Arena rank

[darthBaal]

Hello, I've found that the gold rank in BG and arena are average players. Diamonds are great players and platinum are unicum.
In that case, silver is for noob / bad players and bronze is starting ...
 

But in that case, 80% of the players are among the noob and bad players ...
 

Would not it be easier to change that rank system to more reflect realities?
Personally, I do not know why it is from 1300, but if I did so until 1699 points, I would say that the winning will always be more than a loss, I would give it to others.

 

1300 - 1349 - no rank - starting rank
1350 - 1399 - no rank - weak players
1400 - 1499 - bronze rank - under-average players
1500 - 1699 - Silver rank - average players
1700 - 1899 - gold rank - good players
1900 - 2099 - diamond rank - excellent players
2100 - 9999 - platinum rank - unicum players

[Ren36]

The below has to be reverse - Diamond follows after Platinum.
1900 - 2099 - platinum rank - unicum players
2100 - 9999 - diamond rank - excellent players

Also if they did that ,the new point adjustments would be meaningless again.
NCSoft intended for players to reach gold easier. They wanted good players to reach higher ratings faster, so that beginners can exchange their beans, once they reach gold and receive rewards at the end of the week/season without rearranging the ranking system.

[RavTH]

22 hours ago, Ren36 said:

NCSoft intended for players to reach gold easier. They wanted good players to reach higher ratings faster, so that beginners can exchange their beans, once they reach gold and receive rewards at the end of the week/season without rearranging the ranking system.

they give this rating because when they made Risktaker for gold only everyone knew that they removed plat and diamond from rankings, because of how dead the game is now we got this very stupid point system so someone can camp with 10 alts in top10 and get all the rewards, also to make the game look not dead cause let's be honest pvp is still dead no matter what. 6v6 1v1 3v3 it's dead. For 6v6 The gear balance is no longer in the game like it was when Baleful/Seraph was the only legendary. This was issued already and nothing has been made yet about it, it's sad but the pvp community left this game ages ago, what you see in rankings are mostly 5 people alts/win traders.

On 05/10/2018 at 11:14 PM, darthBaal said:

Hello, I've found that the gold rank in BG and arena are average players. Diamonds are great players and platinum are unicum.
In that case, silver is for noob / bad players and bronze is starting ...

did you know that a bronze player can beat diamond?

[darthBaal]

I want to point out that the silver rank is totally retarded counting points against the same rank, winning and I get 10-15 and if I lose so I come by at least 25, if it is a rank for newbies so why one loss spoils three winnings, it should be ranked much higher...

 

If it is a rank for new players, one win should be offset by two losses. It should be balanced on the golden ranks and it would be necessary to win 2/1, 3/1 and so on, but this strict system on the new player's turn is really retarded.

[darthBaal]

I can not help but counting the silver rank is retarded when that rank is to be for beginners so why if I win the silver +15 and when I am the silver loser I get -25 ... rank for novices when from 1400 above any mistake does it mean instant death? Should this be a rank for novices ?! Do you know what reality is?
1300-1349 is a starting rank, 1350 -1399 is rank for novices 1400-1499 are average players from 1500 above that are either scribed cheaters or good and excellent players!
I play other games, and nowhere I've ever experienced a retarded counting of player stats.
So this should be redesigned or should be corrected by the BnS wiki where he writes that gold is an average player ...