Quote:
Originally Posted by EricH
A ranking system that will hopefully never return. Basically, they figured they were going to lose the match anyway, and the ranking system rewarded you for losing if you kept your score very low. 1114's partners blocked their own goals immediately, 1114 joined in scoring for red, and there wasn't anything 469 and their partners could really do about it other than watch their ranking plummet.
It wasn't a potential flaw in the ranking system, it was a flawed ranking system. It's also Strike 1 on Coopertition in the rankings. (2012 was Strike 3--the bridge was used to destroy some rankings.)
|
I may be in the minority, but I really liked 2010's ranking system. I think it produced some of the most accurate rankings of any game. By ranking based on in-match performance and weighting the opponents heavily, rather than just win-loss, the best match schedule for a team was
the hardest schedule they could win, not the easiest schedule. It inherently took into account the strength of schedule. My favorite part was the worst possible score was a 0-0 tie. Nobody got any points for that, unlike now, where even though nobody scored, it's still better for both teams than a loss.
The flaw only exists in games where teams are allowed to score for their opponents, which unfortunately was the case in 2010.
In order to use that style of ranking system, the game must be designed to disallow scoring for opponents (eg 2007, 2008, 2011). If implemented with a game which does not discriminate object (2009, 2010, 2012, 2013) then 6v0 will happen. It also has the downside of being incredibly difficult to explain to spectators. I doubt it will ever return, since it's too restrictive on game design and it's too different from what's used in traditional sports to make sense to the layman, but the concept behind the ranking system was sound.
[/tangent]