those that have been whining about ranked nonsense in the past 5 years.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,634 posts
4,639 battles

All good and valid points Haku - especially the very last one.

 

I think this mode will accomplish almost all you say.

However, as far as everything I read, Ranked Battles is being touted as something for people to progress upwards in ranks/stars (someone please come up with a better phrase :hiding:)  to get bragging rights and prizes. I just don't see how that's remotely possible as all this is only going to be is a demolition derby.

 

On a side note, let's say that draws are impossible, as previously stated. Wouldn't there be many times during the latter stages of a game, where the team that is ahead will run away and hide to run out the clock instead of fighting? Sooooo many people now are petrified of getting their ships scratched. What's gonna happen when you add "losing a star" to that equation :teethhappy:

 

It's not that people are petrified of getting their ships scratched. People are scared of losing. Because the other team is about equally skilled as you are, skill MM often becomes a game where teams wait for the other to commit the first mistake.

 

People like to play against similarly-skilled opponents (for reasons that confound me). If you want skill MM, play Clan Wars (when it comes out).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
317 posts
953 battles

Oops. My mistake. Maybe if I just changed it to "results will be pretty much be grinded out," but that isn't really a problem, is it?

 

Before going into the meat of the article, let me just argue semantics; no two players are exactly alike. You can't find 15 exactly equally skilled players; you will always be a burden to someone and/or be saddled with the burden of carrying someone else. For instance, DeathSkyz prefers battleships (his Warspite play, especially, is exemplary). I prefer cruisers (Mogami fire-y screen of death FTW). But we do have statistics that beat the standard deviation. Would you consider that he is definitively better than I, comparing our statistics, without having a common class of ship to play?

 

My problem with skill MM is that players don't learn anything new. Before you throw out "I fight equally-skilled opponents who can give me a challenge, allowing me to develop my skills," let me just say that there is an established map meta by now; people know where to go on maps, what to do, etc. However, if you fight equally-skilled opponents where both teams know exactly where to move, where to place their ships and the same tactics, what do you learn from each other?

 

You need someone who is way out of your league (super unicum or otherwise) to show you something new that you can learn from, and you won't meet them with skill MM. Otherwise...adapt? Adapt to what, exactly? What is there to adapt to if everyone is doing the same thing? People can (and probably will) argue that it will be more fun for everyone involved, but really, it's the bad players who will lose out the most. Skill MM is a place where equally bad players can shell each other with HE incessantly with relative comfort (no citadels to worry about!), without a chance to improve, since they are playing the same skilled players over and over.

 

The point of random battles is to learn. Maybe you aren't the one doing the learning. Maybe if you're above average, you are teaching people how to play their ship properly, but remember that learning goes both ways. The same principle applies when someone owns you really hard. Most of the things i know is when someone owned me (darn you AALG; I will never forget that Alpha game...), I adopted it to my play-style and I improved.

 

Some will argue that "but the noobs will learn game mechanics if they want to progress". That is plausible, but again, ask, if I was the noob, what would I actually learn in terms of game mechanics by getting killed? For example, to this date, no one knows exactly how AA mechanics work (although that has not stopped people from theoreticising). Learning the game mechanics in detail requires me to read the Wiki for the game about it, and let's be honest, most will not do that, if they know that it exists at all. This is an arcade game, where you can plausibly pick it up and start playing immediately.

 

Let me just reiterate my point in one sentence, since this is pretty tl;dr. I think that Wargaming is making a mistake by introducing skill MM, for a variety of reasons.

 

Probably only very few players will reach the top save the super unicums, the rest of us mortals would be capped in rank 25-20. The only way to progress is to become a unicum yourself (i.e.the ability to carry the game properly), since divisioning is not possible in ranked battle.

 

It is funny how some players on WoT Blitz forum whinning about the need for some skill based MM due to so many noobs and 'zombies' on their teams.

 

Edited by Artisto81

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
2,500 posts
1,535 battles

 

Probably only very few players will reach the top save the super unicums, the rest of us mortals would be capped in rank 25-20. The only way to progress is to become a unicum yourself (i.e.the ability to carry the game properly), since divisioning is not possible in ranked battle.

 

It is funny how some players on WoT Blitz forum whinning about the need for some skill based MM due to so many noobs and 'zombies' on their teams.

 

 

 

 

I will compare this to That_Blizzard_Trading_Card_Game's ranked mode where I easily get above 20 despite not paying for cards, not playing much and only having somewhat decent decks.

Somehow I doubt 20+ will be unicum only territory... 5+ ... 3+ maybe, but below that? Nah, not with the current number of players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
682 posts
4,757 battles

It ranked battle .. battle with all in the match are in same rank but the problem is ... they not rank player by skill but win-streak ...

the player with most win-streak move up the rank .. even player that afk but happen to be in winning team move up too ...

and go for player who get .. like 2000xp on lose team move down the chain ....
so it ranked battle by who got lucky and always in the wining team not the same skill of player ...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
509 posts

Feels like an exact copy of Hearthstones ranked system though that game is 1v1 so it makes sense there.

 

This would work better if it was a 7 man division or clan vs each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Super Tester
1,634 posts
4,639 battles

Feels like an exact copy of Hearthstones ranked system though that game is 1v1 so it makes sense there.

 

This would work better if it was a 7 man division or clan vs each other.

 

Again, it's a silly idea and I feel that Wargaming made a mistake implementing it. Time will tell if I'm right or not.

 

Share this post


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

×