Jump to content


World of Tanks Console - July Ranked Battles Feedback!

ranked battles july feedback

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

You got Razored #61 Posted 31 July 2017 - 01:02 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 42368 battles
  • 283
  • [CRPT]
  • Member since:
    10-05-2013
add the current pc ranked battles scoring system is a lot better than ours and more fair

TocFanKe4 #62 Posted 31 July 2017 - 02:24 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16532 battles
  • 16,646
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

I posted this in GD, but I'm doing it here as well:

 

It's too team dependent. Pontiac Pat had some really good ways to do points. You should use his system or the PC system instead of the terrible system you have in place. I'm not sure we have enough players to make RB work. I gave it a try.  At 8 pm CT on Saturday, there were 28 people in queue on east. It usually took 2 minutes to find a match. Most of the matches were blowouts. I'd find myself fighting the entire red team myself after the greens would go to a bad area and die 2-3 minutes in. Teams were really lopsided. I lost all 7 RBs I played with most games not even close to being competitive. 

 

I don't think we have enough people playing this game anymore to make ranked battles work like they're supposed to. The number of people in queue bounced between 18 and 40 when I played, and I almost never got in a game in less than 1:20


 

Skill is knowledge put into practice through the lens of ability.

I stream inconsistently and often with beer : https://www.twitch.tv/tocfanke4

Stream contains language that is inappropes. 


TocFanKe4 #63 Posted 31 July 2017 - 02:28 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16532 battles
  • 16,646
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Postdcr66, on 29 July 2017 - 04:38 PM, said:

Not sure how WoT PC works but in World of Warships (WoWS) Ranked are based on Winning games alone. You win game you get 1 star. Each rank (there are usually 20+ from top to bottom) requires a number of stars to advance to next rank, less in lower ranks. Some ranks you cannot fall below once you get there. If you get nailed on first salvo but your team win, good for you then. I think if you managed to survive a loosing match (or top scored), you don't loose a star.

 

Point system we are using is convoluted. Make it only Winning games count. Nobody cares how you get the win, cap or kill them all are fine.

 

It should be less winning dependent, and more individual performance based.  It's supposed to be ranking player skill, not team skill. 

 

Skill is knowledge put into practice through the lens of ability.

I stream inconsistently and often with beer : https://www.twitch.tv/tocfanke4

Stream contains language that is inappropes. 


KillDozer33 #64 Posted 31 July 2017 - 02:34 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 3283 battles
  • 442
  • Member since:
    04-04-2015

View PostRaiBOT01, on 31 July 2017 - 02:30 AM, said:

Please feel free to post your Ranked Battles feedback here! 

 

Made a BUNCH of money in my Kraft's panther and had fun. I was going to unlock the T-34-1 and use it now I see I should've.

 

Having all the same tier really shows how good some tanks are within their tiers but that they struggle much above it...once again it's WG balance issues that takes most of the fun out of them.:confused:



HeavyKaragh #65 Posted 31 July 2017 - 02:36 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 40623 battles
  • 1,413
  • [BAC]
  • Member since:
    05-05-2014
  • Point system looks ok to me, but we need a clear explanation on what and how much it affects, and if possible show us. For example, if team rank affects gained points. All this could be shown in another tab in the results screen to keep screen clean.
  • Remove premium tanks to avoid any pay to win sensation.
  • In after battle results, showing players' rank medal would look nice.
  • I agree XP gained should be 0 to avoid players using this mode just for grinding.
  • About AFKers, a time ban from ranked would be more efficient. Allow 1 warning per day, but that's it. Trigger would be not moving the tank 1 (maximum 2) minutes into battle. Twice I got into a game where the guy won't move untill being shot. Haven't found them very often, but these guys are highly detrimental to the experience.


dcr66 #66 Posted 31 July 2017 - 06:13 PM

    Major

  • Supertest - Xbox One
  • 20642 battles
  • 2,697
  • [ONE]
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

View PostTocFanKe4, on 31 July 2017 - 09:28 AM, said:

 

It should be less winning dependent, and more individual performance based.  It's supposed to be ranking player skill, not team skill. 

 

Good idea BUT your individual skill is irrelevant when everybody else are playing in a selfish manner. If winning the game is the only way to advance, people will be forced to work together.

 

View PostHeavyKaragh, on 31 July 2017 - 09:36 AM, said:

  • Point system looks ok to me, but we need a clear explanation on what and how much it affects, and if possible show us. For example, if team rank affects gained points. All this could be shown in another tab in the results screen to keep screen clean.
  • Remove premium tanks to avoid any pay to win sensation.
  • In after battle results, showing players' rank medal would look nice.
  • I agree XP gained should be 0 to avoid players using this mode just for grinding.
  • About AFKers, a time ban from ranked would be more efficient. Allow 1 warning per day, but that's it. Trigger would be not moving the tank 1 (maximum 2) minutes into battle. Twice I got into a game where the guy won't move untill being shot. Haven't found them very often, but these guys are highly detrimental to the experience.

 

- Given the crappy reward (compares to WoWS ranked), why do I want to play ranked if there I cannot get some XP. The current ranked game play is making me loose silver if I spend too much time there. I have gone past tier 7 for most tanks long time ago.

- There are plenty of tech tree tanks at tier 7 (and any upper tiers) that will work better than premium tanks.

 

 

View PostYou got Razored, on 31 July 2017 - 08:02 AM, said:

add the current pc ranked battles scoring system is a lot better than ours and more fair
 

 

Please show us the link to the PC Ranked Battles site. I know how the one in WoWS works but no WoT PC. Educate us.

 


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.


You got Razored #67 Posted 31 July 2017 - 06:59 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 42368 battles
  • 283
  • [CRPT]
  • Member since:
    10-05-2013

View Postdcr66, on 31 July 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

 

Good idea BUT your individual skill is irrelevant when everybody else are playing in a selfish manner. If winning the game is the only way to advance, people will be forced to work together.

 

 

- Given the crappy reward (compares to WoWS ranked), why do I want to play ranked if there I cannot get some XP. The current ranked game play is making me loose silver if I spend too much time there. I have gone past tier 7 for most tanks long time ago.

- There are plenty of tech tree tanks at tier 7 (and any upper tiers) that will work better than premium tanks.

 

 

 

Please show us the link to the PC Ranked Battles site. I know how the one in WoWS works but no WoT PC. Educate us.

 

 

https://worldoftanks.eu/en/content/docs/919-ranked-battles-rules-and-regulations/

HeavyKaragh #68 Posted 31 July 2017 - 07:36 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 40623 battles
  • 1,413
  • [BAC]
  • Member since:
    05-05-2014

View Postdcr66, on 31 July 2017 - 07:13 PM, said:

- Given the crappy reward (compares to WoWS ranked), why do I want to play ranked if there I cannot get some XP.

- There are plenty of tech tree tanks at tier 7 (and any upper tiers) that will work better than premium tanks.

I played ranked for the competition and a game mode where you expect to battle with and against the best players. Not much interested in premium time but I wouldn't sweat for premium tanks either.

The premium tanks' removal is just a suggestion to "guarantee" an even field, because any player can access tech tree tanks. I have no problem with them, but I heard complains about the 131 and E25 from some players as being pay to win.



TocFanKe4 #69 Posted 31 July 2017 - 08:29 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 16532 battles
  • 16,646
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View Postdcr66, on 31 July 2017 - 01:13 PM, said:

 

Good idea BUT your individual skill is irrelevant when everybody else are playing in a selfish manner. If winning the game is the only way to advance, people will be forced to work together.

 

 

 

What you describe is random battles.  If you want things to be based solely on winning and losing, go play normal MM. 

 

If I do 2.5k damage, get 4 kills, but nobody else on my team breaks 500 damage, how is that a measure of my skill to lose points?  How is it a measure of my skill to lose points because of the awful team?  Winning should be emphasized less, not more.  Pontiac Pat had some great ideas on how you could run a points matrix where people on the winning team that did nothing got penalized, but people that did great on losing teams got points.  It's a much better system for measuring your actual skill and placing you in the correct league. 

 

I played 7 ranked battles.  I lost all 7.  I ended up in the bottom of the silver league because my teams were terrible.  I did top damage in several games where I was alone against 5 of the enemy team after my team yolo-ed and died.  Yep.  That's a reflection of my skill level that I couldn't kill the whole red team by myself. 

 

We already have random battles for winning based rewards. 

 


Edited by TocFanKe4, 31 July 2017 - 08:30 PM.

 

Skill is knowledge put into practice through the lens of ability.

I stream inconsistently and often with beer : https://www.twitch.tv/tocfanke4

Stream contains language that is inappropes. 


dcr66 #70 Posted 01 August 2017 - 12:57 AM

    Major

  • Supertest - Xbox One
  • 20642 battles
  • 2,697
  • [ONE]
  • Member since:
    02-04-2014

View PostYou got Razored, on 31 July 2017 - 01:59 PM, said:

 

Similar enough to World of Warships ranked battle system.  https://worldofwarships.com/en/news/common/Update-067/

 

The winners take more mentality is not liked by some here. However in WoWS a text based system is used for communication and it involve 2 objectives. People just agree by text messages to which cap to go for. None of this "anyone got a mic" crap.


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.


benjamin5438 #71 Posted 01 August 2017 - 01:07 AM

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 37969 battles
  • 12
  • [1EYE]
  • Member since:
    03-08-2014

View PostHeavyKaragh, on 31 July 2017 - 01:36 PM, said:

I played ranked for the competition and a game mode where you expect to battle with and against the best players. Not much interested in premium time but I wouldn't sweat for premium tanks either.

The premium tanks' removal is just a suggestion to "guarantee" an even field, because any player can access tech tree tanks. I have no problem with them, but I heard complains about the 131 and E25 from some players as being pay to win.

 

 An even playing field in my opinion is not about the tanks one uses. Premium tanks are no better or worst then any tank you can normally access in the tech trees. People always complain about certain tanks since I 1st started playing this game. I remember when people complained about the M24 Chaffee being too OP. I even remember when people use to complain that the Lowe was even too OP because it was hard to penetrate. Every tank has it's weakness and strengths.


 

Using the M41 Walker Bulldog, I could rip both the 131 and E25 alone.

 

 

 


Edited by benjamin5438, 01 August 2017 - 01:29 AM.


Fear Da Butter #72 Posted 01 August 2017 - 04:16 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 28575 battles
  • 7,068
  • [47R]
  • Member since:
    09-10-2013

View PostCamelman Fin, on 28 July 2017 - 12:16 PM, said:

 

that says it all, nice ranked battle

 

I preferred the tier V ranked battles.  There were more tanks to choose from....  The tier VIII and now the tier VII have proven that high tier ranked battles suck unless it's tier X.

Win8  2735.84  Win7 2184.11  EFF 1918.11  


 

 

 


II NO x VICE II #73 Posted 01 August 2017 - 05:06 AM

    Captain

  • Supertest - Xbox One
  • 22259 battles
  • 1,933
  • Member since:
    07-27-2014

Here is my feedback: Now I know how RBs work ... and I stopped playing when ...

 

The ranking is supposed to be a personal ranking, but in reality only the team performance resulting in a win or a loss actually dominates where you will be placed. Damage does not seem to matter, frags do not seem matter, spotting and other mechanics seem to have no bearing other than to clear the enemy tanks out of the game. The rewards of 15v15 do not seem to be at play here at all.

 

One could have a lousy game and be rewarded for it greatly (see above) and on the other hand play masterfully till the end and get penalized heavily for it due to AFK member or other circumstance totally outside the control of a performing player. And that somehow reflects, overall, a "personal ranking"? It does not add up.



FinlandRed #74 Posted 01 August 2017 - 12:22 PM

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 14988 battles
  • 466
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014

View PostII NO x VICE II, on 01 August 2017 - 05:06 AM, said:

Here is my feedback: Now I know how RBs work ... and I stopped playing when ...

 

The ranking is supposed to be a personal ranking, but in reality only the team performance resulting in a win or a loss actually dominates where you will be placed. Damage does not seem to matter, frags do not seem matter, spotting and other mechanics seem to have no bearing other than to clear the enemy tanks out of the game. The rewards of 15v15 do not seem to be at play here at all.

 

One could have a lousy game and be rewarded for it greatly (see above) and on the other hand play masterfully till the end and get penalized heavily for it due to AFK member or other circumstance totally outside the control of a performing player. And that somehow reflects, overall, a "personal ranking"? It does not add up.

 

Totally agree. I saw the same thing, Had a 2.5K damage, three kills and last tank standing game and suffered a big loss because my team all went in different directions. My personal performance points didn't seem to change that much whether I did really well or just potatoed at the back behind a building (Sorry, protected the artillery.....).

 

If it's more weighted to individual performance and less dependent on team performance it would take the sting out a loss and it wouldn't matter if Johnny Random is grinding his stock Tiger.

 

At the moment the whole thing feels like "Clan Wars Lite (Beta)" without the ability to platoon with your mates.



SPCCN #75 Posted 02 August 2017 - 09:34 PM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23655 battles
  • 608
  • [-ZT-]
  • Member since:
    02-03-2014

THE REFLECTION

 

-THE NAME OF THIS GAME TYPE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED TO "TEAM RANKED"! Having victories play the major part in your rank, thus reflecting your overall Win Rate, and not solely your per battle performance is fine. BUT, it needs to be represented as such. Especially NA players were trying to be the one man army because they wanted the XP to move up. It was dumb and didn't reflect the scoring mechanic of the game and ultimately it is the description of the game type that misinforms and perpetuates this play. Having it say clearly your rank comes from how well you play as part of a team.

-IF YOU DON'T CHANGE THE NAME THEN YOU NEED TO RE-CALIBRATE THE SCORING SYSTEM. I have suggested making the scoring similar to the Fire for Effect medal so there is a damage expectation based on your tank and so you pick the tank you can preform well in to ensure you do the necessary work to get points. There are existing medals in the game that players know and understand, so basing the points around these in game aspects might work.

 

Seriously though it would be so much easier to just change the name.

 

-3min wait time for a good battle was totally worth it (see Setup section)

-Actually earning Personal Points past Platinum league was awesome!

-No Arty was also a good call

-Nice change up for the maps

-Good balanced tier for this game type

-Silver and XP earning was good

-Prizes were good, nice job including premium time that is always good for free player motivation

 

Suggestions

 

-This might work with 10 vs 10

-It might be cool to have this where the platoon size limit was 2. That way you have a wing-man you can count on. (Team size would need to go to 8 or 10, and 2 player platoons should be the maximum allowed)

-I agree that the tank XP should not be accrued in ranked battles. This shouldn't be the place to grind for packages/next tier

-however you should still earn Crew XP without the tank accruing XP

-You might want to put in the event notes that there is a lot of premium ammunition used so tankers need to play smart, utilizing all their tanks attributes and not just rely on armour

-Flip the points awarded to show Team Points first then Personal.

 

View PostRaiBOT01, on 28 July 2017 - 07:50 AM, said:

Hello tankers!

 

Please leave your ranked battles feedback here!!

 

Let us know what League you placed and share your thoughts about the new tier change, new rewards, game mode and point system adjustments, new maps, and everything or anything you can think of! 

 

Roll out! <3 

 

UPDATE:

Please be aware that the number of boosts awarded in Ranked Battles reward is not displaying properly.  Don't let this scare you!  You will be given the proper amount or rewards at the end of the season.

I had a great experience playing Ranked this season. With the Personal Points fixed and the battle queue time posted so I knew how to compete against similarly skilled players, I felt like this was the best and most successful Ranked season.

 

View PostSadriel Fett, on 28 July 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

Individual performance is still not being counted as much as team wins/ losses.  This was exactly the main issue everyone has had with Ranked Battles since it started.  We're left at the mercy of match making and what kind of teams we get.  Once again it seems the Ranked Battles have fallen short, especially after players have time and again given feedback about the exact same concerns.  How many Ranked Battle sessions does this make now, where it's the same problem as the previous versions that players are having trouble with?  

 

You know what they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, right?

I think this would be addressed if the name was changed. The inclusion of victories as a prerequisite for gaining points is likely based on how your win% shows your long term contribution to teams.

 

View PostViolet Viper x, on 28 July 2017 - 02:42 PM, said:

Ok so, ranked battles still aren't worth playing. Still losing a bunch of points when you do well is annoying.

 

What is really bugging me though, silly as it may seem, when you complete a battle you first get points (I'm assuming they are the performance points) then, if it was a loss, all them points are taken away and you go negative points. This way is really demoralising, I feel like the game is mocking me :D

I suggest switching it around so the loss of points comes first, then you gain some back if you performed well, that way the loss of points doesn't seem as bad.

Agreed, this is a good suggestion +1

 

View PostBrogueOne, on 28 July 2017 - 04:47 PM, said:

As a follow up to my earlier comments:

I honestly believe that Ranked Battles would be more fun and more successful if they were 15v15 or somehow integrated into regular Multiplayer battles and had platoons available. Right now it's a fairly predictable death match type of feel where each team is just trying to kill the other as fast as possible. There's nothing very dynamic about the style of play this format fosters.

Smaller teams gives you better opportunity to coordinate with your whole team and not isolated units. Playing standard multiplayer MM should be evidence enough for why 7v7 - 10 vs 10 would be the limit for ranked.

 

View Postdcr66, on 30 July 2017 - 09:34 AM, said:

If we must insist on the point systems going forward, please allow us to join as Platoon. 5 players platoons are fine, give some room for the single players. That way if we loose, go blame the xbox friends instead for bad teamwork.

Platoons would further hinder the ranking of individual players. It would be too easy to carry your weaker friend up the leagues. Everyone should earn their spot.

 

View PostSovietdeath, on 30 July 2017 - 11:00 PM, said:

Why had the biggest gripe about Ranked Battles been not Fixed  see Bolded section

 

 

The main complaint has been this Issue as it leads to wild swings. Vs hard to impossible Earnings of points.

 

We still have many cases of 1 step forward 3 steps back in the terms of point earnings

 

Also why are there still 9 leagues?

(10 if you include unranked)

this breaks up the player-base too much. (Leading to these wild swings in points) I would Cap it at 5 leagues 

 

Iron>Bronze>Silver>Gold>Platnium

 

I liked the separation. At the higher leveled leagues the skill is much more apparent. Now my own experience was really uniform with most wins between 20 - 28 points and most losses +- 20. In the entire time I had 1 game where I lost 42 points and 2 games where I gained that many. Only once did I have the best case win scenario where I got 52 points. Mind you I was actively controlling my MM by backing out before the Battle Queue reached 2 minutes.

 

View PostLazyCalf5928745, on 31 July 2017 - 05:58 AM, said:

I played the rank battles solidly over the weekend.

I enjoyed the variety it adds for the weekend during the month.

pleased it had more maps this time.

I enjoyed it most when light tanks were absent. a light tank dominated the battlefield.

3 light tanks on 1 side in a 7 v 7 became frustrating to be effective in any other tank.

The points system seem to be a big improvement and found I was never punished unfairly for losing.


 

suggest for future

teir 10s (surely everyone has one by now  or

no lights or

lights at correct MM

light only


 


 


 

Lights were annoying and a few times they were down right scary. I did not like getting peppered by an auto-loading Bulldog that's for sure. I don't think we need to limit the class of tanks anymore than Arty, most players self regulated and used Heavy tanks anyway.

 

View PostTocFanKe4, on 31 July 2017 - 08:24 AM, said:

I posted this in GD, but I'm doing it here as well:

 

It's too team dependent. Pontiac Pat had some really good ways to do points. You should use his system or the PC system instead of the terrible system you have in place. I'm not sure we have enough players to make RB work. I gave it a try.  At 8 pm CT on Saturday, there were 28 people in queue on east. It usually took 2 minutes to find a match. Most of the matches were blowouts. I'd find myself fighting the entire red team myself after the greens would go to a bad area and die 2-3 minutes in. Teams were really lopsided. I lost all 7 RBs I played with most games not even close to being competitive. 

 

I don't think we have enough people playing this game anymore to make ranked battles work like they're supposed to. The number of people in queue bounced between 18 and 40 when I played, and I almost never got in a game in less than 1:20

Europe server was very active on Ranked Battles. Perhaps WG might look into a universal server and host ranked only through there. That way you are not effected by timezone or location.

 

 

The Ranked Battle (RB) Setup

I played this game type exclusively this weekend. I played 3h on Friday, 4h Saturday, and 6H Sunday. I placed in Silver League after a 2W:3L qualifier in my T29 with the 105mm. After a struggle to make it out of Silver and Gold, I played on the European server instead of my native NA-East (I'm in Canada). Sorry guys NA players are not good, NA teams were frustrating because players on the same team can be very antagonistic. To make sure I was actually playing alongside and against players of my own skill I never let the battle queue time exceed 1:45. that way I was in surrounding leagues all the time. it kept my loss swings from being too high and made my wins more meaningful.

 

I tried the Tiger 131 a bit and it was good because of it's DPM and adjusted penetration values. I tried the T23E3, Lycan / T71, Hammer,  and T-34-100 (basically all my T7's) to test which one would be most effective. I found that while lights could be devastating issues with narrow maps or suffering a big hit early would have a negative impact; and spotting then staying away till mid-game puts your team at a firepower disadvantage. Medium tanks had to be very careful with trading shots against Heavies. 100 alpha on the T23E3 meant staying exposed for far too long to make the other guy actually hurt. So that meant that Heavy tanks dominated RB again. It was all about alpha and survivability

 

The best tank for RB was the T29 equipped with the 90mm. It has similar DPM to the Tiger I, it has good enough standard penetration to go through all the Tigers and amazing penetration with APCR for odd angles, Tiger turrets, and OH-Ni's. But what pulled it above all the rest was the turret. Getting hull-down with no Arty and APCR meant you were a major force on the battle field and required the enemy to work together to dislodge you. When they didn't it was free XP for me.


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!

 


Sadriel Fett #76 Posted 03 August 2017 - 02:13 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 16953 battles
  • 1,992
  • Member since:
    02-12-2014
As an addendum to my prior suggestion about removing Tank XP from the matches to prevent people from using the ranked battles to grind tanks.  Instead it may be easier to just keep the Tank XP and Crew XP in the matches, but make it so only Elited and Premium tanks are the only ones available to use for the matches.  

--Faster Crew Training w/ Mentor Skill & Accelerated Tanks--Spreadsheet (created by JacKTh4RiPPa)

--Tank XP and Crew XP Calculator & Sortable Premium Tanks Bonus Values--Spreadsheet (created by MaxChaos24)

--Equipment, Consumables, & Skills/Perks Effectiveness Stats Calculators: Tanks.GG or WoTinfo

--Sortable In-depth Player Tank Stats: TankStats.net






Also tagged with ranked, battles, july, feedback

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users