Last edited on 31 May 2017 - 08:23 PM by KingBooger
Before, past legends in arena such as Danteh, Tylarzz, and even present ones like iHackLiTE have reached a point of consistency in their respective ladders which renders them almost unbeatable.In the new season, as the ranks get higher, there are 2 rankings that I would like to see changed in the way they work: Diamond and Masters (I still believe that the best player should be GrandMaster). Diamond wouldn't transition into Masters, and instead would be the highest ELO category that you could have. Masters would be a completely different category. Instead of reaching a certain rating, it would be based on consecutive wins. The requirements would be:
-Must be a 2500 (or the new Masters set ELO) or above
-Must win 50 ranked matches of Build UHC in a row with ANY queuing system and any ranking emerald and above
What do you think? I think this would add a whole new dimension to how "good" someone is.
All of this is subject to change, I would like to see what the community thinks of this.
Posted on 31 May 2017 - 05:32 PM
I do agree with this problem, but if this person trying to get Grandmaster is on his 49th win, then he gets hacked on. I don't know about this one. I like the idea so i would give it a +1 but I think to put the winning streak down to 25 would be a good idea :PPosted on 31 May 2017 - 05:42 PM
GetComboed_ wrote
It's master that requires this, not grandmaster.
When you get up into 2600 or 2700 it takes a win to loss ratio of around 20-1 or even 30-1 to keep your elo, not even gain some. The 50 wins could be better than 25 to really prove you are a "master" at said ladder.
Posted on 31 May 2017 - 11:39 PM
BUMPPosted on 01 June 2017 - 07:06 PM
GetComboed_ wrote
Posted on 01 June 2017 - 07:52 PM
-1, there are very few players that were actually able to achieve this point of consistency, so it's not something everyone can do. And the players who have reached this point of consistency are usually only that good in one of their ladders.Posted on 01 June 2017 - 08:04 PM
Creqth wrote
"Very few players". Isn't that what Masters is about?
Posted on 01 June 2017 - 08:12 PM
KingBooger wrote
Creqth wrote...
"Very few players". Isn't that what Masters is about?
Posted on 01 June 2017 - 08:33 PM
Creqth wrote
KingBooger wrote...
So you want Masters to be easier to achieve?
Posted on 01 June 2017 - 08:34 PM
A winstreak to determine a rank up seems very inconsistent since some players might only queue against low ELO opponents while others also queue high ELO opponents. I don't mind the idea of having ranks that are disconnected from the standard bunch, but I'd take a different approach.A better idea would be to have the top X amount of players from each ladder's Diamond/Masters ranks get promoted to the next rank while the bottom X amount of players from Masters/Grandmasters get demoted to the previous rank. Afaik this is how ESEA does their rank G & rank S.
Posted on 01 June 2017 - 08:40 PM
Automatically DeletedPosted on 01 June 2017 - 10:57 PM
HalfCreeper wrote
A better idea would be to have the top X amount of players from each ladder's Diamond/Masters ranks get promoted to the next rank while the bottom X amount of players from Masters/Grandmasters get demoted to the previous rank. Afaik this is how ESEA does their rank G & rank S.
That's why it says the people they play must be emerald or up.
As for your other point where only a certain amount of people can be a rank, I could see you guys putting a percentile rating next to the actual rating to show how good you are on a curve. This would also have more challenging milestones, like "Top 1% Build UHC" or something like that. I think I'll make a thread on this…