



If you can't get in top because you're worse and play less than top 10 do, no need to blame us for that. And don't tell me cowmeat is the best player around so the sole reason he isn't rank 1 yet is because the system is flawed.
graph
This is your top 10 players, almost a direct correlation with games played and elo, so if you aren't absolutely shit you can just farm games and be #1.
Well done with your "skillbased" system. Is our top player SO MUCH better than the rest to be ahead by 20 elo, or has he just farmed more?
So in order to be #1 at the end of three months you have to have played a thousand games, and then you wonder why people don't want to tryhard with matchmaking.
Oh well, I guess I'm going to stop posting about problems since my style is too whiny.
Have fun with your matchmaking, not playing that shit anymore, since it's beyond criticism.
Can't see the problem here tbh. The more games you play and win, the higher you get in ranking, isn't that the purpose? This isn't the first time you complain about ranks being based on how many games were played but you never suggested a better system. Ask the community who's the best and give them rank 1? Consider W/L ratio? Are you literally saying that a player who had 500 wins out of 640 games should have a lower rank than someone who played 200 games and won 180 of them?