Darth__Reaver Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Alright here me out. We have on the leader boards people who play ranked alot with 40+ win yet someone with only 7+ wins is taking up space on the top of the leader boards as well as overall ranked. My suggestion would be to have total of 30 games played in order to at least see your ranked jeez even 20 wouldn't be bad. How would this help pops? Well people will have to que 30+ games to getting a rating. How would this help the leader boards? Well people who lose would not be up on the top 50 (class) taking up space cause they got 7 wins and decided to stop queing because they have a nice rank and don't want it lowered. I feel having the min games played at 10 is way to low. I feel this is a good idea and I maybe far too late in the making since ranked is dead as is (even with the rewards announced) but I feel it had to be said. Thoughts??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenjigreat Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Alright here me out. We have on the leader boards people who play ranked alot with 40+ win yet someone with only 7+ wins is taking up space on the top of the leader boards as well as overall ranked. My suggestion would be to have total of 30 games played in order to at least see your ranked jeez even 20 wouldn't be bad. How would this help pops? Well people will have to que 30+ games to getting a rating. How would this help the leader boards? Well people who lose would not be up on the top 50 (class) taking up space cause they got 7 wins and decided to stop queing because they have a nice rank and don't want it lowered. I feel having the min games played at 10 is way to low. I feel this is a good idea and I maybe far too late in the making since ranked is dead as is (even with the rewards announced) but I feel it had to be said. Thoughts??? According to Bioware , Too much effort , Rejected , Not enough content for PVE , Double Rejected , Doesn't Benefit the Cartel Market , Triple Rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth__Reaver Posted October 18, 2014 Author Share Posted October 18, 2014 According to Bioware , Too much effort , Rejected , Not enough content for PVE , Double Rejected , Doesn't Benefit the Cartel Market , Triple Rejected. But do think this idea if used would work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xeraz Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Generally people in the top with less than 20 games are bugged transfers, bugged name changes or win traders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth__Reaver Posted October 18, 2014 Author Share Posted October 18, 2014 Generally people in the top with less than 20 games are bugged transfers, bugged name changes or win traders. Not true i know few that dont que and their names are up there but thanks for that info I forgot people can xfer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenjigreat Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 But do think this idea if used would work? There is too much wrong with Solo Que Ranked PvP right now and that wouldn't fix much, PVErs still going to "Get their Relics" from Solo Ranked, /stuckers. Accusations of Que Syncers . Team Ranked has the Opposite problem , no teams and que syncers who que at some weird hour to win trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tellenn Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Really if you're talking about solo ranked no one takes elo seriously anyway. It just depends if you get lucky during your first 20 or so matches. elo isn't appropriate for solo ranked the way it currently functions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adovir Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 I really don't see how this change would help the leader board, except for people with huge egos. Those people, assuming you to 10-0,which only the tops of the classes only really get, get a ~1400 rating. If you're some serious ranked pvper you should be getting a good rank compaired to bads. So what it's there 100k people on you class leader board or 1m across all classes doesn't really change much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToMyMa Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Really if you're talking about solo ranked no one takes elo seriously anyway. It just depends if you get lucky during your first 20 or so matches. elo isn't appropriate for solo ranked the way it currently functions. Indeed. The server you're playing on is also really important, just take a look at ToFN - the imps have the server on lockdown. Kinda. But the problem is just that the majority of the good players have realized that there simply are too many scrubs on rep side compared to imp side, and as such have all gone imp side. It's virtually impossible to get a good rating as a rep there; I started out under 1000 (1-9 w/l ain't a good start) and worked my way to 1250 something. Since then I've been within -60 or +60 of that; Elo hell to be honest. It really doesn't help that losing against an "All-Galaxy" team yields -13 rating Oh well, 3.0 seems really interesting, so I guess a mount, some gear and a title isn't going to change anything significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToMyMa Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 I really don't see how this change would help the leader board, except for people with huge egos. Those people, assuming you to 10-0,which only the tops of the classes only really get, get a ~1400 rating. If you're some serious ranked pvper you should be getting a good rank compaired to bads. So what it's there 100k people on you class leader board or 1m across all classes doesn't really change much You can't gain rating on the "losing" side of your server, despite how good you may be, WITHOUT sync queuing/win trading etc. You can be the best player in the world, playing the most OP class, but you simply cannot carry 3 idiots against a decent team; it's a sad reality and the only real flaw with solo ranked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxmob Posted October 18, 2014 Share Posted October 18, 2014 Alright here me out. We have on the leader boards people who play ranked alot with 40+ win yet someone with only 7+ wins is taking up space on the top of the leader boards as well as overall ranked. My suggestion would be to have total of 30 games played in order to at least see your ranked jeez even 20 wouldn't be bad. How would this help pops? Well people will have to que 30+ games to getting a rating. How would this help the leader boards? Well people who lose would not be up on the top 50 (class) taking up space cause they got 7 wins and decided to stop queing because they have a nice rank and don't want it lowered. I feel having the min games played at 10 is way to low. I feel this is a good idea and I maybe far too late in the making since ranked is dead as is (even with the rewards announced) but I feel it had to be said. Thoughts??? I think your 30 game minimum to count for the leader board is too low. I think 50 is reasonable. I could easily play all 10 of my 55s and meet that requirement if I so choose. They still need a rating at 10 games just to place them on teams, but totally with you about requiring more games before your rating "counts" for season awards/leader boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth__Reaver Posted October 19, 2014 Author Share Posted October 19, 2014 I think your 30 game minimum to count for the leader board is too low. I think 50 is reasonable. I could easily play all 10 of my 55s and meet that requirement if I so choose. They still need a rating at 10 games just to place them on teams, but totally with you about requiring more games before your rating "counts" for season awards/leader boards. Thanks man i see you understand completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts