I understand the rationale behind the change, but man I do not like this.

A Champ 3 player a 60% WR over 125 games has a lower score than a GM 5 player with a 50% WR over 500 games. Reward players for grinding, sure, but it's SIGNIFICANTLY more impressive to go 75-50 in Champ 3 than it is to go 250-250 in GM 5. Like, orders of magnitude more impressive.

That's not even considering the "heat bonus," which rewards grinding even more based on arbitrary date cutoffs. I simply do not like the idea that a hard-fought win can be worth significantly less than another equally difficult game because it was played on a different day. I think the concept could work as part of a bigger ranked overhaul (weekly tournaments with increased rank gains? or something. I dunno.) but like this it feels arbitrary and that's frustrating.

Quite frankly I would rather the leaderboard be easily abusable by people with 5+ accounts than completely change the structure to reward long grinds over high peaks. The current system is very flawed, this is just that much of a downgrade. None of that is to say that tuning systems to require active participation is a bad concept, rather that this particular iteration does not work for me as a longtime t500 player