Petition to allow top 3 players on the losing team to keep stars in Ranked Battles

[chickenfromhawaii]

Current rule allows only the top 1 player on the losing team to keep the star doesn't encourage team play. The top 1 player is usually the one with the most damage or kills. The support players that cover a flank or a retreat don't do as much damage and are rewarded with losing the star. The current rule is encouraging a play culture that's contrary to to the intent of the warship community. Allowing the top 3 players will be a fair rule to reward good support players for their effort.

[LB_Binghamton]

Great, then the bottom 3 on the winning team...

[Princess_Daystar]

I woulda ranked up so much faster..so sure why not!

[Khafni]

Do away with stars altogether, OR -

1. You win, you get a star.

2. You lose, you don't get a star.

[Hunter_Steel]

Just make the Tier 7 variant not have revocable ranks.

Tired of hovering around Rank 5 and 4 in Tier 7 ranked because I can't advance.

~Hunter

[Ekkaroe]

Imho the problem lies on how base exp is calculated based on your contribution and not on who is top or bottom.

If you look at newer lines or premium/special ships, even DDs are changing their focus from torpedos to guns, which provides a more reliable and effective way of contributing to damage.

[Crokodone]

Save a Star was is a poster child for "highway to hell is paved with good intentions." It creates a team within  a team in a match where there's supposed to be only one friendly team. What you suggest multiply that problem to the first team that suffers a misfortune. Everyone should gain or lose as a team. If they don't, they're no longer a team...

[LowSpeed_US]

Get rid of Star system.  That will force players to stop the misguided notion that damage solely equals a win.  Which directly or indirectly leads to preserving their own rather than performing directly to contribute to a win condition more actively.

 

[Skpstr]

5 hours ago, chickenfromhawaii said:

Allowing the top 3 players will be a fair rule to reward good support players for their effort.

No it won't, it'll just reward the top 3 damage farmers.

The support players rarely end up in the top 3 on either side, valuable as they are to a win.

[WaifuMateriaI]

No that will make it even more easy to rank out... 

Ranked is just a grind where good players will complete it faster than bad players.

I actually liked the first week of gold league as it had a lot of close matches with somewhat equally distributed skill.

If you give 3 people the ability to star save that's 3 potential mediocre players who can rush to high leagues. 

If it was top 3 every game average to above average players like myself would pretty much never lose stars... (At least in the lower leagues.)
 

[Skpstr]

3 hours ago, Ekkaroe said:

Imho the problem lies on how base exp is calculated based on your contribution and not on who is top or bottom.

If you look at newer lines or premium/special ships, even DDs are changing their focus from torpedos to guns, which provides a more reliable and effective way of contributing to damage.

TBH, (and I'm not a great DD player) a lot of my XP comes from capping. I can do maybe 30-40k damage, get 1 solo cap, and come on the top 3.

[Crucis]

5 hours ago, chickenfromhawaii said:

Current rule allows only the top 1 player on the losing team to keep the star doesn't encourage team play. The top 1 player is usually the one with the most damage or kills. The support players that cover a flank or a retreat don't do as much damage and are rewarded with losing the star. The current rule is encouraging a play culture that's contrary to to the intent of the warship community. Allowing the top 3 players will be a fair rule to reward good support players for their effort.

 

 

5 hours ago, Khafni said:

Do away with stars altogether, OR -

1. You win, you get a star.

2. You lose, you don't get a star.

IMO, a big no to both of you guys.

The problem is that the entire star system for Ranked is highly flawed.   WG needs to develop a completely new Ranked scoring system, a system that values both winning and losing as well as each player's individual production and achievement.

My suggestion for the past few years has been that the Ranked season should be limited in length (say 1 month).  And that there should be a fixed number of ranked games.  

Then the ranked scoring system would be the accumulation of all of the base XP you earned in that limited number of ranked battles.  And the ranking would represent where each player fell on the overall list of players on that list.  There'd be no need for top 1 or  3 losers.  Everyone would earn however many base XP they earned in the battle, affected by whether you won or lost, as well as how  well you played in each ranked battle.

 

 

[ArIskandir]

Why everything in game must be easier?

 

[Stew_Pedastle]

21 minutes ago, ArIskandir said:

Why everything in game must be easier?

 

Seems these people are bad at the game and want to get rank1 to prove how good they are at the game ?  it cant be because of steel as you dont have to rank out to get it . 

This new ranked garbage is infinitely easier then the original ranked system that people cried about and look they are still crying . 

[Skpstr]

3 hours ago, LowSpeed_US said:

Get rid of Star system.  That will force players to stop the misguided notion that damage solely equals a win.  Which directly or indirectly leads to preserving their own rather than performing directly to contribute to a win condition more actively.

 

The flipside to that though, is that if you are doing a decent job, but your teammates are facerolling the keyboard, you have the potential to not be set back because of it.

I feel that the "we shall all win or lose together", and the "why should I be punished because the rest of my team did poorly" mindsets will always be at odds here.

[Skpstr]

17 minutes ago, Stew_Pedastle said:

Seems these people are bad at the game and want to get rank1 to prove how good they are at the game ?  it cant be because of steel as you dont have to rank out to get it . 

This new ranked garbage is infinitely easier then the original ranked system that people cried about and look they are still crying . 

The only time I worry about saving a star is in qualifying, or if still working towards Rank 1 after 12 victories, simply because losing a star means longer until I can again earn rewards.

[Ado1fCarsar]

stars dont matter. basically everything outside CB is just luck based. the individual skill cap on this game is extremely low, majority of it is just RNG.

[Khafni]

1 hour ago, Crucis said:

 

 

IMO, a big no to both of you guys.

The problem is that the entire star system for Ranked is highly flawed.   WG needs to develop a completely new Ranked scoring system, a system that values both winning and losing as well as each player's individual production and achievement.

My suggestion for the past few years has been that the Ranked season should be limited in length (say 1 month).  And that there should be a fixed number of ranked games.  

Then the ranked scoring system would be the accumulation of all of the base XP you earned in that limited number of ranked battles.  And the ranking would represent where each player fell on the overall list of players on that list.  There'd be no need for top 1 or  3 losers.  Everyone would earn however many base XP they earned in the battle, affected by whether you won or lost, as well as how  well you played in each ranked battle.

 

 

I like your idea a whole bunch but isn't Ranked touted as a team event? Your option makes it every captain for themselves which, as I've seemed to have read, is already an "issue" with ranked and the star system as damage farmers or Sims drivers win out. Maybe that would be okay but the 2-team concept needs to go away and make it 14 individual teams of 1. Wasn't something like this done in one of those monster battle modes a few patches ago?

[Crucis]

58 minutes ago, Khafni said:

I like your idea a whole bunch but isn't Ranked touted as a team event? Your option makes it every captain for themselves which, as I've seemed to have read, is already an "issue" with ranked and the star system as damage farmers or Sims drivers win out. Maybe that would be okay but the 2-team concept needs to go away and make it 14 individual teams of 1. Wasn't something like this done in one of those monster battle modes a few patches ago?

No, you really do have to fight as a team if you want to maximize your base XP earnings, because you earn more base XP when you win vs when you lose.

[z9_]

8 hours ago, chickenfromhawaii said:

The current rule is encouraging a play culture that's contrary to to the intent of the warship community.

Wrong. You're speaking from the perspective of the NA community, not the global community.

Save a Star is a teaching aid.
The mentality is, if you finish at the top of the leader board consistently,
then over time your win rate will improve.

It's flawed from a standpoint that you can spend the whole battle in a DD keeping
the enemy lit for your team, thereby being the MVP of the battle, but still finish in last place.
However..
It's the same as sneaking around the flank and capping the base in WoT. They hate that.
So it is what it is, but..
If you play the way they want you to, you can easily top the leaderboard with a DD,
players do it all the time. Sling those torps!

That said, bronze league should be protected at Rank 3.
Once I get my prizes for 12 wins, it's not worth the grind to go from 5 to 1
for a measly 200 gold.

[Ekkaroe]

5 hours ago, Skpstr said:

TBH, (and I'm not a great DD player) a lot of my XP comes from capping. I can do maybe 30-40k damage, get 1 solo cap, and come on the top 3.

Yeah. I was not putting into question the that you can still get top 3 or even top of the scoreboard on a DD. Only stating how the paradigm seems to be shifting, which is sad.

I had a rank game in Bronze once in which I did 6 Solo Caps and I was top of the scoreboard, but only by a few dozen points from the second player.

[Khafni]

2 hours ago, Crucis said:

No, you really do have to fight as a team if you want to maximize your base XP earnings, because you earn more base XP when you win vs when you lose.

But if you take away the concept of "win XP" from everyone then you have a more balanced outcome, which should be more based on individual skill (luck?), and which will still provide the same results you want with the accumulation of XP over "X" amount of games.

[USMC_FMF]

I 100% agree, and the bottom 2 on the losing team also lose a star. 

[xTheCanadianx]

Git Gud?

[DDJohnston]

No.

All the losers should not be able to save stars. 

That's one of the biggest problems of ranked is all the people just 'saving their star' and not trying to win.

Don't make it worse.