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

Contemplating ranked.

23 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[QARTV]
Players
412 posts
7,103 battles

Played ranked. Thought about it a bit and i am convinced now, that system should be changed in this way.

1)No CVs in 8v8. Yeah WG probably will not do this, because they can not admit how unbalanced, OP CVs are.

2)Star system - there should not be star saved for "best" player in losing team, because that has made many games counter productive. Many players seeing how team has lost 1 or 2 players, lose morale and just start blatantly try and farm damage in hopes they are on top in losing team and thus save their star. This leads to devastating consequences to whole team. System should be reworked so that top player on WINNING team gets to keep their star in next game if he loses. It makes much more sense, because it actually motivates people to play to win not to just damage farm, because if you farm damage and lose it is of no use. This can and should be implemented in next ranked season. 

  • Cool 5
  • Bad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,329 posts
16,527 battles
13 minutes ago, Fonfalks said:

Played ranked. Thought about it a bit and i am convinced now, that system should be changed in this way.

1)No CVs in 8v8. Yeah WG probably will not do this, because they can not admit how unbalanced, OP CVs are.

2)Star system - there should not be star saved for "best" player in losing team, because that has made many games counter productive. Many players seeing how team has lost 1 or 2 players, lose morale and just start blatantly try and farm damage in hopes they are on top in losing team and thus save their star. This leads to devastating consequences to whole team. System should be reworked so that top player on WINNING team gets to keep their star in next game if he loses. It makes much more sense, because it actually motivates people to play to win not to just damage farm, because if you farm damage and lose it is of no use. This can and should be implemented in next ranked season. 

Thought about ranked and i am convinced still it's toxic by design. Anything to do with this silly star system will keep it toxic.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QARTV]
Players
412 posts
7,103 battles
8 minutes ago, Europizza said:

Thought about ranked and i am convinced still it's toxic by design. Anything to do with this silly star system will keep it toxic.

Well, there has to be some reward/lose calculation in order to move further up the ranks. Star system in itself is fine, it is just the way it is now implemented is counter productive and often rewards behavior that is  counter productive to team while beneficial to individual, that is very bad way to reward players IN TEAM GAME. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
230 posts
10,411 battles

So you want to replace a  - in your eyes - team-play hindering incentive for the losing team with the same team-play hindering incentive for the winning team. That's a level of genius commonly only attributed to the people who balance T4 CVs. Color me impressed.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QARTV]
Players
412 posts
7,103 battles
14 minutes ago, thisismalacoda said:

So you want to replace a  - in your eyes - team-play hindering incentive for the losing team with the same team-play hindering incentive for the winning team. That's a level of genius commonly only attributed to the people who balance T4 CVs. Color me impressed.

It only shows that you either are incapable of reasoning or did not understand what i wrote. 

If you give such star saving feature for WINNING team it is not team hindering, because team needs to ACTUALLY WIN, you understand, in order to get this feature for winning teams top player. 

As it stands now player on losing team cares only about saving his star, not actually trying to turn the game around and win. Purpose of game is for TEAM TO WIN, not for player to save star so incentives should reflect that. 

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,928 posts
4,801 battles
6 minutes ago, Fonfalks said:

It only shows that you either are incapable of reasoning or did not understand what i wrote. 

If you give such star saving feature for WINNING team it is not team hindering, because team needs to ACTUALLY WIN, you understand, in order to get this feature for winning teams top player. 

As it stands now player on losing team cares only about saving his star, not actually trying to turn the game around and win. Purpose of game is for TEAM TO WIN, not for player to save star so incentives should reflect that. 

Yeah, but everyone will want to "win the most", which means that no one will want to do menial duties like capping and spotting, ensuring they never get two stars. time can be spent much more productively damage farming for that extra star, sounds familiar?

 

Also, picture this: your team is leading with 2 kills, and have 2 caps, victory is assured if you just sit back and defend the caps. A thought irks into the back of your mind, a little voice saying "go on, extra star, you know you want to"

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QARTV]
Players
412 posts
7,103 battles
22 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Yeah, but everyone will want to "win the most", which means that no one will want to do menial duties like capping and spotting, ensuring they never get two stars. time can be spent much more productively damage farming for that extra star, sounds familiar?

 

Also, picture this: your team is leading with 2 kills, and have 2 caps, victory is assured if you just sit back and defend the caps. A thought irks into the back of your mind, a little voice saying "go on, extra star, you know you want to"

It is truly hard to talk to people... Once more - in order to get this star saving feature you will ACTUALLY HAVE TO WIN. If you do stupid crap you will lose and get NOTHING, so it is incentivising you to TRY AND WIN first and foremost. System that is in place now is incentivising people at crucial point in battle to make a decision - do i try to win or screw it all i will just farm damage, i have NOTHING TO LOSE ANYWAY. 

See the difference?????

  • Bad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SV]
Players
253 posts
7,880 battles
6 minutes ago, Fonfalks said:

It is truly hard to talk to people... Once more - in order to get this star saving feature you will ACTUALLY HAVE TO WIN. If you do stupid crap you will lose and get NOTHING, so it is incentivising you to TRY AND WIN first and foremost. System that is in place now is incentivising people at crucial point in battle to make a decision - do i try to win or screw it all i will just farm damage, i have NOTHING TO LOSE ANYWAY. 

See the difference?????

you underestimate the stupid in people if you can have a extra star fro winning people will throw games just to get that star. just remove the bonus stars altoghter easy. if it becomes to hard to rank upp after that just add another ireversable.................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,928 posts
4,801 battles
22 minutes ago, Fonfalks said:

It is truly hard to talk to people... Once more - in order to get this star saving feature you will ACTUALLY HAVE TO WIN. If you do stupid crap you will lose and get NOTHING, so it is incentivising you to TRY AND WIN first and foremost. System that is in place now is incentivising people at crucial point in battle to make a decision - do i try to win or screw it all i will just farm damage, i have NOTHING TO LOSE ANYWAY. 

See the difference?????

i hear you, and im telling you, it wont make a difference.

 

Have you heard of the prisoners dilemma? To qoute wikipedia: The prisoner's dilemma is a standard example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two completely rational individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so

 

a good example would be this: you have two contestants and a prize pot of 1 million pounds, both of them can choose to either split or steal. If they both split, the get half the money each. If one of them splits and one steals, the stealer gets all the money. If they both steal, none of them get any money.

The only logical choice for any individual is to steal, that is the only option that makes any sense for an individual. Of course steal is also the worst choice for both of them as neither will get any money. This is the essence of the dilemma.

 

To apply it to warships:

consider a player playing at 50% winrate that always gets two stars on a win. after 100 matches, he will have gone net positive 50 stars.

Now consider a player playing at 70% winrate but never gets double stars, because his only objective in a match is to win it. After 100 matches, this player will have a net of 40 stars.

 

So the player playing at 20% lower winrate will rank out first, because hes selfish. The best option for the whole team is to play it safe and win, but by far the best choice for every single individual is to pick the metaphorical "steal" and go for double stars, because mathematically, even if it makes you lose up to 25% more matches than usual, its still by far the best option for the individual.

 

Human psychology and mathematics will ensure that a double star system will be just as bad as save-a-star.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
467 posts
12,225 battles
27 minutes ago, Fonfalks said:

It is truly hard to talk to people... Once more - in order to get this star saving feature you will ACTUALLY HAVE TO WIN. If you do stupid crap you will lose and get NOTHING, so it is incentivising you to TRY AND WIN first and foremost. System that is in place now is incentivising people at crucial point in battle to make a decision - do i try to win or screw it all i will just farm damage, i have NOTHING TO LOSE ANYWAY. 

See the difference?????

 

Are you talking about the same people who charge ahead in randoms when your team is up on ships, caps and points, because they try to "win harder", then die and throw instead? Those people? 

 

Don't get me wrong, I hate the current ranked system, and I appreciate what you're trying to do, but the sad fact is that if you try to balance out a system around the idea that this player base will do the rational thing.. yeah.. not going to work. Most people don't have the awareness necessary to even realize when they are winning but if they play aggressively they will likely die and lose instead. I like what you're trying to accomplish here in principle - carrot rather than stick, reward winning more rather than being the best of the losing team - but I doubt it would work like you want it to in practice.

 

For example, I've recently had this idea about separating bragging rights from rewards in ranked. What I mean by this is, people get rewards based on their own performance, anyway, and the ranks (visibile clearly on their profiles and in team lineups) are given separate of that and are assigned purely based on wins. Problem? Yes. A lot of players would decide they don't care about bragging rights / ranks and just go farm the rewards in a damage dealer. This isn't an easy issue to resolve, and I'm not really sure how to, I do know I absolutely hate the star system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QARTV]
Players
412 posts
7,103 battles
7 minutes ago, thiextar said:

i hear you, and im telling you, it wont make a difference.

 

Have you heard of the prisoners dilemma? To qoute wikipedia: The prisoner's dilemma is a standard example of a game analyzed in game theory that shows why two completely rational individuals might not cooperate, even if it appears that it is in their best interests to do so

 

a good example would be this: you have two contestants and a prize pot of 1 million pounds, both of them can choose to either split or steal. If they both split, the get half the money each. If one of them splits and one steals, the stealer gets all the money. If they both steal, none of them get any money.

The only logical choice for any individual is to steal, that is the only option that makes any sense for an individual. Of course steal is also the worst choice for both of them as neither will get any money. This is the essence of the dilemma.

 

To apply it to warships:

consider a player playing at 50% winrate that always gets two stars on a win. after 100 matches, he will have gone net positive 50 stars.

Now consider a player playing at 70% winrate but never gets double stars, because his only objective in a match is to win it. After 100 matches, this player will have a net of 40 stars.

 

So the player playing at 20% lower winrate will rank out first, because hes selfish. The best option for the whole team is to play it safe and win, but by far the best choice for every single individual is to pick the metaphorical "steal" and go for double stars, because mathematically, even if it makes you lose up to 25% more matches than usual, its still by far the best option for the individual.

 

Human psychology and mathematics will ensure that a double star system will be just as bad as save-a-star.

 

 

 

I could point out how everything you said has almost nothing to do with reality of current ranked world of warships game, but i will approach this differently. 

I will ask you one simple question - do we incentivise TEAM WIN or do we give incentives for people to save star? At the moment we incentivise saving star and that is wrong, it gives all sorts of CVs, BBs, DDs and others reason to not work toward win, as i have said many times here already. And now read carefully and try to understand - IF we combine incentive to win with added bonus of saving star, then most people will try to turn games around, yes i am perfectly well aware that there is WAST portion of player base who mostly do not understand what is all this and why it makes these sounds, but those "people" will do what they do regardless of anything, i am talking about better players who AT THE MOMENT are DIRECTLY incentivised AT CRUCIAL MOMENTS IN GAME (you know how it goes - lose 1 - 2 ships and many just start panicking and thinking i should save star, rather set 3 ships on fire then try to snipe that almost dead read DD or stop them from capping etc) to act COUNTER PRODUCTIVE towards goal of the game - team win. 

So i am not saying what i propose would be "perfect" but we HAVE to incentivise wining rather then acting counter productive towards your own team to save your star, that is one of the main reasons ranked is so stupid at the moment, it is blatantly obvious. And in the end do you really care if some good players farm damage and win, because good player will know when and how to do it IF THEY UNDERSTAND that winning is FIRST and everything else is second. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,329 posts
16,527 battles

We played without saving a star in the first stages of ranked, the star saving was added later on. Even without the saving the star system no one would actually play for the win, it was stupid as it is now. You overestimate the incentives and underestimate the intertia that is the driving force of most players of WOWS.

 

The star reward system is incentivising toxic feelings and behavior. Making individual progress co-dependent on a team of random players is just a toxic concoction of the worst in both player behavior and game design, much like their carrier design is, to it's core. WG <3 toxic :cap_like:

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,928 posts
4,801 battles
1 hour ago, Fonfalks said:

I could point out how everything you said has almost nothing to do with reality of current ranked world of warships game, but i will approach this differently. 

I will ask you one simple question - do we incentivise TEAM WIN or do we give incentives for people to save star? At the moment we incentivise saving star and that is wrong, it gives all sorts of CVs, BBs, DDs and others reason to not work toward win, as i have said many times here already. And now read carefully and try to understand - IF we combine incentive to win with added bonus of saving star, then most people will try to turn games around, yes i am perfectly well aware that there is WAST portion of player base who mostly do not understand what is all this and why it makes these sounds, but those "people" will do what they do regardless of anything, i am talking about better players who AT THE MOMENT are DIRECTLY incentivised AT CRUCIAL MOMENTS IN GAME (you know how it goes - lose 1 - 2 ships and many just start panicking and thinking i should save star, rather set 3 ships on fire then try to snipe that almost dead read DD or stop them from capping etc) to act COUNTER PRODUCTIVE towards goal of the game - team win. 

So i am not saying what i propose would be "perfect" but we HAVE to incentivise wining rather then acting counter productive towards your own team to save your star, that is one of the main reasons ranked is so stupid at the moment, it is blatantly obvious. And in the end do you really care if some good players farm damage and win, because good player will know when and how to do it IF THEY UNDERSTAND that winning is FIRST and everything else is second. 

The only way to make people actually play to win, is to reward every winner the exact same reward, and apply the same punishment to all losers.

 

You vastly underestimate the very core of humanity which is selfishness. If you give two stars for a win, then for every individual player, playing selfishly will always be the best option. Why would i spot and cap when i can farm damage instead? If i am a unicum player that could feasibly hold a 70% winrate, then why would i bother holding that 70% winrate when i can focus more on getting double stars and lower my winrate to 55%, it would make me rank out much faster.

 

You are looking at every battle as a singular unit, but doing that in this case gives the wrong idea, you have to look at the larger picture. However hard i try to win a match, its not a guaranteed win, its a certain chance for a win, its unpredictable. So as a player, all you can do boils down to a simple choice: try to win, or try to farm damage.

 

We know that if we dont do anything to help the team win, but are really good at farming damage, we will win about 50% of our matches. If we do try to win, we will lower our chances drastically of getting double stars when we do win, which will end with a less efficient influx of stars.

 

If i play to win, i wont win every match, if i play selfishly, i wont lose every match.

Your reasoning would make sense if we had full control over the outcome of matches, but we dont. The best we can do is manipulate percentages and rewards.

This is why it ultimately boils down to simple mathematics as to which play is the best.

 

Let me put it like this:

 

There are two lotteries, you get a choice to buy 100 tickets from one of the lotteries, both the lotteries tickets costs the same amount.

 

Lottery A offers a 70% chance to win 1 dollar

Lottery B offers a 50% chance to win 2 dollars.

 

Which lotteries tickets do you buy?

 

Anyways, dont take my theoretical explanations for it, look at world of tanks. They tried running ranked in this format, you would get more stars by placing top of your team. They had the exact issue that im describing, and subsequently stopped doing it like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FJAKA]
Players
2,514 posts
374 battles
3 hours ago, Fonfalks said:

Played ranked. Thought about it a bit and i am convinced now, that system should be changed in this way.

1)No CVs in 8v8. Yeah WG probably will not do this, because they can not admit how unbalanced, OP CVs are.

2)Star system - there should not be star saved for "best" player in losing team, because that has made many games counter productive. Many players seeing how team has lost 1 or 2 players, lose morale and just start blatantly try and farm damage in hopes they are on top in losing team and thus save their star. This leads to devastating consequences to whole team. System should be reworked so that top player on WINNING team gets to keep their star in next game if he loses. It makes much more sense, because it actually motivates people to play to win not to just damage farm, because if you farm damage and lose it is of no use. This can and should be implemented in next ranked season. 

1-no

2-no

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QARTV]
Players
412 posts
7,103 battles
31 minutes ago, thiextar said:

You vastly underestimate the very core of humanity which is selfishness.

Wrong, absurdly wrong by the way. Civilization exists so you are wrong, it is as obvious as water is wet. 

32 minutes ago, thiextar said:

playing selfishly will always be the best option

Wrong again, it will not be best option for thinking player, because playing that way will lead to loss in which case he loses star.

35 minutes ago, thiextar said:

However hard i try to win a match, its not a guaranteed win

Problem now is many are not trying to win, rather to save star, due to wrong incentive. Purpose of incentive is to actually try and win. 

37 minutes ago, thiextar said:

We know that if we dont do anything to help the team win, but are really good at farming damage, we will win about 50% of our matches

Wrong. It is like saying if i go afk i will win 50% of matches. This is ranked 8v8, player impact is larger, if you play like idiot you decrease significantly chances of winning. NOW people are incentivised to play like idiots as discussed plenty of times above.

38 minutes ago, thiextar said:

There are two lotteries

These are not lotteries, hence the incentives. You can't incentivise numbers, you can incentivise people. Get out of your mind and see life, you talk like some foolish economist in between real life proving all his theories wrong, as per usual. 

 

40 minutes ago, thiextar said:

The only way to make people actually play to win, is to reward every winner the exact same reward, and apply the same punishment to all losers.

This is only point that you have made that is reasonable, however you miss why current save star was implemented in the first place. Good players felt disgusted that they had to lose because they had 7 afk bots so star saving system was implemented. Idea was not bad IN THEORY, but in practice it proved horrible for reason i am explaining here - WG is incentivising wrong pursuit, they are incentivising saving star rather then winning, i suggest we should incentivise winning. It is only fair, that in game where team won, best player gets something extra. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,928 posts
4,801 battles
27 minutes ago, Fonfalks said:

Wrong. It is like saying if i go afk i will win 50% of matches. This is ranked 8v8, player impact is larger, if you play like idiot you decrease significantly chances of winning. NOW people are incentivised to play like idiots as discussed plenty of

Dealing damage helps to win, just not anywhere near as much as other stuff you could be doing. In the end, if you play your damage dealing role well, you will most likely wind up with much higher than 50% winrate, i used 50% as a low example, to show how even if you play terribly, its still gonna be a more efficient way of ranking out.

 

27 minutes ago, Fonfalks said:

These are not lotteries, hence the incentives. You can't incentivise numbers, you can incentivise people. Get out of your mind and see life, you talk like some foolish economist in between real life proving all his theories wrong, as per usual. 

Actually, the closest way that you can represent a random wows ranked match, is the sum of 7 dice+k(a constant of your own skill)-8 dice rolls. if the number is positive, you win, if its negative you lose.

Some people say that a win or loss is random, some people say its 100% dependent on skill. The truth is right in the middle, its a random equation that is affected by skill only because 1 player is a constant in all your matches, you.

27 minutes ago, Fonfalks said:

Problem now is many are not trying to win, rather to save star, due to wrong incentive. Purpose of incentive is to actually try and win. 

Let me explain the relevance of the prisoners dilemma again, first, let get some facts straight to begin with:

  1. trying your best to win and trying to get top xp are mutually exclusive playstyles. You can try to do both at the same time, but you will do them both less effectively than if you were fully focused on one of them, adn you will most likely not get the double stars.
  2. looking at a large sample size, all players on the teams except for you will have the same average skill, aka match control, so on average, intent of all your team members to win/farm damage will be the biggest controlling factor to win or lose.

 

there are 7 players and you on your team. That makes 8. The best thing for all of you is if everyone tries their best to win. The best thing for you personally is if everyone else on your team tries their best to win, while you do your best to get double stars.

 

lets simplify and make a chart, everyone gets two buttons, win or damage farm

 

From the viewpoint of the whole team:

everyone presses win: +1 star

everyone presses damage farm: -1 stars

 

Now from the viewpoint of an individual player:

everyone except me presses damage farm, i press win: -1 star

everyone including me presses damage farm: -1 star

everyone including me presses win: +1 star

everyone except me presses win, i press damage farm: +2 stars

 

just looking at that individual chart, which button makes the most sense to push?

The only logical choice is "damage farm", even though its also the worst choice for the entire team.

 

Your choice doesn't affect your teammates choice, and that is where it all falls apart into the prisoners dilemma.

1 hour ago, thiextar said:

Anyways, dont take my theoretical explanations for it, look at world of tanks. They tried running ranked in this format, you would get more stars by placing top of your team. They had the exact issue that im describing, and subsequently stopped doing it like that.

Anyways, you failed to react to how this exact system has already been tried and failed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QARTV]
Players
412 posts
7,103 battles
49 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Anyways, you failed to react to how this exact system has already been tried and failed

I do not play world of tanks so i can not comment on it and if it failed and why and what was the system there. These are 2 different games. 

 

52 minutes ago, thiextar said:

Now from the viewpoint of an individual player:

everyone except me presses damage farm, i press win: -1 star

everyone including me presses damage farm: -1 star

everyone including me presses win: +1 star

everyone except me presses win, i press damage farm: +2 stars

You have no comprehension of risk here. This viewpoint is pointless without consideration of risk. Choosing "+2" stars in reality means very high ods of choosing -1 star. 

 

Nothing you said really changes anything here, because you are not addressing the issue - what is being incentivised now? Saving star. What is purpose of this game, besides fun? Team win. It would make sense to incentivise win. Simple. Will players make stupid decisions? Surely. Does that mean we should not incentivise winning as team and incentivise counterproductive behavior as is now? NO. l

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[-AP-]
Players
1,928 posts
4,801 battles
4 minutes ago, Fonfalks said:

Nothing you said really changes anything here, because you are not addressing the issue - what is being incentivised now? Saving star. What is purpose of this game, besides fun? Team win. It would make sense to incentivise win. Simple. Will players make stupid decisions? Surely. Does that mean we should not incentivise winning as team and incentivise counterproductive behavior as is now? NO. l

 

both save a star and double star are equally bad systems.

 

What we really need is something completely different

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
965 posts
14,928 battles

@thiextar, I think you haven't understood @Fonfalks' proposal regarding the stars. What I get from it is the following:

  • Winning and being top in one battle gives you a "get out of jail for free" card (i.e., not losing a star) for your next battle.
  • If you lose the next battle regardless of your position on the losing team you don't lose star due to the card, which is spent.
  • If you win the next battle the card is used anyway, so you have to be 1st again in order to renew it.

It doesn't seem a bad idea per se. I find two caveats though: firstly, there's the temptation to underperform if you have the star-saving card since you know you won't lose a star no matter the outcome; secondly, there would be a farming race within the team that appears to be winning just to get the card, and people could become really greedy and salty due to that, even to the point of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in many cases. In other words, the latter means that the current "playing not to lose" mentality associated to the star saving will switch to the winning team.

 

Salute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AOLH]
Players
11 posts

Ok guys after reading several comments here, it's more clear that WOW never played it, or that's the feel i get.

I have played 254 games at the moment i write this down and i can'tget passed rank 10. I did got rank 8 probably with lot's of luck but this system of stars sucks big time. Ok there is that "free" card but that's only for the one person regardless if the others played well.

To many Pinokio's, afk's, campers, etc... ruining the game. You don't have a commander like in battles to coördinate things, so you are the victem of random players.

 

My suggestion is that the ranked system should also include the effort from better players who are no punnished because they got set up with a bunch of players who wants to go after personal glory in stead of playing in a team.

 

So to the developes, please get the ranked system set up is based on damage/kills etc... so that good players get rewarded like they should and do nothave to depend on the rest of the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
546 posts
9,294 battles

In the PTS for 0.8.10 we had Ranked with 3 vs 3, and I thought that was quite a nice format. Do the survey responses when you see them and let WG know your preferences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
59 posts
8,449 battles

11 ranked games this evening, 5 wins, 6 losses and 1 star saved, so I am back from where I started. Yesterday was the same, on Sunday, the same. 

 

I feel that the rewards/penalties should be a little tweaked. In order to avoid star-saving selfish play, WG should implement a mandatory poll at the end of each lost game so that the team can elect the MVP and the a$$hole on the team among the other players BEFORE the basexp results are displayed (probably on a 5-10s timer).  The MVP gets to save his/her star, regardless if he/she is the highest ranking player or not, while the designated a$$hole loses his star only in the case he/she is the highest achieving team-member.  I know that during the battle players generally notice good play (be it someone who did exceptionally well or helped in different ways) and bad play (team-members ignoring pleas for help or advices, camping, DDs not spotting, CVs getting surprised and sunk in the first 5 minutes...)

I know there will be people who jump from 1 ship to another without waiting for the results, so won't bother to vote, but someone will, and the more people take interest, the better. 

 

Also, if the first player on the losing team gets to save the star, why doesn't the first player on the winning team get 2 stars as a reward? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×