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

Want to fix the coward and star saving play style in ranked? Answered!!!!

24 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

285
[LARP]
Beta Testers
136 posts
8,491 battles

I had a great suggestion from a clan mate yesterday.  What about giving 2 stars to the top winner instead of keeping a star for the loser.  Yes, the good player on the losing team gets kinda screwed, but think of all the coward and star saving game play that will stop, or they go nowhere, good trade I think..... Any ideas???  Will this make everyone try really hard instead of star saving crap???

  • Boring 1
  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
681
[4HIM]
[4HIM]
Beta Testers
1,769 posts
12,244 battles

I find anyone trying to "save" a star pretty much is a failure anyways... the guy who saves the star is the guy who is already playing hard.  Your idea is not without merit though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,305
[PN]
[PN]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
20,220 battles

@ESX better yet report the coward for rigging the battle in favor of the opponents in a support ticket with the replay. After a few account suspension they will get the message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,396
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
23,398 posts
12,937 battles

A better idea is to use base experience, the top seven advance, the bottom seven either don't advance or fall back.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,255
[R-F]
Members
1,643 posts
9,734 battles

If the person with the top xp score contributed most to the team effort, then they should be rewarded, even in a loss. 

Your arguement is that the person with the top score did not actually contribute the most, they just farmed damage. Reasonable arguement.

But then you want to reward the guy on the winning team that did the same thing. Kind of goes against your own arguement, doesn't it? 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,180
[SALVO]
Members
23,315 posts
23,942 battles
12 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

A better idea is to use base experience, the top seven advance, the bottom seven either don't advance or fall back.

Brush, that's my idea from a year back or so.

 

Personally, I like my newer idea better.  Only track base XP earned.  No stars, so no stars to save.  Have the regular ranked season be 30 days and you have 100 ranked battles and no more (less if you don't get around to playing them for whatever reason).  And at the end of those 30 days, create a list of all the participants, ordered by base XP earned.  At this point, you can create whatever type of rank structure you want.

You want 10 ranks?  Just split up the list into 10 groups by 10 percentage point percentiles, i.e. 1-10%, 11-20%, and so on up to 91-100%, with 91-100% being the highest group of players.  You want 20 ranks, then just split it up into 20 groups by 5 percentage point percentiles.  There could even be an award for the single player who earned the most BXP over the course of those 100 battles.  It doesn't have to be 100 battles.  It could be set to, say, 60 battles max, which would work out to only 2 battles per night for 30 days.  And for those players who have those mythical real lives, this would give them leeway to play more battles on those days they can play so they don't have to play every single day out of fear that they'd never be able to catch up to reach the maximum number of battles.

There could also be a running progress list for everyone involved so that you could see how you're doing, though this might be tricky since people might not be progressing through the 100 or 60 or whatever the max number of battles may be.  They could list out each player's average BXP across those battles they have fought, but that might confuse some players into thinking that average BXP was important, when all it'd really be is a relative measure to allow you so see how you stack up against others with different total ranked battles played and overall BXP totals.  You'd have to realize that in the end, it was all about the TOTAL BXP earned, not the average, across the ranked battles you've played, up to the maximum allowed battles for that season.

This system gets you away from all the griping about the save a star thing.  It also makes it so that you don't actually go backwards, technically speaking.  It also punishes AFKs, since if you "waste" a ranked battle and earn 0 BXP for being AFK, that's gonna hurt in the long run, and will require some very good play to make up for that AFK 0 BXP game.  Winning would be rewarded since you earn more BXP in wins than losses, assuming the same quality of production.  Also, even in losses, playing well would be rewarded.  There would be every incentive to play as well as you can, even in battles that look like they're headed for losses, since a productive effort in a loss will still be better for your running BXP total, than a poor effort in a loss.

This system would also work well for Ranked Sprint, since all you'd have to do is shorten the season and reduce the max number of battles allowed.

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,579
Members
2,067 posts
4,440 battles
27 minutes ago, Brhinosaurus said:

If the person with the top xp score contributed most to the team effort, then they should be rewarded, even in a loss. 

Your arguement is that the person with the top score did not actually contribute the most, they just farmed damage. Reasonable arguement.

But then you want to reward the guy on the winning team that did the same thing. Kind of goes against your own arguement, doesn't it? 

So someone who sits in back and does nothing for the team, then lets everyone dies, then kites enemy team to farm damage should be rewarded? 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,180
[SALVO]
Members
23,315 posts
23,942 battles
26 minutes ago, Brhinosaurus said:

If the person with the top xp score contributed most to the team effort, then they should be rewarded, even in a loss. 

Your arguement is that the person with the top score did not actually contribute the most, they just farmed damage. Reasonable arguement.

But then you want to reward the guy on the winning team that did the same thing. Kind of goes against your own arguement, doesn't it? 

The problem is that the BXP system is incapable of distinguishing between the relative useless damage farmer and the useful player who was also very productive, because the reality is that both players are doing the same things, statistically speaking.  The things that they're doing differently don't show up in statistics, other than perhaps W's and L's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,396
[GWG]
[GWG]
Supertester
23,398 posts
12,937 battles
1 minute ago, Crucis said:

Brush, that's my idea from a year back or so.

 

Personally, I like my newer idea better.  Only track base XP earned.  No stars, so no stars to save.  Have the regular ranked season be 30 days and you have 100 ranked battles and no more (less if you don't get around to playing them for whatever reason).  And at the end of those 30 days, create a list of all the participants, ordered by base XP earned.  At this point, you can create whatever type of rank structure you want.

You want 10 ranks?  Just split up the list into 10 groups by 10 percentage point percentiles, i.e. 1-10%, 11-20%, and so on up to 91-100%, with 91-100% being the highest group of players.  You want 20 ranks, then just split it up into 20 groups by 5 percentage point percentiles.  There could even be an award for the single player who earned the most BXP over the course of those 100 battles.  It doesn't have to be 100 battles.  It could be set to, say, 60 battles max, which would work out to only 2 battles per night for 30 days.  And for those players who have those mythical real lives, this would give them leeway to play more battles on those days they can play so they don't have to play every single day out of fear that they'd never be able to catch up to reach the maximum number of battles.

There could also be a running progress list for everyone involved so that you could see how you're doing, though this might be tricky since people might not be progressing through the 100 or 60 or whatever the max number of battles may be.  They could list out each player's average BXP across those battles they have fought, but that might confuse some players into thinking that average BXP was important, when all it'd really be is a relative measure to allow you so see how you stack up against others with different total ranked battles played and overall BXP totals.  You'd have to realize that in the end, it was all about the TOTAL BXP earned, not the average, across the ranked battles you've played, up to the maximum allowed battles for that season.

This system gets you away from all the griping about the save a star thing.  It also makes it so that you don't actually go backwards, technically speaking.  It also punishes AFKs, since if you "waste" a ranked battle and earn 0 BXP for being AFK, that's gonna hurt in the long run, and will require some very good play to make up for that AFK 0 BXP game.  Winning would be rewarded since you earn more BXP in wins than losses, assuming the same quality of production.  Also, even in losses, playing well would be rewarded.  There would be every incentive to play as well as you can, even in battles that look like they're headed for losses, since a productive effort in a loss will still be better for your running BXP total, than a poor effort in a loss.

This system would also work well for Ranked Sprint, since all you'd have to do is shorten the season and reduce the max number of battles allowed.

 

 

 

 

Many have suggested it or something like it. That isn't a bad idea but they seem to have "not invented here" syndrome on any change to ranked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
278
[-TKS-]
Members
777 posts
12,405 battles
9 minutes ago, Legio_X_ said:

So someone who sits in back and does nothing for the team, then lets everyone dies, then kites enemy team to farm damage should be rewarded? 

uh yeah specially in the current dd  meta  cause if this player is on top of the loser leaderboard it means the rest of your team was garbage.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,579
Members
2,067 posts
4,440 battles
11 minutes ago, KnifeInUrNeck said:

I wouldn’t mind both the best loser saving a star and best winner getting two. Could make the grind more bearable.

“Grind” and “bearable” are two words WG never puts in a sentence together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,310
[INTEL]
Members
11,457 posts
32,035 battles
32 minutes ago, Crucis said:

Brush, that's my idea from a year back or so.

 

Personally, I like my newer idea better.  Only track base XP earned.  No stars, so no stars to save.  Have the regular ranked season be 30 days and you have 100 ranked battles and no more (less if you don't get around to playing them for whatever reason).  And at the end of those 30 days, create a list of all the participants, ordered by base XP earned.  At this point, you can create whatever type of rank structure you want.

You want 10 ranks?  Just split up the list into 10 groups by 10 percentage point percentiles, i.e. 1-10%, 11-20%, and so on up to 91-100%, with 91-100% being the highest group of players.  You want 20 ranks, then just split it up into 20 groups by 5 percentage point percentiles.  There could even be an award for the single player who earned the most BXP over the course of those 100 battles.  It doesn't have to be 100 battles.  It could be set to, say, 60 battles max, which would work out to only 2 battles per night for 30 days.  And for those players who have those mythical real lives, this would give them leeway to play more battles on those days they can play so they don't have to play every single day out of fear that they'd never be able to catch up to reach the maximum number of battles.

There could also be a running progress list for everyone involved so that you could see how you're doing, though this might be tricky since people might not be progressing through the 100 or 60 or whatever the max number of battles may be.  They could list out each player's average BXP across those battles they have fought, but that might confuse some players into thinking that average BXP was important, when all it'd really be is a relative measure to allow you so see how you stack up against others with different total ranked battles played and overall BXP totals.  You'd have to realize that in the end, it was all about the TOTAL BXP earned, not the average, across the ranked battles you've played, up to the maximum allowed battles for that season.

This system gets you away from all the griping about the save a star thing.  It also makes it so that you don't actually go backwards, technically speaking.  It also punishes AFKs, since if you "waste" a ranked battle and earn 0 BXP for being AFK, that's gonna hurt in the long run, and will require some very good play to make up for that AFK 0 BXP game.  Winning would be rewarded since you earn more BXP in wins than losses, assuming the same quality of production.  Also, even in losses, playing well would be rewarded.  There would be every incentive to play as well as you can, even in battles that look like they're headed for losses, since a productive effort in a loss will still be better for your running BXP total, than a poor effort in a loss.

This system would also work well for Ranked Sprint, since all you'd have to do is shorten the season and reduce the max number of battles allowed.

 

 

 

 

An excellent idea. WG could even add rewards for passing base XP milestones,  so players would keep playing....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,327 posts
1 hour ago, ESX said:

I had a great suggestion from a clan mate yesterday.  What about giving 2 stars to the top winner instead of keeping a star for the loser.  Yes, the good player on the losing team gets kinda screwed, but think of all the coward and star saving game play that will stop, or they go nowhere, good trade I think..... Any ideas???  Will this make everyone try really hard instead of star saving crap???

No.

because without a 'loser's' star', as soon as your team loses two ships then, due to human nature, knowing that the game can not be won or a star saved, most of the rest of the team will AFK and save time, hopping into another ship for another round. When this does happen, the 'double winner's' star just goes to whichever DD can speed boost first to farm the afk ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
117
[SCREW]
Members
661 posts
7,257 battles

My take on it... play a few battles for fun and just bail out when the game mode starts to frustrate you, its just a game and they've made it quite clear that they don't intent to do jack to make the game mode less lame.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8,180
[SALVO]
Members
23,315 posts
23,942 battles
22 minutes ago, Taichunger said:

An excellent idea. WG could even add rewards for passing base XP milestones,  so players would keep playing....

Another point to the idea is that it's probably a better measure of skill (or at least production), because you can't get carried to a great game.  Oh, to some degree, you can get carried to a win, which will enhance the BXP you would earn.  But you're not going to get a really, really good rank by being constantly carried, because the better players will be out-earning you in BXP consistently.

Also, because you only get to play a fixed maximum number of ranked battles, you can't grind your way to the top just by playing more and more and more.  At the end of the season, assuming that everyone has played the maximum number of ranked battles (which, of course, is the same for everyone), the top ranked players are going to be the one who were the best BXP earners.  Period.  They'd be the ones who won the most, and were regularly having excellent games, and even in losses, they were having good, productive games so that they could maximize their BXP earnings and mitigate their loss of BXP earnings for having lost.  Average players would probably have more average BXP earnings.  And players who didn't even come close to playing all of their allotted ranked  battles would be near the bottom because their total BXP for the season would simply be quite low.

 

As for playing ranked after you've exceeded the maximum allotted battles, I suppose that there could be something like a Sea Wolves League that was only open to players who have used up their allotted battles, but it should have no bearing on the outcome of your allotted battles in the ranked season.  It should be more like a special season and maybe for every 10k BXP (for example), you'd earn something.  Coal, whatever.

 

As for Ranked MM in this model, my first idea would be to just have no leagues, etc. and have it be totally open to anyone playing ranked.  A different idea might be to have a small number of leagues based on the number of ranked battles you've fought towards your allotment.  That is, at the start of the season, everyone would be at 0, and it'd be totally open.  But as the season progressed, players would be progressing through their allotment of battles at different rates.  And MM might pick teams for teams by selecting players from the queue who were at roughly similar progress thru their allotments.  This would make MM more difficult, since you'd also have to be looking to create teams that are balanced in numbers of ship types.  Totally open Ranked MM would be the easiest to produce because there'd be no limits (other than ship type balance between teams).   Another way that MM could be done is to have "leagues" based on some sort of running percentile groupings of players by their current average BXP in that season of ranked, so that better players were having to play better players and lesser players were having to play other lesser players (after they've played enough battles to have created some differentiation, of course).   There might be a minimum number of battles required to get out of the "entry" league, so that you didn't have some player who in his first battle had something like a 2,000 BXP battle that makes him look outstanding in his average BXP.  It might be best to require each player to have played at least 10-20 battles to get out of the "entry" league and into higher leagues in MM's algorithm.  And of course, this model would also come with difficulties when it came to forming teams in the higher less populated leagues.

So, maybe the best Ranked MM model for this overall idea, might be to have an "entry league" for everyone with less than, say, 20 battles played in that season.  And then after that have only one other league, i.e. the league for those with more than 20 battles played.  This would pretty much guarantee a pretty well populated "veteran" (second) league within a very few days.  Now, I suppose if they really wanted to do it, they could also have a third league after you've played 40 battles into your allotment.  But the more leagues, the more times you're going to have times when the first players reaching that next league will have long queue times due to low population numbers in that next league until there are enough players who have passed the required threshold. 

 

Anyways, thanks for the kudos, Tai.  I also think that it's a great idea that would have real promise, if WG would give it a shot.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,082
[A-I-M]
Members
2,233 posts
11,368 battles

Completely rejectible idea.

What is the objection to “star-saving playstyle?” Is it not that this playstyle is self-serving, that when a game goes negative, players fend for themselves to save a star, increasing the likelihood of defeat?

What will happen if a similar reward is made available to the winning side? Will not self-serving play occur there, and possibly before wins are really locked up, resulting in probable wins being turned into the type of losses that occur when players get greedy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
449
[-TKS-]
[-TKS-]
Members
1,022 posts
8,129 battles
3 hours ago, ESX said:

I had a great suggestion from a clan mate yesterday.  What about giving 2 stars to the top winner instead of keeping a star for the loser.  Yes, the good player on the losing team gets kinda screwed, but think of all the coward and star saving game play that will stop, or they go nowhere, good trade I think..... Any ideas???  Will this make everyone try really hard instead of star saving crap???

Save a star saves In the average number of games a player needs to play to rank out statistically. I stand behind the current system. However some players positive team play style may have a high win rate, but a low save a star rate. And end up on a see saw. And I think that’s where the bitterness sets in. However any system based on Xp only continues the issue. remove the incentives of selfish play by replacing the current xp system with a random lotto. Give two random members of the losing team a star. On AverGe you will save the star 1/3 of your loses. The incentive for progress will be reinforced upon the win and the incentive for selfish play will be removed. Statistically the majority of the player base will benefit. However the Unicom with high win rate and high save a star rate would find their grind takes longer. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,310
[INTEL]
Members
11,457 posts
32,035 battles
23 minutes ago, skillztowin said:

Save a star saves In the average number of games a player needs to play to rank out statistically. I stand behind the current system. However some players positive team play style may have a high win rate, but a low save a star rate. And end up on a see saw. And I think that’s where the bitterness sets in. However any system based on Xp only continues the issue. remove the incentives of selfish play by replacing the current xp system with a random lotto. Give two random members of the losing team a star. On AverGe you will save the star 1/3 of your loses. The incentive for progress will be reinforced upon the win and the incentive for selfish play will be removed. Statistically the majority of the player base will benefit. However the Unicom with high win rate and high save a star rate would find their grind takes longer. 

 I'm on the Seesaw now and its infuriating.  yesterday had some loser who averaged 43k damage in Alsace  after 170 games  show up die immediately and then start blaming me in Yug (1300 base XP hi cal) for the loss.  happened to me three games in a row, all losses. I have basically given up on ranked....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,085
[O-PN]
[O-PN]
Members
2,120 posts
4,528 battles

Match Maker does us in enough in Random --- Ranked should be switched to the top 50% of XP earners get a star and the bottom 50% do not.  Everyone's base XP is the same insofar as that there isn't an associated "winning team XP modifier", however the "winning team" can get the associated economic bonus that comes with a win to promote team work.  Ranked  being a smaller version of Randoms less divs completely perverts the concept of individual accomplishment. 2 man divs can then be allowed without causing undue influence.  Ranked would be substantially more rewarding to every player by allowing them to progress on their accomplishment vs being penalized on the failure of the team including bots, unskilled players that bought their way into the tier, intentional match throwing, and of course we cannot forget the AFK nonsense.

I think this change should at the very least be tried in the next season of both ranked and sprint.  Players will be happier, the game will be substantially less frustrating when one's team "just keeps dying", and I think we have a potential application that could be used in randoms as well.  An overwhelming majority of the frustration I see in game-chat has to do with the fact that match maker, aka the game, has stacked a team to fail.  When players stop getting penalized for the failure of others, I think we'll see a much better in-game atmosphere.  

Edited by NoSoMo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,137
[VW]
Members
3,334 posts
16,591 battles
6 hours ago, Dareios said:

No.

because without a 'loser's' star', as soon as your team loses two ships then, due to human nature, knowing that the game can not be won or a star saved, most of the rest of the team will AFK and save time, hopping into another ship for another round. When this does happen, the 'double winner's' star just goes to whichever DD can speed boost first to farm the afk ship.

You cant do this anymore cause you will eventually turn orange and be stuck in coop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,168
[WOLFB]
Members
3,078 posts
12,831 battles
7 hours ago, Crucis said:

Brush, that's my idea from a year back or so.

 

Personally, I like my newer idea better.  Only track base XP earned.  No stars, so no stars to save.  Have the regular ranked season be 30 days and you have 100 ranked battles and no more (less if you don't get around to playing them for whatever reason).  And at the end of those 30 days, create a list of all the participants, ordered by base XP earned.  At this point, you can create whatever type of rank structure you want.

You want 10 ranks?  Just split up the list into 10 groups by 10 percentage point percentiles, i.e. 1-10%, 11-20%, and so on up to 91-100%, with 91-100% being the highest group of players.  You want 20 ranks, then just split it up into 20 groups by 5 percentage point percentiles.  There could even be an award for the single player who earned the most BXP over the course of those 100 battles.  It doesn't have to be 100 battles.  It could be set to, say, 60 battles max, which would work out to only 2 battles per night for 30 days.  And for those players who have those mythical real lives, this would give them leeway to play more battles on those days they can play so they don't have to play every single day out of fear that they'd never be able to catch up to reach the maximum number of battles.

There could also be a running progress list for everyone involved so that you could see how you're doing, though this might be tricky since people might not be progressing through the 100 or 60 or whatever the max number of battles may be.  They could list out each player's average BXP across those battles they have fought, but that might confuse some players into thinking that average BXP was important, when all it'd really be is a relative measure to allow you so see how you stack up against others with different total ranked battles played and overall BXP totals.  You'd have to realize that in the end, it was all about the TOTAL BXP earned, not the average, across the ranked battles you've played, up to the maximum allowed battles for that season.

This system gets you away from all the griping about the save a star thing.  It also makes it so that you don't actually go backwards, technically speaking.  It also punishes AFKs, since if you "waste" a ranked battle and earn 0 BXP for being AFK, that's gonna hurt in the long run, and will require some very good play to make up for that AFK 0 BXP game.  Winning would be rewarded since you earn more BXP in wins than losses, assuming the same quality of production.  Also, even in losses, playing well would be rewarded.  There would be every incentive to play as well as you can, even in battles that look like they're headed for losses, since a productive effort in a loss will still be better for your running BXP total, than a poor effort in a loss.

This system would also work well for Ranked Sprint, since all you'd have to do is shorten the season and reduce the max number of battles allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
1,327 posts
1 hour ago, monpetitloup said:

You cant do this anymore cause you will eventually turn orange and be stuck in coop.

fair enough.

replace afk with 'hold down W until you derp into enemy and get deleted'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×