Higher rating than "Rating A+" (3)

Let's go to the infinite height.

Therefore, the rating point (2699) that was the upper limit of "Rating A+" is released. Let's fight for a new goal (9999).

Of course, it is treated as "A+" in the rating, and the fluctuation of the rating point is the same as before.

There is one big change.

The "Rating A+" mark is underlined. This is a percentage of the current ranking of that player.

・No mark is the player of A+ (~2699) until now.

・The four lines belong to the group of 60% of the top players (2700~).

・The 3 main lines belong to the group of 30% of the top players.

・The two lines belong to the group of 15% of the top players.

・One line belongs to the group of 5% of the top players. The highest player in the rating.

These line displays are indicators only and do not guarantee your ability. However, the points that have been won and collected so far are regarded as experience points. In Custom Match, this line display can also be added to the matching conditions.

The upper limit is a point that cannot be easily reached. However, if there is a reaching person, it is better to increase the upper limit value.

Inactive players won't lose points, but if the overall average point acquisition goes up, the rating will be relatively low.

At the beginning of implementation, there is almost no difference between top players and players below it. A system that allows top players to continue climbing endlessly. With time, the difference will be huge.

There is also a big problem. Top players may not be able to afford to play other than rating. When competition logic works, changes in the environment are also deadly. The competitiveness is increased, but it seems that this game may be less attractive.

I can't say it well, but it ends up being a "simple interpersonal game."

Therefore, this proposal is an extreme example. I think the way new users reach the top players is in the area of "competing for patience" rather than being a long way off.

It's not fair and unhealthy as a sport.

It looks like you'll be repeating the tragedy of the early rank matches that existed in the past. After all, it seems healthy to adopt a seasonal system that regularly refreshes the top players.

A system in which a strong player can reach the top is preferable to a system in which the player who continues to be in the rating match maintains the top position.

After all, it seems that the current situation is not that bad. It is a system that can easily reach the highest rating if you can win consecutively to some extent, so it is kind to new players and it is difficult for active players to maintain.

The problem with the current situation is that some of the players who have reached the highest rank are not competent.

If this problem can be solved, it seems that the current highest rating will still work.

At the "A+" stage, the rival system is not working effectively. Given the circumstances in which a situation can occur where "sacrifice your score to win", I think it's a good choice to take measures that give more weight to your victory than your score.

We need a slightly different perspective. I will talk about this next.