Either way those Diamonds and Plats are going to end up playing low Onyxs instead of Champs. And while that isn't as bad of a perception as playing a Champ it is still going to hurt.
It may still hurt, but why cultivate a negative perception that creates resentment toward the matchmaker and the ranks themselves?
If the negative perception can be curbed why not do that?
Why would you want it to be easy for legit Diamonds and Plats to appear as if they're facing off against a top 200 player when that particular player may not be all that worthy of the top 200 player label?
Why would you want elite players seen as Diamond 3-6 for a time?
Quote:Additionally I think that the perception of Champs being a rank above is due to the previous system of having a Champ barrier.
Well, yes, the 1800 Champ barrier within the Onyx tier helped ensure that only the elite Onyx players could obtain a Champ label. And due to that, the perception of those who earned a Champ spot was that they essentially were a "rank" above your general Onyx tier.
However, the whole idea and concept of the Champ label was to identify the top 200 skilled players who participate and grind a particular ranked playlist. The reason they've opened it up now by removing the barrier within the Onyx tier is precisely because the population of skillful players has dropped precipitously. They want the Champ label to still recognize the top 200 active players that can at least reach the Onyx tier.
Anyways, this is why I said I understood 343i's reasoning for removing the (past) Champ barrier and why they wouldn't want to return that particular (1800) barrier.
Quote:For years that change caused Champs to become a rank within itself above Onyx instead of just showing the top 200 Onyx players with Champ being an extension.
For years the Champ barrier worked as intended because there was enough population at the high-end to identify the top 200 Onyx players (within a playlist) while preventing low-level onyx players who may be amongst the quickest to grind a new season from earning a Champ label. The barrier was successfully achieving part of its goal which was to ensure the Champ labels couldn't easily get misrepresented. That, when earned, they were signifying a player who rightfully could be considered "elite" amongst the active population. Like I stated above, it makes perfect sense why they removed the barrier, but in doing so it's also led to some obvious perception issues.
Quote:Cap is still around D3. The issue I have with increasing it is it gets rid of the necessity to actually play the playlist to get Champ.
Thanks for letting me know that it's still D3.
How does it get rid of the necessity to play the playlist?
An Onyx grind is still going to be necessary to achieve and maintain a Champ label.
Having a starting point in Diamond simply creates a superficial grind that causes some visual confusion and perception issues within PGCRs.
Quote:The reason the cap was instituted was because top players were achieving top Champ ranks with only playing 10 games. Obviously players who actually played the playlists got angry. It just feels cheap when a player can play 10-15 games and get a top rank. And while they do deserve the rank for being that skillful it ruined a lot of players drive to play.
Not exactly, but there was one, or two, (shortened) seasons (one was after the TS2 update) where players were ranking-in at their MMR post-placement (ie. no setback). That involved plenty of complaints with regards to players earning Champ ranks after only playing their 10 placement games. And, in at least one case, a very skilled player who purposely threw his placement matches was able to earn a top Champ rank despite a ridiculously terrible negative K/D ratio and a zero win percentage. Ultimately, this was also a negative perception issue that needed to be addressed.
Prior to that (or those) shortened season(s) which removed any sense of progression, the system throughout most of Halo 5's life-cycle was setup to have a rank-in cap within Onyx and a Champ barrier above the rank-in cap. This ensured that nobody could achieve a Champ label post-placement and only the more elite players could earn a Champ label.
Now, there were plenty of complaints (from the very beginning) leveled at H5's ranking system. Plenty of out-spoken community members claimed to desire a more progressive system, such as the classic 1-50 ranks might provide. In other words, some wanted a more extensive grind requirement. The problem is that it can bring about integrity issues and confusion which H5's system has mostly managed to get away from.
Nevertheless, an attempt to appease these members was a part of the reason why a Diamond 3 placement cap was introduced. That way those at the upper levels would face more of a progressive grind each season, but this decision has also helped re-introduce some confusion and negative perceptions.
Quote:The D3 cap was decent since it required 12-13 wins to achieve onyx/champ, however now it requires half of that since getting high 20s to 30 CSR is common now.
The newest CSR updates do reduce the time needed to progress upward. This is true. But the same confusion and negative perceptions still exists at the beginning of a new season due to the D3 cap.
Quote:I don't think a change is really required since that perception usually only lasts about 2 to 3 weeks before everything starts to level out.
Again, even if it potentially lasts a few weeks why cultivate a negative perception that likely will create some resentment toward the matchmaker and the ranks themselves?
Especially, when some of it can easily be dealt with.
Quote:A D5 cap wouldn't hurt but I also don't think it would help with the perception issue. Those low Onyx players are still going to be Champs simply because the vast majority of high level players have left the game and the population is low in general. And an Onyx cap would help a bit more but now you are going back to the issue of players getting champion without actually deserving it. Also a 1550 champ [barrier] would segregate Champs into its own rank again which is a negative.
I disagree with you. I think either rank-in cap that I recommended would help limit confusion and negative perceptions. Plus, as long as it remains possible to have 200 Champs I see nothing wrong with having either a floating Champ barrier (specifically tailored to fit a playlist's Onyx population) or a fixed low-level Onyx barrier (1550). The purpose would be to limit how easy it is for just any borderline Onyx player to achieve a particular label that's meant to represent something truly meaningful.
Here are some of Josh's own words on this topic from the past:
Quote:...but then the PGCR [can] get really confusing because there [can] be players of [various] CSR levels... This makes the ranks lose meaning... because at any given time, a given rank will have players of [various] skill levels that are making their way [or progressing] through the system. My personal ideal is that a ____ player can clearly feel how much better they are than a ____ player if they play. But if we start [at a low cap level], that ____ player could actually be a ____ player that destroys the ____ player. It gets confusing.
...you need at least Onyx ____ to be [a] Champ. This was to prevent people from getting Champ by just starting out earlier in the season than everyone else. [We also don't want] people [earning] Champ right out of placement.
My recommendations better fit his original system preference.