Krach : Do you want it to be applied to leagues?

[RootRanger]

I suggest a 10-game limit to even appear on the standings. Otherwise, we have the chance to see the #1 spot taken by someone that played one game against the best player and happened to win.

As for the 30 game limit with ELO, I see no reason to have it impact the prizing rule. "Simply getting a lucky streak of wins" is actually a bigger problem for players that have already been in the league for a while. They can start their lucky streak of wins at a higher spot, such as a 1550 rating, instead of the 1500 rating new players start with. And statistically, good players finish higher in the standings as they play more games. KRACH with a 30 game limit fixes any lucky streak of wins problem, of course.

[Jenkar]

Why just not have the <30 games not counted, but not have their matches removed?

[TStar]

The basis is that the player earned their rank, but due to not playing enough games is not eligible for a prize.  Simply moving players up the list is rewarding them with prizes for ranks they did not attain through their results.  There is nothing wrong with unused reward codes.  They can simply be used for the next league instead, or for other purposes like War Betting or special Event Betting or even Forum Brawl Betting as examples.  They will find uses, don't worry.

[Jenkar]

The basis is that the player earned their rank, but due to not playing enough games is not eligible for a prize.  Simply moving players up the list is rewarding them with prizes for ranks they did not attain through their results.  There is nothing wrong with unused reward codes.  They can simply be used for the next league instead, or for other purposes like War Betting or special Event Betting or even Forum Brawl Betting as examples.  They will find uses, don't worry.

I don't think someone with <20 games ''earnt'' any game (lucky streaks?)