Minimum games to maintain Ladder status

[Sampson.2403]

Y'all acting like the way that society is structured (prime time) is Anets fault. If you play the game while most people are at work/school or asleep, in an environment that already has a low population to begin with, then obviously the matchmaking is going to suck.

[pah.4931]

> @"Sampson.2403" said:

> Y'all acting like the way that society is structured (prime time) is Anets fault. If you play the game while most people are at work/school or asleep, in an environment that already has a low population to begin with, then obviously the matchmaking is going to suck.

 

Matchmaking sucking is not the problem (well it is, but it's not the problem that needs addressed). As a developer, you can't force people to play your game. However, you are responsible to make choices that encourage people to play... not actively discourage them from playing. Anet, right now, with their heads in the sand, are actively discouraging people from wanting to play their game. It's so unbelievably bad. It's bad design. Matchmaking and balance aren't great. One is hard to control with low population. The other is a moving target. But when core design philosophies are as flawed as this TERRIBLE solo random rank garbage... who cares?

 

BUT... I think gem sales are their only success metric right now. So I guess it makes sense?