I've frequently both heard from others and observed myself that Solo Duels and Solo Standard both tend to be harder to rank up in Doubles and Standard. Very often when I look at someone's ranks, they'll be at least a rank or two higher in Double and Standard than they will be in the two solo playlists--even if they play said solo playlists rather frequently.

Even as a 1v1s main myself--and with a very ground-focused, dribble heavy playstyle that is best suited for 1v1 scenarios--I found myself unable to push beyond Champ 2, and needed to switch over to 2v2s just to grind out my Grand Champ rewards this season. (And no, this wasn't even with a friend either; this was done solo queuing twos.)

I understand that Solo Duels and Solo Standard have certain complications that make them different than having the option to play with teammates.

However:

By default, a grand champ--or any rank for that matter--shouldn't feel the need to specify which playlist they have achieved that rank in, nor should they specific playlists easier/harder to rank up in unless they specifically specialize in/suck at those playlists.

A Grand Champ should be a Grand Champ regardless of playlist. A Diamond 3 should be a Diamond 3 regardless of playlist.

The simple truth of the matter is that it's demotivating seeing a rank attached to a playlist that is inexplicably lower than your other ranks. It makes players feel like they suck at that playlist, and when they are constantly, consistently being told by their rankings that they simply aren't good at something, they aren't going to feel motivated to try.

Consider this:

Imagine you're a Champ 1 in 2v2s, and you decide to play some 1v1s for a bit. You win some matches, you lose some matches, but at the end, of it all, you end up being placed in Diamond 2. You're probably going to think "wow, I suck at 1s". That's not going to feel good, and you're not going to be too excited to go back to the playlist.

However, using data from the end of Season 7 (which, best to my knowledge, is still mostly accurate for Season 8 distribution as well), that is where a Champ 1 player could expect to end up. It's not because they suck, but rather because the bar is arbitrarily set higher in 1v1s than it is in 2v2s.

Now I'm not suggesting that it actually should be easier to rank up in 1s, but for the sake of a thought experiment: Imagine if the reverse was true. Imagine, as a Champ 1 in 2v2s, you played some 1v1s and found yourself at Champ 3. You'd probably feel pretty good about yourself! You might actually want to continue playing more 1v1s.

The ranks you see on a given playlist can serious influence your opinion of your skill level with said playlists. And while I understand 1v1s might not be fun for some people regardless, it's certainly not going to motivate those who otherwise might play the playlist if they consistently see themselves as being "worse" due to their rank simply because the bar has been set arbitrarily higher than it is in 2s or 3s.

To be fair, I realize balancing this sort of thing is difficult. The population differences between the playlists can disrupt just how quickly or smoothly MMR is exchanged between players, and pinning down what actually does or doesn't count as a "Grand Champ" or "Diamond 3" or Silver 2" is not only somewhat subjective, but a moving target at that.

But can we please have the MMR requirements re-balanced using current, up-to-date data on what percentage of players fall under what ranks?

Players disagreeing on which playlists are easiest to rank up in is fine; that implies it's down to personal skill sets and preferences. But when the vast majority agrees that a specific one or two playlists are much easier/harder than the others?

That simply implies something's wrong.