You need alot more than 40wins. But yeah the skill level varies alot, I almost got a perfect on a A1 player by being in LF stance the whole match 0_0
Does anyone else think the ranking system should be patched?
- Thread starter Pleportamee
- Start date
acefrost
[12] Conqueror
Rank doesn't really mean anything, I am barely average yet I am rank A2. Ranked is dumb because I can fight someone who is clearly much better than me and still win because he/she didn't adjust to my reckless noob play style in time yet if we had a ft10 or even a best out of 3 I know I would lose... badly.
Edit- I am now A1, goodbye ranked forever, hello sexy emblem.
Edit- I am now A1, goodbye ranked forever, hello sexy emblem.
caseh
[09] Warrior
I don't think ranking should just be dismissed completely. I like the sets of 3 that people talk about in tournaments and I can see why its done but I don't think its the answer to how competetive play should be done its just the best way at the moment.
If someone is better than you, 3 sets isn't really going to change that. It gives you a chance to change how you play but then your opponent is no doubt just as capable of that. If the idea behind 3 sets is that players can't get away with gimmicks etc then what is to stop a player from learning all characters and just using different gimmicks for each fight? 3 sets won't help you identify someone who plays like that. maybe at the highest levels of play but then not all tournaments would pass as highest level.
If someone is better than you, 3 sets isn't really going to change that. It gives you a chance to change how you play but then your opponent is no doubt just as capable of that. If the idea behind 3 sets is that players can't get away with gimmicks etc then what is to stop a player from learning all characters and just using different gimmicks for each fight? 3 sets won't help you identify someone who plays like that. maybe at the highest levels of play but then not all tournaments would pass as highest level.
IdleMind
BANNED FOREVER
I think your entire post is based on the idea that you have a high rank online.
Heaton
A Soul in the Purgatory
As the reigning #1 on the PSN Ranked Leaderboards, I think that ranked is terrible and should be avoided after you have gotten that beautiful A1 emblem. Don't even bother with a patch, just either avoid it altogether, or get your emblem and get out. It's that simple. Compare my Player Match record (750W 650L more or less) to my Ranked Match record (700W 40L more or less) and it tells a completely different story as to who I really am as a player, and how good I am.
You cannot look at these things in a vacuum, either. Look at my ranked record alone and I look like some demi-god of Calibur. Look at my player match record alone and I look like a fairly decent player. Combine them together and it's "obvious" that I just boost and fish for low level people in ranked - or so you would assume. The reality is I play every single challenger in ranked, and spend most of my player matches against Ramon, Partisan, Xeph, and others that I consider near or above my skill level.
In essence, ranked doesn't mean shit, except that the A1 emblem is fucking cool looking and tells you that I am at least as good as the steak sauce is delicious.
You cannot look at these things in a vacuum, either. Look at my ranked record alone and I look like some demi-god of Calibur. Look at my player match record alone and I look like a fairly decent player. Combine them together and it's "obvious" that I just boost and fish for low level people in ranked - or so you would assume. The reality is I play every single challenger in ranked, and spend most of my player matches against Ramon, Partisan, Xeph, and others that I consider near or above my skill level.
In essence, ranked doesn't mean shit, except that the A1 emblem is fucking cool looking and tells you that I am at least as good as the steak sauce is delicious.
caseh
[09] Warrior
I do have a high rank online as it goes but thats mainly based on the fact I only played with a main character that I pretty much know inside out. If you don't fight with a char you know well chances are i'll win and 3 sets in those instances won't make any difference. Just because i'm up top doesn't mean I think i'm the best, I know i'm competent to some degree but nowhere near tournament level. But there are players i've come across near the top of the rankings that have made me look silly.
There's an aspect of competition that most people overlook and that is it doesn't matter how good you are, there are some people you will just never beat. They ain't necessarily better (what does 'better' mean anyway in this context?) than you but they just have a style that you cannot adapt to. Rematching or doing multiple sets won't change this, it just gives you a chance.
IdleMind
BANNED FOREVER
If you are trying to say that 1 game is equivalent to a set because "it doesn't matter some people are just better than you" then you don't seem to have a grasp on adjustment in fighting games. That's my opinion, take it however you like.
As long as ranked is 1 game, with the choose stage, and allows CaS, it's 100% manufactured garbage.
As long as ranked is 1 game, with the choose stage, and allows CaS, it's 100% manufactured garbage.
Pleportamee
[08] Mercenary
Good point. Ill probably get my emblem and then stick to hunting down good players and doing first to 10s. I may still play ranked occaisionally, only because from my experince on XBL the players tend to be a little better in ranked than Global Collesseo.
caseh
[09] Warrior
I see what you're saying and it think its a fair comment. I do have a grasp of adjustment, its no different to any other type of competitive activity. I used to fight in TKD competitions as a kid, nothing special but baiting, feinting etc its all the same concept. I had my ass handed to me a fair few times, fighting these people again wouldn't have made a difference. Point being it is possible for people to naturally be better/efficient than you and I can see why 3 sets is the chosen approach for tournaments.
Just because someone may beat you in a one off match I don't see how you can completely dismiss that player as complete garbage just because it happened in ranked.
IdleMind
BANNED FOREVER
The point is, 1 game is meaningless, and it has a trickle down effect on the entire system.
Ranked measures you with a system that is supposed to imply skill via record. How you attain that record is fraudulent because it doesn't take into account one of the key things in fighting games: adjustment. No adjustment means that you cannot take the results of ranked seriously.
Ranked is garbage, not necessarily the players.
Playing 1 game with a player doesn't mean you know anything about them- not if they are garbage or good. It means any judgement you make, you will never really know if it's true or not, because again, single game.
If you can't tell a players skill from a single game, and a single game is what contributes to ranked it means that ranked =/= player skill.
If ranked does not reflect player skill, it's garbage.
Ranked measures you with a system that is supposed to imply skill via record. How you attain that record is fraudulent because it doesn't take into account one of the key things in fighting games: adjustment. No adjustment means that you cannot take the results of ranked seriously.
Ranked is garbage, not necessarily the players.
Playing 1 game with a player doesn't mean you know anything about them- not if they are garbage or good. It means any judgement you make, you will never really know if it's true or not, because again, single game.
If you can't tell a players skill from a single game, and a single game is what contributes to ranked it means that ranked =/= player skill.
If ranked does not reflect player skill, it's garbage.
Heaton
A Soul in the Purgatory
To play devil's advocate for a moment, I believe that if I can beat someone three rounds in a row with only 3(B) ~ SCH B, on hit or on block, I think I know pretty much all I will ever need to know about that player. Just saying.
Zyrusticae
[09] Warrior
Sure, but that's not the point. The point is that the ranking system itself does not tell you anything about the player's actual skill level. Said player that falls for the same thing over and over again... what rank are they? I wouldn't be terribly surprised to find out they're C or B rank, just because of how easy it is to get up there.
I'm pretty miffed about the lack of rematches or best of 2 (or even just making it 5 rounds instead of 3) since there's no room to get used to a player's fighting style in such a time. There's so many instances where I get rocked by a player the first time through because I'm making all the wrong assumptions, and then completely steamroll them the next time because I know exactly what they're doing.
UnseenWombat
[14] Master
Win-loss records and percents are a stupid way of ranking people. So is the E5 to A1 system in SC. If I beat some scrubs 50 times in a row and get a 100% win ratio, or I beat them 800 times in a row and get A1, that doesn't mean I'm a good player. Chess players figured this out like 50 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating
Why this hasn't been implemented in fighting games escapes me. Even frigg'n Mario Kart uses some kind of variation of it.
Why this hasn't been implemented in fighting games escapes me. Even frigg'n Mario Kart uses some kind of variation of it.
bushindu
[11] Champion
RANKED IS BOLLOCKS OK
END OF
END OF
Pleportamee
[08] Mercenary
Yeah, that was the point of my initial post. You actually don't even have to beat "800 scrubs in a row". I haven't broken down the math (and dont plan to) but as a rough estimate, I think you can get to A1 as long as you maintain about a 35% win ratio and play a crap load of matches.
Marginal
Chikara Sashimi
Hey now. Some people like to be associated with that fine steak sauce.
Misty_Chaos
[09] Warrior
I don't play much ranked, my current rank is only D2. I'm ok with that, I usually learn nothing in ranked anyway, other than learning to abuse moves like an online warrior or get angry that my moves aren't coming out due to lag.
Also, I don't feel they need to change the ranked system too much, maybe reduce the amounts of points you get for a win slightly. However, the current system is still no where near as broken or as rage inducing as that of SSF4.
Also, I don't feel they need to change the ranked system too much, maybe reduce the amounts of points you get for a win slightly. However, the current system is still no where near as broken or as rage inducing as that of SSF4.
Marginal
Chikara Sashimi
The thing is, they did try to do that. That's why you have to play someone of similar rank to rank up etc.
Generally I've found that win % relative to the number of matches they've played is usually a better indication of a player's skill level.
UnseenWombat
[14] Master
I guess. It's a pretty half-ass implementation of the idea though. And I agree, people with high match counts and high win % are usually pretty tough to beat. (Except ROTHION. That guy is trash. He pulls every time he's about to lose).
%'s are more likely an accurate representation of skill when the match count is high, but someone could constantly cherry-pick low level opponents and jack up his win %. So I still think a single number like an Elo rank would be a better indicator of true skill at the game.
caseh
[09] Warrior
Thats not necessarily true, just as many of my losses have come from E ranks as they have from any A ranks. You can't really cherry pick but I guess there's a higher probability that E ranks are mashers.
Although I do agree that % is a good indicator of a players competency to play the game. Can be skewed slightly by using a single character you know back to front but I guess there's no crime in only playing a character you know.