Thread: 3.2 PvP: Feast Game Mode Discussion Thread.

Originally Posted by Nalien

Isn't that kind of the point? I'd imagine it would promote using Jobs like Dark Knight (which in turn could have people other than me ranting about its flaws) since there would be less competition. I imagine it would balance out, more so if we're locked to a single Job (and given how AP still is I'm almost certain we would be). People would see the early rankings and a lot of competition on certain Jobs, and perhaps move to another one.

While it's true it may provide an even bigger spread of players across the jobs than if you ranked it by roles I feel it would also cheapen and diminish the importance of the ranking when you have a ranking of one job being noticeably and significantly easier to obtain than another. Ranking by roles I think would dampen this noticeably and overall make the rankings more meaningful than if you did it by jobs. Unless you are gonna slash it to something like ranking it as the top 5 for each job.

So, how does the actual promotion qualifier work anyway? I reached 500 points earlier today and I immediately thought "YES! SILVER!", but was informed that the "promotion qualifier" had begun and I was still bronze, lol. I checked my PvP profile and there were suddenly 5 question marks with a number beside each of them (1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 respectively).

When I won my first match, it put a checkmark next to the 1, when I won my second match, it did the same, then when I won my third match, it promoted me to silver. I'm curious to know how this actually works though. Is it a best out of 5 thing or what? Do you automatically get promoted if you win 3 out of 5 of the matches or does it keep the question mark in place until you do win?

If you drop below 500 points during the qualifier, does the qualifier suddenly end? I didn't really get to figure all of this stuff out since I was fortunate enough to get three straight wins during my qualifier. If someone could explain this to me though, I'd appreciate it. I'd just like to know what to expect for next time.

Yeah, it's best 3 out 5. If you had 2 wins and 2 losses then it would go to the 5th match to decide if you promote or not. If you just win 3 in a row then it doesn't need the next two matches, you pass.

Originally Posted by Rufalus

Yeah, it's best 3 out 5. If you had 2 wins and 2 losses then it would go to the 5th match to decide if you promote or not. If you just win 3 in a row then it doesn't need the next two matches, you pass.

I was about to ask what happens to the points you gain during the qualifier, but I just realized you'll pretty much drop back down to 500 anyway if you don't qualify since you gain 25 off a win, then lose 15 or 16 on a loss.

Originally Posted by TetsuyaHikari

I was about to ask what happens to the points you gain during the qualifier, but I just realized you'll pretty much drop back down to 500 anyway if you don't qualify since you gain 25 off a win, then lose 15 or 16 on a loss.

It drops as normal, even if you go below 500. If you lose too many matches on any rank above bronze and fall under the min. then it will demote you as well

Hrm... Alright then. I haven't seen the rankings update today even though the first day it says they were updated at 11:00 P.M. and 12:00 A.M. PDT.

Originally Posted by xTysonx

Its a coin flip either way you determine "personal skill", you could argue the same thing [in terms of solo rank] about being on point as your role, pvp timings, etc etc

That's true, and I understand people's concerns with it. In theory, a player could just have gotten super lucky and advanced in rank even though they actually suck. Vice versa, they could be the best player in their given role and never advance because they get really crappy teams. It's a frustrating thing to see in practice, and I get that. My question, though, is what is the proposed alternative?

Saying that you would rather have the system judge player rankings based on top percentage within specified jobs rather than top overall is fine and dandy, but what are the criteria for making it to the top ranks? How would we be evaluated? If the answer is simply "by our overall number of wins," then not a lot actually changes. Making it a percent value rather than a strict number value simply increases the pool of qualified players (which, admittedly, is preferable), but it doesn't change the fact that your personal ranking is at the mercy of how lucky you get with your teams. You still have to win to make it to that top percentage, and you still have to put up with random players for your qualifier matches. Nothing about that would change just because the ranking rewards are determined by percentage. If you don't make it to diamond rank, then you don't get a seat at the table no matter how big the table is.