> Darrell Shimel's Ultra simplified ranking system (if we must have one, then
> it is the best I can come up with).
>
> Games: Started, Completed, Won, Lost, Winning % (Won/Started)
>
> Rewards those that win a lot, punishes those that lose or drop, no reward
> (blackmail) just for spending a lot of money.That system rewards stacking the deck, though. If I make sure to always
sign up with three of my closest friends in key positions, I'll do a lot
better than someone who ends up in a game with a bunch of droppers and
losers.Heck, I've won two games simply because the other side couldn't get it's
(junk) together. I'd hate to think what my rating might be if I were on
those teams instead.jason
Its no different than the "ME Games" proposed system, except the ME Games proposed system greatly favors those that play in more games (assuming they win more often than not). In either system, win and your rating goes up, lose and it goes down.
There system rewards Wins-Loses(granting someone 7 of 10 the same score as someone 4 of 4). Mine rewards wins/games. A football team with 16 wins in a season is awesome. A baseball team with 16 wins for the season would be the worst team in history. Winning % really shows your results.
Either system will reward those that only play with other highly skilled players on their side.
···
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com