ranked - in 5 min all dead

[citaDELer]

when you get bad teams, even 1000 battles you didt get 5 rank.

 

weak peoples are extrem in ranked., and a  good man what gets? only save a star and even nothing, because anyway no higher rank. 

 

so all good man,, for every 50x to be first in afterbattle list, must get 1000 steel. 

 

pls vote

 

 

thx. 

[Ocsimano18]

If you have 60% WR in a ship, then from 100 battles you will have 60 wins and 40 losses, so you advance 20 stars/100 battles, not counting the save the star mechanism.

If you have 55% WR, then you advance 10 stars/100 battles.

[Yedwy]

47 minutes ago, citaDELer said:

when you get bad teams, even 1000 battles you didt get 5 rank.

 

weak peoples are extrem in ranked., and a  good man what gets? only save a star and even nothing, because anyway no higher rank. 

 

so all good man,, for every 50x to be first in afterbattle list, must get 1000 steel. 

 

pls vote

 

 

thx. 

You know what is absurd? That the mo**n in the BB that goes for saving star right from the getgo by sniping from the back line and usually helps if not directly causes his team to lose gets rewarded for that...

[Bortasqu]

They should just remove the save a star mechanic in ranked, the gameplay it provides is really bad for the rest of the team.

[Jethro_Grey]

No. NO! FRAK NO!

 

Dip $hits are already playing to save their star, and you want to reward them for it?

FRAK THAT!

 

You want steel? Win games.

[Yedwy]

3 minutes ago, Sturmtiger_304 said:

They should just remove the save a star mechanic in ranked, the gameplay it provides is really bad for the rest of the team.

Exactly, if they want to add stars to the system just let the top 2 on the winning team get 2 stars or similar...

[Jethro_Grey]

2 minutes ago, Yedwy said:

Exactly, if they want to add stars to the system just let the top 2 on the winning team get 2 stars or similar...

I disagree.

 

As long there is a mechanic in place that allows you to advance/ NOT lose a star, people will play for stars, not for the win.

 

Remove this mechanic entirely, and they are forced to play for the win.

[CptBarney]

Ill never understand why they have a star save system in ranked, i mean if you're not good enough to keep your rank i dont see why you should be given a participation trophy just for trying where as everyone else gets shafted.

Sad how you need to play ranked right from the start just to enjoy it lol.

[woppy101]

Now is probably not the best time to be playing ranked, with all of the antifreeze drinkers polluting the game currently  

[N00Boo7]

The save star mechanic is discussed every rank season...and ppl still dont realize that if your DD die in 1st minute of the game or whatever fooked up situation happend that will cripple the chance of winning, with out the star system u don't have a reason to keep play that game, u suicide or force leave the game to start a new one...is a perfect system?No..but will be much worse with out it. Not mention if u dont like the rules of the game...dont play it.

 

[thisismalacoda]

Vor 1 Stunde, CptBarney sagte:

Ill never understand why they have a star save system in ranked, i mean if you're not good enough to keep your rank i dont see why you should be given a participation trophy just for trying where as everyone else gets shafted.

Because without the star saving, 50% of the participating playerbase is stuck at the lowest rank till top players slowly filter out of the league. Do you really think people will keep playing (for WG playing means using their product after all) without ever advancing?

 

It's simple math and simple economics really.

[CptBarney]

2 minutes ago, thisismalacoda said:

Because without the star saving, 50% of the participating playerbase is stuck at the lowest rank till top players slowly filter out of the league. Do you really think people will keep playing (for WG playing means using their product after all) without ever advancing?

 

It's simple math and simple economics really.

Then whats the point of a ranked system if its not competitive in the slightiest? You may as well just have the rewards for missions in randoms that litterally achieves the same thing.

 

[Execute0rder66]

3 hours ago, citaDELer said:

when you get bad teams, even 1000 battles you didt get 5 rank.

 

weak peoples are extrem in ranked., and a  good man what gets? only save a star and even nothing, because anyway no higher rank. 

 

so all good man,, for every 50x to be first in afterbattle list, must get 1000 steel. 

 

pls vote

 

 

thx. 

Up! 

[thisismalacoda]

Vor 8 Minuten, CptBarney sagte:

Then whats the point of a ranked system if its not competitive in the slightiest? You may as well just have the rewards for missions in randoms that litterally achieves the same thing.

 

But it is competitive.

 

Winning is performance based. Being best in the losing team is performance based. Having smaller teams means individual performance has a higher influence.

 

All objective criteria point to Ranked being competitive. Getting rid of 'saved stars' would just make it zero sum on top of that. If you want your game zero sum and still motivating, you either would have to tie rewards to win rate instead of rank. Or you decide to not reward 50% of the participants at all.

[Europizza]

9 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

Then whats the point of a ranked system if its not competitive in the slightiest? You may as well just have the rewards for missions in randoms that litterally achieves the same thing.

 

WOWS ranked system isnt competetive. It's random with less players and a more monotone line up and even more binary META.

 

I hate it. Top 3 of each team should get a star, bottom 3 on each team loses one, middle guy keeps it. This way you distribute the same amount of stars as now, and it will show you where you rank in the grand scheme of things, without being able to slowly grind your way towards tier 1 as the good players gradually rank out. Currently it's nothing more than a endurance run where the good players and the star saving accountants reach ranked 1 faster then the rest does but everyone who has the stamina gets to the finish line. If the current design was competetive, players should be ranked on how FAST they get to the finish line, not IF they get to it.

[CptBarney]

1 minute ago, thisismalacoda said:

But it is competitive.

 

Winning is performance based. Being best in the losing team is performance base. Having smaller teams means individual performance has a higher influence.

 

All objective criteria point to Ranked being competitive. Getting rid of 'saved stars' would just make it zero sum on top of that. If you want your game zero sum and still motivating, you either would have to tie rewards to win rate instead of rank. Or you decide to not reward 50% of the participants at all.

From what i've heard and seen you don't even need to be good to win you can simply grind your way to the top rank as one guy even posted in the forums about takign around 500 battles to reach rank 1, thats not competitive, if it was only the top percentage of players would get the rewards and then the ranks would actually mean something.

 

It just seems like a worse version of randoms too be honest and i would rather they make PVE more enticing and/or give better rewards in other game modes than some poor attempt at a competitve game mode.

 

It's litterally a marathon and if it was painted like that i wouldn't have a problem with it, but then i havent touched the mode due to how bad it seems from other people. I get weegee wants money, but i doubt ranked is the main source of their income.

 

And its not like you can reward people in lower ranks if you were to use the clan ranking system and assign something like 5000 coal, 10,000 coal, 15,000 coal etc. and few other goodies or whatever.

[thisismalacoda]

Vor 8 Minuten, CptBarney sagte:

It's litterally a marathon

Yup; that's what it is. And most people will consider a Marathon to be competitive, even if some guys crawl over the finish line after five hours.

 

To be more precise, it's a Marathon with 7 people chained together at the neck for every 500 meter stage 

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 21 Minuten, Europizza sagte:

WOWS ranked system isnt competetive. It's random with less players and a more monotone line up and even more binary META.

 

I hate it. Top 3 of each team should get a star, bottom 3 on each team loses one, middle guy keeps it. This way you distribute the same amount of stars as now, and it will show you where you rank in the grand scheme of things, without being able to slowly grind your way towards tier 1 as the good players gradually rank out. Currently it's nothing more than a endurance run where the good players and the star saving accountants reach ranked 1 faster then the rest does but everyone who has the stamina gets to the finish line. If the current design was competetive, players should be ranked on how FAST they get to the finish line, not IF they get to it.

With only 7 players per team, a single griefer, afk, bot or simply inept player can doom the team much easier than in teams with 12 players. And it shows. When you are down 1 ship in the first 2 minutes, you are bound to catch up right from the start, and that pressure is highly unpleasant.

[RiggedSantaCrateGuy]

2 hours ago, Sturmtiger_304 said:

They should just remove the save a star mechanic in ranked, the gameplay it provides is really bad for the rest of the team.

 

The star only promotes selfish gameplay. I just had a Lazo snipping from long range, not helping the team. At the end, as she was the only survivor, got close to the cap zone, made a yolo to a BB with her torps....and saved the star. I don't expect WG to understand this, as they show every week that can't understand a lot of simplier things from the game.

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 8 Minuten, thisismalacoda sagte:

To be more precise, it's a Marathon with 7 people chained together at the neck for every 500 meter stage 

If they were chained together, that would be an improvement. At least you could drag the cowards with you to the frontline.

[Echo_519]

Vor 6 Minuten, Miblogdegolf sagte:

The star only promotes selfish gameplay. I just had a Lazo snipping from long range, not helping the team. At the end, as she was the only survivor, got close to the cap zone, made a yolo to a BB with her torps....and saved the star.

Very true. It's a teamgame, and winning should be the number 1 priority... Having this save a star will make lots of players have a different number one priority...

 

[lossi_2018]

Give a one more star. The first two should save their star. Sometimes two people are very close. Star must remain, after some thought I realized I may lose more than I win if I dont have it. My rotten luck is legendary so I need it and so far I usually get it about 50-60% in losses.

[Eternus_Damnatio]

4 hours ago, CptBarney said:

Ill never understand why they have a star save system in ranked, i mean if you're not good enough to keep your rank i dont see why you should be given a participation trophy just for trying where as everyone else gets shafted.

Sad how you need to play ranked right from the start just to enjoy it lol.

I understand why it is there and i find it reasonable but agree it does cause some people to play differently.

Overall this should be balanced as both teams will have this issue so not a perfect system but fair enough imo.
I only ever bothered playing to rank one once though just don't have the patience for it despite my WR in ranked.

[CptBarney]

4 minutes ago, Eternus_Damnatio said:

I understand why it is there and i find it reasonable but agree it does cause some people to play differently.

Overall this should be balanced as both teams will have this issue so not a perfect system but fair enough imo.
I only ever bothered playing to rank one once though just don't have the patience for it despite my WR in ranked.

Yeah, i guess so. Although you can still assign decent rewards on each rank bracket once the season ends, at least then you wouldn't get peeps who just play for keeping a star as they would end up going down in rank, but still able to get rewards (at a lesser rate/total). So those who do well get rewarded well and the rest get something decent but not as good which is fairer in my opinion.

[MementoMori_6030]

Vor 1 Stunde, lossi_2018 sagte:

Give a one more star. The first two should save their star. Sometimes two people are very close. Star must remain, after some thought I realized I may lose more than I win if I dont have it. My rotten luck is legendary so I need it and so far I usually get it about 50-60% in losses.

There should not be any losses of stars at all. If you lose, you don't advance. If you win, you advance. That would be far less frustrating and more friendly to players who actually play and are not merely present (if even that). After 12 games I'm at rank 13, and a single potato in the next game might make the difference between safe spot rank 12 and a loss of several ranks. Not sure if I do really want to play any more.