Changing who can play ranked

[Thanks.6859]

> @"zealex.9410" said:

> By AC u mean AP? If yes... why?

 

Yes AP because the majority of players that DC AND AFK have something in common .They are always under 3 k . If you right click there name and add as friend you can see there points. These low lvl AP Point players also talk all map its quit annoying All im saying is people here even in this post say the pvp arena Is dyeing this ill make it worse I disagree I never have to wait long to join a game 2-3 min tops and if it goes over that I just re que problem solved. Im not looking to be the best or make a name for myself Iam looking for somewhat competitive play. Each season I play 500+ games I have (SS) T0 prove and my ratio is always 50/50 and im ok with that However I do play pvp Obsessively and well this is my personal experience with AKERS AND DCERS is substantial I over play pvp so the problem is I may see this more then most players EVEN DURING THE RANKING PRE SPOT you know the 10 matches you play for placement Out of my 10 games I had 4 afkers and 2 dcers Ridiculous And again the common dominator is they all hove low AP Last season was fun the best out of all of them the verity of classes was a nice change and I hope to see this again but without the part time players

 

 

 

 

[Stand The Wall.6987]

rank should determine ladder placement. rank 80 equals legend.

[Hot Boy.7138]

unranked is fine as it is. What doesn't make sense about it? It's ranked without a leaderboard. Whether you believe it or not, a leaderboards attracts more toxic players. Not everyone wanna deal with that. Some toxicity exists in unranked also, but much less so, and when you see it, it's pathetic cause there are no leaderboards so what is there to be angry about. So I personally prefer to play unranked. It should remain as is. Ranked should remain as is.

[LegendaVagyok.9132]

Meh, better not selecting players based on their AP - it is likely that old pvp guys won’t have too much since AP comes from pve mainly. With that being said Anet should increase the lvl requirement for ranked - so if they think pvp seriously then first they have to fight and learn through hundreds of games in unranked, this way everyone would take ranked seriously ? not just dropping game for pip after the first unsuccessful encounters on mid

[Namless.4028]

I think 8k is too low

We should raise it to 40k

[Trevor Boyer.6524]

Player base isn't large enough to enforce any further gating of ranked. It'll destroy the game mode.

[Hyper Cutter.9376]

> @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> Change rewards in ranked so they're not a easier afk farm for pve stuff than anything in PvE, and you'll resolve all the issues without creating weird barriers to entry.

...so you want to remove almost all the reward tracks? Because they're almost all PVE stuff, and a lot of the final rewards are much easier to get that way than the way they're actually intended to be earned.

[ReaverKane.7598]

> @"Hyper Cutter.9376" said:

> > @"ReaverKane.7598" said:

> > Change rewards in ranked so they're not a easier afk farm for pve stuff than anything in PvE, and you'll resolve all the issues without creating weird barriers to entry.

> ...so you want to remove almost all the reward tracks? Because they're almost all PVE stuff, and a lot of the final rewards are much easier to get that way than the way they're actually intended to be earned.

 

That's mighty disingenuous of you to compare those two systems.

First Reward tracks are just as easily farmable in unranked, even in custom arenas.

Second Ranked rewards are **comulative** with reward tracks, not mutually exclusive. Make people only earn one or the other, and you might see a lot less people in sPvP.

So basically nowadays in losing 20 ranked matches you progress about two thirds of a reward track, and you complete the cerulean chest. Which is an imediate 5.9 gold, plus the currencies that allow for easy access to ascended stuff.

 

And like you said yourself, Reward tracks were already a good reward, why is there a need to add to it?

 

 

[Faux Play.6104]

> @"Thanks.6859" said:

> Players must be LVL 80+ in pvp ranking Also players must carry 8000+ AC points in order to play ranked . I DONT care if I win or loose But people joining ranked just to get there daily's done is so 2018 lest be progressive here. this will eliminate 90% of player report from the Dcers and afkers. This I'm sure many people will approve But make it a vote the mijority never speak out

 

I have no issue with low AP players. Most of the people on my block list from PvP are 20k+ AP. They are awful at PvP, but think they are pro level gamers. If anything ban people over 20k AP from PvP.

[Lucius.2140]

> @"Thanks.6859" said:

> Players must be LVL 80+ in pvp ranking Also players must carry 8000+ AC points in order to play ranked . I DONT care if I win or loose But people joining ranked just to get there daily's done is so 2018 lest be progressive here. this will eliminate 90% of player report from the Dcers and afkers. This I'm sure many people will approve But make it a vote the mijority never speak out

AC points arent a measure for pvp involvment. Thats a pve concept that overall works badly, specially for the number you are considering. Im not sure level 80 would be good either. Point aside, theres a super good measure to separate players by skill groups: MMR and its in game (with lows and ups but waaaaaaaaaay better than any proxys).

 

[otto.5684]

> @"Thanks.6859" said:

> Players must be LVL 80+ in pvp ranking Also players must carry 8000+ AC points in order to play ranked . I DONT care if I win or loose But people joining ranked just to get there daily's done is so 2018 lest be progressive here. this will eliminate 90% of player report from the Dcers and afkers. This I'm sure many people will approve But make it a vote the mijority never speak out

 

You do understand that skill is not a requirement to play ranked. Do you known why? Cuz players (who are anet customers btw) paid for this shit and thus get access to it. Also, this is why we have match making you know.. if you are so uberly skilled, after that first 10 games you will be in platinum anyway..

[Delweyn.1309]

There is a good point nevertheless. Even if pvp rank (dragon...) means not a lot because a lot of pvers have made hammerfarming, a prerequisite of number of matches played & rank maybe would definitively help against all those players who create another account just to crush newbs and get easy wins.

 

And with the comeback of duoQ, it would help against top player who will carry newbs on new account too.

 

So it's not so stupid.

[GenghisKhan.7842]

Agree on the minimum PVP Rank to play Unranked (50 or 60 should do IMHO)

The AP requirement is a joke, tho

Having unranked is good, you can test builds, play just for fun, etc.

[Bloadsoaked.6792]

> @"AngelLovesFredrik.6741" said:

> So, me as a player that ends every season in legend would not be able to "ever" plat ranked because I only have 1.7k AP since I never sat foot in pve. Seems legit d00d.

 

Dito. Man, where is the connection between pvp skill/success and AP. Lit. none.

/o/

[pah.4931]

Your solution is flawed because your idea of the problem is flawed. You don't need to cull the "casual f2p scum" from Ranked. You need to address low population and poorly designed ladder system. The former is probably a ship-has-sailed issue; the latter (i.e., the ladder - couldn't resist) is still possible to address.

[Bloadsoaked.6792]

> @"Yannir.4132" said:

> You do know that many of the top PvP players have less AP than that?

> PvP Rank 50 or 60 should be adequate enough of a boundary but I do agree that the bar needs raising.

 

R50 or 60, are u kidding? That is far too high. lol, like lmao. I would suggest sth more like games won with a class or match-time played with a class.

[Crab Fear.1624]

no pips on loss.

 

75% or more of the afk solved