A discussion about the new PVP rule

[Nathan]

The point is we don't have any age divisions on here. This means that with this rule, the 10 year old boxer has a chance of being considered as good as a professional and also reaping the same rewards, which is unfair to the professional as he, well, became a professional through years of training.

The age division is a metaphor for elo. Lower elo, less chance of beating a higher elo person. Especially when the high elo person faces you twice.

What's fair about being beaten by the same person twice because they use a second account to have an elo that isn't representative of their true skill?

[Idkup]

The point is we don't have any age divisions on here. This means that with this rule, the 10 year old boxer has a chance of being considered as good as a professional and also reaping the same rewards, which is unfair to the professional as he, well, became a professional through years of training.

The age division is a metaphor for elo. Lower elo, less chance of beating a higher elo person. Especially when the high elo person faces you twice.

What's fair about being beaten by the same person twice because they use a second account to have an elo that isn't representative of their true skill?

 

an age difference can only be solved with time

 

a difference in pvp skill can be solved by improving your game

 

(also if you wanted second accounts to be representative of skill, why were they first banned from ladder, that's literally preventing them from being representative of skill)

[Prehax]

With the addition of the unranked ladder, it has been decided that from now on, alternate accounts will be banned from Ranked PvP. This means that users who use multiple accounts in ranked will be punished for doing so. Rule number 7 has been amended in the PvP Rules to help clarify. With that said, we hope for a fairer and more enjoyable PvP environment.

 

The major flaw in that whole argumentation is not the fact that using two accounts is unfair, it simply makes no sense to use the Unranked Q for things and therefore makes no sense to even mention nor even make it part of the reason why alts are banned now.

Unranked has no rules and no rewards, so why would I waste my time in there trying to test a team while getting facerolled by 6x Sleep/Shadow Tag or get stalled down by 2x Slowbro/2x Tang/Chansey/Blissey. It has no actual use as substitute for the actual ranked Q. The start/reasoning was just wrong; the unranked Q has nothing to do with the ranked Q so it shouldn't even brought up to the discussion. It has no use whatsoever for people who want to grind.

 

I suggest either drop the rule and keep the "just one account" on the ladder thing or change Unranked in terms of rules and rewards.

All PVP rules should apply there and you should get something for winning in that ladder, be it 5k in pokedolar, 5 revives or something; just a reward.

Just compare it to Overwatchs Quickplay and Rankedplay, both give you XP and you can earn loot boxes, while in ranked you get rating and for wins you get special ranked rewards, while you don't get those in Quickplay; the XP/Lootboxes itself are something I want in PRO (not the same as in Overwatch but something as reward for playing it).

 

The idea of unranked is to have fun/test teams but using this as substitute for the ranked ladder where we want to grind coins/rewards makes no sense at the current state of the unranked Q. People are not only using their alts to boost guildratings or to snipe Zarate619 lol, some just like to grind coins for mounts/cloaks.

[Furtifk]

Posting to vote :3

[Stongeins]

Some one can be good enough too have multiple acc and give autowins to one and them climb up the ladder in fact multiple good enough ppl are doin that now so i think is good rule the only problem is the ppl who share ip like brothers

[Idkup]

Some one can be good enough too have multiple acc and give autowins to one and them climb up the ladder in fact multiple good enough ppl are doin that now so i think is good rule the only problem is the ppl who share ip like brothers

 

is called boosting and was always bannable

[Ostrago]

What is your issue with only being allowed 1 account? Because you want to be rewarded consistently? I view it like a tournament. You can only enter one time. You can't enter the same tournament with multiple teams. Why? So one team or one person doesn't monopolize the rewards. The intent is to [highlight=yellow]reward the top 25 pvp players. Not the top 5[/highlight] with multiple accounts. All i see arguing this is greed and people needing their ego stroked by getting multiple accounts into the top 25. Allowing multiple accounts will discourage pvp players and take the competitiveness away from anyone other than the top people. So instead of competing to reach the top 25 someone is actually having to reach top 10 essentially to even be rewarded. This is a needed rule and there is no way they are going to remove it.

[Idkup]

What is your issue with only being allowed 1 account? Because you want to be rewarded consistently? I view it like a tournament. You can only enter one time. You can't enter the same tournament with multiple teams. Why? So one team or one person doesn't monopolize the rewards. The intent is to [highlight=yellow]reward the top 25 pvp players. Not the top 5[/highlight] with multiple accounts. All i see arguing this is greed and people needing their ego stroked by getting multiple accounts into the top 25. Allowing multiple accounts will discourage pvp players and take the competitiveness away from anyone other than the top people. So instead of competing to reach the top 25 someone is actually having to reach top 10 essentially to even be rewarded. This is a needed rule and there is no way they are going to remove it.

 

i have a better idea

change top 25 to top 10 to better reflect the amount of competent players in each server

 

flame away >.>

[Hiddenrage]

Personally I don't have anything against alts. The previous rule about no alts in top25 made a lot of sense, but i can also see why it was altered to be more drastic, as people would use alts to snipe ladder players.

[Jeremco]

Why not just settle a system like lets say I hit 300 Rating, so I cant meet anyone with lower than the half of my rating ( 150 )

That could avoid the situation of 0 rating vs anyone over 300, and if you lose to someone on a alt, he need to at least be the half of your rating to meet you, so you wont waste so many points if u lose.

 

Add to that ladder isnt like a competition as someone said above.

If you want to compare something to a competition , and one entry by user this aint the definition of the " ladder " properly said, what you're talking about is a " league " or a " seasonal league " which doesnt exist on PRO.

 

And imo this is why there's so much trouble related to the ladder/how people can abuse it, because its the only thing we have as competitive players.

 

 

Give us a competition host from the forum which will be every X months so something reccurent and i'm convinced the ladder will be the last of your worries, and over time people will just not care so much about the ladder, and mostly about the " league " " seasonal league " host'd on the forum.