Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

  • Clan


Community Reputation

18 Neutral

About drunkenduncan

  • Rank
    Petty Officer
  • Insignia

Recent Profile Visitors

360 profile views
  1. Notser: Fix XP (ranked)

    I want the clan rules applied to random 7v7 yes. I would be interested to see what would fall out. I agree it would be unlikely to result in superb gameplay. But at least at start of each game all players have only one objective, winning in this team game. Which is what it is. Competitive in a team game must be based on wins, whether random or clan. Its a team game. Go look your stats in warshipstoday if you like your shooting prowess.... LOL BTW on reflection you're right that most good players support the save a star, makes sense on average, sure. However many havent reflected its impact on meta and ship selection, strategy etc in the larger sense either. Some good players are contesting either the form or the existence of the save a star mechanic eg this thread.
  2. Notser: Fix XP (ranked)

    I know that, who doesn't. I state it that way so people react, which you did. During that reaction they may ponder, or bump into, the reality that only very very hard working and very lucky potatoes rank out. Ranked actually selects through process good players (almost) exclusively. To get your goat I should have removed the 'almost' from the last sentence eh? heh heh heh... Only reason you would ask the first question is you already know.... so the question suggests you think anything I say regarding 'ranked' and/or 'persistence' is invalid due to low game count. That about right? Brother.......
  3. Notser: Fix XP (ranked)

    I would just like a random battle mode where the only way to advance is team wins. Thats pretty simple, both in incentive and structure. Complicated both in incentive and structure is stuff like top 2 on losing get.... and top three on winners get.... and all winners get.... and bottom winner gets..... and xp is biased towards dmg, or kills, or is it capping? thats complicated. Dont cohfuse different ideas about teamplay from whether the mode incents it or not. We have no idea how ranked would feel if xp was flat across teams and only winning got you up the line. It would change the meta starting with ship choice. And once again dont be so sure the folks against the star (close to half im guessing) are bad players. That would require real data and the answer would probably be ambiguous. Anyways I have expressed my view ad nauseum so thats it for me.
  4. Notser: Fix XP (ranked)

    Teamplay can be incented. Or disincented. Never mind that folks disagree what it looks like, this good teamplay thing. You can have a (semi) competitive mode where ONLY teamplay is incented and the grind is the same. You wouldn't like that? Grind can be the same without the star, yes it is quite easily possible. WG could do it if they wanted. Use simulations to figure how to reduce total stars and play with irrevocable ranks, it can be done. I could do it in maybe a week of pretty good effort. The proposal you like just above (the plus 1) is yet another push to further disincent teamplay and incent individual play. So the basics are that folks disagree what ranked even is, or was designed for. Some folks even believe that raw persistence will 'get you there, it will not. And folks take losses and assign them to bad luck and all their wins go in their personal skill column. So the only feeling left is anger at the bad luck since they only won because of skill and always lost due to bad luck... sheesh it seems the mode is doomed. WG should clarify their intent and then change the rules to incent the intent, if you see what I mean. They have not done so leaving enormous interpretation possible eg our different views.
  5. Notser: Fix XP (ranked)

    I save stars more than 1 in 7 so better than random and I am firmly against the stars. How do you know people are against because they cant get them. You dont, it just sounds good.. Perhaps some view ranked as an individual competition but the contest is how to help random teams win? Not like you say whatsoever. Anyways the save a star goes against teamplay, on average, that is clear. Didn't say you. On average. And the star could be removed and the total stars reduced and play with irrevocable ranks, you could still get your 159 to rank one difficulty without the save a star. However perhaps you have given up on teamplay in this mode. I haven't, and dont like actual disincentives to teamplay which the save a star is.
  6. Catharsis III: Not Enough for Notser

    Yes. One of my (3) ranked games this season looked a loss until I and the remainder of my team buckled down and played to win. The other team made mistakes and we won (by a hair, very exciting game). Had our remaining players started gaming the star thingy I believe we would have lost as we needed cap control not dmg or kills.
  7. Ranked Binomials

    K i see. Do you see how my approach would account for timing of wins losses, where the irrevocables are, and team luck (number of good vs bad teams over the sample of say 200)? Lotta work though not suggesting. Thks for the work it does provide a good baseline.
  8. Catharsis III: Not Enough for Notser

    You're never going to get an xp 'formula' which doesn't push against teamplay, or reward one class or playstyle more than another, is simply NOT going to happen. Other posters have pointed out there is no way to reward all the aspects of teamplay that lead to victory. So the save a star is always going to push against teamplay to greater or lesser degrees. Never going to change until the save a star is dropped and replaced with less total stars and perhaps more irrevocable ranks. Only unicums can successfully save a star at the same time not compromising their teamplay, for the rest of us our efforts change the meta. Of course people start gaming save a star, why not? It is the correct approach to ranked play. And it effects the meta, of course. This endless debate over how to game the star and how does xp work in all of that is proof positive. Saving a star is very important to progression. And is against teamplay to greater or lesser degrees. And pushes ship choice. Folks bail on the win after looking at the lineup in some cases. You want clean ranked? Winning is the only means of progression, and even personal benefits from xp are smoothed (as in clan battles). Then decrease total stars and play with irrevocable ranks to make the grind to rank one about the same. Thats it, no more threads, noone ever thinking how to get that star, ALL attention paid to winning as a team...... I find myself influenced by those stars and I am against them in principle. But of course you need to progress.... the current system means you are a fool not play for your star.
  9. Notser: Fix XP (ranked)

    All this debate over xp and therefore star saving..... ugghh. To those stupid saved stars.... begone! I still find it amazing some folks claim it has minimal impact on teamplay. Id go even further (after deleting the save a star thing) and introduce clan battles xp and cash (before flags camo of course). Ranked is how well you as an individual can play with random teammates to win games. Not how well you can pick the right ship and farm this or that..... to save a star... it just really complicates things and has a large effect on the meta, witness this thread and dozen others where the 'save a star' has prominence throughout the threads. Only for really good players can saving a star be compatible with pretty much full on selfless directed teamplay. The rest of us plebes cant chase stars and help win at the same time. We sorta can but not really... it just flat pushes against selfless teamplay. And this thread shows the xp the star save is based on is pretty hopeless at reflecting teamplay but is absolutely capable of being gamed for saving a star. Several threads and videos to explain how.... of course it effects the meta and why when you can just reduce total required stars and play with irrevocable ranks to keep the grind THE SAME. K rant over do it every year.
  10. Ranked Binomials

    What was your methodology? A good process would be a sort of montecarlo where successive 'players' (observations) are obtained by running up through the ranks with the rules and a winrate, applied randomly to each step. Or something like that, anyways, to obtain the luck effect of timing of wins and losses and star saving, where eg some good runs of losses right after irrevocable can be followed by strings of victories to the next irrevocable and so forth. A large number of runs would give a very real picture of how it will work for real people, and a range, where eg "90% of players with a 55% winrate will rank out between 260 and 380 games". Of course the real operational picture includes another statement eg "Due to luck with the number of good and bad teams, a player of a real 55% skill at ranked will have a winrate in a 200 game sample of between 53 and 57". Which is where the luck in team quality comes in. So two soundbites...... Sounds like a lot of work not volunteering but perhaps this is the process or similar? Just curious, zen like calm in ranked requires both steady nerves and a good understanding of luck, a montecarlo provides a pretty real look at it although missing changing winrate as progression as another poster pointed out. A ranked player needs to get luck in perspective, learn how to stop assigning losses to bad luck and wins to skill, which leads to a lot of rank ranked negativity. All that bad luck I am having! And so on. I dunno seems pretty hard to derive a soundbite to show what lucks actual effect is. Especially when a significant portion of players believe you can be carried to rank one, it is after all, mostly luck.....
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Well they say it is competitive mode. No participation trophies worth much for competitive would be the rule I would hope.