Please replace "save star" system with "winning team's top player 2 stars, winning team's worst player (To be exact, less than 700 base XP) no star and everyone in losing team loses 1 star

[User_1145141919810]

Please replace "save star" system with "winning team's top player 2 stars, winning team's worst player (To be exact, less than 700 base XP) no star and everyone in losing team loses 1 star.

The current system encourages passive gaming by sacrificing victory. The new system can encourage teamwork.

[Paladinum]

That's one specific thread title.

And I support it.

[Rina_Pon]

No, there shouldn't be a penalty for being the lowest scoring player on your team.

I don't think the save-a-star rule 'encourages' anything either since I don't think players anticipate they will lose (and start deliberately farming useless damage) until after the game is functionally lost anyway. No one knows what is and what is not "useless" damage before then. Sometimes everyone is on point and focus fire, other times everyone seems to have their own target. That's situational as much as incompetence.

Look, I understand the argument but let me just throw this out: As a Gearing player in ranked I have not come out at the top of the board, win or lose. If I did though, even on a losing side, I would see this as a pretty big accomplishment and would want to keep my star.  

 

 

[dejiko_nyo]

2 hours ago, User_1145141919810 said:

Please replace "save star" system with "winning team's top player 2 stars, winning team's worst player (To be exact, less than 700 base XP) no star and everyone in losing team loses 1 star.

The current system encourages passive gaming by sacrificing victory. The new system can encourage teamwork.

Stop stealing my ideas. :P

Actually, feel free to use them.

[keskparane]

@Rina_Pon A game often isn't functionally lost though just because you are losing. When it's near the end and only a high risk maneuver can win the game many will opt to save a star rather than chance a win. So they actively decide not to attempt to win. They throw any chance the team has to win.

[keskparane]

and further more...

I'm a gearing player to. I will often get top spot. I have saved too many stars. But the problem is that when you get a team that has no chance of winning (wargambling) it's very hard to get top spot because a solo outnumbered gearing struggles to carry when the odds are 2v1 or more. So you are simply screwed by the snipers who take advantage of your spotting.

And to rub salt into the wound these are always the players that blame you for their death and report you for their stupidity.

[keskparane]

oh yeah but I do agree lowest player shouldn't lose a star

[Grygus_Triss]

I agree that the 'save a star system' encourages selfish gameplay. (I am reminded of a Jingles-Flambass video where a GK threw away a certain win to get more damage, and just edged out Flambass for highest XP on the losing team).

While this suggestion is interesting, and would encourage more people to play to win, the biggest problem is the problem which 'save a star' was brought in to solve.

We're dealing with Wargambling, you WILL see potato teams, even in ranked, who have no chance to win, and even the best players can only carry so much (not that I would know).

The current earning stars system only works with 'consecutive wins'. It you win one, lose one respectively, you still won't advance. And even "lose one, win two" makes for very slow grind.

The 'save star' system DOES help good players counter the nature of random teams. Unfortunately, its too easy exploitable by those who maximise personal XP over winning.

The core problem, is that the system does not award you enough for 'trying to win'. This is because its hard to define to a system what actually counts as "trying to win"

Sinking enemy ships and capping are the two obvious paths to winning. But any other tasks need to be put into place to allow those things to happen. Enemy ships need to be damage, friendly ships need to not die, enemies need to be spotted.

Spotting, tanking, damaging, avoiding fire, corralling. Valuable tactics, but either not recognised enough as contributing, or recognised too much when it does not contribute enough.

A problem with no easy answer. In a losing team, how does a computer determine who tried to win the most?

As far as the other suggestions go. Two stars for top player. Sounds fine. Zero stars and gets to keep for lowest earner if they are below 700 base. Sounds fair. I assume they get a star if over 700 base.

 

 

[keskparane]

I would agree with save a star if scoring was more even. But if your not in a BB and your team is dead you cant survive the required tank.

[dejiko_nyo]

The underlying problem(s) are the firstly, the scoring system is broken (or you can say biased) towards activities may not be necessarily beneficial to teamwork, and secondly, matchmaking pairing. It basically boils down to the attitude of the player. Some players see "Oh, two OP ships on the other team", then proceed to adopt the losers' mentality without trying.

[Rina_Pon]

7 hours ago, keskparane said:

And to rub salt into the wound these are always the players that blame you for their death and report you for their stupidity.

And don't forget the players on the other team who report you for killing them.

DDs in WoWS  = negative karma life.