An analytic critique on the new rank system

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Skaliton

Senior Member

03-30-2013

So allow me to introduce myself, I am Skaliton (Or Matt offline) but enough of that.

We all know the old system had it's flaws and problems but the new one has many more..allow me to explain:

To achieve a rank up you have to win 3 out of 4 games (1 to put you at 100 then 2/3 to get the rank) But to drop down you only have to lose 1, allow to me demonstrate

Let's assume you start at 50 (middle) and run a 50% win rate you would theoretically stay at 50 but we know the system is goofy and sometimes decides a game is worth far more/less..but I will assume it is 10 a game for simplicity sake.

if you go on a major hot streak and win 5 straight..you still must win 2 more in order to get a rank up, but if you lose 5 boom demoted (requiring 2 less to move you)

Now what does this mean? You will lose ranks when you stay around 50% win rate (unless you are a <x>5)

Now put this system compared to the old 1: I was 1460 when it changed over, since then I have lost 2 more games than I won (according to the stats) So in theory I would be around 1400-1440. The new system I started in silver 2..and am now silver 4, which is a much noticeably bigger difference.