Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
Gojuadorai

Whats really wrong about ranked.....

77 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Players
2,831 posts
19,220 battles

.... the best thing about ranked is when youre done and dont have to play it any more

 

 

*before someone complains this is non constructive consider this:

 

ranked is by construction verry stressfull and this seasons changes magnified this to an extend where the fun that could be had in previous season  is overshadowed by the flaws to such an extend that it is not fun at all.

ranked needs to change (back?).

the base xp system needs to be balanced map setups need to be less "splitting" therfore encourage active teamplay more

maybe even giving stars not only for wins but also for tasks (maybe even ship class specific) -> getting 5 caps gain a star die 10 times loose a star or something along the lines on top of the current system

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles

This is the guy who said they'd rather perform "favours" in a train station than play Ranked :cap_yes:

  • Funny 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,831 posts
19,220 battles
10 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

This is the guy who said they'd rather perform "favours" in a train station than play Ranked :cap_yes:

 

i was only reffering to paying ranked for dubloons  ...but dubloons cant buy you everything:Smile_teethhappy:

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles
4 minutes ago, Gojuadorai said:

 

i was only reffering to paying ranked for dubloons  ...but dubloons cant buy you everything:Smile_teethhappy:

Can't buy the B L A C K no....

 

Which is why both of us are still grinding :cap_money:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
5,760 posts
14,436 battles
16 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

This is the guy who said they'd rather perform "favours" in a train station than play Ranked :cap_yes:

Well, he tried but it didn't work out

Spoiler

 

 

  • Funny 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
15 posts
7,378 battles

I recently went into ranked battles and was delighted by the much more tactical play style. Looks more like a naval battle and less an all-out brawl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,667 posts
11,790 battles

What's really wrong about Ranked is the "top loser saves a star" system of generating stars.

Yes, it sounded good when first proposed. Yes, I was actually a fan of it initially, remembering these battles where I did so much, ended up top of the team and still lost a star just as surely as if I went AFK. I'm ashamed to admit - I completely bought into the illusion that this system would help make the Ranked less stressful and more fair.

How wrong I was.

The very essence of early Ranked - the feeling of really doing all you can for the victory, rooting for your team no matter what and being willing to sacrifice yourself to make the victory more likely - all that went down the drain right away the very moment people started saving stars based on their XP gains compared to other team members.

 

Perhaps Ranked would be better with some completely different system. But if it needs to be the task of accumulation stars, then at least the saving of the top loser's star needs to go.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TTT]
Players
2,098 posts
21,172 battles

Sometimes it's annoying, sometimes it's amazing. However, it is important to know when to take a break, the season is long enough for that.

The mode isn't perfect, maybe it will never be no matter how you would change it. It's not easy to make a solo mode work in a team-based game.

 

I wouldn't play ranked if I didn't enjoy it. This season I got owned by a couple of actually good Des Moines players, it made me think more about my positioning. My 63% DM solo winrate in randoms didn't mean anything in this competitive mode / situation, apparently you don't learn much from clubbing the average tier 10 player. I enjoy learning lessons like these and getting better at the game.

 

 

There is only one way of having more fun playing ranked that I can think of: Play ranked on NA.

 

Reasons:

  • You don't care.
  • The overall skill level is lower which automatically makes your personal skill level higher.
  • You will laugh at throws that you would never dream of being possible.
  • It's fun to read the chat.
  • Battles like these:
Spoiler

shot-18_05.14_08_24.47-0710.thumb.jpg.69f7d8aad15171ec327333d39b239a64.jpg

shot-18_05.14_08_24.52-0193.thumb.jpg.214324750cc7ccda699597f56a1e1b81.jpg

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles
45 minutes ago, eliastion said:

What's really wrong about Ranked is the "top loser saves a star" system of generating stars.

Yes, it sounded good when first proposed. Yes, I was actually a fan of it initially, remembering these battles where I did so much, ended up top of the team and still lost a star just as surely as if I went AFK. I'm ashamed to admit - I completely bought into the illusion that this system would help make the Ranked less stressful and more fair.

How wrong I was.

The very essence of early Ranked - the feeling of really doing all you can for the victory, rooting for your team no matter what and being willing to sacrifice yourself to make the victory more likely - all that went down the drain right away the very moment people started saving stars based on their XP gains compared to other team members.

 

Perhaps Ranked would be better with some completely different system. But if it needs to be the task of accumulation stars, then at least the saving of the top loser's star needs to go.

I personally agree the top loser keeping their star should be removed as currently there are two ways of hitting R1.

 

A) Playing to win.

 

B) Picking the best damage farmer and farming damage. Eventually your teams will win and you'll rise, otherwise you play selfishly.

 

 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
386 posts
11,096 battles

If the game knew who to appreciate correctly;  top loser keeping the star would be no problem at all.

So the real problem is not "top loser saves a star" but the XP valuation system.

 

6 hours ago, eliastion said:

What's really wrong about Ranked is the "top loser saves a star" system of generating stars.

 

5 hours ago, Negativvv said:

I personally agree the top loser keeping their star should be removed as currently there are two ways of hitting R1.

 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,022 posts
5,416 battles
20 minutes ago, xenopathia said:

If the game knew who to appreciate correctly;  top loser keeping the star would be no problem at all.

So the real problem is not "top loser saves a star" but the XP valuation system.

 

 

 

Yep. Mostly bbs manage to save their star even if their position was completely useless for the team. I'm not saying bring back 1k base xp for a cap, but at least emphasise the value of capping more. Either that or value damage against dds and cruisers more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
2,831 posts
19,220 battles
6 hours ago, Ze_Reckless said:

 

 

Reasons:

  • You will laugh at throws that you would never dream of being possible

 

 

oh you see them on EU too :Smile_teethhappy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,667 posts
11,790 battles
1 hour ago, xenopathia said:

If the game knew who to appreciate correctly;  top loser keeping the star would be no problem at all.

So the real problem is not "top loser saves a star" but the XP valuation system.

 

 

 

No.

I mean, sure, on purely theoretical level it would be ok, but it's a useless speculation because it's literally impossible to have a perfect XP rewarding system. You would need an omniscient system capable of evaluating every single action - as well as the act of abstaining from taking an action. You'd need a system capable of recognizing the value of, say, a DD getting into a cap, getting Radared and escaping the cap. Depending on tactical situation and the composition of teams this can be anything between a perfectly baited Radar that allows another DD to try safely capping - or it might be just an idiot losing hp for nothing by trying to get a cap that's clearly protected by enemy Radar. Or even more interesting example: imagine a long-unspotted DD that decides to open fire to bring an enemy ship down faster. Is that a good decision? Well, if the enemy goes down a couple seconds earlier, maybe shooting a salvo less, that should be a good thing to do - but what if thee enemy team was afraid of this DD on another flank and that's why, say, their severely wounded DD out there refrained from trying to take a cap? Revealing your position effectively allows the enemy on the other flank to get a cap or push where they were reluctant to - so yes, you dealt a bit of damage, brought the enemy ship down faster, but by doing so you revealed your position which was the very piece of intel your enemy needed - increasing THEIR chances of victory, not yours.

It's impossible to judge all nuances of every action. It's impossible for even the best XP system. Hell, you could send replays to a panel of human experts and they couldn't do it perfectly either. This is inevitable - no matter how much you polish the XP-rewarding, playing for the victory and playing for the top XP spot will always diverge in some ways. Especially since, even with an impossible perfect XP rewarding system, getting top spot depends not only on you scoring well but also on your allies scoring worse than you - so, in fact, even with that impossible perfect XP scoring, you'd end up with a situation where you want your team to either win (preferably) or - if that doesn't seem possible - to score as badly as possible. I still remember the Ranked from before "loser saving star" system where I was sunk after a hard battle and watched the reminder of a match that seemed lost - still, I was happpy for every good salvo of these remaining potatoes, hoping against hope that they might reverse it and prevail. Somehow. I was mad for their mistakes but I certainly rooted for them. They were MY potatoes. And no? Yesterday I went down after a tough battle. I took two enemy destroyers with me and got a cap. But it didn't go so well on the other flank, it was 3v1 for the enemy. And I watched our remaining Montana, a guy that actually didn't do that badly. And I was watching how he was being rushed by an enemy DD. And was rooting for that f*cking DD, hoping that our Montana doesn't score a good salvo on him, because I knew that this was the guy that devstriked one of the enemy cruisers and got some damage elsewhere and was the one candidate that had a chance of surpassing me in XP if he happened to kill that DD and then score some more damage before his inevitable death against the other two enemies...

I hate this. I should've been able to just root for my remaining teammate, the one that actually didn't f*ck up this match - but instead the game "told" me to root for the enemy because for my personal goals it was advantageous for this remaining teammate of mine to go down as ignominiously as possible. Him giving the enemy one hell of a fight, a last stand to be remembered? Hell no. The game could take away my star if that happened.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
386 posts
11,096 battles
6 minutes ago, eliastion said:

it's literally impossible to have a perfect XP rewarding system.

This I know.

As impossible as implementing a "perfect" evaluation system it is also impossible for one to perfect his skills towards keeping a star instead of winning a game. 

Those who master their skills towards keeping star can also master winning.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,667 posts
11,790 battles
27 minutes ago, xenopathia said:

This I know.

As impossible as implementing a "perfect" evaluation system it is also impossible for one to perfect his skills towards keeping a star instead of winning a game. 

Those who master their skills towards keeping star can also master winning.

 

But they shouldn't be given initiative to try the former.

You see, when people think about not losing a star (be it in addition to or instead of winning), the system has already failed and created an undesirable situation. It doesn't even matter if "star-savers" actually are very effective in saving stars - what matters is that people have a secondary goal distracting them from trying to win. And when you factor in the fact that this goal is actually in opposition to the team (you don't want loads of XP - you want more XP than the others on your team), the situation gets incredibly unhealthy for the atmosphere of the game. You just shouldn't be given goals that conflict with those of your teammates.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
386 posts
11,096 battles

Well I still think that's not a major problem, I've had one or two  frustrating games with "star chasers" but that's it.

And the chances of getting those in your team is equal.

High tier noobs is a bigger concern for me.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles
11 minutes ago, xenopathia said:

Well I still think that's not a major problem, I've had one or two  frustrating games with "star chasers" but that's it.

And the chances of getting those in your team is equal.

High tier noobs is a bigger concern for me.

Depends what you class as a star chaser. As it could be argued a spamming cruiser at mid range is doing their job but a damage farming BB who isn't tanking isn't...

 

11 minutes ago, xenopathia said:

Well I still think that's not a major problem, I've had one or two  frustrating games with "star chasers" but that's it.

And the chances of getting those in your team is equal.

High tier noobs is a bigger concern for me.

Depends what you class as a star chaser. As it could be argued a spamming cruiser at mid range is doing their job but a damage farming BB who isn't tanking isn't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
386 posts
11,096 battles
8 minutes ago, Negativvv said:

Depends what you class as a star chaser. As it could be argued a spamming cruiser at mid range is doing their job but a damage farming BB who isn't tanking isn't...

So it's hard to define what is called a "star chaser"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
8,241 posts
11,737 battles
1 minute ago, xenopathia said:

So it's hard to define what is called a "star chaser"

 

Guess so. We probably get to see how XP works without any Premium ships messing up the multipliers this season however so that's one thing in favour of this T10 season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,649 posts
8,138 battles
2 hours ago, eliastion said:

But they shouldn't be given initiative to try the former.

You see, when people think about not losing a star (be it in addition to or instead of winning), the system has already failed and created an undesirable situation. It doesn't even matter if "star-savers" actually are very effective in saving stars - what matters is that people have a secondary goal distracting them from trying to win. And when you factor in the fact that this goal is actually in opposition to the team (you don't want loads of XP - you want more XP than the others on your team), the situation gets incredibly unhealthy for the atmosphere of the game. You just shouldn't be given goals that conflict with those of your teammates.

Actualy this shouldn't change much even if the saving a star rule where to be removed. Only you yourself can control what you are thinking and how you would like the match to go.

It's simply your ego (being egoistic) vs your conscience or teamspirit.

Even without the rule egoistic people will still have ill wishes for their teammates as this will end the match sooner, enabling them to requeue faster. (you shouldn't change ships on the fly if you take ranked seriously)

I for example don't have this feeling as most of the times when someone gets more xp then me then he simply played better. If he gets the last salvo off which enables him to rise higher than only because he managed to survive longer than me.

Yes there are annoying exceptions to this, but that's why they are exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CAIN]
Players
4,382 posts
18,527 battles

I haven't played many ranked games, but those few were mostly horrible.

 

After the last game, i made a decision to tell the team right at the start what we do.

If they agree, i'll be a nice team player, if they don't i will do whatever is necessary to keep my star.

So yes, i will be a "star chaser" the second i see my team doing stupid $hit.

 

I'm glad that at least WG is having a good time with all the ~20% - 45% WR bots buying TVIII ships to ruin this game mode by being glue eating window lickers and doing the most stupid $hit imaginable.

Personally, i'd say that people who graduated Magna cum Laude at the University of applied re7ardedness shouldn't be permitted to play ranked (or get near a PC for that matter).

 

For nine seasons now people are telling WG that this game mode is flawed and they still don't listen.

Maybe because the graduates of above mentioned University are running this company?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
[SCRUB]
Players
2,989 posts
11,460 battles
14 hours ago, Negativvv said:

This is the guy who said they'd rather perform "favours" in a train station than play Ranked :cap_yes:

 

Still I have to admit thats an healthy disposition towards ranked. Usually after a few games I rather search for a straw of hay in a stack of needles. Needles being from the medical waste of a hospital to be precise.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,667 posts
11,790 battles
2 hours ago, Miessa3 said:

Actualy this shouldn't change much even if the saving a star rule where to be removed.

This is false - it WAS different before the "first loser saves a star" rule was introduced.

 

2 hours ago, Miessa3 said:

Only you yourself can control what you are thinking and how you would like the match to go.

It's simply your ego (being egoistic) vs your conscience or teamspirit.

Even without the rule egoistic people will still have ill wishes for their teammates as this will end the match sooner, enabling them to requeue faster. (you shouldn't change ships on the fly if you take ranked seriously)

I for example don't have this feeling as most of the times when someone gets more xp then me then he simply played better. If he gets the last salvo off which enables him to rise higher than only because he managed to survive longer than me.

Yes there are annoying exceptions to this, but that's why they are exceptions.

You mix up what "ego" means by it being part of "egoistic" but nevermind that. Let me take apart your logic: you say that people will still wish ill on their teammates without this system. And you say that you yourself don't have such thoughts even with it. Good for you, but you're completely missing the point, you see.

WITH current system, it's directly against your interests for your teammates to perform well (unless they pull off a victory, of course) - if they do well, you're more likely to lose a star.

WITHOUT current system, the worst that can happen due to your teammates playing well is the match lasting a couple minutes longer.

You'll always have outliers who don't care about their own interests (saving a star) or who get overly hung up on getting into the next match fast (preferring the match to end asap unless it looks like a victory) but it's rather easy to see which of the two situations gives one a very clear incentive to hope for their teammates to die quickly and without accomplishing anything.

 

It's nice to know that there are saints like you in this game, but I'm pretty sure most players aren't like this. I sure am not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,649 posts
8,138 battles
4 hours ago, eliastion said:

This is false - it WAS different before the "first loser saves a star" rule was introduced.

 

Mostly only in your head which is my point.

 

4 hours ago, eliastion said:

You mix up what "ego" means by it being part of "egoistic" but nevermind that.

No i did mean what I said. People with an overly inflated ego tend to be very selfish and egoistic at least that is what I experienced so far.

 

4 hours ago, eliastion said:

 Let me take apart your logic: you say that people will still wish ill on their teammates without this system. And you say that you yourself don't have such thoughts even with it. Good for you, but you're completely missing the point, you see.

WITH current system, it's directly against your interests for your teammates to perform well (unless they pull off a victory, of course) - if they do well, you're more likely to lose a star.

WITHOUT current system, the worst that can happen due to your teammates playing well is the match lasting a couple minutes longer.

You'll always have outliers who don't care about their own interests (saving a star) or who get overly hung up on getting into the next match fast (preferring the match to end asap unless it looks like a victory) but it's rather easy to see which of the two situations gives one a very clear incentive to hope for their teammates to die quickly and without accomplishing anything.

the incentive to wish your teammates do very bad is indeed bigger with this system as not everyone is always in a hurry to start the new match and aren't effected at all then if this system didn't exist, BUT this doesn't change that the problem is all in your/the players head. The xp rewarding system is not perfect as perfection is simply impossible in this case, but most of the time the player on the top did something right even if he made a big mistake resulting in uncarryable defeat before/afterwards. When I see someone above of me in xp I truly believe he did better than me if i don't know better. Most of the time you are focused on your play and don't realize what the player in question actualy achieved.

Yes there are rare exceptions like the Conq in a 1 BB per side match (unrealistic i know but that's an example) that survived because he hides at the map boarder all game. Then when only he is left all 5-7 enemys (especially the DDs) rush him recklessly one by one without caring for their survival only to end it quick desulting in him in killing 2 DDs one cruiser and badly hurting a BB. This case is one of those rare (constructed) cases that will make me wish he would just detonate on the first shell that lands on him.

But I can't know before I see the scoreboard and it's history then.

 

4 hours ago, eliastion said:

It's nice to know that there are saints like you in this game, but I'm pretty sure most players aren't like this. I sure am not.

I am by no means a saint. I will and do rage at people doing VERY dumb mistakes or special cases like the unlikely example above. I may be more understanding and calm than most but that has a limit.

 

tldr: It's all in your head and comes directly from your attitude. If it annoys you then you have all you need to change it.

I also usualy don't care what random people on the iternet think about me when I mess up and chat may is filling with insults etc.

One of my favourite songs is very fitting for this topic (though the underlying topic is a little different) so I drop it here. :cap_yes:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
Players
4,667 posts
11,790 battles
1 minute ago, Miessa3 said:

the incentive to wish your teammates do very bad is indeed bigger with this system as not everyone is always in a hurry to start the new match and aren't effected at all then if this system didn't exist, BUT this doesn't change that the problem is all in your/the players head.

Let me take that logic of yours. Imagine someone offering money for taking sh*ts on people's front yards. Would you believe this to be ok, because the problem of sh*tting on someone's front yard is still up to the person taking the sh*t and even without the reward there are some people willing to do just that with no external gratification for the act?

Share this post


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

×