Feast tier requirements should probably be lowered

[Koltik]

Add a ranking decay then.

[Aviars]

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?

[Koltik]

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?

"Then" meaning "Instead of" in this case, since you guys clearly don't want the other proposal.

[Aviars]

"Then" meaning "Instead of" in this case, since you guys clearly don't want the other proposal.

I'm not against it. But this is going a little to off-topic from what I made this thread for. I know there are numerous problems to the feast but I'd rather not continue talking about something entirely different from what the OP was about.

So that would take only 12 wins to rank up? Pretty much everyone will be Diamond in a few feeks then. What needs to be done is to increase points for wins and decrease for lose. Right now, I see people who only did 60-70 wins week one, never qued again and they are still in top 30, and will probably remain in top 50 by the end of season. Meanwhile people with over 500 matches come and go from top100 regularly, depending on quality of healers quing at any given day.
Just like with season 1, quing is simply not in people intersests when they reach a certain rating fast. With score adjustments they didn't fixed the core issue, and I see mostly new players with majority of top100 stopping queing.

Saying it only takes 12 wins to rank up is entirely disingenuous since you would have to win every game and not lose once. Winning one game then losing one means you still have to win a positive 12 games on top of your breaking even.

Another thing to say is that Aether only has 15 people above 1300. Try and be accurate to what you are trying to say if you are to disagree with the OP, not everyone will be diamond and it's been well over 2 months.

Also week 1 barely had any golds, I doubt what you are saying is actually true.

[Februs]

Also week 1 barely had any golds, I doubt what you are saying is actually true.

It's exaggerated a little, but, sadly, it's not exactly false.

Week 1 didn't have many golds, that's true, but you didn't have to be gold ranked to remain within the top 100. The bottom tier is only 800 pts. I had that many in the first two weeks, rocking about a 70% win rate. If I had stopped playing then and there, I would still be in the top 100 today (albeit barely). If I had played enough in the early season to play my way to gold rank, then I could have remained dormant until today and still been at a rank that would be considered relatively "safe," given that the leader boards move so little. Whether or not I deserved that rank is a different story.

That said, you're 100% correct that the issue isn't as simple as just win rates and total matches played. Selective queuing, the matchmaking system, personal performance, and even job balance (specifically the ability to carry a team or throw a match) all factor into this as well. Inactive players protecting their ranks is definitely part of the problem, but it's only a small part compared to the much bigger picture. If reducing the point threshold for each rank generates some activity, then I'm all for it. If adjusting the point scaling for wins and losses (perhaps being a bit more specific in regards to how many points are lost or gained by having unranked or first time players in your party) helped things out, then I'm totally fine with that too. As long as diamond becomes a viable option for those of you who play enough to get to it, and matchmaking is optimized to generate more matches per rank tier, then it's probably a good change and should be considered.