Team WORK and players in Ranked battles

[Joergensen]

I would have said good evening,,,if it wasnt for its not...

The idea about ranked battles doable alone without a preset team is great.

The rewards are exciting and gives fuel to do it more.

BUT there NEED to be some kind of requirements for the player participating, im not the best of the best of the best, but im an average joe(rgensen).

 

To exspect players with way below average winrate in randoms to suddenly start doing teamwork with only 7 ships isnt working, time and time again i have had battles lost almost before they began because of jerks with less then 47/48  % winrate( the really bad battles is when u have 2-4 players barly past 40%) trying to hide behind an island, steaming to the nearest map egde or not listening to the team in chat..

 

With 7 ships on each side each ship counts more then with 15 hence u can pull off a win with 1 goon in the team depending on what ship hes in, u get 2 its a loss unless the other team really really sucks.

I have tryed various ships, but found that to be able to "carry" the battle most i need to use a CV, BB and last a DD.

 

Im at rank 20 so far, and [edited]me its been a frustrating struggle, since u cant kill 7 ships alone (unless they are the mentioned less then 40% group) there is little in the way of skill controlling the outcome of the battle on current state.

What the bad players do is SPAM the battles hoping the team will win the battle for them.

 

I sugest A) a player needs a certain % winrate on the ship hes gonna participate in ranked battles with or B) the player have at least 45% to 48% winrate in randoms

 

To put a 40% winrate guy ( and the winrate usually follows average XP ) in to a teamwork battle is like sending Freddy the frog against Mike Tyson in a title match 10 years ago....

 

All the rest is perfect, good MM exciting battles are possible, and its an all over good idea ;)

[Joergensen]

Cheched out the last 2 really shitty games , needlkess to say even i was on the top on the XP list.

 

winrate /  average XP in randoms

 

BATTLE test 1

52/1200

41/868

54/667

47/799

46/719

41/485 (this one was baaad)

BAD LOSS

 

BATTLE test 2

54/667

45/1235

43/503

48/709

49/1520

45/1617

BAD LOSS

Im at 54% winrate, and 1917 average XP (over 1K battles and i use all ships available in wows)

[Joergensen]

Post need to be moved to feedback, sorry ;@)

 

[th3freakie]

With all due respect, my friend, you seem to be mistaking the tool for the effect of the tool.

 

One of the purposes of ranked battles is precisely to separate the players with high winning capacity from those without, by moving the first up in rank, and leaving the others at low ranks. The segregation you are requesting as a prerequisite of Ranked Matches is the effect that Ranked Matches are meant to cause, but that would be putting effect ahead of cause. 

 

Besides, global WR by itself won't tell you so much about a player. Someone's WR might be lousy because they experiment a lot, or because they'd grinding through some less-than-amazing ships, yet the player knows what he's doing. Similarly, a player's WR might be mostly due to him being very good at a certain class, or hide that he's very bad at another class (like I'm godawful at BBs).

 

Making global WR a prerequisite you wouldn't be judging people by their actual skill and contribution within the context of ranked.

[Shadeshots]

WR prerequisite would not prove anything, you cant use a players win rate to judge there skill, its a team game, there is no way you can use it as a requirement because good and bad players WR is judged on them ofc winning, and them winning is dependent on the other players on their team and the players on the opposite, you could be the best player in the game or the worst, but whether you win that match or not is dependent on the the game and theres no way you can predict a win/loss because every game is different its not set in stone.

[Querulous]

There is a problem around Rank 20, where all the less good players are now coralled because they now lose ranks as well as stars. People who torp their own side, hide behind islands with a BB etc

I guess good players get past this but its killing my WR I would guess, if I ever checked it.

[Quinzer]

There is a problem around Rank 20, where all the less good players are now coralled because they now lose ranks as well as stars. People who torp their own side, hide behind islands with a BB etc

I guess good players get past this but its killing my WR I would guess, if I ever checked it.

 

such things do not kill your winrate, statisticlly it happens in both (your and enemies) team alike

[ReiMayer]

First: just looking at winrate doesnt mean anything, you need to check how many games they have played. I woud rather have a guy with winrate 45% and 2000 battles fought , than a guy with a rate of 55-60% and only played 300-400 battles. 

 

Second: people playing in divisions wil have a higher winrate, more dmg, more exp, more kills than people playing alone. At large numbers 1500-2000 battles this can make the difference like 45% vs 60% in winrate. It DOEST mean that they are better players.

[GODclickerTHEskyEMPEROR]

I played ranked for 2 days... first day, I was very frustrated with terribads at ranks 25-20,.. but managed to end up at rank 20. The next day, I went from 20 to 10..

 

Now, I've been waiting for a week for enough players to reach 10, so that I can finally go get my rank 1.

[Nephilimer]

I played ranked for 2 days... first day, I was very frustrated with terribads at ranks 25-20,.. but managed to end up at rank 20. The next day, I went from 20 to 10..

 

Now, I've been waiting for a week for enough players to reach 10, so that I can finally go get my rank 1.

 

With that kind of gameplay what you represent, on 10 and higher there will be not that easy being carried by others.

[Joergensen]

well, say after 500 or 1000 battles winrate is everything, there is a difference in having 40% and say 48 % at 1000 battles, If u say look at damage, well eny idiot or/and stat farmer can just stay back at the border every battle and he will have targets to shoot at and kill but he wont win much .

Will try test from level 20 and up comming days but im pretty shure the ranked will die if they dont do something to enhance the understanding of team play.

It might have a connection with the random battles where u see players hug the god dam borders and blaiming everyone else for their huge amount of losses, dont know the fix for this, higher (or any)  xp/cred for spotting, being easyer to hit 1 square away from the border, more XP for capping, because there are 2 types of players with decent numbers of battles with very low average cap points 1) Carrier players  2) Bad players whoi cant teamplay and never try push with the team for a victory .

 

Seckondly i see some have written that oooh cant check winrate but has to check numbers of battles,,,well guess what, the players with 100 battles and 30% win will probably still suck att 1000 battles, i check numbers of battles last, because u are doing well if u have decent winrate at few battles, it shows u are willing to learn.

[GODclickerTHEskyEMPEROR]

 

With that kind of gameplay what you represent, on 10 and higher there will be not that easy being carried by others.

 

LOL. I'D SAY I DID PRETTY IMPRESSIVE.

 

MY TACTICS ARE SUPERIOR. MY STRATEGY UNBEATABLE. BUT THESE NOOBS FAIL TO EXECUTE EVERY SINGLE BIT OF IT.

~ GENERAL ADMIRAL GODclickerTHEskyEMPEROR

 

 

[Cor3y]

 

With that kind of gameplay what you represent, on 10 and higher there will be not that easy being carried by others.

 

i remember playing with GODclickerTHEskyEMPEROR in his Cleveland at rank 11.

He was pretty good, he just had a little bit of a toxic attitude in chat. For the rest, he played nice. Attacked when we needed to attack, defended when we needed to defend... We lost, but still we didn't loose cause the team sucked, we did loose cause our aim was a little more off than the opponent's.

 

Someone could say that 51% victory in Ranked means you got the rank by grinding, more than by carrying.. 

 

Btw Nephilimer, why do you play the New Mexico & the Fuso? you don't like the Nagato?

 

back to the point

 

There is a problem around Rank 20, where all the less good players are now coralled because they now lose ranks as well as stars. People who torp their own side, hide behind islands with a BB etc

I guess good players get past this but its killing my WR I would guess, if I ever checked it.

Point being my friend, that like in all the ranking systems, you need to get out of 'ELO HELL' pretty fast. Therefore i suggest the next Season, to start grinding from 25 to 15 in the first 2 days, where everyone (good and bad) will be in the bottom ranks, and therefore you will get mixed teams, exactly like the opposing teams. Especially if u are not a 'star player' that gets consistently 3-4 kills in ranked and can carry a team.

 

[Nephilimer]

Godclicker purely used aim assist. Today, when aim assist mod is gone, there is no clevelands in rankeds 10-1.

[Cor3y]

You did skip my question mate...

Btw Nephilimer, why do you play the New Mexico & the Fuso? you don't like the Nagato/Colorado?

[Nephilimer]

You did skip my question mate...

Btw Nephilimer, why do you play the New Mexico & the Fuso? you don't like the Nagato/Colorado?

 

Sorry

 

NM have biggest firepower on rankeds with decent endurance. Colorado is weaker in all points, Nagato got less firepower.

[Ercon]

I can't understand how bad players can reach rank 15+

 

I mean :

- BB that split from main team and go opposite way

- DD that dont try to cap zones and try to pewpew vs cruisers

- Cruisers (mostly cleveland) that push straight to ennemy and die fast

- at end game ppl dont understand the value of a ship that SHOULD NOT DIE

 

Those examples comes so often from ppl met in battles from lvl 15 to 10.

Im really disapointed that ranked season is not really what i expected.

 

 

... after (trash)-talking with some of those players it seems they dont care about win and lose ... so they dont play properly.

Simply grind ranked and play bad shouldnt be enough to get levels.

 

Actually ranked is like standard battles, the only difference is we play 7v7.

Wargaming should improve that in next season to get a competitive play on this game.

[Cor3y]

 

Sorry

 

NM have biggest firepower on rankeds with decent endurance. Colorado is weaker in all points, Nagato got less firepower.

 

I get what you Say about the Colorado, but i'm not sold about the nagato...

9x 357 is not that mutch fire power more than 8x 410... 

In my opinion not that mutch more to justify the 10 knots less.

 

I would understand if your decision was about armor thickness, but firepower meh...

 

anyway Thx for the answer!

[Nephilimer]

 

I get what you Say about the Colorado, but i'm not sold about the nagato...

9x 357 is not that mutch fire power more than 8x 410... 

In my opinion not that mutch more to justify the 10 knots less.

 

I would understand if your decision was about armor thickness, but firepower meh...

 

anyway Thx for the answer!

 

12>8. Difference between calibers in WoWS is just to small. NM have 4x3 main guns, not 3x3. U dont need this 10 knots, if your play are focused in pushing objectives (best way to win rankeds). Nagato is a bit better in long/mid range tanking. On short range Nagato have less firepower on bow salvo (4 instead of 6). For me it's easier to carry game in NM than Nagato.

 

Anyway, yesterday i got stucked on Rank 2 and 4 stars (no more battles)

[Cor3y]

my mistake, thought it was 3x3. Not played NM in a while now. Get you'r point =)

 

I'm not plaing in week days in ranked because i have no time. full time job is crap ;-)

Let's see this week end if i can climb more and keep the win ratio

[GODclickerTHEskyEMPEROR]

[edited]

[GODclickerTHEskyEMPEROR]

Someone could say that 51% victory in Ranked means you got the rank by grinding, more than by carrying..

 

Also, you have to consider, that when I joined my first ranked game I was excited like a kid on xmas, or more like a virgin just about to get laid. Honestly, so excited that my hands shook. And despite my big dreams of star blazing performance, we lost terribly. And I had to admit I didn't know anything. So it was a fresh start, re-learning to think differently. Then someone came along and inspired me to make my own decisions and plans for the game, so I did. And I learned from my mistakes.

 

Why I'm saying that,... because the stats. A lot of games are played during this heavy duty learning process... those games are just bad, with lots of mistakes, but stats keep them like a grave marking of your noobiness.

 

But the truth is, the stats have never mattered. The only thing that matters is one's performance in the very next match, regardless of how he has performed thousand games before.

[Cor3y]

that's why i wrote "someone could say"... it really depends on the situation.

From the game we played together, you where trying to dictate the strat. The only thing that was pretty disappointing is that after that you wandered on your own and started at mid game to flame to the other guys that where destroyed by lucky/skillfull citadels done by enemy BB's. Therefore you where a little bit toxic ;-)

Me and you where the only-ones left alive, you in the Cleveland, me in the Nagato vs 3 players, but they had 2BB's and 1 DD that took all the caps...

 

And just played one now, was funny to see our 2 cruisers and 1 DD follow 1 enemy cruiser and abbandoning all our BB's to a 3v5. And yes, you where one of those cruisers ;-)
GG WP

 

that could be a perfect example of "how not to play Ranked!". We should start a video series on youtube, probly the best feedback ever ^^

[GODclickerTHEskyEMPEROR]

that's why i wrote "someone could say"... it really depends on the situation.

From the game we played together, you where trying to dictate the strat. The only thing that was pretty disappointing is that after that you wandered on your own and started at mid game to flame to the other guys that where destroyed by lucky/skillfull citadels done by enemy BB's. Therefore you where a little bit toxic ;-)

Me and you where the only-ones left alive, you in the Cleveland, me in the Nagato vs 3 players, but they had 2BB's and 1 DD that took all the caps...

 

And just played one now, was funny to see our 2 cruisers and 1 DD follow 1 enemy cruiser and abbandoning all our BB's to a 3v5. And yes, you where one of those cruisers ;-)

GG WP

 

that could be a perfect example of "how not to play Ranked!". We should start a video series on youtube, probly the best feedback ever ^^

 

I already said it in the game, I had no choice but to turn away towards their cleveland, because I couldn't continue forward being broadside to their whole team, and I couldn't turn into them either. It was check-mate. And my mistake of going there happened way before I had make that turn. In that situation - which you perceive as a mistake - there was no other choice, it was already predetermined by actions preceding it.

 

So I'd say you're making a mistake calling the turn a mistake and not recognizing when the real one happened.

[Cor3y]

Sure mate... as you say. ah, by the way... they all where showing the broadside to me too, but they knew the concept of 'Multiple Threats' and didn't chicken out... probably to difficult of a concept. Will sto arguing with you.

At what times do you play ranked mate? so that i can skip those?

 

who knows why, when u'r not in the team, we have a mutch highter win % ;-)