Jump to content


Lose Star Farming


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

Soshi_Sone #1 Posted 16 February 2017 - 05:58 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,499
  • Member since:
    11-01-2015

I get the feeling in some of my ranked matches that players are playing "not to lose" instead of "playing to win".  Or, more precisely, playing to ensure they are around long enough that, given the team loses, they won't lose a star.  This is creating its own game meta that I'm not sure is healthy for ranked.

 

I might suggest WG eliminate this feature in future ranked.  Then everyone will be "all in" for the win, instead of trying not to lose a star on a loss.

 

 

 

 



RivertheRoyal #2 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:02 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,821
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View PostSoshi_Sone, on 16 February 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

I get the feeling in some of my ranked matches that players are playing "not to lose" instead of "playing to win".  Or, more precisely, playing to ensure they are around long enough that, given the team loses, they won't lose a star.  This is creating its own game meta that I'm not sure is healthy for ranked.

 

I might suggest WG eliminate this feature in future ranked.  Then everyone will be "all in" for the win, instead of trying not to lose a star on a loss.

 

 

 

 

 

That feature was added so that good players have some hope when saddled with a hopeless team. Personally, it's what got me through the 15-10 range of ranks, since I would constantly end up at the top of the losing team. Without that, I would likely still be stuck at rank 12, or even at 15.   

CapnCappy #3 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:02 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,627
  • Member since:
    10-01-2015

Have you seen someone get it yet?


 

I haven't.


 

And I've definitely seen players who were playing like they were "lose star farming". They suck so bad they usually come in the bottom.


CapnCappy's PC buildCapnCappy Stats

 

How to do "Adjusted" auto drops in CVs.
 

Patchy the Pirate says - "This be a salty bunch o' sea rats if'n ey ever seen'em with me good eye!"

 


TheKrimzonDemon #4 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:03 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,886
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

View PostSoshi_Sone, on 16 February 2017 - 12:58 PM, said:

I get the feeling in some of my ranked matches that players are playing "not to lose" instead of "playing to win".  Or, more precisely, playing to ensure they are around long enough that, given the team loses, they won't lose a star.  This is creating its own game meta that I'm not sure is healthy for ranked.

 

I might suggest WG eliminate this feature in future ranked.  Then everyone will be "all in" for the win, instead of trying not to lose a star on a loss.

 

 

 

 

 

I wondered about that the last couple of days. I lost one match due to the total refusal of the 4 BB's to come anywhere near a cap, and the next one, which I won, the last 2 BB's with me turned tail and ran all the way across the map, leaving me to deal with a BB and 2 cruisers alone in my almost dead DD. Shiratsuyu FTW, yo. Even last night, which I literally won almost singlehandedly, when it was down to me and 2 BB's, the BB's were telling each other to run, and their communication was entirely "snipe and live, snipe and live." This time I just said eff it and stayed right on the edge of detection dropping torp walls and capping, and since we had both caps most of the time, we won on points.

 

A DD should never be the only ship fighting, and it's turned into this a lot.


I drive ships. That's right, drive. I do not sail them. They don't have sails.


Canadatron #5 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:06 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,805
  • Member since:
    12-31-2015
At what point does one decide to cut bait though? After that Kiev that decided sitting still in the middle of a cap our side owns that eats a Shirat spread 4 minutes in? After your BBs decide to split and make themselves solo targets for focusing? When is "playing not to lose" acceptable, especially when your team is demonstrating that they themselves did not come to win?
-={FOG}=- Community Member

TheKrimzonDemon #6 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:09 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,886
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

View PostCanadatron, on 16 February 2017 - 01:06 PM, said:

At what point does one decide to cut bait though? After that Kiev that decided sitting still in the middle of a cap our side owns that eats a Shirat spread 4 minutes in? After your BBs decide to split and make themselves solo targets for focusing? When is "playing not to lose" acceptable, especially when your team is demonstrating that they themselves did not come to win?

 

I never cut bait and run. I go down fighting. The easiest way to not lose a star is to win.

I drive ships. That's right, drive. I do not sail them. They don't have sails.


Compassghost #7 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:09 PM

    Captain

  • Supertester

  • 5,154
  • Member since:
    04-04-2015

I usually play to win unless something goes horribly wrong. For example, yesterday, our only two DDs worked tirelessly to kill a Shiratsuyu, and upon killing it, went "Great, now our BBs don't have to worry about torpedoes!" At this point, both me and another BB had gone down to 1/3 health from HE from their BBs getting five minutes of free fire on us while we were unsmoked.

 



Soshi_Sone #8 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:17 PM

    Lieutenant Junior Grade

  • Members

  • 1,499
  • Member since:
    11-01-2015

View PostCanadatron, on 16 February 2017 - 06:06 PM, said:

At what point does one decide to cut bait though? After that Kiev that decided sitting still in the middle of a cap our side owns that eats a Shirat spread 4 minutes in? After your BBs decide to split and make themselves solo targets for focusing? When is "playing not to lose" acceptable, especially when your team is demonstrating that they themselves did not come to win?

 

That's actually the point.  The metric creates teams that do not come to "win".  So the player that is trying to win gets hung out.  If this happens enough times, then it becomes one of those "if you can't beat 'em...join 'em".

Dr_Richtofen #9 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:22 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 560
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
I Don't think many of the ones playing to not lose are really not losing though. Most of the games I go in I play to win and even when I lose I normally end up on the top of the team and don't lose. I also am not trying to stick around alive longer to do that though. I'm playing the sims a lot and even if I die early on I normally ended up doing so much I'm still top. While I get the issue here I don't think many people playing with this mentality are going to be the ones not losing a star, the guy trying to win often will be the one not losing.

Forum popcorn addict and Imperial Inquisitor

"Does he look like a heretic?"

Wildly using the Exterminatus button everywhere. Chaos daemons I watch: LWM, RivertheRoyal

 


Rounne #10 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:23 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 1,787
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSoshi_Sone, on 16 February 2017 - 06:17 PM, said:

 

That's actually the point.  The metric creates teams that do not come to "win".  So the player that is trying to win gets hung out.  If this happens enough times, then it becomes one of those "if you can't beat 'em...join 'em".

 

The entire problem itself is "Ranked". The entire game mode is a sham because people who utterly suck are getting to rank one through simple spamming of games and yolo rush. This company simply refuses to offer a game mode that is based on SKILL. Why? It is because the developers demand to FORCE crap players into every game mode insted of excluding them. Is it working to create a larger player base? No, it isn't. Instead, more utter crap players join every day and the best players always end up leaving when they finally get tired of playing with garbage players.

 

This company only cares about newb garbage players and forces it's better players to play with trash every single time.



BURN_Miner #11 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:24 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,240
  • Member since:
    02-21-2015

View PostRivertheRoyal, on 16 February 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

 

That feature was added so that good players have some hope when saddled with a hopeless team. Personally, it's what got me through the 15-10 range of ranks, since I would constantly end up at the top of the losing team. Without that, I would likely still be stuck at rank 12, or even at 15.   

 

View PostCapnCappy, on 16 February 2017 - 10:02 AM, said:

Have you seen someone get it yet?


 

I haven't.


 

And I've definitely seen players who were playing like they were "lose star farming". They suck so bad they usually come in the bottom.

 

While I will say that it's not a case of "every match" nor will I even try to say it happens "x" amount of times out of "y" games. I've posted about this last Season and knowing me, I provided a replay, but more recently I uploaded a replay in my post about the same thing.

 

The player had a 43% win ratio (now has a 44%) and is averaging 34k damage in a Gneisenau. He played so passively IE iirc fire wait for concealment with bow on near an island and even when we still had a chance to win, I pushed a cap because he wouldn't (despite being full health), in a DD/CA (with another DD behind us) I obviously died.

 

He had his BB in full reverse while I was pushing after I reviewed the replay and plug firing the 2 DD's and CA. In other words, spreading the damage around the ships to maximize the xp gains. After I died, he made no effort to focus any one target and continued spreading the damage until he died. Though before he died he gave everyone in team chat a nice "fu", verbatim. 

 

Even the other team acknowledge what he was doing and another player on that team and I were talking about the problem about the losing star. I truly find it hard to believe that people could maintain 5 ranks or be stuck there without it.Farming the star is easy enough given the fact people know how to play passively enough. 

 

What I find odd is the amount of people that keep coming forward about this and even some of the replays coming up, yet there are a few saying "it doesn't exist at all".


 

 

My Computer Setup: Linked @ Shipcomrade.com


RivertheRoyal #12 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:25 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,821
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View PostRounne, on 16 February 2017 - 12:23 PM, said:

 

The entire problem itself is "Ranked". The entire game mode is a sham because people who utterly suck are getting to rank one through simple spamming of games and yolo rush. This company simply refuses to offer a game mode that is based on SKILL. Why? It is because the developers demand to FORCE crap players into every game mode insted of excluding them. Is it working to create a larger player base? No, it isn't. Instead, more utter crap players join every day and the best players always end up leaving when they finally get tired of playing with garbage players.

 

This company only cares about newb garbage players and forces it's better players to play with trash every single time.

 

It is a F2P game, you know. Why would WG force players out of gamemodes for the sake of a few disgruntled people? That would just be silly. They have every right to be there, just the same as you.

Edited by RivertheRoyal, 16 February 2017 - 06:29 PM.


Hans_Rebka #13 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:27 PM

    Seaman

  • Members

  • 17
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostSoshi_Sone, on 16 February 2017 - 11:58 AM, said:

I get the feeling in some of my ranked matches that players are playing "not to lose" instead of "playing to win".  Or, more precisely, playing to ensure they are around long enough that, given the team loses, they won't lose a star.  This is creating its own game meta that I'm not sure is healthy for ranked.

 

I might suggest WG eliminate this feature in future ranked.  Then everyone will be "all in" for the win, instead of trying not to lose a star on a loss.

 

 

 

 

I've got a feeling if wargaming did that more people would just give up completely and suicide.



BURN_Miner #14 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:27 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,240
  • Member since:
    02-21-2015

View PostRounne, on 16 February 2017 - 10:23 AM, said:

 

The entire problem itself is "Ranked". The entire game mode is a sham because people who utterly suck are getting to rank one through simple spamming of games and yolo rush. This company simply refuses to offer a game mode that is based on SKILL. Why? It is because the developers demand to FORCE crap players into every game mode insted of excluding them. Is it working to create a larger player base? No, it isn't. Instead, more utter crap players join every day and the best players always end up leaving when they finally get tired of playing with garbage players.

 

This company only cares about newb garbage players and forces it's better players to play with trash every single time.

 

Oh, Rounne, you're back... WB..

 

If you have allowed a video game to "force" you to do anything, you have a much larger issue at hand. Even if you think a video game "forces" anyone to do anything, you have a much larger issue...

 

It's a video game...


 

 

My Computer Setup: Linked @ Shipcomrade.com


TheKrimzonDemon #15 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:29 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,886
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

View PostRounne, on 16 February 2017 - 01:23 PM, said:

 

The entire problem itself is "Ranked". The entire game mode is a sham because people who utterly suck are getting to rank one through simple spamming of games and yolo rush. This company simply refuses to offer a game mode that is based on SKILL. Why? It is because the developers demand to FORCE crap players into every game mode insted of excluding them. Is it working to create a larger player base? No, it isn't. Instead, more utter crap players join every day and the best players always end up leaving when they finally get tired of playing with garbage players.

 

This company only cares about newb garbage players and forces it's better players to play with trash every single time.

 

I see someone still thinks WG is the Devil, and I see that said someone is still composed almost entirely of salt.

I drive ships. That's right, drive. I do not sail them. They don't have sails.


Rounne #16 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:30 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 1,787
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostBURN_Miner, on 16 February 2017 - 06:27 PM, said:

 

Oh, Rounne, you're back... WB..

 

If you have allowed a video game to "force" you to do anything, you have a much larger issue at hand. Even if you think a video game "forces" anyone to do anything, you have a much larger issue...

 

It's a video game...

 

I'm always checking the site for the latest give away or mission. But I have finally managed to just focus on what I am doing and NOT what everyone else is doing. It makes my game play, and life, so much more fun.

Dr_Richtofen #17 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:33 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Beta Testers

  • 560
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostRounne, on 16 February 2017 - 01:30 PM, said:

 

But I have finally managed to just focus on what I am doing and NOT what everyone else is doing.

 

He says as he focuses on how other people play ranked.

Forum popcorn addict and Imperial Inquisitor

"Does he look like a heretic?"

Wildly using the Exterminatus button everywhere. Chaos daemons I watch: LWM, RivertheRoyal

 


TheKrimzonDemon #18 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:34 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,886
  • Member since:
    10-22-2015

View PostDr_Richtofen, on 16 February 2017 - 01:33 PM, said:

 

He says as he focuses on how other people play ranked.

 

Lol, Ikr? He's still who he was.

I drive ships. That's right, drive. I do not sail them. They don't have sails.


Rounne #19 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:34 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Beta Testers
  • In AlfaTesters

  • 1,787
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012

View PostTheKrimzonDemon, on 16 February 2017 - 06:29 PM, said:

 

I see someone still thinks WG is the Devil, and I see that said someone is still composed almost entirely of salt.

 

WOWS gave away the best Christmas event and halloween event of any game I have ever played. I have thanked this company many times. But I also am not afraid to call them out, like on the Alabama issue. I have always called them out for not allowing people to CHOOSE who they want to play with. This, despite the fact that almost every other game on the planet allows you to do this, pick your team in group content. Clan on clan battles in many different forms, or picked team play, drives most multiplayer games. And yet, this company apparenlty doesn't understand that picking who you get to play with makes it more fun. This from a company that supposedly wants to make its games more fun. It's assinine. 

Edited by Rounne, 16 February 2017 - 06:36 PM.


RivertheRoyal #20 Posted 16 February 2017 - 06:35 PM

    Lieutenant Commander

  • Members

  • 2,821
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

View PostBURN_Miner, on 16 February 2017 - 12:24 PM, said:

 

Spoiler

 

 

When I play ranked, I try and do as much as possible to help my team. Oftentimes, that involves doing as much damage as I can to one or two ships. And normally I end up at the top of the team list due to that. When my team loses, that prevents me from sliding back in rank. So, I greatly appreciate the mechanic, and it's protected my sanity so far. However, I do also think that there should be some way to ensure that the person not losing a star deserves that. Unfortunately, there's no good way to do that, unless we figure out a way to calculate how much a person contributed during a team effort.   






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users