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

12 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

5
[EXP]
Members
27 posts
4,096 battles

With re to Ranked battles in World of Warships, while its great that a team that wins gets a star, its almost like pure luck to be given a star (50/50 chance) and not really based on skill of the individual player, but more or less if the team wins or not. You can have a very bad player who sails in reverse be lucky enough to advance to Rank #1 if they were lucky enough to be in a winning team each time for example, yet say a master of naval skill be unlucky enough to be on the losing team all the time and not win a Rank star. Now this is not the case now, but only an example of the extremes.

What we need is more of a calculation on the player skills in game for more points on individual accomplishments and rank, and of course, if you win will be a bonus. If you sink, not so good. If you survive, good. Sink enemies, spot enemies, capture areas, all good. Number of hits, damage done, etc.

Think this will be a better overall Rank system, than a 50/50 chance system based on a mix and match of good and not so good players as its really the luck of the draw when you look at it. 

Realized this after a few games and people complaining that they were losing ranks, yet doing well in battle. Could be sore losers too, but I think I have a point overall. Next ranked battles should be more individual based for ranks, and not entirely based on team play.

Thank you.

Admiral Maddog has barked.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,387
[HINON]
Members
9,047 posts

While there is randomness in teams, over enough battles the statistical noise balances out and the cream rises to the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
306
[SIDE]
Members
1,262 posts
8,875 battles

It's not all bad for the losers. The first loser won't lose a star.

However, while I think your idea has some merit, it would be hard to implement. What defines a good players actions? Some would say dmg and kills. But maybe it's cap control or spotting or laying smoke for allies or radaring for your team. How would WG decide and if they do, won't they also have to carry it over into random and co-op?

Too many imponderables; sorry I just don't see this one going anywhere...

Edited by _Rumple_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[EXP]
Members
27 posts
4,096 battles
4 minutes ago, _Rumple_ said:

It's not all bad for the losers. The first loser won't lose a star.

However, while I think your idea has some merit, it would be hard to implement. What defines a good players actions? Some would say dmg and kills. But maybe it's cap control or spotting or laying smoke for allies or radaring for your team. How would WG decide and if they do, won't they also have to carry it over into random and co-op?

Too many imponderables; sorry I just don't see this one going anywhere...

I have to say it would be hard to really implement as how does wargame really know how well you play per say? Maybe the way they have it is the best that can be done and be fair yet no harm in asking them to take some player overall skill into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,827
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
9,282 posts

Well... here's a half-baked idea... never curries any favor with players... but hey what the heck, right...

You'd need a playoff system per say, for the individual. X number of individual mission over X number of days. STOCK ships. ZERO skill commanders. Say tier 5. You get to choose your ship type when you enter an individual qualifying match. You against bots. The missions get progressively harder. The bots play randomly so at most techniques can be share but not tips on bot pathing, etc... You get those X number of shots to qualify. 

At the end of your qualification run, you are quantified then qualified, using those stats to put you on teams with like player stats. Only this time you get to chose your ships/cmdrs for battle, like now. Would something like that work? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,819
[SALVO]
Members
17,112 posts
17,776 battles
25 minutes ago, MaddogGT said:

With re to Ranked battles in World of Warships, while its great that a team that wins gets a star, its almost like pure luck to be given a star (50/50 chance) and not really based on skill of the individual player, but more or less if the team wins or not. You can have a very bad player who sails in reverse be lucky enough to advance to Rank #1 if they were lucky enough to be in a winning team each time for example, yet say a master of naval skill be unlucky enough to be on the losing team all the time and not win a Rank star. Now this is not the case now, but only an example of the extremes.

What we need is more of a calculation on the player skills in game for more points on individual accomplishments and rank, and of course, if you win will be a bonus. If you sink, not so good. If you survive, good. Sink enemies, spot enemies, capture areas, all good. Number of hits, damage done, etc.

Think this will be a better overall Rank system, than a 50/50 chance system based on a mix and match of good and not so good players as its really the luck of the draw when you look at it. 

Realized this after a few games and people complaining that they were losing ranks, yet doing well in battle. Could be sore losers too, but I think I have a point overall. Next ranked battles should be more individual based for ranks, and not entirely based on team play.

Thank you.

Admiral Maddog has barked.

 

In theory, yes, you could have a  very bad player reach rank one.  But in practice, the odds are so ridiculously long that it's grossly unlikely.  People talk about ranked being a grind, and it is.  But you still have to win battles.  You have to win a certain amount of battles more than you've lost, the number of battles lost are effectively reduced by the number of times you don't lose a star in a loss.  And earning no-star-lost battles takes some talent.

A truly bad player would need to be amazingly lucky to win enough more times than he's lost to rank out.  Even winning at a 50% WR isn't going to get it done UNLESS you have a lot of no-star-lost battles, which again requires talent the bad player doesn't have.  The bad player needs to be carried to wins ... a LOT.  And that seems to be asking a lot out of raw, dumb luck.

 

I think that even bringing up the very bad  player ranking out is a bad idea because you're focusing entirely too much on a microscopically rare corner case that's unlikely to happen in such a small player base as the NA server has.

I've suggested a better way to handle awarding stars in the past, and I'll do it again for you, Maddog.

Fight the battles normally as we do now.  But after the battle and after base XP is awarded (normally), throw all 14 players together in a single list, sorted by base XP.  

1. The top 7 base XP earners, win or lose, earn a star.

2. The bottom 7 base XP earners on the winning team do not win nor lose a star.

3. The bottom 7 base XP earners on the losing team do lose a star.

This system retains the importance of winning and losing, because winning and losing factors into the base XP awarded.  it will be difficult for someone to get into the top 7 base XP earners if they've lost, but it's not impossible.  It is probably rather unlikely to be more than 1 or 2 losing team players doing it though.  And not giving a star to under performing winning team players provides them with incentive to be more productive, to play better.

And lastly, if I had my druthers, I'd say that any player who is AFK and has earned 0 base XP should lose a star, win or lose.

The idea behind this system is to incentivize both winning and good play, while not really punishing (i.e. not losing a star) if you didn't produce on a winning team.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
927
[WOLF9]
Members
1,110 posts
52 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

While there is randomness in teams, over enough battles the statistical noise balances out and the cream rises to the top.

Feces also float, you know.

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
286
[PLPT]
Members
638 posts
6,873 battles
53 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

While there is randomness in teams, over enough battles the statistical noise balances out and the cream rises to the top.

Not exactly.  There are 49% WR players who gained Rank 1.  Also, the way ranked mechanics work, the statistical noise is quite extreme.  You’ll need many hundreds of battles to narrow the variance.

Also, see my post about damage farming being more important than winning, in terms of climbing ranks.  Sad but true:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,387
[HINON]
Members
9,047 posts
9 minutes ago, n00bot said:

Not exactly.  There are 49% WR players who gained Rank 1.  Also, the way ranked mechanics work, the statistical noise is quite extreme.  You’ll need many hundreds of battles to narrow the variance.

Also, see my post about damage farming being more important than winning, in terms of climbing ranks.  Sad but true:

 

The sub 50 percent players are on the extreme end and require many more battles to rank out on average when even compared with the 55 percent players. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
541
[WORX]
Members
1,875 posts
12,936 battles
21 minutes ago, n00bot said:

Also, see my post about damage farming being more important than winning, in terms of climbing ranks.  Sad but true:

This is so true and I agree with the logic behind the post. In ranked, even when you lose, you can still not lose a star as long as you're top of the DMG leader board at the end of the match. This is important, you can have a less then stellar WR% but because you out DMG everyone in your team, you don;t lose a star.  IF that doesn't motivate someone to do DMG to stroke there DMG ego, then I guess its never enough.

Ranked is never a 50/50 system I think its a lot lower then that and is never in your favor.  This season of rank, BBs and DDs are probably going to rank out faster over cruisers. I don;t think its a personal performance, its  more of class of ships abilities having an advantage already before the match starts. Thus you can compare WR% with what ship type used to rank out. You then can conclude its not ones abilities, but the ships abilities to help win the match.

For me personally, I am trying to rank out as a dedicated cruiser driver. I know right wish me luck with that, Cheers! 

Edited by Navalpride33

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
918 posts
2,452 battles
1 hour ago, EA375 said:

I miss ranked; all the cursing, swearing, and name-calling.

Just roll into a random. Hardly much difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×