Difference between rank and games played

[errorblankfield]

Hey everyone, mini-rant here.

Why do some host/players throw a hissy fit when trying to balance someone with a bunch of games under their belt but still has a rating below par?

Not trying to be too broad here, but I've had a few cases where someone has a lot of games (say 800+) and a relatively lower rating considering games played (850 or so). When we are trying to balance the game, people insist that the 850 ranked/800+ games player should be treated as a much higher ranked player for some reason.

Most of the time, when challenged, they retort with "well he's played more games and thus knows more stratedges and counters."

Which is BS.

It's because he's played a million games and STILL has a 850 ranking we know he's prime example of a 850 ranked player. He's not better because when faced against a 851+ player -he's been shown to lose consistently. At best, his extra games allows him to say 'Oh my, I'm going to die in X way' because clearly this player isn't evolving past this 850 rank (which is fine).

So can someone please help me see the light? Why does games played matter over actual rank?

The only concession I give is if we have two closely ranked players. Then the guy with more games (A) is likely better cause his rank is more absolute. The other guy (B) naturally has less map knowledge and a rank genuinely lower than the other guy (A). As such, put the guy with more games (A) on the side that needs skill more -but otherwise, nope.

/mini-rant

[SomeoneAUS]

The problem is that people intentionally tank to keep their rating low... thus allowing them to win more easily...

[Sulo]

Problem is - if you have so many games played it's VERY hard to move your rank up or down so they MIGHT be improving but it's not showing in score as they get like 1 point for every won match.

[Golol]

maybe he is playing a lot of teamgames and mosty canis.
maybe he has lost a good bunch of those games because od teammates while he performed over his rating.
maybe you're in a cania game right now.
i would propably value a 850 rating 800 games player over a 1000 rating 100 gamea player anyways.
the 1000 rating player could have gotten from 850 to 1000 in 7-8 ladder wins.

[Swkoll]

Once a player is above 25 games or so their deviation is low enough for their rating to be accurate. After that point, additional games don't matter, especially with all games being ranked now.

[Ze_PilOt]

Problem is - if you have so many games played it's VERY hard to move your rank up or down so they MIGHT be improving but it's not showing in score as they get like 1 point for every won match.

That's the point. Your rating is not supposed to move that much when you've reached your level.

You are not supposed to rank up. It's not a ladder.

[James9423]

I am fairly new to the FAF community, with under 100 games which have mostly been team ranked games.I am very disappointed with the new news that the ranking system is going to be removed in favour of a simple 'medal' system which awards new ranks simply by playing and winning, instead of beating players of similar or better rank than yourself.

Some may argue that players will artificially keep their rank low in order to punish lower rank people, but I feel this is simply the lesser evil. When everyone can see everyone's rank team making (at least at the lower ranks) is quick and easy. The better team can easily be spotted and evened out. Perhaps this becomes more an issue once players reach higher rank, as I am only sitting around 800 so far but as far as I can tell the ranking system is perfect already. What would be much worse is assuming that all players with many games are of equal strength, because that is simply not realistic and uneven teams would be inevitable when players simply join a team game instead of being matched to team-mates of similar rank. If teams were being matched from a huge pool of players of similar rank, this plan could work, but instead we are working with a very limited community of players that join games at their own will.

Rewarding players simply for amount of time played is stupid. The idea does not promote strong effort to improve, or good game play. Instead it promotes a system where everyone is rewarded equally for an unequal amount of effort and hard work, and actually disapproves of hard work because there is nothing to attain.

[Vee]

Sulo, it's not true that if you have many games played then your rating doesn't improve. If that 850 games player suddenly starts playing better then his rating will increase. Not as fast as a player with only 5 games, but still way more than 1 point per game (unless the game was stacked, then you get very few points). Whether you have 100 games played or 1000 games played matters very little for how fast your rating will change in response to your skill level changing.

Therefore errorblankfield is correct: if somebody has 800 rating after 850 games, then you should treat him as a 800 rating player. His "experience" is already factored into his rating by the system.