There is no reward for playing well.

[Curisu]

Okay, to give you a more serious answer.

No matter how big the incentive is, it always is faster to give up and try again with a new team.
And more rewards will lead to more toxicity and bad behaviour.
Like, when a win gives triple the rewards then it is more likely that a "bad" player who maybe just has a bad round or the enemy team has good focus, gets harassed after the game.
You could also make that the round takes longer, but that leads to more frustration when you play for so long and at the end it is for nothing.

These fast rounds with low reward difference is the best way to keep all participants as happy as possible and to have as little time with a "bad" team as possible.
It casual friendly and that's what SE is aiming for.

Also, there could be differences between the ranks and region's.
Because I have not the same experience as you.

[Claustrum]

Okay, to give you a more serious answer.

No matter how big the incentive is, it always is faster to give up and try again with a new team.
And more rewards will lead to more toxicity and bad behaviour.
Like, when a win gives triple the rewards then it is more likely that a "bad" player who maybe just has a bad round or the enemy team has good focus, gets harassed after the game.
You could also make that the round takes longer, but that leads to more frustration when you play for so long and at the end it is for nothing.

These fast rounds with low reward difference is the best way to keep all participants as happy as possible and to have as little time with a "bad" team as possible.
It casual friendly and that's what SE is aiming for.

Also, there could be differences between the ranks and region's.
Because I have not the same experience as you.

None of this has anything to do with rewarding a player for playing well or punishing players for intentionally throwing a match. So... yeah? Maybe it would lead to more toxic behavior to just offer triple rewards with no other stipulations? I dunno how you can have triple rewards when it comes to comparative ranks though. You get 3 stars for winning instead of 1? I don't think that fixes any problem.

Maybe instead, if you play well enough, you have a chance to not lose a star if your team loses the match?

[Valence]

None of this has anything to do with rewarding a player for playing well or punishing players for intentionally throwing a match. So... yeah? Maybe it would lead to more toxic behavior to just offer triple rewards with no other stipulations? I dunno how you can have triple rewards when it comes to comparative ranks though. You get 3 stars for winning instead of 1? I don't think that fixes any problem.

Maybe instead, if you play well enough, you have a chance to not lose a star if your team loses the match?

How do you define "playing well" in measurable numbers?

Anyway, that's how the old Feast worked when it came to ranking: 30pts for a win, 10pts for a loss in bronze. Then 15pts in silver, 20 in gold, 25 in plat and 30 in diamond (there was no crystal rank). This is also how most ladder systems actually work behind the veil: the lower ranked you are, the more the systems helps you progress your way up. Right now the only thing in CC that is close to it is the win streak reward, except it applies for any rank below crystal equally.

[Claustrum]

How do you define "playing well" in measurable numbers?

You want me to design the system? I can give a rough draft, but it'll still be a bit unfair. An oversimplified version would be whoever does the most damage has a chance to not lose a star, though that would favor DPS. A more complex version would check to see if you're using your abilities effectively. Or something that would make me happy is if someone spends more than half of the match in the base, they lose 5 stars, and the other 4 players on the team lose none.

[Curisu]

snip

You know that it impossible to create something like that?
There are to many variables and different play styles.

The 0/4/1 tank could be the most valuable contributor to a win by keeping 3 enemy's busy while his team pushes the win.
The amount of dmg variates depending on the played class, the enemy's job, how the enemy's play, how your team is doing.
The healing done, well, tough luck for you when you are the squishy target and the enemy's have a good focus on you. You will be that bad player of the team even though you always got chain CCed into the death.
And I don't want to think about different playatyles between beginners and high ranks.

It is a impossible task to create something like this in a game with so many variables.

[Valence]

You want me to design the system? I can give a rough draft, but it'll still be a bit unfair. An oversimplified version would be whoever does the most damage has a chance to not lose a star, though that would favor DPS. A more complex version would check to see if you're using your abilities effectively. Or something that would make me happy is if someone spends more than half of the match in the base, they lose 5 stars, and the other 4 players on the team lose none.

If damage alone, or using all my skills was the sole contributor of my success then I'd be top 10 every time.

The real humility is to reach that point, then understand that you have barely scratched the surface and being able to identify tipping points and valuable contributions, according to your team, the tactical configuration of the moment, and your job, which is in my opinion the hardest thing clarity wise for all players in current CC. You often have no clue why the team collapsed so bad until you carefully rewatch a video to see who is actually fucking up so hard that's not even funny. Or be one of those top rated player veterans that have been doing this for so long that they can instantly tell why.

[Gserpent]

How do you define "playing well" in measurable numbers?

Anyway, that's how the old Feast worked when it came to ranking: 30pts for a win, 10pts for a loss in bronze. Then 15pts in silver, 20 in gold, 25 in plat and 30 in diamond (there was no crystal rank). This is also how most ladder systems actually work behind the veil: the lower ranked you are, the more the systems helps you progress your way up. Right now the only thing in CC that is close to it is the win streak reward, except it applies for any rank below crystal equally.

In terms of non-ranked performance, a similar answer is to simply greatly increase the rewards for winning, meanwhile adjusting the "participation award" for losing to such that it's not a complete waste of time... but it's small enough compared to the reward for winning that you're still incentivized to push for a win. For Frontlines, as an example, you might have a win be 25% of a level, maybe 15% for second place, and 8% for 3rd and tomes accordingly. For a binary mode like CC or RW, it might be 25% for a win and 10% for a loss (less than that for a short mode like CC, of course, but proportionately similar.) In both cases, you have a meaningful incentive to win - you're getting as much as *three times* the benefit for winning the game as losing it, and 25% of a level in roughly 15 minutes of effort is... quite competitive with other modes of leveling.

Ranked mode requires a different solution, though it's also pretty simple - just use Elo or an Elo-derived system like virtually all competent laddering systems use.

[Valence]

tbh I'm not even joking, removing or reducing greatly the loading and introduction time for games would go a great way to dampen the toxicity. We're spending between 1 and 2 full minutes doing nothing while the teams get introduced and the map prepared, which is more than 10-15% of the time of the average game.

The problem with bad teams isn't that they end up taking time or no time, it's that they're crippling your win rate hard and you play lottery essentially based around this, and not proper player skill, as the OP said. Even if I hop into bronze, where there i'll have definitely more impact with my skill, I'll still lose a lot of games if I'm unlucky (also maybe some jobs can carry a lot more than others). And let's not talk about the team that gets full ranged players and get trashed immediately.

[Valence]

Personally, I won't say I don't feel bad when getting dragged down to the bottomless pits of hell by improbably loss streaks, but on the other hand I play to have fun. And I have the most fun in Diam/Crystal games, which are my level. This is the first time I'm stuck in plat for whatever reason I did to offend the rng fates, but it feels like playing in a clownfiesta each time and I have very little control on what people do ultimately. Especially as a ranged player that just constantly witnesses the frontline collapse for no reason at all except bad play.

[ThaCa]

Ranked is dead, Casual benefits from fast games win or lose, FL has xp leechers further increasing the randomness of teams.

Reward for playing well should be something worthwhile, if you already got your rank rewards in previous Season there's no reason to PvP aside from having something you want with Wolf Marks or still somehow having your Series rewards unfinished. I guess being completionist for Achievements counts?

As it is, PvP is fairly pointless at the moment. If only they could implement cross DC queues and put in some kind of Ranked currency it would go far, but considering they abandoned Trophy Crystal shop the patch it was introduced in, there's absolutely no chance for any of it happening. Especially since the JP ranked queue is still populated compared to other servers.