Ranking System (logic of the ranking system)

Hi all !


I have a question :

Which logic is behind this ranking system ?

Here the facts :

After a whole (!) weekly tournament (4 hours left) …

rank 63 … 35 wins
rank 64 … 792 wins
rank 69 … 11 wins

If we calculate with avarage 1 minute each win (think about the quits, but also about waiting time to find a battle) …

played 35 minutes
played 13 hours 12 minutes
played 11 minutes

Under the line Frawatuet played 12 hours 37 minutes for :
(for gold yes, but we all play for ranking and medals, not to watch other mechs, its not Farmville, its a battle game)

AND this is not an extrem example, there are players doing +1000 wins and they stay often behind players doing 50.
Worst case I saw, a player doing +2000 wins, but was not in Top10 … players with 70 - 100 wins only stayed before her/him.

And yes I know, it is also about losses (currently we see no losses), BUT that does NOT explain this extrem up and down from a player like Frawatuet, he must feel like a rubber-ball.

I played really a lot of other games also, also about ranking, BUT I NEVER met 1 game with such an extrem calculated ranking list !

To be clear - the idea behind this ranking system is good - not the one who spend 24 hours a day to play should automatically be 1st - BUT it is way to extrem calculated !

And here WE hit a main problem from SuperMechs (tacticsoft) :
ALL calculations made are very extrem !

Just think about the massive jump from energy, heat, HP, damage from old version to new version !
(thats only one example out of many)

WHY always so EXTREM (100 - 350%), WHY not just 5 - max 10 % to change ?

Same happened to the Ranking System.
The idea behind is good.
BUT way to extrem calculated.
Do the same ranking system, with 50% jump-up-and-fall-down calculation, and it WOULD be a great Ranking System !

BUT NOT like it is now !



Good point, Besty, good point!

1 Like