There are currently about 40 purple players in the displayed top. This is the biggest discreditation of this rank known to me since the color rank system in ZK. The difference between the best player of the purple rank and the worst is almost 900whr, if we take the average lower limit of 2700, then the difference is already ~600whr. I ask you to solve this problem, and how to do it correctly can be discussed in this post.
+5 / -0
|
"Purple Rank" is based on %, not a fixed value. As more new players join, the "rating requirement" drops.
+3 / -0
|
If there are a lot of active players, then there will be a lot of purple ones, but is this right? Shouldn't rank be something exclusive?
+0 / -0
|
how long do inactive accounts last?
+0 / -0
|
Purple is top 1%, so that just means the ladder has about 4000 people in the last few weeks (I forget exactly how long the ladder time is).
+1 / -0
|
|
|
Make 2 extra ranks? so instead of top 5%, top 1 % -> top 5%, top 2%, top 1%, top 0,3%, for example. From top 2% to 1% its 100% decrease, and to 0,3 70% decrease which feels right for the best of the best.
+0 / -0
|
All the ranks are growing, not just purple, so I think it is fine and normal. I can see what you are saying though; you want something kind of like the badge for "top 3 player" but for something more like the top 10? Maybe a slightly different badge could be made for that. There could be a separate rank that isn't based on percentages, but I feel like that would make it more confusing.
+1 / -0
|
funny. i was never purple. i was at one time at 12th spot in casual, but still blue. BUT DO YOU SEE ME COMPLAINING?
+5 / -0
|
on another note, would it make sense to remove "inactive" accounts from having purple etc color? 
+0 / -0
|
Inactive accounts don't show up on the leaderboard or contribute to the percentages though. They just keep what they used to have.
+1 / -0
|
Should there be so many purple players? 
+0 / -0
|
I think this calls for a new rank. Maybe Green at around 2600 or 2700 elo. Then purple has to be 3000 and above. This keeps the elo ranges between the ranks roughly the same(300).
+1 / -0
|
Another solution could be limiting colours to leaderboard rankings instead. Either top 10 for purple, top 100 for blue. This could be either matchmaking or casual.
+0 / -0
|
I like my purple rank. I printed it and put it on my fridge along with all my other feel good drawings and my box of crayons.
+6 / -0
|
quote:
I like my purple rank. I printed it and put it on my fridge along with all my other feel good drawings and my box of crayons. |
I made a blue cake for    skuggtheother to mark the big day. Purple appears to mostly be pain, honestly. I'm happy to see one join the lobpot, can't trust a blue to know anything more than arty spamming! Who will win the game for me, if not a purple? Or reversed, who is going to lose it for the other team, if not the horde of red needed to balance the purple?
+0 / -0
|
For casual it's a curse because of how the balancer works. If the lob pot room population is maxed the balancer is decent, but otherwise the best player(s) are matched with the worst and you get one side with a very wide skill gap, making some fronts functionally uncontested. I'm just poking fun at how seriously some take it to be purple. I still think that if anyone plays enough, they'll reach it eventually so casual purple means nothing and I don't understand what needs to be fixed. IMO the only worthwile change here would be that only MM elo grants purple and casual is stuck at blue, or that there is a different color for top 1% casual and MM purple supercedes it if you have both.
+1 / -0
|
The color rank system was always an approximation - to quote http://zero-k.info/Charts/Ratings?RatingCategory=1&UserId=5295 "In order to change rank in either direction, a player's rating has to surpass a 20% threshold into the next rank.". That means that even before there was quite a difference between the highest ranked and the lowest rank in any rank (purple or otherwise). The system still works well to determine what you can expect for a player in a team game, although if you want a clearer picture you have to look at the actual WHR value (pressing tab shows it for me not sure if it is an option). Maybe people would like to mark somehow "the best X players" (with X being small and fixed), but while I don't mind it I don't care about it either as I kind of know who the best players are... I think tournaments wins are a much better thing to mark more distinctively, as I find having them implies more direct/clear effort than the WHR.
+0 / -0
|
according to steam charts we're at (if we ignore January this year) all time high player count since May 2020
+3 / -0
|
The current system proves to be beneficial to my ego so my stance is to keep it the way it is
+0 / -0
|
