Feast tier requirements should probably be lowered

Pretty much what the title says. A lot of the frustration I see in the Primal community is that the idea of every getting good enough to get to the next tier is next to impossible. That in turn makes people not as willing to play and makes the current situation of players sitting on rating that much worse and makes the matchmaking situation that much worse as well.

To elaborate on the matchmaking issue, people say there is a problem in that it to readily matches golds and plats with unranked players, which is true, but when there are already a very small amount of gold and platinum players in the pool already, there really is no way to have games played without it doing just that.

So why would lowering the tier requirements help fix this issue? A few reasons actually, I will list them as follows:

1. Lowering tiers would more accurately define people's skill. Currently a gold at 900 is leagues lower in skill compared to a gold at say 1400.

2. This builds on #1 in that lowering tier requirements would increase the number of silvers/golds/platinums/diamonds. If there are more people placed in these ranks then matchmaking will more readily do what SE claimed it would do in the previous patch notes, placing golds/plats/diamond in the same games with unranked/bronze/silver in others. And it will be more accurate to skill.

3. Lowering the difference between tiers encourages people to play more. A gold player at say 1100 may not be inclined to play since platinum is so far away at 1500 plus qualifiers. However if the difference would only be till 1200 for platinum then that gold player has incentive to at least try.

4. Builds on reason #1 a bit more, makes the tier system accurately reflect who belongs where. Me seeing the top 20, let alone most rank 1 players not be anywhere close to diamond is silly to me. It makes me feel that SE came up with random numbers for the tiers and ran with it without putting in any regard of it being achievable or not. Imo, hard tier placement shouldn't overshadow things like top 10 or rank 1, as that seems to be the case now.

I personally believe good tier thresholds would be the following

Bronze: 400 and below
Silver: 400-700
Gold: 700 - 1000
Platinum: 1000 - 1300
Diamond: 1300+

I don't like the idea of a unranked tier that doesn't let you lose points because there are people that cannot win if they cannot win then they obviously need to lose points until there are placed in a correct rating.

Also a little side rant I want SE to consider. Currently top 10 English titles are a joke. The idea that a top 10 finish, Beta Wolf, is overshadowed by a achievement in a completely different mode, 5000 wins in the The Fold = Alpha Wolf, just goes beyond common sense. Please change it to something more befitting of the achievement please.

Anyway thank you for reading.

Another consideration is to make it so that players keep their highest rating gained in the season. This is the number that shows on Leaderboard. You still gain/lose normally on an individual level, but your season-rating goes off of the highest you gained for that season. I know I'd queue more personally, and am sure I'm not alone there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koltik

Another consideration is to make it so that players keep their highest rating gained in the season. This is the number that shows on Leaderboard. I know I'd queue more personally!

---

No, that is abuse able. There would be no stopping people who get lucky with their rating and then proceed to throw games for their friends in order to manipulate the the ladder standing, since you know, they have nothing to lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aviars

No, that is abuse able. There would be no stopping people who get lucky with their rating and then proceed to throw games for their friends in order to manipulate the the ladder standing, since you know, they have nothing to lose.

---

Such faith in our community!

People can already do this if they want via alts. We all know how many alts there are out there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koltik

Such faith in our community!

People can already do this if they want via alts. We all know how many alts there are out there.

---

Dunno why you would have faith when people actively win trade. And you can already technically do this with mains. It's all about not making it easier for people to do it. Rating is pretty much the only deterrent.

Anyway, just because people can do it in a more tedious and timing consuming way doesn't mean you just make it easier for people to do.

Also Koltik realize that would make competition a joke right. You get a reasonably comfortable rank 1 and then tank your rating in order to snipe people who could possibly contest it? Risking rating is the only way to keep it honest. Which is why no other game does what you are suggesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aviars

Also Koltik realize that would make competition a joke right. You get a reasonably comfortable rank 1 and then tank your rating in order to snipe people who could possibly contest it? Risking rating is the only way to keep it honest. Which is why no other game does what you are suggesting.

---

I just can't imagine anyone that is actually capable of reaching Rank 1 being shitty enough to do that, but okay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aviars

Risking rating is the only way to keep it honest.

---

Absolutely. This is still a competition we're talking about here, not flat progression. NO ONE, no matter the circumstances, should ever feel safe in a competition. You can, and should, always feel the pressure. Right now, I'd go so far as to argue that Feast doesn't have enough pressure as it is, because the top of the leader boards hardly move at all, no matter how abysmal the win rates are. There's no risk, even among themselves, which is not conducive to a proper competitive environment.

Back on point: I'd support the lowering of tier thresholds solely based on the fact that no one ever makes it to diamond rank. That, for me, is proof that point scaling, matchmaking, and point thresholds need to be looked at with scrutiny and adjusted accordingly. I don't know what it's like on the JP servers. Perhaps a bigger player pool supports the current point thresholds over there, but it clearly doesn't work in NA or EU. As far as I'm concerned, no rank (as well as achievements/titles) should be unattainable so long as the player is willing to grind for it. Given that we have some players in the top 100 who have more than 700 matches played yet are no further than gold or platinum, I'd say that diamond is far beyond what should be considered reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koltik

I just can't imagine anyone that is actually capable of reaching Rank 1 being shitty enough to do that, but okay.

---

All games have cheaters, and they don't necessarily have to be capable of rank 1. They can cheat to rank 1 and then be a scumbag if they wish.

Add a ranking decay then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koltik

Add a ranking decay then.

---

Then what you are proposing is redundant. Why have a rank that you are supposed to have saved as the highest rating if you then introduce rating decay?