A suggestion

[Kraken1940]

I would like to make a suggestion, that might help solo players like myself have a better gaming experience.

I'm sure everyone here has suffered the pain of receiving potato teams time after time, thus losing, despite giving it your all and ending up being the top scorer on the losing team.

I find it quite frustrating to win on one flank, only to look to the other flank to see that the team has melted.

My suggestion is this. If you are the top scorer on the losing team, the game does not count as a loss. Of course it doesn't count as a win either, but simply that it doesn't count.

I believe that this is the only way to keep solo players interested in WOWs in the long run.

[Sovereigndawg]

They do that in ranked season and I think it sucks, because everyone plays to get first place and not as a team. You would think it would make everyone be more aggressive but it has a different effect.  Most of my games are solo and it doesn't bother me when I lose, but then I am not really a stat padding kind of player, at least not on the NA server. I try a bit harder for the stats on the EU server, I don't spend money over there and know which ship lines that I like and do better in, so I try for better stats over there. The best loser reward, is not good for the game in my opinion. If they removed it from ranked battle barely anyone would make rank 1 though. Mostly because the ranked system is broken so it needs this crutch.

If they made it so that only 2 tiers saw each other in battle at a time it would solve a lot of the lop sided battles or if they quit the tier 3 and 4 experiment and made the mm the same from tier 2 thru 10 it could help.

[Kraken1940]

But this is not for ranked. It is to make up for your efforts trying to carry potatoes.

So being the highest scorer in the losing team, means your win rate doesn't get affected.

As it is, I get one game like that and then it's [edited] it, let's play something else, where I do not get penalized for playing well.

[Sovereigndawg]

18 minutes ago, Kraken1940 said:

But this is not for ranked. It is to make up for your efforts trying to carry potatoes.

So being the highest scorer in the losing team, means your win rate doesn't get affected.

As it is, I get one game like that and then it's [edited] it, let's play something else, where I do not get penalized for playing well.

I feel your pain, really I do. I think it has more to do with the match maker making uneven matches than any thing else.  If things were more even, then 1 or 2 better players might be better able to carry a battle. Then again if the match maker was perfect every one would be closer to the 50% mark than they are now. More and different battle mode choices would be grand. Such as different amounts of ships in battles instead of 12 on a team every stinking time. Single player missions would be nice for a change of pace. Showdown would be cool too, they could call the Mode "High Noon".

Rewarding the best loser just sounds too much like every one gets a participation trophy.

https://streamable.com/m8sb

 

[Crucis]

I also don't like the idea of the top scoring player getting this treatment.  But my reasoning is a little more subtle.  The problem is that saying "top scoring player" does not reflect whether that player did well or not.  It may only reflect that the top scoring player didn't suck quite as much as everyone else on the team.  And frankly, the least sucky player should be rewarded for being less bad than everyone else.  Now, if a player earns one of the epic level awards, like Confederate, or Kraken, or High Caliber, etc., then perhaps reward him with XP and  credits commensurate with a win, but don't call it a win in his record.  Because when all's said and done, I've seen many a player who had what appears to be an outstanding game in a loss, but the reality was that the battle was all but over and he was just farming lots and lots of damage that simply made his performance LOOK great, but he may not have really contributed in any real way to his team's efforts when the battle was still in doubt.  In short, racking up great damage numbers and kills during garbage time doesn't mean you were helping the team when it really counted.

[Crucis]

49 minutes ago, Sovereigndawg said:

I feel your pain, really I do. I think it has more to do with the match maker making uneven matches than any thing else.  If things were more even, then 1 or 2 better players might be better able to carry a battle. Then again if the match maker was perfect every one would be closer to the 50% mark than they are now. More and different battle mode choices would be grand. Such as different amounts of ships in battles instead of 12 on a team every stinking time. Single player missions would be nice for a change of pace. Showdown would be cool too, they could call the Mode "High Noon".

Rewarding the best loser just sounds too much like every one gets a participation trophy.

https://streamable.com/m8sb

 

"More and different" battle modes would be wonderful.  OTOH, players are too damned picky about this sort of thing.  For god sakes, Epicenter is a perfectly decent game mode (except on the Tears of the Desert map with the current spawn locations) and people complain about it constantly with no logical reasons, only irrational whinings.

I actually suggested a different battle mode a while back.  Let me describe it for you. Think of the clan battles Hotspot map.  have the A and B caps be normal domination mode bases.  Then have the C cap either be a standard mode cap or have it be sort of like a standard mode cap, but it only gives something like 500 or so domination points when you take it.  And the two teams spawn where they do in clan battles.  Taking "C" would be extremely important, though not entirely the end all and be all. (I don't remember all the details I wrote up and it was from a few months back in Pigeon's big feedback and suggestions thread.)

Another mode I'd suggest is a return to the old Encounter mode, but with domination points like in Standard mode.  But also, rather than always putting the single Encounter mode cap directly between the two teams' spawns, sometimes put the two spawns on one side of the map (like NW/NE or NW/SW, etc.) and the single Encounter cap on the opposite side of the map.  And the goals would be to either destroy the enemy team (as normal) or capture the Encounter cap with the battle ending immediately (like in Standard mode).  or, what the heck, maybe it's just a single Domination cap where you gain points as long as you control it, but with no instant victory.  Maybe there could be "Standard Encounter" and "Domination Encounter", where the first was insta-win for capping the base, while the latter was more like domination mode.

And here's a  variation on a theme.  Remember those two port maps in the Operations?  Well, how about using them for the Encounter battles where the base is inside the innermost harbor, and the spawns are outside of the harbor and as far apart as possible?    This would allow for a port related battle without requiring it to be some form of assault/defense mode.

 

 

As for the idea of imbalanced teams, that one's a LOT trickier.  I suppose it could be done where in this way.  Assume a tier 10 battle, for argument's sake.  Now assume two evenly balanced teams of 12v12.  Now, replace some of the ships on team B with lesser tier ships.  I have no idea of a proper ratio.  But maybe replace 2 tier 8 ships with 3 tier 7 ships?  Or possibly on the flip side, replace 2 tier 8 ships with 1 tier 9 ship?  The problem here is that I have no idea of the proper ratio here.  There'd also be the question of relative value in ship types when doing this sort of mixing and matching.

Beyond that, say that you're on the larger team, given all the whining and kvetching about +/-2 tier MM, would you really want to be on a tier 7 ship in a tier 10 battle, even if you were on the larger team?  I suspect a lot of people would whine about it like crazy. Honestly, I don't think that this would be such a great idea for this very reason.

Now, having said that, a slightly similar idea that might fly could be smaller, but still numerically balanced teams.  Say, 8v8 or 7v7.  And just to make it a little different, perhaps those smaller teams could be reduced to tier +/-1 tier MM.

 

And here's some related small team ideas.  These could also all be +/-1 tier MM,  for yucks.

1) Carrier battles:  Maybe have each smaller team be a team of a carrier, and some cruisers and destroyers, but no BB's.

2) Cruiser battles: Maybe have each smaller team be a team of nothing but cruisers and destroyers.

And what the heck...

3) Maybe have each smaller team look like a clan battles line up with a single BB, being escorted by a number of cruisers and DD's.

 

 

 

 

[StableGenius]

People who actually carried the team will get a Good and standard amount of exp and credits. If you really carry the team, you will get 1300+ exp and around 300k credits (Thats what I get in tier 10) Keep in mind; don’t know the exact numbers

[Grevester]

Yeah, the soft fragile people of today need more consolation prizes to keep from falling apart.

You want to win? Play well.

Want to win more? Play even better.

Still not enough? Play with equally skilled friends.

Stop asking for pats on the head.

[Quaffer]

Your experience is earned through your actions. The more you do the more experience you get. That is sufficient.

The winning team gets a bonus. That is a nice feature of the game.

This obsession with statistics is droll.

If you want your wins to increase, work on achieving the objectives that bring victory instead of experience.

Feel free to take a screen shot of your top scorer position to show and tell.

[RipNuN2]

You win as a team and you lose as a team.  In ranked you would often find players playing to get the top score rather than focusing on doing the actions that lead to the greatest chance of victory.  We don't need that same nonsense in randoms.

[Crucis]

1 hour ago, RipNuN2 said:

You win as a team and you lose as a team.  In ranked you would often find players playing to get the top score rather than focusing on doing the actions that lead to the greatest chance of victory.  We don't need that same nonsense in randoms.

After all, there's absolutely no nonsense already in randoms.  Oh, wait.... there is?  Never mind.  

 

[Murcc]

We don't want any more farming of damage in Randoms that there is now.  If a player is average, he will achieve a 50% win rate in the long run.  If he is above average, he will achieve a greater than 50% win rate.  So, if a player is consistently at the top of a losing team, then they should be contributing more than average and the long range win rate should reflect this.  If the win rate is still below 50% for the overall average, then perhaps it is just farming damage that is getting them to the top of a losing effort.

[Skpstr]

5 hours ago, Kraken1940 said:

But this is not for ranked. It is to make up for your efforts trying to carry potatoes.

So being the highest scorer in the losing team, means your win rate doesn't get affected.

As it is, I get one game like that and then it's [edited] it, let's play something else, where I do not get penalized for playing well.

Thing is though, being the top loser doesn't necessarily mean squat.

It could just be that you're the one-eyed man in the land of the blind. A 700XP game that puts you on top, while only the AFK ship on the winning team scored less, entitles you to nothing.

Also, as far as winrate, only wins count. Anything other than a win isn't a stat. You would have to give the top loser a win for the team's loss to not negatively affect your winrate, and that's not happening.

And yeah, this is a game that penalises you for factors beyond your control. I don't care about that, I'm here to play warship battles, not to play stats.

What you suggest changes nothing about a match, other than if you're the top loser, nobody else will know. That's literally playing stats, not warship battles.

[Skpstr]

2 hours ago, Pulicat said:

Yeah, the soft fragile people of today need more consolation prizes to keep from falling apart.

You want to win? Play well.

Want to win more? Play even better.

Still not enough? Play with equally skilled friends.

Stop asking for pats on the head.

Agreed. If I play well and lose, playing well IS the consolation prize.

OP's main concern isn't gameplay, he just wants other people to think he wins more than he does.

[Kraken1940]

On 12/19/2017 at 1:34 PM, Pulicat said:

Yeah, the soft fragile people of today need more consolation prizes to keep from falling apart.

You want to win? Play well.

Want to win more? Play even better.

Still not enough? Play with equally skilled friends.

Stop asking for pats on the head.

It does not have anything to do with fragility.

It just sucks when you carry the team and still lose.

[Kraken1940]

I don't think I play badly at all.

[Skpstr]

6 minutes ago, Kraken1940 said:

It does not have anything to do with fragility.

It just sucks when you carry the team and still lose.

The suggestion wouldn't change anything.

Nobody gets losses now. Only wins are counted. So whether you get a "loss", or just don't get a win, it's the same thing as far as the stats go.

Only getting wins improves your win rate. Anything else decreases it.

Also, everybody gets affected by bad teams and failure to carry. All that would happen if WRs of those who couldn't quite carry were to increase, is that 65% would be the new unicum level.

[Skpstr]

3 minutes ago, Kraken1940 said:

I don't think I play badly at all.

Me neither, so what's the issue?

[Kraken1940]

5 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

The suggestion wouldn't change anything.

Nobody gets losses now. Only wins are counted. So whether you get a "loss", or just don't get a win, it's the same thing as far as the stats go.

Only getting wins improves your win rate. Anything else decreases it.

Also, everybody gets affected by bad teams and failure to carry. All that would happen if WRs of those who couldn't quite carry were to increase, is that 65% would be the new unicum level.

Point taken, but it is gutting to have a run of bad luck of like 5 losses in a row, where you are always the best loser.