MVP but still lose rank? Scored higher than the best player on the winning team.

[BlackOpsBen]

You can perform better than any player in a fleet battle, and still lose rank. Is this ideal? Was it intentional behavior or an unforeseen side-effect? If I'm on the losing team, but score higher than any body, I would expect at the very least to just stay at the same skill rating (if not go slightly higher) despite losing, but no, you still lose rank.

On the one hand I guess if I continue to win 50/50 I'll just always be at the same rank and always have the fun of being the top performing player, but on the other hand I wonder if in fairness I should be playing with slightly more skilled players. (Which would be a rude awakening to no-longer roflstomp my foes.)

Thoughts?

[AHungryCello]

@BlackOpsBen The consequences for losing is the same for every competitive mode on every game I know. You lose the match you lose your rating. This is to make sure players in the team work together to win the objective rather than chase after personal glory while the team crashes and burns.

[The1stAndrew]

Your rank is not just a running total of the scores you've achieved in matches.  It's how likely you are to actually win.

 Next time, play the objective.

[GeneralXIV]

I think this is kinda the reason why I don't think I'll be ever playing the ranked fleet battles mode :/ I honestly don't think the game should ever act like individual players are responsible for the outcome of a team... to me, realistically, most players are going to only be 20% responsible on average as 1/5 of the team, actually less if you include the influence an enemy team can have like if they are playing in a coordinated group? I think only very very good and very very bad players would have a larger effect. As a solo player, I don't want my rank and also my access to cosmetics to be dependent on strangers and things out of my control. I don't think it's fair to decrease my score for things other players have done, but maybe I feel this way because Squadrons is the first game I've played that has a ranked mode, idk. But in the other multiplayer games I've played, teammates often disappoint me or matchmaking places me in a bad/imbalanced games, and it seems a bad idea to me for have a decreased rank when it happens.

[AHungryCello]

Unfortunately that’s how almost all competitive modes in games work. Which is why usually when there’s that one player who screws up the team by not playing the objective but just going for kills or whatever personal achievements, it usually doesn’t end well. For squadrons, hitting the capital ships require quite a bit of team work and foresight. If you love shooting enemy players down, you gotta find a way to make that work for your bomber teammates, or if your team has to many interceptors and nobody’s taking down the cap ship, somebody’s gotta switch. It’s all about teamwork and sacrificing your personal agendas for the greater good of the team. That’s what makes competitive team games interesting because people can’t just stick to one thing that they like forever. They actually have to adapt and the team that adapts best wins.

[Vaetherian]

No, don't be too optimistic.

I win 2 for each 1 loss, with win ratio of 0.66

Unfortunately, I'm still moving lower and lower.

The ranking system is completely broken...

[BlackOpsBen]

@The1stAndrew To be clear, I always play the objective! If my capital ship is exposed, you'll find me defending it with my life. If I'm on offense, you'll find me saving my squadmates as they make their bombing runs, and taking out subsystems as soon as I find an opening.

[BergerMeister]

I have a 81% win ratio after almost 70 games and I am rank 0

[Piasecznik]

@BlackOpsBen You loose 5x rank points when on loosing team than you gain when on winning team, to progress you need to maintain 85% win ratio. Do not bother, with this kind of punishment everyone will eventually reach 0 rank.

[nljeszeH]

@BlackOpsBen this system is ruining the game