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

Ranked experience : Gearing

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

392
[BLESS]
Member
738 posts
7,698 battles

I think this is my first T10 ranked season, after participating in most of the lower tier sprints last year.

I don't have so many T10 ships, effectively just Zao and Gearing. (My Shima is too unfamiliar and I don't have it fully kitted out yet.)

I tried a few games in Zao, but the lack of influence on the game outcome was really frustrating. I'd go in, farm 100k damage, and it would be 50/50 chance if we won or lost since the game was being decided elsewhere. Plus, far too many Hakuryus and Kremlins floating around to allow Zao to play at anything close to maximum effectiveness. So switched over to Gearing. Which I have set up as an AA build. Not ideal, but whatever, we'll roll with it.

The thing is about playing Gearing in ranked comes down to the triangular 3 cap arrangement of the maps. In practice one cap goes to the green team, one cap to the red team, and the central cap is left as the game-decider. Getting that central cap early usually wins the game as the enemy is forced into two bad options: leave the cap and lose on points, or try to re-take it against a well-entrenched defense.

And then consider your teammates. Even if there are other DDs on your team, most likely they are Harugumo or Mogador, low stealth dakkadakka ships with zero capping ability. And odds are good its a CV game. Meaning the only boat capable of getting that cap is you.

As a result Gearing games tend to be very short, low-scoring affairs: push in, kill the enemy DD, cap, die shortly thereafter - usually by the enemy CV, but there are plenty of other ways a T10DD with no health left can get blapped given the small maps and saturation of radar/hydro. Sure, I would like to survive longer by taking on less risk, (Gearing is a good torp boat after all, and can spot for and smoke teammates), but the victory mechanics of these Ranked games means its better for the team if I cap early & die, than if I give up the central cap and survive. "Cap, kill, die." might as well be the Gearing motto in ranked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
704
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
996 posts
8,995 battles

DD's have the most influence over the win, so if you're a great DD player, DD's seem to be a good choice in ranked, because you'll win more than you lose and thus move up.

The problem is that in practice it doesn't actually work that way.  DD's are much less likely to save their star than other classes (with the exception of the new ultra-xp-nerfed CV's), and star saving is what really moves you up the ranks.  If you want to rank up, the ship you want to pick is the one that is most likely to save it's star while still having a reasonable impact on the win.  It's unfortunate that it works this way, but it's the reality of ranked with the current system.

They have said they are looking at a complete redesign of the ranked system that should hopefully be unveiled early in the new year.  Hopefully this brings an end to the save a star system.  Ranked should be about trying your absolute best to help your team win, not competing against your team for highest XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,528
Member
3,210 posts
6,822 battles

I recently acquired Z-52 (which completed all 3 German T10 ships for me, hurray) and found myself being very important in a match. Well, I only played until Rank 11, so I'm not exactly one to talk, but I'll talk/type anyway (bite me). As DDs, radar ships are the pain in my aft (pun intended because they do shoot my aft as I run away).

I think if I have a Gearing I'd do a full torpedo build and use DAAF instead of Speed Boost. And RPF in the captain skills.

Damage-focused ships like BBs and kiters like Zao, HIV and Hinden do feel to have little impact on the match, unless they can coordinate and focus on a single ship to sink, instead of shooting whatever they please.

Yeah, the overabundance of Shima and other one-trick-ponies like Haru and Kleber makes T10 Ranked somewhat weird. I don't think I've seen any Yueyang in all the 15 battles that I've played (lol).

Also don't play Ranked for the credits. The Steel is a better investment anyway.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
310
[SMOKE]
Member
905 posts
11,935 battles

Well I had sail my Gearing to Rank 10 and I must say its coming out better than I had expected ; there are indeed time where MM & RNG work against you but at least I am finding myself doing better and contributing way more than many a CA or even BB. The save a star mechanusm made people coming to the game not teaming not playing to win but farming to not losing a star

The real problem with Ranked this season is too many who would not formation ; group up and push ... This season is all about contesting the Areas and sitting on defense or out flanking usually do not work. Even island hugging and sniping won't help once the point difference starts to build up.

Seen many full 20 min game since both sides unable to totally over match other so end up its points that counts

Seen many Smolensk but they seems not making much if an impact ; nor do IJN Cruisers who always just sailing way back doing nothing ; Yoshino in particular is ill suited here. Do see Yueyang once or twice ; mostly its Shima ; did see Frisk once and overall if you can hold out till the latter half of the game especially when situation being clear and everyone kind of knowing where everyone else are , a DD can sway the game whole. The worst enemy still Radar and Planes then enemy DD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
404
[SH0T]
Member
1,148 posts
11,077 battles
5 hours ago, Rina_Pon said:

I think this is my first T10 ranked season, after participating in most of the lower tier sprints last year.

I don't have so many T10 ships, effectively just Zao and Gearing. (My Shima is too unfamiliar and I don't have it fully kitted out yet.)

I tried a few games in Zao, but the lack of influence on the game outcome was really frustrating. I'd go in, farm 100k damage, and it would be 50/50 chance if we won or lost since the game was being decided elsewhere. Plus, far too many Hakuryus and Kremlins floating around to allow Zao to play at anything close to maximum effectiveness. So switched over to Gearing. Which I have set up as an AA build. Not ideal, but whatever, we'll roll with it.

The thing is about playing Gearing in ranked comes down to the triangular 3 cap arrangement of the maps. In practice one cap goes to the green team, one cap to the red team, and the central cap is left as the game-decider. Getting that central cap early usually wins the game as the enemy is forced into two bad options: leave the cap and lose on points, or try to re-take it against a well-entrenched defense.

And then consider your teammates. Even if there are other DDs on your team, most likely they are Harugumo or Mogador, low stealth dakkadakka ships with zero capping ability. And odds are good its a CV game. Meaning the only boat capable of getting that cap is you.

As a result Gearing games tend to be very short, low-scoring affairs: push in, kill the enemy DD, cap, die shortly thereafter - usually by the enemy CV, but there are plenty of other ways a T10DD with no health left can get blapped given the small maps and saturation of radar/hydro. Sure, I would like to survive longer by taking on less risk, (Gearing is a good torp boat after all, and can spot for and smoke teammates), but the victory mechanics of these Ranked games means its better for the team if I cap early & die, than if I give up the central cap and survive. "Cap, kill, die." might as well be the Gearing motto in ranked.

Im 80%wr in Gearing this season so far (or close to it). You have to play way more carefully than you usually would especially in games with dumb SAP ships as they REALLY punish you. Get legendary upgrade if possible, dont pick fights with Kleber or Darings as you will rarely win.

Basically forget saving your star and go for the win, keep the enemy spotted best you can, and get good at predictive torping!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
392
[BLESS]
Member
738 posts
7,698 battles
5 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

DD's are much less likely to save their star than other classes (with the exception of the new ultra-xp-nerfed CV's), and star saving is what really moves you up the ranks.

Kinda by definition saving a star means you don't move anywhere, but I see your point. If you can net +0 on a loss and +1 on a win, an even 50% WR will get you to rank 1 in ~30 games. The question is how hard it is to be the top of your team vs. how hard it is to help your team to actually win the game, and whether those two are even mutually exclusive.

Maintaining 60-70% WR in Gearing is probably just as fast, factoring irrevocable ranks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
164
[KCSEA]
Member
225 posts
6,506 battles
6 hours ago, Moggytwo said:

They have said they are looking at a complete redesign of the ranked system that should hopefully be unveiled early in the new year.  Hopefully this brings an end to the save a star system.  Ranked should be about trying your absolute best to help your team win, not competing against your team for highest XP.

I think a RankEXP system would work to solve the "save-a-star" system. Moving up ranks require an incremental amount of Rank EXP, and the winning team will receive a significantly larger amount of Rank EXP than the losing team. This way, people will eventually be able to rank out, but being a scrub will take an incredibly large amount of battles to rank out, compared to winning. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
404
[SH0T]
Member
1,148 posts
11,077 battles
23 minutes ago, Ryuuoh_DeltaPlus said:

I think a RankEXP system would work to solve the "save-a-star" system. Moving up ranks require an incremental amount of Rank EXP, and the winning team will receive a significantly larger amount of Rank EXP than the losing team. This way, people will eventually be able to rank out, but being a scrub will take an incredibly large amount of battles to rank out, compared to winning. 

Just remove the saved star.

If you win gain a star, if you lose, stay put. Simple.

Win as a team, lose as a team.

Edited by dieselhead
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
704
[AUSNZ]
Beta Tester
996 posts
8,995 battles
1 hour ago, Ryuuoh_DeltaPlus said:

I think a RankEXP system would work to solve the "save-a-star" system. Moving up ranks require an incremental amount of Rank EXP, and the winning team will receive a significantly larger amount of Rank EXP than the losing team. This way, people will eventually be able to rank out, but being a scrub will take an incredibly large amount of battles to rank out, compared to winning. 

That would be okay, although I do think one of the aspects of ranked is that not everyone can rank out, even if they play a very high number of matches.  You should need to play at a certain minimum standard to rank out, and if you play better than that on average, then you rank out faster - I think that is the spirit of the ranked system, and I personally think that is a good aspect.

I wouldn't mind an MMR system, sort of like Clan Battles.  You have your own personal rating, and if you win you move up, and if you lose you move down.  How much you move up or down is determined by the average rating of those on the enemy team vs yours.  Eventually you get to R1 if you keep moving up.  You could also just have it so that you remove the ranks through the season, and just have a rating, but at the end of the season depending on where you finish, you get assigned a rank, and the top however many percent get rank 1, then the ranks are assigned below that as you move down the ratings, with rewards based on where you end up.  This is basically the World of Warcraft arena system, and it's a good one.

It will be interesting to see if their ranked rework turns out to be a few minor changes, or a complete redesign of the system - I hope it's the latter.

1 hour ago, dieselhead said:

Just remove the saved star.

If you win gain a star, if you lose, stay put. Simple.

Win as a team, lose as a team.

This would totally be fine, but they would have to significantly remove the number of stars per rank, otherwise very few people will make it to R1.  It would be better if they introduced bonus stars a different way.  I remember the first R1 I got was before the 'save a star' system, and the extra stars were introduced by giving a bonus star on rank up (just like R11 and below work now).  It was definitely a better system than we currently have.  I don't think at any point in ranked history there has ever been just a straight up and down system with no bonus stars at all, from my recollection anyway.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
392
[BLESS]
Member
738 posts
7,698 battles
15 hours ago, dieselhead said:

If you win gain a star, if you lose, stay put. Simple.

The save/lose system makes sure anyone with a <50% WR is never going to rank out. Which is as it should be.

Consider two players playing 50 games. One has a 40% WR, the other a 60% WR.

Player A will win 20 and lose 30, -10 stars and still be at the lowest rank, while player B will win 30 and lose 20, gaining +10 stars, putting him somewhere around rank 5. (that doesn't factor in the reduction in WR as you go up ranks, or the "ratchet" effect of irrevocable ranks, but it suffices to illustrate my point)

If there are no lost stars, and 20 stars needed to rank out, Player A will get there in 50 games, Player B will get there in 33 games. The only penalty for being an awful player is playing an extra 17 games. Reaching rank 1 would be meaningless.

 

Edited by Rina_Pon
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
310
[SMOKE]
Member
905 posts
11,935 battles

MMR would be nice but it will need a lot of change to the rewarding mechanism to reflect actual play contribution. Right now for short term I would say just implement these simple change

1. losing team players all lost a star

2. winning team players all gain a star except the following

3. last position player on winning team do not earn a star but also do not lose a star

4. AFK player always automatically lose a star

5. Double the earning on potential damage taken and surface spotting ( aerial spotting remain the same )

6. Reduce kill reward to only 4% ( 1/25 ) of enemy ships

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
404
[SH0T]
Member
1,148 posts
11,077 battles
4 hours ago, Rina_Pon said:

The save/lose system makes sure anyone with a <50% WR is never going to rank out. Which is as it should be.

Consider two players playing 50 games. One has a 40% WR, the other a 60% WR.

Player A will win 20 and lose 30, -10 stars and still be at the lowest rank, while player B will win 30 and lose 20, gaining +10 stars, putting him somewhere around rank 5. (that doesn't factor in the reduction in WR as you go up ranks, or the "ratchet" effect of irrevocable ranks, but it suffices to illustrate my point)

If there are no lost stars, and 20 stars needed to rank out, Player A will get there in 50 games, Player B will get there in 33 games. The only penalty for being an awful player is playing an extra 17 games. Reaching rank 1 would be meaningless.

 

Not really any different from how it is now. There was a guy (forget his name now) who yolos every single game and as far as I know he ranks out. Volume of games will carry a bad player to R1 eventually.

Rank 1 is meaningless now, its just a another grindfest since MM dictates a lot of your battle outcomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
392
[BLESS]
Member
738 posts
7,698 battles
On 12/5/2019 at 2:09 PM, dieselhead said:

Volume of games will carry a bad player to R1 eventually.

No, literally this is impossible. Someone smarter than me posted a plot of winrate vs. calculated games needed to rank out. The curve looks like an exponential. As your winrate falls to 50% the number of games needed goes to infinity. I will still take hundreds of games if your WR is just above average.

So as soon as you reach a rank where more than half the players are better than you, will will not be able to advance further. As time goes on though the better players rank out and the skill base of the remaining players falls, so perseverance can get you a bit higher than being a quitter, but in general the the mathematics of the ranked star system is quite brilliant in how it stratifies players precisely by how well they are able to play (edit: as a team).

 

Edited by Rina_Pon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
0
[CAZNA]
Beta Tester
2 posts
2,543 battles

Ranked is an absolute miserable experience. They need to implement some kind of ELO system. The amount of bots, trolls or straight up clueless players just kills your ability to rank, not implying I never make mistakes.

From my experience so far, games are never close. Maybe 1 in 20. It's always either blow out against you or for you. Ranked is just random battles but with 8 people.

This reminds me of Hearthstone. You get good cards you win. You get bad cards you lose. Same for teammates. I've seen Unicorns lose matches simply because 2 of their teammates did dumb stuff like run into radar ships as DDs.

If you get Rank 1 you didn't get there solely based on skill, you just got insanely lucky with the teammates you were matched with.

Edited by Sinrei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,740
Member
5,416 posts
22,325 battles
On 12/5/2019 at 12:09 PM, dieselhead said:

Not really any different from how it is now. There was a guy (forget his name now) who yolos every single game and as far as I know he ranks out. Volume of games will carry a bad player to R1 eventually.

Rank 1 is meaningless now, its just a another grindfest since MM dictates a lot of your battle outcomes.

there's 2 people who do that
YONE has more than enough skill to R1, he just yolos to grief players 
typhoon the donkey only manages to do it in rank sprints, if not he wouldnt be ablr to rank out either

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,740
Member
5,416 posts
22,325 battles
 
 
 
 
7 minutes ago, Sinrei said:

If you get Rank 1 you didn't get there solely based on skill, you just got insanely lucky with the teammates you were matched with.

there are certain players good enough to pull it off, but for the majority of the players it's true that MM plays just as much a part in your ranked experience as your personal skill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
310
[SMOKE]
Member
905 posts
11,935 battles

well the math also work the other way round , this season its even more apparent to me that too many game are lose by non team play players but also too many games win by not being having a good team play but because enemy are even worse. Talk about the rank having  competitive nature its more like in negative order

Share this post


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

×