PVP Ranking Idea

[Korihu]

just start by increasing points loss for each rank to:

Bronze = - 10
Silver = - 15
Gold = - 20
Platinum = - 25
Diamond = Scales from 25 ~ 40 depending on team total ratings

you will start seeing proper players playing on the rank they deserve.
n

That is how it used to be in Season 1. Gold ranked players were actually decent and good, plat players were great, and diamond players were gods. Then for some godforsaken reason they made rank so stupid to gain in season 3, with Gold and even platinum being achieved by horrible players even with a 30% winrate and a 2 rank above and below system that made games memey and unfun even if you got Diamond.

I still cannot fathom why they made the rank point gain/loss so entirely ridiculous. Is it to make bad players feel good about themselves when they get a shiny rank?

[SuperZay]

Maybe because there was only 1 Diamond in the world across all datacenters in Season 2 which didn't meet their quota.

[Korihu]

Maybe because there was only 1 Diamond in the world across all datacenters in Season 2 which didn't meet their quota.

That was because the matchmaking in season 2 was terrible. You could get matched across all ranks. They tried to balance matches to be like plat/gold/silver/unranked. The higher rank you got, the higher chance yiu got to get someone completely new and unranked in your team. This made climbing that high impossible as you will lose with complete newbies on the team. Which made even the best people stuck around a certain rank, as them being the best meant notbing when stuck with a first-time-in-feast newbie.

They should have just gone back to the season 1 point gain/loss but the season 3s 2 ranks above and below system for queues. With the ridiculously n easy rank gain AND 2 ranks above and below it makes matchmaking mean nothing at all. At least Golds in the season 1 system weren't memes.

[Wintersandman]

If my memory serves, we got an official no on top 100 per role in a recent interview

I said top 25 per role which would also be locked into 100 people as it is currently.

That would require a lock on the role/job someone will be using before queueing on his first ranked match of the season. I don't think is good idea.

No it wouldn't. It would have the player commit to a role they were best in. You could do your first 12 matches as the various jobs to find out what you were best at. Then at some point yes you would commit. But aren't most people committed to their roles?

[Cynric]

snip

What he means I think is that we'd have to lock the role/job you start playing as, ie. when I started this season I queued as Samurai, if for some reason I wanted to switch to monk/bard, I'd be locked out of switching.

And no, actually, a lot of people switch quite a bit, quite a bit of the healers on the board(aether) actually aren't healer main. That's just the role that they had most luck with this season.

If the system was changed to what you say, it's actually likely that the amount of healers currently on the board would go down.

While not likely to happen, I would agree that if this were to happen, a role lock/job lock would be a requirement. Otherwise we'd run into a situation down the road where say, Player A has 2000 Melee/Ranged/Healer rating and is number 1 on every board on one character. It'd be similar to the current alt situation but worse.

I also feel like Top 25 per role is very different than Top 100 in general.

For example, many players currently queue as ranged DPS, while less players queue as melee DPS, The melee boards would be far easier to climb than the ranged boards.

While Top 100 in it's current iteration is far from perfect, I don't think this is a proper deviation from the formula and likely why we were told no.

[Wintersandman]

Stuff.

I never said Job/Role Lock. That would be ridiculous. If you found out you weren't ranking up among the melee group you can switch to healer. You would have to start from 0 but you could still switch.

When I said people committed to their jobs. Generally if you start feast as a Monk, you're typically not going to switch to Dragoon in the middle of the season. TYPICALLY being the keyword.

[Sunako]

What if some person like to play multiple different role? Then there should be separated rating between each role like if you have 1000 rating your healer and you wanna change for tank, rating should start from zero and if you change to healer again you should carry on from 1000 rating where your healer left.

[Wintersandman]

What if some person like to play multiple different role? Then there should be separated rating between each role like if you have 1000 rating your healer and you wanna change for tank, rating should start from zero and if you change to healer again you should carry on from 1000 rating where your healer left.

That is exactly what I was suggesting. With awards only being for the top 25 for each role.

[Cynric]

snip

No one is saying you said the thing about locking, You're misunderstanding. The person you originally quoted said it would have to be that way, and I agreed with them. There should be some type of lock.

People will definitely switch if nerfs/buffs happen mid season as they are currently. It happens in every competitive game. It's actually quite common to switch things up if your job/character/role are nerfed or another is buffed heavily.

That said, however, if you were to start from zero every time you switched that wouldn't be very different than a lock honestly, and would fix the ability to be on multiple boards being a problem.

Conversely if you were able to keep your rating, the issue would still stand.

I can't really think of a way to make a Top 25 per role similar to the Top 100 players overall at this time.


If player A were to attain 2000 Rating as Healer/Melee/Ranged, you'd have One player effectively taking up 3 slots out of a Top "100" and one slot of each Top 25, It would only take 10 well versed players to Turn a Top 25 into a Top 15 (ish) per role.

[RalLamora]

Wouldn't this have a big impact on queue times? If right now healers are the least played role, then making a change that incentivizes people to play healers less would likely be quite bad overall for feast.

I know for me personally queue times are by far the biggest problem i have with feast, and anything that would make that worse would be a bad change even if it did make the system fairer for people.