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

Ranked Scoring System

19 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[XFS]
[XFS]
Players
179 posts
10,982 battles

Hi

the scoring system could look something like this , maybe some maths genius could do a little work on it and make it better but I believe a scoring system like this would make it a whole lot better than the system at the moment

 

What do you all think ? suggestions for improvement / ideas are very welcome as this is just a basic sample

 

Winners Points    Losers Points
1st      10   1st           5
2nd      7   2nd           2
3rd       5   3rd         -3
4th      5   4th         -4
5th      5   5th         -5
6th    -1   6th         -7
7th    -1   7th       -10
         
AFK   -20   AFK       -20
Team Damage  -10   Team Damage       -10
         
Rank Level Points      
1 1000      
2 800      
3 750      
4 700      
5 650      
6 600      
7 550      
8 500      
9 450      
10 400      
11 300      
12 250      
13 200      
14 150      
16 100      
17 90      
18 80      
19 70      
20 50      
21 40      
22 30      
23 20      
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XFS]
[XFS]
Players
179 posts
10,982 battles

bullock's  apologies I meant for this to go in the suggestions section

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,607 posts
7,323 battles

Interesting idea, but the problem I see is it makes damage farming even more important than it currently is so I'm not sure how that improves things.

 

Also it's pretty rough on the DD players who were struggling in the XP stakes last time out, get smacked early on and lose and it's -10 points for you, meanwhile the potato camping 10 km back picks up +5.

 

Actually it's even worse, the best way to progress is find a way of sabotaging your own teams performance so that you come out top, so sail in front of other ships, try to pick up a fire and then let it burn them to death, DD cycling between caps without spotting or fighting each other, CV would be the absolute worst, simply strike at the enemy fleet and allow your opponent to do the same, pure uncontested damage farming with the rest of your team getting ruined by the enemy cv.

 

On reflection - horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,405 posts
5,626 battles

So let me get this straight: You want to penalize players ON THE WINNING TEAM?

 

Looks like a totally sound idea, to punish players that are on the winning team, because you perceive them as inferior, because they did not outperform you...

 

I think you did not really think this one through?

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
[HAERT]
Players
1,186 posts
2,402 battles

Simply don't award points for a loss, treat it like a football league - points for wins and draws only

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,733 posts
6,638 battles

The less Ranked progression depends on base XP, the better. The experience system is not balanced for actual contribution to battles. It's balanced for damage farming.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TXG-]
Players
2,377 posts
11 minutes ago, Fat_Maniac said:

Simply don't award points for a loss, treat it like a football league - pints for wins and draws only

 

I like the pints for wins suggestion :Smile_smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
[HAERT]
Players
1,186 posts
2,402 battles
6 minutes ago, bushwacker001 said:

I like the pints for wins suggestion :Smile_smile:

Ooops bloody auto correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[XFS]
[XFS]
Players
179 posts
10,982 battles
11 minutes ago, Juanx said:

So let me get this straight: You want to penalize players ON THE WINNING TEAM?

 

Looks like a totally sound idea, to punish players that are on the winning team, because you perceive them as inferior, because they did not outperform you...

 

I think you did not really think this one through?

Firstly I do not think anyone inferior at all and never would , secondly its only a suggestion put forward and as I said can be altered to make it fairer or better

 

14 players in the game in 2 teams the top 7 players (5 on winning team 2 on loosing team) get something out of the game making it a game of 14 players not just two teams , as you cannot make 14 individual players for a game (or can you I don't know) ,  the team damage penalty take that out as suggested wold be unfair 

 

Its hard to make a suggestion to please everyone but looking at the rants about ranked at the moment something needs to be done or take out the ranked altogether or make it so you can join with divisions of 7 maybe I don't know 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[PMI]
Players
2,405 posts
5,626 battles
6 minutes ago, SDGsteve said:

Firstly I do not think anyone inferior at all and never would , secondly its only a suggestion put forward and as I said can be altered to make it fairer or better

 

14 players in the game in 2 teams the top 7 players (5 on winning team 2 on loosing team) get something out of the game making it a game of 14 players not just two teams , as you cannot make 14 individual players for a game (or can you I don't know) ,  the team damage penalty take that out as suggested wold be unfair 

 

Its hard to make a suggestion to please everyone but looking at the rants about ranked at the moment something needs to be done or take out the ranked altogether or make it so you can join with divisions of 7 maybe I don't know

 

 

Not bashing, I do think you did not give this enough computing cycles in your head. You did ask for that right?

 

Team damage is something that should not be in ranked, but Im a weird guy...

Winning team wins, they get their star & goodies, the whole team, sometimes you will be the one yoloing because its not your day. Punishing players for not performing to whatever standards you (not you personally, figure of speech) perceive they should is a surefire way to get the damage farmers we have now, since that is the root of the issue, team play is not rewarded, some random DMG number is, and that is what we have, and your suggestion does nothing to adress it.

 

Also: loose = not tight. To lose = to suffer a defeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,784 posts
10,685 battles
1 hour ago, SDGsteve said:

Hi

the scoring system could look something like this , maybe some maths genius could do a little work on it and make it better but I believe a scoring system like this would make it a whole lot better than the system at the moment

 

What do you all think ? suggestions for improvement / ideas are very welcome as this is just a basic sample

 

Winners Points    Losers Points
1st      10   1st           5
2nd      7   2nd           2
3rd       5   3rd         -3
4th      5   4th         -4
5th      5   5th         -5
6th    -1   6th         -7
7th    -1   7th       -10
         
AFK   -20   AFK       -20
Team Damage  -10   Team Damage       -10
         
Rank Level Points      
1 1000      
2 800      
3 750      
4 700      
5 650      
6 600      
7 550      
8 500      
9 450      
10 400      
11 300      
12 250      
13 200      
14 150      
16 100      
17 90      
18 80      
19 70      
20 50      
21 40      
22 30      
23 20      

This is going in the exact opposite direction than it should.

We need to encourage playing for victory more NOT give out incentives to screw your own team over and rack up XP to safely advance up the ranks as long as you always manage to gather enough XP to score in top 2.

 

Current system is bad because top loser saving a star has enough of a negative impact.

Your system takes what's wrong with the current one and amplifies it a thousandfold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[HAERT]
Players
2,103 posts
39 minutes ago, AnotherDuck said:

The less Ranked progression depends on base XP, the better. The experience system is not balanced for actual contribution to battles. It's balanced for damage farming.

 

It's not really a problem with the Ranking system, while it's not perfect it's adequate. The issue is with the scoring system being vastly weighted towards damage farming.

 

As @Negativvv has said (good player though he is) it was absurdly easy to score well to save a star or contribute enough to a win by sitting back in a BB with long guns and farming damage, until the scoring system is overhauled significantly nothing will improve.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,733 posts
6,638 battles
55 minutes ago, BeauNidl3 said:

It's not really a problem with the Ranking system, while it's not perfect it's adequate. The issue is with the scoring system being vastly weighted towards damage farming.

It's not a problem inherent with the ranking system, but for it to not be a problem the experience system has to be balanced entirely for team play rather than for selfish play. It isn't, so it's a problem. It is a problem when it incentivises selfish play at the cost of wanting to win the battle.

 

I'm not sure how they've changed it, but my impression is that experience from capping is vastly reduced from how it was before. Additional things WG claims add to the score only add a token value at best, but nothing that actually influences anything of worth.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[W_I_G]
Players
3,168 posts
9,352 battles

1. this suggestion makes the ranked much longer grind... you need 100 wins at least to get to rank 1 (and that is with all top xp on winning team with 100% WR). so with average points 4.3 (per your suggestion)  and 65% WR, you would need 357 battles for rank 1 with 65% WR.

just for comparison this season i had 64.29% WR and finished it in 126 battles and could have probably finished it below 100 battles if i didnt play with BB again this season (cause i suck at BB).

 

2. losing points on win? base xp doesnt tell usefulness of player for win. sometimes support role is what gets you the win, but sadly last place in base xp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,784 posts
10,685 battles
1 hour ago, AnotherDuck said:

It's not a problem inherent with the ranking system, but for it to not be a problem the experience system has to be balanced entirely for team play rather than for selfish play. It isn't, so it's a problem. It is a problem when it incentivises selfish play at the cost of wanting to win the battle.

In theory you're right but in practice it's worse than you think. It's literally impossible to create a system that perfectly gauges everyone's actions. Take capping, for example. In current Ranked season we had the flavor of maps where each team had one "free" cap and there was a third, contested cap on the other side of the map. Now, taking the "free cap" at the beginning is exceedingly easy, hardly a contribution to be rewarded... but if nobody goes there, it's a HUGE setback, so that one person that goes there certainly helps the team a lot! Or imagine a situation where the enemy team controls 3 caps - taking one of them is of utmost importance, much more than in a situation where the cap situation is more balanced. There's just no way to create a system that properly gauges how hard and how helpful certain actions were... not to mention: what about actions that COULD be important (going to spot incoming torps and enemy DDs) but ultimately end up useless (enemy didn't torp and enemy DDs played it safe)? Should the system acknowledge a correct tactical decision that proved redundant - but only in hindsight?

 

Any system of XP scoring that we might really see is going to operate on simple principles - because otherwise people would end up completely confused about what they are rewarded for (transparency isn't exactly perfect right now, but it would be much, much worse) not to mention that faults in the system would be almost impossible to identify. What it all comes down to is that no matter how well you reward capping, how you reward damage, how you treat things like setting a fire that gets extinguished allowing your allies to set a couple permafires - no matter how you tweak and improve things, you'll ALWAYS end up with plenty situations where "what do I do to increase chances of victory" and "what do I do to increase my XP gain relative to allies" are going to give different results. Which is why the only thing clearly rewarded in Ranked should be the end result - victory, draw (I don't understand why they don't make it so that in a draw nobody loses a star) or defeat. You could add some mechanism that accumulates you some points for, say, being in top 5 of your team - points then exchanged for "pardon" on defeat when you accumulate enough. But these should have a very low cut-off point (so that you're basically rewarded for not being at the very bottom) and the difference between losing as top of your team and winning should be so huge that the idea of aiming for high spots in your team would just seem absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,733 posts
6,638 battles
12 hours ago, eliastion said:

In theory you're right but in practice it's worse than you think.

Oh, really? Can you tell me what I think now?

 

12 hours ago, eliastion said:

Which is why the only thing clearly rewarded in Ranked should be the end result - victory, draw (I don't understand why they don't make it so that in a draw nobody loses a star) or defeat.

Which is my point. It shouldn't depend on experience at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NWP]
[NWP]
Players
8,132 posts
11,682 battles
15 hours ago, BeauNidl3 said:

 

It's not really a problem with the Ranking system, while it's not perfect it's adequate. The issue is with the scoring system being vastly weighted towards damage farming.

 

As @Negativvv has said (good player though he is) it was absurdly easy to score well to save a star or contribute enough to a win by sitting back in a BB with long guns and farming damage, until the scoring system is overhauled significantly nothing will improve.

 

14 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

It's not a problem inherent with the ranking system, but for it to not be a problem the experience system has to be balanced entirely for team play rather than for selfish play. It isn't, so it's a problem. It is a problem when it incentivises selfish play at the cost of wanting to win the battle.

 

I'm not sure how they've changed it, but my impression is that experience from capping is vastly reduced from how it was before. Additional things WG claims add to the score only add a token value at best, but nothing that actually influences anything of worth.

 

I'm fairly sure awhile back WG nerfed the hell out of cap XP which is somewhat bad in a game that relies so much on teamplay...

 

I personally think the BB issue was due to T10 partly, or atleast the Monty being accurate from 15km+ and having about 100k HP means that within reason you could exert a lot of pressure on caps without actually needing to take huge risks. Unlike a DD who is dead if spotted and has to be at the vanguard of any attack and the Cruiser who is always at risk of instant deletion (yes even Hindys can be smacked down so hard they'll be forced to withdraw). 

 

What I did was dirty as hell but it personally saved me the stress of playing a DD where I had to do all the work yet got punished when it went wrong whereas the BB play style didn't change. Was just creeping aggression for low risk...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[TOXIC]
[TOXIC]
Players
3,784 posts
10,685 battles
4 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

Oh, really? Can you tell me what I think now?

Well, I can see what you write...

18 hours ago, AnotherDuck said:

for it to not be a problem the experience system has to be balanced entirely for team play rather than for selfish play. It isn't, so it's a problem.

...and I assume this is what you think.

And, as I said, it's worse than you think because there's no remotely possible option of a system that would stand up to the challenge, no matter how good and how teamplay-oriented the grading algorithms were. No matter how perfect and teamplay-focused the system was, it wouldn't be good enough. Making a scifi-style sentient AI would be easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[IRQ]
Players
2,733 posts
6,638 battles
2 hours ago, eliastion said:

Well, I can see what you write...

...and I assume this is what you think.

Well, you're wrong. I'm well aware of how it is, and I don't like people making assumptions for what I think. There's a reason I said the best option is to not include the experience at all in Ranked progression.

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.

×