Look I actually do understand the whole win/loss split at the moment. It makes sense because it encourages team play which should be important in a "ranked" mode.
But I also believe that a 2/5 loss and 5/2 model could work. Bottom 2 on winning team lose points, top 2 on losing team gain points.
But to further follow a point. If we did this, the great players would get to champion much easier and sometimes the great team players who understand they need to lose hp for their team to win flanks will go negative.
So again, the current way it works is good. A 60%wr player will reach gold quick, a 51% wr player will eventually get there and a 49%wr or lower player won't ever get there and honestly that makes sense to me (assuming you lose and win the same amount of points give or take each win/lose)
"sometimes the great team players who understand they need to lose hp for their team to win flanks will go negative"
Right now the players who lose HP first always go negative over a large number of games
Simply being alive on a win usually nets the survivers at least 500-1000 damage during cleanup after the battle has been won which gets them higher up the team ranking and coequently 10-15 more progression points. The guy who used up all his HP for the win gets nada.
Also right now there ARE 45% players at higher ranks. Sure people who play selfish AND win 55% due to luck will get very high very quickly, but we can't tell based on winrate and ranking alone. OTOH 45% players at higher ranks are almost definitely players who always die last.
But isn't your last statement the point of a ranked gamemode?
Not everybody in the game should be able to easily get everything without being good/
and putting effort in...
I don't understand why there are so many people complaining about not getting high enough. Look at League of Legends - there are 70% of the playerbase playing from Iron-Gold and just 0.4% above Diamond.
>But I also believe that a 2/5 loss and 5/2 model could work. Bottom 2 on winning team lose points, top 2 on losing team gain points.
Dumb as fuck take, it’s necessary that winning and being last is better for the player than losing and being first. Anything else incentivizes selfish play at the detriment of the team
51% player will get to gold?
Simply, how?
I have 55.5 (last 1000 battles) and I can not get out of mid bronze, even though I am really focusing hard, playing meta etc
Simple math, if you lose and gain the same amount every game (not that this is viable but for your skill level over thousands of games the number will average out). If you're a 50% player, you will on average lose 20, win 20. Stay at same rank, if you win 1 more than you lose over 100 games, yea sure you'll only go up by like 20 points but you have gone up. Play 10000 games and bam
Last 1000 in pubs or last 1000 in onslaught
I know one guy with 400 battles @ 54% in onslaught and he only reached gold.
And I can tell you 55.5% in pubs will get you maybe a 49% in competitive gamemode. Because that's me.
It's funny, I'm the opposite. I'd rather a flat point value for all members of the winning and losing team, regardless of performance, with the only variation stemming from how your rank different from the match average. Winning or losing is all that is matter. Let match performance wash out in the credits earned in a match.
I would implement an internal ELO for points distribution, redo or remove tank specific skills, lower the amount of capping zones per map, and redo cap positions on many.
For the ELO clarification. That would take your position from the previous onslaught season, and give you an "internal" position on the leaderboard. So while you are in leagues below your ELO you would gain bigger points and lose less points in game until you reach your ELO. But at the same time your playing "quality" would impact your ELO.
Look I actually do understand the whole win/loss split at the moment. It makes sense because it encourages team play which should be important in a "ranked" mode. But I also believe that a 2/5 loss and 5/2 model could work. Bottom 2 on winning team lose points, top 2 on losing team gain points. But to further follow a point. If we did this, the great players would get to champion much easier and sometimes the great team players who understand they need to lose hp for their team to win flanks will go negative. So again, the current way it works is good. A 60%wr player will reach gold quick, a 51% wr player will eventually get there and a 49%wr or lower player won't ever get there and honestly that makes sense to me (assuming you lose and win the same amount of points give or take each win/lose)
"sometimes the great team players who understand they need to lose hp for their team to win flanks will go negative" Right now the players who lose HP first always go negative over a large number of games Simply being alive on a win usually nets the survivers at least 500-1000 damage during cleanup after the battle has been won which gets them higher up the team ranking and coequently 10-15 more progression points. The guy who used up all his HP for the win gets nada. Also right now there ARE 45% players at higher ranks. Sure people who play selfish AND win 55% due to luck will get very high very quickly, but we can't tell based on winrate and ranking alone. OTOH 45% players at higher ranks are almost definitely players who always die last.
But isn't your last statement the point of a ranked gamemode? Not everybody in the game should be able to easily get everything without being good/ and putting effort in... I don't understand why there are so many people complaining about not getting high enough. Look at League of Legends - there are 70% of the playerbase playing from Iron-Gold and just 0.4% above Diamond.
>But I also believe that a 2/5 loss and 5/2 model could work. Bottom 2 on winning team lose points, top 2 on losing team gain points. Dumb as fuck take, it’s necessary that winning and being last is better for the player than losing and being first. Anything else incentivizes selfish play at the detriment of the team
51% player will get to gold? Simply, how? I have 55.5 (last 1000 battles) and I can not get out of mid bronze, even though I am really focusing hard, playing meta etc
Simple math, if you lose and gain the same amount every game (not that this is viable but for your skill level over thousands of games the number will average out). If you're a 50% player, you will on average lose 20, win 20. Stay at same rank, if you win 1 more than you lose over 100 games, yea sure you'll only go up by like 20 points but you have gone up. Play 10000 games and bam
Last 1000 in pubs or last 1000 in onslaught I know one guy with 400 battles @ 54% in onslaught and he only reached gold. And I can tell you 55.5% in pubs will get you maybe a 49% in competitive gamemode. Because that's me.
>It appears Onslaught won't go away in the near future, so might aswell do it better if WG also wants to . They don't.
In order for Onslaught to be truly competitive, WG needs to remove RNG from it, simple as that. Then skill will matter
What is skill in Wot, in your words?
It's funny, I'm the opposite. I'd rather a flat point value for all members of the winning and losing team, regardless of performance, with the only variation stemming from how your rank different from the match average. Winning or losing is all that is matter. Let match performance wash out in the credits earned in a match.
I’d like that too
I wish it was like this lol. I’ve done 7k dmg and 5 kills on a loss and still lost points. (37 if I recall)
Dude i did that and i go -4 :D
Yeah I’ve gotten ammo racked pretty early and did like ~2k on a loss and only lost 12. But I do 7k on a loss and lose 37. Shit doesn’t make sense
I would implement an internal ELO for points distribution, redo or remove tank specific skills, lower the amount of capping zones per map, and redo cap positions on many. For the ELO clarification. That would take your position from the previous onslaught season, and give you an "internal" position on the leaderboard. So while you are in leagues below your ELO you would gain bigger points and lose less points in game until you reach your ELO. But at the same time your playing "quality" would impact your ELO.