- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
A ranking system by itself isn't bad, it's just a matter of how you try to pull it off; case in point:
If you do it by numerical ranking, i.e. 1-100,000, you're going to have 99,999 people that are pissed off because they're not higher, not to mention the fact that the vast vast majority have never actually had a chance to play #1 (or 2-99 for that matter). The remaining person who actually IS #1 will of course be supernerd and have no life.
Perhaps a better way is an objective individual ranking that is independent of how well others play. Someone suggested this earlier essentially--use a sort of caste system to assign a nominal (naming) rank to certain players based on their ability. This might be based on things such as kill/death ratio, accuracy, type and frequency of different weapons used, grenade kills, suicides, etc, which factors in how long the person has played. For example, a person with a 10/3 kill/death ratio that has played 100 hours will be ranked lower than someone with a similar ratio who has only played 10 hours.
I mean really, how many people will ever sniff at #1 in a numerically ranked system. #1 will no doubt be the person who plays the most, or close to it. In any case, every person other than #1 will be bitter about not being #1. Instead, why not have classes of ranking which permit an indefinite number of members, again, much like someone else suggested.
The best of the best will be mad because they are lumped with just the very good; the solution to this will be to create enough "classes" to accommodate almost every skill level.
For example, "spartan" class might be 50th percentile and below. Master spartan might be 75th percentile and below. Spartan commander could be 90th percentile; spartan general 95th percentile, and Spartan Destroyer 98th percentile.
If I had a choice, just having statistics would be fine.