Available PvP titles due to starting at 0 rating

I made a bug post here:

I know the PvP community is small but please help spread the word so blizzard fixes this before the season ends!

I’d like to point out that challenger (top 35%) is ~1400 right now in 2s. That means 65% of the counted playerbase is 1000-1400. Imagine how many teams must be below that 1000.

3 Likes

Yeah exactly, now imagine being a retail blizzard dev and putting a 2000 rating requirement on a set item, that originally had NO REQUIREMENT in classic, when 95% of the player base won’t even break 1850.

BLIZZARD WHAT ARE YOU GUYS DOING?

4 Likes

Man, they really scuffed this. Pretty damning that people I play with say the rank grind was better than this arena system.

My 2s partner and I recently broke 1400 in 2s and we noticed the skill level at 1400+ was way high. Players at 1400 plus play extremely well and nearly perfectly time their cc’s and know where they should be and when very well. It’s so hard to capitalize on mistakes because so few are made.

No wonder why we are struggling to push past 1500 rating.

3 Likes

I wouldn’t be surprised if challenger ended up being ~1k or so due to the starting at 0 change

Only way to tell is to fix the API. I’m really, really hoping they find the time to do soon so those higher rated know if they need to keep pushing or not. 11 out of the top 50 2s teams are dead teams with only one person who are occupying title slots. These teams obviously won’t queue anymore, so there’s less teams to play against to help climb. There really won’t be many titles if this issue isn’t fixed

3 Likes

SMH, I hope this issue gets addressed. It def is a big prob for the pvp community and everyone who plays TBC just for arena, glad/r1 specifically. Ive noticed queing over just the past week alone in the 2300-2500 mmr range that there is a handful of teams queing, often facing the same team over and over again after waiting 5+ minutes in que.

Yeah some battlegroups had like 60 spots for 2v2. Now we have 110 in the entire Nation.

1 Like

Yeah, it’s really FUBAR. I wouldn’t be surprised if cutoffs dropped 100 points or more if the teams below 1k were properly being counted.

This would of never been an issue if teams started at 1500 like they were supposed to.

1 Like

Yep… exactly. Glad would be like 2200-2250 in 2s/3s. Tons of Gladiator quality players that have achieved Glad every season in their career might even end up Duelist for the 1st time ever if this issue is not fixed or addressed.

2 Likes

Again, 65% of the counted teams are rated 1000-1400. Challenger (top 35%) is 1400.

The teams start at 0. I wouldn’t be surprised if 80% of the total player pool was below 1000.

On the PTR the leaderboard they added states only teams with 50 wins will be eligible for titles. I sincerely hope that is a miss type, as they’ll exclude over half the ladder. You can hit 2k with less then 50 wins. I’m hoping this means individual players eligibility while the 10 game played pool requirement is still in place.

Shameless bump. Please fix blizzard!

bumping for visibility. It’s important that the devs see this.

bumping please respond blizz

Yeah, it seems even the ingame ladder planned for p2 was cut? On PTR its only showing cutoffs but no real ladder.

Bumping. Please address this blizzard! There are substantially less r1/glad spots then there should be.

Need to know accurate cutoffs! If you’re not changing it, please say something so we know we need to continue pushing!

Did some fun math earlier: There’s currently less glad spots on classic then there were R1 spots on retail for shadowlands season 1 (Divided spots by 3 to compare them to the TBC team system). Hell, it’s almost equal with shadowlands S2 R1 spots compared to TBC Glad spots, and that’s with shadowlands having ~60% less arena participation for S2.

pls fix asap

2 Likes

Facts brother

Nobody going to even mention that 2v2 is the least balanced of all brackets yet it’s going to provide a ridiculous number of Glad and R1 titles compared to 3v3 and 5v5.

I think you will get more rank 1 teams from 2v2 then 3v3 and 5v5 combined.

1 Like

But they have never said this is the case though? has this been confirmed? Maybe the API is incorrect

How do we know it’s 1400? If so that is a major troll by Blizz to make the ratings artificially low but then at the same time institute static rating requirements for gear, that never even existed in TBC S1. Idiots.

You can check the 5s ladder (since it’s low participation means less players) and find 1000. From there you can simply do the math (.1% of 4k, etc) and see it correctly syncs with the cutoff API.

From that we can deduce it is ignoring all teams below 1000. That being said, if the challenger cutoff in 2s (35%) is 1400, that means 65% of the currently tracked playerbase is between 1000 and 1400. Seeing as how so many players are in that bracket, you can imagine how many more are below 1000.

But they have never said this is the case though? has this been confirmed? Maybe the API is incorrect

The OPs number is wrong, it’s below 1000 that isn’t be tracked. The leaderboard stops around 1500 in 2s because it only displays the top 5k teams. The leaderboard API is working fine, but the cutoff API is completely incorrect.

As it stands this is completely un-blizzlike (as if teams started at 1500, this would never of been an issue) as well as a completely unannounced change. I do not believe blizzard themselves know about this, and needs to be fixed. I only hope it is fixed before the season ends, as players would not know what the cutoffs actually are.

Nobody going to even mention that 2v2 is the least balanced of all brackets yet it’s going to provide a ridiculous number of Glad and R1 titles compared to 3v3 and 5v5.

I think you will get more rank 1 teams from 2v2 then 3v3 and 5v5 combined.

This is completely true, but the fact still stands that a significantly less amount of players are eligible for titles then there would be if the API was correctly counting teams below 1000.

Blizzard will most likely use this API to hand out titles, as it’s the easiest for them. It must be fixed ASAP

13 Likes