Jump to content
  • Sign Up

STOP ALLOWING , FREE Alt account to be made/played in RANK


zoopop.5630

Recommended Posts

this crap needs to be stopped already it's getting way out of control, Don't even need to list the reasons why it's pretty OBV as to why. Stop making Core accounts that are freshly made to play this game rank ques. They can do Unrank, At's , Inhouse, and Monthly but please keep them out of rank.

@Ben Phongluangtham.1065 Can you please explain why this is allowed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

@"mortrialus.3062" said:What's going on? I haven't PvP'd since the ban wave happened. New accounts need to reach rank 20 before doing rated games.

1: ban accounts/players easily get back into the game with zero issues....2: People get on alt accounts to "troll" or "throw games"3: people get on alt accounts to help"carry" games.

those are JUST 3 simple/stupid reasons to just not have "core" accounts even allowed to play rank, MAKES no sense at all have people actually "pay" a some amount to be allowed to play "rank" on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree.

Let’s address the opposing argument though. “New players that come into the game and want to play PvP see they have to pay to compete might discourage them from trying the game at all.”

So why is this not the case?——————Assume you’re F2P and play untill you’re rank 20. For most bew players I believe this is among the lines of 60 games. At this point you kinda got a feel for the game and know if you want to buy it or not.

With the current unrestricted ranked new f2p players just hit level 20 and jump into ranked, will likely get rekt by people running elite spec meta builds, get discouraged from “p2w” (not really, as it is b2p game in nature; but you get it) and not want to buy it in the end.

Now if instead you restrict ranked, after level 20 the player will already know if the game is worth their money or not.

If not, the discussion is irrelevant anyway, right? They’ll quit the game anyway probably sooner rather than later.

If yes however, they’re gonna buy the game and start ranked on equal footing to everyone else, and are less likely to feel they’re under unfair advantage.Who am I kidding, they’ll come here to complain about broken matchmaking xD.

But this is an additional benefit to all of those the OP mentioned of reducing match manipulation with alts by a slight amount. (Most manipulation alts have xpacs to help them win if they need to)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@"Abelisk.4527" said:Make F2P require rank 80 maybe?

I think this makes more sense actually.Last year I created a F2P account on EU servers to see if the ping was better for me(main acc is on NA). As many of you who have an alt F2P acc already know, there are certain restrictions placed on characters and where they can/cannot go.Characters below level 10 cannot enter a major city; characters cannot enter LA until they reach level 35; and finally, characters cannot play in WvW until they have reached level 60 at least.If we use a similar approach - but using rank, it would probably help the situation.

selfquote from an earlier thread:https://en-forum.guildwars2.com/discussion/comment/470529

Having checked the numbers on ranks ( https://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/PvP_Rank) I think Dragon might be a little too high.Shark rank seems a bit more reasonable to me - it requires 891500 points to reach.So if we do some rather rough maths - 1500 points for a win 500 for a loss; let's say people average out to 50/50 win:loss so we are saying 1000 points (average) per match - at that rate it takes ~891 games to reach there.Maybe even Bear rank since that's about 692 matches. It's a reasonable enough number to deter some people from going into the "alt game" but not so high that dedicated new players see it as huge mountain to scale.

Also, this may positively impact the quality of players in ranked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MarshallLaw.9260 said:

@"Abelisk.4527" said:Make F2P require rank 80 maybe?

I think this makes more sense actually.Last year I created a F2P account on EU servers to see if the ping was better for me(main acc is on NA). As many of you who have an alt F2P acc already know, there are certain restrictions placed on characters and where they can/cannot go.Characters below level 10 cannot enter a major city; characters cannot enter LA until they reach level 35; and finally, characters cannot play in WvW until they have reached level 60 at least.If we use a similar approach - but using rank, it would probably help the situation.

selfquote from an earlier thread:

Having checked the numbers on ranks (
) I think Dragon might be a little too high.Shark rank seems a bit more reasonable to me - it requires 891500 points to reach.So if we do some rather rough maths - 1500 points for a win 500 for a loss; let's say people average out to 50/50 win:loss so we are saying 1000 points (average) per match - at that rate it takes ~891 games to reach there.Maybe even Bear rank since that's about 692 matches. It's a reasonable enough number to deter some people from going into the "alt game" but not so high that dedicated new players see it as huge mountain to scale.

Also, this may positively impact the quality of players in ranked.

I’d say maybe rank 20 is too low, but rank 50 is way too high for an entry level barrier.At the very most rank 40, but rank 30 is probably best.

People are mostly looking for ridiculously high restrictions because then “people will know how to play and I won’t have bot teams” but no.Keep in mind the environment of unranked is not competitive, and sticking people that seek to play comp in unranked for too long will:1) not improve them2) get them bored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kiritodatrth.1548 said:I still play Core in ranked and unranked, although I'm not playing this season... It's just unfair to not allow players to play ranked,It's ppl behavior that generates that, I don't think that just blocking F2P accounts to play ranked is the answer to fix that.

The issue isn't just the builds though - it's the ease with which F2P accounts can be used to manipulate games/ rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chilli.2976 said:I have already made a post about this last season - no response so I don't think they are planning on removing it..

One can only try. The bigger the outcry, the harder it is to ignore it. That's the only way how you get results unfortunately.Anyway, I agree that F2P Accounts should either be prohibited from play ranked or they would have to reach much higher pvp level in order to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nappa.1904 said:

@Chilli.2976 said:I have already made a post about this last season - no response so I don't think they are planning on removing it..

One can only try. The bigger the outcry, the harder it is to ignore it. That's the only way how you get results unfortunately.Anyway, I agree that F2P Accounts should either be prohibited from play ranked or they would have to reach much higher pvp level in order to do so.

I might as well bump all my old posts that are still relevant and have no been addressed lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BeLZedaR.4790 said:

@"Abelisk.4527" said:Make F2P require rank 80 maybe?

I think this makes more sense actually.Last year I created a F2P account on EU servers to see if the ping was better for me(main acc is on NA). As many of you who have an alt F2P acc already know, there are certain restrictions placed on characters and where they can/cannot go.Characters below level 10 cannot enter a major city; characters cannot enter LA until they reach level 35; and finally, characters cannot play in WvW until they have reached level 60 at least.If we use a similar approach - but using rank, it would probably help the situation.

selfquote from an earlier thread:

Having checked the numbers on ranks (
) I think Dragon might be a little too high.Shark rank seems a bit more reasonable to me - it requires 891500 points to reach.So if we do some rather rough maths - 1500 points for a win 500 for a loss; let's say people average out to 50/50 win:loss so we are saying 1000 points (average) per match - at that rate it takes ~891 games to reach there.Maybe even Bear rank since that's about 692 matches. It's a reasonable enough number to deter some people from going into the "alt game" but not so high that dedicated new players see it as huge mountain to scale.

Also, this may positively impact the quality of players in ranked.

I’d say maybe rank 20 is too low, but rank 50 is way too high for an entry level barrier.At the very most rank 40, but rank 30 is probably best.

People are mostly looking for ridiculously high restrictions because then “people will know how to play and I won’t have bot teams” but no.Keep in mind the environment of unranked is not competitive, and sticking people that seek to play comp in unranked for too long will:1) not improve them2) get them bored.

Well, there are 2 parts to this suggestion. Raise the bar for ranked entry to lets say level 40/50 across the board and for F2P accounts have it 10 or 20 levels higher than that (50 or 60).As for unranked, I would say that it is fairly competitive with some decent players when it's off-season - I've played plenty of enjoyable matches during this time. It wasn't until I tried to practice a new build during S10 that I realized just how horrendous unranked gets when leagues/season are active. The reason is that, appart from those leveling to rank 20, there is absolutely no reason for people to be in unranked at that time.1) - I would argue that spending more time in pvp does make you better simply due to map repetition, and seeing what techniques work or don't. Getting to r20 takes fewer than 150 matches (on average). A lot of those you may be carried and not know it, many you might just be against completely incompetent players and feel like you're great when actually you're only better than the worst.2) - Boredom is subjective. There are no new mechanics in ranked compared to unranked, it's just the rewards which differ and perhaps the caliber of players.. If you are someone who enjoys PvP enough, boredom shouldn't be a problem in this scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@mortrialus.3062 said:What's going on? I haven't PvP'd since the ban wave happened. New accounts need to reach rank 20 before doing rated games.

To reach lvl 20 in pvp takes few games. You can easily do it in custom arenas.

Ranked rank should be lvl 80. Until people haven't played thousand of games they have no idea what to do. Unranked is a place to learn pvp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ANET should act on this to increase sales anyway. FtP accounts should be able to queue unranked and then grow willing to pay in order to test themselves on the competitive ranked level. Of course, ranked cheats will then have to have multiple paid accounts. They'll then be paying more in order to have the satisfaction of an imaginary social status that they couldn't actually earn with skill. Allaround good business for ANET.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@BeLZedaR.4790 said:

@"Abelisk.4527" said:Make F2P require rank 80 maybe?

I think this makes more sense actually.Last year I created a F2P account on EU servers to see if the ping was better for me(main acc is on NA). As many of you who have an alt F2P acc already know, there are certain restrictions placed on characters and where they can/cannot go.Characters below level 10 cannot enter a major city; characters cannot enter LA until they reach level 35; and finally, characters cannot play in WvW until they have reached level 60 at least.If we use a similar approach - but using rank, it would probably help the situation.

selfquote from an earlier thread:

Having checked the numbers on ranks (
) I think Dragon might be a little too high.Shark rank seems a bit more reasonable to me - it requires 891500 points to reach.So if we do some rather rough maths - 1500 points for a win 500 for a loss; let's say people average out to 50/50 win:loss so we are saying 1000 points (average) per match - at that rate it takes ~891 games to reach there.Maybe even Bear rank since that's about 692 matches. It's a reasonable enough number to deter some people from going into the "alt game" but not so high that dedicated new players see it as huge mountain to scale.

Also, this may positively impact the quality of players in ranked.

I’d say maybe rank 20 is too low, but rank 50 is way too high for an entry level barrier.At the very most rank 40, but rank 30 is probably best.

People are mostly looking for ridiculously high restrictions because then “people will know how to play and I won’t have bot teams” but no.Keep in mind the environment of unranked is not competitive, and sticking people that seek to play comp in unranked for too long will:1) not improve them2) get them bored.

Ehh, it's better than being locked out from Ranked as F2P completely. By the time a core player hits Rank 80 they should have some grasp of how to PVP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...