I would feel like I just wasted nearly 20 minutes running around, watching others fight and avoid any type of conflict until I had no other choice but to fight back.Īgain, I do not feel that either style is lesser than each other. I have my own personal standards, as many other players who have the same play style as me, where I am not satisfied with winning a match with 10 Kills or less.
However, I am very ok with failing to win a game because I was trying my best to get as many kills as I possibly could. Those games aren't exactly worth acknowledging in my opinion. I think that getting high kill games require a lot of skill, but if you don't win the game, is it really worth talking about? If I had a 30 kill game, but lost, I would feel like it was a lost opportunity, because I couldn't finish the game out with a win. It does however reflect on his kill average which is low, especially for how far he makes it in each game. He plays very cautiously, and rarely makes the mistake of over pushing, leaving cover and forcing fights. I think it is impressive that TacticTV can play so many solo matches, and live to see the Top 10 almost every single match he plays. I personally do not care for that type of play style, but I am not going to discredit it, as if it is lesser than how I play which is for high kill wins. There are players like TacticTV who also play a decent amount of matches, but also have nearly 50% Win Ratio, 75% Top 10, but also only average 4-5 Kill Averages. I just don't know if statistics like this should determine your tier rank. I play on the NA Server, and I am not going to mention this persons PSN but the last I saw they had over 2,000+ matches, ranked in the top 10 on Solo's with a 2% Win Ratio, and Kill Average of 0.669 (last I remember). ^ This is especially true on Solo's, where you do not get any extra bonus points for kills & assist. Obviously, as you suggested before, it's not based upon a skill level, its counted towards the amount of time you put into the game. However, I don't really find it to be very fitting for the tier rank itself. Just to be clear, I don't think the Ranked Leaderboard system is bad, it is good for the statistics of it.
I was just hoping to get an understanding as to why Daybreak went with Ranked Leaderboards vs Top 10 Matches. As it would motivate players to play more, as it's a goal worth achieving, even if its not the best score in the world, its still worth visually seeing that you have beat your personal best score. I also strongly feel that not just the more dedicated players who log tons of hours into the game, but the casual players would appreciate this system just as much. The most simple, yet balanced and evident system to determine ones true rank. I feel that the Top 10 Matches tier ranking system was one of the best ranking systems' to ever exist.
H1Z1 SEASON RANKS PC
I don't dislike the new Ranked Leaderboard, but yet, I still feel very let down as I was hoping for the old/similar PC tier ranking system, based upon your Top 10 Matches. I believe that most of the community had the impression that Daybreak was testing out the system in Solo's, and would release the new Tier Ranking system in S3 across all modes. On a more personal note, I had very high hopes for S3, and was thoroughly excited that Daybreak was hinting at implementing a Top 10 Matches tier ranking system near the end of S2. I was just wondering if you could tell us why the development team implemented Top 10 Matches in S2, but later threw out the idea and went with the new Ranked Leaderboard instead in S3?Īlso, could we expect the return or official introduction of Top 10 Matches again in S4? This message is for regarding the late Season 2 introduction of Top 10 Matches in Solo's to determine tier ranking, versus the current Ranked Leaderboard System implemented into Season 3.
0 kommentar(er)
