Guild Wars 2

Just help me out here.

When it comes to Hot Join, are people really involved in those “Bunny to Dragon” Ranks?

Would the game intrinsically change for you if they made it so that you could only get exp towards those ranks if you played ranked. To be clear, You would still get all the Reward Track Exp, and all the rewards associated with it.

Sounds like it could get outta hand. By itself it would be alright, but unfortunately pvp noobs believe rank 0-80 means anything and want to get it.
Aka: all those who are on the ‘rank farm’ servers now would be in ‘ranked’
I dont know if we want this. I’d rather tolerate people aquiring a meaningless rank without working for it.
Makes them feel better about themselves and keeps them out of my games. Everyone is happy.
Those who are not dragons / played at least 900 games should stay out of ranked anyways. Unfortunately gw2 players think shiny rewards and badges are more important than competitiveness. (I dont say <80s are all bad players, but they definetly lack experience)

It’s widely accepted that your rank really doesn’t matter that much. Ever since they changed the system so that rank 80 required less xp (read: actually possible to get), rank stopped being a good indicator of skill. The only ones who care about your rank are people who either 1) Don’t have rank 80 yet. Or 2) Noobs. In the bad sense.

At the same time, whilst I like the idea to a certain extent, its a bit problematic. The most obvious issues is that no one could gain ranks during the off-season, and it would discourage people from playing unranked/hot-join, which are important modes for beginners.

@Asrat, I’d disagree that only dragons should participate in ranked. We need more people playing rather than less. Even if they can only get to Emerald, there should be some reward there for them to get to Sapphire, to keep playing. The League system would (read: should) mean that you never face them unless you’re the same skill level. IMO they should make the rewards for crossing divisions greater whilst making climbing divisions harder, which would give people more incentive to git gud and separate skill levels more accurately.

I’m Shark rank and I’m Diamond.

Neither really matters to me, but to say that only Dragons and above should participate in ranked and anyone under 80 is inexperienced is stupendously inaccurate.

DeathReign.7821:

I’m Shark rank and I’m Diamond.

Neither really matters to me, but to say that only Dragons and above should participate in ranked and anyone under 80 is inexperienced is stupendously inaccurate.

It can’t be used a complete blanket statement, but IMO anyone under 80 is inexperienced. A lot of the things I’ve picked up in PvP were learnt after I hit 80. I’d consider myself inexperienced compared to some players, even with 2600 games played, mainly because I can only play 3 classes to a decent degree.

Coxy.5269:

DeathReign.7821:

I’m Shark rank and I’m Diamond.

Neither really matters to me, but to say that only Dragons and above should participate in ranked and anyone under 80 is inexperienced is stupendously inaccurate.

It can’t be used a complete blanket statement, but IMO anyone under 80 is inexperienced. A lot of the things I’ve picked up in PvP were learnt after I hit 80. I’d consider myself inexperienced compared to some players, even with 2600 games played, mainly because I can only play 3 classes to a decent degree.

As long as we can agree that it can’t be used as a blanket statement, I have no qualms.

Your opinion is your own, and I respect that. I’ve fought many dragons that were worthless, and many other under 80s that wooped my bum. Because of the fact that you can rank farm, 0-80 doesn’t actually mean anything.

To make you acknowledge how irrelevant ranks are since they changed how much rank points you need for them, GW2efficiency has this stat that shows you how many times you finished lvl 80 to lvl 81 and I think I have close to 200 repeat, while having taken a pretty long break from the game in the middle of its lifespan.

it’s kinda sad they changed it, i think we would start to see a few dRagon ranks today with the old system. And sicne unranked / ranked gives so much more rank points with no daily cap, people farming it in hotjoins/custom servers wouldn’t be the highest players getting it anyway.

I did not directly say only dragons should participate in ranked.
I only implied it would be better for all.
But I do say that if people would join ranked in order to level their pvp rank, not to compete (what unfortunately a lot of em already do),
noone benefits. Neither experienced players, who want interesting matches, nor new players who need to be given the space and time to explore the gamemode.

I believe a lot of players are starting to join ranked too soon. Given themselves over to a toxic and unhealthy enviroment of competition instead of enjoying their class, trying their own builds, learning the basics. The leagues made it worse: extra incentives, rewards for rank ups, legendary items. Badges that display your ‘skill’.
I played about 1200 games unranked before I felt secure enough with my class to compete and I would do it again. I still learn from every game, even unranked which ive gotten back to in order to play my thief.
Unranked or hotjoin is not a noob-ground, its simply where you should spent your time to learn. Ranked is not what every PvP player must do all the time, it should be only for those who actually want to compete and who are actually capable of doing so.

But somehow we got the point where only ranked is even considered if you wish to accomplish anything, regardless that what you accomplish is worthless.
By now every half-decent player is at least in ruby. Did you ever think about that? Ruby is the 4th division of 6. It should be the place where you can get with some skíll and a lot of hard work. Only the best should be able to achieve diamond or higher. Season 1 partially worked like that.

Long story short: Unranked should be for everyone who enjoys PvP. Ranked should be for everyone who is really good at PvP and has a lot of experience in it.
The PvP rank is just a way to measure, not your skill, but your experience.
If you havent even played 500 matches minimum, why the hell would you want to play ranked anyways? Even if you are a natural and succeed, why would you? Its simply not what you should be doing.

Asrat.2645:

But somehow we got the point where only ranked is even considered if you wish to accomplish anything, regardless that what you accomplish is worthless.
By now every half-decent player is at least in ruby. Did you ever think about that? Ruby is the 4th division of 6. It should be the place where you can get with some skíll and a lot of hard work. Only the best should be able to achieve diamond or higher. Season 1 partially worked like that.

Season 1 did not work like that. If anything, season 1 was a worse indicator of skill level than season 2. Season 1 matched bad players with bad players. So you could get to Legendary fighting only bad players if you were a bad player yourself. Thus, the matches would be close, but you would still be bad in comparison.

Asrat.2645:

Long story short: Unranked should be for everyone who enjoys PvP. Ranked should be for everyone who is really good at PvP and has a lot of experience in it.
The PvP rank is just a way to measure, not your skill, but your experience.
If you havent even played 500 matches minimum, why the hell would you want to play ranked anyways? Even if you are a natural and succeed, why would you? Its simply not what you should be doing.

I’m at this weird crossroad where I half agree with you and half disagree. I agree that you should gather experience before you try ranked, but simply disagree that there is an arbitrary benchmark that you can blanket the entire player base under in order to “qualify” for ranked. If they aren’t experienced enough, chances are they will stay in Amber/Emerald/Sapphire. People have different learning curves, and what takes you a year to learn could take someone else a day, and vice versa. No arbitrary benchmark would guarantee that people would be “experienced” enough for your standards.

DeathReign.7821:

I’m at this weird crossroad where I half agree with you and half disagree. I agree that you should gather experience before you try ranked, but simply disagree that there is an arbitrary benchmark that you can blanket the entire player base under in order to “qualify” for ranked. If they aren’t experienced enough, chances are they will stay in Amber/Emerald/Sapphire. People have different learning curves, and what takes you a year to learn could take someone else a day, and vice versa. No arbitrary benchmark would guarantee that people would be “experienced” enough for your standards.

Certainly not, but im not trying to be elistist or stop lower ranked players from playing ranked.
I somehow knew this would require additional explanation, so maybe this will help to clarify what im actually trying to say:

Asrat.2645:

DeathReign.7821:

I’m at this weird crossroad where I half agree with you and half disagree. I agree that you should gather experience before you try ranked, but simply disagree that there is an arbitrary benchmark that you can blanket the entire player base under in order to “qualify” for ranked. If they aren’t experienced enough, chances are they will stay in Amber/Emerald/Sapphire. People have different learning curves, and what takes you a year to learn could take someone else a day, and vice versa. No arbitrary benchmark would guarantee that people would be “experienced” enough for your standards.

Certainly not, but im not trying to be elistist or stop lower ranked players from playing ranked.
I somehow knew this would require additional explanation, so maybe this will help to clarify what im actually trying to say:

Honestly, do you honestly think anyone goes to PvP not thinking that they’re the best? The amount of ego that floats around the PvP lobby could rival Kanye West. Okay maybe not, but pretty kitten close.

In the end, everyone thinks that they’re the best deep down, or want to see where they stand competitively.

DeathReign.7821:

Honestly, do you honestly think anyone goes to PvP not thinking that they’re the best? The amount of ego that floats around the PvP lobby could rival Kanye West. Okay maybe not, but pretty kitten close.

In the end, everyone thinks that they’re the best deep down, or want to see where they stand competitively.

Nah. They are all just ‘above average’. Me too btw.

Asrat.2645:

DeathReign.7821:

Honestly, do you honestly think anyone goes to PvP not thinking that they’re the best? The amount of ego that floats around the PvP lobby could rival Kanye West. Okay maybe not, but pretty kitten close.

In the end, everyone thinks that they’re the best deep down, or want to see where they stand competitively.

Nah. They are all just ‘above average’. Me too btw.

So why are you in ranked then? By your definition you shouldn’t be playing ranked unless you’re the best.

DeathReign.7821:

Asrat.2645:

DeathReign.7821:

Honestly, do you honestly think anyone goes to PvP not thinking that they’re the best? The amount of ego that floats around the PvP lobby could rival Kanye West. Okay maybe not, but pretty kitten close.

In the end, everyone thinks that they’re the best deep down, or want to see where they stand competitively.

Nah. They are all just ‘above average’. Me too btw.

So why are you in ranked then? By your definition you shouldn’t be playing ranked unless you’re the best.

I am not. I spawncamped to mid ruby, realised it wasnt challenging or competitive in any way and decided ruby would be the appropiate place for me if the system worked right.
So I moved back to unranked where I can play my thief without some1 crying about it.

Asrat.2645:

DeathReign.7821:

Asrat.2645:

DeathReign.7821:

Honestly, do you honestly think anyone goes to PvP not thinking that they’re the best? The amount of ego that floats around the PvP lobby could rival Kanye West. Okay maybe not, but pretty kitten close.

In the end, everyone thinks that they’re the best deep down, or want to see where they stand competitively.

Nah. They are all just ‘above average’. Me too btw.

So why are you in ranked then? By your definition you shouldn’t be playing ranked unless you’re the best.

I am not. I spawncamped to mid ruby, realised it wasnt challenging or competitive in any way and decided ruby would be the appropiate place for me if the system worked right.
So I moved back to unranked where I can play my thief without some1 crying about it.

So you’ve not actually done much ranked PvP but think yourself proficient enough to make blanket statements about ranked PvP based on the little ranked PvP you actually have done. Kay.

What you are doing sounds like a personal problem, and definitely not one the community should have to follow.

DeathReign.7821:

So you’ve not actually done much ranked PvP but think yourself proficient enough to make blanket statements about ranked PvP based on the little ranked PvP you actually have done. Kay.

What you are doing sounds like a personal problem, and definitely not one the community should have to follow.

a) I have not stated how much ranked I played, but I, in fact rarely touched it before the seasons were introduced.
b)What problem? I do not have any problem. I just dont get why everyone wants to play ranked so badly.
Its meant to compete. A lot of people who play ranked are clearly not capable of doing so. And so they dont enjoy playing ranked, neither do their teammates, neither do their opponents.
So if you are neither ready to compete, nor ok with loosing, you should stay away from ranked. Unless of course you just want rewards and incentives. In that case they should probably make the target golems praise you if you deal high damage and maybe spit some gold on CC application.

Look, all im saying is this: Having players interested in ranked PvP is great, but it should be happening out of the willingness to compete and improve, not to learn the basics of the game, not to get items.
Thats why I consider the OP’s idea bad, thats also one of the problems I see with the current system.
If i am playing ranked I want to meet players who actually give me a hard time fighting them. Not players who wipe on a test of faith, who are incapable of dodging a gun flame.
Limiting RPvP to rank 80+ will have three basic effects:
-Inexperienced players wont play it. Yes, even if they are three times better than the average ranked player. Unless they are actually stupid enough to think rank farming gives them the privileque to compete.
-Everyone in ranked would have at least a basic understanding of rotations and usually know their own class.
-As an result of this, processing through the divisions would become much harder, but much less dependent on matchmaking, due to player skill following a more logarithmic/-exponential path of developement.

Yes, there would be less players= longer Q. Yes, it would stop some people from playing RPvP in the first place. Yes, this would not do everyone justice.
Basically I think we can agree that the three points are true. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a matter of opinion.

I am strongly against elitism, but there are exactly two game areas where I approve of it:
Ranked PvP and raids. Both are meant for elitists to feel home.
If you give new players the opportunity to play ranked, ofc they will do it. But unfortunately that destroys the entire system.

Asrat.2645:

a) I have not stated how much ranked I played, but I, in fact rarely touched it before the seasons were introduced.

So my point still stands.

Asrat.2645:

b)What problem? I do not have any problem. I just dont get why everyone wants to play ranked so badly.
Its meant to compete. A lot of people who play ranked are clearly not capable of doing so. And so they dont enjoy playing ranked, neither do their teammates, neither do their opponents.
So if you are neither ready to compete, nor ok with loosing, you should stay away from ranked. Unless of course you just want rewards and incentives. In that case they should probably make the target golems praise you if you deal high damage and maybe spit some gold on CC application.

The point is, people cannot judge for themselves, and neither can the game for that matter, when they are “ready” to compete. Only arbitrary rules will work towards this, and even then, people will just rank farm and be as bad (if not worse) than they were before.

Asrat.2645:

Look, all im saying is this: Having players interested in ranked PvP is great, but it should be happening out of the willingness to compete and improve, not to learn the basics of the game, not to get items.
Thats why I consider the OP’s idea bad, thats also one of the problems I see with the current system.
If i am playing ranked I want to meet players who actually give me a hard time fighting them. Not players who wipe on a test of faith, who are incapable of dodging a gun flame.

Yes, or know how to use T, but your solutions will not solve any of this.

Asrat.2645:

Limiting RPvP to rank 80+ will have three basic effects:
-Inexperienced players wont play it. Yes, even if they are three times better than the average ranked player. Unless they are actually stupid enough to think rank farming gives them the privileque to compete.

You are defeating your own point here. The majority of the players that will fill the ranked PvP scene will be rank farmers. Your idea simply won’t work.

Asrat.2645:

-Everyone in ranked would have at least a basic understanding of rotations and usually know their own class.

Not guaranteed! You will get ranked farmers without a doubt, and you will still have people that are just that unskilled to not know what to do even after having legitimately played till level 80.

Asrat.2645:

Yes, there would be less players= longer Q. Yes, it would stop some people from playing RPvP in the first place. Yes, this would not do everyone justice.
Basically I think we can agree that the three points are true. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a matter of opinion.

No, I disagree, you can see my points above.

Asrat.2645:

I am strongly against elitism, but there are exactly two game areas where I approve of it:
Ranked PvP and raids. Both are meant for elitists to feel home.
If you give new players the opportunity to play ranked, ofc they will do it. But unfortunately that destroys the entire system.

Which is why the MMR system (no matter how bad) is in place. Sure, MMR system could be improved, but that’s an entirely different topic. Point is, less experienced/newer/bad players should be in the lower divisions, while only people that know what they are doing should advance.

simple solution to all of this don’t put PVE rewards into ranked pvp only eg legendary back pack, the reason a lot play ranked when they maybe cannot or should not is because they want the back pack – anet has enticed more people to ranked pvp with this – either that or make it so you can get it also from unranked

DeathReign.7821:

Which is why the MMR system (no matter how bad) is in place. Sure, MMR system could be improved, but that’s an entirely different topic. Point is, less experienced/newer/bad players should be in the lower divisions, while only people that know what they are doing should advance.

Well yes. If the mmr system was perfect and If it was even possible to create a system where only the good progress beyond a certain point, such mechanics would become obsolete. You may have to consider the otption that it is not possible to create such a system.
1) Good players progress, bad players dont, working as intended
2)Bad players only face other bad players and eventually progress to the mid-range
3) the not-as-good players can farm the bad players and progress further
4) more even-worse players keep pushing from the lower ranks.

If we make the utopian assumption of natural selection im totally with you. If you have a good idea how to make it work I will always be there to help you develop it. But until then the best solution is to completely lock ranked PvP from lower tier players (must not be rank 80 or rank at all, but some system should ensure a general minimum playerbase quality for ranked)

You seem to overestimate the impact of rank farmers. Most of them just want the achievement and the titles. Very few are actually interested in playing PvP (competitively) If you have event the slightest interest to play PvP, the fastest and best way to rank gain is to earn it.

Asrat.2645:

DeathReign.7821:

So you’ve not actually done much ranked PvP but think yourself proficient enough to make blanket statements about ranked PvP based on the little ranked PvP you actually have done. Kay.

What you are doing sounds like a personal problem, and definitely not one the community should have to follow.

Limiting RPvP to rank 80+ will have three basic effects:
-Inexperienced players wont play it. Yes, even if they are three times better than the average ranked player. Unless they are actually stupid enough to think rank farming gives them the privileque to compete.
-Everyone in ranked would have at least a basic understanding of rotations and usually know their own class.
-As an result of this, processing through the divisions would become much harder, but much less dependent on matchmaking, due to player skill following a more logarithmic/-exponential path of developement.

Yes, there would be less players= longer Q. Yes, it would stop some people from playing RPvP in the first place. Yes, this would not do everyone justice.
Basically I think we can agree that the three points are true. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a matter of opinion.

I am strongly against elitism, but there are exactly two game areas where I approve of it:
Ranked PvP and raids. Both are meant for elitists to feel home.
If you give new players the opportunity to play ranked, ofc they will do it. But unfortunately that destroys the entire system.

The thought that you have to be 80 to be regarded as an experienced player is plain stupid, im 55 and legendary and its not like you have to go threw this endkitten level grind to learn the mechanics

Brockolosso.8316:

Asrat.2645:

DeathReign.7821:

So you’ve not actually done much ranked PvP but think yourself proficient enough to make blanket statements about ranked PvP based on the little ranked PvP you actually have done. Kay.

What you are doing sounds like a personal problem, and definitely not one the community should have to follow.

Limiting RPvP to rank 80+ will have three basic effects:
-Inexperienced players wont play it. Yes, even if they are three times better than the average ranked player. Unless they are actually stupid enough to think rank farming gives them the privileque to compete.
-Everyone in ranked would have at least a basic understanding of rotations and usually know their own class.
-As an result of this, processing through the divisions would become much harder, but much less dependent on matchmaking, due to player skill following a more logarithmic/-exponential path of developement.

Yes, there would be less players= longer Q. Yes, it would stop some people from playing RPvP in the first place. Yes, this would not do everyone justice.
Basically I think we can agree that the three points are true. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a matter of opinion.

I am strongly against elitism, but there are exactly two game areas where I approve of it:
Ranked PvP and raids. Both are meant for elitists to feel home.
If you give new players the opportunity to play ranked, ofc they will do it. But unfortunately that destroys the entire system.

The thought that you have to be 80 to be regarded as an experienced player is plain stupid, im 55 and legendary and its not like you have to go threw this endkitten level grind to learn the mechanics

Nice for you. Did you read the rest of what I wrote?
And how exactly would it hurt you if you had to play a few hundred games unranked more before you get your chance to beat up the big boys?

Asrat.2645:

DeathReign.7821:

Which is why the MMR system (no matter how bad) is in place. Sure, MMR system could be improved, but that’s an entirely different topic. Point is, less experienced/newer/bad players should be in the lower divisions, while only people that know what they are doing should advance.

Well yes. If the mmr system was perfect and If it was even possible to create a system where only the good progress beyond a certain point, such mechanics would become obsolete. You may have to consider the otption that it is not possible to create such a system.
1) Good players progress, bad players dont, working as intended
2)Bad players only face other bad players and eventually progress to the mid-range
3) the not-as-good players can farm the bad players and progress further
4) more even-worse players keep pushing from the lower ranks.

If we make the utopian assumption of natural selection im totally with you. If you have a good idea how to make it work I will always be there to help you develop it. But until then the best solution is to completely lock ranked PvP from lower tier players (must not be rank 80 or rank at all, but some system should ensure a general minimum playerbase quality for ranked)

You seem to overestimate the impact of rank farmers. Most of them just want the achievement and the titles. Very few are actually interested in playing PvP (competitively) If you have event the slightest interest to play PvP, the fastest and best way to rank gain is to earn it.

Thank you for ignoring everything I’ve said.

Your system will not work. Locking ranked PvP pre-80 will not guarantee a skilled or experienced player base.

0-80 means nothing, and just about any PvPer will tell you so.

You seem to be transfixed on the notion that anyone below 80 doesn’t know how to play, and everyone above 80 does. This just isn’t true, and I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this for you to understand it.

Locking ranked PvP to 80+ will not work.

Asrat.2645:

Brockolosso.8316:

Asrat.2645:

DeathReign.7821:

So you’ve not actually done much ranked PvP but think yourself proficient enough to make blanket statements about ranked PvP based on the little ranked PvP you actually have done. Kay.

What you are doing sounds like a personal problem, and definitely not one the community should have to follow.

Limiting RPvP to rank 80+ will have three basic effects:
-Inexperienced players wont play it. Yes, even if they are three times better than the average ranked player. Unless they are actually stupid enough to think rank farming gives them the privileque to compete.
-Everyone in ranked would have at least a basic understanding of rotations and usually know their own class.
-As an result of this, processing through the divisions would become much harder, but much less dependent on matchmaking, due to player skill following a more logarithmic/-exponential path of developement.

Yes, there would be less players= longer Q. Yes, it would stop some people from playing RPvP in the first place. Yes, this would not do everyone justice.
Basically I think we can agree that the three points are true. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a matter of opinion.

I am strongly against elitism, but there are exactly two game areas where I approve of it:
Ranked PvP and raids. Both are meant for elitists to feel home.
If you give new players the opportunity to play ranked, ofc they will do it. But unfortunately that destroys the entire system.

The thought that you have to be 80 to be regarded as an experienced player is plain stupid, im 55 and legendary and its not like you have to go threw this endkitten level grind to learn the mechanics

Nice for you. Did you read the rest of what I wrote?
And how exactly would it hurt you if you had to play a few hundred games unranked more before you get your chance to beat up the big boys?

So you think its a good idea to force everybody into months of grind only to play in the leagues? It would hurt quite a bit, some people have other things to do than spaming unranked for meaningless levels

DeathReign.7821:

Thank you for ignoring everything I’ve said.

Your system will not work. Locking ranked PvP pre-80 will not guarantee a skilled or experienced player base.

0-80 means nothing, and just about any PvPer will tell you so.

You seem to be transfixed on the notion that anyone below 80 doesn’t know how to play, and everyone above 80 does. This just isn’t true, and I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this for you to understand it.

Locking ranked PvP to 80+ will not work.

I am fully aware of that. Thats why I said such a system does not necessarely have to be based on rank.
I leveled too, and im usually a fast learner. I was able to fight most players before I reached 80 and I am still getting beaten by players who are below 80.
I know everybody can theoretically understand the mechanics and the rotation in 100 matches, and I know by far not every player who should understand them actually does.
All im saying is that statistically speaking a player will be better, the higher their pvp-rank is.
So this seems like a possible system to base a minimum requirement on.
What else would you base it on? Win-loose rate? Personal high scores.
I actually know the answer. You wish for no such system to be in place, and that is completely understandable.
I resort to it due to the lack of alternatives.
I will make the basic assumption that nobody is better of if we have bad players in the higher ranks.
Since I cant, and you cant and appearently anet cant think of a matchmaking system so flawless, it would prevent that from happening as soon as bad players are part of the system, the most logical solution would be to exclude low level players from it in the first place.
This will only be achieveable if they have to meet certain requirements to enter the leaques, these requirements should resemble their skill as closely as possible.
So admittedly rank is not a good indicator of skill, but an indicator of experience and statistically an. indicator of knowledge.
So either you have a better way to pre-select players, can come up with a skill-based matchmaking system that only the best can prevail in, disagree with my first assumption and replace it with ‘ranked should be for anybody and every player should be able to get to legendary’ or you can admit that my solution is a bad one, but you can not offer any better.

Brockolosso.8316:

Asrat.2645:

Brockolosso.8316:

Asrat.2645:

DeathReign.7821:

So you’ve not actually done much ranked PvP but think yourself proficient enough to make blanket statements about ranked PvP based on the little ranked PvP you actually have done. Kay.

What you are doing sounds like a personal problem, and definitely not one the community should have to follow.

Limiting RPvP to rank 80+ will have three basic effects:
-Inexperienced players wont play it. Yes, even if they are three times better than the average ranked player. Unless they are actually stupid enough to think rank farming gives them the privileque to compete.
-Everyone in ranked would have at least a basic understanding of rotations and usually know their own class.
-As an result of this, processing through the divisions would become much harder, but much less dependent on matchmaking, due to player skill following a more logarithmic/-exponential path of developement.

Yes, there would be less players= longer Q. Yes, it would stop some people from playing RPvP in the first place. Yes, this would not do everyone justice.
Basically I think we can agree that the three points are true. Whether that is a good or a bad thing is a matter of opinion.

I am strongly against elitism, but there are exactly two game areas where I approve of it:
Ranked PvP and raids. Both are meant for elitists to feel home.
If you give new players the opportunity to play ranked, ofc they will do it. But unfortunately that destroys the entire system.

The thought that you have to be 80 to be regarded as an experienced player is plain stupid, im 55 and legendary and its not like you have to go threw this endkitten level grind to learn the mechanics

Nice for you. Did you read the rest of what I wrote?
And how exactly would it hurt you if you had to play a few hundred games unranked more before you get your chance to beat up the big boys?

So you think its a good idea to force everybody into months of grind only to play in the leagues? It would hurt quite a bit, some people have other things to do than spaming unranked for meaningless levels

Yes. Basically I believe ranked should not be something you can just get into after you just started playing pvp. And neither do I see a reason why you should. The game will be around for years, if you cant take a few hours each day for a few months you might be wrong for what I consider the ‘elitist content’ of pvp.
After this entire discussion you people still fail to explain this to me: If you want to play and enjoy PvP, you can do it in unranked. So do I.
But if you want to compete and try to be the best, why is it a problem to invest time and work to prove you are worthy of doing so.
It is not grind if you actually like PvP.
If you enjoy PvP, why would you have to play ranked asap?
I ask this as a serious question: why?
The rank is not any indicator of skill, but it means that you have accomplished something. If you are already a good player you wont get worse by praticing more.
If you are still a bad player at rank 80, you will be a minority and in the ranked enviroment you will either learn quickly or be gone.

Asrat.2645:

All im saying is that statistically speaking a player will be better, the higher their pvp-rank is.

So show me said statistics that show that a higher rank = better player.

Asrat.2645:

So this seems like a possible system to base a minimum requirement on.
What else would you base it on? Win-loose rate? Personal high scores.
I actually know the answer. You wish for no such system to be in place, and that is completely understandable.

Bold and baseless statement, typical of anyone who doesn’t actually have a point.

A feasible MMR system is an entirely different debate, one that there are many other threads on. In case you’ve forgotten, this thread is about actual PvP rank (0-80), not MMR. I do not believe that there should be a requirement system when there is an MMR system in place.

Asrat.2645:

I resort to it due to the lack of alternatives.

Your suggestion will be just as effective as any alternatives (or lack there of) you could possibly have! That is to say that your solution is as good as useless.

Asrat.2645:

I will make the basic assumption that nobody is better of if we have bad players in the higher ranks.
Since I cant, and you cant and appearently anet cant think of a matchmaking system so flawless, it would prevent that from happening as soon as bad players are part of the system, the most logical solution would be to exclude low level players from it in the first place.

This is the direct opposite of logical. The reason is because, as many people have tried to point out to you, rank =/= skill. Rank doesn’t measure capability or competency. How much more can I possibly spell this out for you? You can’t measure skill with rank. Your system would have no effect whatsoever, other than kittening of a large fraction of the player base, ultimately leading to more people rank farming, who wouldn’t do it otherwise.

Asrat.2645:

So admittedly rank is not a good indicator of skill, but an indicator of experience and statistically an. indicator of knowledge.

Again you mention statistics, show me these statistics you keep quoting.

Asrat.2645:

So either you have a better way to pre-select players, can come up with a skill-based matchmaking system that only the best can prevail in, disagree with my first assumption and replace it with ‘ranked should be for anybody and every player should be able to get to legendary’ or you can admit that my solution is a bad one, but you can not offer any better.

Rank is for anybody, but only the better players will be able to move to legendary. Your debate is on the MMR system, which, as mentioned, is an entirely different debate altogether.

And again you are making utopian assumptions based on how it should be but is not. We have, btw lost any connection to the op by now. That is not just my statement, if im not completely mistaken you even talked about mmr first.
(I will certainly not try to read this up tho^^)
I dont think I need statistics to prove this. The longer you play, the more chances you got to gain knowledge. So a good player of a high rank will be better than a good player of a low rank. I dont have to proove that a bad player of a high rank is better than a good player of a low rank, because that is not the case. To be fair we would have to watch the same group of players during their progression and personal collection of experience and the experienced sample will perfom better. If you start to doubt that I really dont think we can continue our discussion.
If you honestly think player X performs better in his first game than in his 1000ths game, you are ignorant.
I have by now countless times admitted that rank=/= skill, but its one of the closest indicators we get (name me a better one), using parts of my argument to claim I would still think so is quotemining and I hate quotemining.
There is a reason I dont respond to your quotes individually.
But im a little bit afraid I could start chewbaccaring with my walls of text, let me know if you think that concerns might be valid.

My original point was that people should not use ranked games to farm ranks.
I also added a missunderstandable sentence implying I dont want <80 in ranked.
After you started to focus on that statement the backfire effect eventually drove me to think ‘hey, that might not be such a bad idea’
And then one of us came up with matchmaking and we took this entire discussion somewhere else.
You will have to decide now if you wnat to argue about my initial statement or about the backfired rank-lock which does in fact also involve matchmaking.

Asrat.2645:

And again you are making utopian assumptions based on how it should be but is not. We have, btw lost any connection to the op by now. That is not just my statement, if im not completely mistaken you even talked about mmr first.
(I will certainly not try to read this up tho^^)

Yes, I spoke about MMR first, but I said in that exact same post that that was an entirely different debate.

Asrat.2645:

I dont think I need statistics to prove this.

You cannot say “statistically” to sound like you have a point, without backing up with actual statistics. That’s just not how debates work. I could say that I’m the number 1 player on GW2 based on my statistics, but without showing said statistics, my point is null and void.

Asrat.2645:

The longer you play, the more chances you got to gain knowledge. So a good player of a high rank will be better than a good player of a low rank. I dont have to proove that a bad player of a high rank is better than a good player of a low rank, because that is not the case. To be fair we would have to watch the same group of players during their progression and personal collection of experience and the experienced sample will perfom better. If you start to doubt that I really dont think we can continue our discussion.

Which is my point! It is not completely unheard of (in fact, rather common) for a player of a lower rank (let’s say Bear) to be better than a Dragon ranked player.

Asrat.2645:

If you honestly think player X performs better in his first game than in his 1000ths game, you are ignorant.
I have by now countless times admitted that rank=/= skill, but its one of the closest indicators we get (name me a better one), using parts of my argument to claim I would still think so is quotemining and I hate quotemining.
There is a reason I dont respond to your quotes individually.
But im a little bit afraid I could start chewbaccaring with my walls of text, let me know if you think that concerns might be valid.

I respond to individual quotes to address said point, so you don’t get confused as to what I am saying. If you take that as “quotemining”, so be it.

Asrat.2645:

My original point was that people should not use ranked games to farm ranks.
I also added a missunderstandable sentence implying I dont want <80 in ranked.
After you started to focus on that statement the backfire effect eventually drove me to think ‘hey, that might not be such a bad idea’
And then one of us came up with matchmaking and we took this entire discussion somewhere else.
You will have to decide now if you wnat to argue about my initial statement or about the backfired rank-lock which does in fact also involve matchmaking.

Yes, ranked games shouldn’t be used to farm rank points, that I can agree on. But I hardly think that anyone who actually plays ranked is playing ranked for the rank points. They do it for rewards and prestige, not rank points. Unranked arenas give the same rank points as ranked arenas, so if they wanted to farm ranked points they could do it there (or in farm maps for that matter).

The point is, there is a difference between being against people farming ranked points in ranked PvP and completely barring under 80s from participating in ranked PvP based on an inaccurate, skewed, almost bigoted notion that they are that much worse of a player because they haven’t grinded till level 80.

DeathReign.7821:

Asrat.2645:

I dont think I need statistics to prove this.

You cannot say “statistically” to sound like you have a point, without backing up with actual statistics. That’s just not how debates work. I could say that I’m the number 1 player on GW2 based on my statistics, but without showing said statistics, my point is null and void.

This. Is Quotemining. Not everything you say, but for example this. You cant take the sentence out of context when I continue to further explain it.

DeathReign.7821:

I’m the number 1 player on GW2 based on my statistics

See? Not fair

Asrat.2645:

Asrat.2645:

If you honestly think player X performs better in his first game than in his 1000ths game, you are ignorant.
I have by now countless times admitted that rank=/= skill, but its one of the closest indicators we get (name me a better one), using parts of my argument to claim I would still think so is quotemining and I hate quotemining.
There is a reason I dont respond to your quotes individually.
But im a little bit afraid I could start chewbaccaring with my walls of text, let me know if you think that concerns might be valid.

I respond to individual quotes to address said point, so you don’t get confused as to what I am saying. If you take that as “quotemining”, so be it.

And that is cherrypicking. You do not comment on the first sentences because you cant really respond to it without weakening you position. So you only reply to the last few. And what I’m doing now Is poisoning the well.

Yes, ranked games shouldn’t be used to farm rank points, that I can agree on. But I hardly think that anyone who actually plays ranked is playing ranked for the rank points. They do it for rewards and prestige, not rank points. Unranked arenas give the same rank points as ranked arenas, so if they wanted to farm ranked points they could do it there (or in farm maps for that matter).

The point is, there is a difference between being against people farming ranked points in ranked PvP and completely barring under 80s from participating in ranked PvP based on an inaccurate, skewed, almost bigoted notion that they are that much worse of a player because they haven’t grinded till level 80.

Sorry, I thought i made this one clear. The op suggested you should gain rank from ranked , thats what this has all been about.

The whole point about not Qing for ranked at <80 was a side statement extracted from my original argument.
Initially all I was trying to say was: If you havent reached rank 80 you should not spend your time in ranked in order to do so.

I still wouldnt say restricting ranked pvp for low levels would be a bad idea, I would not have defended it the entire time if there wasnt something to it. But that has not been what I tried to say with that very first sentence. That statement was born out of the backfire effect.
Eventually it could be a really cool idea to create internal leaques for the lower level ranges.
So 1-40 are (for ranked) only Qed with 1-40 and can only get to…lets say ruby
and 40-80 to diamond.
That way lower level players can play competitively with the best of their level of experience if they wish and already make progress on ranks, but at the same time get to learn the game without kittening everybody off.

Holy cow, where to even begin?

Asrat.2645:

This. Is Quotemining. Not everything you say, but for example this. You cant take the sentence out of context when I continue to further explain it.

Oh, I’m sorry, shall I quote your whole paragraph then?

Asrat.2645:

I dont think I need statistics to prove this. The longer you play, the more chances you got to gain knowledge. So a good player of a high rank will be better than a good player of a low rank. I dont have to proove that a bad player of a high rank is better than a good player of a low rank, because that is not the case. To be fair we would have to watch the same group of players during their progression and personal collection of experience and the experienced sample will perfom better. If you start to doubt that I really dont think we can continue our discussion.

You still need to show statistics when you quote statistics. You can give your opinion (your latter statement), but you say it is statistically proven without showing said proof. My point is exactly the same as I made before, no matter how much you cry about quotemining (honestly not what I’m doing).

Asrat.2645:

Asrat.2645:

If you honestly think player X performs better in his first game than in his 1000ths game, you are ignorant.
I have by now countless times admitted that rank=/= skill, but its one of the closest indicators we get (name me a better one), using parts of my argument to claim I would still think so is quotemining and I hate quotemining.
There is a reason I dont respond to your quotes individually.
But im a little bit afraid I could start chewbaccaring with my walls of text, let me know if you think that concerns might be valid.

And that is cherrypicking. You do not comment on the first sentences because you cant really respond to it without weakening you position. So you only reply to the last few. And what I’m doing now Is poisoning the well.

Cherrypicking? Really? So if I take part of your sentence to respond to, I am quotemining, but if I lump your entire paragraph together, I am cherrypicking. Kay. You seem to have moved on to technical nitpicking rather than focusing on the debate, but I’ll indulge you.

The reason why I didn’t respond to the first part of your statement is because it is an extreme end. A player’s first game wouldn’t be the same as their 1000th, but their 1000th game would be about the same as their 2000th. You do not give the impression that you think that rank =/= skill when you advocate barring under 80s from ranked PvP purely by virtue of being under 80, which has no semblance to realistic skill.

Asrat.2645:

I still wouldnt say restricting ranked pvp for low levels would be a bad idea, I would not have defended it the entire time if there wasnt something to it. But that has not been what I tried to say with that very first sentence. That statement was born out of the backfire effect.
Eventually it could be a really cool idea to create internal leaques for the lower level ranges.
So 1-40 are (for ranked) only Qed with 1-40 and can only get to…lets say ruby
and 40-80 to diamond.
That way lower level players can play competitively with the best of their level of experience if they wish and already make progress on ranks, but at the same time get to learn the game without kittening everybody off.

I do not see how this would help anybody, and with this statement, you are contradicting the philosophy of rank =/= skill, which you say you have admitted to. If a rank 40 person can get to Diamond and Legendary, why would you purposely limit his heights by imposing asinine, arbitrary limits purely based on the amount he has grinded in PvP? If he is good enough, he will (and rightfully should) climb.

You really arent trying to make this easier are you? Im offering comprises again and again and somehow you still find something to be unhappy with.
Btw, I admitted to be poisoning the well up there. I just wanted to demonstrate how easy it is to turn your own words against you, I just generally try not to do it.
Anyways. i will be sleeping now. And as much as I enjoy heated conversations I dont know if I will be in the mood to continue this tomorrow so:
You are probably right. As previously stated I have moved so far away from my original statement that im not even sure what point I was trying to make in the first place.

Asrat.2645:

You really arent trying to make this easier are you? Im offering comprises again and again and somehow you still find something to be unhappy with.
Btw, I admitted to be poisoning the well up there. I just wanted to demonstrate how easy it is to turn your own words against you, I just generally try not to do it.
Anyways. i will be sleeping now. And as much as I enjoy heated conversations I dont know if I will be in the mood to continue this tomorrow so:
You are probably right. As previously stated I have moved so far away from my original statement that im not even sure what point I was trying to make in the first place.

The reason why I disagree with your “compromises” is because they aren’t logical. You say you agree that rank =/= skill, so why does an individual’s rank have anything to do with ranked matches?

This is getting derailed and honestly rather boring, so I agree with ending it here.

Have a good night.

current requirement is 20
it should be increased to 40