@sashazyryanov
Shouldnt you get stuck when you play "averagely" in a lobby with players average your skill level though? Thats how I perceive fair competition at least, i.e assuming a perfect lobby with 60 players EXACTLY equally skilled in all regards (ofc impossible to achieve in practice), the players who underperforms should decrease in rank, the players who overperforms should increase and the players who performs averagely should remain , i.e "peak". In other words; to rank up in any given rank; you must be, not equal, but actually better than your similarly skilled opponents.
But anyway; its so hard to comment on the RP cost/gain balance without the actual statistics of the matches played. For instance; total amount of RPs given vs total amount of RPs lost in every lobby would be interesting to know. I guess it should be a zerosum game for it to be a healthy RP gain/loss balance?
My two biggest critics of the ranked progression is think is that its kinda hard to have a consistence performance. I havent peaked yet and I am now like mid plat. But my gain/losses over 10 matches kinda looks like -36 -30, +5, - 25, + 10, -30, + 200, -30, +90, -20. Hrmm so even though I am steadily climbing, my "experience" can feel a bit bad since I "fail" most matches, just to get a big win now and then hehe. The second thing is that I would have preferred a bit more individual based RP gain/loss situation. The whole "win and lose as a team"-principle only works if it was a 3-man premade game but I think the reality is that most people who played rank play as solo or premade duos. So I see no reason why to reward individual performance and punish bad performance more. I dont know how many useless players I have carried to so much free RPS; matches that we win and I have 3000 dmg and they 600+500.