This is not a MM post this is a *edit*-post

[KapteinSabeltann]

Please, pretty please with anything on. No players with a winrate less of 50% in ranked, just please. I know it's "competitive light" and that tryharding goes to clanwars or teams or whatever it's called this year. It's atrocious - game after game of ppl suiciding - losing all but 1-2 ships in 4 mins. I defies belief. And I'm not an elitist I'm just an avg (or what should be avg) player that can't handle these 29% winrate soulsucking players. Anyway. Move on, nothing to see here.

[ColonelPete]

If you are better than them, you should quickly outrank them.

[KapteinSabeltann]

3 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

If you are better than them, you should quickly outrank them.

Nope cant carry that hard. Besides if you are late at the table, then you get these even in the high ranks. Even in sprints. You should with 12k battles know this. But sure - defend a system you know are broken.

[Miragetank90]

It's not racist, it's not sexist, it's Winrate... ist?

 

FYI it's the Current ing year and sub 50%ers have just as much right to suck  as everybody else, you TROGLODYTE

[AirSupremacy]

Every team gets random players. That's how it is, that's how everybody plays along with their team.

Every player is part of the team, so if one says negative things about a team - One is part of that team.

Encouraging and helping the own team players is more beneficial than moaning and complaining.

If the complaint is that the own team sinks too fast, one has to sink the other team faster.

 

Perhaps not a famous, cuddling and delighting answer.

Wishing everyone a nice time in WoWs.

 

[ColonelPete]

47 minutes ago, KapteinSabeltann said:

Nope cant carry that hard. Besides if you are late at the table, then you get these even in the high ranks. Even in sprints. You should with 12k battles know this. But sure - defend a system you know are broken.

That has nothing to do with defending.

It is a fact that better player finish ranked quickly.

[250swb]

1 hour ago, KapteinSabeltann said:

No players with a winrate less of 50% in ranked, just please.

 You know how it will play out in the long term when you get on that slippery slope, before long it will be 'no more idiots with less than 56% WR', of which there are many examples throughout human history. Besides which some of those you want to ban from playing a game mode will pay as much or more than you, so is it your pocket their refund on Premium time and not being able to use their Premium ships is going to come from? 

[Sargento_YO]

Imagine if your wish it's granted and there are players which are no less than 50% WR... That means there can't be players with MORE than 50% because if there is someone with, say, 55% WR there should be another one with a 45% WR.

 

Also... Even worse, if everybody has, say, a 60% WR, the ones with "only" 55% WR would be the noob ones and their teams would lose just as bad as a 50 - 45% ones.

[250swb]

3 minutes ago, Sargento_YO said:

Imagine if your wish it's granted and there are players which are no less than 50% WR... That means there can't be players with MORE than 50% because if there is someone with, say, 55% WR there should be another one with a 45% WR.

 

Also... Even worse, if everybody has, say, a 60% WR, the ones with "only" 55% WR would be the noob ones and their teams would lose just as bad as a 50 - 45% ones.

Yes, the players with a high WR create the players with a low WR so they should just suck it up and stop complaining.

[Starchy_Tuber]

45 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

That has nothing to do with defending.

It is a fact that better player finish ranked quickly.

Not so sure that that is an actually established FACT I'm afraid... Its a Theory, sure, but a fact, no. Indeed the "Winning Team gets a star" pretty much guarentees that some people will get carried regardless of player ability.

I have a working hypothesis though: always start ranked immediately the season starts and, if you progress the initial ranks quickly, then you end up playing the upper ranks, generally, with the better players.

Leave it late, and you end up playing with flotsam all the time and that flotsam is present at all ranks. You will not progress "out of the flotsam" as they have been carried along with other people to that level, and every level/rank, by this stage in the ranked series.

[ColonelPete]

Feel free to look up ranked lists at the end of the season.

[22cm]

He is right, but should not be decided on WWR.

Ranked as it is now is only Random with less players.

I have won a few random games with 1 afk in my team (the record being a win with 2 afk in my team), but for Ranked, the smaller the number of players, the harder is to carry.

Maybe change Ranked system so the first 3-4 players in each team (no matter if winning or losing) gets a star.

[CptMinia]

 

Not happening.

[Butterdoll]

2 hours ago, KapteinSabeltann said:

Nope cant carry that hard. Besides if you are late at the table, then you get these even in the high ranks. Even in sprints. You should with 12k battles know this. But sure - defend a system you know are broken.

there's still time.

take it easy .

I waited two days, to give a head start to unicoms and mainly cvs, before I went in.

It pay off, only had a few, a handful of games with cv.

Until rank 5 was a breeze, after a small "stator" I reach rank 3 on Sunday morning (I got a couple of high calibers and all, overall), in the evening MM got hold of me (only BBs and DDs) and I got stuck in rank 3.

Monday I didn't play.

I resume the rank sprint yesterday, and I reached rank 1.

If you are a potato, there's always people that potato more than you and people that potato less than you. Take advantage of that.

play a ship that you like/are familiar with/ where you are the strongest, don't play meta- ships just because...

I finished only with two ships

Nurnberg and Bayern, non meta-ships like leander, Pev, iZMAIL, V-61 and others.

you still have until 14th September.

 

 

[Butterdoll]

46 minutes ago, 22cm said:

He is right, but should not be decided on WWR.

Ranked as it is now is only Random with less players.

I have won a few random games with 1 afk in my team (the record being a win with 2 afk in my team), but for Ranked, the smaller the number of players, the harder is to carry.

Maybe change Ranked system so the first 3-4 players in each team (no matter if winning or losing) gets a star.

No, 7 vs 7 is easier, it's easier to "carry" Than with 12 vs 12.

Yes you have more influence in the game but at the same time the map it's not so overpopulated.

 

[KapteinSabeltann]

2 hours ago, Sargento_YO said:

Imagine if your wish it's granted and there are players which are no less than 50% WR... That means there can't be players with MORE than 50% because if there is someone with, say, 55% WR there should be another one with a 45% WR.

 

Also... Even worse, if everybody has, say, a 60% WR, the ones with "only" 55% WR would be the noob ones and their teams would lose just as bad as a 50 - 45% ones.

First of all, as I said in the title it's not entirely seriously suggested. But I think you are missing a few of my points. I mean average winrate, not ranked winrate. And your math is not entirely sound in a 1v1 situation sure but out of a pool of players it wont play out like that.

 

Secondly, sure, you COULD keep upping the required winrate but thats ignoring my point: Most players that consistently potato and do crazy stuff are sub 50% winrate. I'm not saying it's an exact number but from playing in the wild when I see a player who does something nuts and I think "hmmm" I wonder, and check their winrate more often than not their behaviour matches their winrate and that is usually a WR in the 40's or lower.

 

My thought - to be seirous for a moment is - if the requirement was to be say 50% that might incentivise players that want to be a lil competitive to improve their skill before they go and play ranked. I'm a somewhat competitive player, but I am also someone who can't play 20-30-40 games per day. I more like play 5-10 games the days I play and then there are days, weeks and even months where I don't play. Still I'm good enough to average mid-fifties and when I played more active I was around 60% in the classes I play well with. It's not hard, it just requires to learn the game. So why allow players who havent gotten the basics of the game down yet to "ruin" ranked.

 

Idk as much as my suggestion wasn't serious. I'm not sure it would be an awful idea.

 

EDIT: I agree with butterdoll, 7v7 is easier to carry in. And I often do much better in ranked than in regular games. But nothing - except of an unicum player with an op premium  can fix 5 of 7 ppl dead in 4 minutes. It's just not doable.

[KapteinSabeltann]

29 minutes ago, Butterdoll said:

there's still time.

 

you still have until 14th September.

 

 

I appreciate that, but I never grind ranked past a certain level it takes too long. Even with 60-70% winrate I can't play that much. In sprints my goal would be rank 5 mabye but with the few games I have played it's just not fun to me. To me ranked should be were the slightly more competitive and skillfull players came to have a better time than in random games, but it just isn't. I just wanna have fun playing with team-oriented players that aren't totally clueless. Without taking the step into clanwars. I'm too old and too busy for that stuff.

[Butterdoll]

1 hour ago, KapteinSabeltann said:

I appreciate that, but I never grind ranked past a certain level it takes too long. Even with 60-70% winrate I can't play that much. In sprints my goal would be rank 5 mabye but with the few games I have played it's just not fun to me. To me ranked should be were the slightly more competitive and skillfull players came to have a better time than in random games, but it just isn't. I just wanna have fun playing with team-oriented players that aren't totally clueless. Without taking the step into clanwars. I'm too old and too busy for that stuff.

So, division up with someone you know and go for it. Get for yourself some of those juicy and tasty 29% wr players, the red variety are the best ones.

are allowed up to 3 division with 2 players each if I'm not mistaken.

A  team of team oriented players is asking too much of random and of ranked, but time to times...

 

For me was my first sprint and overall it was fun, if you say that you don't have time for rank, sprint could be your cup of tea.

but don't go with that mentality because if you are hard pressing yourself, you will be worse and worse and you will not find joy in doing it.

My objective on the fly was rank 5 but I ended in rank 1.

My motivation hasn't of competitive nature. Halo ops are 1 or 2 months away, so I wanted something in those lines.

A warm up.

Clan wars might be fun too. Depending of the League and stuff, perhaps is very similar to what we are used to, a far cry from the KotS that we might or might not watch.

[Hopeless_Guppy]

5 hours ago, KapteinSabeltann said:

Please, pretty please with anything on. No players with a winrate less of 50% in ranked, just please. I know it's "competitive light" and that tryharding goes to clanwars or teams or whatever it's called this year. It's atrocious - game after game of ppl suiciding - losing all but 1-2 ships in 4 mins. I defies belief. And I'm not an elitist I'm just an avg (or what should be avg) player that can't handle these 29% winrate soulsucking players. Anyway. Move on, nothing to see here.

Ok, for you my little buttercup, I will stay out of there, well for now, lol

[Hopeless_Guppy]

4 hours ago, KapteinSabeltann said:

Nope cant carry that hard. Besides if you are late at the table, then you get these even in the high ranks. Even in sprints. You should with 12k battles know this. But sure - defend a system you know are broken.

Maybe there should be special clans for people sub 45%, even a player who shall remain nameless but who was banned from here does far better than I, what makes him, cool and all those that division with me, is that they are absolutely happy to div up with the King of potatoes

 

Want to be cool, div with me, I WILL make you look awesome

[thiextar]

5 hours ago, ColonelPete said:

If you are better than them, you should quickly outrank them.

Actually, from a purely mathematical viewpoint, the bigger the skillgap is between the players, the bigger the total average variance between teams is. This leads to much more decisive wins/losses. more decicive wins/losses means that the skill of an individual player has less power on the outcome of the match, and said winrate will normalize closer to 50% than it otherwise would have.

 

Mathematical comparison would be throwing dice, if you get below the middle value on the dice, you lose, if you get above the middle value, you win. the number on the dice is your teams skill, to every dice throw, you add in a constant value which represents your individual skill, in this case, a 1.

 

if the dice is changed to only range between 1-4(less skill disparity), our constant value of 1 can be added on to the dice value to make 1/2 of losses into wins, this would result in 75% winrate 

if the dice instead ranges between 1-8(more skill disparity), our constant value of 1 is only enough to make 1/4 losses into a win, this would result in 62,5% winrate.

 

Not agreeing with any blanket-ban on bad players, just wanted to correct a faulty statement 

 

 

[ColonelPete]

5 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Actually, from a purely mathematical viewpoint, the bigger the skillgap is between the players, the bigger the total average variance between teams is. This leads to much more decisive wins/losses. more decicive wins/losses means that the skill of an individual player has less power on the outcome of the match, and said winrate will normalize closer to 50% than it otherwise would have.

 

Mathematical comparison would be throwing dice, if you get below the middle value on the dice, you lose, if you get above the middle value, you win. the number on the dice is your teams skill, to every dice throw, you add in a constant value which represents your individual skill, in this case, a 1.

 

if the dice is changed to only range between 1-4(less skill disparity), our constant value of 1 can be added on to the dice value to make 1/2 of losses into wins, this would result in 75% winrate 

if the dice instead ranges between 1-8(more skill disparity), our constant value of 1 is only enough to make 1/4 losses into a win, this would result in 62,5% winrate.

 

Not agreeing with any blanket-ban on bad players, just wanted to correct a faulty statement 

 

 

Dice have equal distribution.

Try throwing 3d6 and take the sum as the team skill to simulate the normal distribution we have in game.

Your skill would be a fixed number you added.

Increasing you skill would increase your winchance.

[Sir_Grzegorz]

12 hours ago, Starchy_Tuber said:

always start ranked immediately the season starts and, if you progress the initial ranks quickly, then you end up playing the upper ranks, generally, with the better players

Intresting hypothesis but actually against my personal feeling.

I never start ranked at day one, as some 60%WR player would be not happy to have sub 50% WR in his team.

But as a 50%WR player I will gladly see 45%WR in my team as that means I can keep the star or carry if try hard enough.

 

If we disregard 10 CV games that I needed for french collection then I managed to rank out in normal 23 games.

I believe that average player can finish sprint in 20-25 games.

 

Using OP ships makes it easier but it is all player ability to carry/preserve the star that counts.

[Leo_Apollo11]

Hi all,

 

AFAIK this "Ranked Sprint" has SAME "bracket" for all ranks (i.e. if you are Rank #2 and just 1 star short of Rank #1 you can still have brand new Rank #10 player in your/enemy team with 0 games)!

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

[WeGreedy]

3 hours ago, Leo_Apollo11 said:

Hi all,

 

AFAIK this "Ranked Sprint" has SAME "bracket" for all ranks (i.e. if you are Rank #2 and just 1 star short of Rank #1 you can still have brand new Rank #10 player in your/enemy team with 0 games)!

 

 

Leo "Apollo11"

Isn't it 10-6 and 5-2?