As an effort to improve the community in addition to tiers and elos, I suggest that Ranked Play require more restrictions to play such as:
1.) Required Number of Normal Games/Wins 2.) Win Ratio Above X% 3.) Death Averages 4.) Leaver / AFK Ratio 5.) Player Behavior History
Retillin2 votesOnly numbers 4 and 5 should even be looked at.
Some people are bad, some people are good. It's why after 50 to 100 games are end up in the rank you belong. Until you find your flaws and work on them to get better.
MalaceX1 votesOnly numbers 4 and 5 should even be looked at.
Some people are bad, some people are good. It's why after 50 to 100 games are end up in the rank you belong. Until you find your flaws and work on them to get better.
I haven't found this to be true. Oftentimes, the players I'm matched with haven't even played 50 ranked games.
Retillin1 votesCould it be that they are starting out in Ranked then? Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk. But you are in Bronze 5. So the people you play should either have less than 50 ranked games, or those around you belong in Bronze 5.
MalaceX1 votesCould it be that they are starting out in Ranked then? Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk. But you are in Bronze 5. So the people you play should either have less than 50 ranked games, or those around you belong in Bronze 5.
If you have to say you're not being a jerk, you probably are being one knowingly. What does my rank have to do with the information presented in this post?
As I have mentioned, the Ranked matchmaking needs to be improved. For example, you mention 50 games. If a player has 50 games played, the players they are matched with should have played at least 35-50 games respectively. Since the matchmaking does not utilize skill, kdas, recent games, nor game mechanics, this could be a logical solution experience wise.