Why is advancement in Ranked based on a single player model?

[Unsinge]

I recall a video where a developer or producer was discussing Ranked as using a competitive chess model for ranking/advancement ... but it isn't. It is based on victory, not score. Chess is a single person per side game, so victory goes with the higher score, but WoWs is a team game. Why not give stars to the top third of base experience, none to the middle third, and take a star from the bottom third of base experience ... regardless of win/lose.

 

With no one being carried ... everyone finds their level. Thoughts?

[Xannari]

The problem is that stars are based on gameplay results in the first place. This isn't like an actual competition where judges are there deciding who was the best contributors, because contribution and results are different. With the current setup comes countless problems, so there is no change that would work

[The_first_harbinger]

I guess it's just WG doing the calculus and sees that the current way is the best way in keeping ranked battle intense and very competitive.

It also prevents decent, but not dedicated players(such as me )getting high ranks at a minimum effort.

[Special_Kay]

Chess is a single person per side game, so victory goes with the higher score

 

Your premise is deeply flawed. Victory goes to the player who satisfies the victory condition. There isn't even a formal scoring system in the game itself, and though widely accepted scoring systems exist, they have no bearing on placement in competitions.

[Zhoyzu]

On this forum the only determinant of skill is winning so most wouldnt want this change

[KonDrites]

I guess it's just WG doing the calculus and sees that the current way is the best way in keeping ranked battle intense and very competitive.

It also prevents decent, but not dedicated players(such as me )getting high ranks at a minimum effort.

 

Only problem is after being a premium payer for over a year and playing mostly American and a Japan ship, I almost always end up in a battle where half my team is dead in the first two minutes. I know it happens now and then but to get put in with poor or unlucky players over and over again? Ive had runs with 10 losses in a row, not just that was close but most of the team dead in the beginning of the match.

 

[Crucis]

Chess is a single person per side game, so victory goes with the higher score

 

Your premise is deeply flawed. Victory goes to the player who satisfies the victory condition. There isn't even a formal scoring system in the game itself, and though widely accepted scoring systems exist, they have no bearing on placement in competitions.

 

No, I don't think that he is wrong.

 

Ranked is about individual achievement.  This isn't team battles.  Each player is playing for himself, outside of each individual battle.  But your success or failure rides on the fact that you have to compete as a team.

 

Ranked battles would be sorta like trying to determine who the best single hockey player is, but requiring all players to play on 100 random teams, and at the end, saying that the player with the most wins must of course be the best player.  That's nonsense.

 

 

[Herr_Reitz]

The only major flaw I see in the system is a winning team. Suppose you randomly land in a team that kicks sterns... you win and win handily. Would be interesting if you could continue the next match with the same - or most of the same - team, for oh, maybe 3 battles max. When your team won you would be asked "Battle again with this team? Y/N". 

 

Might make the word team mean something in ranked battles.