BGs - four medals is the most annoying number of medals
TyEdge
Member Posts: 3,116 ★★★★★
With changes to the number of tiers and the medaling system, I just want to take a moment to say that 4 medals is the most frustrating number of medals to choose for each rank.
Obviously two wins would put you straight through. If you go win-loss, though, you’re on the hook for at least two more matches, meaning it takes 4 to advance. Or WL(1 win or loss in whatever order)W for 5 fights to advance.
Number of fights (starting with a win), path to advance, win %
2 fights: WW 100%
4 fights: WLWW 75%
5 fights: WL(1-1)W 60%
I know it’s a little tricky because you can string an infinite number of losses on someone with zero medals or they could lose their way down to zero, but I think it’s important to look at these winning percentages being required to advance even WITH the +2/-1 change.
Fewer tiers with consolidated rewards and sticking with 3-medal (very early ranks) and 5-medal tiers would have been slightly less frustrating IMO. Instead of 5 levels of platinum with 22 medals (44455) make it 20 medals and 5555, for example.
Obviously two wins would put you straight through. If you go win-loss, though, you’re on the hook for at least two more matches, meaning it takes 4 to advance. Or WL(1 win or loss in whatever order)W for 5 fights to advance.
Number of fights (starting with a win), path to advance, win %
2 fights: WW 100%
4 fights: WLWW 75%
5 fights: WL(1-1)W 60%
I know it’s a little tricky because you can string an infinite number of losses on someone with zero medals or they could lose their way down to zero, but I think it’s important to look at these winning percentages being required to advance even WITH the +2/-1 change.
Fewer tiers with consolidated rewards and sticking with 3-medal (very early ranks) and 5-medal tiers would have been slightly less frustrating IMO. Instead of 5 levels of platinum with 22 medals (44455) make it 20 medals and 5555, for example.
3
Comments