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

PROPOSAL: New Ranked Progression -revised

29 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

767
[NSC]
Members
2,022 posts

Please upvote if you support, downvote if you don't. I hope to find a Ranked progression system the community supports. Proposed changes are highlighted.

Ranked Battles: The Thirteenth Season

It's time for a new season of Ranked Battles, and this one’s (still) going to be played on Tier X ships!

Unlike the Twelfth Season, this season will feature a brand new progression system unseen in previous Ranked Battle seasons. Good luck and fair seas, captains!

Revised Progression System

The number of ranks, as well as the number of stars needed to attain these ranks, remain the same as for the twelfth and eleventh season. Irrevocable ranks and the awarding of bonus stars at Ranks 18-11 also remain the same. However, the save-a-star system is revised. Instead of saving your hard-earned star for placing first in a defeat, half a star will be saved for earning more than 500 XP in a defeat. Placing first in a defeat will save you your star. We hope that this change will promote and reward more instances of active teamplay. The disparity between the first and second places of a losing team is reduced. This change will also encourage teamwork even when circumstances seem bleak as players will be less focused on saving a star.

Examples of the Revised Progression System

  • Player A was first on her team in a lost game with 479 base XP. Under the old system, Player A would have saved her star. Under the new (Thirteenth Season) system, Player A will save half her star.
  • Player B was third on his team in a lost game with 511 base XP. Under the old system, Player B would have lost his star. Under the new system, Player B will save half his star.
  • Player C was first on his team in a lost game with an impressive 1,200 base XP. In the Twelfth Season,  Player C would have saved his star. In the Thirteenth Season, Player C will save his star.
  • Player D was first on his team in a won game with 2,439 base XP. Player D earns a star under the rules of both the Twelfth Season and the Thirteenth Season.
  • Player E was seventh on his team in a won game with 7 base XP. Player E does not earn (or lose) a star. With the old system, Player E would have earned a star.

Poll: Let Community Staff know what you think!

 

Edited by henrychenhenry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
281 posts
10,648 battles

They just need to over haul the ranking system do away with stars and re do ranks and put in a better MM system for ranked or just remove it. Either buck up and treat ranked like RANKED just like a lot of other online pvp based games or do away with it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
767
[NSC]
Members
2,022 posts
7 minutes ago, MisterSlithers said:

They just need to over haul the ranking system do away with stars and re do ranks and put in a better MM system for ranked or just remove it. Either buck up and treat ranked like RANKED just like a lot of other online pvp based games or do away with it

What would you propose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,494
[RLGN]
Members
13,259 posts
23,160 battles
6 minutes ago, MisterSlithers said:

They just need to over haul the ranking system do away with stars and re do ranks and put in a better MM system for ranked or just remove it. Either buck up and treat ranked like RANKED just like a lot of other online pvp based games or do away with it

This.

Without the award ranking out gives, allowing the privilege of acquiring a rare ship, what is the point of it anyway? Most of what I see being given as Ranked rewards can be earned by other means.

(For the record, I have never ranked out.)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
721
[LUCK]
Members
1,765 posts
27,516 battles
Just now, henrychenhenry said:

What would you propose?

Make it cumulative base XP, say 75,000 to rank 1 or something like that, I dunno what's appropriate. Have XP bumps for 1-7 on the winning team as well.

You never lose anything but you have to play and win. Make each rank progressively more difficult by increasing the XP mark.

There's only so many games one can play in a day for 3 or so weeks. If you get carried all the time, it will be prohibitive time wise to rank out.

 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
281 posts
10,648 battles
8 minutes ago, henrychenhenry said:

What would you propose?

WG has every metric they could use for their own ELO ranking system hand out ranks from Seaman to Admiral or what ever win youre in lose ya snooze if you perform well you should still gain ELO I still think consistent top performers should be rewarded but Saving a star promotes only trying to play to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
767
[NSC]
Members
2,022 posts
Just now, Wye_So_Serious said:

Make it cumulative base XP, say 75,000 to rank 1 or something like that, I dunno what's appropriate. Have XP bumps for 1-7 on the winning team as well.

You never lose anything but you have to play and win. Make each rank progressively more difficult by increasing the XP mark.

There's only so many games one can play in a day for 3 or so weeks. If you get carried all the time, it will be prohibitive time wise to rank out.

 

Interesting. I've seen this before. A criticism is Ranked would no longer "be" Ranked because there's now way to lose progress. I'm proposing a compromise to make it (slightly) easier to rank out while still encouraging teamwork. That way, we won't see the stereotypical Henri or Conqueror farming damage to save a star.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
281 posts
10,648 battles
2 minutes ago, Wye_So_Serious said:

Make it cumulative base XP, say 75,000 to rank 1 or something like that, I dunno what's appropriate. Have XP bumps for 1-7 on the winning team as well.

You never lose anything but you have to play and win. Make each rank progressively more difficult by increasing the XP mark.

There's only so many games one can play in a day for 3 or so weeks. If you get carried all the time, it will be prohibitive time wise to rank out.

 

That could actually work in a way if you dont earn a lot of XP and weve seen the people in ranked with the magical 400 avg xp those people will take a while 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
767
[NSC]
Members
2,022 posts
Just now, MisterSlithers said:

WG has every metric they could use for their own ELO ranking system hand out ranks from Seaman to Admiral or what ever win youre in lose ya snooze if you perform well you should still gain ELO I still think consistent top performers should be rewarded but Saving a star promotes only trying to play to do that.

In this proposed system, saving a star is no longer a thing. Players on the losing team will always lose at least half a star. This rewards top performers and teamwork more than the previous system.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,754
[SALVO]
Members
24,184 posts
24,546 battles

This is what I'd suggest.  I have already suggested it.

 

Completely dump the star system.  And do the following.

The core of my system is you have 100 battles (and no more) in which to do the most base XP you can.  The Ranked Season would be 30 days long.  You can do your 100 battles in a hurry or slowly, but you have 30 days in which to do them.

After the 30 days are up, your rank is based by what group your in.  At this point, they could divide it into 5 groups or 10 groups.  5 groups would be 20% groupings, i.e. 1-20%, 21-40%, up to 81-100%.  And the 10 groups model would be 1-10%, 11-20%, up to 81-90%, and 91-100%.  What I mean by this is that the top 10% rank would be the 91-100% grouping, while the bottom 10% rank would be the 1-10% grouping, all by base XP.  Note that your TOTAL base XP over the 100 (or less) ranked battles played would be used to determine your final rank.  If your total BXP placed your in the 93rd percentile, that would place you in either the 81-100% group or the 91-100% group, depending on whether a 5 rank or 10 rank model was used.  Either way, it'd be top rank.

This could be tracked throughout the month or not calculated until after the season is over.

Ranks could be given actual naval ranks, like Fleet Admiral for the highest rank.

As for MM, it could be totally random.  Or WG could have ongoing tracking of each player's total base XP in ranked during the season and use that as part of a Ranked MM.

 

This model would remove any need for saving stars, or worrying about going backwards.  Winning would absolutely matter because Base XP in wins is much greater than in losses.  However, if you have a really great game in a loss, it will show up in your losing base XP.  And if you have a bad game in a win, that will also affect your progress.

Another thing to consider is that there'd be no "ranking out".  There'd be no spamming of games to try to brute force your way to rank 1.  It would all be about how well you played, and your overall ability to maximize your base XP, which definitely means that winning matters, but isn't a total disaster if you lose occasionally.  

Now, it should also be noted that this model will probably favor the very best players, since they're the ones more likely to gain the most base XP.  And mediocre players won't be able to get themselves carried to ranking out.  They may be carried to some wins, and get some good BXP in those wins.  But in the long run, it probably won't help them all that much.

 

This begs the question, would non-unicum players accept a system when they can't spam games to try to rank out, and could quite possibly end up looking sort of like a listing of players by their WRs or PRs or whatever.

 

Edited by Crucis
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
767
[NSC]
Members
2,022 posts
2 hours ago, Crucis said:

This is what I'd suggest.  I have already suggested it.

Completely dump the star system.  And do the following.

The core of my system is you have 100 battles (and no more) in which to do the most base XP you can.  The Ranked Season would be 30 days long.  You can do your 100 battles in a hurry or slowly, but you have 30 days in which to do them.

After the 30 days are up, your rank is based by what group your in.  At this point, they could divide it into 5 groups or 10 groups.  5 groups would be 20% groupings, i.e. 1-20%, 21-40%, up to 81-100%.  And the 10 groups model would be 1-10%, 11-20%, up to 81-90%, and 91-100%.  What I mean by this is that the top 10% rank would be the 91-100% grouping, while the bottom 10% rank would be the 1-10% grouping, all by base XP.  Note that your TOTAL base XP over the 100 (or less) ranked battles played would be used to determine your final rank.  If your total BXP placed your in the 93rd percentile, that would place you in either the 81-100% group or the 91-100% group, depending on whether a 5 rank or 10 rank model was used.  Either way, it'd be top rank.

This could be tracked throughout the month or not calculated until after the season is over.

Ranks could be given actual naval ranks, like Fleet Admiral for the highest rank.

As for MM, it could be totally random.  Or WG could have ongoing tracking of each player's total base XP in ranked during the season and use that as part of a Ranked MM.

 

This model would remove any need for saving stars, or worrying about going backwards.  Winning would absolutely matter because Base XP in wins is much greater than in losses.  However, if you have a really great game in a loss, the will show up in your losing base XP.  And if you have a bad game in a win, that will also affect your progress.

Another thing to consider is that there'd be no "ranking out".  There'd be no spamming of games to try to brute force your way to rank 1.  It would all be about how well you played, and your overall ability to maximize your base XP, which definitely means that winning matters, but isn't a total disaster if you lose occasionally.  

Now, it should also be noted that this model will probably favor the very best players, since they're the ones more likely to gain the most base XP.  And mediocre players won't be able to get themselves carried to ranking out.  They may be carried to some wins, and get some good BXP in those wins.  But in the long run, it probably won't help them all that much.

 

This begs the question, would non-unicum players accept a system when they can't spam games to try to rank out, and could quite possibly end up looking sort of like a listing of players by their WRs or PRs or whatever.

Interesting! Though not Ranked in the traditional sense, it eliminates save a star.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
223
[WOLF5]
Members
847 posts
31,261 battles

This may reduce some of the salt, but unless WG changes the way XP is allocated so that it favors accomplishing objectives and not damage farming, it just makes it so that anybody can rank out with a sub 50% win rate provided they are willing to spam enough games. 

What this season of ranked demonstrated was that your ships that went into the game with the mindset of damage farming (CVs, Conq, Henry especially) typically were able to easily save their star (first loser) because WG placed the priority for damage. DD's were next to impossible to save a star unless they totally abandoned any idea of map control to go be a damage flanker which was almost always a guaranteed loss. How many games did you see a BB sitting behind an island farming damage or a CV that attacked the lone wolf on the other team instead of supporting capture objectives save a star. How often did you see a Conq/Henry get a witherer NOT sink anything yet save a star? How often did those players "strategies" result in placing your team at a disadvantage from the start?

IF WG wants it to be about damage farming then remove ALL capture points. Make it a death match. No objectives, just maneuver and kill other ships. 

If they truly want this to be a game about accomplishing objectives, then award the XP based on that. Discount the XP awarded to damage done to reds that aren't near a capture point. Give the ships that are in a capture point while doing damage or are damaging/spotting reds within a capture point more XP. Reward the ships that are in a contested capture point that are NOT getting reset additional XP for blocking a capture. Give a significant bonus multiplier for each capture tick earned. A reward for a full capture should not be the same as doing damage to 66% of a red ship. Think about it, destroying a CV gets your team 45 points and costs the reds 65 for a net 110 swing - capturing the center on epicenter is 9 points every 4 seconds. That means capturing and holding the center of epicenter for 1 minute, nets more points for your team than destroying a CV yet only rewards you less than 66% of the XP if you account for the kill bonus.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,219
[INTEL]
Members
12,114 posts
33,621 battles
11 hours ago, Crucis said:

This is what I'd suggest.  I have already suggested it.

 

Completely dump the star system.  And do the following.

The core of my system is you have 100 battles (and no more) in which to do the most base XP you can.  The Ranked Season would be 30 days long.  You can do your 100 battles in a hurry or slowly, but you have 30 days in which to do them.

After the 30 days are up, your rank is based by what group your in.  At this point, they could divide it into 5 groups or 10 groups.  5 groups would be 20% groupings, i.e. 1-20%, 21-40%, up to 81-100%.  And the 10 groups model would be 1-10%, 11-20%, up to 81-90%, and 91-100%.  What I mean by this is that the top 10% rank would be the 91-100% grouping, while the bottom 10% rank would be the 1-10% grouping, all by base XP.  Note that your TOTAL base XP over the 100 (or less) ranked battles played would be used to determine your final rank.  If your total BXP placed your in the 93rd percentile, that would place you in either the 81-100% group or the 91-100% group, depending on whether a 5 rank or 10 rank model was used.  Either way, it'd be top rank.

 

I like a lot of this. And no need to set up a separate system for it, either. Could be counted in Randoms...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,739
[S0L0]
Alpha Tester, In AlfaTesters
3,973 posts
5,491 battles
43 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

I like a lot of this. And no need to set up a separate system for it, either. Could be counted in Randoms...

Might be a little too easy to exploit with divisions in randoms.   Perhaps if divisioned games were not eligible?    

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,219
[INTEL]
Members
12,114 posts
33,621 battles
5 minutes ago, RA6E_ said:

Might be a little too easy to exploit with divisions in randoms.   Perhaps if divisioned games were not eligible?    

That's a really good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,754
[SALVO]
Members
24,184 posts
24,546 battles
2 hours ago, h9k_a said:

This may reduce some of the salt, but unless WG changes the way XP is allocated so that it favors accomplishing objectives and not damage farming, it just makes it so that anybody can rank out with a sub 50% win rate provided they are willing to spam enough games. 

What this season of ranked demonstrated was that your ships that went into the game with the mindset of damage farming (CVs, Conq, Henry especially) typically were able to easily save their star (first loser) because WG placed the priority for damage. DD's were next to impossible to save a star unless they totally abandoned any idea of map control to go be a damage flanker which was almost always a guaranteed loss. How many games did you see a BB sitting behind an island farming damage or a CV that attacked the lone wolf on the other team instead of supporting capture objectives save a star. How often did you see a Conq/Henry get a witherer NOT sink anything yet save a star? How often did those players "strategies" result in placing your team at a disadvantage from the start?

IF WG wants it to be about damage farming then remove ALL capture points. Make it a death match. No objectives, just maneuver and kill other ships. 

If they truly want this to be a game about accomplishing objectives, then award the XP based on that. Discount the XP awarded to damage done to reds that aren't near a capture point. Give the ships that are in a capture point while doing damage or are damaging/spotting reds within a capture point more XP. Reward the ships that are in a contested capture point that are NOT getting reset additional XP for blocking a capture. Give a significant bonus multiplier for each capture tick earned. A reward for a full capture should not be the same as doing damage to 66% of a red ship. Think about it, destroying a CV gets your team 45 points and costs the reds 65 for a net 110 swing - capturing the center on epicenter is 9 points every 4 seconds. That means capturing and holding the center of epicenter for 1 minute, nets more points for your team than destroying a CV yet only rewards you less than 66% of the XP if you account for the kill bonus.

I think that this question (and its larger implication) is quite unfair.  Many times in battles I've ended up not getting any kills.  Ya know why?  It's called FOCUS FIRE!!!  If you have multiple team mates shooting at the same ship, it's entirely possible that "someone else" will get the kill.  And more often than not, IMO, getting kills when there are multiple ships firing at an enemy it's nothing but blind, dumb luck who ends up landing the kill shot.  And in the end, as long as someone on your team gets the kill, it doesn't matter who got it.  It only matters that the kill was secured in a timely manner.

As for DDs, they used to do better in Ranked in terms of XP back when taking caps netted them more base XP for doing so.  But now, taking caps isn't rewarded as well with XP, so DDs are forced to play the damage game along with everyone else.

As for the rest of the details in the final paragraph above, you're operating under a misconception.  Caps are NOT the only objectives in Ranked (or Randoms, for that matter).  Caps are a secondary objective.  The true objective is winning the battle.  And that can be done by either sinking the enemy team (or enough of it to invoke the mercy rule) or by taking the caps to accumulate enough domination points. 

However, it's more subtle than just "option A or option B".  Taking a majority of the cap points (usually 2 of 3) while remaining at least even in ships puts pressure on the enemy team, and will likely cause them to have to get more aggressive and make mistakes.  Or at least being even with the enemy and each team holding one of the cap points while the third is uncaptured, keeps the points "battle" even, and the battle deadlocked until one team can break that deadlock by either taking the uncontested cap, taking the enemy controlled cap, or sinking an enemy ship.

 

Stepping back...

The problem I have with the complaints about damage and XP is that damage is the means by which you work what most will see as the primary objective, i.e. sinking the enemy team's ships.  And damage represents how much work you're putting into sinking those ships.  Saying "it's just damage" IMO completely denigrates the idea that sinking the enemy team's ships matters.  Of course, it matters.  Sinking ships (and the effort/damage required to do it) is pretty much the entire point of the game at its most basic level.  Do damage to sink ships.  Do damage and sink ships.   

But that said, simply doing damage for damage's sake doesn't win battles or maximize BXP.  Obviously, the more damage you do, the higher your BXP will be.  But to truly maximize your BXP you need to win.  And that means that you have to do your best to direct your damage onto the enemy ships where it will do the most good towards the goal of winning, not merely maximizing your damage counter.

 

 

Bah.  That's enough sort of philosophizing/ranting for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,754
[SALVO]
Members
24,184 posts
24,546 battles
1 hour ago, Taichunger said:

I like a lot of this. And no need to set up a separate system for it, either. Could be counted in Randoms...

It could be, but I don't think that it'd be best to do so.  I think that it'd be best if done in a separate mode with controlled MM, same as it's currently done.  All ships competing would be at the same tier, facing other ships of the same tier.  The teams could remain the same size, or they could be 12v12, same as randoms.  Either way, they should have ship type limitations for MM that are appropriate for the team sizes. 

I think that it'd be nice if the ranked MM in my system looked at the ongoing rankings (i.e. the running total BXP) of the players in the queue and used it balance the teams and separate MM into "leagues" of a sort.  Say, try to limit players in the top 20% of total BXP into playing against other players in the top 20%.  And those in the bottom 20% would play others in the bottom 20%.

And NO DIVISIONS.  IMO, divisions are inherently unfair.  And if Ranked is supposed to be about individual achievement and serious competition, I can think of little more unfair than divisions.  A division of unicums on the other team would just about guarantee a loss to your own team.  Or a really, really bad division on your own team might have the exact same result.  I mind 2 ship divs in Ranked Sprint much less, because RS seems less competitive than regular Ranked, which just seems more competitive to me.

 

 

To me, doing this as an add-on to Randoms seems to risk a lot of unfair elements.  Divisions, for example.   Also, if Ranked were at tier 8, do you really want to be beholden to the whims of MM and risk being in more tier 10 battles than others might end up in?    Oh, sure, they could have this sort of bolt-on Ranked in Randoms at tier 10, but then you're facing the question of whether to allow rentals or not.  And who knows what other questions or potential problems.  Putting Ranked in a different mode, quarantined from the other modes, reduces the potential problems, it seems to me.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
223
[WOLF5]
Members
847 posts
31,261 battles
9 hours ago, Crucis said:

I think that this question (and its larger implication) is quite unfair.  Many times in battles I've ended up not getting any kills.  Ya know why?  It's called FOCUS FIRE!!!  If you have multiple team mates shooting at the same ship, it's entirely possible that "someone else" will get the kill.  And more often than not, IMO, getting kills when there are multiple ships firing at an enemy it's nothing but blind, dumb luck who ends up landing the kill shot.  And in the end, as long as someone on your team gets the kill, it doesn't matter who got it.  It only matters that the kill was secured in a timely manner.

As for DDs, they used to do better in Ranked in terms of XP back when taking caps netted them more base XP for doing so.  But now, taking caps isn't rewarded as well with XP, so DDs are forced to play the damage game along with everyone else.

As for the rest of the details in the final paragraph above, you're operating under a misconception.  Caps are NOT the only objectives in Ranked (or Randoms, for that matter).  Caps are a secondary objective.  The true objective is winning the battle.  And that can be done by either sinking the enemy team (or enough of it to invoke the mercy rule) or by taking the caps to accumulate enough domination points. 

However, it's more subtle than just "option A or option B".  Taking a majority of the cap points (usually 2 of 3) while remaining at least even in ships puts pressure on the enemy team, and will likely cause them to have to get more aggressive and make mistakes.  Or at least being even with the enemy and each team holding one of the cap points while the third is uncaptured, keeps the points "battle" even, and the battle deadlocked until one team can break that deadlock by either taking the uncontested cap, taking the enemy controlled cap, or sinking an enemy ship.

 

Stepping back...

The problem I have with the complaints about damage and XP is that damage is the means by which you work what most will see as the primary objective, i.e. sinking the enemy team's ships.  And damage represents how much work you're putting into sinking those ships.  Saying "it's just damage" IMO completely denigrates the idea that sinking the enemy team's ships matters.  Of course, it matters.  Sinking ships (and the effort/damage required to do it) is pretty much the entire point of the game at its most basic level.  Do damage to sink ships.  Do damage and sink ships.   

But that said, simply doing damage for damage's sake doesn't win battles or maximize BXP.  Obviously, the more damage you do, the higher your BXP will be.  But to truly maximize your BXP you need to win.  And that means that you have to do your best to direct your damage onto the enemy ships where it will do the most good towards the goal of winning, not merely maximizing your damage counter.

 

 

Bah.  That's enough sort of philosophizing/ranting for now.

I would agree with you if there was actual focus fire. In my experience, those damage farmers often shot at the furthest high hp ship so they could rack up the fire damage and those ships DID NOT SINK because the rest of the team was attempting to contest the caps that the rest of the reds were trying to take. When those ships are as far away from from the rest of the team so they can fire at max range and not take any damage while farming damage. They've discovered that if you farm a ship that no one else is shooting at and is far away and the rest of the team is ignoring, you can rack up the DOT damage and score an achievement because no one else is shooting at it so the DOT runs the full duration. When your Conq who has the largest health pool on the team sits in a blind corner where the enemy can't see him and is nowhere close to the rest of the team nor are they able fire on any reds in the cap, yet they "save a star" because they were able to rack up meaningless damage. There's an issue. 

So if capping isn't valued  and you admit that DDs need to play the damage game, then why have caps in the game? You are claiming that in order to progress in ranked you have to play the damage game at the expense of playing the objectives. I'm asking for better parity between damage farming and playing the objectives. Right now the game favors those players that do damage (meaningless or otherwise). If you can save your star by staying safe, racking up meaningless damage by hitting ships that aren't killed because they aren't in threatening positions, while ignoring the caps then there's a problem. 

In epicenter, if you don't contest the caps you're going to lose a majority of the time. If you think taking or contesting those caps is not key to winning the game then you may want to go back thru your replays and see just how much letting the reds rack up 18 points every 4 seconds puts you at a disadvantage.

That's incorrect. In the current game design, maximizing your base xp by doing damage for damages sake generally leads to more saved stars. Those players that do that found that they could progress in ranked because they didn't fall back and would advance when they got carried by their teams. As for your argument winning maximizes your BXP, that's irrelevant since the entire team has that same winning multiplier. We are discussing how XP is allocated on the team not in the match. 

The last part of the XP puzzle that hasn't been discussed is that doing % damage is trumped by earning achievements. I had at least 2 games where I solo killed 2 dds yet came in below a no kill Conq or Henry that earned a witherer achievement and the ships they fired at were not sunk. You would think that getting 2 out of the 3 kills in a match should net you first place on a losing team. I was unpleasantly surprised that a farmed red BB and CA sitting in the back and a witherer achievement beat me out. My only conclusion is that while those ships were not killed, he did close to 100% damage on them and with the achievement, that pushed him over the top. I'd further posit that even though WG says XP is rewarded based on % damage, the same percentage on the different types of ships is NOT rewarded equally. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,754
[SALVO]
Members
24,184 posts
24,546 battles
1 hour ago, h9k_a said:

I would agree with you if there was actual focus fire. In my experience, those damage farmers often shot at the furthest high hp ship so they could rack up the fire damage and those ships DID NOT SINK because the rest of the team was attempting to contest the caps that the rest of the reds were trying to take. When those ships are as far away from from the rest of the team so they can fire at max range and not take any damage while farming damage. They've discovered that if you farm a ship that no one else is shooting at and is far away and the rest of the team is ignoring, you can rack up the DOT damage and score an achievement because no one else is shooting at it so the DOT runs the full duration. When your Conq who has the largest health pool on the team sits in a blind corner where the enemy can't see him and is nowhere close to the rest of the team nor are they able fire on any reds in the cap, yet they "save a star" because they were able to rack up meaningless damage. There's an issue. 

So if capping isn't valued  and you admit that DDs need to play the damage game, then why have caps in the game? You are claiming that in order to progress in ranked you have to play the damage game at the expense of playing the objectives. I'm asking for better parity between damage farming and playing the objectives. Right now the game favors those players that do damage (meaningless or otherwise). If you can save your star by staying safe, racking up meaningless damage by hitting ships that aren't killed because they aren't in threatening positions, while ignoring the caps then there's a problem. 

In epicenter, if you don't contest the caps you're going to lose a majority of the time. If you think taking or contesting those caps is not key to winning the game then you may want to go back thru your replays and see just how much letting the reds rack up 18 points every 4 seconds puts you at a disadvantage.

That's incorrect. In the current game design, maximizing your base xp by doing damage for damages sake generally leads to more saved stars. Those players that do that found that they could progress in ranked because they didn't fall back and would advance when they got carried by their teams. As for your argument winning maximizes your BXP, that's irrelevant since the entire team has that same winning multiplier. We are discussing how XP is allocated on the team not in the match. 

The last part of the XP puzzle that hasn't been discussed is that doing % damage is trumped by earning achievements. I had at least 2 games where I solo killed 2 dds yet came in below a no kill Conq or Henry that earned a witherer achievement and the ships they fired at were not sunk. You would think that getting 2 out of the 3 kills in a match should net you first place on a losing team. I was unpleasantly surprised that a farmed red BB and CA sitting in the back and a witherer achievement beat me out. My only conclusion is that while those ships were not killed, he did close to 100% damage on them and with the achievement, that pushed him over the top. I'd further posit that even though WG says XP is rewarded based on % damage, the same percentage on the different types of ships is NOT rewarded equally. 

Dude, this was a VERY difficult post for me to read because of the colors.  It was VERY difficult for me to keep my eyes focused on the text.  Better to use bullet points and outline styling (as I will use below). (I will number my response by paragraphs.)

1.  If there isn't any focus fire, then you should be calling out targets with F3 to try to encourage it.  And perhaps you should take the lead in this.  (Not really you personally, but everyone.)  But also, if you see an enemy ship that is badly wounded (and perhaps wasn't even your own target in the first place), use F3 to call for focus fire and focus your own fire on that ship.  Show some leadership by example.

 

2. Caps and DDs.  So, if caps aren't valued in the XP calculation, your solution is to remove caps?  That's stupid.  The proper response is to revalue capping so that ships that are taking caps are properly rewarded for doing so.   And if this ends up with the occasional DD grabbing caps at the end of the game to boost their BXP, so be it.  Better that than devaluing cap taking XP and incentivizing DDs not to contend for caps in the first place.

 

3. Contending caps.  You clearly didn't understand what I meant.  I didn't say squat about not contending caps.    My point was that capping isn't the primary way by which teams win or seek to win.  Players seek to win by sinking the entire enemy team.  Winning on points is a secondary method of winning in the minds of most players.  You contend caps for a few reasons.

a. When there are caps present, that's where the enemy's going to be.  If there are 3 domination caps, you may not know if they're going to all 3, but you do know that they're going to at least one of them.  So if you want to fight the enemy, you have to go where they are going to be.  And that's at caps.

b. Taking a majority of the caps puts pressure on the enemy team because you will be out-scoring them on points and forcing them to play more aggressively, at which time, you can hopefully take advantage of any mistakes they may make trying to take a cap.

c. There are probably other reasons that are escaping me at this moment.

The point here is that caps can be important even if you're not really just trying to win on points.

 

4. Skipping this one.

 

5. % damage being trumped by achievements. You say that you solo killed 2 DDs.  And then you recognize that the Conq may have done close to 100% damage to his targets, and then conclude that his achievement trumped your kill secures.  It may very well be that a major achievement nets a higher BXP reward than a kill secure.  I don't really have a problem with that.  The thing is with kills is that the player who did the great majority of the damage to an enemy ship sometimes has no control over whether he gets the kill shot or not.  A team mate may see the nearly dead enemy and fire on him and get the kill before the first player can finish him off.  Ship happens.   All that said, I'm not so sure that some of the "achievements" should be that big a deal, like Witherer and Arsonist.  I like High Caliber and Confederate.  Not that big a fan of Kraken, mostly because grabbing 5 kill secures doesn't seem like much of an achievement to me, whereas doing lots and lots of damage is important because you don't sink ships as a team without doing all that damage. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
223
[WOLF5]
Members
847 posts
31,261 battles
32 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Dude, this was a VERY difficult post for me to read because of the colors.  It was VERY difficult for me to keep my eyes focused on the text.  Better to use bullet points and outline styling (as I will use below). (I will number my response by paragraphs.)

1.  If there isn't any focus fire, then you should be calling out targets with F3 to try to encourage it.  And perhaps you should take the lead in this.  (Not really you personally, but everyone.)  But also, if you see an enemy ship that is badly wounded (and perhaps wasn't even your own target in the first place), use F3 to call for focus fire and focus your own fire on that ship.  Show some leadership by example.

 

2. Caps and DDs.  So, if caps aren't valued in the XP calculation, your solution is to remove caps?  That's stupid.  The proper response is to revalue capping so that ships that are taking caps are properly rewarded for doing so.   And if this ends up with the occasional DD grabbing caps at the end of the game to boost their BXP, so be it.  Better that than devaluing cap taking XP and incentivizing DDs not to contend for caps in the first place.

 

3. Contending caps.  You clearly didn't understand what I meant.  I didn't say squat about not contending caps.    My point was that capping isn't the primary way by which teams win or seek to win.  Players seek to win by sinking the entire enemy team.  Winning on points is a secondary method of winning in the minds of most players.  You contend caps for a few reasons.

a. When there are caps present, that's where the enemy's going to be.  If there are 3 domination caps, you may not know if they're going to all 3, but you do know that they're going to at least one of them.  So if you want to fight the enemy, you have to go where they are going to be.  And that's at caps.

b. Taking a majority of the caps puts pressure on the enemy team because you will be out-scoring them on points and forcing them to play more aggressively, at which time, you can hopefully take advantage of any mistakes they may make trying to take a cap.

c. There are probably other reasons that are escaping me at this moment.

The point here is that caps can be important even if you're not really just trying to win on points.

 

4. Skipping this one.

 

5. % damage being trumped by achievements. You say that you solo killed 2 DDs.  And then you recognize that the Conq may have done close to 100% damage to his targets, and then conclude that his achievement trumped your kill secures.  It may very well be that a major achievement nets a higher BXP reward than a kill secure.  I don't really have a problem with that.  The thing is with kills is that the player who did the great majority of the damage to an enemy ship sometimes has no control over whether he gets the kill shot or not.  A team mate may see the nearly dead enemy and fire on him and get the kill before the first player can finish him off.  Ship happens.   All that said, I'm not so sure that some of the "achievements" should be that big a deal, like Witherer and Arsonist.  I like High Caliber and Confederate.  Not that big a fan of Kraken, mostly because grabbing 5 kill secures doesn't seem like much of an achievement to me, whereas doing lots and lots of damage is important because you don't sink ships as a team without doing all that damage. 

 

Sorry about the color, but I tried to color match it with the sections of your post that I was replying to. 

1) If you want to have a discussion on how to play, please start another thread. i'm more than happy to weigh in on it, but not in a thread regarding ranked and save a star mechanics.

2) My response was that IF WG doesn't value capping, then they should remove caps in ranked so that it is purely damaged based. I would prefer that capping and contesting caps is rewarded so that those ships that play for the objectives are not penalized when in ranked XP determines if you save a star or not.

3) By your argument capping is what provides you the ability to force the reds to play in a certain area. That makes it the primary focus of strategy. It should be rewarded as such.

5) I solo killed 2 DDs (harugmo * shima). That means I got the XP for 100% of the damage plus the 25% kill bonus. I also did about 25% damage to a GK and minor chip damage to a Hindy. The Conq farmed a Witherer achievement, did not kill either of the ships he primarily targeted.  He farmed a GK for 6-8 minutes and earned it on that ship. After the GK went behind a island (at the end of the game the GK still had 20k health), he fired for about 2 minutes on a Hindy. Our DD's yolo'ed into a DM/Worchester in the first 3 minutes of the game and the rest of use spent most of the short game trying to contest one cap (yes gave the only other one away). The game was a loss as soon as both DDs decided to suicide push the same cap blindly. Their BBs setup a nice crossfire and pushed with their support and pretty much stomped us in 13 min since we had that Conq and the other BB got dev struck by their shima coming uncontested from the other cap. After killing both DDs and getting a decent chunk of a BB I thought I had saved my star. Imagine my surprise when not only did I not save after scoring around 950 ase XP but that Conq beat me by close to 100xp farming ineffective and inconsequential damage since he never removed or caused to reds to change their position until literally he was the last green ship. The reds ended up only losing 3 ships and most of their surviving ships were above 50% hp. His entire strategy was to charge from the spawn to B-6 point his nose at the nearest border and fire HE at the furthest targets from us and he was rewarded for that strat. This game emphatically showed me that the XP distribution in ranked needs to be evaluated again. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
231 posts
79 battles
On 6/29/2019 at 4:31 PM, henrychenhenry said:

Please upvote if you support, downvote if you don't. I hope to find a Ranked progression system the community supports. Proposed changes are highlighted.

 

You cannot encourage teamwork no matter how much you incentivize people to work like a team.  #1.  Everyone has their own interpretation of what being a team player means, and the majority of the player base (as you can clearly see from their performance history) thinks they know but they don't.  #2.  Most players on the server have a very wide gap between reality and perception in valuing their contribution.  #3.  As long as players who average sub 500 base xp are penalized the same way as those averaging 1000+ base xp, the system is broken.  If 40k avg dmg Yamato/Kremlin players (with hundreds of ranked battles played in it) are making it into T1-5, IT'S BROKEN. PERIOD. If anyone disagrees with that, then they are being intellectually dishonest about the meaning of the word RANKED.

You have a considerable number of players on this server that are suicidal maniacs who rarely ever survive past 10 minutes. Most often even sinking before 5 minutes while barely doing any damage at all.  They cause the snowball effect causing the rest of the team to play defensively to avoid torps (since the DD's are no longer alive to screen) and farm as much damage as they can in hopes that maybe the enemy team will make some bad mistakes and you can turn the match around or at least do as much dmg as possible before you yourself sink.  Conveniently, it's these same suicidal sabotaging players that then spend the rest of the match blaming the rest of the team for playing passive.  Nearly EVERY match plays out exactly like this.

The only way to know you have RANKED acting like RANKED is if really bad players are unable to luck their way into R1-5 bracket.  You do that by creating a wider star reward/penalty system:

  • Top 2 players on the winning team get 2 stars.  Rest get one, unless they did less than 400 base xp, then they get no stars.
  • Bottom 3 players on the losing team lose 2 stars.  Rest lose one.

Notice this solves the flawed argument about people playing to save a star vs work as a team.  Which was always an invalid argument because the very same things you need to do to score 1st on the leader board magically happens to win games:  capping, defending caps, doing massive damage, etc.  It takes a very especially troubled mind to somehow rationalize that the person who finished first on the scoreboard with 120k damage and 3 kills and one solo cap caused the loss instead of the bottom three turds who couldn't break 500 base xp and the total of all three of them didn't even do 120k dmg.  You would never lose a single battle of ranked if everyone on the team produced the output of that 1st place player.  Likewise, you'd lose virtually every match in ranked if everyone played equal to the bottom three players.  Disagree?  Again, that would be intellectually dishonest.

The only reason why WG refuses to make the star system like this is because they know that it will actually work.  And they can't have that because the server is populated with a huge percentage of players that are cognitively unable to progress past R10 or so and the entitlement complaints would flood in.  WG wants RANKED to really be GRIND.  Just like Savage Battle mode, everyone has a fair chance to get the Benham if you simply put in the time, it takes no skill.  It will just require more games for those who are slow in the head, but at least they can get the same rewards.

In a sense you really cannot blame WG.  In the marketing world it's called KYC.  Know Your Customer.  You have to develop content to fit the intellectual capability of the majority of the player base and provide for an inclusive environment or risk unsustainable subscription attrition rates.  WG's philisophy is that even if your IQ is less than a speed bump, you should still have a chance at obtaining the majority of end game content.  I don't ever see that philosophy changing.

 

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
250
[OIL-1]
Members
440 posts

You lost me at half a star. Good luck with all those plans though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
126 posts
9,503 battles

I don't think the OP is a bad idea, if far from perfect.  It would certainly be better than the system we currently operate under. 

As far as changing the system to be based purely on XP earned in 100 games or something similar, this presents two virtually unsolvable problems.  How would you know where you stood at any time during the ranked season?  Even if you're a superunicum player with a 70% win rate you wouldn't know if you were doing enough to reach rank one.  I know someone would respond that Wargaming could keep and post a tally of the average XP earned and even break that into ranks, but that  would mean adding an extra layer of complexity for the programers that is only useful during the ranked season.  I'm pretty sure the people at Wargaming aren't going to be up for that idea and I wouldn't blame them at all for holding that position.  More importantly, why play ranked at all if you know you don't stand a chance of ever reaching rank 1?  You would essentially be creating an event for unicum and superunicum players.  Don't we already have that with Kings of the Sea and other competitive events?  Remember the idea is to attract players not drive them away from playing the game or even from playing ranked games.

As far as changing how XP is earned, those suggestions should  be placed in a separate threads of their own because they cover the entire game, not just ranked games.  However, I suspect that no matter how XP might be tweaked or entirely reimagined, it will probably always remain unfair, in some situations, for some players, some of the time.  I understand why the topic of how XP is earned came up, but if you really think you have a better idea, then take the idea you expressed in this thread and post it in a separate thread because a lot of people who don't care much about ranked and therefore won't read this thread might be interested in what you have to say.  Having a larger discussion on how XP is earned isn't a bad thing and should have the widest possible audience.         

Edited by Pigus_Drunkus_Maximus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
767
[NSC]
Members
2,022 posts
19 hours ago, z9_ said:

You lost me at half a star. Good luck with all those plans though.

Instead of half a star, there's an alternative. Double stars needed to advance. Make winning +2 stars, losing -1 to -2 depending on BXP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×