Last player in the winning team shouldn't get a star if they don't get at least 300XP

[Hakssor]

WG should do something about players who get carried in ranked and actively detriment their team.

Just had a Silver ranked match when our single DD just run around the entire match while doing nothing useful. He was AFK a quarter of the match then when he started, he just went behind everyone, doing no spotting or damage. When he got called out on his play, he started insulting the team and the entire match was a crap-show.

 

Now this player with 145 base XP gets a star while having only negative contribution. He was full HP the entire game and never detected. Even an AFK player is better, at least you know from the start what disadvantage you have and it's not toxic in chat.

 

WG needs to impose a minimum limit of XP to limit this kind of players, the AFK ones or the suicidal ones. 300 or 500 base XP should be more than enough as minimum(depending on tier maybe). Even if you die early and sacrifice yourself for the sake of the team you should get more than enough. For the sake of simplicity maybe ranking shouldn't even matter. Like if 2 players get carried hard they shouldn't get stars.  On the opposite side, the 2nd in the losing team should save his star if he gets at least 1k.

 

[Echo_519]

Problem is that the system can't detect why one has low xp. You can have that score without doing anything wrong. You can play DD and eat a complete random torpedo and die without doing anything... Why should one get punished for doing nothing wrong. 

[Hakssor]

19 minutes ago, Echo_519 said:

Problem is that the system can't detect why one has low xp. You can have that score without doing anything wrong. You can play DD and eat a complete random torpedo and die without doing anything... Why should one get punished for doing nothing wrong. 

I recently died in my Aki in the first 5 minutes of the game after getting torped but still got more than 700 XP on the win. Still for me it felt completely undeserved as my contribution was really low. Wouldn't have a problem if I wouldn't got a star.  300 base XP on a win is actually 200 because the win itself gives you a 50 % boost. If you spot for a bit or shoot twice you easily get above that threshold.

One of the big issues in current ranked are the suicidal DDs, usually players with less than 43% WR which just go blazing and die every match in first 3 minutes, leaving their team without spotting early. Matches usually go into stomps. With the upcoming change of having the same ship available even after dying, the suicidal behavior could get worse.

[TheNubination]

Nevermind I didn't quite get what you meant, Yeah I dont know  maybe.

[Karkong_the_Impaler]

The issue is mostly with DDs, as they are the only ones that can get this unlucky - but that is by poor design. One could make BBs gain exp harder or leave them below the 300 exp mark if they don't do something useful - and yes, getting shot at is useful, but surviving this for a little while doesn't take any rewardable player skill when a DD or a cruiser shoots them from a distance. In turn, the DD also doesn't get rewarded for, say, not eating the whole salvo of torps and only eating one.

WG should desingn damage taken rewards around salvos that can potentially kill you.

 

So, yes, I agree very much. I'd even set the bar at 800 exp for a win and distribute the confiscated stars to the carrying teammates.

Anyone who disagrees is a tuberous plant skill player obviously.

[N00Boo7]

I would agree, last place to not get a star no matter the xp. Is ranked, it supposed to be for best of the best, to be a challenge. Not to grind your lines. And yes, i am last place sometimes, and i do grind my lines in ranked. But i am aware, it shouldn't  be like that.

[159Hunter]

Nope, it's a team effort: the entire team gets a star (and should be losing one if they lost).

 

I mean, I can come up with rules as well: I had 500 xp more than the next player of my winning team, I carried these potatoes and as such they shouldn't get a star...

Or maybe WG can actually finetune the XP earnings in such a way that they are not skewed towards damage farming ...

 

Yes, the star system is not perfect, no overcomplicating it will not make it better.

[Hakssor]

51 minutes ago, 159Hunter said:

Nope, it's a team effort: the entire team gets a star (and should be losing one if they lost).

 

I mean, I can come up with rules as well: I had 500 xp more than the next player of my winning team, I carried these potatoes and as such they shouldn't get a star...

Or maybe WG can actually finetune the XP earnings in such a way that they are not skewed towards damage farming ...

 

Yes, the star system is not perfect, no overcomplicating it will not make it better.

Where was the team effort of the Z-23 in the above match? His insults in English and German? Him staying full HP the entire game and not shooting once while providing zero spotting? AFK players also do a "team effort" in that case? Which is what, more exactly? 

 

We're speaking about players who have almost no contribution to win. Moving the goalposts to other rules, that's completely another discussion. Sure this doesn't solve the whole ranked star issues, it's just makes sure that these kind of players don't thrive and get free wins. Steel is mostly rewarded for wins nowadays and you can literally AFK your way through it. 

[SurfaceFish]

32 minutes ago, Hakssor said:

AFK players also do a "team effort" in that case?

Send the replay to customer support then. You expecting WG to come up with an automatic system to filter out what each players think teammates did or did not contribute?

 

Have you seen the false positive AFK system that thinks you were AFK all game for been 2 mins away in a 20 mins game?

 

You win as a team and lose as a team, sometimes you carry others and other times other player's carrys you. 

[Hakssor]

23 minutes ago, SurfaceFish said:

Send the replay to customer support then. You expecting WG to come up with an automatic system to filter out what each players think teammates did or did not contribute?

 

Have you seen the false positive AFK system that thinks you were AFK all game for been 2 mins away in a 20 mins game?

 

You win as a team and lose as a team, sometimes you carry others and other times other player's carrys you. 

Except this guy wasn't AFK in the game, he was more busy insulting players in chat then doing anything useful. 

It's called XP, it's quite good in showing contribution. 300 base XP is ridiculous, I don't even remember the last time I had less than that other than co-ops.

So you think this guy who does 145 base XP would carry other players? In what timeline? The guy said that BBs should spot and he should sit behind as he has less HP (he was full HP the entire game btw). A few more stars and a guy with such a view on the game basics is gonna be in Silver ranked for the rest of the season. 

[VenividiviciNL]

32 minutes ago, SurfaceFish said:

Send the replay to customer support then. You expecting WG to come up with an automatic system to filter out what each players think teammates did or did not contribute?

 

Have you seen the false positive AFK system that thinks you were AFK all game for been 2 mins away in a 20 mins game?

 

You win as a team and lose as a team, sometimes you carry others and other times other player's carrys you. 

I agree with your team win/loose remark, but the XP gap between the mentioned surviving DD (last place, 145 XP) and the one above him (Bismarck, 1.164 XP) is so immense great, that a ticket should be in place.

 

Just my 2 pennies.

 

Edit: It is a pitty that we can't see eachothers (detailed) battle performance (like in WoT), which could make life easier on reporting players in situations like these.

 

[SurfaceFish]

14 minutes ago, Hakssor said:

Except this guy wasn't AFK in the game, he was more busy insulting players in chat then doing anything useful. 

It's called throwing matches and insults are borh punishable with temporary ban if you submit the replay to customer support. 

[SurfaceFish]

7 minutes ago, VenividiviciNL said:

I agree with your team win/loose remark, but the XP gap between the mentioned surviving DD (last place, 145 XP) and the one above him (Bismarck, 1.164 XP) is so immense great, that a ticket should be in place.

 

Just my 2 pennies.

 

 

You can't control what other people do in this game. Those Z23 players are people with 0 positive things going on in their real life so they try to get satisfaction from trolling online games. 

 

Best thing you can do is ignore those sad people. 

[DFens_666]

2 hours ago, 159Hunter said:

I mean, I can come up with rules as well: I had 500 xp more than the next player of my winning team, I carried these potatoes and as such they shouldn't get a star...

 

Or how about if you have more than double the XP from the 2nd you get all the stars from your teammates and they get none

[HMS_Kilinowski]

How about you can buy stars in the armory. From what I see, boomers have a lot of money, but struggle to carry. If they wouldn't have to spend a thousand battles in Ranked, ruining the game for the rest, but could support hte game with money, wouldn't that be a win-win-win-situation?

 

Alternatively we could have Little League. You get a tiny star just for playing a battle. Then you can exchange 5 tiny stars for one regular star.

[SurfaceFish]

You can already get steel and other resources from buying all battle pass stages without playing a single game if you want to!

[159Hunter]

4 hours ago, Hakssor said:

Where was the team effort of the Z-23 in the above match? His insults in English and German? Him staying full HP the entire game and not shooting once while providing zero spotting? AFK players also do a "team effort" in that case? Which is what, more exactly? 

 

We're speaking about players who have almost no contribution to win. Moving the goalposts to other rules, that's completely another discussion. Sure this doesn't solve the whole ranked star issues, it's just makes sure that these kind of players don't thrive and get free wins. Steel is mostly rewarded for wins nowadays and you can literally AFK your way through it. 

You are trying to fight a behaviour with the wrong tools. These ppl really don't care if they save their star or if they lose.

So taking the star away isn't going to stop such behaviour. The only thing that does alter such players is the use of (temporary) bans.

And no, this isn't moving goalposts. It's using rules what they should be used for. 

 

Otherwise, poor DD that actually does try to play the game but gets killed after 2 min by a CV. He won't get enough XP, so tought luck?

[OldschoolGaming_YouTube]

I always said that the game should reward the best players of both teams regardless of game mode. Thats the ONLY thing that would actually FORCE players to become better at the game to actually get somewhere in the tiers and in their grind. No more gliding on a shrimp sandwich and get wins and rewards you were never part of creating. The really worst players in Ranked would always stay at the bottom and the really good ones would go up in ranked/tiers.

 

But WG doesn't do this so instead we have players that sit and roll their face across the keyboard at Tier 10 and 11 and in gold ranked. And they will never even try to improve ... because they dont have to. And if you really a lost case then you can always play CVs or Subs and dominate them all. 

 

The game "needs to be inclusive at all tiers" so that's why we have all those 3 min suiciders in T 10-11.

[Foxhound421a]

On 2/21/2023 at 11:13 PM, Hakssor said:

WG should do something about players who get carried in ranked and actively detriment their team.

Just had a Silver ranked match when our single DD just run around the entire match while doing nothing useful. He was AFK a quarter of the match then when he started, he just went behind everyone, doing no spotting or damage. When he got called out on his play, he started insulting the team and the entire match was a crap-show.

 

Now this player with 145 base XP gets a star while having only negative contribution. He was full HP the entire game and never detected. Even an AFK player is better, at least you know from the start what disadvantage you have and it's not toxic in chat.

 

WG needs to impose a minimum limit of XP to limit this kind of players, the AFK ones or the suicidal ones. 300 or 500 base XP should be more than enough as minimum(depending on tier maybe). Even if you die early and sacrifice yourself for the sake of the team you should get more than enough. For the sake of simplicity maybe ranking shouldn't even matter. Like if 2 players get carried hard they shouldn't get stars.  On the opposite side, the 2nd in the losing team should save his star if he gets at least 1k.

 

It's bad when I am 99% sure I know who you are talking about lol

[Peter_Abel]

Am 22.2.2023 um 23:25, OldschoolGaming_YouTube sagte:

needs to be inclusive

its already inclusive i guess. sometimes i can see how expierenced top-clan veteran players just nonstop killing some random potato children, weakly as bots

[Shaka_D]

Why don't WG simply adopt the same system as they do in WoT? It rewards good gameplay. Play badly on the winning team and you are not given a star. Play well on the losing team and you can still earn a star. It works well and far better than watching some halfwit window licker take a star home for doing nothing and it means people don't give up as easily in a game where your team is outmatched or being outplayed.

[SurfaceFish]

1 hour ago, Shaka_D said:

Play badly on the winning team

Problem is current XP in wows rewards farming daming over team play. Is farming a BB with HE at back of the map all game good team play? The basic XP score thinks so.

 

The current system is simple, sometimes you get curried and sometimes you carry others. There is already save a star for the biggest loser.

[OldschoolGaming_YouTube]

16 hours ago, Shaka_D said:

Why don't WG simply adopt the same system as they do in WoT? It rewards good gameplay. Play badly on the winning team and you are not given a star. Play well on the losing team and you can still earn a star. It works well and far better than watching some halfwit window licker take a star home for doing nothing and it means people don't give up as easily in a game where your team is outmatched or being outplayed.

Exactly this! Never played WoT but this sounds Awesome!