- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
You'll be better saying this as "getting beast kills, but losing IT because of your dumb teammates"
Posted by: fifthderelicte
If the system could see more than just wins/losses and look more for skill indicators, it could shoot people up the ranks. So you reset an account and play the low levels, but it's obvious you're really good, shoot the player up to a 30, or even a 50 if they're that good. That way they don't ruin the lower levels like they do now.
HOWEVER, the high skill should not be set for X amount of games (say 30, 50, 100, or whatever). That means the system will try to place you where it thinks you should go, but you won't earn that rank until you're theoretically consistent enough for the system to know it's pegged you right. That means low levels are safe and high levels are safe. No more wiping up the floor with the new players and no more boosting your rank by manipulating the system and starting a new account.
The new rank system should aim to drop players quickly up and/or quickly down. Partnering with true skill, a perceived skill should be added to quickly get new accounts to where they should be. However, a minimum number of games (X) should be mandatory before attributing a high skill in a playlist or account to a particular player. This would prevent both bad sportsmanship where players beat up lower level players, as well as inflation of levels from booting via resetting sigma/mu.
[Edited on 11.17.2009 1:09 PM PST]