The Glad Mount is being gatekept behind 3s Rating and it's not fair

Dude says Welfare but is stuck in the literal Welfare bracket, can’t make this up.

As I don’t queue it? Nice job. Again, you’re trash. Get rating on a real bracket.

Says the lifetime Duelist, get good.

You were a lifetime rival pre rss. That’s what’s funny.

2 Likes

I didn’t play before RSS.

I’m sure lol.

So for now… Keep whining,. No mount for you lol
I’m sure you can try 100 subs next time. Some stranger will help you with “viewer games” lol

3 Likes

So working as intended.

8 Likes

Oh yes because hitting 2400 against zug zug warriors that can’t even spell positioning is extremely difficult

Yes, it is. Most people whining about RSS like this clown:

Can’t even break 1800 if they tried.

But yet I capped vault and still got rival 2? Just capping vault and afking half the rounds.

Reading hard for the typical rss player because I guess when gifted with welfare rating they don’t need to be able to read.

This post is exactly why RSS is killing COMPETITIVE pvp.

Ppl getting 2.4 in RSS feeling entitled to what you get in 3s.

And I dont want to hear any of the “3s is a solved game 10 years ago”. That is something you only see every time in the AWC, but if you feel that way why havent you spent the last decade playing the “solved” game and getting glad whenever you wanted?

Over the course of a season class tuning changes what works and what doesnt, theres a lot of viable comps you can get glad with. So many mongoing spell cleave/melee cleaves in SL to get glad with that you dont see in the AWC.

Its an MMO, network and meet people to play the game.

6 Likes

It’s your most queued bracket with the most games, even your excuses are Rival-tier.

It’s a DEAD MMO, fixed it for you.

LFG is dead, meeting people is hard when LFG is dead and most people who play 3s don’t want to play with people they don’t know.

If you had no friends, no Bnet connects, no XP, you will NOT be getting Glad this season.

If its a dead mmo go play an active mmo?

I dont get this argument, you want blizz to make all the rewards easier to get because less people are playing so you can feel good about yourself and continue to pay them for their “dying” game where all the achievements are participation trophies?

You will not be getting glad this season because RSS siphoned all the casual 3s players into it, and now that they are reaching new heights they’ve never seen before they come to the forums asking for a glad mount.

5 Likes

I mean why not?

Pvp rewards from vanilla onwards have been based on top percentage of players. The fact pvps popularity has exploded so that the overall skill is lower isn’t that strong of an argument.

Having said that organized teams and solo queue can’t be compared… perhaps the answer is to simply make different colors or perhaps a separate mount like mythic plus and ce?

2 Likes

I’m just confused about why they created a huge reward desert between 1800 and 2400 for this expansion. Why didn’t they leave weapon tmogs at 2100?

The people who know 2400 isn’t going to happen for them just quit after getting 1800 now. They should have at least kept something meaningful at 2100 to keep people playing.

There are none, this is dead but the ohter ones are in their after life. WoW is the only one with somewhat of a scene and you people sit there and gatekeep 3s like your life depends on it.

There’s over 100k+ Shuffle players and less than 5k 3s.

Why should Blizzard cater to a literal dead game mode? It makes zero financial sense.

Weapon enchant is 2100.

The weird one is the new “rival 2” at 1950 that only provides a small pve ilvl upgrade and nothing else.

Allegedly. It’s ugly and nobody is going to stick around just for that, be real.

No reason they shouldn’t have kept weapons at 2100 when 2400 gets tabard and opens up chance for glad.

1 Like

I agree on all those points lol.

The enchant is garbo and doesn’t fit the “crimson” theme.

Weapons at 2100 would be nice.

I’m all for more rewards.

yeah exactly this, different rewards to incentivize both forms of content.