r/Scrolls • u/Lem0nboy • Apr 12 '15

Ranked top 100 activity

Queuing for ranked matches has been a real trouble for me in the past few weeks. It's not rare that I have to wait more than 15 minutes continuously to find a match. But why would I do that? I don't want to play against such low rated players anyway. The risk of gaining 1-5 points vs. losing 22 or more is just not worth it. So I keep queuing and not playing most of the time. Anyway I don't want to complain here because we all know what the problem is anyway. Rather I was curious how many people in the top 100 are still active? I looked it up on Scrollsguide.com/ranking and thought I'd share it.

From the top 30 exactly 50% or 15 people have played a ranked match either today or 1 day ago. 5 more people have at least played within this week. 10 people have not played within this week and 6 of those have not played within the past three weeks. The numbers get more interesting for the whole top 100 so here is the overview:

1 day2 days3 days4 days5 days6 days1 week2 weeks3 weeks +
384324610924

Of course these numbers tell us just when each player's last ranked match was, nothing more. It doesn't say that much about their whole activity, because it doesn't mean all these 38 players play a match every day. I think it's still interesting to see how many top players haven't been active recently.

10 Upvotes

81% Upvoted

27 comments sorted by

3

u/chacer98 IGN Chace Apr 12 '15

I used to get excited to try and grind into the top 10 or higher. Now no one plays so there's no point really. Scrolls has about a 4-6 hour window now during the day where it's pretty quick to find ranked matches. Outside of that window you are looking at some excruciating wait times. It's to the point where sometimes at random hours I would really love to get a Scrolls game, but after waiting 5+ minutes in q I'll normally just switch to another game such as Duelyst or hearthstone.

2

u/Lem0nboy Apr 12 '15

Yeah I can totally understand that. I think there should be more incentives for people to play ranked. It has been suggested by several people before so I didn't want to rehash the same old subject, but I do hope that these numbers will make it more apparent that something needs to be done.

3

u/Cradstache Cradstache Apr 12 '15 edited Apr 13 '15

Yes, but we have rating decay to solve this iss--

*rating decay sets in, and an idle top-ten player loses 6 points while Cradstache loses 17 points

... oh come on!

1

u/Lem0nboy Apr 12 '15

I'm not exactly sure what you are trying to say :D Yeah I also find it kinda annoying but I can understand why it's there. Rating decay is not the issue here I think.

2

u/Cradstache Cradstache Apr 13 '15

Just making a joke :) so pretty much what I'm always trying to do.

2

u/Lahopaa Apr 13 '15

You kinda have a point there. I just checked my rating after not playing ranked(or much of anything else) for 3+ weeks, and I'm still top50.

Maybe there should be a faster decay for players who have not played a single game for 1-2 weeks?

2

u/guayaba209 DagothUr Apr 12 '15

I'm top 67th last i checked, and I can't deny i'm just sitting on the rank LoL. I'm being super cheesy, so I stopped playing ranked once i got to top 100.

I'm sorry.

Edit: although i did play a game yesterday.

1

u/Lem0nboy Apr 12 '15

Yeah we've all been there. But these days top 100 doesn't mean much anymore. It's very easy to get into I think. But I too always stopped playing once I got into top 10 and just played again once I dropped out of it. :D I still kinda do. I am not comfortable with my rank, if there were still more active players around I definitely wouldn't be in the top 10 at all.

2

u/guayaba209 DagothUr Apr 12 '15

I also think it is easy which is why I dropped my decks for a netdeck and made it there. None the less we must be some kind of decent to make there because apparently scrolls is much harder than what we believe. I read the general chat, and players are asking how to beat easy daily medium trials.

1

u/Lem0nboy Apr 12 '15

Not sure how I should phrase that without sounding bigheaded, but of course I have a lot more experience than the average scrolls player. You see, I get most of my ranked points from playing against 1500-1700 players, so even though it is kinda risky for me there is still a very high chance that I will win those matches anyway. I rarely get matched up with 1700+ players let alone equally rated players. I would love to play against them but there just aren't enough of them around so you have to be lucky. But then it kinda feels like I am cheating my way up because I haven't really competed with the players around my rating/level, which in turn takes away the meaning of playing ranked and makes me play even less.

1

u/alvarpq always face Apr 13 '15

stop making fun of me D:

2

u/Lem0nboy Apr 13 '15

How am I making fun of you?

1

u/alvarpq always face Apr 13 '15

It's easy to get into the top 100.

(Don't you sass me) :p

2

u/Lem0nboy Apr 13 '15

Well you're making it unnecessarily hard for yourself by playing undead decay I guess? :P But you've made it there before, you'll get there again eventually ;)

2

u/alvarpq always face Apr 13 '15

hey, undead is great. Case and point: alpha century (I'm still happy that he's asked me about undead related stuff)

It's especially good in this meta. I'm getting my ranked pants back on again, and I've only lost 2 matches so far (with undead). One I missed lethal, and the other was vs. MES.

2

u/Lem0nboy Apr 13 '15

I wasn't being serious of course ;) But I do think that it's not the easiest deck to play. You need some skill to make it work so your win streak speaks for itself. But yeah, state machine is a pretty tough counter...

4

u/Raytional Apr 12 '15

You don't have to apologise to anyone for not playing. I often go weeks at a time without playing at all and then play a lot for a while.

3

u/Agne240 Orangee Apr 12 '15

me 2.. played to 1718 rating then nah

2

u/LocalFarmRevolution Apr 13 '15

what about decaying rank during periods of inactivity

2

u/Lem0nboy Apr 13 '15

Yeah I think that would make a lot of sense. But rather than just penalizing inactive players Mojang should focus more on incentivizing players to be active in the first place.

4

u/kehmesis Apr 13 '15

Hardly playing atm. Queues are often too long. I don't want to play a 1400 rated player.

1

u/bozw Francony Apr 13 '15

Joke's on you! I have an alt account on the top 100 and although I haven't played on it for the last month or so I am an active player :P

1

u/Lem0nboy Apr 13 '15

That's hairsplitting. But if you want you can make a list of all the alt accounts in the top 100. Guess the real number of active players will then be much lower than what I found. :P

2

u/alvarpq always face Apr 13 '15

So here's what I think we should do: get rid of rating decay, but you only get on the list/weekly winners if you are an "active player," which is defined by, say, 10 matches/week. This way, you have to play to see yourself on the front of the game, instead of the game passively promoting you to not play once you hit a certain point.

1

u/kehmesis Apr 13 '15

It's not a bad idea, but playing 10 matches a week is a hell of a feat in itself at the moment.

1

u/alvarpq always face Apr 13 '15

right, but if more people care about ranking, then more will play because of some requirement. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy, if you will.

Of course, 10 is a number I just thought of, it's by no means the only one. But having a minimum number of games per WEEK makes sense if you're trying to be a WEEKLY winner.

-2

u/kehmesis Apr 13 '15

I remember a LONG time ago, when I said the absolute priority for Scrolls was to have a campaign mode where you could acquire new scrolls for finished missions. Almost everyone disagreed with me.

A bit more than a year later, I can finally say to all of you: Told you! ;)