I will repeat this:
A perfectly average player will win 50% of 1v1's
A perfectly average player will win 12.5% of 8-player games
therefore, if you have two players, we'll say one's a major, one's a private first class, and the major plays almost all 8 man games, he would have a win% of maybe 20%. The private first class plays almost all 1v1's,s o he would have a win% of 45%.
Now, is win % a good representation of skill? You are stuck on this one thing, and if you listen to anyone else who has posted, you will realize that your viewpoint on win % is inaccurate. Yes, the point system is unfair, especially in 1v1's, but there is no way to correct it.
Let's look at the options, shall we:
1 keep it how it is. Okay, if a major is playing a private in a 1v1, he needs to win about 9 out of 10 of them in order to maintain points. That is unrealistic and unfair, but people manage to get well past major (maybe by not playing 1v1's
)
2 change it to win% or include win%. As previously stated, this is not plausible with the multitude of game types and number of players/teams in each game. Win% can vary greatly depending on preferred game type much more than ability level. People should not be punished just because they like 1v1 or team games, so that won't work.
3 make it a flat point system (get 20 points for a win, 20 for a loss). Think about it. If a player has 5000 points today, and beats 75% of his opponents, someone who joins the site today will have 0 chance of catching up to him given that they play the same amount of games. It should make sense if you think about it for a bit.
Therefore, a flat point system won't work as it is not fair to punish people for not joining in '06.
What other options are there?
