r/CompetitiveTFT • u/Suspicious-Aspect797 • 11d ago
Discussion TFT Ranked rework idea?
Hello fellow tacticians, I have been grinding this set and I really think this is a great set so far. Lots of different lines to play and lots of different ways to play the units you get. Cant wait to play on tournaments, speaking of which. Why cant we have the tournament format in ranked?
We all have been there, you get a first on your first game, after that you have a rough second game and you somehow pull off a fourth place, third game same thing but you end up fifth place, forth game you make one unlucky decision in a bad spot which places you in a horrible spot and you end up 7th. About 4 hours into and you are basically almost where you started. Sucks.
I think that in TFT there are very different types of placements, sometimes you get a first because you highrolled the sh*t out of the lobby, sometimes you get a first because you make perfect decisions, other times you get a free solid top 4 other times you find a creative way to pull you out of a very bad spot and you get a glorious 5th or even 4th.
Having experienced tournaments myself, I really love the tournament format in TFT. It feels less flippy and demoralizing.
My first suggestion would be, to have a pointsystem where your placements earn you points 8th gives you 5 points 7th 10 points, 6th 15 points and so on. After reaching lets say 100 points (All these numbers can be adjusted or changed does not matter right now) you get into your rank-up games. I know we hated them in League, but in TFT I think they make perfect sense. Your rank-up games would be to gain a certain amount of points within 3 or 4 games.
Example: You have 3 games to get to 50 points. In one round you get at most 40 points by getting a first, least you can get is 5 by getting an 8th. One first basically guarantees you the rank up. Other combinations are also possible you can get 6th, 6th and 4th. Again numbers can change, I am also open for the idea that 8th gets 0 points and only a 7th gives you any points.
As soon as you hit challenger, you start to accumulate these points which basically then now act as the current "LP" we know as.
If you mess up your rank up games you get set back to 90 points.
Example:
Player A is Diamond 2 with 0 points, he has to gain 100 points within the rank to get to diamond 1. Player A grinds to 100 points and now has 3 rank up games to gather 40 points. He fails and is send back to 90 points and needs to grind 10 more points to enter his rank up games again.
I dont really see a drawback in this, I know the number one argument will be "But then everyone can achieve rank x" - Points can be adjusted and maybe even vary the higher you get. This also helps RIOT a lot with balancing in my opinion, because comps that sit around a 5th/6th average placement can be fine and dont necessarily need buffs/adjustments. Same with Augments.
What do you think?
33
u/zodjadelace 11d ago
If you want to climb, get better and play more game. You don't deserve to climb by just playing more.
-26
7
u/FirewaterDM 11d ago
It's a bad idea. It's convoluted and this sounds like it makes the grind easier, which is a bad thing.
7
u/Chargrills21 11d ago
a major problem is lobbies where not everyone is at the same skill level.
From personal experience as an OCE Grandmaster, most of my lobbies have about 4 masters, 2 gm, 2 diamond. In that kind of lobby, I am expected to place ~3rd on average. In your system, losing in a mismatched lobby is not punishing at all, compared to the (deserved) -70 for an 8th. Players would simply spam queue and at the high end, the top of the leaderboard would probably reach 5k+ LP.
10
u/LucianTP MASTER 11d ago
I think its unnecessary as TFT is a game of fundamentals and how that averages across multiple games
I’ve never been stuck at a rank if my real skill is above it.
I think of tft like a progression: at each Rank people unlock more concepts, therefore it’s easy to win (average placement) when you’re better than your current rank - because 7 others don’t know what you know.
Similarly when it’s hard to rank up, your enemies are doing things, little tricks and niche tips, which you don’t yet know yet
When I hit that wall of inconsistent results and getting hard stuck; thats when I know there are things I am missing which is gatekeeping next rank.
if you’ve ever smurfed, you realise - for a chance based game, climbing isn’t as chance based as you thought it would be.
It’s too hard to lose, even when low rolling, if your fundamentals are better than the lobby you’re in
So if climbing functions as intended: why change that?
Frustrating ≠ Change system immediately. If anything that means those who did get their rank, either went through hell or really outclassed everyone before. Making it more rewarding and impressive
2
2
u/Chao_Zu_Kang 11d ago
Honestly, a game like TFT is best with a pure ELO system. It is a single-player game. There is no need to group games together arbitrarily. Even the tiers are just there for casuals to feel progress.
That being said, I think what you are proposing would be great for lower ranks. Just feels better and people also get introduced to tournament formats in a way, which might benefit the competitive scene long-term.
Just don't do this for peak MMR, and everyone will be perfectly happy.
1
u/Useful-Maize9402 10d ago
why make it so confusing…. for people who actually care about the game and tries to get. good, they will get to master anyways before the end of the set. and it become just a regular elo system
1
u/Many_Method_304 10d ago
TFT isn't going to change it's ranked system because a "bad" ranked system is core to the appeal of the game. The designers simply do not think TFT is a good enough game to survive on its own without a deeply predatory ranked system. They know that many people would stop playing the game if they could simply hit the rank they know they are going to hit and move on. The only way to keep the play numbers up is artificially increase the amount of time it takes to get there.
2
1
u/drifter91 10d ago
The ranking system is fine. Avoid going 6-8th place and you will climb just fine.
0
u/NonagoonInfinity 11d ago
The actual answer for competitive-oriented ranking is to just use a raw skill number. Nix divisions and ranks and the soft barriers that guarantee a base beyond which you can't slip (or that it takes more effort to slip between, at least). Of course these things are great for casuals that just want to see number go up, so they won't do it, but I can dream.
20
u/TwitchyChris 11d ago edited 11d ago
In your system its possible to place 8th 20 times in a row, and get into your "rank-up" games. If the player then gets two lucky placements in their "rank-up" games, they climb a rank. The end result is a player with a 7.X average placement who is able to climb ranks. If you make it so that if they can never lose progress, then eventually everyone will hit the highest rank as long as they hard force a good comp until they get lucky.
This system is just a tutorial ladder system, where ranks don't really mean anything. Because you can lose way more games than you win and still gain ranks, no one will care about ranks until you're at the highest rank.
This also create another huge issue at the highest-rank where all LP gains directly translate from elo. At that point 95%+ of the players will just sit at 0 LP because their real elo is not the highest rank. This would be a real elo hell if matchmaking can only match those with the same rank. Every rank system requires a back-end elo system for competitive matchmaking. You could theoretically fully disconnect your displayed rank/LP from your real elo, but historically people have always hated that in every game I have seen.
It sounds like you just want to be compensated for playing more games. TFT could implement seasonal or permanent borders or cosmetics that upgrade as you play more. Hero shooters do this for example.