Wouldn't it be fun if bronze wasn't the bottom tier but something you have to earn?

Aerothal·Jan 26, 2015·39 votes·6,846 views

I am thinking, why would you even make a bottom tier? I believe that there should be a threshold to conquer, which lets you into bronze. Something like 800 mmr (or better yet, 1249, like it was in Season 2) And to get into bronze you would have to win 3/5 promos! That sounds fair to me and it would make the bronze plaque a little more meaningful.

any thoughts?

edit: We need to get away from the "participation reward" mindset.

73 Comments

Just JangleJan 26, 201513 votes

Back in Season 1 was like that, being Bronze actually ment something.

Like being bronze in that time says that you were a bad player but most players were below 900 MMR which was the MMR required to be a bronzie.

Now if you are bronze it only means that you are trash in this game.

DrCyanideJan 26, 201513 votes

"Gold, Silver, Bronze" has typically ment "1st, 2nd, 3rd" in other places (such as the Olympics). I find it odd that Bronze in many video game ranking systems is the bottom of the barrel. Fail out, and you still get a metal. It's the equivalent of a star shaped sticker, which is why it looses meaning.

Honestly, saying "you didn't qualify for one of the leagues, please practice more and try again later" might be a better option.

BeersteinJan 26, 201511 votes

{quoted}

"Gold, Silver, Bronze" has typically ment "1st, 2nd, 3rd" in other places (such as the Olympics). I find it odd that Bronze in many video game ranking systems is the bottom of the barrel. Fail out, and you still get a metal. It's the equivalent of a star shaped sticker, which is why it looses meaning.

Honestly, saying "you didn't qualify for one of the leagues, please practice more and try again later" might be a better option.

People don't go to the Olympics to not win gold. http://r.fod4.com/http://a.fod4.com/images/user_photos/1280089/7c6103215dccbba79273a01bc65c035c_original.

Adrian BlackbearJan 27, 20153 votes

I used to think the same thing. Ranked would be so much less toxic if people weren't forced into Bronze as a rank. Leave them unranked until they can qualify for a rank!

Wint3rSoldi3rJan 26, 20155 votes

I agree it would be a good idea. Unfortunately, the way kids are raised these days, everyone expects to get a medal no matter what XD

I AM THE WALLJan 26, 20154 votes

Remember the old ELO rating system from back in the day? Season 1 silver was like today's high platinum. Having a rank actually meant something. It was possible to be denied a rank because you weren't good enough. Meanwhile, every league that isn't Bronze and Silver actually has a purpose. Today's gold is effectively season 1 bronze. Because contrary to popular belief, and despite those "rewards" you don't start becoming relevant until AT LEAST high platinum. In which case the struggle begins to reach Diamond, and so on. Platinum is where high ELO truly starts. Master tier is a good place for scouting purposes, and Challenger is exclusive for the absolute best players, as only those who can consistently be seen in Challenger are worthy of the competitive scene. Because they ARE competitive players. Bronze, Silver and Gold to an extent are effectively the same proving grounds. It takes someone with enough skill and willpower to reach a competitive level, to get out of the so-called "ELO Hell" as some people call it. And yes, while I understand that rank is a sign of progress, and not skill (as said by riot, a few pros and some famous high ELO youtubers/streamers) it takes a strong desire to reach a competitive level. Most people in low ELO don't necessarily have that urge to be competitive. Most people just want to hit Gold for the season rewards, which is why reaching Platinum can be such a hurdle to conquer. Because many players just stop caring about advancing at that point, and give up easily because they got their rewards and see no point in going further. It's even possible to say that they lack confidence in maintaining their rank, so they avoid ranked as much as possible to keep what they've earned. I believe that bringing back the ELO rating system, or perhaps even an improved, refined version would be healthy for this game. Being in bronze shouldn't be the bottom of the barrel, it should be square one. The start of your career. A place where you can truly earn your rank amongst the thousands of people that play this game, while fighting to improve and maintain what you've earned. In addition, I also believe that there should be more strict requirements on playing ranked, so that it's taken to a more serious level. Quite frankly, I think the requirements are ineffective in stopping every fresh level 30 from taking a shot at the big leagues. Truthfully, it's always been a bad idea to hop straight into ranked at 30. Implementing more prerequisites and even systems to help players prepare for ranked can not only show us it's meant for the competitive audience, but help every greenhorn out there aspire to get their very own rank amongst everyone around them. A rank that truly means something. A rank that shows how far you've gotten. A rank that's there for a better reason than a pitiful border or skin. A rank that has to be EARNED. League of Legends is a competitive game, and I strongly believe that we need to enforce this aspect while still finding ways to cater to those...dare I say it, "casuals." I don't want Riot to split their audience in half, as there are plenty of players on both sides. I'd rather have everyone realize that we're all playing a competitive game here. There will always be ways to reward and pander to those who choose to not be involved in the competitive aspects of League, but I think it's high time we tell all those "scrubs" to go big or go home. Don't take that word as an insult, as there aren't many ways to point out someone isn't among the best or skilled without it being seen as an insult. We all have to start somewhere, and if the lowest rank was the start of our career and not "ELO Hell" then I'm sure we can all respect each other and do our best to climb those ladders and...be victorious. You might not like it, but I think if rank was something you truly had to earn, we would all try our hardest to improve. Maybe one day, you can be in "Bronze" and not be seen as...well, I'm sure you know what I mean.

ProvengreilJan 26, 201513 votes

I take a contrary opinion. You don't have to be "good" to compete, and why should you? what's wrong with saying, "My tryhard pants fit pretty well. Let's see how I stack up!" whether it's ELO, MMR, Ranks, whatever, someone's going to be last. then there's the guy above him, and so on. But even being last on the ladder differentiates you from someone who hasn't even tried to climb it. Just because bronze is nothing in particular to be proud of, doesn't mean its members ahve no place on the ladder. they do; it's called bronze tier. It's just a label.

As an aside, why do people always seem to say that anything below platinum is irrelevant? IIRC, at the end of last season, approximately 70% of the ranked player base was silver 1 or below. Just because someone isn't top 2% doesn't mean they're worthless. gold 5 means you're better than 70% of people. Why can't that guy take a moment on the ladder, look down, and say, "Look how far I've climbed?"

Nucleophilic atkJan 27, 20152 votes

I second this. I will take it one step further in saying bronze can even be something to be proud of! My first season, even going from bronze 5 to bronze 4 was a hella big deal to me lol.

Mikal PikalJan 28, 20152 votes

Last season was my first season. I played ranked right away when I hit 30 and naturally sucked so I dropped from Silver 3 to Bronze V fairly quickly. I started actively trying to improve, I stopped playing new champs in ranked, I played normals and spammed a character over and over to master them before playing them, etc.

I felt that climbing from bronze to silver was a nice accomplishment. I am somewhat proud I made it to silver and have definitely seen a vast improvement of my skills from when I first started ranked. Now Silver is not enough and I want to get to gold. I will feel a great accomplishment when/if I hit gold.

I agree with you, just because I can't compete with the pros doesn't mean personal accomplishments should be diminished. And why say below plat is irrelevant. By that logic anything below challenger is irrelevant.

kDrakariJan 27, 20153 votes

I don't really care, there's going the be a bottom tier regardless and calling it something other than Bronze doesn't change that.

Also, you do have to earn Bronze. It's just that earning bronze is more of "slog through normals to level 30 regardless of skill" rather than any actual demonstration that you understand anything in the game.

DaenJan 29, 20152 votes

The point here is that the current implementation makes Bronze effectively worthless. Bronze V is six times larger than any other division, which means it encapsulates a larger theoretical skill gap than going from Gold 1 to Diamond V. If I were to go from the bottom of Bronze to Silver, it would be like going from Gold V to Diamond in a single tier.

DaenJan 29, 20153 votes

This used to be the case, and honestly I have no idea why it was changed. Let's look at this from a mathematical standpoint, shall we? Let's assume the bottom of gold is 1500 ELO (that's what it was when we actually had ELO) and that each Division is 100 ELO (clean number to represent LP, even distribution across Tiers). Here's the breakdown:

Master/Challenger: 3000+
Diamond: 2500-2999
Platinum: 2000-2499
Gold: 1500-1999
Silver: 1000-1499
Bronze: 0-999

Well well well, what have we here? With equally divided Tiers, Bronze is twice the size of any other tier. Not only that, but the division Bronze V is six times as large as any other division. This makes no sense, because all it does is devalue Bronze as a whole and make Bronze V utterly worthless. Why is this desireable?

Honestly, my opinion is that the best solution would be to either place another tier under Bronze or rebalance everything down so that Bronze is the true bottom. There is no reason one group should be so much larger than all the rest, and it lumps so many different skill levels together.

AerothalJan 29, 20152 votes

There is no reason one group should be so much larger than all the rest, and it lumps so many different skill levels together.

THIS IS SO TRUE!!!

@Eleshakai: read this! By your reasoning of "small segments withing reasonable reach", Bronze 5 division has a huge problem. People are placed together who should not be placed together. Getting back to season 2 standards of rating and creating an unranked tier is the right way to go about this.

DaenJan 29, 20152 votes

By your reasoning of "small segments withing reasonable reach", Bronze 5 division has a huge problem.

Correct. Bronze V has enough space to be both a full Division and a full Tier. I have no idea why this isn't something that's more commonly considered.

People are placed together who should not be placed together.

Depending on what you mean by this, I disagree. Matchmaking is not affected by the size of Bronze V or the oddity that is Bronze in general; it's just visual.

truckboattruckJan 26, 20152 votes

you arent suppose to be proud of bronze thats the point

BetaDude40Jan 27, 20155 votes

I am proud to be Bronze III instead of provisional.

There.

SecretAgentHulkJan 27, 20152 votes

Hell yeah! *fist bump*

(No sarcasm, I'm also quite pleased with my high Bronze status.)

CheckMyDoublesJan 27, 20152 votes

You can't have a tier system without having one of them being the worst of the worst. If you make it harder to get into Bronze, whatever is below that just becomes the new Bronze V tier and the brunt of all the jokes.

"Oh look, you're so bad you don't even qualify for BRONZE V."

You can't have winners without having a bunch of losers. It's just that nobody wants to be the losers. I don't see how changing the qualifications would do anything other than making Bronze the new Silver. But I agree the Bronze plaque does remind me of the "everybody gets a trophy for trying" mentality, so I don't know why anyone uses it for their icons.

lDontLiftIcarryJan 27, 20151 votes

I find it hilarious theres even people below silver

I just find it amusing there are people who literally end a season below where you start off. its just...haha

AerothalJan 27, 20154 votes

{quoted}

I find it hilarious theres even people below silver even my first time I did ranked back in s1 I ended the season at low plat(which was low diamond now because there wasn't a diamond back then only plat was highest elo iirc so basically d5 was where I ended) And I was far shittier than I am now. I just find it amusing there are people who literally end a season below where you start off. its just lmfao

all i see is a forum smurf. what are you afraid of?

lDontLiftIcarryJan 27, 20151 votes

We can't all be from NA/EU/OCE with our mains buddy.

AerothalJan 27, 20152 votes

{quoted}

We can't all be from NA/EU/OCE with our mains buddy.

and this is relevant to the post how? oh, you're claiming to be high elo in another region. fine. That still doesnt give you the right to be a douche. why dont you just leave. if all you can do is to make fun of people because you have a higher rank, whats the point in posting here? All i see in your words is someone who bases all their selfworth in high elo making themselves feelgood by stating "i am better than you"

ps: i am not your buddy

lDontLiftIcarryJan 27, 20152 votes

I never said any of that. you're putting words Into my mouth. I said I found it funny.

The reason(since you seem to want to know so badly)I think its funny is because most players play ranked immediately after installing league and getting to 30 and their first MOBA ever played is league of legends. So they lack mechanics and knowledge about moba's etc and expect to get somewhere. Then the typical player(we've all done this btw with our first moba)wonders why they got so low and how they keep falling.

Improving upon that is half the fun. For me personally I never really did ranked in any moba before league. I played aeon of strife(broodwar) I played the first dota on wc3.

And just played for fun, casually.

League used to be a lot more fun casually and competitively, Now its not. Its a lot easier to climb ranked in league than any other moba I've played to date now a days tbh though. Which is another reason i find it amusing.

What do I have to gain from saying I'm better than anyone else?(ppsssst: Nothing)

If the world were so egotistical no one would get anywhere would they friend?

AerothalJan 27, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I never said any of that. you're putting words Into my mouth. I said I found it funny.

The reason(since you seem to want to know so badly)I think its funny is because most players play ranked immediately after installing league and getting to 30 and their first MOBA ever played is league of legends. So they lack mechanics and knowledge about moba's etc and expect to get somewhere. Then the typical player(we've all done this btw with our first moba)wonders why they got so low and how they keep falling.

Improving upon that is half the fun. For me personally I never really did ranked in any moba before league. I played aeon of strife(broodwar) I played the first dota on wc3.

And just played for fun, casually.

League used to be a lot more fun casually and competitively, Now its not. Its a lot easier to climb ranked in league than any other moba I've played to date now a days tbh though. Which is another reason i find it amusing.

What do I have to gain from saying I'm better than anyone else?(ppsssst: Nothing)

If the world were so egotistical no one would get anywhere would they friend?

well, lets start over! I thought your first post was making fun of lower elos. maybe i misread that or maybe my bias put a negativity screen on your words that wasnt at all intended by you. If that is so, i sincerely apologize. In any case, all of this isnt relevant to my request/preposition.

Even though Bronze is the lowest starting point in ranked, it should still not be a freebie. That is my opinion. If this is supposed to be competitive, there should be an entry point even for the lowest tier.

We need to get away from the "participation reward" mindset. It's eroding the meaning of competition.

lDontLiftIcarryJan 27, 20151 votes

Despite what you think you know about where you start in ranked you';re actually wrong (or worded it poorly) 1,200 mmr has been the starting part of ranked in league since day 1.

Thts silver 5 now. The lowest part of silver basically is what I'm saying for simpler terms. You start at silver.

You can only decide our own fate of where you're placed. If you were to win every placement and this was your first time ever doing ranked on your account. I believe it allows you to be instantly played in gold 1.

It may even (at this point since many changes have been made over the years) allow you to immediately be placed in plat 1.

Now don't go quoting me because it has been at least 3 years since I've done ranked for the first time on an account. I specifically remember getting at least gold for winning all 10 promo games. But as for anything above that I am not quite sure. So basically what I'm saying for a player with above average experience gaining elo should be quite the breeze. It's actually quite easy to drop at least 3 promos per year. Regardless my mmr has always been in the 2.5k+ range so I get plat even if I drop half my promo games. because its a soft reset, not a hard reset. A hard reset would be a complete mmr wipe. Imo each season should be a hard reset/ But it should also remember where you were before it reset. So it should be a relatively hard reset. this would avoid the whole "well I was d5 but I played a gainst a team with 2 challangers so you know how well that went for me and I lost 2-3 promos because I was against challangers..." Thats just a negative experience no one wants.

Playing against people better than you isn't fun. For me I don't mind. I prefer stronger enemies.

Playing against similar or weaker is a waste of my time. But I have a competitive mindset so I'm the minority. Most kids these days hate losing because they hate losing and want to gimmie gimmie gimmie challanger without really ever learning anything. Just look at players like nightblue who are near/at the top but play like they don't really know what they're doing half the time. Thats what I can't stand seeing a game. People who don't earn it.

Yet again though, I'm the minority.

Most people will just tell you "well if he's there he obviously earned it" Ahh but duo queueing does exist. And FOTM/spiker champs that are far easier to climb with then champions that are balanced/Weaker.

Lots of factors.

I suppose I ramble too much. Anyway back to the subject/

I think everyone should be rewarded. Its a video game. Who plays a game to be a masochist and not be rewarded for their time spent even if they're not some super pro or super good. everyone deserves something. Imo everyone should get the seasonr eward skin. everyone should be entitled to show a border or not show a border or have an icon. Or have some cool stats to show off. Or anything they want to show or don't show. You shouldn't be forced to play but you should WANT to play.

People seem to forget ranked is a choice at the end of the day you choose to stay in w/e elo and not gain elo. You choose to do anything you want.

AerothalJan 27, 20151 votes

I think everyone should be rewarded. Its a video game. Who plays a game to be a masochist and not be rewarded for their time spent even if they're not some super pro or super good. everyone deserves something. Imo everyone should get the seasonr eward skin. everyone should be entitled to show a border or not show a border or have an icon. Or have some cool stats to show off. Or anything they want to show or don't show. You shouldn't be forced to play but you should WANT to play.

People seem to forget ranked is a choice at the end of the day you choose to stay in w/e elo and not gain elo. You choose to do anything you want.

i disagree with you.

You should be playing the game for having fun playing it, not for rewards.

If you chose to play competitively (ranked) you should start off not with placements but at a low elo like 600. If you are blatantly better than anyone else you'll reach the promo to bronze series quickly. And then the ranked play starts. before that you are UNRANKED.

Why should one be rewarded for literally doing nothing? why should a bronze 5 0LP with a mmr of 200 get the same reward than a bronze 5 90LP with 900 mmr?

I do not agree with the "participation reward" mentality. It is not healthy. If you chose to step up and play competitively versus playing casual, you should be prepared to put in some effort.

EleshakaiJan 28, 20151 votes

What's the point? People would just make up a 'name' for the people below bronze, and everything people say about bronze players now would be said about those people.

Essentially what Riot is doing is copying Blizzard's relatively successful league system from SC2, which puts everyone into leagues and divisions to give everyone the opportunity to feel like they're a 'part' of the system with an attainable goal for improvement.

It's a way to motivate people to play, and - by and large - it works. Whether you realize it or not ;)

AerothalJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

What's the point? People would just make up a 'name' for the people below bronze, and everything people say about bronze players now would be said about those people.

Essentially what Riot is doing is copying Blizzard's relatively successful league system from SC2, which puts everyone into leagues and divisions to give everyone the opportunity to feel like they're a 'part' of the system with an attainable goal for improvement.

It's a way to motivate people to play, and - by and large - it works. Whether you realize it or not ;)

Its not about naming or shaming the bottom tier. Its about the very meaning of competition. If you get something without having to compete, it's not significant.

If you start ranked as a new player now, theoretically you could lose all of your placement matches, get placed in bronze and then never play ranked again, yet you'd still get the bronze plaque. Instead of seeing that bronze plaque as an achievement though, it leaves a bitter taste. Its not worth. Participation rewards hardly are!

If there was an actual entry point (as there used to be) people could say: yes, i wasnt the best pro player, but i did get to bronze. They would have achieved a rank. Right now bronze is not a rank. You just receive it. No effort required.

"everyone is a winner"? No. that's just not healthy!

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Its not about naming or shaming the bottom tier. Its about the very meaning of competition. If you get something without having to compete, it's not significant.

If you start ranked as a new player now, theoretically you could lose all of your placement matches, get placed in bronze and then never play ranked again, yet you'd still get the bronze plaque. Instead of seeing that bronze plaque as an achievement though, it leaves a bitter taste. Its not worth. Participation rewards hardly are!

If there was an actual entry point (as there used to be) people could say: yes, i wasnt the best pro player, but i did get to bronze. They would have achieved a rank. Right now bronze is not a rank. You just receive it. No effort required.

"everyone is a winner"? No. that's just not healthy!

It's not about 'everyone being a winner' it's about everyone being in a division so everyone has something attainable to compete for. If you set the bar too high, it doesn't motivate people to play. By putting everyone into divisions and offering small segments that are within reasonable reach for anyone(a new division, a new tier, etc.), it motivates people to spend more time with the game.

That's the reasoning behind it. Not 'giving everyone a medal'.

DaenJan 29, 20152 votes

I see the reasoning, but it also doesn't make sense in a competitive setting. If you don't want to compete, don't play Ranked. If you do want to compete, a participation medal that encapsulates the same amount of rank space as two entire Tiers really doesn't feel good.

By putting everyone into divisions and offering small segments that are within reasonable reach for anyone(a new division, a new tier, etc.)

Bronze V is the same size as six other divisions put together. This is the main thing we're referring to here, there isn't small segmentation in this section. Bronze IV, III, II, and I make sense. Having Bronze V be named with a similar convention and hold literally everything else in its bucket just devalues all the rest of the Bronze tiers and lowers the amount of achievement that can be attained.

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I see the reasoning, but it also doesn't make sense in a competitive setting. If you don't want to compete, don't play Ranked. If you do want to compete, a participation medal that encapsulates the same amount of rank space as two entire Tiers really doesn't feel good.

Bronze V is the same size as six other divisions put together. This is the main thing we're referring to here, there isn't small segmentation in this section. Bronze IV, III, II, and I make sense. Having Bronze V be named with a similar convention and hold literally everything else in its bucket just devalues all the rest of the Bronze tiers and lowers the amount of achievement that can be attained.

I'm not going to claim the system is built perfectly right now... but putting everyone into a league with divisions is an entirely sound concept. Whether it's balanced correctly is another story... and I will not argue that there's enough evidence for a case to be made that it's not.

But simply throwing the concept out the window won't fix anything... it'll just undo all the growth this system has spurred. It's not coincidence that the number of active players has grown so significantly in the years since they implemented this system. Rebalancing the numbers is certainly a worthy effort though, and I do hope Riot takes the size of Bronze 5 into consideration when making adjustments to the system going forward.

I was merely elaborating the reason for the system's existence. Having an 'unranked' segment just demotivates people. Having vague goals that seem unattainable, like the old ELO system, does nothing toencourage people to play. Nobody wants to be spot 102091 on the ladder. But being 2nd in a division of 100 ranked at gold 3, even if mathematically it is the exact same position, actually sounds pretty awesome.

Adding a new tier below bronze, or rebalancing the numbers so bronze has 10 tiers in stead of 5, or rebalancing it so bronze/silver have 7 tiers, gold/plat have 6, and diamond has 4... or adjusting it so peoples' 'starting point' is higher so that fewer people end up in bronze... or whatever other solution you may propose... those all make sense.

But simply abolishing the system will undo all the good it's done for encouraging people to play.

DaenJan 29, 20151 votes

I'm going to go point-by-point here, because I think you bring up some interesting things.

putting everyone into a league with divisions is an entirely sound concept

I agree, 100%. I actually really like the Tiers/Divisions system, it breaks down progression into easily digestible parts.

It's not coincidence that the number of active players has grown so significantly in the years since they implemented this system

This is implying that correlation equals causation. There are so many factors that can be attributed to the massive growth, the most notable of which is probably professional eSports. I would be somewhat surprised if changing the ranking system was indeed a significant factor in attracting new active players, to be honest.

Having an 'unranked' segment just demotivates people

Please elaborate on this. Why does the idea of being unranked have a direct causal link to demotivation?

Having vague goals that seem unattainable, like the old ELO system, does nothing toencourage people to play

I agree on this, but this isn't necessarily a direct relationship. I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting we remove the goal process of moving through Divisions; the main problem as I see it is that Bronze V has no progression system and drags the rest of Bronze down with it.

Nobody wants to be spot 102091 on the ladder

I heavily disagree with this, but it's also very possible I'm biased. I would much rather see that I'm rank 102,091 in North America than seeing that I'm 2nd in a League of 100 that's in Division III of Gold, and I'll explain that.

Being 102,091th is a direct relationship with the entirety of the community; I can immediately see at a glance where I fall on the leaderboard. Being 2nd in a Division of 100 ranked at Gold 3 feels completely meaningless to me, because there might be a thousand Gold 3 Divisions. Let me lay out the general sorting mechanisms at play here:

Tier: Gold
Division: III
League: Karma's Redeemers
Placement: 2nd

Me being 2nd place has no bearing on my skill level as compared to anything relevant. Leagues are the only method of segmentation that are affected (or at least perceived as) by random chance. Being 2nd place in my League means nothing, because I might be 1,200th in my Division (which is actually showing comparative skill rank).

If I had it my way, I would be able to see the following stats associated with my ranking:

Tier: Gold
Division: III
League: Karma's Redeemers GIII
League Placement: 2
Division Placement: 1,200
Tier Placement: 25,182
Overall Placement: 102,091

I personally think that my League and League placement are arbitrary and worthless, especially since I can't pick which League I'm in or anyone that's in it with me. Division placement is nice because it shows me a direct relationship between myself and the community. It's not arbitrary at all because it's pulling from the entirety of the playerbase in the same skill bracket as me, and thus it's fully accurate.

Anyway, I personally don't want to see the system abolished. I just think that the current implementation actually devalues competition at low levels of play, and it brings down everyone that isn't Silver or higher in the process.

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

I'm going to be blunt here, you're in the minority from a psychological standpoint. For most people, only the top ~100 or ~1000 positions on a ladder actually mean anything to most people.

Studies have been done on this before, although I can't place the specific locations I've read them. Anything below that just feels meaningless to the average person. That's why so many games nowadays HIDE those statistics except for the very top few. It's simply demotivating for the average person to see a number so large that it means nothing.

That's why a lot of games nowadays have either moved to a 'level' system, like Hearthstone, or a division/tier system like Starcraft 2 or this. Because it motivates people to play. Seeing that you can achieve something in only a short time, something tangible - something that feels like it means something... not climbing from 102091 to 102090... but climbing from silver 3 to silver 2. That's a big jump... it's a whole tier. It's something you can say and people will think 'wow that sounds good'.

It's just, in general, a lot more motivating for the average person.

But, not everyone's the same, so I can understand that you are different like that. I'm more in line with the norm on this one, since for me anything below 10000 feels absurd. At that point there are just so many people above me that what's the point in even comparing.

DaenJan 29, 20151 votes

I'm going to be blunt here, you're in the minority from a psychological standpoint. For most people, only the top ~100 or ~1000 positions on a ladder actually mean anything to most people.

I would be interested to know where you got these statistics, because they seem like conjecture.

Seeing that you can achieve something in only a short time, something tangible - something that feels like it means something... not climbing from 102091 to 102090

Two comments on this:

I am not at all suggesting we get rid of divisions, just that we have actual statistical metrics in place notifying a player of their placement. 2nd in Karma's Redeemers is worthless; 18th in the entire division of Gold III is pretty meaningful.
It wouldn't be climbing from 102,091 to 102,090, it would be something like climbing from 102.091 to 86,000. Regardless, if the distribution is small enough it would be like going from 800 to 200. Pretty large leap.

Additionally, I pesonally feel almost no achievement going from 2nd place Karma's Redeemers in Gold 3 to 98th place Karma's Redeemers in Gold 4. It actually feels like they cancel each other out, because one of those numbers basically resets every time I ascend a Division.

but climbing from silver 3 to silver 2. That's a big jump... it's a whole tier

Silver 3 to Silver 2 is a Division jump; Silver 3 to Gold 3 is a Tier jump.

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

I would be interested to know where you got these statistics, because they seem like conjecture.

Two comments on this:

I am not at all suggesting we get rid of divisions, just that we have actual statistical metrics in place notifying a player of their placement. 2nd in Karma's Redeemers is worthless; 18th in the entire division of Gold III is pretty meaningful.

It wouldn't be climbing from 102,091 to 102,090, it would be something like climbing from 102.091 to 86,000. Regardless, if the distribution is small enough it would be like going from 800 to 200. Pretty large leap.

Additionally, I pesonally feel almost no achievement going from 2nd place Karma's Redeemers in Gold 3 to 98th place Karma's Redeemers in Gold 4. It actually feels like they cancel each other out, because one of those numbers basically resets every time I ascend a Division.

Silver 3 to Silver 2 is a Division jump; Silver 3 to Gold 3 is a Tier jump.

I wish I could still find them, 'cause they were good reads. But I looked into it back around the time Starcraft 2's league system came out, and we all know how long ago that was. Sorry :(

AerothalJan 29, 20151 votes

i didn't ask for the system to be abolished.

i just want bronze to be the achievement its supposed to be.

Nothing is wrong about being unranked. the fact is, there would be less discrimination about unranked players than there is about bronze 5 players at the moment, for one simple reason: You dont know why the person is unranked. Could be its a bad player. Could be a yet unranked Master or anything in between. There is less of a negative stigma to unranked than there is to bronze 5.

and again, just handing out a meaningless badge is wrong.

It also devalues my season 2 Bronze badge, though this is not what that's about....well...maybe a lil ;)

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

i didn't ask for the system to be abolished.

i just want bronze to be the achievement its supposed to be.

Nothing is wrong about being unranked. the fact is, there would be less discrimination about unranked players than there is about bronze 5 players at the moment, for one simple reason: You dont know why the person is unranked. Could be its a bad player. Could be a yet unranked Master or anything in between. There is less of a negative stigma to unranked than there is to bronze 5.

and again, just handing out a meaningless badge is wrong.

It also devalues my season 2 Bronze badge, though this is not what that's about....well...maybe a lil ;)

Ntohing would be wrong with being unranked to you. But to a lot of people, it would be demotivating. The system is half about ranking people accurately and half about motivating people to play. Right now it's accomplishing both relatively well, with a minor flaw at the bottom of the scale causing it to be bloated. So minor tweaks are needed, not a big redesign :)

Maybe in stead of 'ju8st handing out a meaningless badge' they should just not give badges to bronze players and only actually give a badge once you hit silver.

AerothalJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Ntohing would be wrong with being unranked to you. But to a lot of people, it would be demotivating. The system is half about ranking people accurately and half about motivating people to play. Right now it's accomplishing both relatively well, with a minor flaw at the bottom of the scale causing it to be bloated. So minor tweaks are needed, not a big redesign :)

Maybe in stead of 'ju8st handing out a meaningless badge' they should just not give badges to bronze players and only actually give a badge once you hit silver.

you and me have a completely opposite view on the matter it seems. From my point of view it is not motivating to achieve a rank which is no achievement. I find it much more motivating if there is something i can work towards.

There is not a sinlge Bronze 5 0LP player who is proud of his rank.

In my system, to reach Bronze 5 0LP would be a worthy achievement.

and your last paragraph is just shifting the current system one up. no change. wheres the point in that?

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

you and me have a completely opposite view on the matter it seems. From my point of view it is not motivating to achieve a rank which is no achievement. I find it much more motivating if there is something i can work towards.

There is not a sinlge Bronze 5 0LP player who is proud of his rank.

In my system, to reach Bronze 5 0LP would be a worthy achievement.

and your last paragraph is just shifting the current system one up. no change. wheres the point in that?

The last part was mostly sarcastic, to be honest. It didn't come across clearly, sorry.

It's not motivating to get bronze, it's motivating to have an immediate goal in reach. That's what is motivating. You get placed in Bronze 3, you're now only a short distance from Bronze 2. Unranked has no 'immediate goal in reached' it's 'if you reach this arbitrary status potentially somewhere way above where you are now, you'll get a rank'. There's nothing in reach. The point of the system is that your goal is always only a short step away... and then there's a new goal only a short step away.

Whether it works for you or not... that type of system works to keep the majority motivated. If you shoved everyone in unranked, a LARGE segment of people would probably quit because they no longer have an attainable goal.

The problem with 'unranked' is that it feels like your first step is so far out of reach that a lot of people would simply never have reason to TAKE that first step. And that's where this system excels... by giving people first a taste of achieving something straight out of promos and then by giving people a relatively easily attainable first step to take... it encourages people to discover the joys of the system in the first place.

DaenJan 29, 20152 votes

Maybe in stead of 'ju8st handing out a meaningless badge' they should just not give badges to bronze players and only actually give a badge once you hit silver.

This is exactly what everyone has been suggesting in this thread the entire time. Your suggestion is literally the same thing, but in a less logical fashion because it's just moving the bloat downward rather than resolving it.

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

This is exactly what everyone has been suggesting in this thread the entire time. Your suggestion is literally the same thing, but in a less logical fashion because it's just moving the bloat downward rather than resolving it.

While that was mostly sarcastic, it's actually still a better solution... since at least then the 'unranked' people would still have tiers. They just wouldn't get badges.

The point is to maintain the logical, small goals. Moving people into a system that no longer has tiers is the part I object to... the tiers are what offer motivation. They give people logical, small steps to take to climb.

DaenJan 29, 20152 votes

The point is to maintain the logical, small goals. Moving people into a system that no longer has tiers is the part I object to... the tiers are what offer motivation.

That's...you're missing the point. The entire conversation here is that the bottom of Bronze HAS no logical, small goals. Bronze V is the same size as an entire division plus a Tier; it's like going from Silver I to Platinum V within a single Division.

EleshakaiJan 29, 20151 votes

{quoted}

That's...you're missing the point. The entire conversation here is that the bottom of Bronze HAS no logical, small goals. Bronze V is the same size as an entire division plus a Tier; it's like going from Silver I to Platinum V within a single Division.

Except it's not. The number of people may be, but it still only takes 100 points to climb out of it. Just the same as any other tier.

But as I said earlier - I agree to the concept of re-evaluating where people are placed, but a blanket 'unranked' tier will hurt more than it will help for the majority of people. If they added another league below it that had divisions etc... then that's fine(as I said earlier), if they rebalance it so bronze has more tiers, that's also fine... but it's valuable to not just chunk everyone in a big 'hey you're not worth anything until you cross this line' tier that has no reasonable or attainable goals.

SukishooJan 29, 20151 votes

I think we just need many other leagues thrown in there as well

Challenger Master Diamond Emerald Sapphire Platinum Ruby Gold Silver Bronze Rock Wood Dirt Unranked/Challenged ;)

Seriously, the list could go on for days with the types of metals/crystals they used as Tier names.

iainB85Jan 29, 20151 votes

Used to be like this... Riot changed it for whatever reason.

I agree with you, there should be an unranked tier where if your MMR is too low you have no medal at all. Having any kind of medal (even bronze) should be an accomplishment people feel good about, rather than a negative stigma (aka "bronze noob") that it currently is now.

AerothalMay 9, 20151 votes

Bump