Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Torpin

Irrevocable Rank needed at rank 5

21 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

39
[SEC_8]
Members
132 posts
2,974 battles

I know it's too late for this season, but an irrevocable rank at 5 would be nice.  It is sooo frustrating to get up high and then slide all the way back down.  And I personally thought the tier 8 section was too brief at rank 15, I liked it better at rank 10.  Just my opinion :)

Edited by Torpin
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[P2W]
Beta Testers
30 posts
7,493 battles

In order to get rank one you have to be patient, dedicated, and pretty darn good.

I would like another irrevocable but the idea is to thin the herd, so mediocre players like myself can't luck out to rank one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,268
[HINON]
Members
8,797 posts
49 minutes ago, Torpin said:

I know it's too late for this season, but an irrevocable rank at 5 would be nice.  It is sooo frustrating to get up high and then slide all the way back down.  And I personally thought the tier 8 section was too brief at rank 12, I liked it better at rank 10.  Just my opinion :)

T8 ends at Rank 15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[SEC_8]
Members
132 posts
2,974 battles
38 minutes ago, RipNuN2 said:

T8 ends at Rank 15.

Fixed, thanks :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
78
[SCREW]
Members
538 posts
5,463 battles

Thing is, the more irrevocable ranks you get the end it is for awful players to make it there, then you get even more [edited] losing sprees.

An irrevocable rank 5 just makes 5 threw 1 even more frustrating tbh.

That and this whole save a star business is straight up toxic to ranked as a whole.

Edited by Sethanas
More

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
82
[-S-R-]
Members
317 posts
7,099 battles

Negative!  If you can't get there then you don't belong there.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
665
[CAFE]
Members
1,393 posts
10,655 battles

It would be nice for getting games started early season, but would be a nightmare when teams are trading the same bad player back and forth without the ability to get rid of him... I don't think anyone wants to deal with dead-weight 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,987
[NDA]
Supertester
4,771 posts
13,562 battles

If you want to see changes applied to Rank than stop playing it. 

People stopped playing Team Battles and that failure went away. 

Of course it was replaced with Clan Battles so an Improved game mode replacing a failed game mode is still open to debate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
359
[DAY]
Members
1,154 posts
11,500 battles
4 minutes ago, FratStar4Life said:

It would be nice for getting games started early season, but would be a nightmare when teams are trading the same bad player back and forth without the ability to get rid of him... I don't think anyone wants to deal with dead-weight 

even without irrevocable, we didnt seem to get rid of a certain shima and a certain yamato last season

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,817
[V_KNG]
Beta Testers
9,267 posts

I'm probably mistaken... but what I perceive of people's feelings about rank has to do with relying on unknown team members. All the complaints seem to point to team composition. 

I suspect it is possible people might like a single player filtering system of increasingly difficult missions to "filter out" those "tater tots, french fries and outright raw potatoes". 

How you'd so something like that, I haven't a clue. But after you got past all the filters, only then would you do battle against other "highly ranked players". 

I suspect all that would do is shift the complaint department to another area of the game. :cap_haloween:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,257
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
8,780 posts
14,796 battles
1 hour ago, jbc98k said:

In order to get rank one you have to be patient, dedicated, and pretty darn good.

Fixed that for ya!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8
[W-G]
Members
60 posts
6,875 battles
2 hours ago, Torpin said:

I know it's too late for this season, but an irrevocable rank at 5 would be nice.  It is sooo frustrating to get up high and then slide all the way back down.  And I personally thought the tier 8 section was too brief at rank 15, I liked it better at rank 10.  Just my opinion :)

I am right there with you brother. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
269
[PT8TO]
Members
1,402 posts
12,810 battles
50 minutes ago, FratStar4Life said:

It would be nice for getting games started early season, but would be a nightmare when teams are trading the same bad player back and forth without the ability to get rid of him... I don't think anyone wants to deal with dead-weight 

But yet those same bad players somehow find their way to that point.

Its hard to get rid of them because they keep getting carried one step ahead

Edited by GUNSTAR_THE_LEGEND

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39
[SEC_8]
Members
132 posts
2,974 battles
54 minutes ago, Sethanas said:

That and this whole save a star business is straight up toxic to ranked as a whole.

I couldn't agree more!  Save a star needs to be removed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
269
[PT8TO]
Members
1,402 posts
12,810 battles
5 minutes ago, Torpin said:

I couldn't agree more!  Save a star needs to be removed!

I know the save a star thing is sometimes [edited].... But in the 10-5 bracket I have not really felt like anyone I have played with is putting that ahead of winning yet.

Except for maybe 1 player from a Hurricane Clan who drives a Zao :Smile_sceptic:

Edited by GUNSTAR_THE_LEGEND

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,033
[OPG]
Supertester
1,877 posts
9,970 battles
1 hour ago, FratStar4Life said:

It would be nice for getting games started early season, but would be a nightmare when teams are trading the same bad player back and forth without the ability to get rid of him... I don't think anyone wants to deal with dead-weight 

:Smile_great: Wouldn't mind seeing irrevocable be time based.   Say the first weekend have an irrevocable rank 10, and the first week to ten days, have one at rank 5.   Then remove them after that time.  This way that first day or two the queue times at 10 or first week the queue times at 5 aren't insane.  I recall waiting 30 minutes for a rank 5 battle one season, only to then be unable to get back in that night as half the people moved down and we never got 14 back in.    Sort of killed any interest I have for the early season push.   Would rather come in later and deal with the potato drag, then queue up and then watch tv for an hour while I wait....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
665
[CAFE]
Members
1,393 posts
10,655 battles
2 minutes ago, SyndicatedINC said:

:Smile_great: Wouldn't mind seeing irrevocable be time based.   Say the first weekend have an irrevocable rank 10, and the first week to ten days, have one at rank 5.   Then remove them after that time.  This way that first day or two the queue times at 10 or first week the queue times at 5 aren't insane.  I recall waiting 30 minutes for a rank 5 battle one season, only to then be unable to get back in that night as half the people moved down and we never got 14 back in.    Sort of killed any interest I have for the early season push.   Would rather come in later and deal with the potato drag, then queue up and then watch tv for an hour while I wait....

I do not think it is needed for the R10 bracket as we were able to get R10 games on Friday pretty easily and throughout the weekend with very minimal queue time. I do however like the idea of an irrevocable R5 for the first week of ranked to get games moving along. Anything more than a week may perpetuate the potato toss problem though... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[UEFN]
Members
386 posts
11,570 battles

League 1 has just as many potato trash as League 2 and this season is just as toxic as the last.  Wish WG would extend Clan Battles and just get rid of Ranked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,033
[OPG]
Supertester
1,877 posts
9,970 battles
10 minutes ago, FratStar4Life said:

I do not think it is needed for the R10 bracket as we were able to get R10 games on Friday pretty easily and throughout the weekend with very minimal queue time. I do however like the idea of an irrevocable R5 for the first week of ranked to get games moving along. Anything more than a week may perpetuate the potato toss problem though... 

Maybe it is better now (I skipped this weekend so wouldn't know).  I recall several seasons ago, being all gung-ho for ranked, and taking off work to be all ready to play.   I was one of the first people to reach rank 5 (I think I was like 3rd or 4th on ship comrade), and what I discovered was, that over the course of friday and saturday although I made it with not too many games played (was about 75% win rate) I spent more time waiting to play games in the rank 10-6 bracket, then I had actually playing games.   The only point I had no issues was a narrowish 2-3 hour window on friday and maybe a 6 hour block on Saturday.   But overall the first 36 hours or so, less than half of that time can one get into a rank10+ match in under 5 minutes.   Even a 24 or 36 hour  window of irrevocable 10 would help with that.

Edited by SyndicatedINC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,013
[WOLF1]
Beta Testers
6,040 posts
9,184 battles

I would really like this. It can get pretty soul crushing near the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
230
[NOBS]
Members
468 posts
5,366 battles

Another irrevocable at rank 8 might work better then rank 5. It's a long grind from 12 to 8 and might work as a filter to keep some out, but should give 5 to 2 a steady feed of players

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×