First Loser? ( like save a star)

[Col_NASTY]

Just throwing out an idea that would be really fair , I know WG will ignore it,  but it is cathartic to try.

Top player on the losing team SHOULD get Half of the  XP bonus the winners all get.

Randoms are horrid anymore and I for one am so tired of being " First Loser " so often.

Maybe people MAY try a little harder to keep fighting instead of practically walking away from their KB and giving up after the first ships dies or  the first cap turns red?

It might help the pain ( a little ) 

[Wolfswetpaws]

12 minutes ago, Col_NASTY said:

Just throwing out an idea that would be really fair , I know WG will ignore it,  but it is cathartic to try.

Top player on the losing team SHOULD get Half of the  XP bonus the winners all get.

Randoms are horrid anymore and I for one am so tired of being " First Loser " so often.

Maybe people MAY try a little harder to keep fighting instead of practically walking away from their KB and giving up after the first ships dies or  the first cap turns red?

It might help the pain ( a little ) 

Swinging on a Star. Hudson Hawk (1991)

 

[OldSchoolGaming_Youtube]

11 hours ago, Col_NASTY said:

Just throwing out an idea that would be really fair , I know WG will ignore it,  but it is cathartic to try.

Top player on the losing team SHOULD get Half of the  XP bonus the winners all get.

Randoms are horrid anymore and I for one am so tired of being " First Loser " so often.

Maybe people MAY try a little harder to keep fighting instead of practically walking away from their KB and giving up after the first ships dies or  the first cap turns red?

It might help the pain ( a little ) 

Its been suggested 100´s of times for years that the top 4-5 ranking players in loosing team would earn like a win and the bottom 4-5 on the winning team would not get the extra earnings in Random and same in Ranked, top 3 in both teams get a star and excel while the bottom players in both teams go down a pegg.

Is this "fair"?! I dont know, but at¨least then the good players would excel and go further and the Hooman bots that "Just push W" and suicides in all matches and end up at the bottom with 300 XP in a T10 game wouldn't get carried up the tiers/ranks like they are now. So this would actually force bad players to learn the game and "Git Good", and playing T10 would be 20 min close games because all players are matched instead of the BS 5 min blow outs we see at T10 today because one team got 8 Hooman bots in theirs and the other got 12 well skilled.

This is also the same in ranked. Getting "Rank 1" means sheeit and a half these days, it just means you pushed the "Battle" button in Ranked enough times.

[mashed68]

They need to eliminate the win bonus completely and reward each player based on their actions alone. 

[Wolfswetpaws]

9 hours ago, mashed68 said:

They need to eliminate the win bonus completely and reward each player based on their actions alone. 

Winning, in your proposal, does not count as an "action"?  🙂 

[mashed68]

Not when there are 11 other people on my team, no. You can be top of team and still lose. You can do literally nothing and still win. You can almost nothing, still win, and not get a penalty even. 

[Yedwy]

Who gives a damn about randoms and esp about xp in them?

Edited January 25 by HogHammer
Descriptive language edit

[Pugilistic]

16 hours ago, Yedwy said:

Who gives a damn about randoms and esp about xp in them?

WG does. They view it as the core of their game, and would probably limit time / availability for other modes should Random population become an issue. 

[mashed68]

16 hours ago, Yedwy said:

Who gives a damn about randoms and esp about xp in them?

Anyone grinding or playing a ship in a tier that doesn't fit brawl or ranked, duh. 

[Yedwy]

6 hours ago, mashed68 said:

Anyone grinding or playing a ship in a tier that doesn't fit brawl or ranked, duh. 

Duh, one or ten more battles to grind a ship through, who the heck cares? I mean mimimimi-ing about scraps of XP... Also, WG doesn't give a crap about stats; people that care about that are just milking stock for the WG marketing dept...

Edited January 25 by HogHammer
Descriptive language edit

[Admiral_Karasu]

Could that also work as an achievement? 'First Loser'.

[MnemonScarlet]

On 1/24/2024 at 7:46 AM, OldSchoolGaming_Youtube said:

Its been suggested 100´s of times for years that the top 4-5 ranking players in loosing team would earn like a win and the bottom 4-5 on the winning team would not get the extra earnings in Random and same in Ranked, top 3 in both teams get a star and excel while the bottom players in both teams go down a pegg.

Is this "fair"?! I dont know, but at¨least then the good players would excel and go further and the Hooman bots that "Just push W" and suicides in all matches and end up at the bottom with 300 XP in a T10 game wouldn't get carried up the tiers/ranks like they are now. So this would actually force bad players to learn the game and "Git Good", and playing T10 would be 20 min close games because all players are matched instead of the BS 5 min blow outs we see at T10 today because one team got 8 Hooman bots in theirs and the other got 12 well skilled.

This is also the same in ranked. Getting "Rank 1" means sheeit and a half these days, it just means you pushed the "Battle" button in Ranked enough times.

It's fair in terms of getting out of matches what you put into them, but it's not for the plain-bad failgrinder welfare WG prefers. So we'll never see anything like that.

WoT has that battle hero system where if you get certain achievements your EXP is calc-ed as if you won despite the rest of your team getting loser EXP, but the WoWs team is sadly supportive of not raising someone who actually tried above the rest.

[Col_NASTY]

14 hours ago, Yedwy said:

Who gives a f* about randoms and esp about xp in them?

Apparently a vast amount of WGs player base.   Why does that bother you so much?  ( notice I do not use methods to use banned words in our forum. )   Please keep it clean here. It's a minimal Toxicity environment. 😊

[Col_NASTY]

1 hour ago, Admiral_Karasu said:

Could that also work as an achievement? 'First Loser'.

We should have a contest for what it would look like and send it in to WG Devs🤣

[Yedwy]

6 minutes ago, Col_NASTY said:

We should have a contest for what it would look like and send it in to WG Devs🤣

This in a chain circle?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.123rf.com%2Fphoto_93296177_man-smashes-a-mechanical-computer-keyboard-in-rage-and-anger-with-his-fist.html&psig=AOvVaw0GI5mLpLH6v7FAzvrw770m&ust=1706303723006000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBIQjRxqFwoTCNCIxfG6-YMDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAI

[thornzero]

The guys who do 6o% on the regular are still losing 4 out of ten games.

Seems like a minor gripe. If wg listened to every gripe we wouldn't have a game to play.

I had an okay day. Was 1st and 2nd for some of the defeats. I would rather be winning, but I am not one to split hairs on losses. It is what it is.

[meatgrindr]

On 1/24/2024 at 9:38 AM, mashed68 said:

They need to eliminate the win bonus completely and reward each player based on their actions alone. 

     I think there is an inherent problem with taking away incentives to win, or going "pure farm" so to speak.  There is already the temptation to fulfill mission requirements that don't necessarily coincide with getting the W, I think we all see that, at least on occasion.  Take torp hits for example.  I can complete these missions way easier if I am not worried about 1) sinking in the process or 2) losing the match.  But the solution is elusive in a team-game where so little emphasis is placed on command and control, and worse, communication; 2 key components on any battlefield.  For a while now I have been curious-- if WG put 24 ships out on a map as a free for all, every ship for themselves, no divs or teams, would it be more, or less, fun.  I think it would be an interesting game mode to compare against what we have now.

[Admiral_Karasu]

24 minutes ago, meatgrindr said:

     I think there is an inherent problem with taking away incentives to win, or going "pure farm" so to speak.  There is already the temptation to fulfill mission requirements that don't necessarily coincide with getting the W, I think we all see that, at least on occasion.  Take torp hits for example.  I can complete these missions way easier if I am not worried about 1) sinking in the process or 2) losing the match.  But the solution is elusive in a team-game where so little emphasis is placed on command and control, and worse, communication; 2 key components on any battlefield.  For a while now I have been curious-- if WG put 24 ships out on a map as a free for all, every ship for themselves, no divs or teams, would it be more, or less, fun.  I think it would be an interesting game mode to compare against what we have now.

I could see that working as a subs only mode.

[Utt_Bugglier]

1 hour ago, meatgrindr said:

     I think there is an inherent problem with taking away incentives to win, or going "pure farm" so to speak.….

For a while now I have been curious-- if WG put 24 ships out on a map as a free for all, every ship for themselves, no divs or teams, would it be more, or less, fun.  I think it would be an interesting game mode to compare against what we have now.

It would end up being the most disincentivizing mode ever.

You want to solve the problem with divorcing incentives from winning…then propose a mode with an average win rate of 4.167 percent? Taking away 90%+ of the possibility of winning.

Certainly disincentivizes that game mode.

[meatgrindr]

43 minutes ago, Utt_Bugglier said:

It would end up being the most disincentivizing mode ever.

You want to solve the problem with divorcing incentives from winning…then propose a mode with an average win rate of 4.167 percent? Taking away 90%+ of the possibility of winning.

Certainly disincentivizes that game mode.

In a roundabout way, that's what I am getting at.  the end goal of any game is to win.  What kind of game do you have when the goal is to not necessarily win? 

[Utt_Bugglier]

5 hours ago, meatgrindr said:

In a roundabout way, that's what I am getting at.  the end goal of any game is to win.  What kind of game do you have when the goal is to not necessarily win? 

You think the goal of your mode is to win? The design goal of your proposed game mode is to produce 23 losers, one winner.

If you want to tie incentives to winning, then throw down a game mode that produces 96% losers, people who have win-based missions will STILL flock to co-op, spam ranked, Ops, Randoms, Asymmetrics, but the NUMBER ONE mode they will AVOID will be YOUR shiny new game mode.

Because in a world of win-based incentives, a mode that generates an average win rate of 4% is a dead-bang-loser. It’s very design will disincentivize virtually every player who has “win and…” missions.

And considering next the players who want to win solely for the sake of winning, the same average 4% win rate will drive plenty of those away, as well.

Good heavens, do the math!!!

And try to give even a modest thought about what REALLY constitutes “incentive.”

[Admiral_Karasu]

9 hours ago, meatgrindr said:

In a roundabout way, that's what I am getting at.  the end goal of any game is to win.  What kind of game do you have when the goal is to not necessarily win? 

Any game where your opponent is either a Wookie or your boss?

[meatgrindr]

10 hours ago, Utt_Bugglier said:

You think the goal of your mode is to win? The design goal of your proposed game mode is to produce 23 losers, one winner.

If you want to tie incentives to winning, then throw down a game mode that produces 96% losers, people who have win-based missions will STILL flock to co-op, spam ranked, Ops, Randoms, Asymmetrics, but the NUMBER ONE mode they will AVOID will be YOUR shiny new game mode.

Because in a world of win-based incentives, a mode that generates an average win rate of 4% is a dead-bang-loser. It’s very design will disincentivize virtually every player who has “win and…” missions.

And considering next the players who want to win solely for the sake of winning, the same average 4% win rate will drive plenty of those away, as well.

Good heavens, do the math!!!

And try to give even a modest thought about what REALLY constitutes “incentive.”

     Right, my "proposal" would simply reinforce my opinion that a free for all mode would not last long before people go back to team games..