I do not understand the current system that is adopted for the ranking. I do not understand why losing a game also loses 1000 to 2000 positions in the standings, as I do not understand why a player who plays only 10 games in a week can be better than one who plays 600 (500 wins). A ranking based on the position of the previous week, based on the consecutive number of wins, based on the Opponent you won or defeated, based on number of defeats in replay (or in the last 30 games).
Why do something so complicated and unjust?
My idea is very simple:
When you win + 1 point
When you lose -1 point
( 2v2 +/- 2) (3v3 +/- 3)
Very simple, with this system who plays more, and wins more, has more points, and a better ranking. Already a ranking based on the ratio would be more right than the current one.
In any case leave your vote:
- Yes . Need to Change this Ranking System!
- No . It’s Perfect!
We compare a supermechs player to a team that must win the championship, which in our case is every week.
Ranking based on the position of the previous week.
When a new championship begins, it is not that they take the old result to give a different initial starting value. No.
Every new league is a championship in itself.
Ranking based on consecutive victories.
Another demonstration that the system is wrong. Always using our example:
A championship is not won by the team that makes more consecutive victories but by the most winning team. As is it right!
Different conquest or loss of position based on the opponent.
Even this is something that makes no sense.
For example, if the top ranked team loses with the last team in the standings, it is no longer losing more than losing with the second ranked. It’s the same. So winning a match with the first of the championship or the last, does not change anything. It’s always and only a game won or a game lost.
Players with few games with a very high ranking
As in our example, a championship is judged on the same number of matches. It’s not that a team that plays 2 games and wins, wins the league that others have played with 50 games, for example.
This is something that does not exist, it makes no sense, and it is unfair.
There must be a proportion between played games and ranking.
etc. etc. etc.
The idea of points is a very simple idea, of course it should be structured. But already so, Would be much better than current.
Structuring the idea and finding the final formula, I do not think it’s a problem. The important thing is to change this system.
Challenges can then be basically based on levels of the player and then on points/ ranking. Like in the current system. So speaking about matches, it would not change anything. It would only earn a better ranking.