Rentals aren't the problem in Ranked people make out to be.

[warheart1992]

Before proceeding let me preface this by saying that before the Twelfth Season I thought Rental ships would be the biggest problem this Ranked Season would have. You could probably find some of my posts stating this exact thing. After quite a few Ranked battles (stats in spoiler if anyone is wondering) I have come to the conclusion this is not the case. Yet I keep on seeing people considering Rentals the absolutely worst thing to happen that totally ruins the Ranked experience.

My stats from this season in case anyone is wondering about my experience in the current Ranked:

Spoiler

In my opinion the situation isn't that clear cut. You can argue that the way Rentals are implemented leaves alot to be desired, and this is to a certain extent correct. Ships that rely alot on concealment like DDs and some cruisers are definitely at a disadvantage yet others aren't that affected by the lack of camouflage. Some claim that Rentals are played by the absolute worst players imaginable; yet I see players with a proper tier X and sub 40% winrates that still don't know basic mechanics and spend alot of time in Ranked; even that argument has flaws. Others say that Rentals simply flood battles. The most I have seen in just one battle were 5, split 2-3. Now, am not saying that Rental ships can't be driven by bad or inexperienced players, or that in some cases they can put you at a disadvantage, but it is laughable to consider them the only reason for the issues Ranked has.

Like it or not, Rentals give new players the opportunity to try out some tier Xs, learn a bit how the mode works, earn a few rewards, lose some credits because you are running a tier X without the option of camo. Most of the inexperienced players anyway will most likely stick to the last irrevocable Rank, 12. Yes, the feature could be better implemented for sure, but in the end this is how WG decided to go on with it.

But a question remains, what's that makes Rentals be that hated by quite a few people?

In my opinion  Rentals are the easy scapegoat to blame on a loss. The existence of brackets making it known to all players that they are driving a Rental makes them a very easy target to accuse of losing them the match. Similarly to how a CV will be blamed, or a DD that didn't do this and that, or a Cruiser or a BB. People are constantly trying to find reasons to justify their performance and Rentals are just the newest thing.

Yet what I see  more often as bad for Ranked are people playing to farm damage and save a star instead of winning, of players going into full tryhard mode the moment a ship is down instead of trying to rally the team,of people simply rushing in their "proper" tier Xs to die within 5 minutes.

Bottom line, before you start blaming Rentals for your loss, first reflect on what you or other teammates in "proper" tier Xs may have done right or wrong.Nobody is perfect; I can name for a fact 3-4 of my battles where I had 100% responsibility of my team's loss. But just because Rentals exist doesn't mean they are the ones that brought defeat.

 

[Hyperion728]

I was on the fence about it until I was trying to cap in my Shima with a red 52 in the area.  Our only radar is 12k behind the main line, behind an island, refuses to move.  Yeah I looked; 12,000 battles in.... Black Swan.

Want to try out tier X ships?  There's other ways to do that.  The Grind comes to mind.  Ranked is supposed to be a chest-thumping session of who-wants-it-more modified by skill; and some of the team is wearing their TMNT muscle costumes.

And I sure am blaming rentals for some of my losses; it's not about me gittin' good or not.  Some renters are going to do ok, some will do pretty damn good; but it's not a reflection of what tier X is suppose to be.  Point is tier XYZ ships come with an expectation of skill and experience which is what Ranked is supposed to... rank.

[Botcha]

Had a rental Yammy last night get 20 XP.... 20! 

IMHO You should have to qualify for a rental in some manner, number of battles in a Tier 8 ship you own in the line you're renting for one. Having X amount of tier X's maybe? 

Rentals are bad for the community but good for WG's wallet so you know where this will end up...

[JdeMolay]

As you move up in ranked, yes, rentals are less a problem as you have those that have somewhat proven themselves and you also have a number of re-roll accounts that have actual experience in tier 10's in there main; they just haven't ground out a tier 10 yet. But on the other hand...at the higher tiers...watch out and prepare to be extremely frustrated.

[Ace_04]

52 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

Before proceeding let me preface this by saying that before the Twelfth Season I thought Rental ships would be the biggest problem this Ranked Season would have. You could probably find some of my posts stating this exact thing. After quite a few Ranked battles (stats in spoiler if anyone is wondering) I have come to the conclusion this is not the case. Yet I keep on seeing people considering Rentals the absolutely worst thing to happen that totally ruins the Ranked experience.

My stats from this season in case anyone is wondering about my experience in the current Ranked:

  Reveal hidden contents

In my opinion the situation isn't that clear cut. You can argue that the way Rentals are implemented leaves alot to be desired, and this is to a certain extent correct. Ships that rely alot on concealment like DDs and some cruisers are definitely at a disadvantage yet others aren't that affected by the lack of camouflage. Some claim that Rentals are played by the absolute worst players imaginable; yet I see players with a proper tier X and sub 40% winrates that still don't know basic mechanics and spend alot of time in Ranked; even that argument has flaws. Others say that Rentals simply flood battles. The most I have seen in just one battle were 5, split 2-3. Now, am not saying that Rental ships can't be driven by bad or inexperienced players, or that in some cases they can put you at a disadvantage, but it is laughable to consider them the only reason for the issues Ranked has.

Like it or not, Rentals give new players the opportunity to try out some tier Xs, learn a bit how the mode works, earn a few rewards, lose some credits because you are running a tier X without the option of camo. Most of the inexperienced players anyway will most likely stick to the last irrevocable Rank, 12. Yes, the feature could be better implemented for sure, but in the end this is how WG decided to go on with it.

But a question remains, what's that makes Rentals be that hated by quite a few people?

In my opinion  Rentals are the easy scapegoat to blame on a loss. The existence of brackets making it known to all players that they are driving a Rental makes them a very easy target to accuse of losing them the match. Similarly to how a CV will be blamed, or a DD that didn't do this and that, or a Cruiser or a BB. People are constantly trying to find reasons to justify their performance and Rentals are just the newest thing.

Yet what I see  more often as bad for Ranked are people playing to farm damage and save a star instead of winning, of players going into full tryhard mode the moment a ship is down instead of trying to rally the team,of people simply rushing in their "proper" tier Xs to die within 5 minutes.

Bottom line, before you start blaming Rentals for your loss, first reflect on what you or other teammates in "proper" tier Xs may have done right or wrong.Nobody is perfect; I can name for a fact 3-4 of my battles where I had 100% responsibility of my team's loss. But just because Rentals exist doesn't mean they are the ones that brought defeat.

 

Good constructive post, @warheart1992.  I find that rental ships are as prone to good and bad play as every other T10 that queues up this season.

32 minutes ago, Hyperion728 said:

Our only radar is 12k behind the main line, behind an island, refuses to move.  Yeah I looked; 12,000 battles in.... Black Swan.

I think we all know who that is..... 

[Filthy_Pelican]

I think tonight I'm going to use a Rental BB just to farm some salt. 

[10T0nHammer]

43 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

But a question remains, what's that makes Rentals be that hated by quite a few people?

	win	exp	damage caused	warship destroyed
Yamato	51.70	1970	92105	0.71
[Yamato]	47.25	1461	70619	0.50
Grosser Kurfuerst	52.75	1671	84811	0.72
[Grosser Kurfuerst]	48.10	1384	64401	0.49
Conqueror	51.41	1907	102040	0.70
[Conqueror]	47.03	1501	76199	0.47
Montana	51.91	1813	83342	0.69
[Montana]	49.82	1431	65639	0.49
Zao	50.14	1690	69736	0.61
[Zao]	47.02	1259	42224	0.35
Hindenburg	49.83	1719	66672	0.55
[Hindenburg]	47.28	1304	46757	0.37
Moskva	52.02	1694	64085	0.52
[Moskva]	46.15	1265	41171	0.33
Shimakaze	51.48	1616	45228	0.63
[Shimakaze]	46.57	1275	33127	0.42
Grozovoi	51.33	1711	41959	0.61
[Grozovoi]	45.83	1255	26165	0.34
Gearing	50.85	1625	39796	0.55
[Gearing]	45.77	1224	28301	0.37

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/season/season12/ship_avg_na.html

 

This is why. Having even 1 on your team is already a detriment.

[warheart1992]

2 minutes ago, 10T0nHammer said:

	win	exp	damage caused	warship destroyed
Yamato	51.70	1970	92105	0.71
[Yamato]	47.25	1461	70619	0.50
Grosser Kurfuerst	52.75	1671	84811	0.72
[Grosser Kurfuerst]	48.10	1384	64401	0.49
Conqueror	51.41	1907	102040	0.70
[Conqueror]	47.03	1501	76199	0.47
Montana	51.91	1813	83342	0.69
[Montana]	49.82	1431	65639	0.49
Zao	50.14	1690	69736	0.61
[Zao]	47.02	1259	42224	0.35
Hindenburg	49.83	1719	66672	0.55
[Hindenburg]	47.28	1304	46757	0.37
Moskva	52.02	1694	64085	0.52
[Moskva]	46.15	1265	41171	0.33
Shimakaze	51.48	1616	45228	0.63
[Shimakaze]	46.57	1275	33127	0.42
Grozovoi	51.33	1711	41959	0.61
[Grozovoi]	45.83	1255	26165	0.34
Gearing	50.85	1625	39796	0.55
[Gearing]	45.77	1224	28301	0.37

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/season/season12/ship_avg_na.html

 

This is why. Having even 1 on your team is already a detriment.

I don't doubt these stats, yet my point has more to do with the way people both here and in battles blame them for absolutely everything.

 

[10T0nHammer]

40 minutes ago, warheart1992 said:

I don't doubt these stats, yet my point has more to do with the way people both here and in battles blame them for absolutely everything.

 

That's fair. I know I'm a large part of the reason why I cannot get to the R5-2 range.

But it's just so damn easy to blame others lol

[dEsTurbed1]

Replace the word "rental" with potato captain.....

Replace the word "ranked" with random....

......

It is not the rental ships fault. Just look at Clan Battles.

It is not the battle mode of Ranked...

It is the experience of the player and how they can use that to win.

I admit that I have poor situational awareness. 

I admit to not knowing where to position correctly when attempting to stop a push.

I admit to being too aggressive. 

Thousand of YouTube videos and 14k battles has given me the knowledge to succeed,  but my 57 year old brain has potato moments in translation for a successful battle.

....

In summary, 

Dont blame the ship, dont blame the mode, and don't blame the player....

Enjoy the moment and try to help that player help your team.

[Stahlfaust_XVI]

1 hour ago, 10T0nHammer said:

	win	exp	damage caused	warship destroyed
Yamato	51.70	1970	92105	0.71
[Yamato]	47.25	1461	70619	0.50
Grosser Kurfuerst	52.75	1671	84811	0.72
[Grosser Kurfuerst]	48.10	1384	64401	0.49
Conqueror	51.41	1907	102040	0.70
[Conqueror]	47.03	1501	76199	0.47
Montana	51.91	1813	83342	0.69
[Montana]	49.82	1431	65639	0.49
Zao	50.14	1690	69736	0.61
[Zao]	47.02	1259	42224	0.35
Hindenburg	49.83	1719	66672	0.55
[Hindenburg]	47.28	1304	46757	0.37
Moskva	52.02	1694	64085	0.52
[Moskva]	46.15	1265	41171	0.33
Shimakaze	51.48	1616	45228	0.63
[Shimakaze]	46.57	1275	33127	0.42
Grozovoi	51.33	1711	41959	0.61
[Grozovoi]	45.83	1255	26165	0.34
Gearing	50.85	1625	39796	0.55
[Gearing]	45.77	1224	28301	0.37

http://maplesyrup.sweet.coocan.jp/wows/season/season12/ship_avg_na.html

 

This is why. Having even 1 on your team is already a detriment.

Now that, and add in having one or more of those [Boats] all on your team versus regular ships, then realize that Benny was right all along. 

[JustAdapt]

Having a rental on your team is a detriment from the moment the battle starts. The rental will always be out-spotted by their respective counterpart and will generally lose most engagements. Sure, good players in rentals have the potential to be valuable assets to the team; however, that is because they are good players and not anything else. Imagine if there was enough support for rentals for them to be available next season; then imagine you have rental CVs available as well... Is that a game you really want to be in?

[fishin79]

First, DD should not be rentals.  Plain and simple.  Not having camo on a DD is too much of a handicap.

Second, it is not all about the inexperience at t-10.  Even if you have experience at t10 but have never used that ship, you will not know how to play it well.  I don't know how many matches it takes before you are almost as good as you are going to be in a particular ship but I know it is more than zero battles.  Even a good player will not be as good in rental.  A bad player will be even worse than they are in a ship they own.

I understand what WGing is trying to do with rental but t10 ranked is a very bad place to try the idea out.  In my opinion, ranked sprint (which is more relaxed) would have been a better choice...Hey, let everyone rent a Belfast for this upcoming season...That would be fun, right?

[Tzarevitch]

4 minutes ago, fishin79 said:

First, DD should not be rentals.  Plain and simple.  Not having camo on a DD is too much of a handicap.

Second, it is not all about the inexperience at t-10.  Even if you have experience at t10 but have never used that ship, you will not know how to play it well.  I don't know how many matches it takes before you are almost as good as you are going to be in a particular ship but I know it is more than zero battles.  Even a good player will not be as good in rental.  A bad player will be even worse than they are in a ship they own.

I understand what WGing is trying to do with rental but t10 ranked is a very bad place to try the idea out.  In my opinion, ranked sprint (which is more relaxed) would have been a better choice...Hey, let everyone rent a Belfast for this upcoming season...That would be fun, right?

I thought that way about rentals as well, but I had to change my opinion after teaming with, and facing, several that really knew what they were doing. One Grozovoi in particular was really good. They are about as competent as anyone else so I see no reason why they shouldn't be included. 

[Nukelavee45]

3 hours ago, Hyperion728 said:

Some renters are going to do ok, some will do pretty damn good; but it's not a reflection of what tier X is suppose to be.  Point is tier XYZ ships come with an expectation of skill and experience which is what Ranked is supposed to... rank.

Here's the thing: So far as I know, the rentals are ships that are popular in ranked play because meta stuff.  Without 3rd party mods leting you see player history as a match begins, you can't tell if that rental is somebody who plays low tiers badly, or good.  Most importantly, you don't know if the guy in the rental doesn't already have 6 or 10 tier 10's, but simply doesn't have that one ship he's currently in that is a rental.   You don't know if somebody has racked up dozens of matches over the seasons that allowed rentals in that ship.

In short - you really don't know, generally, how much high tier experience a player has unless you look him up.

Having said that - I've yet to use a rental.  Can't be bothered with ranked/CB, and even if I did, if there's a ship I want to play, I grind it out.

[Skpstr]

2 hours ago, dEsTurbed1 said:

but my 57 year old brain has potato moments in translation for a successful battle.

Just in that situation? I should be so lucky lol.....

[Skpstr]

44 minutes ago, Nukelavee45 said:

Having said that - I've yet to use a rental.  Can't be bothered with ranked/CB, and even if I did, if there's a ship I want to play, I grind it out.

I've only used Montana & Moskva.

Had I not played them, I'd have spent credits and time grinding to Moskva, and not done so for Montana.

Thanks to the opportunity to try the ships, I'm going the opposite route....

[MnemonScarlet]

24 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

I've only used Montana & Moskva.

Had I not played them, I'd have spent credits and time grinding to Moskva, and not done so for Montana.

Thanks to the opportunity to try the ships, I'm going the opposite route....

It gave me some interest in grinding out Conqueror but is that a good thing.

[warlock_xxxx]

I 've ground out a couple T10 ships.  Worcestershire-Sauce and Mino.  But I kinda like playing the DD rentals that WoT made available -- Gearing and Grozo particularly.  Man -- the level of sh!t I have to endure in chat is hilarious.  People talking trash to me about being a piece of sh!t rental driver even before the match starts.  I do alright in the rental -- 78% w/r combined in Gearing and Grozo.  Last match I was in I got fed-up and started flinging the Salt back.  My "team" ended up winning.  I finished the match number 1 on my --uhhh "team" -- high score by over 500-pts to the next highest score.  killed 3 ships including soloing a Yamato...and I had one solo cap and one cap assist.   Told my team before the match ended to kiss my @ss.  Bunch of d0c4e monkeys in ranked.  Half the dudes that were talking trash to me in this match I come to find out after the match had sub 48% w/rs.  pfft

[dEsTurbed1]

3 hours ago, Skpstr said:

I've only used Montana & Moskva.

Had I not played them, I'd have spent credits and time grinding to Moskva, and not done so for Montana.

Thanks to the opportunity to try the ships, I'm going the opposite route....

I only have 4 t10 ships left to grind.

3 are carriers.

Can't wait to get Kremlin,  at t8 now.

 

[dEsTurbed1]

49 minutes ago, warlock_xxxx said:

I 've ground out a couple T10 ships.  Worcestershire-Sauce and Mino.  But I kinda like playing the DD rentals that WoT made available -- Gearing and Grozo particularly.  Man -- the level of sh!t I have to endure in chat is hilarious.  People talking trash to me about being a piece of sh!t rental driver even before the match starts.  I do alright in the rental -- 78% w/r combined in Gearing and Grozo.  Last match I was in I got fed-up and started flinging the Salt back.  My "team" ended up winning.  I finished the match number 1 on my --uhhh "team" -- high score by over 500-pts to the next highest score.  killed 3 ships including soloing a Yamato...and I had one solo cap and one cap assist.   Told my team before the match ended to kiss my @ss.  Bunch of d0c4e monkeys in ranked.  Half the dudes that were talking trash to me in this match I come to find out after the match had sub 48% w/rs.  pfft

I'm so tempted to take out a rental,  not that I need to I have all but 4 tier 10's, just to prove it's the player not the ship.

I figure a rental BB would be best ship to take out.

[epojokke]

I really haven't paid that much attention to it in the few games I have played.

However, when I do check the team lists I normally see the same number of rentals on both teams, so I like to think that the amount of potato on each team is the same.

I have still been having fun, win or lose.

[_greifer]

 Need players at rank 2.4 to take out a rental shima for the win!

Tempt fate!

[JuiceEFruit]

I think it depends on who is in the rental. 

I don't have any Tier X ships.  I do have a Tier IX Iowa, though.   I haven't tried to grind it to Tier X because frankly, I don't enjoy the top tiers as much.  V-VI is where the fun is for me.  But I do play the Iowa, and will have the Montana soon enough, and it's not like there's a huge jump in playing style from the Iowa to the Montana.  I've made a good account of myself in the matches in it, I think.   I did have a few "getting to know you" moments early on, but I kind of like it now. 

So it's not like I'm a person that has only reached Tier V and then made the jump.  I suspect there are a lot like me. 

[gamera57]

For a start in a rental you can't mount camo. Most players are not going to put upgrades in to a rental. And if they are only to tier 8 they likely do not have a 19 pt captain. So normally a rental will no be as good as the same ship that somebody ground and invested all those hours of gameplay to get. Plus the experience of playing the same line and type of ship at tier 9 and below so they are familiar with the characteristics of that class. 

You could have a very good player in a rental, or a root vegetable* commanding a tier 10 for the first time, but a rental is not going to be as effective in ranked battle as a regular ship overall. Put the same person commanding a rental and a regular ship and statistically the earned ship will do better over the long run.

 

* root vegetable - like a potato but dumber and an anchor around your teams neck. Like the 39% winrate root vegetable in the rental Grozovoi on my team tonight who went to a cap, picked a fight with a Daring, didn't smoke up, and died very quickly. Yes, we lost that game.