I've got to R5 yesterday from R23 (first season of Ranked I've been able to play) in 100 games (+/- 5?). Today I'm back at 7.3, a net loss of 5 stars, in something like 20 ranked games played. I was at about a 64% WR and now I seem to be reverting to the mean in what could only be described as the most monumental frustration I've had with the game yet. Removing save-a-star might help remove some of the incredibly selfish play that the game seems to devolve into once 3 mins in, somebody thinks the game is lost because a pink shima takes a torp sitting broadside in a cap... I've done decent during ranked games, typically finishing 2-4 on team, but I'm certainly not one that consistently carries teams, at least I'm not saving my star 14% of the time, it seems. I doubt it would significantly add to the grind of ranking out. A few more games sure, but not something obscene. I'd rather see something like moving a couple of the irrevocable ranks around (I like the 12 to prevent people from getting to 10 and mailing it in), but I would much rather see one at 5 as well (and not just because it's where I got to before the freefall began). It's the premiere league or whatever, and it shifts from 4 to 5 stars to advance. Not having to go back to the 4 star ones makes sense to me, at least. YMMV. I'm curious if doing it like clan battles where winning teams and losing teams all get the same base XP would do anything towards eliminating some of the selfish play?
To the OP, Mine has been the stark difference I have noticed (at least recently, it might have been going on for a while) between the mid-morning-afternoon and the evening sessions I'm usually able to play. Consistently I have good mornings in terms of wins/losses (8-1, 10-3, etc with BXP in the 14-1600 range). The evenings are a bleep show. Absolute dumpster fires with multiple nights of few, if any, wins (0-5, 0-6, 1-3). Tonight, decided to take gander at player profiles on both teams. On my teams in the losses at night: in 6 games, 6 of them I had at least half players at <45% WR. In two games I had 8 and 9 such players. In 3 games I was the 'best' player according to things like WR and XP, based on player profile (not game performance per se). I am average, at best, over my WoWs career of 1K games. In four of the six games, the other side had a predominant mix of average players, with an occasional 45% player or two thrown in. In one of the remaining two games, we were playing against a division of unicum players. No worries about losing that one. What I don't understand for the life of me is when 2 divisions of unicum players are put on the same team against 12 randoms, 9 of whom could be charitably described as awful. How is it possible that MM can't take into account divisions and split them onto opposing teams. Again, there was NOT a division already on our team; it was 12, single, random players. /rant off.