• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles


Community Reputation

35 Neutral

About rabidrabit

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday
  • Portal profile rabidrabit
  1. Extra salt for Ranked?
  2. Last season they changed the rules from a container for everyone on the winning team to a container for the top two players on the winning team. Quite predictably, not a single game was played after the change. Following the lessons learned from that horrible train wreck of a failure. They kept doing the same thing this season.
  3. Why would you chose it over a Fubuki? You give up 33% of your torp fire power less gun range a bit of speed in exchange for a couple hundred yards of spotting advantage over the Fubuki. Not sure I see the upside. Congrats on finishing the rat race. I'm still half hearted at it with my Fubuki but at rank 5 with a 60.7% win rate and avg damage of 33k.
  4. It's not a bug, it's a feature! Ya, crashing has happened a bunch to me too.
  5. Agreed.
  6. I agree with your points so I'm not sure how I don't understand. You seem to be arguing one point with another which we agree on. The part you are ignoring is luck certainly has a substantial role in short and mid term win/loss rates. I'm saying that individual performance should matter more than it does now . That is the point of my initial post.
  7. I have been in a number of games in a row where we are down 3 in the first few minutes. In the short and even medium term, luck of the draw absolutely does matter. In the long term your performance shows through. I agree that weeding out poor players more efficiently will reduce everyones win rate in the lower ranks as the battles become more competitive. Shouldn't that be a proper and natural result of being more competitive? I'm not sure why that would be a negative issue.
  8. One fundamental problem with Ranked is that it has individual based rewards but is highly dependent on luck of the draw on the short and even medium term. One small example, in the first 35 games this season I was at a 42% win rate but was still up one star due to being on top of the losing team enough to hang in there. In the second season, I was at a 32% win rate about a 130 battles in but then returned to a ~60% win rate to sail on through and rank out with a final 48% total win rate. I actually was at a slightly lower average exp on the second half than the first so it was not my performance that led to those results. The point being that even with the top player not losing a star this individual achievement is extremely dependent on luck of the draw and this more than any other issue is the greatest cause of frustration and saltyness. You would considerably reduce the saltyness of ranked by having irrevocables be less so at the higher ranks so less fail their way to sub rank 15 but put in at least one more irrevocable at rank 5. Simplest yet is have each league be irrevocable. Super long losing streaks at least have a hard stop until your luck turns around. Furthermore, getting to each league and it's respective flag would have more significance as a goal. Second, while winning should be very consequential, so should your performance within the team. You can't control who is on your side but you can control your own output. If you are at the bottom of the winning team did you carry your own weight or did you get lucky enough to get carried? If you are on top of the losing team you did your job despite losing. My suggestion is to reward individual performance to reduce the positive and negative results of luck. The bottom two on the winning side should not get a star. Give a star to the top performing member of the losing side and the second and third placed members of the losing side don't lose a star. This will keep winning very important yet reward consistently strong team players. Overall, it will filter out the poor players in the lower ranks and make for very competitive low rank battles.
  9. What would possibly cause you to think they were listening over the last few years?
  10. It's more luck than skill as even the most skilled can barely hold even during a bad run of losses. You can only influence your long term win rate not short and since advancement is extremely heavily weighted to winning over skill luck is the short and mid term determinant of success.. However, you need consistent skill to finally get there, or, incredibly consistent luck.
  11. As it's currently structured, you have to grind through ranks. For example, in this season so far, I have a 44% win rate but am still a star ahead of where I started. Sooner or later I'll start averaging back in the other direction and will probably end up back where I'm normally at with around a 54% win rate in ranked. For some reason my BBs hate me as I'm at a 18% win rate with average damage sitting at 71k per battle. moving forward in ranked battles is a lot more about the luck of the draw for sides than what you can do yourself. This fundamental truth is why there needs to be much fewer irrevocably ranks in the higher levels and a couple more at the lower levels so so many don't quit in frustration after a major losing streak that has nothing to do with their performance.
  12. Ranked battles are about grinding through the ranks until you get to rank 1. You can only influence the outcome a few percentage over the long term since you are rewarded for a win rather than your individual performance.
  13. There should be a team based version of ranked using clans. At least there will be some use for clans. The fundamental problem with ranked now is you are almost entirely dependent on the randomly selected members of your side for advancement instead of your individual achievement.
  14. If you say so, by all means feel free to back up your opinions. Can you show where they said that? I'm pretty sure they said the opposite. Are you actually saying that winning alone should be the sole determinant of advancing? If so, even WOW saw the light and made that change. The individual can influence the side but by no means can they determine the outcome. You can't fix stupid and that's the primary complaint in ranked. Too many get positively or negatively influenced by luck of the draw. I fully agree doing your job is about winning. Thus , my proposal heavily favors the winning side but does a lot to help those who consistently perform advance and penalize those who consistently do not. You are arguing against a point I'm not even making.