Feast tier requirements should probably be lowered

[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.

[SuperZay]

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.

[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.

[SuperZay]

You need only to look at leaderboard to see the faults of this system. Those who have over 500 matches have close to 50% win rate because the more you play the lower your win rate. If they lose and win the same amount of points, they may never reach a place of those who did 100 matches with 70 wins week one and never qued again. How, exactly, is it fair?
Edit: just checked Chaos' top 100, everyone with over 1000 matches has win rate between 47.1 an 50.5%. There are people placed higher with less than 100 wins.

[Aviars]

You need only to look at leaderboard to see the faults of this system. Those who have over 500 matches have close to 50% win rate because the more you play the lower your win rate. If they lose and win the same amount of points, they may never reach a place of those who did 100 matches with 70 wins week one and never qued again. How, exactly, is it fair?
Edit: just checked Chaos' top 100, everyone with over 1000 matches has win rate between 47.1 an 50.5%. There are people placed higher with less than 100 wins.

Win rate doesn't actually mean anything beyond the fact that they probably deserve a even higher rating depending on what is going on if they have very high win rates. You playing more doesn't mean you deserve a higher rating. People having around a 50% win rate means they've ended up settling around the rating that their skills and matchmaking allows. This is especially true for people with over 1000 games. People need to stop thinking that winrates are a indication of a problem.

[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.

[Aviars]

I personally get sad a lot about this because there are a lot of people that are in the 20's and 10's in the leader board, but they don't feel any accomplishment from it, mostly because being gold isn't seen as something to be proud about.

[Februs]

I personally get sad a lot about this because there are a lot of people that are in the 20's and 10's in the leader board, but they don't feel any accomplishment from it, mostly because being gold isn't seen as something to be proud about.

That really varies on a player by player basis. There are some players, especially in the top 20, who are worth their salt and should , rightfully, be proud of their accomplishments. There are others, however, who really aren't worth the rank they're sitting on.

Within the top 100, there are definitely a few players who deserve much higher rankings, as well as others who deserve much, much, lower rankings, especially those who have remained relatively inactive. Some of those names haven't been seen in matches for a month or more; whereas, there are others who are on almost every night, grinding away endlessly, but struggle to keep a decent spot. When the ranking system allows for positions to get that skewed, it's a lot easier to keep respect for individual players who deserve it rather than specific ranks as a whole.

[Praesul]

Of course people with many games will have a winrate closer to 50%, that's the point. The more matches you play the more accurate of a display of your skill it is.

That isn't to say that a lot of the top players aren't good (because most of them are!) but using Aether as an example, most of the top 10 last season were hovering around 53 - 55% winrate after hundreds of matches, with only one outlier. So now they know better than to spam games out, because all it can do is harm them. It's a shitty system that incentives getting a good spot early and then just stopping because playing more puts you at risk.

[SuperZay]

You playing more doesn't mean you deserve a higher rating.

Playing more contributes to activity of the mode, not playing and afk sitting on rating makes ques longer until they eventually completely die like Season 1. So playing more should be encouraged and rewarded, including with rating gain, right now it's the opposite, it's not in people's interests to que more and dead mode is more beneficial for afkers than for active players.