EDIT : I stand corrected. MoD and Buns both had three on 1v1,2v2 and RT in the past.
However, the stat in itself is pretty meaningless in my opinion. For example, I could play one game on the RT ladder right now and be "ranked", which would give me three #1s. But it obviously isn't the same as my rating was earned in a different time frame.
I think getting to #1 is quite easy on most ladders nowadays if you're opportunistic enough and have a bit of luck with your match-ups. Holding on to #1 over a period of time is obviously much harder and is accomplished by fewer folks ;)
I'm curious how many folks would have gold trophies if they were given for being ranked #1 for 7 consecutive days(insert any larger number here really).
I wish Fizzer would wipe out all the gold trophies everyone has today, and reinstated this new rule for awarding gold trophies(exclude seasonal as they are much harder to get and well deserved in most cases). I bet it would improve competition on the ladders as more top players try to prove themselves all over again ;)
If i'm not mistaken Buns held 3 (1v1, 2v2 and RT) and maybe 4 (coin) at the same time midway through 2016? And although MOTD pointed out RT doesn't count for much, i believe in Buns case it does, as he plays it so regularly and is able to keep such a good rating.
I second motd. It would be amazing to see all the good players try to prove themselves over a longer period of time than just 20 or 10 games. THAT is what makes a trophy worth it.
Btw coin trophy is meaningless in a competitive sense. It's just an extra incentive to blow away your coins. Nothing wrong with it, fizzer benefits which is fine, but just irrelevant if you want to measure someones skill.
Dont think trophies are gonna go. Wouldn't mind it myself, but there would be a lot of people feeling robbed. Deservedly or not.
I do hope that the MDL replaces the outdated 1v1 ladder though and if and when it does the reward system gets to be more nuanced and complex and that it reflects achievement better than the current trophy system does.
MoTD, I'm with you, but consider numberOfTitleDefenses as an alternative to number of consecutive days (for determining if a #1 deserves a trophy).
With consecutive days, consider these 2 arguably unfair scenarios (1v1 ladder).
playerB is at #2 and in 1 game. playerA is at #1 in another game. playerA loses the two players switch ranks. playerB continues to play for 7 days and takes no new games. Now playerA wins a game and takes #1 again. Finally, playerB loses their current game.
playerB had #1 for 10 consecutive days (and was playing a losing game the entire time). Do they deserve a trophy for being almost inactive for 7 days?
What if playerA takes #1 and starts 20 new games over a 6 day period, wins most of them, increases in rating, but is overtaken before the 7th day by an alt that won 15/15 games.
Does playerA not deserve a trophy for taking on 20 challengers after getting #1?
tbh I don't think gold trophies ever meant that much to most people and this will likely not change, no matter what changes you make to ladder settings or requirements to get one.
I have two but realistically I know I would have 0 if more top players played each ladder.
Maybe a community run 'hall of fame' would be better to reward those who have performed extremely well i.e. held #1 for a long period of time with no stalling?
@player if your playing 5 games at a time you can stall up to 4 losses to reach the required number of title defences before surrendering in those games.
I think trophies are more significant to the people who don't have them. Once you have a few of them it's easy to say that they don't mean much.
That being said, those who truly know which players really are good certainly don't pay any attention to them when they talk about which players are among the best.
@andy: numberOfTitleDefenses is less vulnerable to manipulation. This is because the more games a #1 stalls, the less title defenses they can take. (assuming that there is a max number of games like the current system).
Let's say somebody takes #1 (because the prior champ lost points) and is currently stalling and losing 5/5 games. They have zero title defenses until they lose one of those games. If the loss kicks them out of #1, then they had zero title defenses for the entire time they held #1.
I agree that this "stat" doesn't count for much, I was just curious if anyone had held more than three.
The #1 spots are definitely not equal value. Seasonal is way harder than the others probably, only 26 winners so far (by 24 different players I think).
Number of title defenses would be a great stat to have shown though.
Respectful recognition of excellence is not worship. It can be argued that anyone who's achieved a #1 ladder rank on WL has demonstrated a degree of excellence.
This group, including the present company of Pulsey, Beren, mod, andy903 and motd, have my respect--not worship--for that.
But in terms of measuring excellence at that level, numberOfTitleDefenses seems like a good metric. It can be used to measure the duration of a single run at #1 and across all such runs for a given champ.
Who has more lifetime title defenses for their 2v2 trophy, Beren or Pulsey?:)
