Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 10 battles to post in this section.
S4pp3R

Ranked XP issues...

11 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

227
[151ST]
Member
1,016 posts
4,526 battles

So basically after getting to rank 9 I'm down at 11/0.

My issue is thus, I get 100k+ damage in Zao + caps, get 3rd XP if I'm lucky, same story with Hindy.

I get 100k in Yamato and top XP consistently on losses.

This is not even to mention DDs.

I'm starting to think T10 XP is very BB biased and subsequently this is why we're seeing games at 10+ with 0 DDs...

I'm a good Zao player, particularly in CB or ranked, yet I perform superbly in her and won't top XP on a loss outside a monster game.

Yet in Yamato, I'm average, I have what I would consider an average game and I find it easy AF to get top XP on a loss.

Thus I reach the conclusion that BB is better for ranking up.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
605 posts
6,779 battles

The problem is that the star saving system ruins ranked game play, and completely distorts the ships people play and how they use them.

Ranked used to be about winning.  You would try your best to win the game, even if that meant you did somewhat risky plays on occasion or if you didn't get much xp - it didn't matter, it was all about the win.  You could still get salty if you had a run of losses, but the game play itself was quite fun, with everyone doing their best to win.  The saltiness was also somewhat mitigated by the bonus star on rank up (this was removed from R10 up when the save a star system was introduced), which gave you a 'soft irrevocable' each rank, in that you only had to win 1 out of every 3 games to stay at the rank, which meant you were much less likely to free fall a couple of ranks.  You did need a burst of positive win rate to move up to the next rank though.

Then they brought in the save a star system, and it is at the point now where most of your team will be focused solely on star saving, the win is secondary, and for those that are trying to win, they always have it in their mind that they need to be maximising xp as well.  What this does to the meta is it means that people will bring the ship that does the most damage, and they will play to be safe while doing as much damage as possible.  This is why you see five Yamato's per team at 5-2, and it's why the further up you go the less DD's you see - they are just unable to consistently save stars like other ships can.  The game play is stale and boring, and you are competing with your own team as much as you are competing with the enemy.

I'm sure most people, myself included, would like to bring the ships that they feel will most likely win them the game, however players know they can't be successful doing this, because without saving stars, you can't consistently move up once you're into the higher ranks.

Ranked used to be fun, now it's absolute crap. If you're on the losing team you should get nothing, even if you get double the xp of the next guy, and if you're on the winning team you should get one star only. In other words, you should get the same rewards regardless of your xp received. This will mean that xp is irrelevant, and the only thing you can focus on is winning the game. Then you'll find ranked is actually fun again.

This game mode is now fundamentally broken - there is no way this is the design intent.  WG, you need to fix it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
253 posts
5,829 battles

Problem is a BB can cause a decent amount of damage from long range and get top XP, without capping or even outright sinking ships. Because doing 20K damage to a broadside BB will reward a BB more than sinking a DD, which they will may miss anyway.

BBs are not awarded for playing the objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
240 posts
14,020 battles

Then I propose that next ranked season, arms race mechanic be introduced to counter lazy bbs. Because they get zero powerups staying at distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[151ST]
Member
1,016 posts
4,526 battles

Agreed all above... Except maybe not arms race, although I get your point.

I also think having T10 from 15+ doesn't help either.

T10 from 5+ I can understand, although disagree with.

IMO upto 10 needs to be lower tiers.

When there's been T8 or below seasons, I've found the gameplay far more engaging and far more players willing to play DD, the reduced ranges of BBs at that tier helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
253 posts
5,829 battles
5 hours ago, S4pp3R said:

Agreed all above... Except maybe not arms race, although I get your point.

I also think having T10 from 15+ doesn't help either.

T10 from 5+ I can understand, although disagree with.

IMO upto 10 needs to be lower tiers.

When there's been T8 or below seasons, I've found the gameplay far more engaging and far more players willing to play DD, the reduced ranges of BBs at that tier helps.

I agree, was disappointed with lack of T8 this year. I started at rank 16, so one or two wins was all it took to get to rank 15 and start T10 battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
227
[151ST]
Member
1,016 posts
4,526 battles
3 hours ago, Grygus_Triss said:

I agree, was disappointed with lack of T8 this year. I started at rank 16, so one or two wins was all it took to get to rank 15 and start T10 battles.

It's also a sore spot for many ANZ clanss as we are effectively time-zoned out of CB and that's the T10 game mode we want.

Le sigh WG, you have a good product (Warships) with so much potential and yet you aren't doing the simple things right like keeping ranked fresh...

Seriously, even a T5 ranked would be a nice change (although I'm far more partial to T8).

Edited by S4pp3R

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
240 posts
14,020 battles

I be honest here. The bonus star mechanic for the top loser is in all fairness a reward for the person trying their best to save the match for their team. The issue now is that points awarded is biased towards damage rather than rewarding dangerous activities like capping. Perhaps this is unforseen due to the large HP pool at T10.

What I would like to see is either long range snipers get some sort of penalty for passive play or people that flirt with danger up close get rewarded. Hence why I advocate arms race. My 2 cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Member
253 posts
5,829 battles
8 hours ago, dejiko_nyo said:

I be honest here. The bonus star mechanic for the top loser is in all fairness a reward for the person trying their best to save the match for their team. The issue now is that points awarded is biased towards damage rather than rewarding dangerous activities like capping.

You make a good point.

Consecutive wins is hard, even for a good player. The random player problem again. The saved star is supposed to be for the best player, who has tried to carry his team to victory, but was unable to. To allow him to move on, even if he gets a few losses here and there.

But as you said, the current system I should biased towards damage. Which the sniping BBs can take advantage of.

Now, I don’t mind that much if the’re sniping, IF they are actually sinking ships in a timely manner, important ships, like DDs and Cruisers, or that BB which is preventing our cruisers from advancing. If they don’t sink ships, don’t tank, don’t contest, don’t make enemy ships think twice before moving forwards, then they shouldn’t get rewarded.

Of course, it’s seems very hard for WG to reward this kind of play, as it’s more subtle than just causing damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
605 posts
6,779 battles
8 hours ago, Grygus_Triss said:

You make a good point.

Consecutive wins is hard, even for a good player. The random player problem again. The saved star is supposed to be for the best player, who has tried to carry his team to victory, but was unable to. To allow him to move on, even if he gets a few losses here and there.

But as you said, the current system I should biased towards damage. Which the sniping BBs can take advantage of.

Now, I don’t mind that much if the’re sniping, IF they are actually sinking ships in a timely manner, important ships, like DDs and Cruisers, or that BB which is preventing our cruisers from advancing. If they don’t sink ships, don’t tank, don’t contest, don’t make enemy ships think twice before moving forwards, then they shouldn’t get rewarded.

Of course, it’s seems very hard for WG to reward this kind of play, as it’s more subtle than just causing damage.

It's not possible to set up a system that rewards the amount of xp that a player deserves based on how much that player contributed to winning the battle.  We'd probably all disagree on what exactly should be counted and how much each part should be worth as well.

Given that, any system that uses xp to gain or save stars is going to be flawed.  Even if the xp system was perfect (and it isn't even close to that), then people would still know what gave them xp, and would play in a way that maximised their xp rather than the win if the ranked system took xp into account for rewards.

The only way to have all people play for the win is to make it so everyone on each team gets the same rewards as their team mates, regardless of performance.

The problem then becomes that you need to introduce extra stars into the system, since the system would then be star neutral.  The way it was done previously was to get a bonus star on rank up, and I think that is a good system.  You could have other systems though - say if you got two wins in a row you'd get a bonus star.  I'm sure other people could come up with other things as well.

The point is though, that ranked will be fundamentally broken until everyone on each team gets the same result regardless of their input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×