Highly desirable imo:
- Maximum rating in NPL 1300.
- NPL AKA rates visible to every NPL user.
- MS AKA visible to every NPL user (if not exactly 1600), so people know who the smurfs with MS accounts are and won't play with them, forcing them to go back to MS.
- NPL rating visible in MS, so people making the transition can play with each other (and show that they aren't actual zero-gamers).
Up for debate:
- Set maximum games in NPL. Many will circumvent it with new accounts, but at least some people will move over when they hit the cap. However, people who improve slowly will also have to make new accounts, or go to MS and die horribly.
Highly desirable imo:
- Maximum rating in NPL 1300.
- NPL AKA rates visible to every NPL user.
- MS AKA visible to every NPL user (if not exactly 1600), so people know who the smurfs with MS accounts are and won't play with them, forcing them to go back to MS.
- NPL rating visible in MS, so people making the transition can play with each other (and show that they aren't actual zero-gamers).
Up for debate:
- Set maximum games in NPL. Many will circumvent it with new accounts, but at least some people will move over when they hit the cap. However, people who improve slowly will also have to make new accounts, or go to MS and die horribly.
This is probably the best option in the thread so far. I like the idea of setting a max number of games but I can see why people wouldnt want it
For the 0 gamer issue, just play some 1v1s or ask the host to look at your profile if you have games in NPL. I'm usually forgiving when hosting but I know some people aren't
As for resetting the ladder, there isn't much point if you wont combine the lobbies.
so maybe people over 1250 in npl be moved to MS ?
there must be a reason why NPL was introduced in the first place, and it mustve been a success at first, so going back to what it was before cant be that favourable (i only know voobly with NPL).
Issues that need to be addressed:
- Lack of players
- New players not transitioning from NPL to MS
- These lead into not enough games, which leads to not enough players, a self defeating cycle.
- Side point, little transition from gameranger/steam to Voobly
Possible option, a Black forest league (similar to the CS leagues) where its a rated bf ladder for a few months and at the end of the time period the top x players receive some kind of prizes. If this were to be successful then other leagues could follow, including lesser known maps/settings (eg a regicide league) or map packs of similar style maps (all hybrid land/water, baltic/medi/conti etc.).
Merging NPL and MS is NOT going to happen so please do not suggest that.
NPL players who says they cant get a game in MS are liars
you can host your 2v2 or 1v1 or 4v4 LN or whatever but they dont, they are just scared to play and don't want their ratings to go to 1200 or 1300 and that what should happen you have to lose to learn how to play and if you are 1300 whith 100 games in MS you can find a lot of games, so they just dont want to improve they just wanna sit in their beloved NPL.
thats what happened when I transitioned from NPL I played 1v1 until I hit the bottem and with 50+ games in my record I played a lot of LN 1400 and sometimes 1500+ games until I reached 1550 and that was it.
In any case, it is not their failure, it is a system failure. The way the lobbies and banning policies are designed almost enforces this kind of behaviour. One cannot change the players, but one can change the system. For that reason a bf ladder, mentoring whatever (all with good intentions) is just too naive. It will only bring very few to MS. Also the very idea of bringing a new ladder is actually very bad, since it appears that the current problems are largely based on having too many ladders.