Can be the rank system revised?

[Sean Cappone]

Greetings all

I'm here to ask if is possible to keep playing ranked games...

What I mean?

Actually high points ranked players must wait for hours to play a game and personally I play ranked game only because in ranked games there are no rage quitters.

but

There is a bad balance-system, where the spread between the 2 teams must be incredibly low.


The indecent purpose...

What about disable the spread and let people decide if the spread between the 2 teams is too high for them or not? As it was before! Great the idea to introduce the amount of points for each team, but if you delete the spread auto-balance lock there will be more ranked games, and less quitters, so more people will be happy to play, someone for the ranking system, someone for a game without rage quitters, and also the willpower of playing well will come more.

Please give us a better game, leave the players the freedom to play which game they wish.

Thank you

[surfingerman]

i think its fine, i just think its too easy for people to get to high points. Getting to like 500 points should be much harder or near impossible. Somehow the system in place adds alot more points to your score when you win than when you loose or something like taht so people keep getting more points. But the spread doesn't rise to match. We cant go back to the no number limits or ranked games will become a joke again, i wont be able to play a balanced game unless i host it myself and then no one will join because the game is balanced.

Or actually i have another idea i like more, if you go beyond the 250 limit, it turns red to signify that you have passed the rank limit, and the team that is over rank limit cannot win points form the ranked game.

[Sean Cappone]

i think its fine, i just think its too easy for people to get to high points. Getting to like 500 points should be much harder or near impossible. Somehow the system in place adds alot more points to your score when you win than when you loose or something like taht so people keep getting more points. But the spread doesn't rise to match. We cant go back to the no number limits or ranked games will become a joke again, i wont be able to play a balanced game unless i host it myself and then no one will join because the game is balanced.

there is an ELO system that makes the gain (and loss) system balanced

I just ask for freedom, nothing more

[[A][GIO]-Max]

I totally agree with Sean.

[Bullet_Force]

This is the reason why I like my low score and why I don't play ranked games anymore.

I've kept it just under 200 and even with that you still get people not wanting to play against you in unranked games. Was 914 before the last reset.

[Mad_Morgan]

I think removing the limiter would be a good idea but have the points lost and gained be 1-5 when the match is fought at the current limit or higher point difference.

[[Hussars]Toomek]

I really could never understand the change of ranked system.
ELO system worked pretty fine to me. If we are so aware about farming points on noobs, then we can just decrease amount of points you get from unfair matches even more.
But this system...

Well I got invited to a ranked game with a friend once, everybody was waiting for one more player.
We couldn't play because I had 200 points in compare to their and enemies 500-ish.
We were weaker team in score but we still wanted to play.
Why on the Earth couldn't we?

[Sean Cappone]

I really could never understand the change of ranked system.
ELO system worked pretty fine to me. If we are so aware about farming points on noobs, then we can just decrease amount of points you get from unfair matches even more.
But this system...

Well I got invited to a ranked game with a friend once, everybody was waiting for one more player.
We couldn't play because I had 200 points in compare to their and enemies 500-ish.
We were weaker team in score but we still wanted to play.
Why on the Earth couldn't we?

I love you, is exactly my PoV. Leave the players the freedom to play. for example, if we dislike elo, place a gap were if the differe is 200 pt you gain 10 pt from the victory, if it is 900+ you get only 1

[ShtoormoVick]

Yes, a voluntarily made decision is better in this case than an enforced prohibition.
After all, it is only logical, that this kind of decisions are to be made by players, not by the game.

[DasBlutDK]

Nearly all of the ranked games were majorly stacked, before the balance protection was added. Quite predictable games and a key prerequisite seemed to be, that you knew somebody. Still is, but to a lesser degree. So that is very positive, but it still seems too rigid with only 250 points difference allowed in games, where most of the players have 400-800 points. Even if all the players shuffled around, it can be impossible to get it to fit. At that level 600 points difference would be more reasonable.