To save a star or not, the big question.

[Redcap375]

Chaps 

 

It's simple, should you retain a star if your team losses but you come top?

 

I know that this subject has been debated before, but with the introduction of CV's AND rentals, not to mention tier 10 i think it needs another poll.  After speaking to my own clan, 2/3 of them seem to want the star removed.  

 

My view

Get rid of it.  It creates another agenda other than winning the game which should be ultimate goal. People arnt truly brought into the winning or nothing mentality.  Because of the that, there is less teamwork involved which is kinda missing anyway. 

 

You could tweak it? But it would still creates, however small, another agenda that isn't fully focused on winning the game. 

 

Some people say that it saves the best player in the losing team which is only fair? My argument is that doesn't mean the best player, just the one that farmers the most damage and survives the game.  Basically the most selfish player keeps a star with the poor DD player buzzing around, dodging radar, other DD's, planes, capping and smoking your team up coming out with peanuts.  That's not just aimed at DD players by-the-way so that was more of a general comment about the work people put in, but don't get out due to the XP allocations. 

 

Or i can just spam at the back with the Conq or CV and farm damage.

 

To me, you have 7 people trying to play for that bloody star instead of having their "lets win this" heads on.  That then dictates how the games goes and ultimate lack of teamwork.  When things go slightly sour, instead of trying to pull it back, they go into survival and farm mode. They don't go all out to win or pull anything back.

 

The lack of teamwork and reliance on not having "muppets" in your team,  is THE main reason i get to rank 10 then stop. Far to stressful as it is at the moment. I would like this to change for the better.

 

I would like to hear what people think, but a simple click will do.

 

If yes, why?

Tweaking, why?

If no, why?

 

Regards,

[Saltface]

It has been proposed again (by other forumites as well - I don't claim paternity of the idea) but worth repeating.

 

A vote between the players of the losing team will determine who will save a star among the three top performing players of the losing team.

You can vote for yourself if you are in the three top (I guess the others will do the same so it is redundant)

If you don't vote, your vote goes to the highest ranking player.

 

I do not know if it easy to implement, but this is my proposal.

 

Battle ends, you are on the losing team.

Window pops up "Who will save a star ?" - with three options to chose from

You have 5 seconds to answer

After 5 seconds pop one more window

"X saved a star"

 

Regards

Saltface

[CptBarney]

I think removing the whole star system would be best and simply just go up and down ranks like in most mmo games.

 

It would also speed up the process and also increase the insentive for winning, to further increase the insentive for winning give out extra rewards (coal, flags, camos, maybe even doubloons like 500 or so when you hit certain ranks or number of wins).

[OldschoolGaming_YouTube]

14 minutes ago, Redcap375 said:

Chaps 

 

It's simple, should you retain a star if your team losses but you come top?

 

I know that this subject has been debated before, but with the introduction of CV's AND rentals, not to mention tier 10 i think it needs another poll.  After speaking to my own clan, 2/3 of them seem to want the star removed.  

 

My view

Get rid of it.  It creates another agenda other than winning the game which should be ultimate goal. People arnt truly brought into the winning or nothing mentality.  Because of the that, there is less teamwork involved which is kinda missing anyway. 

 

You could tweak it? But it would still creates, however small, another agenda that isn't fully focused on winning the game. 

 

Some people say that it saves the best player in the losing team which is only fair? My argument is that doesn't mean the best player, just the one that farmers the most damage and survives the game.  Basically the most selfish player keeps a star with the poor DD player buzzing around, dodging radar, other DD's, planes, capping and smoking your team up coming out with peanuts.  That's not just aimed at DD players by-the-way so that was more of a general comment about the work people put in, but don't get out due to the XP allocations. 

 

Or i can just spam at the back with the Conq or CV and farm damage.

 

To me, you have 7 people trying to play for that bloody star instead of having their "lets win this" heads on.  That then dictates how the games goes and ultimate lack of teamwork.  When things go slightly sour, instead of trying to pull it back, they go into survival and farm mode. They don't go all out to win or pull anything back.

 

The lack of teamwork and reliance on not having "muppets" in your team,  is THE main reason i get to rank 10 then stop. Far to stressful as it is at the moment. I would like this to change for the better.

 

I would like to hear what people think, but a simple click will do.

 

If yes, why?

Tweaking, why?

If no, why?

 

Regards,

My thought on this is simple. I know how I can perform in a ranked battle, I dont have a clue to what type of "teammates" RNGesus provides for me each round, but usually thay are not that stellar. So if WG decided to take away the "Save your star" function in Ranked I would never ever play Ranked again and I dont think im alone in thinking like this. You always play to win, every game. But those times you end up with a group of window-lickers, its good to know that if you still play great and your team looses, then hopefully you will be able to atleast keep a star. 

If they took away this, then you will completely loose your sanity trying to grind ranked because random potatoes will keep you down. I think this function also filters the skills of the players in ranked a bit. If your good and actually trying to get better you will over time progress up/or down the ranks, while if you never play good or trying to get better you will not get far in the ranks.

 

Saving a star, is the only way to keep your sanity in ranked.

 

A better discussion I think is to talk about what makes you save a star in a loss. I have played a lot of Henri IV in this season and with the damage output of that ship you are usually guaranteed to save a star in all matches that doesnt have a CV. If there is a CV they are pretty much guaranteed to save their star. Playing the objective, like taking 3-4-5 caps in a match gives you almost nothing to secure a star and that is totally wrong. A Henri or another great damage farmer (maybe Yamato or Conqueror) shouldnt be able to save a star just by sitting in the back farming.

 

So I think reworking how XP are counted in this mode is a better thing to fix then take away save a star. 

[N00Boo7]

   With no star to save, games will be roflstomp everytime your first DD  will die. U just lose the will to fight, when u know 90%  will be a lost game=lost time. Right now, still a lot of games are turn around and won, even your team had a bad start by losing 1-2 ships at beginning. The way XP is distributed needs little rework.

[Taliesn]

Problem with having no saving star is that with a, say, 60% WR, you will need almost 300 battles to reach rank 1. With a 55% you are looking at 550 battles. If you manage to reach rank 1 with a 50% WR they you are wasting your time and you should be buying a lottery ticket instead.

 

On the other hand, saving stars as they are know are very unfair. All the way with you about DDs. If they do their job around caps they won't keep the star in a loss, meaning they need a better WR in comparison with the Conquerors/Henris/CVs.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

Winning a ranked match isnt great stuff, I usually feel lucky the other team had worse randomly picked players then mine did, losing a ranked match feels  because I was on the team with the worse random players. I detest playing saving a star, its a grind concept, not a skill test, but then again, I think the whole WOWS ranked concept is build on frustration. I stop at max reward min frustration point which is usually rank 12 or 10. This season I only had to endure 1 match to get there, which made me feel greateful. So for me it doesnt make a difference. 

 

Edit: i think top 3 players on each team should earn a star. The rest just dont earn one, nor do they lose one. This would reward both damage hoarders and tactical players spotting and capping most likely and not punish anyone for being on the shittier random team. It will also eleminate crap players being carried up too much.

[Taliesn]

11 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Winning a ranked match isnt great stuff, I usually feel lucky the other team had worse randomly picked players then mine did, losing a ranked match feels  because I was on the team with the worse random players. I detest playing saving a star, its a grind concept, not a skill test, but then again, I think the whole WOWS ranked concept is build on frustration. I stop at max reward min frustration point which is usually rank 12 or 10. This season I only had to endure 1 match to get there, which made me feel greateful. So for me it doesnt make a difference. 

 

Edit: i think top 3 players on each team should earn a star. The rest just dont earn one, nor do they lose one. This would reward both damage hoarders and tactical players spotting and capping most likely and not punish anyone for being on the shittier random team. It will also eleminate crap players being carried up too much.

 

If the way XP is calculated dones't change, you have just ensured the CV, Conqueror and Henri in everybody's team will get to reach rank 1 by winning 55 battles as they will get a saving star on every match they lose.

Unless of course everyone and their mother start playing CV, Conqueror and Henri and the mother of the farming fests ensues.

[veslingr]

1 hour ago, Redcap375 said:

Chaps 

 

It's simple, should you retain a star if your team losses but you come top?

 

I know that this subject has been debated before, but with the introduction of CV's AND rentals, not to mention tier 10 i think it needs another poll.  After speaking to my own clan, 2/3 of them seem to want the star removed.  

 

My view

Get rid of it.  It creates another agenda other than winning the game which should be ultimate goal. People arnt truly brought into the winning or nothing mentality.  Because of the that, there is less teamwork involved which is kinda missing anyway. 

 

You could tweak it? But it would still creates, however small, another agenda that isn't fully focused on winning the game. 

 

Some people say that it saves the best player in the losing team which is only fair? My argument is that doesn't mean the best player, just the one that farmers the most damage and survives the game.  Basically the most selfish player keeps a star with the poor DD player buzzing around, dodging radar, other DD's, planes, capping and smoking your team up coming out with peanuts.  That's not just aimed at DD players by-the-way so that was more of a general comment about the work people put in, but don't get out due to the XP allocations. 

 

Or i can just spam at the back with the Conq or CV and farm damage.

 

To me, you have 7 people trying to play for that bloody star instead of having their "lets win this" heads on.  That then dictates how the games goes and ultimate lack of teamwork.  When things go slightly sour, instead of trying to pull it back, they go into survival and farm mode. They don't go all out to win or pull anything back.

 

The lack of teamwork and reliance on not having "muppets" in your team,  is THE main reason i get to rank 10 then stop. Far to stressful as it is at the moment. I would like this to change for the better.

 

I would like to hear what people think, but a simple click will do.

 

If yes, why?

Tweaking, why?

If no, why?

 

Regards,

voted yes  it was great innovation from WG......it rewards good play (in theory).....now i would introduce 2 things:

 

- reduce importance of DMG to exp gains and increase importance of spot/cap/tank

- on wining team, last player do not gain star (as punishemnt for bad/usles play). Why that? Well it is irritating when with 47% WR in Ranked you can get to R1....this will harden those players a little bit more

[fumtu]

43 minutes ago, OldschoolGaming_YouTube said:

My thought on this is simple. I know how I can perform in a ranked battle, I dont have a clue to what type of "teammates" RNGesus provides for me each round, but usually thay are not that stellar. So if WG decided to take away the "Save your star" function in Ranked I would never ever play Ranked again and I dont think im alone in thinking like this. You always play to win, every game. But those times you end up with a group of window-lickers, its good to know that if you still play great and your team looses, then hopefully you will be able to atleast keep a star.

 

I agree. IMO ranked system need complete overhaul to make it more enjoyable and less frustrating. Expecting that ranked will become better if WG just remove "Save the Star" system is wishful thinking.

[veslingr]

2 minutes ago, fumtu said:

 

I agree. IMO ranked system need complete overhaul to make it more enjoyable and less frustrating. Expecting that ranked will become better if WG just remove "Save the Star" system is wishful thinking.

it would turn it to 100% grindfest with 0 skill involved....press enter, exit batle, choose other ship, press exit, choos other ship press exit.....end you are in R1 around 1500 games (with little luck) 

[Beastofwar]

I think getting far has less to do with player skill ( bad teams will have you lose anyway ) and everything with dedication and putting enormous amounts of time in it.

 

That is why 2 stars with some irrevocable safeguards at regular intervals become 4 or more with almost no irrevocable safeguard at all. Casual players aren't meant to get far ( rank 10 ) and if you found time to come here and write comments, R1 is not for you either.

 

WG does not want to tweak it as it is not meant for the mass to get R1 or even close. It was DESIGNED to be this way.

 

 

[thiextar]

No one here has pointed out the real issue with removing the save a star system completely: The stars are a closed system

 

There are four ways that new star can enter this system:

1. Every match, 6 players lose a star, and 7 players gain a star. This means the the total influx of stars into the system is 1 per match.

2. In the lower ranks, you start with 1 star i believe

3. Someone at lowest rank with zero star loses, so no star goes out of the system, but someone on the enemy team wins= influx of one star into the system.

4. People start with stars from the last ranked season.

 

By far, the biggest influx of stars into the system comes from the save a star system, without it, we would pretty much have a system where no new stars are created, they are just transitioned between the players, thus it would be extremely difficult to get to rank 1, and there would be a hard limit of how many players can even get it before all the stars in the system are bound to top rankers who have stopped playing.

 

Basically, we need some form of system where each match guarantees that a net of 1 star is always introduced into the system ,that is inescapable.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

42 minutes ago, Taliesn said:

 

If the way XP is calculated dones't change, you have just ensured the CV, Conqueror and Henri in everybody's team will get to reach rank 1 by winning 55 battles as they will get a saving star on every match they lose.

Unless of course everyone and their mother start playing CV, Conqueror and Henri and the mother of the farming fests ensues.

Sure. It would need a change to everything, as only stars can be gained, and not lost, the whole star system would need a new flow design and added XP reward changes. Im not suggesting a small change to the current system, Im suggesting a do over. I don't play ranked much under the current system because it punishes based on a inescapable random factor (random teammates), which is causing most of it's frustration and toxicity I imagine.

[Taliesn]

1 hour ago, Europizza said:

Sure. It would need a change to everything, as only stars can be gained, and not lost, the whole star system would need a new flow design and added XP reward changes. Im not suggesting a small change to the current system, Im suggesting a do over. I don't play ranked much under the current system because it punishes based on a inescapable random factor (random teammates), which is causing most of it's frustration and toxicity I imagine.

 

The random element of MM and which teammates you get will always be there. Divisioning is not extended throughout the player base enough to allow them into Ranked because it would increase the randomness and the potential for roflstomps. We have CWs for that ultra competitive/cooperative type of match anyway.

 

Agreed it needs a major overhaul if the saving star is to be eliminated, which kinda makes it very unlikely indeed. 

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

1 hour ago, Taliesn said:

 

The random element of MM and which teammates you get will always be there. Divisioning is not extended throughout the player base enough to allow them into Ranked because it would increase the randomness and the potential for roflstomps. We have CWs for that ultra competitive/cooperative type of match anyway.

 

Agreed it needs a major overhaul if the saving star is to be eliminated, which kinda makes it very unlikely indeed. 

Yeah the random aspect won't go away, but with a system that rewards progress on your personal result in the team you play in, either win or lose, might very well take away the frustration of losing a star based on a result that is completely depending on being on a random team. It would certainly need a better XP reward system, so all in all no chance this will ever happen, ergo ranked me me don't match very well.

[Redcap375]

Thanks for the replies.

 

So no stars then is what the high majority of people prefer.  Interesting. 

 

 

[Sir_Grzegorz]

Taking under consideration it is not first season and nothing is changed it is safe to assume that it works like WG wanted.

 

System is as good as any other, the way the XP is calculated is horrible. Change that it will fix a lot of stuff.

[Redcap375]

@MrConway take note and have a look at how XP is calculated.  I.e. it's pants .

 

Many thanks 

[fumtu]

4 minutes ago, Sir_Grzegorz said:

Taking under consideration it is not first season and nothing is changed it is safe to assume that it works like WG wanted.

 

System is as good as any other, the way the XP is calculated is horrible. Change that it will fix a lot of stuff.

 

Only significant thing that changed in Ranked during all this time was actually addition of "Save the Star" feature after a lot of complains of players. Without complete overhaul Ranked, removing "Save the Star" won't improve mode a single bit if not actually make it even worse.

 

I doubt that changing how XP is calculated with keeping this system will also change anything. People will just go from one bad gameplay to another bad gameplay.

[Profilus]

Irrevocable ranks should go also with starsaving system.

[Redcap375]

3 minutes ago, fumtu said:

Only significant thing that changed in Ranked during all this time was actually addition of "Save the Star" feature after a lot of complains of players

 

Very good point, I recall that. 

 

Maybe tweak the XP?

[MyopicHedgehog]

On 6/17/2019 at 11:33 AM, Redcap375 said:

Chaps 

 

It's simple, should you retain a star if your team losses but you come top?

 

<snip>

 

To me, you have 7 people trying to play for that bloody star instead of having their "lets win this" heads on.  That then dictates how the games goes and ultimate lack of teamwork.  When things go slightly sour, instead of trying to pull it back, they go into survival and farm mode. They don't go all out to win or pull anything back.

 

The lack of teamwork and reliance on not having "muppets" in your team,  is THE main reason i get to rank 10 then stop. Far to stressful as it is at the moment. I would like this to change for the better.

 

I would like to hear what people think, but a simple click will do.

 

If yes, why?

Tweaking, why?

If no, why?

 

Regards,

Remove the star so people have incentive to play for the win.

 

Rework ranked MM - if there every was an argument for an equal ratio of good/poor players on each team it's in ranked.

[Gnirf]

4 hours ago, Profilus said:

Irrevocable ranks should go also with starsaving system.

Problems will come that if you do not have a starsaving system. You must as thiextar above says have influx of stars, it is necessary to move the players up the ranks to ensure battles and players to be pitched at that are of different skill Yes in order to advance you need to be better than the opponents but you also need opponents.

It is difficult to solve without influx of stars. And remember those players that perservere with 47% to rank 1 are a benefit to you as it is bigger chance that those "plebs in your eyes" are in enemy team out of pure statistics.

 

It would actually be a benefit if there were a few more irrevocable stars.

 

I think it is sad the elitistic attitude many shows without really thinking of the downsides, ranked need players, numbers of them and if there are not incentives to play even for those players that do not match up to many of this forum needs too few players will play rank - long cue hours difficult even for good players to rank out. So while it can be frustrating I think that many here does not comprehend the full picture - we need players - we need incentives even for the worse players to make up the fields and we do need progression via influx of stars. Explain how you would solve that.

[Profilus]

15 minutes ago, Gnirf said:

Explain how you would solve that.

With the simple fact that we dont need hundreds of R1-s. Who's there when there are players and gets thru it, DESERVES R1 and end of story.

Edit: then its competitive mode as advertised.