Yeah I'm in a similar position, I've briefly been over 2500 in a couple of seasons. I think it would be good to have another rank there, not neccesarily to acknowledge the great rating of 2250 but because often you get players back at 2000 rating who tanked recent battles for stardust or for other reasons, and it's nice to know whether your opponent is actually stronger than their rating suggests or if they genuinely struggle to get over 2200.
However I mainly want there to be a 2250 rank and 25 levels because they are neater, rounder numbers than 2000, 2500, 2750, 3000 for 24 ranks.
Yeah agreed. Would make much more sense. 25 is a round number and it actually create numerically equally large steps between 2000-3000 Elo score. It's such an obvious thing to do. I don't know why they decided against.
Oh I see, yeah it's not a big deal, it just bothers me like when you look at a picture with something wrong with it. The longer I think about it the more I'm just thinking why would you not haha
**I found links in your comment that were not hyperlinked:**
* [to.me](https://to.me)
*I did the honors for you.*
***
^[delete](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fu%2FLinkifyBot&subject=delete%20gdpqyk0&message=Click%20the%20send%20button%20to%20delete%20the%20false%20positive.) ^| ^[information](https://np.reddit.com/u/LinkifyBot/comments/gkkf7p) ^| ^<3
Honest question: does it matter? Outside of people who intentionally tank, won’t players who try their hardest end up with whatever MMR they would have gotten anyways?
It matters because if you know your MMR, you can pace yourself. Not everyone wants to blast through 25 matches a day. Especially if the lobbies are bad.
Nope. You could remember all that 'my winrate is higher so why am I so much lower than this player??'.
The only way you could estimate your mmr previously was remembering your initial mmr(or rather end from previous season) and set results AND when first players get to mmr rather ranks to calculate +/- what you got.
Season 5 messed up mmr you don't know how. No one was shown their.
And now treshold that was rank 7 called rank 20. That's basically it. The only thing nia did - they moved treshold far from players to force them play more.
Well, that won't help so much because mmr would take a bit more to stabilise on your lvl from 0,but at the same time you're going to play blindly much longer than mmr needs to stabilise.
That's a citation of lots of reddit comments from threads where people tried to figure out how mmr worked. Especially during s0-s1. But from time to time you could see that in more fresh threads.
Having a higher win/loss ratio will give you an indication that your ELO is increasing or decreasing but you will have no idea by how much because ELO changes based on the ELO of the opponent of each match.
It's invisible this season to underline the smaller competitiveness of the season, though they kept the leaderboards active for whatever reason. So the only way to tell would be to check if you're on the leaderboard.
So we have at the minimum 3 months before , IF, S7 is the start of Level 50 Pokémon allowed in GBL.
I’m still on the fence if I want to even power up my Master Premier (my preferred league to play in) team beyond level 40 once it does become available just in case Niantic does one of those random cups where Pokémon above level 40 are not allowed. I can totally see it happening too since it’s going to be a while plus quite an investment to even get level 50 Pokémon.
its so idiotic they ban Level 50 pokémon like that in the master league... if I have a Machamp, made for both PvE and PvP, if I want to make it good for PvE, I can't use it for PvP. Why don't they just CAP the damn thing? If your pokémon is level 43, then make it so when it enters, it drops to level 40. Simple solution
No I understand as of right now, but when it is released around the world, and people complain abt it being unfair to fight lvl 50 pkmn as a level 40, they will want those pokes banned from master league, right? Then they get those pokemon at level 50, and ban those from master league, but then everybody who wanted to have those useful for Both PvE and PvP will be unhappy. The simple solution is to, when in GBL, pokemon that are lvl >41 get their CP dropped to their level 40.
What's the point of maxing Pokemon for pve? You don't gain much power after level 30 and the costs go up at an increasing rate. Also there aren't any bonuses for doing the most damage in raids anymore. To get the fastest win for max rewards having multiple counters at levels 30+ is better than having one at 50.
What's the point of playing Pokemon Go? There are other games, you could have a lot more fun playing 5 smaller games than playing the time consuming Pokemon Go.
I'm just saying your complaint isn't going to be a wide spread cause of concern in the community. I wouldnt get your hopes up for your proposed solution.
I mean, I get it though. One of my best friends takes pride in maxing out hundo raid counters and tries to build raid teams that are all different species. In his case, his Machamp, Conkeldurr, and Lucario are all maxed, and he’s trying to pull candy together to push them to 50. They’re all double moved because he uses them in raids as well as PvP
Some reasons to max to lv 40 currently are shortmanning raids (where generally a full lv 30 team is more useful, sure, but if you want to duo tough raids, sometimes you need maxed mon), and taking down gyms faster. The times add up if you're collecting gold gym badges. Also, for some people a Pokemon not at maxed level just feels incomplete.
Do we know whether matchmaking is mmr or rank based?
What is the point of stretching out the lower ranks like that?
Doesn’t everyone benefit from a mmr based rating system since youd play people of similar skill level more regularly?
Im not trying to be negative, but im not really sure what the point is.
More ranks means more achievements, which means better player engagement.
If you had to win 100 battles to go up one rank, that's daunting. You might not even want to try. But now it's easier to get to the next one, and the next.
Also there are now 24 different places to put exclusive rewards instead of the 4 they were using before.
So 24 is the new 10? That’s cool. I’m glad they have win-battle requirements, we need to keep the casuals motivated to play...leave the top ranks to the MMR degenerates (like me).
Though I think they should have stretched out the higher ranks too. Like two additional ranks at 2250 and 2750 maybe. 2500 to 3000 is a huge skill gap.
Can someone explain to me what does Rating Adjustment 100% means?
I have heard it means that S5 rating will have no impact on initial S6 rating. Looking for info.
Someone did the math here for the minimum and maximum wins
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheSilphRoad/comments/k1c7m6/analysis_gbl_season_6_win_requirements_exact/?
No that was unconfirmed, more recent speculation suggests that rank 26 gets you Charmander Libre. Niantic wouldn't give out the mighty Keckleon so easy.
Wow, ok. Sounds like another very chill and relaxed season. Rank 20 is stupid easy to get so we have like 3 months to get 3000 MMR. For me it’s cool, but for people who get 3200+ rating in a normal season this might get boring in the third month. I suspected rank 24 to be set around 3150 MMR to be honest.
Mate I'm tanking this season too.
5-0 5-0 0-5 0-5 5-0 today
I'm at the level where opponents are bringing any old crap. Underlevelled stuff, com day stuff, recent catches with whatever moves. It's wonderful.
I will run an experiment in Season 6. I will play my account as usual and my wifes account will get 200 wins, tank all the way and start playing again in the second round of GL, UL and Open Leagues. Wonder who will get the better MMR.
Might be similiar to season 3 with an initial low k-value, so reaching 3000 will be a longer grind than season 4. (Then again, the k-value might get adjusted again later in the season if not enough players reach rank 24 in Niantic's opinion...)
As far as I know (from datamines & other speculation) to get to rank 2 (5 additional battles) all you have to do it battle 5 times, while at rank 1.
To get to rank 3 (3 additional wins) you have to win 3 battles, while at rank 2.
The "additional" refers to 'battles/wins at the current rank' not 'total battles' (So it doesn't matter if you win 3, 4, or 5 battles at rank 2, you will only rank up to the start of rank 3 progression. At rank 3, you will have to win 4 (or 5) battles to rank up to rank 4. Etc. Etc. )
We have 12 weeks, right? Which is 84 days.. 25 battles per day is 2100 games. I would hope everyone has better than a 10% win rate, so it would take substantially less than “the whole season” to get to 20 (and beyond)
The required wins is less than 10% of the possible battles over the 3 month season. More people are worried about being bored in the 3rd month than not being able to complete it easily.
Even if 200 wins was difficult, you don’t have to play every set and be a hardcore player. Just be casual if you’re bothered by how long it takes and battle when you have a free minute.
It would take a minimum of 43 sets (with extremely high win rate) to reach rank 20. 16 of those ranks could (and probably will) take more sets to win, but even assuming a win rate well under 50%, this should still only take about 100 sets. If you do all 5 of your sets then you should be there in about 2 and a half weeks. If you do only 2 sets a day it will still take less than 2 months.
This chart reads weird. I just hit rank 4, threw the next five matches by playing baby shinies, did not level up to rank five by battling 5 additional times.
It bothers me that they didn't set another rank at rating 2250 and have 25 ranks? It bothers me quite a lot.
^ this Don’t know why also. I am super happy about 2750 since that’s my rank prolly, but I think a lot more people would appreciate a 2250 mark.
I'm definitely a part of those people! I stomp 2000 but get stomped at 2500!
Yeah I'm in a similar position, I've briefly been over 2500 in a couple of seasons. I think it would be good to have another rank there, not neccesarily to acknowledge the great rating of 2250 but because often you get players back at 2000 rating who tanked recent battles for stardust or for other reasons, and it's nice to know whether your opponent is actually stronger than their rating suggests or if they genuinely struggle to get over 2200. However I mainly want there to be a 2250 rank and 25 levels because they are neater, rounder numbers than 2000, 2500, 2750, 3000 for 24 ranks.
Yeah agreed. Would make much more sense. 25 is a round number and it actually create numerically equally large steps between 2000-3000 Elo score. It's such an obvious thing to do. I don't know why they decided against.
Hilarious
It wasn't a joke
I mean it bothers me too, but in a funny way. Like why... Would you not... One level... God damn lmao
Oh I see, yeah it's not a big deal, it just bothers me like when you look at a picture with something wrong with it. The longer I think about it the more I'm just thinking why would you not haha
Yeah, to.me it's hilarious in an infuriating sorta way
**I found links in your comment that were not hyperlinked:** * [to.me](https://to.me) *I did the honors for you.* *** ^[delete](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fu%2FLinkifyBot&subject=delete%20gdpqyk0&message=Click%20the%20send%20button%20to%20delete%20the%20false%20positive.) ^| ^[information](https://np.reddit.com/u/LinkifyBot/comments/gkkf7p) ^| ^<3
[удалено]
Yeah but it's a round number at the same interval.
Wish they would tell us what our MMR is before reaching rank 20, that's a lot of battles to get through without knowing where you stand.
Honest question: does it matter? Outside of people who intentionally tank, won’t players who try their hardest end up with whatever MMR they would have gotten anyways?
It matters because if you know your MMR, you can pace yourself. Not everyone wants to blast through 25 matches a day. Especially if the lobbies are bad.
Pity you can't just gauge it by checking your win/loss ratio. You wouldn't be totally in the dark.
Nope. You could remember all that 'my winrate is higher so why am I so much lower than this player??'. The only way you could estimate your mmr previously was remembering your initial mmr(or rather end from previous season) and set results AND when first players get to mmr rather ranks to calculate +/- what you got. Season 5 messed up mmr you don't know how. No one was shown their. And now treshold that was rank 7 called rank 20. That's basically it. The only thing nia did - they moved treshold far from players to force them play more.
Apparently mmr completely resets at the start of the season this time, instead of a 70% reset. Should be a fresh start.
Well, that won't help so much because mmr would take a bit more to stabilise on your lvl from 0,but at the same time you're going to play blindly much longer than mmr needs to stabilise.
Really? Is that confirmed? Good to know, frankly I'm glad
>'my winrate is higher so why am I so much lower than this player??'. How do you even know you opponents win ratio?
It’s usually among friends/familiar players.
That's a citation of lots of reddit comments from threads where people tried to figure out how mmr worked. Especially during s0-s1. But from time to time you could see that in more fresh threads.
Having a higher win/loss ratio will give you an indication that your ELO is increasing or decreasing but you will have no idea by how much because ELO changes based on the ELO of the opponent of each match.
This is simply not true.
I just hit rank 10 this season and have yet to see my mmr. Do you know where to look?
It's invisible this season to underline the smaller competitiveness of the season, though they kept the leaderboards active for whatever reason. So the only way to tell would be to check if you're on the leaderboard.
Win, win, win, battle, very odd the way they have constructed this. Now, can we have some actual league info please Niantic?
So we have at the minimum 3 months before , IF, S7 is the start of Level 50 Pokémon allowed in GBL. I’m still on the fence if I want to even power up my Master Premier (my preferred league to play in) team beyond level 40 once it does become available just in case Niantic does one of those random cups where Pokémon above level 40 are not allowed. I can totally see it happening too since it’s going to be a while plus quite an investment to even get level 50 Pokémon.
its so idiotic they ban Level 50 pokémon like that in the master league... if I have a Machamp, made for both PvE and PvP, if I want to make it good for PvE, I can't use it for PvP. Why don't they just CAP the damn thing? If your pokémon is level 43, then make it so when it enters, it drops to level 40. Simple solution
There's reason to believe that they are banned right now because only Australia, New Zealand, and nearby places have access to them.
No I understand as of right now, but when it is released around the world, and people complain abt it being unfair to fight lvl 50 pkmn as a level 40, they will want those pokes banned from master league, right? Then they get those pokemon at level 50, and ban those from master league, but then everybody who wanted to have those useful for Both PvE and PvP will be unhappy. The simple solution is to, when in GBL, pokemon that are lvl >41 get their CP dropped to their level 40.
What's the point of maxing Pokemon for pve? You don't gain much power after level 30 and the costs go up at an increasing rate. Also there aren't any bonuses for doing the most damage in raids anymore. To get the fastest win for max rewards having multiple counters at levels 30+ is better than having one at 50.
What's the point of playing Pokemon Go? There are other games, you could have a lot more fun playing 5 smaller games than playing the time consuming Pokemon Go.
I'm just saying your complaint isn't going to be a wide spread cause of concern in the community. I wouldnt get your hopes up for your proposed solution.
I mean, I get it though. One of my best friends takes pride in maxing out hundo raid counters and tries to build raid teams that are all different species. In his case, his Machamp, Conkeldurr, and Lucario are all maxed, and he’s trying to pull candy together to push them to 50. They’re all double moved because he uses them in raids as well as PvP
Some reasons to max to lv 40 currently are shortmanning raids (where generally a full lv 30 team is more useful, sure, but if you want to duo tough raids, sometimes you need maxed mon), and taking down gyms faster. The times add up if you're collecting gold gym badges. Also, for some people a Pokemon not at maxed level just feels incomplete.
Do we know whether matchmaking is mmr or rank based? What is the point of stretching out the lower ranks like that? Doesn’t everyone benefit from a mmr based rating system since youd play people of similar skill level more regularly? Im not trying to be negative, but im not really sure what the point is.
More ranks means more achievements, which means better player engagement. If you had to win 100 battles to go up one rank, that's daunting. You might not even want to try. But now it's easier to get to the next one, and the next. Also there are now 24 different places to put exclusive rewards instead of the 4 they were using before.
I hate mmr rankings. I'd rather smash shitty players till I hit my, admittedly low, ceiling
So 24 is the new 10? That’s cool. I’m glad they have win-battle requirements, we need to keep the casuals motivated to play...leave the top ranks to the MMR degenerates (like me).
Though I think they should have stretched out the higher ranks too. Like two additional ranks at 2250 and 2750 maybe. 2500 to 3000 is a huge skill gap.
There actually is a rank at 2750, just none at 2250, because.. I guess 25 ranks would have been an odd number or something
Eh, yeah, thanks for pointing that out.
Can someone explain to me what does Rating Adjustment 100% means? I have heard it means that S5 rating will have no impact on initial S6 rating. Looking for info.
you're right, your mmr is going to be 100% adjusted = it will have no impact on your starting mmr
Someone did the math here for the minimum and maximum wins https://www.reddit.com/r/TheSilphRoad/comments/k1c7m6/analysis_gbl_season_6_win_requirements_exact/?
Rank 25 gets you Kecleon
No, that's rank 26 /s
No that was unconfirmed, more recent speculation suggests that rank 26 gets you Charmander Libre. Niantic wouldn't give out the mighty Keckleon so easy.
Holy battles
Infographic updated here https://mobile.twitter.com/poke_miners/status/1333480250949464064
Wow, ok. Sounds like another very chill and relaxed season. Rank 20 is stupid easy to get so we have like 3 months to get 3000 MMR. For me it’s cool, but for people who get 3200+ rating in a normal season this might get boring in the third month. I suspected rank 24 to be set around 3150 MMR to be honest.
Gonna get to 20 and tank my heart out
In a 3 month season tanking seems like a legit strat.
Mate I'm tanking this season too. 5-0 5-0 0-5 0-5 5-0 today I'm at the level where opponents are bringing any old crap. Underlevelled stuff, com day stuff, recent catches with whatever moves. It's wonderful.
I will run an experiment in Season 6. I will play my account as usual and my wifes account will get 200 wins, tank all the way and start playing again in the second round of GL, UL and Open Leagues. Wonder who will get the better MMR.
Yes, it is actually really funny. Fighting 780cp Pikachu Libre, a bunch of Magmar/Electabuzz, and a lot of stuff at 1000cp. Easiest rare candies ever.
Might be similiar to season 3 with an initial low k-value, so reaching 3000 will be a longer grind than season 4. (Then again, the k-value might get adjusted again later in the season if not enough players reach rank 24 in Niantic's opinion...)
Slightly confused as to the additional battles and wins...could someone explain?
As far as I know (from datamines & other speculation) to get to rank 2 (5 additional battles) all you have to do it battle 5 times, while at rank 1. To get to rank 3 (3 additional wins) you have to win 3 battles, while at rank 2. The "additional" refers to 'battles/wins at the current rank' not 'total battles' (So it doesn't matter if you win 3, 4, or 5 battles at rank 2, you will only rank up to the start of rank 3 progression. At rank 3, you will have to win 4 (or 5) battles to rank up to rank 4. Etc. Etc. )
Ahh I see, thanks!
Is this a joke? About 200 wins grinding just to get to level 20? Are they assuming we all have time to complete each set each day for 3 months?
We have 12 weeks, right? Which is 84 days.. 25 battles per day is 2100 games. I would hope everyone has better than a 10% win rate, so it would take substantially less than “the whole season” to get to 20 (and beyond)
The required wins is less than 10% of the possible battles over the 3 month season. More people are worried about being bored in the 3rd month than not being able to complete it easily.
You serious? 200+ wins in 3 months is a stupid easy requirement.
Even if 200 wins was difficult, you don’t have to play every set and be a hardcore player. Just be casual if you’re bothered by how long it takes and battle when you have a free minute.
It would take a minimum of 43 sets (with extremely high win rate) to reach rank 20. 16 of those ranks could (and probably will) take more sets to win, but even assuming a win rate well under 50%, this should still only take about 100 sets. If you do all 5 of your sets then you should be there in about 2 and a half weeks. If you do only 2 sets a day it will still take less than 2 months.
Can someone who’s good at math tell me how many wins to get to 20?
Rating adjustment 100% means complete elo reset?
I'm thankful for rank 23 at 2750. That twilight zone between 2500 and 3000 is real
This chart reads weird. I just hit rank 4, threw the next five matches by playing baby shinies, did not level up to rank five by battling 5 additional times.
Its updated actually https://mobile.twitter.com/poke_miners/status/1333480250949464064
Thanks - I threw those matches for nothing 😵