Remove badges from players who are not at the required games for the season progression.

[Bazsi.2734]

On 12/3/2022 at 4:44 AM, magickthief.6492 said:

Okay, so can they make the change?

Why bother putting in work into something that people do not care about?

[Goldilock.2584]

If it aint a leg badge then your badge aint worth showing

[Spellhunter.9675]

41 minutes ago, Goldilock.2584 said:

If it aint a leg badge then your badge aint worth showing

As of now leg badge is material for mockery most of the times.

[Sahne.6950]

10 hours ago, Goldilock.2584 said:

If it aint a leg badge then your badge aint worth showing

having a bronze one... THATS A FLEX ❤️

they are rarer than plat, lul

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by Sahne.6950

[Arimir.5864]

Here's my 2c worth..... ofc all my opinions

I'd rather there be a requirement to earn and maintain a certain amount of ranking XP (rabbit, deer, dolyak, etc) for each profession/major-build-change a person has/makes before it's allowed to even enter any ranked or tournament pvp. I'd rather see decay on that and a certain amount rank XP (rabbit, deer, dolyak, etc) earned to be allowed to enter per season as an entry condition. I'd even go as far as increasing the placement rounds to 12. Decay on league rating does nothing really except cripple people who don't play often imo

 

Too many times I been caught with teams or 2s/3s players who have never played the profession or build they have queued with, and it hurts those who want to see green +{numbers} in the game history, and fairer games

 

I'd also rather see people who have a sizable 'being reported' history in match instances have their ranking XP (rabbit, deer, dolyak, etc) diminished for AFK/match-making, etc.

I'd also rather see league divisions (bronze, silver, gold, plat, legendary) become unlockable, based on the same algorithm matchmaking uses, the glicko2 algorithm. Ie; usually a silver player but briefly got to gold? Imo you should need to win so many matches at silver rating for either a season (or two?) to unlock gold. Usually a gold player but get teamed up who don't demonstrate that in the match? You should not be matched with them in the first place, but you should also not be demerited because of it either... yes, I know the glicko2 algorithm has a "confidence score" on your rating via accumulative residual deviations, but maybe it needs to do historical regressions against all team players in a season's history to figure out your expected rating better (something for the big brains at anet who balance these things)
 

Of course, these are just my opinions, but I personally see a reprimand on ranking XP (rabbit, deer, dolyak, etc) as an extra condition to entry a more suitable "reward" for these players

 

Many people say ranked pvp is just for gold, or, the tournaments every 2 hours is just for gold. For others, it's the primary game mode they want to play and/or are mostly invested into. IMO having that approach to ranked pvp is like saying, "but I have a L30 necro, I want to come to HT CM with my friend who is new to the game and a L12 guardian". There's unranked for all the reasons that it exists, as there are servers in the game browser people can use.. or the Arena Waypoint to 'try things out'

Being a gold or plat player (or whatnot) and having to be on a 2 week work trip should not invalidate your badge imo. I reckon being a "bad player" or trying new (major build changes) should make that player "earn" their way back

Lastly, get rid of the ability to swap characters, or builds when the queue pops. You queued with a particular character + build.. that is the choice you play with imo!!!

😄

Edited December 5, 2022 by Arimir.5864

[ButterPeanut.9746]

TBH the opposite direction of this is actually the right answer IMO. What should happen is that the leaderboard should always show everyone's rating, regardless of number of games played. They could 'gray out' the players who haven't made the game minimum for that week, and then at the very end of the season it should just remove the players who haven't done 120 games. 

 

At this point in the games lifespan, transparency should be priority. There's no reason why it should be possible to just hide under the game minimum. 

Edited December 7, 2022 by ButterPeanut.9746