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

Why are DD's so poor these days.

482 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[-LA-]
Players
743 posts
5,651 battles

i think its a problem across the board with this game , unless you have a strong motivation to win you tend to have to choose between playing well and having fun.

  • Cool 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
1,662 posts
19,386 battles
2 minutes ago, valrond said:

Do you know what? I'm forced to do that a lot. I have to play DDs, so there is at least one player that knows how a DD is supposed be played. But do you also know what? I want to play other classes, but the other ships depend on the DD do to their job. [...]

I know what you mean, cause it's the same for me. I want to play other classes but I have to play DDs, cause nobody else is willing to do it. It was most obvious in Ranked Season 13. They all jumped into their Musashis and Jean Barts to do damage. They did not play against the enemy team but against their own team in a contest to keep their star. So I had to play DD to get things done. I rarely kept my star, but my winrate was higher. Nowadays, if I want to make sure my team has the highest chance of winning, if I value winning, I need to be in a DD. That is not love for DDs, it is sad consequence.

2 minutes ago, valrond said:

I expect a noob DD in tier 3,4,5 to put smoke and stay there, but at tier 10? WTF are you doing there? not spotting and waiting to be killed by torps/radar/hydro or just when the smoke is up?

How can you expect that? If they were rational, maybe. But WG allows players to skip whole lines with FXP earned by playing other lines that have nothing in common with the ships that are skipped. You can get to T10 in under 300 battles. On top of that DDs get deleted early. To learn you must experience the game, not be destroyed early. Even if you play double the amount of battles, compared to an experienced player, you get destroyed early and you don't experience the late game. The players you complain about probably have left the battle and launched into a new one long before they could read in chat what they did wrong.

 

How can they learn? CVs get pampered in T4 with basically no AA, while DDs are thrown into cold water from the beginning. It is a hostile environment suited to learn but at the same time off-putting as hell.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NKK]
Beta Tester
881 posts
11,570 battles
15 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

I know what you mean, cause it's the same for me. I want to play other classes but I have to play DDs, cause nobody else is willing to do it. It was most obvious in Ranked Season 13. They all jumped into their Musashis and Jean Barts to do damage. They did not play against the enemy team but against their own team in a contest to keep their star. So I had to play DD to get things done. I rarely kept my star, but my winrate was higher. Nowadays, if I want to make sure my team has the highest chance of winning, if I value winning, I need to be in a DD. That is not love for DDs, it is sad consequence.

How can you expect that? If they were rational, maybe. But WG allows players to skip whole lines with FXP earned by playing other lines that have nothing in common with the ships that are skipped. You can get to T10 in under 300 battles. On top of that DDs get deleted early. To learn you must experience the game, not be destroyed early. Even if you play double the amount of battles, compared to an experienced player, you get destroyed early and you don't experience the late game. The players you complain about probably have left the battle and launched into a new one long before they could read in chat what they did wrong.

 

How can they learn? CVs get pampered in T4 with basically no AA, while DDs are thrown into cold water from the beginning. It is a hostile environment suited to learn but at the same time off-putting as hell.

Yep, it seems we agree in the basics. It's not that DD players are worse than BB or cruisers, it's just that they are more important for the team, even if they don't even do damage, they allow your team to do damage. I'm not a great player, just slightly above average, and I used to do those things that noobs do... back in 2015 and 2016, but I didn't get a tier 10 until 2017. I didn't take one line and grinding it up all the way. I took a lot (like, all of them, or almost all of them) and grind bit by bit while I was getting better, and playing the other ships also made me better understand how to counter those ships. But yeah, let's skip to tier 10 with players that have no experience and no desire to learn even a bit.

 

Look, not everyone can be an unicum or even a good player, but it just takes a bit of effort to learn the basics of each class and the simples do's and don't. Alas, many people don't care and never will, and those people decide matches.

 

PS: It also works the other way around. I got to rank 1 in sprint with just 16 games. 14-2. Good teammates. It helped that I didn't do even one stinker game, the games I died early at least I took out one enemy ship on my own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,227 posts
19,105 battles
2 hours ago, MadBadDave said:

I'm sat here pulling my hair out, after watching yet more shrubs trying to skipper DD's, who die within the first few milliseconds ,

...................

 

 

Its weekend. What do you expect?

 

DDs smoking up in caps and waiting in smoke, broadside on. If torps dont get them, radar will.

DDs trying to rush BBs kiting away in open water.

Yue Yang trying to torp my Kitakaze (good luck with those DWT) and complaining they go right under me.

Or a particular gem living in his own world: Had a Lo Yang player smoking up 7 km from a Kii after torping it. I knew for a fact he wasnt spotted since i killed the enemy DDs already. Obviously he lost sight of the BB and then pinged for som1 to spot so he could dakka (i played Akizuki...duh!). Oh fer crying out loud...

BB all running to the same corner and the competing to run the fastest and not be closest to the 1 enemy BB on that flank. Obviously they inevitably get outflanked and die horribly.

Worchesters and DMs gunboating in the open.

 

Got to say Valrond has a point. 

I happen to enjoy DDing, but I'm  usually the only surviving (and competent) dd on the team....And when i [edited]up (usually eating a torp in my fat schoolbus Kita)

 

38 minutes ago, valrond said:

Do you know what? I'm forced to do that a lot. I have to play DDs, so there is at least one player that knows how a DD is supposed be played. But do you also know what? I want to play other classes, but the other ships depend on the DD do to their job. Last game I played with my new Smolensk, I went to A in Okinawa to support our Gearing. Do you know what he did? He got spotted, put smoke, and sit in smoke for 2 minutes. 2 minutes the whole flank BLIND. I would not go spot cause I'd be dead in 1 minute with 5 ships lurking around there. Once the smoke was finished, the Gearing DD was killed pretty fast. The other 2 DDs in our team were dead within the first 5 minutes. We still managed to barely win cause we had some good players including our CV, that was able to spot a bit and don't leave us blind the rest of the game.

 

I expect a noob DD in tier 3,4,5 to put smoke and stay there, but at tier 10? WTF are you doing there? not spotting and waiting to be killed by torps/radar/hydro or just when the smoke is up?

 

Unfortunately i find myself in agreement. The only BB i play regularly is the Missouri (for credits, I'm bored with the playstyle) and often i find myself hunting the DDs because friendly DDs are too scared to do it.

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
19,378 posts
6,105 battles
16 minutes ago, valrond said:

Look, not everyone can be an unicum or even a good player, but it just takes a bit of effort to learn the basics of each class and the simples do's and don't. Alas, many people don't care and never will, and those people decide matches.

 

But in general these people would be on both teams, yours and the enemies. So the match deciding influence isn't the problem, it's the environment where WG mixes in two very different kind of players in the same MM pool. 

 

24 minutes ago, Padds01 said:

i think its a problem across the board with this game , unless you have a strong motivation to win you tend to have to choose between playing well and having fun.

This. Is. Exactly. The. Problem.

 

WG could have made economy such that only winning is fun... I know I know it sucks to be the one not winning often.... but it would motivate people to actually learn the game. It shouldn't be possible to 'have fun' while ruining the game for your team which expect players to press battle with the intention of playing for a victory. 

 

WG could have kept coop / operations for those not interested in learning basics. 

 

And just to expand on that, I don't want bad players to quit playing or just play coop. I want bad players to stop being bad, because in my mind 99% of the bad players are bad because they haven't yet made the conscious decision to NOT be bad. Most of the common mistakes... well there is a reason they are common. I see DD's not capping and I ask them why? Well the tooltip said they should use their torpedo's to attack enemy battleships. I see DD's not screening in the proper positions, ask them why: the tooltip tells them to screen, but the tutorial showing them how it's done, isn't there. 

 

A lot of the basic tasks ( which can't be rewarded in game, since no one ever been able to come up with a ruleset which can 100% determin when player actions are 'beneficial' ) are simple, when you know about it. But there are to many players in the game who just don't know any better, and they will never improve just because they aren't aware how bad they are ( again, not their fault ). 

 

There is ONE reason I am not a bad player any more: I decided to not be a bad player. And I made that decission because people who were telling me how bad I was, also, after some bickering, tried to actually help me in game. Some games in CBT I started out: "I'm a noob, if you think I'm going to do something stupid try to talk me out of it, and if you think I should do something, tell me"... ( slight paraphrasing ). 

 

Can you imagine doing that now? Community then was so small, you actually met the same players pretty often, and that's why this actually worked and I learned so much from other players who took their time to explain mechanics and how I should (ab)use them, I would like to pass that on but it's almost impossible in random battles to even get someone to accept that advice might be worth listening to.

 

 

 

 

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
2,147 posts
14,811 battles
2 hours ago, MadBadDave said:

I'm sat here pulling my hair out, after watching yet more shrubs trying to skipper DD's, who die within the first few milliseconds , leaving you as a BB driver exposed to Dakka HE cruisers, in your T8 BB, yep MM MOAN as well, AGAIN !,   I'm still lower tier at least 4-5 times more than top or even middle tier.

 

Anyway DD's given how poor the standard has become, you have to be concerned with the impending introduction of Subs, given that DD's are the counter, which BTW Cv's STILL don't have, and I've been seeing 4 DD's a game, all are dead within 5 minutes, instead of having the research bureau Couldn't WG introduce a  DD training grind before they can go up a tier, eg; in one game torp at least 6 times, cause 50k + damage, last longer than 5 seconds for a run of 10 games etc.

 

I know that most don't look at the mini-map but situational awareness is something these DD drivers don't have, torping with not looking where allied shipping is, I find myself dodging green torps as much as red torps these days.

 

What's to blame; yep the still unresolved cv rework, players are now returning to DD's and are hopeless.  Subs will be as dominant as cv's have been since the rework, thanks to the current DD standard. 

Carriers are the primary reason. They utterly neutralise DDs and keep them permaspotted or kill them at will at any time. When CVs are present only CV player have fun.

  • Cool 1
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[S-O-M]
Players
657 posts

Yet another game; again 4 DD’s on both teams, obviously a T10 match, good old WG !!., 2 dead within first minute both T10’s leaving my Alabama, and a Hindy against 2 dd’s, spamming torps, 2 bb’s and a cruiser, last game I scored 175k, which had decent DD’s, this one 2k damage, DD and CV play can hugely effect the game outcome, think not ?, 2 of the very best cruisers or bb’s, vs 2 Benhams who would you put your money on, given that by the end the cruisers would’ve used their radar.

 

I would like to thank the green DD’s and WG for such a fun game.

 

Btw see the other DD post, reiterates my point I think 😏.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[THESO]
Players
1,662 posts
19,386 battles
2 hours ago, mtm78 said:

WG could have made economy such that only winning is fun... I know I know it sucks to be the one not winning often.... but it would motivate people to actually learn the game. It shouldn't be possible to 'have fun' while ruining the game for your team which expect players to press battle with the intention of playing for a victory. 

The problem is they make it fun to win and still players don't care. Just look at the stats on the Ranked seasons. Winning or at least doing XP-worthy stuff and keeping your star is key to advancing in Ranked. Still you will find players stubbornly running with their heads against the wall representing their skill level. They got 45% winrate, still they insist: "I know I am holding back my teams, I know hundreds of players have to play more battles because of me, but I don't care for them. They are going to carry me to Rank 1 eventually, if they like it or not, if it takes a thousand games."

 

Winning is fun. I know that because I have more fun on winning streaks than on losing streaks. I see co-players leave the game after a losing streak, frustrated. Of course i also see streamers on twitch, happily commenting on their choices in battles, not even aware they misplay. They see themselves skillful, while you can see them blow it. They seem to have fun.

 

Quote

WG could have kept coop / operations for those not interested in learning basics. 

 

And just to expand on that, I don't want bad players to quit playing or just play coop. I want bad players to stop being bad, because in my mind 99% of the bad players are bad because they haven't yet made the conscious decision to NOT be bad. Most of the common mistakes... well there is a reason they are common. I see DD's not capping and I ask them why? Well the tooltip said they should use their torpedo's to attack enemy battleships. I see DD's not screening in the proper positions, ask them why: the tooltip tells them to screen, but the tutorial showing them how it's done, isn't there. 

 

A lot of the basic tasks ( which can't be rewarded in game, since no one ever been able to come up with a ruleset which can 100% determin when player actions are 'beneficial' ) are simple, when you know about it. But there are to many players in the game who just don't know any better, and they will never improve just because they aren't aware how bad they are ( again, not their fault ). 

 

There is ONE reason I am not a bad player any more: I decided to not be a bad player. And I made that decission because people who were telling me how bad I was, also, after some bickering, tried to actually help me in game. Some games in CBT I started out: "I'm a noob, if you think I'm going to do something stupid try to talk me out of it, and if you think I should do something, tell me"... ( slight paraphrasing ). 

 

Can you imagine doing that now? Community then was so small, you actually met the same players pretty often, and that's why this actually worked and I learned so much from other players who took their time to explain mechanics and how I should (ab)use them, I would like to pass that on but it's almost impossible in random battles to even get someone to accept that advice might be worth listening to.

In my experience players don't take advice. They basically react more aggressive to advice than to insults. An insult is just generic, they probably hear that every day even by friends. They take offence however if one points out they are doing things wrong. They take that personally, which ofc it is in a certain way. So I stop giving advice.

 

You are right with most of what you say. You however simplify one point: The deliberate choice of playing better. Sometimes I browse through streams and I get hooked on bad players. I find it interesting cause I can see their way of thinking. You and me and many other players, we see that both teams are a mirror to each other. I can ignore a cap and torp BBs, as the tooltip says, but only, if that action is mirrored. We understand that in order to be successful, we need to at least match the actions of our mirror, we as a team, we as a player. If the enemy team has one cap, we need at least one cap, too. If we cannot match that action, we need to compensate that gaining a decisive advantage in another relevant aspect, e.g. we need to kill their ships faster. That is a way of thinking. It starts with players complaining about being bottom tier, where I myself think "okay, I only gotta match a bottom tier on the other side and if I overperform that makes the difference".

Now if you look at the mindset of bad players, you listen to their comments in streams, you will notice they see the whole situation as given. The whole setting is just a scenario for them. They do what they want and if they lose, well then their team lost and they feel they did what they could in a battle destined to be lost. They complain they could have got more XP if they had been top tier, ignoring the fact they would have to match a top tier opponent. They will leave a void blamingtheir team for not filling it, rather than reflect where their responsibility was.

 

It is not so much the choice to play better, it is the epiphany that you have to be better than your mirror, where the playing better starts. If your mirror caps and you don't, that is your responsibility and you have to ask yourself every minute, if you are having more impact than your mirror. That principle is true for every class although it is most obvious for CVs.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CHEFT]
Players
12,666 posts
9,841 battles
38 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

many players in the game who just don't know any better, and they will never improve just because they aren't aware how bad they are

 

Im willing to go even further:

They think they already know everything, so they dont need to learn. If someone else presents them with facts, they are obviously "wrong"

Just yesterday an Amagi told our team, he gets citadelled by every TX BB from every angle... which is obviously wrong. Tried to tell him, that its not true and only Yamasushi can do it. Answer again "but they do" :fish_palm:

There is no hope for those players, and i really believe, most bad players actually see it like this. And one reason for that is (i believe), that people are grinding through the tiers and they blame being lowtier. They play a T6 BB and get a whoping from a T8 BB = "its not my fault, the enemy has a stronger ship, wait till i get that T8 ship". Now they have the T8 ship, but suddenly they face T10 ships. Once again = "My ship is worse, its not my fault". When they reach TX, their brain should get a fuckup, but i think conclusion is this "My Team SUCKS!!11"

And either way, they convince themselves that, they are "only" 1 in 12, so it doesnt matter anyway what they do. Its funny, how 11 others are always at fault, but each individual is never...

 

I guess if you get deleted broadside the game should need to tell you "you [edited]noob, you showed full broadside... AGAIN" or getting full torpedo spread "you didnt change your course, NOOB" :cap_haloween:

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[B-N-Z]
Players
421 posts
4,624 battles

Best DDs to contest caps taken by enemies are BBs anyway. Since capping raises the alarm and let the enemy chase you down with radars and hydro and rockets anyway, why not bringing in the biggest HP sponge, have ballz of steelz and stop the enemy to gain points ?

Plus you get focus fired, giving your teammates the opportynity to return fire. And it solves the bad/mediocre accuracy problem of KM and french BBs - by getting closer distances.

And on top, if your team does not know how to use the opportunity you offer, you can go quickly to another game :Smile_trollface:

 

Do the job, instead of moaning that other people don't. My spotting damage record was with a low-tiered Konig - you can do it if I potato master was able to do that. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
19,378 posts
6,105 battles
21 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Of course i also see streamers on twitch, happily commenting on their choices in battles, not even aware they misplay. They see themselves skillful, while you can see them blow it. They seem to have fun.

 

But that's fine isn't it, I can have fun while playing badly. But I shouldn't be able to have fun while playing badly on a constant basis. 

21 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

It is not so much the choice to play better, it is the epiphany that you have to be better than your mirror, where the playing better starts. If your mirror caps and you don't, that is your responsibility and you have to ask yourself every minute, if you are having more impact than your mirror. That principle is true for every class although it is most obvious for CVs.

 

 

Competing with your mirror is a bit like Goku fighting Picolo. You know that fight is the one to win first, but you have to be ready to go supersaiyan god when Berus comes along. 

 

Getting to super saiyan blue ( well would be purple with WoWs but :Smile_hiding: ) usually means you have to be more influential as multiple players in your team combined. But the way you say it is probably more understandable, being equal to your mirror is mostly an argument tho when up tiered, where this might make players feel they don't have to be really influential just more as their mirror.

 

Overall, what most people seem to lack, is the recognition that a random matchmaker creates streaks either way, and they confuse this with their own lack of influence. I think most players who don't try to improve do so because they think it's not going to have an impact, they think all players with better stats are either lucky or cheating and their own actions do not matter.

 

Now what I mean is this: if you see new players with red damage but green win rate making topics, they usually make topics asking for tips. Because they are winning, they feel like they have an influence, but they notice they aren't in the top of the xp lists and wonder if they can improve.

 

On the other hand, a new player with red win rate and green damage, will make topics about a rigged matchmaker. 

 

A game lasts 20 minutes max, getting 100 games under your belt takes some time. Players who play 100 games are still new players, and do not yet see the influence of MM streaks ( you need way more battles for that especially if those 100 games are spread over a lot of ships and tiers ).

 

Just now, bratisla_boy said:

Best DDs to contest caps taken by enemies are BBs anyway. Since capping raises the alarm and let the enemy chase you down with radars and hydro and rockets anyway, why not bringing in the biggest HP sponge, have ballz of steelz and stop the enemy to gain points ?

Plus you get focus fired, giving your teammates the opportynity to return fire. And it solves the bad/mediocre accuracy problem of KM and french BBs - by getting closer distances.

And on top, if your team does not know how to use the opportunity you offer, you can go quickly to another game :Smile_trollface:

 

Do the job, instead of moaning that other people don't. My spotting damage record was with a low-tiered Konig - you can do it if I potato master was able to do that. 

 

Well no not really. But you can sail your battleship to a position where you can shoot any cruisers and destroyers trying to contest, and be reasonably close so that if the destroyer get's focused and is also under air attack, he can run to your AA bubble ( well.. takes some time but let's say it's a fast DD with speedboost on ;) ). 

 

A BB which really goes to cap ( at the start ) without support is likely not going to survive for long unless the enemy team misplays. Overextending is not a valid tactic. 

 

On the other hand, a BB leading a charge towards a cap might give your allies the trust they need to also push, the DD might decide your worth risking his life for and will screen you from enemy destroyers and your cruisers will jump on any enemy destroyer trying to force feed you fish. 

 

Just know the difference :Smile_honoring:

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,738 posts
15,002 battles
25 minutes ago, HMS_Kilinowski said:

Winning or at least doing XP-worthy stuff and keeping your star is key to advancing in Ranked. Still you will find players stubbornly running with their heads

No body should keep a star in any ranked battle, if your team loses, that way people can not "game" for it.

 

Your team loses you ALL lose a star.

  • Cool 6
  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
19,378 posts
6,105 battles
5 minutes ago, Orcinus1 said:

No body should keep a star in any ranked battle, if your team loses, that way people can not "game" for it.

 

Your team loses you ALL lose a star.

 

That is the only way, having a competition with your allies while it's not sure if you're going to win or not is not my definition of fun, at all. 

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-TPF-]
Players
4,925 posts
20,073 battles
3 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

That is the only way, having a competition with your allies while it's not sure if you're going to win or not is not my definition of fun, at all. 

Especially when certain allies will give up and play to save if the game position starts to look unfavourable.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NKK]
Beta Tester
881 posts
11,570 battles
24 minutes ago, Orcinus1 said:

No body should keep a star in any ranked battle, if your team loses, that way people can not "game" for it.

 

Your team loses you ALL lose a star.

Sorry, but that wouldn't work. I already did the math a long time ago. It would take A LOT more (like 2-3 or even more) games to get to the same place, cause it is a zero sum game then. No stars are generated, one team gets 7, the other loses 7.

 

Here is the spreedsheet.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BmtNNWQvBSG7IlokheBMdEdv5qrL_2pK6khbJJONeyg/edit?usp=sharing

 

Even if you win 60%, you'd need 200 games to reach rank 1 from rank 10 instead of 156

If you have a 55% wr, it goes from 243 to 400

And if you have a 51% wr (still better than average)... it's 2000 games instead of 444.

 

Back to the topic. The problem with DDs is not that DD players are bad, it's just like with CVs, and specially RTS CVs before that, they influence the game a lot more heavily than cruisers or battleships. If a team manages to kill all enemy DDs at the beginning of the game while keeping some, it has an almost assured victory. Spotting, torping, area denial, vs a blind team that will got running away the rest of the game. So bad DD players have a bigger outcome than bad BB players that stay at 25 kms going sideways.

  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
19,378 posts
6,105 battles
1 minute ago, valrond said:

Even if you win 60%, you'd need 200 games to reach rank 1 from rank 10 instead of 156

If you have a 55% wr, it goes from 243 to 400

And if you have a 51% wr (still better than average)... it's 2000 games instead of 444.

 

Meh why would this be bad? It's exactly what we want no? Incite people to play better? You can lower the amount of games, just as long as the scaling between bad and good doesn't.

 

3 minutes ago, valrond said:

Back to the topic. The problem with DDs is not that DD players are bad, it's just like with CVs, and specially RTS CVs before that, they influence the game a lot more heavily than cruisers or battleships. If a team manages to kill all enemy DDs at the beginning of the game while keeping some, it has an almost assured victory. Spotting, torping, area denial, vs a blind team that will got running away the rest of the game. So bad DD players have a bigger outcome than bad BB players that stay at 25 kms going sideways.

 

This is complete bull, you know where I go in my DD? To the cap where my team is going to be able to support me. A bad BB player has just as much influence as a bad DD player, just the BB player is usually not even aware of how he's misplaying. 

 

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NKK]
Beta Tester
881 posts
11,570 battles
15 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

 

Meh why would this be bad? It's exactly what we want no? Incite people to play better? You can lower the amount of games, just as long as the scaling between bad and good doesn't.

 

 

Why is it bad? OMG. Ok, I'll explain it.

Every game that you lose and finish first it's a game that you don't have to win. And that happens roughly 1 every 7 games (assuming ranked with 7 players, as they usually are, no the sprint ones). So, that 1 game in 7 that you lose but get first, it's a "free" star.

Let's see with very simple maths.

You play 100 games. Let's say you are good and win 55. You lose 45. You get 10 stars net. That's without the "free" star from finishing first in the losing game.

Now, same thing with a free star. Of those 45, you should get 6 or 7 first places (if you are good you will get more, but let's do the average here, a bit better, so let's take 7). So instead of getting 10 stars in 100 games, you get 17. That's 70% more.

 

If you are not that good and win 51 games and lose 49 (still better than average), you will get TWO stars. That's right. Play 100 games, and advance 2 stars, not even a full rank. At that point, an average player will think "Why am I even playing a hundred games to barely improve". With the current system, he or she will get 7 more stars (7/49 of the loses), for a total of 9. Still slow but you can see yourself going up the ranks.

 

Now, if average players can't advance (and with a 50% or less you just can't, as the last sure rank is 12th), they will leave the game, leaving 55% or more players playing, then, those players will not win as much, cause there aren't bad players playing, so they drop their wr, they don't advance, and they leave. End result? dead game mode.

 

That is why zero sum games don't work, and that is why in star economies you have to add stars somewhere. Hearthstone does it with winning streaks (and ranks you can go lower, but I haven't played HS in quite a while, so I'm not sure if it is still the case). If you don't add stars, only the top of the top of the top will reach rank 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[CATS]
Players
32,406 posts
16,210 battles
30 minutes ago, valrond said:

Back to the topic. The problem with DDs is not that DD players are bad, it's just like with CVs, and specially RTS CVs before that, they influence the game a lot more heavily than cruisers or battleships. If a team manages to kill all enemy DDs at the beginning of the game while keeping some, it has an almost assured victory. Spotting, torping, area denial, vs a blind team that will got running away the rest of the game. So bad DD players have a bigger outcome than bad BB players that stay at 25 kms going sideways.

The same happens when you take out all enemy Cruiser or BB that early in a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
3,116 posts

It depends on the team unfortunately. If you are in a dd the options (with a bad/uninterested team) are limited. You either try to wake them up on the objectives which in my case always ends up in chatbans as i get bombarded wit downvotes, or try to make something out of nothing, like delaying an enemy flank, decaping against overwhelming odds etc The other option is to play it cool, hang back and usually lose the game fast. Usually u need the opposing team to do something stupid, to balans yr owns team's inability to move along. It's a thankless job, and most who still drive them out of division really love the ship class. Nothing in this current meta really favors dds. A good CV player (not even unicum) can end yr game in the first 4-5 mins tops if he wants to. But you can still influence games heavily, and when it happens the satisfaction is really huge at least for me. Having said that I guess all classes have their own grievances so yea there's that. Cheers :)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alpha Tester
19,378 posts
6,105 battles
17 minutes ago, valrond said:

You play 100 games. Let's say you are good and win 55. You lose 45. You get 10 stars net. That's without the "free" star from finishing first in the losing game.

Now, same thing with a free star. Of those 45, you should get 6 or 7 first places (if you are good you will get more, but let's do the average here, a bit better, so let's take 7). So instead of getting 10 stars in 100 games, you get 17. That's 70% more.

 

You're trying to make it sound like the best players keep a star, when it's not the best players it's more likely to be the player which started out with enough self interest to make sure he would keep a star, not withstanding 'his team's abilities to win or not'.

 

As to the rest, I rather have to play 100 games to progress in a system where there is no second agenda except trying to win the game. 

17 minutes ago, valrond said:

That is why zero sum games don't work, and that is why in star economies you have to add stars somewhere. Hearthstone does it with winning streaks (and ranks you can go lower, but I haven't played HS in quite a while, so I'm not sure if it is still the case). If you don't add stars, only the top of the top of the top will reach rank 1.

Mhm winning streaks are not really player dependent here, but would still be preferable to the mess created by giving players a second way to progress outside of the team. 

 

17 minutes ago, valrond said:

OMG


Wait, weren't people complaining they didn't want division in ranked because it needed to be 'skill based'. But if a mediocre player gives up, it's suddenly bad? PS: 

 

51 minutes ago, valrond said:

Even if you win 60%, you'd need 200 games to reach rank 1 from rank 10 instead of 156

If you have a 55% wr, it goes from 243 to 400

And if you have a 51% wr (still better than average)... it's 2000 games instead of 444.

 

46 minutes ago, mtm78 said:

You can lower the amount of games, just as long as the scaling between bad and good doesn't.

 

 

Like I said, if you want to protect the 51% from not having 'fun' in this mode because needing more games as a 60% player, you can shuffle a bit with the number of steps, as long as the requirement isn't lower as the average getting carried win streak by a baddie. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[NKK]
Beta Tester
881 posts
11,570 battles
28 minutes ago, ColonelPete said:

The same happens when you take out all enemy Cruiser or BB that early in a game.

Cruisers? sometimes it happens.

BBs? come back with a screenshot when all enemy BBs are dead within the first 5 minute mark.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[JRM]
Players
8,229 posts

I decided to not bother with any ships staht dont have a smoke or a heal unless they are grinds...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×