I’ve talked with a lot of PvP players in EU who purposely play as few PvP games as possible. This is to lower the chances of them dropping out of the leaderboards. They play 1 PvP game every 3rd day before they lose decay.
With the current system you can just play it “safe” if you are lucky with your placement games and get a high skill rating to start off with.
If Anet doesn’t do anything, we can end up having more than 30 players finishing in the top 250 leaderboards with only 50 games played or less.
I know what I’ll do next season. Duo the placement games, get a good rating and safe it in …
ANet could also lower the waiting period before rating decay sets in for people on the leaderboard. Make them play a game everyday or the decay starts. That at least forces them to play 1 game a day throughout the season.
Lies and slander. EU’s moral purity would not allow for this sort of immature behavior. At best those players will be transfers from NA seeking to destroy the sanctity of the EU leaderboards and PvP community as a whole. This sort of thing ONLY happens in NA.
Lies and slander. EU’s moral purity would not allow for this sort of immature behavior. At best those players will be transfers from NA seeking to destroy the sanctity of the EU leaderboards and PvP community as a whole. This sort of thing ONLY happens in NA.
everytime i go to watch sin or hesleth or drazeh streams people always start talking about how pro eu is and how they dont have these issues. its nice to see it happening there too. maybe itll finally get support to change how it works instead of people just bashing NA constantly.
200 games is too much for me (and I really want participate). Some of us who want place in leaderboard don’t have enough time to play. But this idea is great. 100games should be good start.
“Doctor suggest me, to stop play with engi because my fingers are broken.
So.. I start play scrapper. "
200 games is too much for me (and I really want participate). Some of us who want place in leaderboard don’t have enough time to play. But this idea is great. 100games should be good start.
even as little kitten games would work tbh. the main problem is these 16-0 accounts.
Between 100 to 250 were the average amount of games played from players in previous seasons, so a 200 game Minimum simply isn’t a realistic number for “minimum games played” in each season.
If Anet wants to still keep Placements, it should be a minimum of 50 games. THEN have it show what your rating is and what division you fall into.
aka FalseLights Rank: Top 250 since Season 2 #5 best gerdien in wurld
i would jsust drop placement matches and set players according to their PvP rank.
rank 20 is mid bronze and 80+ high silver then fight up …
No thats the worst idea. Many hotjoin heroes or solo Q farmers with 0 experience in team PvP have a high rank and dosent translate into skill. Ive seen some of the worst players with 10k + games played.
I think it is more an issue of quality vs. quantity. If you are winning your matches vs. top 10 players then you should be able to keep your position playing a few matches. However if it is coming against people that aren’t even in the top 100 then no. Alternatively, make a tournament at the end of the season where the top 500 are put in a solo queue and have a new 10 match placement.
Lies and slander. EU’s moral purity would not allow for this sort of immature behavior. At best those players will be transfers from NA seeking to destroy the sanctity of the EU leaderboards and PvP community as a whole. This sort of thing ONLY happens in NA.
everytime i go to watch sin or hesleth or drazeh streams people always start talking about how pro eu is and how they dont have these issues. its nice to see it happening there too. maybe itll finally get support to change how it works instead of people just bashing NA constantly.
How dare you suggest EU is responsible for this behavior. You Sir are a liar and a scoundrel, no doubt from NA. Stop your slandering this instant!
A lot of people think this is just fine and dandy outside of the obvious joke accounts with like 10-20 games played they think playing 50-100 games in a couple of months is perfectly acceptable to prove how awesome you are. While we don’t want this to be a grind considering the pvp season is two months long and the average match takes about 9 minutes there should be some kind of vague ammount of played games A-net would invision the top ranked players to have over the course of a pvp season and to me its well more then 50-100. I mean really thats like an hour of spvp a week over the course of the season. Do you even enjoy playing this game? The top players should be defending there ratings fairly often. In the end though the onus is on A-net once again they came up with a very imperfect system. They need to marry some kind of minimum games played over a period of time to the decay sytem. You think your going to play sparingly to protect your high ranking you should start getting decay.
I have over 90 matches played and I usually only play weekends and we still have a month to go. So anyone who wants to be in the Top 250 should be required to play 100 games over the course of the season to be eligible. That is extremely easy to do for any non super casual player.
Even using very conservative stats of 4 matches per hour, that’s 25 hours over 2 months. That’s just over 3 hours per WEEK. If you only played weekends that easily doable.
Come on ANET fix this already.
Your typical average gamer -
“Buff my main class, nerf everything else. "
Are you trying to say something is wrong with this leader board?
For me 200 is a bit too high.
Im at 125 or so games with this month left to go. So if we are looking for a high number i think 150 would be more fair but i dont see why a 100 game min with a working rating decay system wouldnt work?
TBH, if people are trying to get position, then ducking out of actually playing PvP at all… it’s probably a win for everyone that they are no longer involved.
Caring more about your rating than actually playing is not an indicator that you are good for PvP…
PvP is a competitive game mode. The top 250 leaderboard should be the most competitive aspect. If you on the top 250 you should have to play a minimum of 3 games aday to stay competitive.
200 games is too much for me (and I really want participate). Some of us who want place in leaderboard don’t have enough time to play. But this idea is great. 100games should be good start.
even as little kitten games would work tbh. the main problem is these 16-0 accounts.
I think it is more an issue of quality vs. quantity. If you are winning your matches vs. top 10 players then you should be able to keep your position playing a few matches. However if it is coming against people that aren’t even in the top 100 then no. Alternatively, make a tournament at the end of the season where the top 500 are put in a solo queue and have a new 10 match placement.
That’s just the issue.. matchmaking doesn’t know what the heck top players are. It’s just numbers on a spread sheet, thinking it has even team comps. Because, u know, double thief or 4x DH on a team is considered “balanced”.
Quantity is what’s needed in terms of governing a person’s true rating. Players who got 12 wins in a row in placements are dropping their rating in the leaderboard simply because they’re playing more games… lucky matchmaking will only gets you so far.
aka FalseLights Rank: Top 250 since Season 2 #5 best gerdien in wurld
i dont think the number of games played is the problem its the placement rating system, they need to cap it at Gold and not allow players to go 10-0 and be at 2150 rating, They also should make it so you need at least 50 games played in order to be eligible for rewards in the top 250 on the leaderboard, I think that would be a pretty fair system.
i dont think the number of games played is the problem its the placement rating system, they need to cap it at Gold and not allow players to go 10-0 and be at 2150 rating, They also should make it so you need at least 50 games played in order to be eligible for rewards in the top 250 on the leaderboard, I think that would be a pretty fair system.
i dont think the number of games played is the problem its the placement rating system, they need to cap it at Gold and not allow players to go 10-0 and be at 2150 rating, They also should make it so you need at least 50 games played in order to be eligible for rewards in the top 250 on the leaderboard, I think that would be a pretty fair system.
^ This
Even if they did that you would still have people playing a small amount of games and playing sparingly to protect there rating. That’s bad. They need to encourage a large but not onerous amount of games played to be in the top rankings. 50 games seems way to low over two months. There is some lucky involved the more games played it would seem to me the truer the results. I think 150-300 games played falling in that range I would be perfectly fine with to be rank in the 250 at the end. 50 not so much.
i dont think the number of games played is the problem its the placement rating system, they need to cap it at Gold and not allow players to go 10-0 and be at 2150 rating, They also should make it so you need at least 50 games played in order to be eligible for rewards in the top 250 on the leaderboard, I think that would be a pretty fair system.
^ This
Even if they did that you would still have people playing a small amount of games and playing sparingly to protect there rating. That’s bad. They need to encourage a large but not onerous amount of games played to be in the top rankings. 50 games seems way to low over two months. There is some lucky involved the more games played it would seem to me the truer the results. I think 150-300 games played falling in that range I would be perfectly fine with to be rank in the 250 at the end. 50 not so much.
You, uh, might be better off arguing for faster “reward” MMR decay, or slower recovery, or requiring more than one game to stave off decay starting, than for a fixed number. That would achieve exactly the same thing, but would also be self-adjusting to a much greater degree than a fixed number of games.
