Value those who play ranked more

[Delweyn.1309]

Yes, the strategy for a lot (big majority) of players is to play the minimum of matches required to be in the top 250.It's normal, they adapt to the system of minimum matches established by Anet for casuals gamers.

But it has numerous negative sides :

• players does strategies (and cheating/wintrading...) to keep them in the top
• there are less players who play in pvp
• matchmaking is especially bad in the top because there are less people in the top who play

So I think that the game should keep the minimum of matches for casuals ...BUTit should value more players who play more.

It's not normal that a player can be top 3 with 80-50 and another one behind with 350-290.

Pls do something about this.

[cursE.1794]

skill > effort

The ranking should represent the best players, not the most active ones. They did what you suggest to the table tennis world ranking and it's just pathetic. Ma Long, the best player in the world, is now world rank 7 although he would wipe the floor with everyone from 3-6 unless he had a bad day.

[BeLZedaR.4790]

The only issue is the wintrading, nothing else really.If you want people at the top to play more, then the requirement for 2-1 or even 4-1 or higher win to loss ratio JUST TO BREAK EVEN needs to stop.On the flipside though if this gets fixed you’ll have people going skyhigh ratings and it becomes too much about who plays more and not necessarily about who is best.

I think the solution would be to just scale down gains and losses to be very minimal as you approach 2100 rating - instead of going -20 and +8 it would be like +2/-5 so that you don’t drop out of legend immediately if you lose more than 1 game.

[bLind.6278]

@"BeLZedaR.4790" said:The only issue is the wintrading, nothing else really.If you want people at the top to play more, then the requirement for 2-1 or even 4-1 or higher win to loss ratio JUST TO BREAK EVEN needs to stop.On the flipside though if this gets fixed you’ll have people going skyhigh ratings and it becomes too much about who plays more and not necessarily about who is best.

I think the solution would be to just scale down gains and losses to be very minimal as you approach 2100 rating - instead of going -20 and +8 it would be like +2/-5 so that you don’t drop out of legend immediately if you lose more than 1 game.

Should be a bell curve of point gain, ideally. People at the extremes are probably there for a reason and shouldn't benefit or be punished too dramatically for being carried to a win or loss by better or worse people. This is where you win more if you're better or lose more if you're worse because your competition is more consistent for better or worse.

Mid range should stay fairly volatile merely to keep players fluctuating between the extremes. If you can string together wins, you see some rewards and maybe get a few games on the upper end where a couple of losses doesn't completely kill your efforts, but the inverse is also true. If you lose a bunch in a row, you get "stuck" until you win your way out.

Even then, 2-5 point losses in the extremes and 5-10 in the middle should be about as much movement as anyone deserves. Maybe 5-15 in the middle at most.