You keep trying to show this % vs numbers thing, I don’t care. I figure out what % of the ladder I’m in every season to see if I would of gotten gladiator by the old requirements. In SL S2 2400 was far past 1-2% of the ladder and was far too high for the amount of gladiators rewarded.
Big agree, I think finding a good # is great, its too late to return to .5% but I think 3-5% is far too high.
No, the numbers are not opinion, I did the math during the season. The % being too high isn’t also just my opinion, there is a reason blizz hasn’t allowed the ladder to get that inflated again.
Well, again, that’s why the participation numbers are important.
What do you have to show that 380,000 players didn’t play in SL S2? Only 2% got glad, there were just more players. ¯\ _ (ツ)_/¯
I thought 2400 during Unchained was top 8% or something. 
Anyways, what’s all this then
Again, I did the math during the season. You can try to spin it anyway you want, you’re wrong.
It was like 7-8%.
You’re not going to get an honest back and forth man. Better to not engage.
Speaking of Unchained I wonder if that poor Enhancement fellow was issued at least a partial refund.
Mhm. Missing Luduslabs. I think it’d be cool if they just put percentages as well as actual ladder # (below 2400) somewhere in the mouseover tooltip for each bracket.
Like, #2255 overall, #18 Arcane, top 2% of spec, top 4% overall
I had an idea about changing back to active % based rewards. Something along the lines of (numbers made up) like top 1% of the ladder = elite and it changes every reset. The pvp tab would show your cr and show you where the cutoff to get to the lower and higher ranking of where your at for the week. Thought this would be cool and remove the whole debate about being 2400 in sls2 and not being able to get it in dfs3.
I think what youre missing is that just because the % swing changes the # of gladiators that people care about there being more % gladiators.
More % titles is fine. Its when the number of players goes up and the fixed title drags the bar down again. Like mentioned by kenny, s2 unchained had something like 8% of players getting glad.
The fixed title changes the %, thats not cool. The % is a better more versatile system that doesnt punish players for deflation. It doesnt matter if youre 2000 or 2700, if you’re a rival you’re a rival. There were gladiators who didnt have their 2200 rewards back in the day because they were on backwater roleplaying servers. Good for them. They were still in the top percentage.
I feel like youre confusing more gladiators as the problem when it’s that theres more than there “should” be.
Speaking as a no time gladiator rival player.
Tl;dr fixed title produces inconsistent results determined by inflation and participation where as % has no bias
Sure it sucks if there’s only 200 teams and 2 get a title or whatever % you set it at. But thats on us for having a dying game as our passtime & a toxic community that bashes people for sucking.
But that can flux with participation numbers just as much.
There’s 100 people 3000-2800, 100 people 2800-2400. 9,800 people 2400-1500.
There’s 100 people 3000-2800, 100 people 2800-2400. 99,800 people 2400-1500.
You could have players getting gladiator in the 1800 bracket because those 2000 spots would drop down to people less than 2400 rated.
End of the Season % based rewards are better, but at least that 2400 was some sort of mark to ensure things like that couldn’t happen from an artificially inflated season.
I 100% agree.
While I appreciate you saying this, this is kindof my point.
It’s on “us” if only 200 teams are playing and 2 people get the title, but what if it’s the opposite? What if there’s 200,000 people playing and 4,000 get the title?
That’s why this whole conversation is an issue on the forums. Players want the number to be what they want them to be, and they think that any given system is magically going to make that happen.
A lot of people will have different views of what any % reward should be, is all.
As Ion would say, just get good.
I think thats the confusion. The number is only relevant when theres a fixed cutoff. 10 gladiators, 8000 gladiators. Current season vs unchained (whatever the real numbers are)
What im saying is that when its a % that awards the title it doesnt matter how many people play. Those who earn it deserve to be there. Its a competition, yeah? 15, 200, 5,000. Doesnt matter. Theyre in the 0.5%.
Nobody likes having rewards devalue.
I agree. But i guess i just see it as the original system being perfectly fine and the change being unwarranted. I personally havent queued 3s since the change. I never pushed or cared, but its lost its attraction as i cant see where i stand at the end of it all.
The problem is that 2400 can be %rival in an inflated season, but with the new system thats gladiator like it or not.
Ive seen 2700 rivals. 2900 duelists.
% is simply better imo.
Rating has always just been a number. But with the new system 2400 is glad. Its just another milestone
Almost everything you said was horribly wrong. I don’t know how you can type that with so much confidence.
Even the percentage for glad is top 10%, the number of glad in this season would be still smaller than shadowland season 1. Because the total number of people in pvp is like significantly smaller… There has to be more incentive than just titiles…
It does cause the system is a bell curve that has to account for artificial inflation.
If I have 100 characters 1600, that adds to the overall total of “participants.” This will in turn effects the % based rewards. Times this by 10,000 people creating 100, 1600 rated characters and you could have Gladiator dropping down to 1800. (as an example)
While this is an extreme, in today’s day and age, it wouldn’t really be that hard to get the community to break the system.
Get 1600 stop playing that character, the top ratings will hardly move, but as the population grows the % base will begin to grow and move “down” in rating, allowing those just sitting at 1900-2100 a “glad spot.”
If they make glad not as prestigious then all people that bought carries are gonna be ripped off and mad and hop on the forums 
I think if this were feasible it wouldve been more common when we had exponentially more pvp players. I get what you’re saying though
I feel like an important point that doesn’t get discussed is with the dwindling population, the players left seem really hardcore compared to 5-6 years ago even. The players at 1600 5-6 years ago are nowhere near as capable as the 1600 players today. Back in wrath of the lich king 1800 required way less skill than today. There was a lot more casual players to beat up on and I am sure there are players stuck in 1600 that feel like it doesn’t make sense and they have improved so much why is there rating not going up.
kydrav question do you like wear any other mogs ik you have a red and blue version of the nighthold set but do you wear anything else.