Guild Wars 2

…a batting title unless they have had a certain number of at bats. Otherwise the winner would most likely be some middle reliever that had one at bat and got a hit somehow. In order to be eligible for either leaderboard in tpvp you should need to have played a significant number of matches.

You need to have played 11. If you’ve won 11 matches (a majority of these needing to be against good players because of the way MMR works) out of 11 then you deserve a good spot, and if you’re a lucky pretender then the next played matches will set you down or decay will take care of it.

Writetyper.1985:

You need to have played 11. If you’ve won 11 matches (a majority of these needing to be against good players because of the way MMR works) out of 11 then you deserve a good spot, and if you’re a lucky pretender then the next played matches will set you down or decay will take care of it.

if you win 11 matches you will usually end up rank 1 on the leaderboards (this literally happened like a month ago). You can say that if you really aren’t good enough, you will drop down, but what if someone gets 11 wins just before the season reset? 11 games played for the highest rank reward…
11 games are not enough to tell if you deserve a good spot or not, you only need to get lucky. The last guy that had this luck and posted about it here on the forum was only rank 25, and he himself admitted he wasn’t THAT good and that he just got lucky good teams. The system right now is broken. Not only 11 matches is too low, but the mmr needs to start at a lower number and needs to be less volatile. 11 games and getting rank 1 is humiliating for the players and the devs.

i feel the same.

the amount of games necessary is way too low and the starting mmr is too high.
i think it was about the 60 or 70% mark where i experienced the most newbies (rank<10) and to my feels the 30% mark would fit much better.

it depends so much on luck (cause one cant choose his teammates) to get a 13/0 ratio as startup. that much luck does definitely not deserve to be up there in leaderboards.
a good amount of minimum matches may be around 50 (if it was me, raise it up to minimum of 100)

if i were on leaderboard tops with lets say 700/300 ratio and right next to me is a joke with 13/0 i’d feel pranked. (which may be one of many reasons people say leaderboard means nothing)
but i honestly think that there is another issue counting into that as well.
i realised that by watching the leaderboard fluctuation of mine. in the beginning it didnt feel wrong. from 30% to 70% it went quick, then i was placed between 80% and 95% – where i feel i belong to – just too much elitism up there. after i recently played much more frequent i hopped up and down like crazy. you know, win some lose some – but hopping from 90% to 800 – 600 – 98% – 700 – 400 – 86% within a series of about 20 matches just feels odd.
everytime i checked my standings on leaderboard it just looks like the rating gain/loss is way too much.
tbh who really knows?? we may get some insight into rating in the future, but as long as we have literally zero info on the rating, we have to stick with kitten ing around.

tl;dr:

• increase the amount of matches needed to be placed in the leaderboards (50 games min)
• decrease the start rating to an amount which fits into the ~30% range
• decrease the rating gain/loss per win/lose to prevent ‘crazy’ fluctuating placements

PS: will there be a CDI about leaderboards/ladder/matchmaking/rating in the near future?