Ranked: Should the "keep your star if you are best in team if you lose" be removed?

[SaintGordon]

Hi all,

 

Should the "keep your star if you are best in team if you lose" be removed?

 

It seems that when it looks like its going to be a lose everyone is playing solo against there team mates.

BBs are benefitted when they stay behind and farm damage instead of supporting there team.

 

Cruisers and Destroyers risking there live to cap or hunt enemy DDs are punished.

They die early and the camping BBs(or CA or DD) are rewarded.

 

Is this realy intended?

 

Cheers

[HaachamaShipping]

I benefitted from the system twice in the last few games, keeping my star when team messed up, but at least my solid performance preserved me my star. And I say... scrap it. The system at times works as intented, but way too often it encourages terrible play, starting at ship selection. Want to win, go play a DD or cruiser. Want to be secure in your star economy, go play a BB. Yeah yeah, Worcester may have more dpm and such, but it's way harder than just picking a good spot from where you can be useful and keep your big guns shooting, nowhere as concerned that poking out will get you deleted, able to at times devstrike a cruiser and if things turn bad, you can make much more controlled yolo plays to just rack up the damage fast for the star. And as BBs are encouraged, cruisers get even more discouraged, not in the least because of new BBs like Republique, which are great at deleting cruisers.Though at least most BBs at the very least are a compromise pick, where you just go for a ship that is strong for its type, but good at saving stars too. You then get the cancer folks who just pick whatever racks up the big numbers. The folks who aren't some super unicum that still knows how to make the very best out of their ship for victory and just play Khaba or Conqueror. And sure, a well-played Conqueror can be a great asset, given the ship is more than just HE cancer, but these are the folks who just play the ships to farm damage and get their numbers and stars, whether they realise they are crap or not is unclear, it is infuriating anyway.

 

Yes it is frustrating to lose a star due to losing the game. But it is more frustrating to lose a star and see those idiots have their questionable play pay off. And Ranked is terrible enough without having to put up with this. Heck, nothing's as frustrating as loading into a game, seeing your lineup is a bunch of damage farmers, the enemy is a bunch of competitive picks and you sit there and know, just like everyone else in the team with more than three braincells, this match will likely be lost and it is doomed even more by the fact that everyone will either just die horribly or do their best to save their star, not bothering with winning. And in this self-defeating match, you just want to quit, because there is nothing to win, but you can't because there is something to lose.

[DFens_666]

1 hour ago, Riselotte said:

I benefitted from the system twice in the last few games, keeping my star when team messed up, but at least my solid performance preserved me my star. And I say... scrap it. The system at times works as intented, but way too often it encourages terrible play

 

This.

I dont mind if my team is overall worse than the other. But having a worse team because one or more play like shitty thats what is tilting me so hard.

Also if they stop playing like that, maybe a good player might even be able to turn the game around if the rest is doing atleast minimal stuff.

[ClappingLollies]

I think the whole concept of "ranked" needs rework. It's not fun or enjoyable. And its not only the "starsavers" fault. I tried to play ranked again this season and it was fun until i hit rank 10. And then it seemed like i found out where the "speshul" players hang out. 

 

WG gives out rewards for playing ranked. I think that is the ONLY reason players play it. Because it seems like as soon as players hit rank 1 they quit! Does that not tell WG anything? Players grind and curse their way through a very joyless experience to get some digital rewards. 

The amount of rage that has been going on in different chats, forums and TS from players (including myself) just tells me that the "game mode" is not working. I try to stop playing something as soon as it's no longer enjoyable. That is why i have NEVER ranked out. It's not enjoyable. It's not fun. No rewards will get me to play through that nightmare WG calls "ranked" (as it has something to do with skill )

 

 

[NicramDuel]

1 hour ago, MortenTardo said:

I think the whole concept of "ranked" needs rework. It's not fun or enjoyable.

Totally agreed.

The main issue is that WoWS (and at least two other WG games) is a peculiar, highly dysfunctional mix between a simple, yet fun arcade game poured into a poorly concocted cocktail of various game genres. The game is spiced up with a degree of complexity to make it actually challenging and have great potential(armour schemes, penetration angles, ship trees focusing on different benefits, etc). This is however ruined by the insanely massive RNG factor involved in nearly all aspects of the game (with MM itself leading the way!), along with so much overall secrecy on key aspects of gameplay. Not to mention WG's total dismissal on any form of fair MM, redesigning the scoring system (potential damage, distance bonuses for engaging enemies, time spent unconcealed, etc).

All this leads to a total farce as WG attempts a tryhard endeavour to make WoWS something even remotely resembling a truely competitive, skill-based game that rewards solo skills and attributes of a player...let alone an E-sport. The "ranked" mod is perfect proof of this. Apart from CB's and KOTS (which themselves seem to have some desirable improvements to be made), no other game mode comes close to proper competitive play. It's all about who you are teamed up with, who you are teamed against. And just as importantly as how well you can outsmart your opponents, you are rewarded equally - or actually, even more - for outsmarting your own allies. This way, Ranked is definitely not teamplay. Also, anything else BUT solo performance. Ranked is just a poor mix of opposing concepts that only achieve one thing: Frustrates 99% of the players who participate in it, without adequately rewarding personal contributon and abilities.

I can't help but laugh ever so often when I see the typical "it's all about player skill" - remarks of WG, when the actual environment of the game is "throw the dice... 1,2,3 - you lose, 4,5,6 - you win". 

As long as something like a new, elaborate scoring system along with a PR-based MM isn't implemented...and as long as contradicting elements of solo play and teamplay - along with excessive RNG - are present in the same, single battle, ranked (and any other mod) will be but a silly mockery of any (semi-)serious competitive play.

 

Not that this is a problem. It's all good and jolly to play an amusing arcade game with a ~50% win/loss chance. But as long as indications from the dev team suggest that they want all this to move towards anything more...uh..."balanced in terms of competitiveness"...some serious thoughts should be devoted to rethinking some highly flawed current concepts.

For starters, I also agree with removing the starsaving reward in its current form. And perhaps, once, in the future...stars can be saved by those who reach a certain pre-required score, or PR in the given battle, according to a new scoring system that doesn't favour static dps from ~20 km's. But as long as WG's main focus is to make more videos featuring the imitated bickering of Dasha and Alena (first time it was funny, now it's simply irritating), we can only dream on, at most. 

[ClappingSmolies]

Setting a minimum amount of games played in a ship would also help, taking Flambass’s recently video. Playing for rank 1, how can a player on your team only have 2 games experience in their tier 10 ship! If you play ranked in a tier 10 you should have to meet some sort of criteria on the number of games player and PR. I’m unsure how you would implement the PR limit or if this limit would change as you moved up the ranks. 

 

TLDR; Expeince required in ships before their use in ranked is allowed 

[SirAmra]

If I recall correctly, the keep your star if u are top on losing team, wasn't a thing in the past.

And players threw/left the battle if the outlook seemed like a loss.

The keep the star was an attempt to make them soldier on.

And now that's abused too......who knew.

There is a reason most "new" modes of battles introduced by WG fails.

They can be exploited.

[TeaAndTorps]

41 minutes ago, siramra said:

If I recall correctly, the keep your star if u are top on losing team, wasn't a thing in the past.

And players threw/left the battle if the outlook seemed like a loss.

The keep the star was an attempt to make them soldier on.

I wonder if the new automated 'disciplinary' system could do something about that these days, if saving a star were to be scrapped? E.g. leave a certain number of battles (at least 2) early, lose a certain number of ranks (even irrevocable ones). Hard-core repeat offenders get barred from the rest of the current season.

 

I'd generally favour the carrot over the stick, but the chance to turn a game around and win should be the incentive.

 

Not that I play ranked myself, I just sometimes find this kind of issue interesting to think through over breakfast 

[N00Boo7]

To save 1 star is not productive, to not having any star to save, ppl will exit from the game even before ends.

What if...we favor the top 3 players in a team, lets say, winning top 3 players get 2 stars, rest only 1, losing team the top 3 players keep the star, or some combinations like this, also no more irrevocable ranks except 1. With a system like this,  carryed players will not be equal with good players in terms of stars.

[Fasey]

I think if you remove it, ranked will take even longer and discourages allot people from playing ranked. If you remove it, then also make a system where good teamplay is rewarded. 

[belalugosisdead]

Remove. But if they remove it, Players need longer. Maybe compensate a little bit ....

[Yedwy]

Yesterday a losing strake, finaly clawed back 2 stars by playing dds and after securing 2 caps and sinking 2 ships in each you are mid table at the end... Kind of self explenatory

[Ouzo11]

Ranked rewards should be removed.
Irrevocable ranks should be removed.
Solo queue should be removed.
Keeping a star in this crap system is the only thing they did correctly.

And most of the times its DDs who keep the star because they cap, they spot, they torp while the rest of the team barks at their own tail.

[Erga_Buzerga]

My take on this is that they should either rework the EXP system to reward win-oriented play more (like increasing exp for spotting, tanking, capping, maybe even give EXP for cap-contesting) OR just remove the keep a star system, people leaving "insta-loss"-battles will get pink very quickly.

Maybe as a compensation make every rank 1 star easier to reach, so 4 stars for each rank after rank 5, 3 stars per rank after rank 10, etc.

Also pleeeeease stahp with T10, it's not that great of a tier, especially with it being the 4th big " competitive" event in a row, enough is enough! >.<

[eliastion]

If being top of the team were to be rewarded, it should be the top of the WINNING team so that victory is ALWAYS the primary goal - not to mention that being top loser while not doing your job is much more common than being top winner in the same context - if you're at the top and the team wins, it's guaranteed that you did a really good job (it's of course not uncommon to be top without doing THE BEST job but still, the correlation between your place in team and your usefulness is much stronger for victories than defeats).

[T3ddyBear]

58 minutes ago, Ouzo11 said:

And most of the times its DDs who keep the star because they cap, they spot, they torp while the rest of the team barks at their own tail.

 

This used to be the case, a DD doing its job, contesting caps, spotting would "keep" their star, but it's not the case anymore.

 

BB's that sit at the back and farm damage all game are the main "star keepers" now, it's infuriating, I don't know when they changed the "doing x gives y X" but it has changed, noticeably, hence all the bloody BB's in ranked. it's not fun and I'm not even going to start playing beyond 15. 

 

Remove the star for losing, the team should live or die as a TEAM. If they refuse to play as a team then they die, it's simple.

 

TB

[mavericksama]

Wow, the bias on the poll options :/

 

 

You should turn this on a petition, not a poll. 

 

 

On a side note, I’ve seen many High Calibers achievers fall behind in the scoreboard. 

 

 

[anonym_JSqwZct68BEw]

Pretty sure they (the players  + people on the forum) asked for that keep-a-star thing during and after ranked season 1. That it wasn't in season 1 and it got implemented in season 2 after heavy demands.

 

But that is a long time ago. Could be wrong. But if it's true. It's funny. 

[LOZFFVII]

1 hour ago, Erga_Buzerga said:

My take on this is that they should either rework the EXP system to reward win-oriented play more (like increasing exp for spotting, tanking, capping, maybe even give EXP for cap-contesting) OR just remove the keep a star system, people leaving "insta-loss"-battles will get pink very quickly.

Maybe as a compensation make every rank 1 star easier to reach, so 4 stars for each rank after rank 5, 3 stars per rank after rank 10, etc.

Also pleeeeease stahp with T10, it's not that great of a tier, especially with it being the 4th big " competitive" event in a row, enough is enough! >.<

That's comething else WG should consider...Like how going orange forbids you from playing anything other than co-op, perhaps being pink should forbid you from playing ranked battles or clan battles...

I mean, sucks for someone who went pink on accident, but it should clear for them in a couple of random battles anyway.

EDIT: and I suggest this, despite being someone who accidentally torpedoed an ally Tirpitz in ranked last season. We won that battle anyway, thankfully, and the Tirpitz captain was forgiving in chat.

 

Yeah, I don't particularly care for T10 ranked either. I only have two T10s currently; one is Shimakaze (taking her into ranked is tantamount to declaring "I am a huge noob, please kill me") and the other is Minotaur (which feels like it's getting weaker and weaker with each new T10 being added to the game, but maybe I just suck in her - and yes, I do use radar, btw).

I have an idea that might be a more interesting ship tier formula for ranked, but I'd rather start my own thread to ask the forums' opinion there.

[Hummus]

9 minutes ago, Milckenbom said:

Pretty sure they (the players  + people on the forum) asked for that keep-a-star thing during and after ranked season 1. That it wasn't in season 1 and it got implemented in season 2 after heavy demands.

 

But that is a long time ago. Could be wrong. But if it's true. It's funny. 

It's true.

 

I still think it's a great system. If you are good you'll keep your star on about 30% of your losses. Which helps my ranked play a lot and prevents a lot of frustration when you fail to carry the sack of potatoes you got stuck with.

 

Removing it won't add anything, it just means you loose more starts.

The idiot that stay back and snipe will always stay back and snipe ... they won't grow a brain, just because you adjust this system.

If you can't out EXP the campers you didn't play well enough.

[Shaka_D]

I agree with the idea ranked needs a massive rework. I tried ranked again this season, last season I gave up at rank 7 and this season I gave up at rank 10. It's not enjoyable at all so why even put myself through this frustrating experience? And its not for lack of trying. I think WG are being lazy or manipulative and either way it's causing far more frustration than enjoyment. This season they made it worse than before but we shouldn't waste time worrying about it because they most likely know all this and yes still don't do anything.

 

The issues I have with it:

• CV's (when you see them) dominate the battle and completely influence the outcome. One bad cv player and the game is certainly a loss.
• Radar meta making tactical gameplay obsolete.
• BB's farming damage.
• DD play (my preferred) is hard to ever come top to retain your star since other easier classes benefit from your hard work and earn more.
• Rank 10 / 9 is a cesspit of fail - the low quality players at tier 10 till hugging borders, to scared to have their ship damaged, soloing into caps blindly, blind overconfidence, general lack of experience and / or intelligence.

The problem is the same as for any team with randomly assigned players, and the fact that ranked battles have no skill filtering in place (which it can't have). When I go into a game I'm all for the team, everything I do is to help the team, in my dd spotting, capping, smoking, etc. In other classes I'm play similarly for the team, always trying to focus fire, support, etc. A lot of players don't do this, I'm not sure they know how to in the first place and it is beyond belief that so many have chosen a competitive mode to play with no idea of what they are doing or mean't to do. Perhaps the human race needs sheep and shepherds, and many people will forever be mindless sheep with marginal intelligence and common sense.

 

All I want is fair play: Do not punish me for my team mates mistakes in a mode where I have no choice in who my team mates are. Do not punish me because I like to play a particular class of ship which in terms of it's gameplay role cannot easy score well. Do not punish me by setting up teams which are imbalanced in terms of ship types, i.e. radar versus no radar, etc. Will WG help us here? No, it's already the 10th season and no hint of improvement from them. I fight hard to get stars, and then lose them in minutes due to afk'ers, 42% win raters, yolo artists screaming 'it's only a game', solo warriors saving their skin, etc. Not fun.

 

Lowest performers on winning team should have stars revoked and given to very top performers on losing team or at least not have their stars removed. Blanket punishment is one of the oldest and most unsuccessful forms of punishment, it unfairly prejudices better players. Why is it WG have it in their formula in a mode where we have no choice of who our team mates are? In this way WG create all the frustration and have 100% of the responsibility.

[ClappingSmolies]

Just scrap ranked battles all together and run clan wars all the time. Much more enjoyable, most people who play ranked and are realistically going to get the rewards are in a clan anyway. 

[Synth_FG]

5 minutes ago, DeTrimmy said:

Just scrap ranked battles all together and run clan wars all the time. Much more enjoyable, most people who play ranked and are realistically going to get the rewards are in a clan anyway. 

Not everybody wants to join a clan

[HaachamaShipping]

40 minutes ago, Captain_LOZFFVII said:

Yeah, I don't particularly care for T10 ranked either. I only have two T10s currently; one is Shimakaze (taking her into ranked is tantamount to declaring "I am a huge noob, please kill me") and the other is Minotaur (which feels like it's getting weaker and weaker with each new T10 being added to the game, but maybe I just suck in her - and yes, I do use radar, btw).

Cruisers in general got weaker with every new T10 added. Except Moskva, which got buffs. But pretty much the entire rest gets less competitive. Minotaur is not too much worse off than the rest though, because the only ship that counters Mino harder than the others is the Stalingrad, which is rare, while ships like Republique that counter heavy cruisers hard aren't that much worse than other BBs Minotaur faces (given overmatch mechancs).

5 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

I agree with the idea ranked needs a massive rework. I tried ranked again this season, last season I gave up at rank 7 and this season I gave up at rank 10. It's not enjoyable at all so why even put myself through this frustrating experience? And its not for lack of trying. I think WG are being lazy or manipulative and either way it's causing far more frustration than enjoyment. This season they made it worse than before but we shouldn't waste time worrying about it because they most likely know all this and yes still don't do anything.

I wouldn't call it ill intent. I'd say, it's incompetence. They do listen to some feedback, like the move from irrevocable rank 10 to rank 12, which was asked for a lot. But many things they mess up and likely don't know how to solve or are at times blind to it. For example, T10 ranked is, overall, not a terrible idea. T10 is a more balanced tier and certainly was so last season. Likely it got some good reviews due to its balanced nature. Now people are getting fed up with T10 though, because it returns this often and because new ships were released (majority of which are annoying af to play against if they are even really balanced). WG likely thinks it is doing us a favour by keeping a tier that was well-received.

14 minutes ago, Shaka_D said:

The issues I have with it:

• CV's (when you see them) dominate the battle and completely influence the outcome. One bad cv player and the game is certainly a loss.
• Radar meta making tactical gameplay obsolete.
• BB's farming damage.
• DD play (my preferred) is hard to ever come top to retain your star since other easier classes benefit from your hard work and earn more.
• Rank 10 / 9 is a cesspit of fail - the low quality players at tier 10 till hugging borders, to scared to have their ship damaged, soloing into caps blindly, blind overconfidence, general lack of experience and / or intelligence.

Imo, DD play only is crap because of the economic incentive of damage farming. If it weren't for that, DDs would be a much more potent choice. I don't have a T10 DD (prioritised T10 CA for CB and T10 BB when Ranked came around), but for the T8 portion, every season I played so far, I played DD, because it's just so much more influential. Though obviously not having Worcester at T8 helps (Cleveland is nowhere as painful).

6 minutes ago, DeTrimmy said:

Just scrap ranked battles all together and run clan wars all the time. Much more enjoyable, most people who play ranked and are realistically going to get the rewards are in a clan anyway. 

Does Ranked need changes? Yes.

Is eternal CB the answer? Please no. I don't want to tire out of that too.

[anonym_2hneAFaIyP4T]

1 minute ago, Synth_FG said:

Not everybody wants to join a clan

And not everyone who is in a clan is able to play to the times clan battles require