Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

13 Neutral

About drunkenduncan

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

205 profile views
  1. Ranked is Broken

    Ive been trying to make the point the difficulty of reaching a rank can be adjusted by WG after removing the star thing. Reduce the total stars in the progression, and play with irrevocable ranks. A grind can be, on average, the same length with the save a star as without. The without would have less total stars for eg. Same average number of games for a given winrate to get to say rank 10 is doable. It does not have to be a longer grind without the save a star, that is up to WG. I will happily play this competitive mode to see where I stall. I have stalled prior seasons at rank 10, over that and my skill level is not sufficient to push a positive winrate for enough games to advance. Thats it. Too bad for drunkenduncan, he simply doesn't have the skill to advance, thats a sad story.... however the competitve mode put him where he belongs. If folks are engaged to get to rank 1 and they think they can (because misinformed chatter on the forums which suggests pure persistence will get them to rank 1, it will not) they will be deeply disappointed as they hit their own skill barrier. I will be happy and satisfied if I can make rank 10. I will play this interesting competitive mode 7v7 randoms and hope I have improved, see where it ends. I would just simply like for all my teammates to be focused on the win. Not personal xp or grinding a tirpitz captain, just the win. Because it is the ONLY way to advance, teamplay clean. It is NOT clean right now.
  2. Ranked is Broken

    This cant be serious. On average you are right but there are plenty of exceptions, plenty. In last years ranked I remember a match where a DD who did all the right things for the team, fighting to the end, spotting, smoking for the team, area denial with torp spreads etc, got somewhere near the bottom on a loss. XP calculation had no numbers to put on what was a fine performance, best in team I thought at the time. Your own personal stats show just this thing, moderate WTR rating but good to excellent winrates consistent over many ships and battles. You appear to play for wins first and foremost but the WTR rating system is not impressed. XP is like WTR, it is not some magic rating which sees all, it is just using numbers available on gameplay (damage, kills, spotting damage etc) in an arbitrary way to rank the players performance. Anyways it is folks perception that they MIGHT get that damn star which changes their gameplay, not the reality of how it is likely to play out. The best player who also played for the team is likely to save a star. However green and yellow players thought they might have a shot! at that star and for them it does change their gameplay, for eg they may bail on teamplay and start scheming how to grab a useless late cap on a loss before the loss was actually a thing.... or they move back to conserve health on a push (when they should have stuck in) and hope some late useless damage might get that star. It doesn't work most of the time but every so often they may be rewarded with a star, cementing what was bad teamplay. It is human nature, yourself (judging by your 'play to win' stats) excepted. I dont argue this point. My argument is that if the clean up guy thinks it might get him a star, then that is what will be executed. And if every 6th loss yields him a star then that is reinforcement to carry on. And people do. On this very forum are recent threads with folks discussing what ship and tactic is most likely to keep a star. My main point is that people being people means you have to herd them to the right mindset with the right incentives. Only incent what you want and let that play out. If you incent individual performance then that gets in the way of incenting teamplay, to a noticeable extent, on average, across the playerbase. WIth purples and blues not changing gameplay much at all, but some greens yellows and lower folding their gameplay around what are mostly hopeless attempts to game a star. Dont dangle the cheese over two different doors if you want the rats to go though one door only, the teamplay door.
  3. Ranked is Broken

    Ranked incentives can be changed to only incent teamplay, easy. Just remove incentives to individual play and strengthen rewards for teamplay, you get a clean system where everyone on your team is ONLY thinking about how the team can win. Because that is the only avenue to rewards. Pretty simple, however at least half of comments about ranked ask for more reward of individual performance. Leading to inevitably less focus on the team and more selfish play, on average. The star is one such individual incentive, keeping your own silver and xp gains is another. Both work against teamplay to greater or lesser extents.
  4. GL HF. No really I mean it.... a thing being tested in this mode is steadiness and good nerves. If you know up front that you will get swings in luck then you can calmly play your A game every game. If you dont see the big picture (100 games plus to have balanced 'team luck') then all the little swings will have you bouncing off the walls in rage and frustration, and attributing win streaks to your own skill, up and down up and down.... leading to poor play for some. Just relax, know its a grind, and get that A game every game, knowing that by 50 or 100 games it will all even out.
  5. Well they say it is competitive mode. No participation trophies worth much for competitive would be the rule I would hope.
  6. The numbers were just examples. You could lower the amount of total stars through all levels and add/remove irrevocables to get the desired 'grind'. It has to be a grind. Winrate is an on/off switch kind of statistic and bad or good luck (with team quality) will not even out for at least 100 battles. You make it too easy and good luck has mediocre or poor players at rank one, that is a bad outcome for a supposed competitive mode. Too hard and even great players couldn't make it in less than 200. WG has been playing with this since inception. My personal opinion is that the grind should be tough enough that only a hgh 50's win percent in ranked would get you to rank 1 in less than 150 games. With rank 1 then basically impossible to achieve for a bad player regardless of persistence. However that 'toughness' is a WG decision of course. To your question - I think a competitive mode should strive to only have the top players make the highest ranks. Other folks will stall at lower ranks based on their skill. Competitive means only a few winners. I may take another shot at ranked and expect my skill means less than rank 10 is not realistic, I will stall and start bouncing back and forth. Just means I no longer have the skill in the lower rank bracket to push games to wins, thats all. Competitive.
  7. You didn't read the post eh? You can play with total stars and irrevocable ranks to ease the grind, absolutely doable. You could set it up so that 100 games at say 55% winrate will on average rank out, or 200 games at 52%. Easy. Run some monte carlo simulations and get some average results, use clumpiness factors to game the variation. Not too hard and I am sure WG has already done similar repeatedly to guess the effect of irrevocable ranks and total number of needed stars.
  8. People always take it personal. On average folks gameplay changes with the star. I would think purple and blue players playstyle changes little if at all with the save a star, however greens and below are not good enough and have to game a 'save a star' strategy which will hurt their teamplay, on average. Greens in particular have a hope of getting a star but are not good enough to try and farm xp at the same time as they try to win. DDs dash off at the beginning of the game to hopefully grab an uncontested cap.... this can be OK but perhaps they should have stuck with the team and helped the most immediate needs? By the time they are back the game may already be lost or won. Some guy is working on his tirpitz captain and therefore could care less about winning, camping and getting good xp for such is just fine, meets his objectives for silver and captain xp, no need to win. Etc etc. We only have clan battles and sorta ranked as game modes where winning is the only incentive to play. Half of random players or scenarios players are going for 'be the first to spot a german BB', or 'grind that ship' etc etc. We could clean up ranked and make it win only as the only way to advance. In addition to leveling team benefits you could also play with the economy so that losing win records make no particular silver or xp, and winning records are rewarded handsomely. And control the grind number by playing with total stars and irrevocable ranks. Whatever, the concept is not popular. People do not agree that we need a game mode where the only objective is to win. They wish to be rewarded for personal achievement while the game mode is trying to promote teamplay. And the tug of war continues. It will be interesting to see what WG does as the two positions are not close. EDIT: I would love to play a game mode where the only thing in my mind when I start the game is 'how do we win', and I know my teammates are all thinking the same thing. No teammates who are thinking about how much xp and silver they can get, how to save that star, how to get more captain xp etc. Just clean, win and be rewarded, lose and no reward. Just teamplay and that alone.
  9. WG should clarify what the intent is with ranked. It is mostly 'ability to team with strangers and win games', but with the 'top loser keeps a star' mechanic it is also ' play to get most xp on your team'. These two are sorta mostly complementary but.... not really. The amount of discussion and chatter on the forums and sometimes in chat about that save a star is amazing. It is silly to think it does not affect gameplay on average, and to some extent it works against teamwork. Rules for ranked which entirely promote winning and teamplay: - drop the save a star thing - all on winning team get the same base xp and silver, losers get half that. - play with the total stars and irrevocable ranks to get to a doable grind. That would be clear. Only your ability to team with strangers and win games is being tested and asked by the system. Not your farming ability, or amazing individual prowess in this or that mechanic. You have warshipstoday and others to look at if your general skill is of interest. People hate just winrate because it cannot smooth out the ups and downs of 'bad team RNG' aka "I hate potatoes' until you are at like 100 battles, or more. That is just the nature of win/loss, there is no solution. Grind. Grind some more. Your 'bad team RNG' will even out and after the grind you will have a winrate and rank pretty congruent with that single question, can you team with randoms and win games? In this team based game. Hybrid scoring systems (save a star, or top 7 xp both teams, or top two save and bottom winner loses, etc etc etc) where individual performance as much as team wins gets you up the ladder promote unclear objectives and selfish play, of course. Some people pick ships and start games thinking about that star, this is clear from forums and sometimes chat. And it is only partially aligned with winning. Which is then like all other game venues except clan battles, in randoms scenarios and coop there is little need to play for the team to progress in the game. Lets get ranked clean, just wins.
  10. First of all I am not defending anything I am pointing out that these threads never seem to start with the objective for the venue. Some guy getting a star while afking is just part of the numbers. Because winrate is an on off switch there is only one 'datapoint' for each game. Bad luck with team quality over 10's of games can keep you from progressing, absolutely. It is inherent to the venue that it will be grindy and take 100 or more games to get the team RNG factor more or less out of a persons rank. More specifically that guy got carried one game. However ranked is about a hundred games. He is very unlikely to be continuously carried for 100 games plus to some high rank. It can happen and maybe already has but law of averages says usually not. Same for good players getting bad teams, given 100+ games most guys have the team luck average out. WG did this by deciding the progression was based on winrate. Because winrate is the only objective measure of teamplay. Talk to them. EDIT: if you think this answer is still deflecting then our brains just work differently. The difference would be that I am resigned to the fact that the venue needs a lot of games to average out 'bad team RNG", how winrate as a 'stat' HAS to work. And not using winrate means you have compromised the assessment of teamplay and are assessing something else. Think how in randoms people play for 'first to spot a german BB', or 'lots of damage', or 'just fun' and they can do very well. They get no feedback in silver xp or anything else that teamplay might be important, and wins. 46% winrate stops noone from getting to any tier or ship. This venue, and clan battles, are the ONLY venues for which teamplay is cleanly assessed with the only objective measure, winrate.
  11. You are not correct. The only objective measure of teamplay is team wins. All other measures (K/D, XP, damage etc) are only correlated. In the real world of gameplay some actions which lead to better overall stats are bad for teamplay, they contradict. If you can get up the ladder by playing selfishly for first loser keeps a star than that is what people do. And they are. There is at least as much discussion or mention of that damned first loser keeps a star as there is of how to win as a team, it is already mixed. Look my point is to start by understanding what is being assessed with the ranks. It is not 'best players' it is best 'team players'. Fiddle with the progression and the ranks mean something different than they do now.
  12. If you guys got what you wanted ranked would then be randoms with a time limit. In randoms you can play to win or you can play for other stuff, best in team, damage, kills etc. Both can be successful and they can contradict one another. WG set ranked up to measure teamplay ability, thats all. WGs vision of ranked: "The concept of ranked play is to identify the best team players. We could only think of one way to measure how good a team player you are, and that is how often your team wins. To keep it fair we are going to ensure everyone gets 6 other random teammates in all games. We are sorry that some bad luck with teams (potato team RNG) will make this pretty grindy, but we feel that generally the best team players will mostly rise to the top anyways given 100 games or maybe more. Yes and those who just persist will eventually get there, but if they are really a poor player it will take 500 games. There wont be so many of those." Are you a good team player? That is the question posed. There isn't any other one. Its diluted a bit now with the first loser keeps a star bit but that is where it started. So all of these endless threads over and over asking for some bizarre arrangement where individual performance counts about as much as team wins, well that would not be ranked. That would be random with a time limit as I mentioned above. Even playing for the first loser changes peoples gameplay and can and does go against teamplay, they contradict. Until clan battles ranked was the only format where teamplay was assessed directly. All variations on random and coop allow people to dabble in teamplay if they wish but they may be successful without concentrating on it. Ranked is clean, teamplay gets you up the ladder nothing else does. That was the point of it, the whole thing is based on that. They could clarify the rules to make is clear what is intended: 1. remove the first loser keeps a star thing 2. Everyone on the winning team gets the same score without exception, same for the losers. 3. Play with the safe ranks and add one or two to get the grind to a reasonable level. Maximizing individual performance in pursuit of first loser keeps a star has already impacted the clean 'teamplay' goal of ranked, people yak about that endlessly on the forums. Two seasons now I have watched my teams DDs compete like mad for first loser. People deny it changes their gameplay but that is nonsense. Add more stuff like damage, K/D, XP etc and it gets even more muddled, with teamplay second to individual play. Which is not the point of ranked. If you want a rank to mean something else you should start by deciding what a rank means. Right now it means your ability to play pickup games of WOWs with strangers and win. It doesn't rank what a generally good player you are in farming damage, killing things, scoring xp, capping. If you want the answer to that go open Warshipstoday and look at your stats. Ranked is about teamplay only. The point of the game is to win games. No venue outside of ranked (and finally clan battles) promotes teamplay only. If you want something different recognize you would get back something different, it would not be ranked.
  13. Frustration in Ranked

    If the competition changes to two questions being asked: 1. Who are good teamplayers? and then add 2. Who can do a lot of damage, and cap lots, and kill other ships? Then those two questions go against one another and the whole thing becomes jumbled. Just randoms with 7 players is all. Not comparable to prior rank seasons whatsoever. When just one element rewarding individual play was introduced the meta started to shift. We hear on the forums a LOT about that keep your star deal. Everyone denies it influences their game play but wow the chatter level about it! Quite high. And it contradicts the central question of how good a team player you are. If you add more individual elements then everyone starts to play more and more for those (despite vigorous denials, they cant help but, I would) and that can easily and commonly hurt teamplay (wins). Just like randoms, no need to win to get what you need (ranks in this case, xp silver, WTR in randoms). And when the season is over the guys at rank one cant really explain what it is they did better than anyone else. Teamplay sorta but wow that guy racks up the WTR etc. Just like randoms really. I understand people hate the grind but it is the ONLY (and imperfect) way to keep the question clean and just promote teamplay. Just that, teamplay in this team based game where it was until clan battles the ONLY venue that did that. They could clarify ranked by: 1. Everyone on the winning team gets the same xp silver etc. No exceptions. Pretty good return if you win though. Same for the losers. 2. First loser keeps a star disappears 3. fiddle with and increase the resting stages in the progression to ease the grind. But not too much. Hey, its imperfect, you are subject to potato team RNG and that means grindy. There is no other objective way to measure teamplay ability cleanly, just is not. Adding anything else also means there is no longer a measure of teamplay but just some strange hybrid good damage kills and sorta teamplay........ It is (now) distinguished from clan battles mainly by the question being how you do in random pickup teams, not settled teams. Different set of skills you would agree. But for a very long time it was the only venue cleanly assessing teamplay where all other venues of coop random allowed a disregard for teamplay and success anyways.
  14. Frustration in Ranked

    I should clarify. What I have been saying is not what I wish ranked was, it is describing WGs vision of it. Try this: The concept of ranked play is to identify the best team players. We could only think of one way to measure how good a team player you are, and that is how often your team wins. To keep it fair we are going to ensure everyone gets 6 other random teammates in all games. We are sorry that some bad luck with teams (potato team RNG) will make this pretty grindy, but we feel that generally the best team players will mostly rise to the top anyways given 100 games or maybe more. Yes and those who just persist will eventually get there, but if they are really a poor player it will take 500 games. There wont be so many of those. Are you a good team player? That is the question posed. There isn't any other one. Its diluted a bit now with the first keeps a star bit but that is where it started.
  15. Frustration in Ranked

    I dont believe you have that correct. It is about your ability to work with random teams to support team wins. The only thing individual about this is that all players have exactly the same parameters to start with, that is, 6 other random teammates. There can be no divisions or it would cease being individual and just be randoms with 7 players. No the only thing that counts is team wins. How can you as an individual work with random teams to achieve a winrate? Thats all. No divisions, no WTR or K/D, just wins and losses. I like that it is a venue which promotes teamplay above all. Why the top loser keeps a star has diluted the essence of the competition, that promotes farming uselessly after staying alive (for some) in the hope of keeping the star. WG should never have added that IMO.