Jump to content


Ranked Battles ROUND 2 - FEEDBACK!

developer feedback

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

YosemiteAnemone #121 Posted 12 December 2016 - 05:15 PM

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 24083 battles
  • 127
  • Member since:
    02-14-2015

View PostRaiBOT01, on 12 December 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

 

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 ;)

 

1) I think most will agree that they'd like the leagues to contain only players from the same league.   There have been some hints that full release may do this, so I hope that's true.

 

2) Your initial place in the league shouldn't be determined by a handful of placement battles, it should be based on stats you already have, like your win % in the last 200 battles you've played, or lacking that info your overall win %.  Basing it on a handful of battles is entirely too random.  Anyone can have a streak of good or bad luck that is unlikely to reflect their true skill.

 

3) You *should* be able to drop to a lower league if you just can't hang in your current league.   Finish in last place in 10 consecutive games with at lest 7 losess, for example and you get bumped back down.   It shouldn't be easy to accidentally drop a league due to bad luck, but it should be possible to do so.   If the leagues and advancement within them stays as it is, everyone will eventually be Grand Master.

 

4)  Some stats that aren't currently being tracked, and may be more computationally expensive than you're willing to track could REALLY help.   Specifically monitoring *HOW* people play can be used to build a profile of their playstyles and rate how effectively they use their tanks.    

  • For instance, how close the player is to the first, or last on his team to die could determine his "Aggressiveness".      
  • Tracking what percentage of rounds that are fired at him miss or bounce could be "Evasiveness".
  • Tracking what percentage of game time he remains unspotted could be "Stealth"
  • Tracking what percentage of damage he does to enemies that can't detect him (range or cover) could be his "Ninjaness"
  • Tracking which end of the battle (while most of his team lives, or while most are dead) most of his actions (shots fired, taken, enemies engaged or spotted) are taken can be his "Supportiveness"
  • Tacking his average placement in the PBR can be his "MVPness"   Or better still, breaking this down so that "MVPness" is tracked only for wins and "Creamofthecrapness" is tracked only for losses.

All that metadata, and probably quite a few others I haven't thought up just yet, should be tracked per tank, and aggregated for each type as well as overall.    A player that "Knows his role" should have different values for those depending on which tank he is playing.    That, can be used for even more metadata, look at those values for the "Best" dozen or so players in those tanks (determined by win rate with over at least 100 games in the tank) and compare the players behavior to the behaviors of those top players.   The closer he matches, them more "RoleEffectiveness" he has for that tank.

  Even though many of these factors may not directly equate to "good or bad", knowing them can make balancing teams easier.  Especially if other players on the team have an easy way to see them so they know how to make use of his playstyle.

 



swamp_fox_009 #122 Posted 12 December 2016 - 05:48 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 11025 battles
  • 454
  • [ODH]
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015

 

PS4

 

Started in Gold and made it to Platinum, could of made it to the next level on the last day but ran into the problem of NOT ENOUGH PLAYERS!!!! 2 minutes and greater to get in a match is to long to wait!!!! On Sunday there was 100 to 150 players in the que for multiplayer random battles. In ranked battles there was always less than 20 in the que, sometimes only 4 or 5 until another match finished. Your basically playing a lot of the same players over and over, because again there isn't enough players. Don't know how many matches are going on at the same time but this is going to be a huge problem!

 

Rewards vs Cost - the rewards are not enough to get the volume of players needed. Guarantee that if you offered Gold for the top level you would get more participation of the better players.

If not then you have got to increase the silver rewards at the end of the season.

 

That being said I enjoyed playing and the small amount of players on PS4 seemed to generally work together and played more as a team as compared to the multiplayer random battles. Overall Beta 2 was a lot better than Beta 1.

 

Scoring - more feedback is needed as to why you scored the way you did. Personally I had a win rate of over 70%, generally earning >35 points per match. Matches that ended in a loss I lost <10 points. To me it seemed scoring was okay, but I heard and read plenty of complaining. More feedback is needed to the player explaining their results.

 

Maps - I complained about the larger maps being in the map rotation as 10 players just wasn't enough - especially Great Wall. I noticed that on Sunday I was seeing more of the smaller maps, perhaps coincidence? But hey if you listened thank you.

 

Team mates - I would like to be able to see the league of my team mates during battle. I don't think you should see the Red Teams League.

 

 

 



XxLongSleevesxX #123 Posted 12 December 2016 - 06:13 PM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 11121 battles
  • 79
  • Member since:
    10-03-2014

View PostH0B0L0VE, on 11 December 2016 - 08:56 AM, said:

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.

 

Nor are "stats".  There is a very wide range of players across several platforms playing this game for various reasons.  I congratulate you on achieving your GM status!  As with anything else in life, what may matter to you doesn't necessarily matter to the next person (stats) - some people play for the competitive fun.  Additionally, when you with your WN8 stats are playing a Tier V tank that has a crew and a dozen skills/perks, their exists is a great likelihood that somewhere in either Red or Green, their are players that are polar opposites - hardly a fair match and nothing to boast about.  

 

I know that my kids played my profile for quite a while, because it was for fun.  When I saw the experienced players playing lower tier tanks and so forth, I made them their own account.  Unfortunately, my stats suffered for it and it takes a long time to recover that ground.

 

If stats are your thing - great.  If winning is your thing - great.  At the end of the day, its is only a game and yes there is a real world out there..  

 

I agree that you should be matched with like player styles or "stat" classes.  Some people are offensive, some defensive, some like "sniping", some like to camp, and some like to clean up when the hard work is done.

 

RB is a place for exactly that "Ranked Battles" - Multiplayer should be called "Free Play or Team Play".  IMO

 

Good luck - hits count and misses don't!


"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."   - John 15:13 KJV

 


luds38 #124 Posted 12 December 2016 - 07:32 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14690 battles
  • 1,351
  • Member since:
    03-27-2016
Did the developers make any content we can refer to for statistics on the overall performance of everyone for beta 2?

MagentaCrib01 #125 Posted 12 December 2016 - 08:05 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13349 battles
  • 384
  • Member since:
    02-11-2014
Only complaint about the beta test this time for me is the lack of participation.Seemed like (at least on n/a west) not enough players,lengthy wait times and quite often 7 on 7 teams.I don't have any issues with the smaller teams just the wait time was long enough a couple of times that I went back to reg. play.As for the premium rounds,well anybody can use them:) If the big kids are throwing gold plated rocks at you throw some back.

HeavyKaragh #126 Posted 12 December 2016 - 09:00 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 40670 battles
  • 1,415
  • [BAC]
  • Member since:
    05-05-2014

Very Bad: Pairing players from different leagues together. It breaks ranked system's point. If server population requires it, pair players of 1 league up OR down. I've seen many afkers, yoloers and stock tanks.

Bad: Point system is opaque. Wargaming should show team rank on post battle results to avoid frustration from not knowing why you win few points or lose many.

Good: Point system looks better than beta 1. I've had a good win rate (~75%) and gaining and losing points looks more consistent. I needed 2 wins to compensate a bad lose. That's my case, but from others' comments this may not be true for the mayority of players.

 

I'd like to see is removal of XP awards. Those players who want to grind their tanks should do it in the random battles.



xBRx xTACTICSx #127 Posted 13 December 2016 - 02:13 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 35479 battles
  • 1,888
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013
These are all my best games leading up to the final league. I really enjoyed ranked battles and hope they bring it back for tier 6 or 8. I'm generally someone that can't stand being in game chat but for this event I gave it a try and I was actually surprised at the level of communication from a group of people that just wanted to win


SPCCN #128 Posted 13 December 2016 - 03:22 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23763 battles
  • 610
  • [-ZT-]
  • Member since:
    02-03-2014

(TLDR: Just skim the bold print)

 

I played the T1 Heavy and the Pz. V/IV for the duration of the beta. They are the best T5 tanks I have with the best crews. I placed in Gold 1 after preliminaries. I finished in Master League 3 after reaching Master 2 earlier on. I have read all 7 pages of this thread and have prepared a statement.

 

Premium Ammo use did not surprise me. That's fine I was prepared for it. You should have be too really.

 

Teams that had mics and used them won the majority of games proving communication was key.

 

Because winning was the benchmark for +points people were in party chats working for and against their team. I was invited to a party of a player I had just played well with. I joined to chat quickly about the game while waiting for the next match. I immediately noticed that many other players from that game were in the party including people from the other team. Some one was talking about who needed the next win to move up as I introduced myself. It so happened that 3 of us ended up in the same game again and the voice said "Okay, okay 'X' needs 20 more points so SPCCN you and I have to help him win." I left the party and told the team what I had just heard. Everyone in game chat was pissed. There were probably 5 people still in the party when I left. With wins as the primary factor to advancement people will use tricks to advance even if they don't have the skills.

 

The 10v10 was great and I hope that continues. I feel like it opened up the maps (even the larger ones) to new tactics. It was sad to see players drive up and stop at certain hot zones just because they have been conditioned to do so from 15 a side games. With fewer players that doesn't need to happen and you can rewrite the engagement meta.

 

I think preliminaries were a good idea and I would like them to remain part of this playlist. I think this will be good even when you are eventually allowed to drop a league.

 

As part of the post game screen where it showed you what your points from a game WGW should have included a breakdown of how that number was arrived at like:

   Win: 15

   Damage & Assisted to equal or higher ranks: 10

   Damage and Assisted to lower ranks: 3

   Spotted: 2

   Base Cap: 0

   Base Defense: 8

 

Without this the points are kind of meaningless RNG and appear subjective.

 

The make up of the teams was not well elucidated. While the news page stated:

 

"• Will the Ranked Battles matchmaking be random or will it take player’s skill in to consideration?

Skill is taken into consideration for scoring purposes but not for matchmaking."

 

There was no way of telling how your team was ranked compared to the enemy (unless I missed something). Nor could you tell how highly you were ranked compared to your team OR members of the Enemy team. This was not good. Information in key, and while the smart assumption is that you are facing equal or better players many players would benefit from the hard facts. If you are gold and you encounter a Senior Master you might adjust your tactics even request help or re-position. Alternatively if I knew I was top and was going to have to carry a team to victory I would adjust my tactics to support that outcome.

 

If the MM will continue to put together mixed league teams then Team and Individual ratings should be displayed to the player. I would rather a +1/-1 league MM or Gold and below MM and Platinum and above MM. As it stands because of low populations many many games are already being played with the same people.

 

The weighting of wins is still too high. "Victory" should be the icing on the cake. This is especially true if we continue to have fully mixed league matchmaking, and also if the rankings and team rating remains hidden to us. Otherwise this ranking is just about TEAM RANK and eventually even the crummies player can game the system into grand master. This also seems odd because if skill is not taken into account for match making so teams could be wildly unbalanced, yet they are used in scoring, which could greatly advantage or disadvantage a player/team. So what you have is the entire game in the middle between MM and Post-game that has been influenced by initial carelessness affecting ultimate objectification. Meaning that MM is effecting your rank and not just your ability to place.

 

 

 

Ultimately the safety net should be taken away allowing us to fall out of a league. But for that to happen wins and losses need to reflect like <25% of the points from a match. So even players on the winning team could end up losing points. I don't play ranked to grind out wins. I play to test my skills and the ranks should reflect that.

 

View PostSovietdeath, on 09 December 2016 - 12:58 AM, said:

the scoring system is based on your teams overall rank if you lose alot of points in a loss it means you lost to a less skilled team and didn't do enough to reduce that loss to less points

Your rank, your teams rank and all the ranks of your opponents are not shown to you (again unless I missed something) so you have no idea that you will loose more for this loss or that loss. Or that you may gain more here or there. You also noted that in other competitive team ranked battles wins are also all important. Well honestly this game DOESN'T HAVE TO BE JUST LIKE ALL THE REST, don't try and gaslight this thread. The rank you are working for and achieving is personal so it should reflect your ability, if wins are the first priority AND THE ONLY THING THAT PRODUCES +POINTS then we should be able to bring in a wing man that you know and trust and can work with. Otherwise this ranking is just about TEAM RANK and eventually even the crummies player can game the system into grand master.

 

View PostUnbudgingHarp79, on 08 December 2016 - 09:21 PM, said:

Same problem with the points / XP as the normal game. Do nothing in a win and get points. Do great in a loss and you are penalized.

Points should be based on your performance with a small percentage bonus for a win.

Far too win focussed.

View Postanglosaxon_33, on 09 December 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

 

Ranked battles are (should be) about the individual. If, as you say, it is about "competitive play" and playing to get a win, then it is just a random battle.

A ranked battle system should be judging the player as a single unit within the team irrespective of what the team around him do. If the player does X amount of damage that exceeds the expectations of the chosen tank, but the team harvests potatoes, then that player shouldn't be penalised.

Erlinberg 4 kills 2200 damage 3 spots 360 assisted T1 heavy busted engine and dead driver I have to push the cap to help the Churchill III in cap and the O-I making its way there. 2 enemies in our Northern base one T34 harassing the Church. Our Archer is on our side and in the middle, we are all saying he has to go back and interrupt, because none of us will make it back but we can cap out if he stops them for a moment. HE DOES NOT MOVE. WE LOSE. I drop 24 points and get a live message like this from the Archer ,,I,,  . That is broken if personal contribution is supposed to be taken into account. Those situations are the ones where I would expect to go UP even in a loss. A good player stuck in a streak of absolute garbage teams (which happened to me Sunday) should not be getting hammered by the points system. I was happy with Masters but could see that progressing anymore just meant grinding out wins so I stopped.

 

View PostSovietdeath, on 09 December 2016 - 04:39 AM, said:

how is it a broken system, if it hasent been populated yet? It slow to start but its fine once populated

 

PS: This is still a Beta as its not finalized but it does not mean its a broken system

You are clearly a competitive player and this response seems to show that you and perhaps players like you are using that experience to "game" the system. If I had known that you should rank then wait for the population data to fill in then I wouldn't have played how I did.

 


Tanks must always push the battle, maneuver terrain, gain position, coordinate, and devastate the enemy. Move away from bad engagements and towards favourable ones. Relocating does not make you a coward loser. Play like a TANK not a pill box!

 


xBRx xTACTICSx #129 Posted 13 December 2016 - 05:21 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 35479 battles
  • 1,888
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View Postanglosaxon_33, on 09 December 2016 - 05:26 AM, said:

 

You clearly haven't understood. I never said the other games weren't team based.

 

To put the argument as clear and concise as possible; ranked battles should reward the individual contribution irrespective of the "team" result.

A player pulling out unicum results every game and not winning should not be losing any points at all. As it currently is the system is punishing players for having the bad luck of being with players playing badly.

 

You do understand that a player can farm damage and let their team die at the same time right? Like a sniping heavy farming some damage instead of being front line brawling. This heavy may have more damage but also let the enemy lemming train roflstomp his team

xBRx xTACTICSx #130 Posted 13 December 2016 - 05:36 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 35479 battles
  • 1,888
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013

View PostSGT Hawkens117, on 08 December 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

Also since we only see the same tier there is not reason for premium ammo ( I have noticed this is all people fire ) so take it out

 

View PostWitttz, on 08 December 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

If every one fires premium then why don't you it just tells you what to expect going in to battle

 

View PostSGT Hawkens117, on 08 December 2016 - 07:37 PM, said:

Because I don't need premium shells for sane tier opponents

 

View PostSGT Hawkens117, on 09 December 2016 - 04:25 AM, said:

It's bad because when players only use premium 2 things happen 1. Those players are frowned upon 2. When all they do is spam premium shells they don't try and play smart they just go for trash damage and 3. (A bonus) there is no reason to fire the premium shells against same tiered opponents.

 

I don't mean to disagree with you guys here but you do realize some prem rounds have a better velocity. This makes the shells more accurate against moving targets. This is useful for killing light tanks... Everyone always assumes prem rounds are used for only heavies but it's not true,,,,

xBRx xTACTICSx #131 Posted 13 December 2016 - 07:43 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 35479 battles
  • 1,888
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013
Limiting this to 2 man platoons may actually be the best idea I heard here. 2nd best is splitting the MM into 2 groups. Platinum+ up and gold- down. 3rd best tier 6 (Most balanced tier) That last one was mine :)

DUD3 L3B0W5KI #132 Posted 13 December 2016 - 12:26 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 18418 battles
  • 4,308
  • [BRAT]
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

My shout version:

- no platoons is a big plus

- 10v10 is nice

- it is also nice that any battles in this modus don`t bleed on the statistic. So if someone will just have fights and don`t worry about his statistic, he would play ranked battles. This would made this modus attractive

- remove premiummun. This will help to define who is really able to play and who is just spamming. Also this will make scoutgame harder. This would made this modus attractive and more competitive

- remove arty because you will made this modus so much more attractie to anyone who want just fight and not get used from the sky. This would made this modus attractive

- also it would be ok if anyone can fall down from his league. No safety net. This would made this modus attractive

- if other tiers than only t6 because it is balanced. T8 and above are extreme unbalanced

- made more clear how we get our points. Another sheet would be usefull at the end of any battle...specific for this modus. Where we can clearly see for what we get which points


ACHTUNG: Bitte beachtet dass WG jederzeit komplette Threads mit meinem Beitrag darin löschen kann. Sichert deshalb bitte alle gewünschten Informationen aus diesen Threads offline, um dem Verlust von Wissen vorzubeugen. Alle meine Guides finter ihr im Freien WoT Forum

 

<<< SPACA-StatsPushendeArroganteCommunityAffen >>>

<<< WG BLACK FRIDAY DEAL - THE...DAMAGE...IS...DONE >>>


luds38 #133 Posted 13 December 2016 - 12:33 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 14690 battles
  • 1,351
  • Member since:
    03-27-2016

View PostxBRx xTACTICSx, on 13 December 2016 - 02:13 AM, said:

These are all my best games leading up to the final league. I really enjoyed ranked battles and hope they bring it back for tier 6 or 8. I'm generally someone that can't stand being in game chat but for this event I gave it a try and I was actually surprised at the level of communication from a group of people that just wanted to win

 

Looking at your setup I see the ranks put you in the hole quite a bit! :)

SILVERFISHX #134 Posted 13 December 2016 - 02:50 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 30140 battles
  • 3,463
  • Member since:
    03-10-2014
I agree with the upper 4/5ths of SPPC's post.  Well done.

I only played enough rounds to get ranked into gold, and then I went camping.   Actual camping.  

I think I noticed that the points based on expected performance varied by tank, as in tanks that typically perform well required better performances than "less dominant tanks".  For example, I played the V/IV and the Ram II.  Games in the Panzer with 4 kills and more damage than games with 2 kills in the Ram resulted in fewer points, even a loss.  The Ram earned ranking points better than the five four, as far as I could tell.  Since the Ram is harder to excel in, I think this makes sense.

If I'm correct in my perceptions about what happened, I think that this factor-feature should be explained in the waiting screens.

SPCCN #135 Posted 13 December 2016 - 04:40 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23763 battles
  • 610
  • [-ZT-]
  • Member since:
    02-03-2014

View PostSILVERFISHX, on 13 December 2016 - 08:50 AM, said:

I agree with the upper 4/5ths of SPPC's post. Well done..

If I'm correct in my perceptions about what happened, I think that this factor-feature should be explained in the waiting screens.

 

Thank you Silverfish, I appreciate your vote of confidence in my reflections. I hope you had a swell time camping. Here in Canada it is too cold for me to break out my gear. In warmer days I love hiking into a lake and being outdoors.

Tanks must always push the battle, maneuver terrain, gain position, coordinate, and devastate the enemy. Move away from bad engagements and towards favourable ones. Relocating does not make you a coward loser. Play like a TANK not a pill box!

 


RaiBOT01 #136 Posted 13 December 2016 - 07:17 PM

    Developer Player Experience (Cat) Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 1634 battles
  • 10,124
  • [WGW]
  • Member since:
    06-28-2013

Thank you for the feedback!  It is all now in the hands of the design team!

 

Do still post more feedback if you have any :)  I can always update the document :) 


 <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'>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


SnappiestMonk #137 Posted 13 December 2016 - 09:24 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 23905 battles
  • 472
  • [UK]
  • Member since:
    08-22-2013
One question when we get ranked battles will we get double xp first match win??

 


GameWinner_001 #138 Posted 13 December 2016 - 09:30 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Supertest - PS4
  • 24668 battles
  • 571
  • [D_F]
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015

Just my two cents:

 

The "Ranked Battles" mode has to be different from the main "Multiplayer mode" in order to keep the players interested in it in the long term run.

 

So,if silver rewards and xp rewards per battle are the same as in normal multiplayer mode the players will come to Ranked Battles mode to grind their tanks (and thus undermine the quality of Ranked Battles games because of possible stock grinds) because they will not face tanks being two tiers higher than their tank (e.g.: Tier 5 tanks will only face tier 5 tanks).

 

So, I would suggest to change the silver and xp rewards:

1. The silver and xp rewards for each single match played shall not be as high as in the common Multiplayer mode. This is supposed to make grinders stay away from this mode. No big progress for simply winning games.

2. On the other hand a significantly higher negative silver outcome for a single match than it could occur in the common Multiplayer mode has to be avoided by any means as it would be a slap in the face for the player (though the usual negative outcome should be ok and even necessary if players spam gold rounds and eat chocolate etc. and still lose the match).

 

Then again there need to be incentives to drive those players into Ranked Battles mode who really want to enjoy battles with fierce competition and without the usual tank grinders (well, we are all the standard grinder from time to time - I like to grind out tanks a lot :) , lol):

1. Maybe medals for achieving certain goals within this game mode.

2. EXTREMLY HIGH Silver and/or XP rewards for achieving certain goals (e.g.: for completed OPS or for being the Top damage dealer). These OPS need to be completly different from the ones found in the common Multiplayer mode in terms of the amount of Silver and XP. These OPS need to tend to require people to perform very well in Ranked Battles. So in the end the SUPER COOL XP/silver rewards are given to players who stood out as individuals (be it in terms of completed special OPS or as TOP damage dealer or as TOP "whatever" ). So people who just grind a bad tank and win because they got carried by some other guys in the team (-> luck) will not see any high rewards.

 

 


Edited by GameWinner_001, 13 December 2016 - 10:03 PM.


Jet Army #139 Posted 13 December 2016 - 11:06 PM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 25694 battles
  • 2,062
  • [STEIN]
  • Member since:
    08-07-2013
with this test done and yes it was fun for me any way. if they can add 1v.s.1, 3v.s.3 or 5v.s.5 as choices on the ranked server with full 7v.s.7 as well . if I am not mistaken that was similar Tournament Tuesday with a ranked structure .  

Drac_PL #140 Posted 13 December 2016 - 11:18 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 16307 battles
  • 456
  • [-S-]
  • Member since:
    12-04-2015

Few things after imtesive testing:

 

Amount of experiance and Silver is now on proper level and should stay like that.

 

Limit to one Artillery and One only Light Tank is a must! When there was two light tanks on Team and other Team had one or none - both situations happened while testing - Team with two light tanks always won. Advantage was way too big.

 

Leagues - doesnt matter which League you are Bronze or Commanders - players are still mixed in same game - pointless. Thats one of two things that drove players of from playing ranked battles. When you rano up you should not be punished to play with low ranked players, Whats the point of that nonsense?

 

Points award: Major issue that drove players from playing on ranked battles.

Points should be applied basing on PLAYER effectiveness - not based on win/loose - simple solution: if you were on the top (whatever you decided by exp or dmg or assist) you get 30 points. If your Team Won add +10 on top of that. If your Team Lost take -15 (or something around) Dont punish Player who did really well on the Team background - but Team was so Bad that game Finish in 2 minutes 10-1. Except points for exp/dmg/assist/kills/spots - major modificator should be your place. Often Team is so Bad, that if you are not in light Tank you can do only a little but still that little was enough and gave you first place in Team.

 

Last but Not least: as Clan we were able to roll out together, that gave massive dissadvantage to enemies. We were on one party chat of eight players - we all communicate. We found the way how to be picked to one Team and hownto be picked on opposite sides - when in same Team - enemy had No chance. When on both sides that is even worse, we could - we DID NOT but we COULD abuse system. I am sure Devs know how.

 







Also tagged with developer, feedback

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users