Ranked Lite: Adding Ranked without directly affecting queue times

[wary bison]

Currently the player-base is considered to be inconsistent and not healthy enough to support full fledged Ranked. This presents an unfortunate paradox for a percentage of the player-base and their user retention metrics.

This paradox or cycle means that we avoid adding Ranked because we do not want the queue times lengthened which could cause players to leave and new players to never return, but also causes a loss to some of the player-base as the important functionality to retain them is not available.

Ranked functionality is important to players as it provides a visually clear and traceable indicator of a user’s skill progression. It encourages users to continue to play with the incentive to constantly improve and to seek admiration or recognition amongst their peers.

My suggestion is a format I would refer to as Ranked Lite. In this format, the game modes and pools remain as they are before, and any SBMM and all other aspects of game functionality remain exactly as they are now or intend to be in future updates. However, a visible Elo rating or MMR stat is added to players’ profiles. This can be visible on their name or banner when spectating and other places determined by the Gunzilla team like a Ranked section in the lobby.

This format operates essentially the same as typical Ranked formats:

• High placements and each elimination increase rating, low placements and each death decrease rating.

• Eliminate an opponent with a higher rating than yours, and you gain a high increase to your rating. Eliminate an opponent with a lower rating than yours, and you gain a low increase to your rating.

• Eliminations against you by an opponent with a higher rating causes a low decrease to your rating. Eliminations against you by an opponent with a lower rating causes a high decrease to your rating.

This simple addition of a rating system to players in public lobbies provides the ability for them to pursue motivational aspects of progression typical to Ranked modes without changing the lobby pools or queue times.

There is low potential for negative impact as a result of incorporating this format, yet there are demonstrably high benefits. There is also minimal difference to the player’s expectations or match environment aura by incorporating this system as we currently already have matches consisting of “sweaty” (common descriptor in feedback) or “unbalanced” (common feedback, whilst ranked modes are expected to portray balanced game design, current complaints in the community indicate the lack of ranked has no bearing on the prominent expectation of balance).

Feel free to leave some ideas below or general discourse. 🙂

Note:

Clearly further considerations and developments will need to continue to be made to player retention and protected classes for new players especially with the Steam Launch. However, this is a seperate issue.

[steel plaza]

https://tenor.com/view/thumbs-up-gif-807122763511541153

[torpid monolith]

As a bot If I kill a high elo its like a jackpot to mine, I like this.

[still galleon]

Good ideia

[distant zodiac]

[wary apex]

Although your suggestion would be a nice addition for competetive players to aim for something that displays their skill I don't see how this would benefit retention of new players. It would still result in new players getting stomped by sweats and clans regardless. Players need to be seperated based on kills/wins etc. asap. It's the root problem of this unhealthy player base. Casuals are just deinstalling the game and write a bad review as a result. You can find plenty of reddit posts about such complaints.

And a side thought here: boosting k/d by farming bots has been a thing for quite a while now. Imagine one could increase their mmr that way too, would be stupid. Imo killing bots should stop counting towards k/d and definitely not count towards ones ranking in the future.

[wary bison]

I think you’re misinterpreting my involvement of the term “player retention”, or perhaps I have articulated it poorly. It’s why I added this following remark just to clarify about that, even though it’s a seperate issue.
—--> #1395698174198550590 message

Let me be clear:

This doesn’t affect player retention in terms of “new players being stomped” and the other aspects crucial to said retention like SBMM, steady content releases, etc. This only allows for a Ranked formula to exist to help retain players who want Ranked and would otherwise be disinclined to play frequently or continue playing. It’s in this sense that the concept can help player retention.

• the simple solution to your bots remark is that bots don’t contribute to your rating or only contribute a very trivial value. This is one of the many intricacies that the team would have to tailor the feature to suit the game environment, as would any dev team for any game.

[frosty haven]

I agree to absolutely everything above !

That @wary bison is saying

[frosty haven]

I think most of the bad reviews are crypto related people who wanted to make a quick buck.

[dim flint]

This is awesome

Thank u BUFF! ❤️😎

[wise mauve]

"Ranked Lite" it's a great idea. 🧠

[sweet dove]

Would love to see this in the game

[wary apex]

It's a matter of priority though. For this urgent of a problem I would rather have the team fully focus on a ranked system that will benefit everybody than wasting time on another system that will only please a handful of players for the time being. I just don't see the point of a mmr if it doesnt affect your matchmaking/ lobbies. If anything at all it would drive competetive players to dominate casual lobbies even more to chase some mmr rating that they can show off lol

[carmine bobcat]

I appreciate the thought put into the Ranked Lite suggestion... it correctly identifies the core paradox facing many games with burgeoning communities. The fear of splitting the player base and increasing queue times is valid, but so is the need to provide a tangible path of progression for dedicated players to maintain retention.

However, while adding a visible Elo is a step in the right direction, the proposed implementation overlooks some critical components that define a truly competitive experience and could introduce more frustration than motivation. The Elo system as described, where you lose significant points for being eliminated by a lower-ranked player, is fundamentally unsuited for the chaotic nature of a battle royale.

It unfairly punishes players for unavoidable circumstances... a third-party engagement, a bad rotation, or simply being caught off-guard by a "lucky timmy" who happens to be in the right place at the right time. This doesn't measure skill... it measures fortune in isolated engagements and would create a toxic environment where players are more afraid of losing Elo unfairly than they are motivated to gain it.

A better approach to Elo would be one of several alternatives👇🏽

1️⃣Firstly, a system heavily weighted towards match placement, where survival and strategic play are the primary drivers of rank progression, with eliminations providing a smaller, consistent point bonus regardless of the opponent's rank.

2️⃣Secondly, a system where eliminations grant a flat rate of points, perhaps with a multiplier for how late into the match they occur, which still rewards aggression but removes the punishing and random variable of your opponent's specific rank.

Furthermore, a competitive mode must address the game's core balance to ensure skill expression. The ability to run duplicate powerful items, such as double Buzzkilla or even double Kestrel, creates a gameplay loop that feels less organic. While wielding two snipers effectively certainly takes skill, it's not a loadout you typically see in competitive shooters because it can stifle the wider strategic variety that is crucial for long-term competitive health, leading to a more one-dimensional meta

A few suggestions to fix this👇🏽

1️⃣As a baseline, the ranked mode should automatically enforce a 'singleton' rule, making it impossible to equip two of the same weapon or two of the same limb. This immediately encourages more thoughtful and organic loadouts.

2️⃣Another alternative is to add another layer of dynamic, match-to-match strategy, a pre-match ban phase could be introduced exclusively for limbs. This allows the lobby to collectively react to and counter a dominant limb meta in real-time.

Crucially, for such a system to work, it is vital to give players the ability to modify their loadouts after the bans are locked in. A simple ready-up phase post-ban would allow anyone whose build was affected to make last-minute changes, ensuring no one is forced to start a match with an invalid or disadvantaged kit.

[wary bison]

I would assume the methodology of how Rating is calculated and rewarded or penalised is at Gunzilla’s discretion. I included the examples about rewarding or penalising deaths and eliminations etc so as to paint a picture of what this ELO rating system could look like.

I like some of your suggestions a lot, but what I’m talking about is to substitute until Ranked can be added and not negatively impact queue times and player pools.

I also don’t agree about limiting limbs or weapons to single wield as I feel it’s an artificial way of attempting to balance something whilst falsely justifying keeping it in an overly strong and rigid position.

It’s like how with the ripper meta people suggested this exact thing when it would do nothing to actually affect the balance of limb.

We can go on about this matter at another time though. I don’t want to derail the thread.

[carmine bobcat]

All I’m saying is, just imagine running into a 3 stack, all running double buzzkilla💀

[wary bison]

This reduces the wait to incorporate a competitive rating system in the game. You’re welcome to wait as long as you want for the full Ranked experience, but many players don’t want to. This is a way to introduce content sooner without waiting for player number thresholds to be met. This doesn’t interrupt the team’s ability to focus on developing a full Ranked system, but it does allow them to push something out in the mean time.

You say you “dont see the point of a mmr if it doesn’t affect your matchmaking / lobbies”. While that is reasonable, it’s a somewhat moot point. I don’t see the point in waiting another 8 months for Ranked to come to the game.

I understand what you’re saying and I truly agree with your sentiment. I want Ranked too. In fact I want it right now, and this is how I’d eagerly negotiate that.

[wary bison]

That’s a direct indicator of Buzzkilla being in an absurdly unbalanced position. It does also beg questions about the concept of a utility and if it’s capable of being in a position that requires tactical depth to utilise and isn’t leaving opponents feeling tired and unfairly defeated. Again this a whole other department so I won’t go on.

In the future of this games life, we’ll see a lot less double wielded utility or weapons as the players overall understanding of the game, and metas evolve. Even if nothing changed balance wise (to a degree). This happens in every game.

[carmine bobcat]

I can see where you're coming from, and I appreciate the clarification. You're right that any final Elo calculation would be at the developer's discretion. My primary thought is that a "lite" system and a "competitively sound" system don't have to be mutually exclusive, and we shouldn't have to sacrifice the latter to achieve the former without impacting queue times.

The suggestions I made, like a singleton rule or a pre-match limb ban, aren't necessarily features that demand a separate player pool. They are rulesets and pre-match phases that can be applied directly to the existing queue, creating a more competitively robust experience for everyone without splitting the community.

Regarding the point about limiting limbs being an "artificial" balance fix... I would argue it's less about a direct balancing attempt and more about fostering a healthier, more diverse meta, which is the cornerstone of any ranked mode.

You're correct that if an item like the Ripper is fundamentally overpowered, it needs a direct balance pass. However, a singleton rule serves a different purpose. It prevents the meta from becoming one-dimensional and solved, forcing players to make more strategic choices about their overall kit rather than just stacking the single most effective item.

It's not a replacement for proper balancing... it's a complementary design philosophy that enriches competitive play. Even if every limb and weapon were perfectly balanced, promoting loadout variety through a singleton rule would still be beneficial for the game's long-term strategic depth. That’s just my opinion, I know it’s a hot take.

[wary bison]

You’re saying it helps the game be more diverse and encourages players to strategise or experiment with utility.

This will have a short term effect as you’ve described, but in the long term it will actually hinder diversity in builds. Think of it as 1 less row of potential builds all organised on a spreadsheet.

As I just mentioned, as the games life continues and meta fundamentals evolve, we will find that double limbs/guns exist are picked at a significantly lower rate.

An anecdotal but relevant example is found in our team’s scrims: we all like running double slamfist, but ultimately we know if we were to be competing or grinding mmr, we would need to bring recon and/or paralyser and be fulfilling different roles, each with differing builds. We’re using what we want. This is what I mean about a decline in diversity. You’re reducing the ability for players to choose fun over competitively viable.

Anyway let’s not derail the thread any longer. We can continue this discourse about dingersity and builds in a more relevant suggestion. 👍

[carmine bobcat]

That's a very fair and insightful perspective, and I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you've laid out. You raise an excellent point about the natural evolution of a competitive meta, and ideally, the scenario you described with your scrim team is exactly what should happen... players would naturally gravitate towards more strategically diverse, role-based loadouts because they would prove to be more effective for winning.

My initial concern was about the journey to get to that mature state and the risk of the ranked ladder getting stuck in a frustrating, "double-stack" meta before players discover the more effective strategies on their own. However, your argument that enforcing a rule removes a layer of player choice and could, in the long-term, actually limit the total number of build possibilities is a strong one. And lastly the point is to have fun. It is a game after all, and I wouldn’t want to make players choose otherwise

[wary bison]

I’ll finish by just adding that in a Ranked setting it would take mere minutes for players to realise double stacked utility is not competitively viable (assuming buzzkilla ac130 or some other overpowered limb doesn’t exist)
It could still be prominent in lower ranks but again that’s an example of increased diversity rather than reduced.

And yes, it’s all about the fun. Glad you agree! Thanks for the chat. ✌️

[wary bison]

bump 🫡

[marsh belfry]

BUMP

[lethal wolf]

Bump

[wary bison]

Bump

[glacial vault]

Bump. Good idea 🤙🏼

[wary bison]

bump

[wary bison]

DAILY BUMPPP

[glacial vault]

Bumpington

[wary bison]

B U M P

[wary bison]

B U M P

[glacial vault]

Bumpy

[wary bison]

https://tenor.com/view/hello-chat-hello-hi-chat-cat-cat-meme-gif-14113031897149679466

[agile vortex]

https://tenor.com/view/hello-hi-hy-hey-gif-8520159980767013609