Where did I imply that I would be able to earn those MMR thresholds? After all I am silver 3 currently.
But I think those MMR thresholds would make it more fair and less frustrating since moving goalposts are frustrating. Since the leaderboard currently seems to take decimal MMR into account (making it close to impossible to be tied with someone), imagine how frustrating it would be if you would miss the one of the titles by a fraction of a MMR point or drop out of top 3 or 10 because you got unlucky too often with afkers / people who get paid to throw.So? Why should people be tied if they don’t have the exact same rating? Anyone can get the titles, everybodies has the same chances to attempt for them in game, why should they make a competitive system less competitive? People complained about material rewards being locked behind divisions and said competitive players should only be rewarded with titles, guess what that’s what they did, they have the competitive players titles that have value because you have to compete to get them, more so for the more prestigious ones.
So again why should they cater to your ideas that removes value from these competitive rewards?
It is simple.
At 2000+ MMR even 10 MMR points difference is just 0.5% difference, let alone a decimal MMR. Do you want to tell me the MMR algorith is so great that it can determine the skill of someone with more than 99.5% accuracy in just a few hundred games or less? I am very doubtful considering this is a team game and you are only 20% of the team.
I think it is save to say that a difference of 0.5% or less MMR points can be blamed to matchmaking luck even after lets say 300 matches.
So it is impossible to say that anyone is more deserving of being rank 1 (or insert any other title threshold) than someone else with really close MMR.
No algorithm will ever nail the skill of someone in a team game like this to the exact value. It is not a 100m race where you can say someone run the track in 9.8s and the next person needed 9.85s where you have a clear winner.Again if they don’t meet the requirements they don’t deserve the title what don’t you understand about this being in a competitive game mode for a competitive title.
Again, I understand this MMR system pretty well. It does a decent job at putting people into skill bracket, but it completly fails at determining if someone is worthy of being #1, #2 or #3. It is impossible to say that someone with 2133 rating is better than someone with 2122 rating, let alone 2132 rating.
On top of that there are many ways to game the system: queue dodging, playing off peak hours, paying people to throw, hireing pro players to carry you in duoQ (I would assume even if 2 equally skilled people coordinate on teamspeak it will boost their MMR by ~200 above their soloQ rating), playing with smurfs (mainly NA problem at the moment).
Furthermore it does not do a good job to take luck into account (afks and other ways people throw, team compositions, people in your team or enemy team whose MMR has not settled yet).
To make a truly competitive system in GW2 we would have to change quite a lot. Most likely not even possible.
There would need to be a system that forces people who have a close rating to each other to play against each other. There would have to be judges who look out for people who throw matches on purpose and manually adjust MMR of people whenever justified. There would need to be seperate leaderboards for solo and team/duoQ.
Old MMR must not affect the leaderboards. It is bad if people with an old MMR of above 1200 have a head start in the system (and on the contrary people with an old MMR of below 1200 get punished).
