Additional ranking system

[BtankNoob]

I think that the current ranking system that is "solely" based on team wins is a bit one sided.

I suggest that we add another list that you can select that shows ranking by kill-ratio w/assists that will show which player that is best on their own.

BtanNooB/Cam3lot

[Prog]

Kda does not show who is the best in any way. One could even play death magic every single game and have a better kda ratio than anyone in the current top 10.

[griffin1987]

Agree with Prog on this one, and would actually have prefered to remove the ranking alltogether in the past. Nowadays it doesn't really matter that much anymore, but in the past there where a lot of players who would only play for points and not for the fun of the game anymore, and do ego play the whole game so they would get more points in case of win and lose less in case of defeat. Or leave early when they think their stats would go down and their team won't win. etc.

[psycodiver]

I think a better ranking system would be to rank players purely by wins/losses. Nothing else included. This will increase the probability that the better players will be higher ranked.

[BtankNoob]

I simply say: divide it. People focus on different things. Let them see how good they are at all different aspects, not just team wins as it is not necessary connected to your skills..

I see how this might move the focus for some ppl, but more kills equals better chances even if teamplay ofc is the most imp. factor for the team to pull it off.

[griffin1987]

I simply say: divide it. People focus on different things. Let them see how good they are at all different aspects, not just team wins as it is not necessary connected to your skills..

I see how this might move the focus for some ppl, but more kills equals better chances even if teamplay ofc is the most imp. factor for the team to pull it off.

More kills does NOT equal better chances. I don't know why people are always so focused on k/d, because it doesn't say much. And even if you'd put k/d into an equation: Who's got more money, one with 2:0 or one with 5:0? You can't answer that, because the one with 2:0 might have gotten a double kill of the 2 strongest players in enemy team each worth 500, while the other one might have killed the tinker worth 200. So the first one would have gotten 200 more gold (doublekill bonus). What about deaths? Well, depending on your tank worth your spawn time is different, so you could die 10 times and it could be less of a problem than someone else dying once, because he got a bounty of 1k and you only got 200. Of course, the examples are extreme, but I hope you get now why k/d in itself doesn't really say much. And I wasn't even talking about winning games with all people having negative k/d (which happens quite frequently btw, because after all k/d is no victory condition).

Also I'd not like to have even more **** focusing on k/d, there's already enough of those out there.

Cheers

[BtankNoob]

I simply say: divide it. People focus on different things. Let them see how good they are at all different aspects, not just team wins as it is not necessary connected to your skills..

I see how this might move the focus for some ppl, but more kills equals better chances even if teamplay ofc is the most imp. factor for the team to pull it off.

More kills does NOT equal better chances. I don't know why people are always so focused on k/d, because it doesn't say much. And even if you'd put k/d into an equation: Who's got more money, one with 2:0 or one with 5:0? You can't answer that, because the one with 2:0 might have gotten a double kill of the 2 strongest players in enemy team each worth 500, while the other one might have killed the tinker worth 200. So the first one would have gotten 200 more gold (doublekill bonus). What about deaths? Well, depending on your tank worth your spawn time is different, so you could die 10 times and it could be less of a problem than someone else dying once, because he got a bounty of 1k and you only got 200. Of course, the examples are extreme, but I hope you get now why k/d in itself doesn't really say much. And I wasn't even talking about winning games with all people having negative k/d (which happens quite frequently btw, because after all k/d is no victory condition).

Also I'd not like to have even more **** focusing on k/d, there's already enough of those out there.

Cheers

I question that you say kills don't matter and later explaining it with that you dont know how much they have. Early game the kills give you a small advantage: You can get some quicker upgrades, get a stronger tank earlier, but to some extent I agree with you here, but late game does the amounted kills of one player strongly affect the result of the game. Yes, if he got 5 kills in the start and later don't get more it does not matter much, but if a player keeps getting fed and goes for an lets say early demon it can result in a very strong boost for the team. You use 5:0 and 2:0 as examples and that is that the topic here, I'm talking ratio after the game has ended where it is easy to tell which players that made their team win, by assist, kills cp captures and so on.

However, I agree with you that kills can be misleading as a measure of that players gold. And also quite often misleading as a measure of that players skill team vise.

Its just that when you play a game and you do an excellent job, it does not matter if you have 2-3 hard noobs in your team. The fact that you now drop in rank due to something that is totally out of your control is misleading also, and gives a very one sided picture when you get -7 due to a bad team.

I agree that team work is the very source of winning, but an excellent team player will also loose if he has noobs around him that either go to egoistic or to passive and thereby not entering the fight when it happens.

[EarthR]

I'm talking ratio after the game has ended where it is easy to tell which players that made their team win, by assist, kills cp captures and so on.

its never easy to find which one contributed the most in game but your reasoning is just wrong. You always start lane that in itself creates an imba. Do you face the strong enemy or the weak one? its random. If lets say your teamate goes against the strongest enemy and ends up with negative score but your team manages to win does that mean he did worse than you? The fact that he faced the strongest and you managed to win because he somehow held his own is already bigger accomplishment that you on the other lane did even if you get 10-20 kills difference.

Its just that when you play a game and you do an excellent job, it does not matter if you have 2-3 hard noobs in your team. The fact that you now drop in rank due to something that is totally out of your control is misleading also, and gives a very one sided picture when you get -7 due to a bad team.

Changing the ranking system to boost your ego is just wrong imo. you say playing with 2-3 noobs in team and not managing to win then what should the 1600+elo players say? If you consider yourself that good and you still manage to be around 1500 elo that means you are doing something wrong. And if you think that your team is holding you back when you have around 1500 elo then you are dead wrong. Elo represent your influence on game and your elo remaining around 1500 that means you dont influence the outcome of the game as much as you think you do. Ego play is different than team play. Doing good 1 vs 1 is not considered doing good if you cant influence the other lanes and mid and the outcome of the game so you having the ranking you have is actually what your skills are capable of.

Is the ranking system perfect? ofc not but someone with an elo around 1500-1550 cant actually complain about the ranking if he thinks he is good and the system is holding him back thats just absurd

[BtankNoob]

I'm talking ratio after the game has ended where it is easy to tell which players that made their team win, by assist, kills cp captures and so on.

its never easy to find which one contributed the most in game but your reasoning is just wrong. You always start lane that in itself creates an imba. Do you face the strong enemy or the weak one? its random. If lets say your teamate goes against the strongest enemy and ends up with negative score but your team manages to win does that mean he did worse than you? The fact that he faced the strongest and you managed to win because he somehow held his own is already bigger accomplishment that you on the other lane did even if you get 10-20 kills difference.

Its just that when you play a game and you do an excellent job, it does not matter if you have 2-3 hard noobs in your team. The fact that you now drop in rank due to something that is totally out of your control is misleading also, and gives a very one sided picture when you get -7 due to a bad team.

Changing the ranking system to boost your ego is just wrong imo. you say playing with 2-3 noobs in team and not managing to win then what should the 1600+elo players say? If you consider yourself that good and you still manage to be around 1500 elo that means you are doing something wrong. And if you think that your team is holding you back when you have around 1500 elo then you are dead wrong. Elo represent your influence on game and your elo remaining around 1500 that means you dont influence the outcome of the game as much as you think you do. Ego play is different than team play. Doing good 1 vs 1 is not considered doing good if you cant influence the other lanes and mid and the outcome of the game so you having the ranking you have is actually what your skills are capable of.

Is the ranking system perfect? ofc not but someone with an elo around 1500-1550 cant actually complain about the ranking if he thinks he is good and the system is holding him back thats just absurd

I was impressed about your arguing in the first part, but the other part is just your ego and not mine. Don't think I have to elaborate

[EarthR]

I'm talking ratio after the game has ended where it is easy to tell which players that made their team win, by assist, kills cp captures and so on.

its never easy to find which one contributed the most in game but your reasoning is just wrong. You always start lane that in itself creates an imba. Do you face the strong enemy or the weak one? its random. If lets say your teamate goes against the strongest enemy and ends up with negative score but your team manages to win does that mean he did worse than you? The fact that he faced the strongest and you managed to win because he somehow held his own is already bigger accomplishment that you on the other lane did even if you get 10-20 kills difference.

Its just that when you play a game and you do an excellent job, it does not matter if you have 2-3 hard noobs in your team. The fact that you now drop in rank due to something that is totally out of your control is misleading also, and gives a very one sided picture when you get -7 due to a bad team.

Changing the ranking system to boost your ego is just wrong imo. you say playing with 2-3 noobs in team and not managing to win then what should the 1600+elo players say? If you consider yourself that good and you still manage to be around 1500 elo that means you are doing something wrong. And if you think that your team is holding you back when you have around 1500 elo then you are dead wrong. Elo represent your influence on game and your elo remaining around 1500 that means you dont influence the outcome of the game as much as you think you do. Ego play is different than team play. Doing good 1 vs 1 is not considered doing good if you cant influence the other lanes and mid and the outcome of the game so you having the ranking you have is actually what your skills are capable of.

Is the ranking system perfect? ofc not but someone with an elo around 1500-1550 cant actually complain about the ranking if he thinks he is good and the system is holding him back thats just absurd

I was impressed about your arguing in the first part, but the other part is just your ego and not mine. Don't think I have to elaborate

actually it isnt. As someone who can get past 1550 elo barrier in less than 10 games any time i start a new nick i dont think your argument is valid. over 1550 elo is top 20 in ranking which are like 7 players. its not even that big of an accomplishment anymore because there arent any good players left. I just get pissed at players complaining about teams when they dont even influence which team/enemy they will have because their skills fit any team.

[BtankNoob]

I'm talking ratio after the game has ended where it is easy to tell which players that made their team win, by assist, kills cp captures and so on.

its never easy to find which one contributed the most in game but your reasoning is just wrong. You always start lane that in itself creates an imba. Do you face the strong enemy or the weak one? its random. If lets say your teamate goes against the strongest enemy and ends up with negative score but your team manages to win does that mean he did worse than you? The fact that he faced the strongest and you managed to win because he somehow held his own is already bigger accomplishment that you on the other lane did even if you get 10-20 kills difference.

Its just that when you play a game and you do an excellent job, it does not matter if you have 2-3 hard noobs in your team. The fact that you now drop in rank due to something that is totally out of your control is misleading also, and gives a very one sided picture when you get -7 due to a bad team.

Changing the ranking system to boost your ego is just wrong imo. you say playing with 2-3 noobs in team and not managing to win then what should the 1600+elo players say? If you consider yourself that good and you still manage to be around 1500 elo that means you are doing something wrong. And if you think that your team is holding you back when you have around 1500 elo then you are dead wrong. Elo represent your influence on game and your elo remaining around 1500 that means you dont influence the outcome of the game as much as you think you do. Ego play is different than team play. Doing good 1 vs 1 is not considered doing good if you cant influence the other lanes and mid and the outcome of the game so you having the ranking you have is actually what your skills are capable of.

Is the ranking system perfect? ofc not but someone with an elo around 1500-1550 cant actually complain about the ranking if he thinks he is good and the system is holding him back thats just absurd

I was impressed about your arguing in the first part, but the other part is just your ego and not mine. Don't think I have to elaborate

actually it isnt. As someone who can get past 1550 elo barrier in less than 10 games any time i start a new nick i dont think your argument is valid. over 1550 elo is top 20 in ranking which are like 7 players. its not even that big of an accomplishment anymore because there arent any good players left. I just get pissed at players complaining about teams when they dont even influence which team/enemy they will have because their skills fit any team.

Using elo as an argument that my meaning is invalid is you making a fool of your self. I hope you get why. The way you are writing is more sad than the ppl trying to get a good ratio..

The reason for me switching accounts if your so interested in me is because I had a bad stay percentage on my other account, and more about resetting stats. You can get more information about that in other posts.

I'm looking forward to your next reply Peace out

[EarthR]

I'm talking ratio after the game has ended where it is easy to tell which players that made their team win, by assist, kills cp captures and so on.

its never easy to find which one contributed the most in game but your reasoning is just wrong. You always start lane that in itself creates an imba. Do you face the strong enemy or the weak one? its random. If lets say your teamate goes against the strongest enemy and ends up with negative score but your team manages to win does that mean he did worse than you? The fact that he faced the strongest and you managed to win because he somehow held his own is already bigger accomplishment that you on the other lane did even if you get 10-20 kills difference.

Its just that when you play a game and you do an excellent job, it does not matter if you have 2-3 hard noobs in your team. The fact that you now drop in rank due to something that is totally out of your control is misleading also, and gives a very one sided picture when you get -7 due to a bad team.

Changing the ranking system to boost your ego is just wrong imo. you say playing with 2-3 noobs in team and not managing to win then what should the 1600+elo players say? If you consider yourself that good and you still manage to be around 1500 elo that means you are doing something wrong. And if you think that your team is holding you back when you have around 1500 elo then you are dead wrong. Elo represent your influence on game and your elo remaining around 1500 that means you dont influence the outcome of the game as much as you think you do. Ego play is different than team play. Doing good 1 vs 1 is not considered doing good if you cant influence the other lanes and mid and the outcome of the game so you having the ranking you have is actually what your skills are capable of.

Is the ranking system perfect? ofc not but someone with an elo around 1500-1550 cant actually complain about the ranking if he thinks he is good and the system is holding him back thats just absurd

I was impressed about your arguing in the first part, but the other part is just your ego and not mine. Don't think I have to elaborate

actually it isnt. As someone who can get past 1550 elo barrier in less than 10 games any time i start a new nick i dont think your argument is valid. over 1550 elo is top 20 in ranking which are like 7 players. its not even that big of an accomplishment anymore because there arent any good players left. I just get pissed at players complaining about teams when they dont even influence which team/enemy they will have because their skills fit any team.

Using elo as an argument that my meaning is invalid is you making a fool of your self. I hope you get why. The way you are writing is more sad than the ppl trying to get a good ratio..

The reason for me switching accounts if your so interested in me is because I had a bad stay percentage on my other account, and more about resetting stats. You can get more information about that in other posts.

I'm looking forward to your next reply Peace out

elo determines team for better or for worse so when you complain about teams elo has something to do with it
learn to read
i never said anything about you switching account. I was referring about myself.

[Flygplan]

kda wont work well because people will either go for teleport last hit killstealing that some people thinks is skilled play then its nothing but stealing.
Or they will camp and avoid death, maybe leave alltoghter.
Compared to ranked, qualify harse random teams is much more imbalanced and likley harder to win if you get short end of the stick.