Remove 'the top experience earner doesn't lose a star'

[Mastadans]

 

Although it may be unfair for some good players that really deserve not to lose a star after losing a game in ranked battles, I really think the actual state of ranked battles, especially tX, is not as intended as WG wants. 

If there's already too much camping in random battles and very very few team-playing, during  Ranked battles it becomes ridiculous. The soon a team member falls, if not before that, you can clearly seen than some/many players are not battling for a win but to gain as much xp as possible.

 

I don't know you, but this is not what I consider fun, honorable or worthy to invest my time in a game.

[Yedwy]

They wont

[Zen71_sniper]

It should be two stars for the best in the winning team and zero stars for the losing one, but hey - as @Yedwysaid, it will not happen.

[Mad_Dog_Dante]

25 minutes ago, Mastadans said:

 

Although it may be unfair for some good players that really deserve not to lose a star after losing a game in ranked battles, I really think the actual state of ranked battles, especially tX, is not as intended as WG wants. 

What makes you think that?  The state of the game is exactly to WGs specifications.

[Mastadans]

7 minutes ago, Europizza said:

What makes you think that?  The state of the game is exactly to WGs specifications.

Well, I suppose a multiplayer game is usually made to teamplay. 

[GaCommanderGice]

7 kept stars will be most liked, but that's not gonna happen..

Rules are what they're ment to be just rules..

Just get to ten, then don't give a f***;)

 

[Molly_Delaney]

31 minutes ago, Mastadans said:

Well, I suppose a multiplayer game is usually made to teamplay. 

Tier 10 deathmatch with Kitakami?

 

At least it would be quick......

[Butterdoll]

removing the save a star would be unfair for good players and whoever actually tries to win.

I still remember a particular game where a Bayern told be in the beginning.

stick with me.

and there i was in the middle of the cap against a PEV, a Bayern and a couple of dds, asking for that [edited]Bayern to help me.

Wilco, Wilco without moving his [edited]from the border.

and it was the rest of the team whom i forgot, that supported me.

we won the game, i survived and thanks to my exploits in the cap and never leaving the cap i ended in the top half of the scoreboard (i don't remember)

the Bayern guy ended in the bottom, dead last.

was that guy deserving the win?

Hell no.

But i don't want to be dragged down because of players like him either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[N00Boo7]

11 hours ago, Mastadans said:

 

Although it may be unfair for some good players that really deserve not to lose a star after losing a game in ranked battles, I really think the actual state of ranked battles, especially tX, is not as intended as WG wants. 

If there's already too much camping in random battles and very very few team-playing, during  Ranked battles it becomes ridiculous. The soon a team member falls, if not before that, you can clearly seen than some/many players are not battling for a win but to gain as much xp as possible.

 

I don't know you, but this is not what I consider fun, honorable or worthy to invest my time in a game.

We have this discussion every single ranked season (except sprint). With out the keep star will be much worse because as soon as a team member falls,  u dont have for what to play anymore, so u just lose time continuing the game. So rest of team will comite suicide or just leave game to start another. This mechanic was introduced at the request of the players, maybe is not the best but is better than nothing.

I have a better ideea..u dont like it, dont play the game mode, where it  say everybody need to play ranked?

[Adm_Andre]

Zitat

Remove 'the top experience earner doesn't lose a star'

Yes please

[Molly_Delaney]

Or change it to the ones with most sinkings and capture points; reward actually trying to win.....

 

[Ocsimano18]

1 minute ago, Molly_Delaney said:

Or change it to the ones with most sinkings and capture points; reward actually trying to win.....

 

Most capture points would reward DDs too much, most ship sunk can be even in lot of the cases, and there are kill steals. I think what people want is to punish HE spammers, so WG could reduce the XP from fire damage, but that would punish a couple of low tier non OP fire starters.

[Captain_Singleton]

while i agree the current system isn't perfect, xp is probably the best judge of contribution, at least it rewards damage and caps, it probably needs changing so that it doesn't award more xp for staying alive longer not doing much.

my first loss in ranked from this morning, 1578xp on a loss, the next highest on my team had well under a 1000, so i'm glad the system works as it does now...

[Dutchy_2019]

2 hours ago, Butterdoll said:

removing the save a star would be unfair for good players and whoever actually tries to win.

I still remember a particular game where a Bayern told be in the beginning.

stick with me.

and there i was in the middle of the cap against a PEV, a Bayern and a couple of dds, asking for that [edited]Bayern to help me.

Wilco, Wilco without moving his [edited]from the border.

and it was the rest of the team whom i forgot, that supported me.

we won the game, i survived and thanks to my exploits in the cap and never leaving the cap i ended in the top half of the scoreboard (i don't remember)

the Bayern guy ended in the bottom, dead last.

was that guy deserving the win?

Hell no.

But i don't want to be dragged down because of players like him either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- The players who actually try to win tend NOT to be the ones saving their star.

- Players take damage farming ships rather than ship killing ships into the game. Because damage farming helps you save the star more easily than ship anything else.

[Butterdoll]

5 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

 

- The players who actually try to win tend NOT to be the ones saving their star.

- Players take damage farming ships rather than ship killing ships into the game. Because damage farming helps you save the star more easily than ship anything else.

Not in that case, he just stood there.

But yes, in most cases you are right.

for that reason i would argue instead of one star for the losing team you should have two or three.

 

 

[Jethro_Grey]

5 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

 

- The players who actually try to win tend NOT to be the ones saving their star.

- Players take damage farming ships rather than ship killing ships into the game. Because damage farming helps you save the star more easily than ship anything else.

This sums it up nicely.

 

That's why ranked is a sh*tshow, but WG won't change it.

At least, it allows me to grind the legendary modules for Midway and Haku, without giving a damn about the end result.

[_HomTanks_]

9 hours ago, Dutchy_2019 said:

- The players who actually try to win tend NOT to be the ones saving their star.

^^

[Gnomus]

I already suggested a year or two ago that stars should be earned by exp.

 

Some threshold, like 700 exp (so afkers, suiciders etc. won't get anything), and then add a star for every 300 exp more: 700 = 1 star, 1000 = 2 stars, 1300 = 3 stars etc.

 

Good player on losing side might still catch a star or few while winning team players get generally more. Playing good would be rewarded while still giving much more for winners.

 

Of course whole "get star / lose star" system should be changed to get X amount of stars. X (and exp thresholds) should be decided to give players of different skill levels about same speed of advancement as now.

 

Simple and much less frustrating. Even having a AFKer on your team would not be such a bad punishment as you would not be pushed back, just earn less than on battle where you can win.

[_HomTanks_]

11 minutes ago, Gnomus said:

I already suggested a year or two ago that stars should be earned by exp.

 

Some threshold, like 700 exp (so afkers, suiciders etc. won't get anything), and then add a star for every 300 exp more: 700 = 1 star, 1000 = 2 stars, 1300 = 3 stars etc.

 

Good player on losing side might still catch a star or few while winning team players get generally more. Playing good would be rewarded while still giving much more for winners.

 

Of course whole "get star / lose star" system should be changed to get X amount of stars. X (and exp thresholds) should be decided to give players of different skill levels about same speed of advancement as now.

 

Simple and much less frustrating. Even having a AFKer on your team would not be such a bad punishment as you would not be pushed back, just earn less than on battle where you can win.

AFK and yolo ships won’t get star but other losers will get 2-3 stars? How will this establish a team game? It will only make people more relaxed and play more selfish to get some stars and how many will the winners get, 5-6-7? Then, people will rank out 5-6-7 times faster. If you increase the amount of stars to reach rank 1, then, it won’t be different then now either, so it definitely is not a solution. 

The problem is not the amount of stars, but team play and the question is what should be done to motivate players to play for win and not to save star(s).

[DFens_666]

7 minutes ago, Execute0rder66 said:

The problem is not the amount of stars, but team play and the question is what should be done to motivate players to play for win and not to save star(s).

 

Man, the day today was so horrible, and i dont know what these people play for, but its certainly not to save their star. Frequently one team is down 3-4 ships after a couple of minutes without any chance to fight back. Played 13 battles today, and id say all but 2 were complete roflstomps.

It was pretty much irrelevant what i did, except maybe 1 DM and 1 Yamato game, where with the first i killed all 3 DDs and with Yamato helped kill 2 DDs. Even fighting DDs with Radar mino didnt work, because my team refused to shoot em, and i can pretty much get 80% of a DD with radar mino, you often wont get the entire DD. Even more so if they have a heal like Daring and Halland.

The worst one was a Bourgogne game, where the enemies had like 4 Unicums in the enemy team, that was just hardcore raping WGP2W, VIS, some random dude with 60% and AWSL, none of the enemies died

[_HomTanks_]

22 minutes ago, DFens_666 said:

 

Man, the day today was so horrible, and i dont know what these people play for, but its certainly not to save their star. Frequently one team is down 3-4 ships after a couple of minutes without any chance to fight back. Played 13 battles today, and id say all but 2 were complete roflstomps.

It was pretty much irrelevant what i did, except maybe 1 DM and 1 Yamato game, where with the first i killed all 3 DDs and with Yamato helped kill 2 DDs. Even fighting DDs with Radar mino didnt work, because my team refused to shoot em, and i can pretty much get 80% of a DD with radar mino, you often wont get the entire DD. Even more so if they have a heal like Daring and Halland.

The worst one was a Bourgogne game, where the enemies had like 4 Unicums in the enemy team, that was just hardcore raping WGP2W, VIS, some random dude with 60% and AWSL, none of the enemies died

The biggest problem i experience is enemy having a better CV player. 

Because you can compensate a bad cl/bb/dd player, late caps, a yolo ship or even an AFK ship but you can't compensate a bad CV player. If enemy CV player is better, then "Good luck and fair seas"...

Another big problem i see is players who don't know where to go, how to position in different maps. So they lack strategical game play. They do lemming, can't comprehend the importance of cross fire and don't think of going other part of the map. Like sheep they go, feel more secure when they are next to other ships.

Many ships including CV players (not all of course) can't or don't prioritize targets. They don't focus fire. And you wonder, how the hell did they even make it below rank 10...

Unicum players play good but not necessarily better. They are mostly unicum because of divisioned games. One on one they can only influence potatoes and if there are good players in your team, too, then there is not much they can do. 

My biggest dislike in ranked seasons is noob CV players. In clan battles at least you know you have a good CV player in your team if you are one of the top clans against another top clan with good CV player, so no matter how broken CVs are, they sort of equal each other out. In ranked, it is totally random. The box may be full of chocolates or full of dildos, you don't what you're gonna get when you press the button. Including CVs in ranked is super disgusting.

[DFens_666]

6 minutes ago, Execute0rder66 said:

Many ships including CV players (not all of course) can't or don't prioritize targets. They don't focus fire. And you wonder, how the hell did they even make it below rank 10...

 

Yep, very much this. One game (the other Bourgogne) it looked quite promising. We had a Yamato down to like 10k or so, CV attacked him, and with all other ships sitting behind islands, i kept shooting HE too since he was angled. I thought we would kill him. Yamato goes dark, CV attacks a different target. Later, Yamato returns with 50k... Him attacking the Yamato first was already bad, but it could have been managed if we would have killed it. And then he managed to make it worse, by attacking some ship with full HP, while 2 DDs already cornered us on each side in our spawn And my 2 DDs were ofc dead.

 

9 minutes ago, Execute0rder66 said:

My biggest dislike in ranked seasons is noob CV players

Luckily i didnt have that many CV games, and for me, most of the games were decided by DD players. Like 1 game with 4 DDs per side, my DDs just all died. And in many games, my DDs got devstruck in smoke by torps. If you are 4 ships down, and 0 or 1 DD vs 3-4 DDs its basicly game over.

Playing a DD myself wouldnt seem to be much help, because especially BBs refuse to shoot DDs at all, and most games only have 2 Cruisers. Probably why DM worked reasonably well, since it can kill DDs on his own, atleast in the lower ranks.

 

To some degree i can understand why most 50-55% players complain about ranked. I dont see how they can influence matches. I could say, maybe 2 wins i contributed enough to make a difference. While i fucked up in one loss, it hardly would have mattered since we only killed one ship... yeah, i doubt i could have changed that with a DM

[Jvd2000]

In the end having one player save his star makes progress for us all easier. I think that the average games needed to get to tier one is lessened by some amount due to the star saving mechanic. 
 

Can people game the mechanic? Sure yes since you can do a lot of raw damage while contributing hardly to the tam chance of winning.But this is no difference in other modes. You get the same better xp on the losing side if you just farm damage and stay alive long enough... if I pick a BB that deals damage afar and my team survives as my meatshield I do well, it the meatshield fails I still do well to get a decent xp reward ( and a good chance of saving my star if ranked) 

[RenamedUser_92906789]

Removing this would cause players to just quit the match once team starting to loose.

[Figment]

From another topic:

 

17 hours ago, Figment said:

[...]

 

I'd rather nobody is incentized to do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons, than not being rewarded sufficiently for doing the right thing for the right reasons.

 

 

 

 

I'd propose to reward good teamplay instead and require double or even triple the stars per rank to level up if it goes too fast (plus you shouldn't start half way the stars in a rank either). Could look something like this:

 

- Roflstomp win = +3 star gain
Roflstomp: Score more than 850 point difference and at least 90% difference in players still alive (so in teams of 8, 7 must be alive vs none on the other side, in teams of 12, 11 must be alive vs 0 or 1 on the other side). Must be a little harder to manage than a narrow defeat, since it's a downhill battle. Incentizes people to not make mistakes.
 

- Win (narrow or normal) = +2 star gain

Any other win. Winning must at all times be more rewarding than draws or losses.

 

- Draw = +1 star gain
Same point total at end. Makes people want to keep playing for that extra star, both as losing and winning side.

 

- Narrow defeat = 0 star (status quo maintained)

Less than 200 point difference. Makes people want to keep fighting and squeeze out what they can to avoid any star loss, even if they're outnumbered and likely to lose.

 

- Regular defeat = -1 star loss

200 =< Score =< 800 point difference or less than 2 difference in players left alive on each team. Keeps players interested in avoiding a roflstomp. Give ample reason to players to keep doing their best. If not enough to keep players fighting as best they can, one could lower the difference required, so players would have to work a little harder to avoid losing a star. Lost stars always hurt, but at least it wouldn't be a horrible star loss.

 

- Roflstomp defeat = -2 star loss

>= 800 point difference and fewer than 10% alive compared to enemy team

 

This should allow everyone to steadily progress and incentize them to keep playing for the team as well as possible.
When you reach Rank 1, your average star gain is added to your profile and provides extra rewards. So the faster you level up, the higher your star rating, the more extra's you've earned.

Something more like this. Tweaking/tuning allowed.