The Ranked System: The Significant and Necessary Change of Direction
Zoombuh On - Twitter | Twitch.TV
Preface
Before diving into my current thoughts on the status of the state of the game in regards to the ranked system and its significance, it is quite important to make note that I am going to be reflecting on this from the hardcore as well as casual players perspective to try and fully analyze this issue with an open mind and sense of understanding. Also, it is important to remember that this game is only entering its 3rd test season in beta under the new ranked system so there will be further changes expected, yet, it is still important to publicly notate individual thoughts for one specific purpose. Blizzard, one of the largest gaming corporations in the world, as well as creators of the ever-so popular World of Warcraft, clearly understand how to create and build a loyal community of players. They have always taken into account individual’s opinions and issue necessary changes to reflect the communities thoughts. So, the purpose of this article is, in essence, to create a discussion which may support or go against my claims, as well as potentially create new innovative ideas.
The Current Ranked System
At the beginning of a new season (currently scheduled for the start of every month) Blizzard is resetting every individual player’s rank and places everyone on an equal playing field which is “Rank 25” or an Angry Chicken. The player can accumulate stars without penalty for defeat up until rank 20, then each loss will conclude with losing a star. MMR is not taken into consideration for players that are not on the legendary ladder. Thus, any player who has not attained the rank of legendary, plays the easily understood ladder of 1 win = 1 star, unless the player can go on a win streak which for the 3rd straight win up until rank 5, will gain the individual 2 stars a win until the streak is broken. If the individual loses a game, then they are penalized by losing one star. Thus, a greater than 50% win rate is required to hit the legend rank once achieving a rank 1-5 status as the win streak is no longer available.
Once entering the legendary brackets, players must play games to gain ranking, and build their respective MMR. Thus, the greater the amount of wins in a row, the greater the amount of ranking attained. However, there are more factors such as an opponents rank, mmr, and players above or below the individual’s rank. The game does not currently have any form of a decay so a player can achieve a rank that is quite high, potentially directly from entering the legendary bracket, and never have to play another game for days or weeks at a time while remaining at that high range. As such, the ranking system promotes inactivity to maintain a high status as well as supports a system that a players rank has no significance on their actual ability to play the game itself.
Is Anything Wrong With This Picture?
I am going to make reference to what is currently the most popular competitive game played, League of Legends, and speak on the strengths of their ranked system and how Hearthstone should incorporate some of these qualities. League of Legends does one thing specifically that has gained them much popularity as well as support towards their ranked system. First and foremost, their ranked system is by no means an easy system to climb, however, it promotes activity to be at the uttermost level of recognition, challenger, but also appeals to the casual player who can still have a rank such as bronze, silver, and gold. Thus, the platinum and diamond ranks I have categorized into the hardcore players division, even though platinum is not near the professional bracket, but it still generally speaking reflects an active player who plays a fair amount of games.
I have directly placed the challenger bracket into the same division as the legendary bracket on hearthstone. However, let me make it very clear that I do recognize that it is much more difficult to attain the challenger rank than the legendary rank for the simple purpose that the climb is more difficult as well as challenger only allows a certain amount of players to hold that rank. Also, if a challenger does not play X amount of games in a given week they have the potential to lose their challenger rank and be demoted to the diamond 1 bracket. This feature is a very good thing as it promotes activity as well as performance in order to uphold a given rank.
It does not make much sense that a player can attain a rank, then play little to no games, yet, continue to be seen as one of the highest ranked players in the game. Due to being a card game and somewhat RNG impacted, a player cannot win every game. Active players who very well may be highly skilled, are seen in the lower portions of the legendary bracket while players who have just broken the rank 1 into the legendary barrier have entered as a rank 12 legend and will stay in the top 15 for the remainder of the season.
What Am I Proposing?
Again, this proposal is not meant to be seen as a form of bickering or complaining, but instead helping to develop a system that promotes competition and activity to remain at the upper ranks, but also appeals to the casual player who does not have the time to commit to play in a system where they will be continuously penalized for not being able to play every day. Where does it all start?
Proposed Changes
- Instead of one month seasons, the game should have 4 month seasons. This would make the ranked system be on trimesters as well as allow for time for new cards to be created and further expansions to gain hype as well as something to look forward to in alignment with a fresh season.
- The ranked system to remain the same up until the player can achieve the legendary rank. Thus, this will not penalize the casual player as the way that they can gain ranks will not change and they can continue to do the best they can to climb the ladder. Thus, it is important to recognize the majority of casuals who do not have much time to play this game will not achieve the legendary rank, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is something to keep in mind when adjusting the competitive game play structure to make sure that group of players is not affected.
- The legendary rank to uphold a maximum of 200 players. A player can fall out of the legendary bracket if they lose X amount of games and fall below that rank 200 threshold. At this point, the player will fall back to rank 1 and have to re climb to the legendary rank. This will be the first benefit in promoting activity amongst the highest gradient of players who are striving to have a rank of meaning.
- A decay system that will affect players who are inactive for a period of greater than 48 hours where they will begin to lose 10 ranks a day. Thus, active players who are striving to play this game at a level where they can attain legend are most likely playing this game at least for an hour each day of the week. However, if they cannot play for two days and are penalized by losing 10 ranks, that should not be a big deal as they should have the skill set to climb back those 10 ranks in a matter of 1-2 games. This will stop players being allowed to sit on a rank and not be required to play games to maintain a commendable position. The players MMR will not be affected for the simple fact if a player goes on vacation or a work-related trip, they can come back with a high MMR and re climb the ranks that they had lost in a short amount of time. Thus, all this does is promote activity and require competent players to demonstrate their ability and worthiness to uphold the rank next to their name.
- Once a player enters the legendary bracket they enter at the standard rate of 100. It places you right in the direct middle of the highest as well as lowest legends. What this will do is it will not make a player enter the legendary ranks then immediately be demoted to the rank 1 because they entered at 200. This will give the player a cushion to rest on and begin trying to climb the ranks without immediate fear of demotion. The purpose of this is that players do not enter the legendary rank at a rank such as #7 and not play many, if any games, and end the season still in the top 20. Thus, continuously promoting activity in order to validate the purpose of a players rank.
The Counter-Part
If Blizzard does not want to change the game or require players to demonstrate activity to uphold a given rank, then they should remove the number inside the legendary gem as it will continue to have no significance whatsoever.
What Will The Changes Above Provide?
- These changes would validate the ranked system and give it a sense of importance and significance. This system would grant players who strive to play this game at the highest ranks, to have an opportunity to demonstrate what they truly belong. This is so because of the lack of game play consisting of ranked as well as arena and 0 in-game tournament options, all a player has to stand for is what their rank is. Thus, it makes sense to allow this individual to have a rank that they can be confident in actually means something.
- Activity amongst players of all ranks who have a goal of playing at the highest possible rank that their potential will allow them. This will make players demonstrate activity as well as lack complacency and have to work towards being the best. This will disregard laziness and force players who can currently abuse the system by remaining inactive yet uphold a rank that does not validate where they truly stand.
- Most important of all, this will not affect the casual player. It is very important to continuously keep that train of thought in mind as the casual player base makes up so much of the gaming community, that the fine to decipher the two needs to be concrete, but also be certain to not penalize them. This system would do exactly that.
Conclusion
These are merely my thoughts on a topic that is dear to my heart and a large group of my fellow friends in the gaming community. I, as well as many others, believe that the system has quite a few knots that need to be corrected, however, being still in the beta, what better of a time to discuss these concerns while change can be implemented. I stand behind these statements as ideas that I believe would reflect an immensely large positive impact in the competitive community and bring about a more active and strong player base.
Cheers,
Zoombuh
SIMILAR ARTICLES
DKMR stands behind this article 100%. These changes are necessary and will create much more needed balance in this current ladder system. As Zoombuh said this will not affect the casual gamers, only the hardcore gamers that are playing in Legendary similar to League of Legends’s Challenger bracket.
The season needs to be longer and not having a penalty once you reach legendary is not a viable option. Please let us know if there is anything we can do to help get these changes made.
Poach Out~!
I think all of these ideas are great, but I have one question: would legendary in your system have only 200 people total? If so, would people get bumped out as more get in? Or is it just 200 ranks and multiple people can tie for a rank?
The only thing you posted that has a remote chance of actually happening is longer seasons
Excellent article and great suggestions for changes to Ranked play.
It seems like 4 months might be a little too long for a season. I only say this because it’s currently at 1 month per season. A more reasonable number might be 2-3 months. Longer seasons also appeal to casual players, because it gives them more time to climb the ladder. And it also eliminates the thrashing casual players take from the top players after each monthly reset.
Your proposed change to limit the number of Legendary players to 200 doesn’t seem to follow what Blizzard is aiming for with Hearthstone. They are actively trying to make HS more inclusive and cater heavily to the casual player. Maybe further down the road there could be a rank above Legendary, and your idea could be used there.
I loved your idea of the decay system and feel that it could be implemented without changing the current Legendary ranking system. I would set the timer at 24 hours and lower the penalty to about 5 ranks. Since we also get Daily quests on a similar timer, I think it is a more natural change.
Hope Blizzard is listening and takes you up on some of these changes.
Good read, What you say makes a lot of sense. Thanks!
As a casual player (rank 5 /6 in season 1 and 2) my first reaction is that it’s a terrible idea. Right now I at least have the challenge to reach legend rank. With these changes, I would be sure to never reach it or to be demoted very shortly. It would be so demotivating that I would consider stopping playing ranked. The system with the bonus stars doesn’t really give a feeling of skill ranking, it’s more a feeling of how much grinding happened. The rank placement of legend at least is an indication of MMR.
I get the point that you don’t want people sitting on their top rank, and want to solve it by some MMR decay. That’s probably a good idea. It would force more of a grind at the top, but at least the top status is backed by large numbers of games played.
If you want to make it so the top of the top can distinguish itself with a nicer status symbol, make it so that when you beat the 25 ranks you become “Challenger” with a silver medal and MMR-based rank that you keep for the season, and give the top 200 a gold medal with “Legend” title. I also wouldn’t mind actually seeing the MMR, it would give a better idea how close everyone is.
I can understand the motivation for a decay mechanic - though to be honest the short seasons already provide for this.
I don’t understand, however, what you hope to achieve by capping the number of players in legendary. “Rank 1″ is essentially meaningless as an indicator of relative skill in the same way that “Masters 3″ was. It gives you no information about how many people there are between you and the best.
If you want a “super-legendary” top X, sure, but I think tier 2 players might find it unmotivating to essentially never be able to discover their relative skill level.
Love this idea, especially when combined with “Challenger/Legend” rank decay. It allows everyone to grind their way up to a level that they won’t lose (i.e. “Challenger”), but then distinguishes between those who continue the grind and reach “Legend” (top 200) status and those who just got there and stopped playing.
The length of the seasons need to increased for sure. I consider my self a very good player but with work and other projects I find myself running out of time in a month. The first 2 seasons I made it to rank 1 with about 2 days left. There just is not enough time. I would have to disagree with your point suggesting players can fall out of legend rank. As a player that does not have a pro team or friends that play TCG’s, I love the idea that when I make legend I can try some new ideas on the ladder and play people who are actually decent at this game. You cant get anything done in casual mode, Its a pure waist of time for testing new ideas. Hard core players that want to be into the top 10 ranks of legend will be grinding there best decks anyway. There is no reason to make the rest of people in legend do the same by default. I cant wait to try some new ideas and not worry about losing stars and my time. Excellent article as well. Also enjoyed Monks ladder article a month back of so.
Ayen#1277
Public MMR is a pretty terrible idea from a community perspective though. HoN did that and boy did many strategy discussions boil down to “whats your mmr you so noob get on my level”. Since CCGs have a history of developing fairly elitist communities the last thing people need is more validation.
Simply fixing the rankings so that they correlate more with actual skill as Zoombuh has suggested here would be enough imo.
The majority if his suggestions don’t correlate to skill at all, they are purely measures of do you play a lot every single day.
I would agree with this. The suggestions are aimed at hardcore players, and hurts any more casual players, because they do not play everyday. If a player makes it to Legend rank, but decides to rest because he just achieved something, he just loses his rank because he didn’t jump into more games.
I would like to see seasons that are a little longer, perhaps 2 month long seasons, to allow for the meta at the top rankings to grow dynamically, but still allow more casual players to have fun ranking up the ladder. This allows newer players to start later in the season and not just get stomped into the ground. I know that I just ran over people for the first 3-4 days of laddering, which can’t be fun for them.
A 48-hour activity requirement is needlessly punishing to a ridiculous extent, when the real issue is just removing the incentive to stay inactive for the rest of a season. Rather than excluding all players who only play a few days a week or are sometimes gone for a weekend or even an entire week of traveling, I think a far more inclusive system could be made to serve the purpose equally well:
- Give legendary players an activity counter and start it at 2 days of stored grace period from MMR decay.
- Every 3 games played earns you another day of grace, up to a cap of 7 days stored.
- During the last week of a season, MMR decays at double rate (meaning you can only have 3.5 days of activity stored).
- Each of the last 3 days of the season, it’s possible to earn a tiny bonus to your MMR rating for having played 5+ games that day.
This is a quick example of a system I feel would represent a healthy balance between allowing (skilled) casual play at the very high levels, forcing active play until the last days of a season, not punishing players for being unable to play for a few specific days and yet providing incentives for the players who stay active till the very end. Also, I feel it’s obvious that any decay as a result of activity should be in terms of your MMR *rating*, rather than a set amount of *ranks*.
- Ejnar
A 48-hour activity requirement is needlessly punishing to a ridiculous extent, when the real issue is just removing the incentive to stay inactive for the rest of a season. Rather than excluding all players who only play a few days a week or are sometimes gone for a weekend or even an entire week of traveling, I think a far more inclusive system could be made to serve the purpose equally well:
- Give legendary players an activity counter and start it at 2 days of stored grace period from MMR decay.
- Every 3 games played earns you another day of grace, up to a cap of 7 days stored.
- During the last week of a season, MMR decays at double rate (meaning you can only have 3.5 days of activity stored).
- Each of the last 3 days of the season, it’s possible to earn a tiny bonus to your MMR rating for having played 5+ games that day.
This is a quick example of a system I feel would represent a healthy balance between allowing (skilled) casual play at the very high levels, forcing active play until the last days of a season, not punishing players for being unable to play for a few specific days and yet providing incentives for the players who stay active till the very end. Also, I feel it’s obvious that any decay as a result of activity should be in terms of your MMR *rating*, rather than a set amount of *ranks*.
- Ejnar
Okay, see that makes a lot more sense. I do not think that loss of rating is as big of a deal for more casual players. For a Legend player, though, that rating is everything.
That’s the point though. The whole “I can’t lose if I don’t play” mentality is bullshit and is not something to be encouraged / incentivised.
Wait a second, why? You claim this, but why is that necessarily true? Not playing ranked is not the same as not playing. Some people see achieving Legend as the end goal. Why penalize those players when they have achieved their goal, and then continue on to play against friends or battle in the Arena. I guess I can see that person losing MMR rating in ranked, so that they slip INSIDE the Legend rank, but I think that taking away that person’s efforts is far from the correct thing to do. If all that happens, is that the player can slide down MMR in Legend, then I would agree, but to lose Legend status after having earned it, is the wrong way to go about it.