Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
AlcatrazNC

For the next ranked how about....

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

407
[WOLFB]
Members
1,722 posts
8,237 battles

Earning 1 star if you lose but you're top of your team ?

 

Personally I have a lot of free time compared to other ranked season so I can play more rank game but this season is just frustrating. I'll not make a list of what happens since there are several topic about that but I think WG should gives you 1 star if you lose but you're top of your team.

 

My big frustration is that i'm currently stuck at R15, not able to move up since I don't earn any star or lose one. IMO I think we should have system pretty much like this :

 

-You lose a game but you're top of your team : +1 star

-You lose a game and you're not top of your team : -1 star

-You win game and your top of your team : +2 stars

-You win game but you're not top of your team: +1 star.

 

This way if you win you rank up, but if you lose you're not stuck at one place just because your team decided to throw the game away. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,201 posts
8,185 battles

Better idea:  Do away entirely with rewards for any specific member on the losing team.  They are a huge source of the toxicity and selfishness that makes Ranked mode obnoxious to play.  As soon as it looks like the team might lose, many players just throw their team away and hope they all die as quickly as possible so they can't compete for the saved star.  This makes ranked more aggravating to play, not less.

 

If they instead made it something like "If the losing team manages to sink at least 5 members of the winning team then nobody loses a star" it would encourage team play instead of actively hoping your teammates fail as soon as a game starts going south so you can be the one to save a star.

Edited by Vaidency
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,278 posts
4,107 battles
1 minute ago, Vaidency said:

Better idea:  Do away entirely with rewards for anyone on the losing team.  They are a huge source of the toxicity and selfishness that makes Ranked mode obnoxious to play.  As soon as it looks like the team might lose, many players just throw their team away and hope they all die as quickly as possible so they can't compete for the saved star.  This makes ranked more aggravating to play, not less.

This I might even added the bottom xp earner on the winning team not gain a star.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,786
[SALVO]
Members
17,036 posts
17,659 battles
14 minutes ago, Vaidency said:

Better idea:  Do away entirely with rewards for any specific member on the losing team.  They are a huge source of the toxicity and selfishness that makes Ranked mode obnoxious to play.  As soon as it looks like the team might lose, many players just throw their team away and hope they all die as quickly as possible so they can't compete for the saved star.  This makes ranked more aggravating to play, not less.

 

If they instead made it something like "If the losing team manages to sink at least 5 members of the winning team then nobody loses a star" it would encourage team play instead of actively hoping your teammates fail as soon as a game starts going south so you can be the one to save a star.

I don't know what game you're playing because I never see this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
407
[WOLFB]
Members
1,722 posts
8,237 battles
16 minutes ago, Vaidency said:

Better idea:  Do away entirely with rewards for anyone on the losing team.  They are a huge source of the toxicity and selfishness that makes Ranked mode obnoxious to play.  As soon as it looks like the team might lose, many players just throw their team away and hope they all die as quickly as possible so they can't compete for the saved star.  This makes ranked more aggravating to play, not less.

 

As a DD I have to cap and spot. I'm doing my job and it worked pretty well for me.

 

BB and CA have to support me while i'm capping. They decide to hide behind a single island . We lose, nothing special here but I am penalized not because I'm doing doing my job but because my team decided to not do their job ?

 

Sounds not encouraging to play ranked . When I play ranked, I always expect more team play than in random (even though we are all random put together in a match called "ranked" ). It's 7 vs 7 so I communication should be pretty easy. Yet it's not the case, sometime these ranked are worst than random 

Edited by AlcatrazNC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,786
[SALVO]
Members
17,036 posts
17,659 battles
20 minutes ago, AlcatrazNC said:

Earning 1 star if you lose but you're top of your team ?

 

Personally I have a lot of free time compared to other ranked season so I can play more rank game but this season is just frustrating. I'll not make a list of what happens since there are several topic about that but I think WG should gives you 1 star if you lose but you're top of your team.

 

My big frustration is that i'm currently stuck at R15, not able to move up since I don't earn any star or lose one. IMO I think we should have system pretty much like this :

 

-You lose a game but you're top of your team : +1 star

-You lose a game and you're not top of your team : -1 star

-You win game and your top of your team : +2 stars

-You win game but you're not top of your team: +1 star.

 

This way if you win you rank up, but if you lose you're not stuck at one place just because your team decided to throw the game away. 

 

This has been my suggestion.

 

After the battle, group all 14 players together and split them into 2 groups, A and B.  Group A will be the top 7 base XP earners, group B will be the bottom base XP earners.

Then give everyone in group A +1 star.  And give everyone in group B -1 star.  

Winning and losing still matters here, because base XP factors in whether or not you won or lost.  And in all likelihood, usually at least 6 players on the winning team would be in the top 7.  And furthermore, any player who managed to earn enough base XP to get into the top 7 in spite of losing pretty much had to have had a very good game, and deserves to get a star.

What this system would encourage is playing well AND playing to win, because just being along for the ride on a winning team would be no guarantee of getting a star.  And doing something stupid early in a battle because you think it's some special sacrifice would likely only result in a lost star, and rightly so.

Given that winning is factored in, the great majority of players on the winning team wouldn't need to play super to  crack the top 7.  Just playing reasonably well and making positive contributions to a win would most likely get you enough base XP to crack into the top 7.  However, that same level of effort wouldn't be enough to  crack the top 7 if you lost.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
6,908 posts
7,508 battles

I've now been at rank 15 for 21 rounds. The teams are horrible, and the stat tool shows the MM is placing the higher WR on one team, the lower WR players on the other. The length of time in the queue, when there's 50 players showing, also proves it, the MM is waiting until it can fill one team with great players, and one team with average to bad players.

 

I'm a MUCH better player than I was, but you'd never know it this season. This is the worst played, most frustrating time I've had in this game, and I'm done wasting my time and wrecking my nerves, and resisting throwing things, because WG has rigged it.

 

Considering where WG is, it should surprise no-one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,891
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,725 posts
7,682 battles

Every Ranked battle I play just makes me happier that WG finally came out with another game mode that actually is competitive and does not suck all the fun out of the game for months. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
443
[DETN8]
[DETN8]
Members
1,662 posts
16,309 battles
8 minutes ago, Th3KrimzonD3mon said:

I've now been at rank 15 for 21 rounds. The teams are horrible, and the stat tool shows the MM is placing the higher WR on one team, the lower WR players on the other. The length of time in the queue, when there's 50 players showing, also proves it, the MM is waiting until it can fill one team with great players, and one team with average to bad players.

 

I'm a MUCH better player than I was, but you'd never know it this season. This is the worst played, most frustrating time I've had in this game, and I'm done wasting my time and wrecking my nerves, and resisting throwing things, because WG has rigged it.

 

Considering where WG is, it should surprise no-one.

I'll take the bait. Why is WG rigging games against you? What reason do they have to do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
873
[SF-3]
Members
3,177 posts
8,333 battles
1 hour ago, Ju87s said:

I'll take the bait. Why is WG rigging games against you? What reason do they have to do this?

Nevermind. Thought I'd play devil's advocate on this but then went against it, don't want people to take me too seriously.

Edited by Peregrinas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
74
[AR]
[AR]
Members
316 posts
11,823 battles

"1 star for you, even if you are at the top of your losing team" ah,  a trophy for the best loser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,278 posts
4,107 battles
1 hour ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

Every Ranked battle I play just makes me happier that WG finally came out with another game mode that actually is competitive and does not suck all the fun out of the game for months. 

I think clan wars might be part of the problem with this season of ranked. I have seen several players dogmatically stick to a losing strategy because "this worked in clans". 

One was bad enough that I finally told him his strat was stupid. It would have been great if the other team has a similar strat. Basically quick cap and stall. However if the red team used some islands as cover they would appear uncontested on our flank isolating one BB at a time. In this game and to their credit both red DDs saw our fleet formation and made a mad dash straight to the very islands I mentioned. So instead of watching a flank fall apart I moved to do the same thing on the other flank to the reds. Both flanking groups tore through the other team. They did a quicker job of it and won. 

Its like having a new raid leader trying to emulate what they saw on a YouTube video or another guild without understanding why it works. Then blaming the team as to why it failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
416 posts

I think that Ranked would be a lot less stressful if there was at least one irrevocable rank in between 12 and 1. Give players a chance to take a breather. People get really mad oscillating back and forth past rank 12 because there is no safety net. Make it rank 7: getting to rank 1 is still far off and you'd have to play really well to get so far, but you wouldn't have to worry that a couple of bad games sends you tumbling back to 12.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
719
[NEUTR]
Members
2,207 posts
6,175 battles
3 hours ago, AlcatrazNC said:

Earning 1 star if you lose but you're top of your team ?

 

Personally I have a lot of free time compared to other ranked season so I can play more rank game but this season is just frustrating. I'll not make a list of what happens since there are several topic about that but I think WG should gives you 1 star if you lose but you're top of your team.

 

My big frustration is that i'm currently stuck at R15, not able to move up since I don't earn any star or lose one. IMO I think we should have system pretty much like this :

 

-You lose a game but you're top of your team : +1 star

-You lose a game and you're not top of your team : -1 star

-You win game and your top of your team : +2 stars

-You win game but you're not top of your team: +1 star.

 

This way if you win you rank up, but if you lose you're not stuck at one place just because your team decided to throw the game away. 

 

Ranked is also bad enough with some people there to farm stars and not wins. Please think hard on what your system actually incentivize. 

Even the current not lose a star should be removed from Ranked. So everyone on the same team should play to win, and not for personal performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,891
[O7]
Supertester, Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
10,725 posts
7,682 battles
2 hours ago, StoneRhino said:

I think clan wars might be part of the problem with this season of ranked. I have seen several players dogmatically stick to a losing strategy because "this worked in clans". 

One was bad enough that I finally told him his strat was stupid. It would have been great if the other team has a similar strat. Basically quick cap and stall. However if the red team used some islands as cover they would appear uncontested on our flank isolating one BB at a time. In this game and to their credit both red DDs saw our fleet formation and made a mad dash straight to the very islands I mentioned. So instead of watching a flank fall apart I moved to do the same thing on the other flank to the reds. Both flanking groups tore through the other team. They did a quicker job of it and won. 

Its like having a new raid leader trying to emulate what they saw on a YouTube video or another guild without understanding why it works. Then blaming the team as to why it failed.

Thats not the fault of CB, thats simply people being idiots which is what ranked is full of. Blaming CB for people doing stupid things is like blaming cars for people causing accidents when they are driving under the influence. 

 

At least in CB I can choose not to play if there are people on the team I know wont follow the plan or ships that wont work well. In ranked its people that dont know what they are doing, who are unwilling to work with others, who cant perform anyways, and who are bringing poor ships for the task. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
407
[WOLFB]
Members
1,722 posts
8,237 battles

 

It's an example among many other but when you have this kind of game, like trying to do your job AND other's job, you should at least get one star. 

You can't win every game, and I know that. But you shouldn't be stuck just because you always end up with a team that doesn't want to win.

 Akizuki ranked.PNG

Akizuki ranked TS.PNG

Edited by AlcatrazNC
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
407
[WOLFB]
Members
1,722 posts
8,237 battles
2 hours ago, NeutralState said:

Ranked is also bad enough with some people there to farm stars and not wins. Please think hard on what your system actually incentivize. 

Even the current not lose a star should be removed from Ranked. So everyone on the same team should play to win, and not for personal performance.

 

If you want to remove personal performance, then WG should put the same system we had during CW.

 

No matter how bad / how good you played, reward are fixed : You lose, you'll earn 150k credit. You win, you'll earn 300k . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
224
[SEP]
Members
438 posts
12,705 battles

Do away with stars altogether, and use a point system based on xp. Top loser gets 0, and everyone else earns or loses whatever their difference is.

Put in a good effort on the losing side, and you won't lose much. Get outscored by top loser, you lose points even if you're on the winning side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
407
[WOLFB]
Members
1,722 posts
8,237 battles
5 hours ago, Crucis said:

This has been my suggestion.

 

After the battle, group all 14 players together and split them into 2 groups, A and B.  Group A will be the top 7 base XP earners, group B will be the bottom base XP earners.

Then give everyone in group A +1 star.  And give everyone in group B -1 star.  

Winning and losing still matters here, because base XP factors in whether or not you won or lost.  And in all likelihood, usually at least 6 players on the winning team would be in the top 7.  And furthermore, any player who managed to earn enough base XP to get into the top 7 in spite of losing pretty much had to have had a very good game, and deserves to get a star.

What this system would encourage is playing well AND playing to win, because just being along for the ride on a winning team would be no guarantee of getting a star.  And doing something stupid early in a battle because you think it's some special sacrifice would likely only result in a lost star, and rightly so.

Given that winning is factored in, the great majority of players on the winning team wouldn't need to play super to  crack the top 7.  Just playing reasonably well and making positive contributions to a win would most likely get you enough base XP to crack into the top 7.  However, that same level of effort wouldn't be enough to  crack the top 7 if you lost.

 

 

I like the idea but I know it will never be added into the game. Maybe because it would cause too much pain for WG ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,786
[SALVO]
Members
17,036 posts
17,659 battles
1 minute ago, AlcatrazNC said:

 

I like the idea but I know it will never be added into the game. Maybe because it would cause too much pain for WG ? 

Oh probably.

I happen to think that my idea strikes a good balance between individual performance and making winning and losing matter.  And technically speaking, it shouldn't be all that hard to implement, if they were willing to even try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,786
[SALVO]
Members
17,036 posts
17,659 battles
52 minutes ago, grumpymunky said:

Do away with stars altogether, and use a point system based on xp. Top loser gets 0, and everyone else earns or loses whatever their difference is.

Put in a good effort on the losing side, and you won't lose much. Get outscored by top loser, you lose points even if you're on the winning side.

Hell, you want to use a points system, try this on for size.  (I'm thinking this up as I type, so it's gonna be really rough.  Bear with me.)

Just use base XP (BXP) as the points.  Winning and losing would really matter since winners will almost always earn more than losers (except for someone on the losing team have a great game, or an AFK on the winning team, for example).  

After the battle, subtract 1000 from everyone's BXP earned (call these "Rank Points").  If you've had over 1000 BXP, you had at least a decent game in a win or an excellent game in a loss, and you're going to earn rank points commensurate with how well you played.  If you had less than an excellent game in a loss, you're going to lose rank points.  And the worse your game was, the more rank points you'd lose.  Or if you won but had a meh game, you might barely earn any points or possibly even lose some.  And if you were AFK and earned 0 BXP, well, you're losing 1000 rank points (0 BXP - 1000 = 1000 rank points lost).  Period.

Now, at this point, require a certain number of rank points to complete a rank.  The number of rank points needed doesn't have to be the same for each rank.  Earlier ranks might require fewer while higher ranks might require more.

And there could be irrevocable ranks here as well.

Also, if you consider this model, you'll see that it rewards winning and losing, and it rewards how well you played.  Plus, you don't need any "top XP on the losing team" concept because the entire system takes care of that without requiring any special exceptions.

Also, the better you play, the faster you advance since you're not gaining only a single star for each win.  The better you play, the more rank points you earn.  If you are playing consistently well, you'll advance in a real hurry.  If you're only performing mediocre, you're going to advance more slowly (if at all).

 

Hmmm.  This actually came out pretty well for something I created on the fly as I typed.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
2,278 posts
4,107 battles
20 hours ago, 1nv4d3rZ1m said:

Thats not the fault of CB, thats simply people being idiots which is what ranked is full of. Blaming CB for people doing stupid things is like blaming cars for people causing accidents when they are driving under the influence. 

 

At least in CB I can choose not to play if there are people on the team I know wont follow the plan or ships that wont work well. In ranked its people that dont know what they are doing, who are unwilling to work with others, who cant perform anyways, and who are bringing poor ships for the task. 

I think you're missing the point or more likely I failed to present my point properly. 

Cb and ranked are different animals.

Clan battles is a true team effort and the strategies should reflect fleet vs fleet actions, Ship synergy, like minded players and hopefully a predetermined leader. On top of that I would expect some form of voice communication. 

Ranked is literally the opposite of that.

The issue is not that clan wars itself caused the problem but instead. It allowed players to believe they are "team play" experts. Or at the very least believe that ranked should be played like clan wars and anything short is the team's fault. 

That expectation of team play has caused extra salt in an already salt filled game mode.

Pay attention to the people complaining about it' the teams fault. They are rarely if ever from a "green" clan.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,238
[PVE]
Members
5,596 posts
18,181 battles
22 hours ago, Crucis said:

Hell, you want to use a points system, try this on for size.  (I'm thinking this up as I type, so it's gonna be really rough.  Bear with me.)

Just use base XP (BXP) as the points.  Winning and losing would really matter since winners will almost always earn more than losers (except for someone on the losing team have a great game, or an AFK on the winning team, for example).  

After the battle, subtract 1000 from everyone's BXP earned (call these "Rank Points").  If you've had over 1000 BXP, you had at least a decent game in a win or an excellent game in a loss, and you're going to earn rank points commensurate with how well you played.  If you had less than an excellent game in a loss, you're going to lose rank points.  And the worse your game was, the more rank points you'd lose.  Or if you won but had a meh game, you might barely earn any points or possibly even lose some.  And if you were AFK and earned 0 BXP, well, you're losing 1000 rank points (0 BXP - 1000 = 1000 rank points lost).  Period.

Now, at this point, require a certain number of rank points to complete a rank.  The number of rank points needed doesn't have to be the same for each rank.  Earlier ranks might require fewer while higher ranks might require more.

And there could be irrevocable ranks here as well.

Also, if you consider this model, you'll see that it rewards winning and losing, and it rewards how well you played.  Plus, you don't need any "top XP on the losing team" concept because the entire system takes care of that without requiring any special exceptions.

Also, the better you play, the faster you advance since you're not gaining only a single star for each win.  The better you play, the more rank points you earn.  If you are playing consistently well, you'll advance in a real hurry.  If you're only performing mediocre, you're going to advance more slowly (if at all).

Hmmm.  This actually came out pretty well for something I created on the fly as I typed.

This is a really cool idea, I like where you are headed. One obstacle that I can see is the same problem you have with xp earnings for team play. For instance you get no xp for smoking a friendly ship in trouble so they can escape or firing torps at a target so they will turn themselves broadside to a friendly battleship for a good old-fashioned paddling, those kinds of things. So much DD and CV play is just keeping an eye on what the reds are doing even when no damage is being done to them.  I still think it is a elegant solution, probably could use refinement and deserves the attention of Wargaming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×