Suggestion

[Firego]

Only give out titles for doing 3s. This will motivate people to que more.=)

 

Next season of course.

[Nemifest]

+1

 

This is being done on several other private servers, promoting 3v3 to be more active.

[Firego]

+1

 

This is being done on several other private servers, promoting 3v3 to be more active.

 

Noice m7+1

[Jegerm]

Or they can keep rewarding both 2v2 and 3v3 winners but the top 20 players at 3s ladder should take more bonuses, more mounts, transmogs etc...

 

I support the suggestion as well

[tiggar47]

Nah, I disagree, I think 2s is still better in every way then 3s.

[Firego]

Or they can keep rewarding both 2v2 and 3v3 winners but the top 20 players at 3s ladder should take more bonuses, more mounts, transmogs etc...

 

I support the suggestion as well

 

As long as u get titles from 2s, it wont help with increasing the amount of bonuses u get. Ppl do it for the title.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Nah, I disagree, I think 2s is still better in every way then 3s.

 

Yes cuz u dont know how 3s work.

[tiggar47]

 

 

 

Yes cuz u dont know how 3s work.

 

Probably but that is not the reason, I don't completly disagree with you and what about 5s?

[krizp]

Dont give r1 title in 2s, only give gladiator as they do on war**ne and also instal solo q system would be so great. Edited July 2, 2016 by krizp

[Nemifest]

Probably but that is not the reason, I don't completly disagree with you and what about 5s?

 

None even wants to do 5s, it's complete clusterf*ck. You probably don't even know what to do in 5s, since you don't know in 3s.

[tiggar47]

None even wants to do 5s, it's complete clusterf*ck. You probably don't even know what to do in 5s, since you don't know in 3s.

 

I don't care about 3s and 5s, I only play few games of 2s and that's it.

[Firego]

I don't care about 3s and 5s, I only play few games of 2s and that's it.

 

If you dont know what youre talking about, please do not comment.

 

2s is imbalanced as fuck. Its most of the time 40% damp+. Its boring. Its a comp dominated bracket. A lot of classes cant compete cause some classes just simply suck.

 

Everythibg is viable in 3s. Even if u fight counter comps, you can still win.

 

5s is retarded and every1 should know that. Its quite obvious why it shouldnt be possible to get rewarded.

[tiggar47]

 

2s is imbalanced as fuck. Its most of the time 40% damp+. Its boring. Its a comp dominated bracket. A lot of classes cant compete cause some classes just simply suck.

 

 

 

True, but you seriusly think if they increase 3s rewards more people will play it?

[Noneedholy]

You should reward 2s since we are on a private server and you cant expect more queues only because there are titles given. Most of the people will still tryhard 2s so it wont help that much. But yeah, id say only reward the first 2 ppl in 2s and in 3s the first 6. Smth like that

[Autschbatsch]

nd what about 5s?

No one will take you srs from this point on. Even if they don't know you

[tiggar47]

No one will take you srs from this point on. Even if they don't know you

 

I know, 5s is made to be doomed, I was sarcastic about that part :P

[Autschbatsch]

I was sarcastic about that part :P

Thank god. But yea i think there needs to be a middle ground to motivate people to be able to casual q 3v3. So extend the Challanger and Rival range for example also duelist imo. 2s should be relevant. But as i already stated in the past;

 

I think there should be an equal amount of TEAMS that get glad/rank1. For example the best 3 3v3 teams get rank1, so 9spots. And the best 3 2v2 teams get rank1, so 6spots.

 

The only problem i would see here is that the numbers are uneven. So you can't give out 2different rank1 names in one season.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Autschbatsch

[tiggar47]

Thank god. But yea i think there needs to be a middle ground to motivate people to be able to casual q 3v3. So extend the Challanger and Rival range for example also duelist imo. 2s should be relevant. But as i already stated in the past;

 

I think there should be an equal amount of TEAMS that get glad/rank1. For example the best 3 3v3 teams get rank1, so 9spots. And the best 3 2v2 teams get rank1, so 6spots.

 

The only problem i would see here is that the numbers are uneven. So you can't give out 2different rank1 names in one season.

 

Wintraders will always try to be rank 1 if this system comes to its resolve, they're tryharding anyways.

[Firego]

2s shouldnt grant r1 titles at least...

[Nemifest]

Wintraders will always try to be rank 1 if this system comes to its resolve, they're tryharding anyways.

 

Lol, there's wintraders everywhere in Pandawow, cuz gms hardly take action, and if they're reported. Takes days to take action.

[Garodar]

Wrong idea. Keep titles for 2s, but make titles in 3's more available.

 

Make rating requirements, not place/number requirements as it is now.

 

This what I'm gonna say is just an example, not a real opinion:

 

Let say 2v2:

R1 req would be 3k.

Glad range would be 2.9k.

Duelist 2.8k.

Rival 2.7k.

Challenger 2.6k

 

In 3v3 'tho.

 

Make Rating requirement alot lower, almost twice as lower. That way, players would feel 3v3 is easier to get titles in because it is less inflated, lower rating requirements and easier titles. Then the bracket would get more inflated and populated.

 

This however is just me talking. Feel free to disagree. :)

[Kroz]

Wrong idea. Keep titles for 2s, but make titles in 3's more available.

 

Make rating requirements, not place/number requirements as it is now.

 

This what I'm gonna say is just an example, not a real opinion:

 

Let say 2v2:

R1 req would be 3k.

Glad range would be 2.9k.

Duelist 2.8k.

Rival 2.7k.

Challenger 2.6k

 

In 3v3 'tho.

 

Make Rating requirement alot lower, almost twice as lower. That way, players would feel 3v3 is easier to get titles in because it is less inflated, lower rating requirements and easier titles. Then the bracket would get more inflated and populated.

 

This however is just me talking. Feel free to disagree. :)

 

Already done:

 

Minimum rating: 2500 in 2х2, or not less then 2200 in 3х3.

[Garodar]

Already done:

 

That isn't what I meant... /facepalm

 

EDIT: What I meant:

 

If you get 2800 in 2's, you're determined to get duelist.

 

If you get 2600, you're set for a challenger.

 

They shouldn't give out titles by place, shouldn't be r1, r36. Should be rating req.

[Kroz]

That isn't what I meant... /facepalm

 

EDIT: What I meant:

 

If you get 2800 in 2's, you're determined to get duelist.

 

If you get 2600, you're set for a challenger.

 

They shouldn't give out titles by place, shouldn't be r1, r36. Should be rating req.

 

The way it's done is blizz-like (for 2s) and for 3s is lowered!

[Nemifest]

Wrong idea. Keep titles for 2s, but make titles in 3's more available.

 

Make rating requirements, not place/number requirements as it is now.

 

This what I'm gonna say is just an example, not a real opinion:

 

Let say 2v2:

R1 req would be 3k.

Glad range would be 2.9k.

Duelist 2.8k.

Rival 2.7k.

Challenger 2.6k

 

In 3v3 'tho.

 

Make Rating requirement alot lower, almost twice as lower. That way, players would feel 3v3 is easier to get titles in because it is less inflated, lower rating requirements and easier titles. Then the bracket would get more inflated and populated.

 

This however is just me talking. Feel free to disagree. :)

 

If they lower the requirement in 3's. It won't increase the gain of population and activity, since ppl won't have to really.. "Fight" long to achieve something worth. But good idea either way.

[Garodar]

If they lower the requirement in 3's. It won't increase the gain of population and activity, since ppl won't have to really.. "Fight" long to achieve something worth. But good idea either way.

 

Well, doesn't neccessarily have to be low req, just make titles harder to get in 2s than 3s.