Jump to content


Ranked Battles ROUND 2 - FEEDBACK!

developer feedback

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
144 replies to this topic

H0B0L0VE #101 Posted 11 December 2016 - 01:08 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 17942 battles
  • 432
  • [1CAB]
  • Member since:
    04-19-2015

Grand Master H0B0L0VE's Feedback:

First, thank you RaiBOT for posting this thread. All in a day's work, I'm sure, but it's nice to have a place to give feedback. Though some of this is probably going to sound a little pissy, please know that I'm not mad. Perhaps a little disappointed as it feels somewhat anticlimactic but it hasn't been terrible. 

Alright. So I ground my way through just under 150 ranked battles with a 75% win rate to get to Grand Master. Here are some notes.

 

-------------------------------------------
First item: Rewards 

 

I have two reasons to go all the way to GM. I do like having the bragging rights, sure but it's also a beta and I assume you need players playing to get the data you need. Assuming it helps to have at least one person to go to the top, I wanted to help. So I went ahead and went all they way. As of now, I share the GM league with one person. It was a rough grind so if it didn't help you at WG, please do not tell me. I'd like to go on thinking I did a good thing. You might ask why. Because I'm getting essentially nothing for it. In fact, I'm LOSING a lot. 150 battles will earn me at least ten million silver in regular play. No medals. No special logos. No permanent token to commemorate this achievement. Nothing but less than one tenth of the silver I'd have gathered otherwise. In addition, I'd have earned a couple dozen top gun medals, at least 50 high caliber medals and who knows how many other shiny little badges if I played this many matches seal clubbing at tier 5. This is VERY disappointing. I like shiny little badges. I'd like to get the 50 medal I somehow missed last time in spite of playing a ton of battles in gold and platinum leagues. But no. That was for the FIRST beta, I presume since I haven't earned it. You guys ought to give a little more for the effort. You'll come up with a nifty medal for various events but not this one? No way. Also, I highly recommend a series of medals visible on our profiles. Just the logos from each league would be great. I'd like for people to be able to visit my profile and see that when they're angry about getting shot.

PLEASE RETAIN THE RANKINGS FROM BETA WHEN IT GOES LIVE. You're simply kicking us in the shins if you wipe out this effort in the next beta round or when the permanent game mode starts up.

 

------------------------------------------
Second item: Points Structure.

 This is very serious. I have consistently, in almost every battle, done between 1000 and 3000 damage per battle in this league play mode. In a tier 5 vehicle. In the vast majority of games, I did upwards of 2000. I have never in a weekend of play received this much hate mail. Battle 128, when I needed only ten points to proceed to GM level, we lost. I did 2206 damage and killed two enemy tanks and I lost THIRTY-SIX POINTS. It is absolutely, completely, totally unacceptable to carry that hard and then lose that much. Other players informed me that they lost the same number of points. In all of my losses, I lost the same amount of points as my teammates. In my wins, I gained the same. For example, Arctic Region 12/09/16 8:45am I did 2868 damage with 5 kills earning 2053 base xp. I earned 24 points. The another player on my team did 425 damage for 515 base xp. He earned 26 points. I was the sole survivor, ran out of ammo and had to resort to base capture, dodging shots from the last remaining player to win the match singlehandedly. You should not be responsible for 54% of your teams total damage and 5 out of 8 kills and get so little. How about you give me 54% of my teams points? Or some kind of tangible bonus? I was responsible for 27.15% of ALL DAMAGE dealt by BOTH TEAMS and captured the base. Congratulations. You just played a match that is worthy of a run on Youtube. Here's 24 points. I've been carrying so hard all weekend that I'm going to need back surgery. It should not have taken that long to get to the top. Period.

I have been keeping an eye on the rankings during the grind and found a large number of players moving into high leagues with large volumes of battles and relatively unimpressive win rates. This game mode is not rewarding skilled play so much as just large volumes of play. Rush out, kill something, die, get into another tank, repeat as quickly as possible. I highly recommend giving larger rewards to surviving players. As it is, you're rewarding YOLO warriors who aren't actually contributing a stellar amount towards their teams' successes. I spotted someone when I arrived in the senior master league who had played just over 200 battles since the beta began twelve hours earlier. Assuming he had been playing the entire twelve hours, he was averaging 16 battles per hour. That about 3.5 minutes per battle. Senior master league and there are players that can't survive more than a couple minutes. That's not cool. So you have a strong player like me, carrying matches, surviving for most of the games all the way to the end advancing into higher ranks maintaining a 75% win rate only to find that someone else has already gotten there, somehow playing four or more times as many matches in the same amount of time and they have a win rate of 55%. Please emphasize quality of play over quantity of play.
 

--------------------------------------------

Third Item: Matchmaking
 

Overall, I think that it's not bad to have everyone mixed. Some people are complaining about wanting to only play against people in their league but I assume those players have not advanced into the leagues that don't have enough total members to field a single match. We do need to be mixed. However, I might suggest partitioning platinum and above into their own matchmaking lobby. In short order, platinum league and above should populate enough to field matches. There are a large number of very inept players running about and it honestly got really monotonous after a while. There shouldn't be completely new players playing against people in master leagues. It's not fair to the newbies and it's boring for the masters.

-----------------------------------------------


Regarding glitches and graphical issues, there's very little to say. Everything is running properly. There is an issue in the ladder tab where, after going through a list, it displays a message under the last person on the list that says there are no players. Aside from that, everything looks like it's in the right place.

 

------------------------------------------------

 

Long story short.

I'm a grand master in ranked play after 150 battles and I have nothing to show for it. That's a serious bummer. Medals and rewards beyond a tiny amount of silver are a must.

 

The points system is less mysterious but still very arbitrary. There is no reward for carrying. The claimed increased emphasis on personal performance is simply not there. That needs to be fixed.

Platinum and master level leagues should not be mixed with gold leagues or bronze and iron potatoes. I don't fault new players for being new but after some point, you start feeling like you're seal clubbing. If I wanted that, I'd go play tier 3.

Other than that, everything looks good. Thanks for a very good and very welcome game mode. I'm looking forward to seeing the next developments. 

Cheers.


Edited by H0B0L0VE, 11 December 2016 - 01:18 PM.

Light tanks make or break a match. So stop committing suicide in the first minute. Camo, view range, bushes, and spotting. Please do it right or leave it up to those of us that know how to.


H0B0L0VE #102 Posted 11 December 2016 - 01:56 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 17942 battles
  • 432
  • [1CAB]
  • Member since:
    04-19-2015
I'd like to re-emphasize the issue of ranked battles rewarding volume of play. There are a number of players in master leagues that have very poor statistical performance. As it is, ranked battles are not a measure of player skill.
Light tanks make or break a match. So stop committing suicide in the first minute. Camo, view range, bushes, and spotting. Please do it right or leave it up to those of us that know how to.


Zyxlzizm #103 Posted 11 December 2016 - 05:37 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 30184 battles
  • 19
  • [ALL41]
  • Member since:
    02-24-2014
I give. Wargaming, you have beaten me down. I am more unimpressed with Ranked Battles II than I was with the first iteration. I will not play this ranked battles again.

I am not a Grand Master like Hobolove. I am an average player trying to enjoy a game. Here are my findings\opinions:

PROS
- the 10v10 action is fast paced and fun. It is a nice variety from 15v15 and promotes playing smarter.
- Ranked Battles requires communication. In matches where even 4 tankers were talking there were always better results. This did not guarantee winning, but at least you knew you were not alone in you efforts.
- I am thankful this does not affect my ranking of rating. Being average I have worked hard at getting where I am and to lose it arbitrarily in a broken gamer system ... well, it would not promote me opening my wallet.

CONS
- Certain tanks would never load in. I tried playing all my tier 5s to give the broadest test spectrum possible. My M41 GMC would never load. I watched 5 and 8 games start\launch and then timed out both times I attempted to play it.
- As many others have said, scoring was questionable at best. If you are promoting team play, then allow teams. If you are promoting individual play, the reward the individual. Even the Grand Master saw the wisdom here.
- Your current modification to communications sucks. I know you are attempting to limit any cheating in ranked battles, but I can not play any normal games and connect with friends. Additionally, if you are modifying the communicationps, let us know! I spent hours trying to sort through a problem that was intentionally caused by WoT. 1 point for trying to curtail cheating, mega points loss for delivery.
- Once ranked, I felt I was at the whims of Lady Luck to try and advance up the tree or into the next league. My back is not strong enough to carry my team every game and I still need and welcome support from fellow tankers. Having semi-compitent teammates was wholly an arbitrary factor. Playing within an multilevel, multi-ranked system made my advancement unpredictable. If I did well like game 56 (4 KIA, 1,542\453 DAM\Asst DAM) and placed first on my team - I still lost 13 points because the rest of my group couldn't hit a barn with a shovel from 2 feet away. I had to leave the game early because I couldn't watch the carnage any longer. If you want team play, bring forth teams to the battlefield, not groups of 10 strangers.

SUGGESTIONS
- Do not launch ranked battles. If you must, at least call it by what it is - Lucky Battles.

I will not be playing in future ranked battle systems. Additionally, if the communication issue does not get fixed quickly I will stop playing tanks all together. Without my friends this is just another shoot-em-up game. There are many out there to play.

Smeagoljp #104 Posted 11 December 2016 - 09:29 PM

    Private

  • Players
  • 14540 battles
  • 4
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014
Now see, this morning I had a few examples of losing a match and only losing a few points.  I was in the top performers in a match where we did not achieve all that much even collectively.  I was all ready to amend my previous statement and say that it had improved.  Now compare that to Hobo's findings, where again, you can carry the whole team and be rewarded with a negative 30+ points.  How on earth?  Was it because he was a master that he lost more?  Was it because my team was made up of bronze and silvers that I lost fewer points?  Or is it just broke?  Divulge information or we are lead to believe it's just broke.  The only place I must emphatically disagree with Hobolove is in this statement: "It should not have taken that long to get to the top. Period.". On the contrary, we are here to point out every other issue he brought up.  He's right, mostly.  However, looking forward to a potentially released game mode, no one should be able to reach the top in such short amount of time.  This is paramount.

TangoThatAlpha #105 Posted 11 December 2016 - 11:46 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14432 battles
  • 1,468
  • [6H4D]
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014
I'm going to agree with others on the fact that there is no rhyme or reason as to how many points you gain or lose.

I was in a match earlier in my Sherman, we lost a close one and I did triple the damage of the next closest player on my team. I lost three points, I can live with that.

Last round before I quit this mess, in my Wolverine. We lost on a close one. I did 1500+ damage. Second place could only muster about 400. I lose 30+ points. How is that fair?

If this is how ranked battles are going to be when it goes live, count me out. I'm not interested in a game mode where advancement hinges on whether or not your team can even preform at a basic level.

I was trying to advance to the next division tonight before I called it. Got within 30 points and the WoT God's decided it was time to lose. Whether through good opponents or asinine teammates I slid back to needing 110 points.

I understand the point is to win, but there is, in my opinion, too much luck riding on if you win or lose. There needs to be more incentive for personal contributions. If I do well on a loss, I should not be penalized. Throw a few points my way, don't make me lose whatever RNGesus says I must lose.
Vive La Nugget!

CLoKeSTa #106 Posted 12 December 2016 - 01:26 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14364 battles
  • 2,005
  • [LIBR8]
  • Member since:
    04-21-2016

Posted in news article...

 

"Yeah, I sit this one out.  I did the first one and it was a waste of time.  Why would I even care to do this when I've got better ways to make silver/xp/crew training and TT tanks I want to unlock?  MM was horrible last time and it sounds like it was this time as well.  No point in leagues/divisions If teams are mixed from all of them.  There just aren't enough prizes to motivate me to play, the silver prize sizes are a joke and and aren't cumulative, really? WG, you REALLY don't have a clue. Yawn. WG, get a better system because if you don't this will fail!"

 

 Just "seeing how good you are" isn't enough motivation to keep players playing in ranked battles, therefore over time Server queue populations will continually decrease to critical levels and all players will stop playing.  Why is this?  There is no long term motivation to play in ranked battles!  Your silver prize levels are a joke, almost insulting in that WG is too greedy to actually care enough to do what it takes to make ranked battles a sucess.

 

Recommendations:

500k silver prize per level that is cumlative.  With the gold level giving actual gold, 500 pieces.  2nd highest should be 1000 gold.  The top prize should be a console and ranked battle only exclusive premium tank with either an exceptional xp or silver earning bonus built in with unique camo and a ranked Grand Master battle emblem.  All games should have either a bonus 50% siver or crew bonus per battle.

 

I would play, but until you actually care enough, I'm out like most others, stop wasting my time.  I have tanks to earn.

 

And don't forget you also still have to fix MM and the points system it seems.


Edited by CLoKeSTa, 12 December 2016 - 01:52 AM.

 

-Clokesta

 

RNG Tank Operations, NEVER AGAIN!


H0B0L0VE #107 Posted 12 December 2016 - 01:33 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 17942 battles
  • 432
  • [1CAB]
  • Member since:
    04-19-2015

View PostSmeagoljp, on 11 December 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

Now see, this morning I had a few examples of losing a match and only losing a few points. I was in the top performers in a match where we did not achieve all that much even collectively. I was all ready to amend my previous statement and say that it had improved. Now compare that to Hobo's findings, where again, you can carry the whole team and be rewarded with a negative 30+ points. How on earth? Was it because he was a master that he lost more? Was it because my team was made up of bronze and silvers that I lost fewer points? Or is it just broke? Divulge information or we are lead to believe it's just broke. The only place I must emphatically disagree with Hobolove is in this statement: "It should not have taken that long to get to the top. Period.". On the contrary, we are here to point out every other issue he brought up. He's right, mostly. However, looking forward to a potentially released game mode, no one should be able to reach the top in such short amount of time. This is paramount.

 

Oh yeah. You got it right. It was most certainly because of my high rank. That's specifically how it's constructed and they have said so. It's simply horrible though that you can perform so well and get sacked like that, regardless of rank. If you play super well and lose in spite of it, it should compensate. Now if I as a high ranked player died with zero damage, I'd totally understand. But the losses I took hurt more than they should have.
Light tanks make or break a match. So stop committing suicide in the first minute. Camo, view range, bushes, and spotting. Please do it right or leave it up to those of us that know how to.


H0B0L0VE #108 Posted 12 December 2016 - 01:41 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 17942 battles
  • 432
  • [1CAB]
  • Member since:
    04-19-2015

View PostSmeagoljp, on 11 December 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

Now see, this morning I had a few examples of losing a match and only losing a few points. I was in the top performers in a match where we did not achieve all that much even collectively. I was all ready to amend my previous statement and say that it had improved. Now compare that to Hobo's findings, where again, you can carry the whole team and be rewarded with a negative 30+ points. How on earth? Was it because he was a master that he lost more? Was it because my team was made up of bronze and silvers that I lost fewer points? Or is it just broke? Divulge information or we are lead to believe it's just broke. The only place I must emphatically disagree with Hobolove is in this statement: "It should not have taken that long to get to the top. Period.". On the contrary, we are here to point out every other issue he brought up. He's right, mostly. However, looking forward to a potentially released game mode, no one should be able to reach the top in such short amount of time. This is paramount.

 

You make a good point that I failed to make myself. I was saying that, given the circumstances, it ought to have been quicker. I played really well and was delayed for a long time by zero damage teams. I actually wouldn't expect to climb that quickly in more heavily populated leagues with super unicorns running around. I'm pretty sure if a bunch of players better than me were in it, there would have been a lot more people wise to my view range game that would have slowed me down a lot. But given the consistency of my performance in beta compared to others, I feel like I ought to have advanced more easily. In actuality, perhaps in a full release with more players, it definitely shouldn't be quick.  
Light tanks make or break a match. So stop committing suicide in the first minute. Camo, view range, bushes, and spotting. Please do it right or leave it up to those of us that know how to.


H0B0L0VE #109 Posted 12 December 2016 - 01:44 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 17942 battles
  • 432
  • [1CAB]
  • Member since:
    04-19-2015

View PostCLoKeSTa, on 11 December 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:

Posted in news article...

 

"Yeah, I sit this one out.  I did the first one and it was a waste of time.  Why would I even care to do this when I've got better ways to make silver/xp/crew training and TT tanks I want to unlock?  MM was horrible last time and it sounds like it was this time as well.  No point in leagues/divisions If teams are mixed from all of them.  There just aren't enough prizes to motivate me to play, the silver prize sizes are a joke and and aren't cumulative, really? WG, you REALLY don't have a clue. Yawn. WG, get a better system because if you don't this will fail!"

 

 Just "seeing how good you are" isn't enough motivation to keep players playing in ranked battles, therefore over time Server queue populations will continually decrease to critical levels and all players will stop playing.  Why is this?  There is no long term motivation to play in ranked battles!  Your silver prize levels are a joke, almost insulting in that WG is too greedy to actually care enough to do what it takes to make ranked battles a sucess.

 

Recommendations:

500k silver prize per level that is cumlative.  With the gold level giving actual gold, 500 pieces.  2nd highest should be 1000 gold.  The top prize should be a console and ranked battle only exclusive premium tank with either an exceptional xp or silver earning bonus built in with unique camo and a ranked battle emblem.  All games should have either a bonus 50% siver or crew bonus per battle.

 

I would play, but until you actually care enough, I'm out like most others, stop wasting my time.  I have tanks to earn.

 

And don't forget you also still have to fix MM and the points system it seems.

 

I would play for days without sleep if that's what it took to get an Xbox One. I'm broke. THAT is a prize. Things like exclusive tanks? Hell yes. That's the stuff we need. Come on, WG. I'm a junkie. Gimme what I need. XD
Light tanks make or break a match. So stop committing suicide in the first minute. Camo, view range, bushes, and spotting. Please do it right or leave it up to those of us that know how to.


dcr66 #110 Posted 12 December 2016 - 02:33 AM

    Major

  • Supertest - Xbox One
  • 21317 battles
  • 3,022
  • [ONE]
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

For the record, I have Ranked Battles in World of Warship as well and got as far as rank 12.

 

This is what I think needed to be done for WoT Console ranked battles to be popular:

  • Limit the map rotation to 3. Maps that will funnel people to where the encounter objective is will be the best.
  • Use Encounter mode only. A 2 bases domination will be better but domination is not in WoT Console. This way people will be force to go there to fight.
  • Points system is just confusing. Just use Win. Winning side move up. Loosing side drop 1 unless you are the top damage or XP person, or sole survivor.
  • Have more rank levels. Lower ones require less number of wins to go up than the higher ones.
  • There are certain rank levels once reached you cannot fall lower.
  • Good rewards for each rank achieved. Free XPs, silver, gold consumables, etc. Good rewards bring good players, bad rewards bring out beginners.
  • Maybe top rank level gives out premium tanks.

 

 

 

 


Senior .NET Developer / Team Lead by day. Computer/Console gamer with 30+ yrs of experience by night. WW2 guru for 35+ years. 

 

[ONE]dcr66 in World of Warships. Same clan name and user name as I have in Xbox.


Fear Da Butter #111 Posted 12 December 2016 - 05:04 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 32285 battles
  • 7,225
  • [47R]
  • Member since:
    09-10-2013

View PostJaggedSine6, on 10 December 2016 - 02:47 PM, said:

My advice is to drop the whole idea. I gave it another chance but I just can't play it any more. Too many absolute horrible players to try and play a mode that depends on a few of your players having a brain. Been losing to cap left and right today so the last game I thought I would hang back and defend. Well 2 heavies a medium and arty stayed back so I moved up and took out a few dumb reds that flew down the middle of the map. But then a Chaffee and a T1 got around the other side killing our left flank and then killed both of our camping heavies, medium and arty without them even firing back. It's amazing to watch two enemy reds blast through half a dozen idiot greens and cap for the win. Sick of losing 1 to 10 points every game due to horrible team mates.

 

1 to 10 points?  I would have loved to have only lost 1 to 10.  The higher I went the more I would loose and the less I would win.  10 to 15 was normal on a win and 25 to 30 on a loss when I made it to the masters.

Win8  2735.84  Win7 2184.11  EFF 1918.11  


 

 

 


Jedi Minds ABZ #112 Posted 12 December 2016 - 08:55 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 28549 battles
  • 264
  • [ISLAM]
  • Member since:
    07-10-2015

No really liking the teir 5 as it seem to be the same tanks over and over that you see.

 

I would like to see this in ranking in teir 7 and the tank have a bit more meat about them.

 

Would you create a league for platoons this would be 5 v 5 I think a lot of people would play this as playing on your own is a bit random



H0B0L0VE #113 Posted 12 December 2016 - 12:29 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 17942 battles
  • 432
  • [1CAB]
  • Member since:
    04-19-2015

View PostJedi Minds ABZ, on 12 December 2016 - 12:55 AM, said:

No really liking the teir 5 as it seem to be the same tanks over and over that you see.

 

I would like to see this in ranking in teir 7 and the tank have a bit more meat about them.

 

Would you create a league for platoons this would be 5 v 5 I think a lot of people would play this as playing on your own is a bit random

 

You do NOT want to play 5v5. That's an automatic end-game situation for light tanks and mobile tank destroyers. Nothing in the world of tanks is better than having a Chafee or T67 with only 5 reds on the field. You play anything that doesn't have max view range and camo and you'll die never seeing who's shooting at you.
Light tanks make or break a match. So stop committing suicide in the first minute. Camo, view range, bushes, and spotting. Please do it right or leave it up to those of us that know how to.


RlMON #114 Posted 12 December 2016 - 12:33 PM

    Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 22318 battles
  • 215
  • [-NL-]
  • Member since:
    11-21-2013

Make it T10 and balance the TDS!! :P

(for real, do it.)



RaiBOT01 #115 Posted 12 December 2016 - 03:30 PM

    (Cat) Community Manager

  • Administrator
  • 2225 battles
  • 11,975
  • [WGW]
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

BUMP!

 

Please share your Feedback!!

 

A way you can help us is by sharing what part of RB you did not like or agree with; proceed to explain why, and then, if you have a suggestion on how we can improve your experience with RB please let us know! :)  If you don't have a suggestion, that's ok too ;)


<a data-cke-saved-href='http://www.pixeljoint.com/files/icons/walkingcat_by_thetaupe.gif' href='http://www.pixeljoint.com/files/icons/walkingcat_by_thetaupe.gif' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin...by_thetaupe.gif</a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin...hetaupe.gif</a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin...upe.gif</a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin...gif</a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'><a href='http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a>' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='external'>http://www.pixeljoin.../a></a></a></a></a> 

Player's passion for our games is the fuel that keeps my tank engine running every day.

"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right" - Isaac Asimov

Follow me on Twitter: @RAIBot01 - Crew Skills and Perks

Click to send in a XBOX  -  PS4


Chimonakimi #116 Posted 12 December 2016 - 03:45 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 26899 battles
  • 4,662
  • [VADER]
  • Member since:
    04-28-2016

View PostRaiBOT01, on 12 December 2016 - 03:30 PM, said:

BUMP!

 

Please share your Feedback!!

 

A way you can help us is by sharing what part of RB you did not like or agree with; proceed to explain why, and then, if you have a suggestion on how we can improve your experience with RB please let us know! :)  If you don't have a suggestion, that's ok too ;)

 

I hated how team dependent the games were, you could have the game of your life and if you had a crap team you were still losing points. Not to forget the fact that certain clans were throwing the matchmaking and were in party chats, dunno how that's allowed honestly. Dunno if Xbox had this, but PS4 definitely did.



SpartanSkinface #117 Posted 12 December 2016 - 04:12 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21343 battles
  • 359
  • Member since:
    12-24-2015

View PostChimonakimi, on 12 December 2016 - 08:45 AM, said:

 

I hated how team dependent the games were, you could have the game of your life and if you had a crap team you were still losing points. Not to forget the fact that certain clans were throwing the matchmaking and were in party chats, dunno how that's allowed honestly. Dunno if Xbox had this, but PS4 definitely did.

 

​that's wired. they said that there were not going to let there be platoons. did not see any on xbox.

Chimonakimi #118 Posted 12 December 2016 - 04:37 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 26899 battles
  • 4,662
  • [VADER]
  • Member since:
    04-28-2016

View PostSpartanSkinface, on 12 December 2016 - 04:12 PM, said:

 

​that's wired. they said that there were not going to let there be platoons. did not see any on xbox.

 

There were none, they all joined the matchmaking at the same time when it was quiet, and I checked, they were all in a party together.



DANCING FLAMES #119 Posted 12 December 2016 - 04:48 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Beta Tester
  • 34708 battles
  • 927
  • [HDC]
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

When matchmaking for Rb I would recommend something like +1 -1 division spread if enough players to support the mode.

 



obs4242 #120 Posted 12 December 2016 - 05:12 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 4249 battles
  • 101
  • Member since:
    01-29-2016

Here is my feedback to the second Ranked Battles test:

 

What is my player profile?


I am a casual player that usually plays some 100-150 games per month, so far up to tier 6. Nevertheless I do fairly good in my AMX ELC which I used in the test in almost all of the battles (Winrate 59%, WN8 3100, damage rank 97-98%).

 

What results did I achieve?

 

Qualification: 5 games, WR 40% -> Result: Silver/Div 1
Session 1:    15 games, WR 47% -> Result: Gold/Div 3
Session 2:    18 games, WR 39% -> Result: Gold/Div 2
Session 3a:   12 games, WR 45% -> Result: Platinum/Div 5
Session 3b:    8 games, WR 75% -> Result: Platinum/Div 3

 

Do I think the ranking system works well?

 

From my understanding win/loss is intended to be the determining factor of the ranking with modifications by the individual battle contribution. As far as I have seen this condition was met. Inspite of being part of the loosing teams in most sessions with win rates of 39-47% I played from Silver/Div 1 up to Platinum/Div 5 because obviously the individual contribution modifier more than compensated the loss of points due to lost battles.

 

Nevertheless I was expecting to see a higher correlation between the win rates of the Ranked Battles and multiplayer mode, especially as I was starting rather down the ladder in silver league. I am aware that this is actually a too small set of games to draw consistent conclusions, nevertheless it indicates in my opinion that the focus on the team performance as the determining factor creates game results that do not correlate enough with the gamer's perception of his individual performance as indicated by several multiplayer mode KPIs like winrate, WN8, efficiency, WN8, etc. This potentially creates frustration.

 

Does the scoring system works transparent?

 

I don't think so and this is another problem that may cause frustration. Example: Once I finshed a battle with 2479 damage, 131 assistance damage and 4 kills scoring 27 points. In another game shortly after the one before I got +49 points for a match with 1717 damage, 641 assistance damage and 2 kills. Obviously this had to do with the ranking of the opponents I was playing against, but almost half of points for more "work" done seems to be a pretty high variation of the expected results.

 

Do I think Ranked Battles are balanced?

 

I think Ranked Battles are not yet sufficiently balanced for two reasons:

 

1) The different leagues seem to be put all in the same match-making queue which is like putting participants of a soap box derby together with formula one drivers. Apart from the question how much fun it is for both types of participants I wonder how to establich a fair and transparent scoring system in this context. Even in multiplayer mode there is usually a better classification of skills throughout tiers as very good players usually look after the challenge of the higher tiers while unexperienced players just don't have high tier tanks grinded at the beginning of their tanker career. I understand that due to the small number of overall participants it is difficult to keep more than one queue running at the same time, but this is a rather technical argument that is not convincing players that do not have fun playing in a complete mixture of skills without having a any choice to influence it (even indirectly by chosing a low/high tier tanks for getting into games with less/more requirements for skill).

 

2) Ranked Battles showed what happens when players stop playing tanks for the sake of grinding a line and pick those tanks they consider the most competive ones in the current state of WoT. The games where crowded with heavy tanks driving to their usual hot spots on the map and starting their shootout at close to mid range. I have rarely seen a match with a healthy mix of all tank classes including the other 4 tank classes. I personally like light tanks and enjoy doing a scout's work but in Ranked Battles scouts do become even more obsolete than they have already become due to most map designs.

 

Did I have fun?

 

To be honest I clearly prefer multiplayer mode as there is more variety in the game flow, a better balance of tank types and participants, a higher amount and transparency of rewards and thus overall a higher fun factor in the game.

 

Would I play Ranked Battles in future?

 

I will certainly contribute to further tests but as a casual player I would probably not invest too much time in Ranked Battles in future if they go live in the current state. It will probably come down to the question how much is in it (in terms of XP, silver, medals or other rewards) for playing ranked battles.

 

What did I like in Ranked Battles?

 

Playing in teams with equal tier was great and this would fix a lot complaints of inexperienced players about the +/-2 match-making. Alone providing a game mode where you can play on equal tiers is worth investing more efforts in fine-tuning Ranked Battles. I also had a couple of very tight and tense battles against players on equal skill level which I really enjoyed although some of them ended in a loss. Probably I had the chance to watch some skilled high tier players wich I usually would not meet due to my slow advance through the tech-tree.

 

What are my suggestions to improve Ranked Battles?

 

Several items have already mentioned by other people which I would confirm:

 

- Win/loss should be a good KPI for a Ranked Team Battle mode e.g. for rather stable teams like clans. For a single player ranking the individual contribution should have most weight for scoring.
- I got -1 points for a loss a couple of times, so I assume there is a cap at -1 inspite of how many points one has earned for individual contribution in a battle. Why capping these points and not granting them even for a loss?
- There should be more match-making queues to avoid extremely different skills levels to be put into one and the same battle.
- There should be more rewards. Medals don't cost anything, a general XP and/or silver bonus compared to multiplayer games e.g. +10% would enhance motivation or for the very best people some things worth real gold. There are plenty of possibilities.

 

Finally: I liked to take part in the test and appreciate that WG encourages the player base to contribute this way to the game content. I think the idea of Ranked Battles is generally a good approach that has potential but some tuning is still required to make it an attractive game mode for the players.

 

 







Also tagged with developer, feedback

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users