I had a game of comp terminal attack where half of my team left and the other two players gave up and didnt do much, in this period I managed to go on a solo rampage a few times because the enemy team got reckless chasing after me, ended up as a top scorer between both teams, but the game still took away from me like 500 points. After that game I never touched ranked again, it sucks.
Similar thing happened to me. 2 team mates left and we lost so I lost 1000 elo. -.- it’s such a joke. People keep leaving matches and the game doesn’t compensate for it or punish harshly enough.
And i think theres another point where the system needs adjustments. It should not punish you because the whole team gave up. If someone leaves it should be more rewarding to keep going
@@BenFoster-cx4emi think it should not be focused on the fun aspect. It is ranked and not unranked but you are right that it should not punish the team because someone left maybe resulting in a loss because of that
@@basti0567 Yeah, I agree with this - with one out clause - a player leaving a match shouldn't be used as a way for a team of 5 to protect all their rank scores. I don't know how the devs could best treat these situations without it being abused.
Now that its more transparent, people dont like it. As if before it could have been doing the same, but they wouldnt know because "arrow go up or down." But in reality they had no idea what was happening.
I’m a new player starting with s3 and I just unlocked ranked so this was a cool video to see. I’m still a little nervous to play ranked because unraked terminal attack (while still very fun) seems to flip flop with very unbalanced teams, I almost never have a close match and instead have my team bulldoze the opposition or get destroyed ourselves. Hoping ranked will be more balanced.
I dunno I still have a couple issues with your explanations here. First off, I’ll say “there aren’t enough people playing to balance the teams” makes me feel like the move from a 3 person team to a 5 person team is a little bit more baffling. I also want to say: I haven’t personally experienced losing elo for winning just yet, but the whole narrative being spun around the change to terminal attack was that it’s a more “tactical” game mode, implying that working together as a team will lead you to more wins. I never really put any stock into that myself - if anything, cashout requires way more team work in strategy in my opinion - but all of that is to say that skewing the elo so hard on individual performance discourages teams of solo players from actually trying to play together and even win. If you win the game, your elo should go up. Period. What’s preventing me from getting a kill or two per round and then completely running away and hiding and doing nothing all game when I’m still going to gain elo regardless if I win or lose? If the most important thing that matters is my k/d, why would I care about the objective? It’s just silly to me, I dunno…
As of now there is no way in hell this game will survive as is for 100 days till S4 LMAO Its been ONE week and Im half way through with Battle Pass and I hardly play now in S4. WAIT TILL THE MASSES finish it…….. this game player count will CRATER and im one of them 🪦
@TheDarth24 good thing they update the game literally every week. The doom and gloom in the finals community is comical, for such a fun game the community is miserable
@@Zizou19989those weekly updates created a thousand new bugs. They just add and add and add without polishing what they already have. Every game I run into at least 4-5 bugs. In season one I was surprised to run into one every 10 matches…
@RoccoAintCheap yea you definitely don't represent the majority of players. I will admit I've had more bugs since season 3s release but before that it has been smooth sailing. So you're either severely exaggerating or you're a 0.1% case
My initial anger at TA being the ranked mode for season 3 likely won’t fade away, as I find search and destroy antithetical to the design of the game prior and its balance needs are necessarily different than CO. But I get that they want to bring in more new players with a more familiar game mode so whatever. As long as they don’t make power shift ranked for season 4, we’ll be golden!
Really good explanation. If your team barely wins (7-6) against a lower-rated opponent, and you're one of the higher ranked players in the match, and your performance ranks near the bottom, then you are overrated based on the evidence from that match, therefore it is fair to lose some rating. It doesn't *have* to be that way, but only gaining rating for a win means players in parties will more easily get carried to inflated ranks and solo players will struggle even more.
If by this you mean in matches where your opponents are too strong, that’s not about the rank system. It’s actually that there aren’t enough players for the system to provide you an equal opponent, so it will find the next best option. This is why we need to support Embark’s steps in bringing new players to the game.
What makes you think you’re getting rigged matches as opposed to the closest match possible in that moment in time? (Meaning players of same or similar skill looking for a match at the same time and place) statistically speaking it’s impossible to achieve 100% of the time no matter the population size
@@RiskofTrainsthe person that made the is comment has brain rot, they only know how to complain and echo the talking points of online forums, ignore them brother
The only part of the current system I disagree with is losing RS at a win. I think that regardless of how you performed you should not lose RS, you could get 0 or just a little, like 10. Over many matches, if the player who gained RS through these "false earnings" actually performs, than awesome. If not, then they'll simply lose RS.
As far as i know individual performance does not affect ranking in counter strike for example. Actually in counter strike ranking is only affected by the binary win/loss rn.
They had performance of the individual and performance for the team affect ranking, but they changed it to this far more fair and simple method. Win or Lose.
@@tech6359so say you get no kills, no support points, no objective points and die every round. Yet despite that your team pulls a win. You think you deserve to go higher in rank, despite actually having contributed nothing?
This video sadly isnt true. The system is broken. There's major inconsistencies in the ranked dishout of points. I won a game of TA and got the lowest amount of points while performing the best. The game was 7-4, I had 17 kills, 6 deaths and only received 523 points, while my friend had 3 kills, 8 deaths and received 541 points. Your own performance has slight impact, but sometimes doesn't even work at all. Why sweat to be the best in the match, only to be paid out the worst?
This argument doesn't stand up because you're missing key information about what performance is. You can't assess that without knowing the RS of all players (yours, your teammates, and your opponents) as well as the combat (includes assists and non-elimination damage), support and objective scores. If it was only about K/D and match score the system would not work because, for example, support-style players would be underscored.
@@RockhoundBlack No, that's still false. If my friend and I are gold 1, and I am the best performer, with kills and objective score, but get paid the least points, than the system is broken. What's the incentive to perform the best, if you're paid the worst? There's no explanation other than the system calculations are off and need fixing.
@@RND3YT You're not understanding what performance is correctly. Kills are basically meaningless - you could have made the last shot on a bunch of opponents that your friend scored most of the damage against. Performance also has to include things like the support score. On top of that, Embark can potentially look at a much deeper level of detail than they'll ever share publically. For instance, the skill level of each opponent you engaged with and even whether they were shooting back at you as you damaged them (vs damaging them from behind). That sort of info would never be made public because a good ranking system will be highly prioprietary to the devs. In the example you gave the points difference between you and your friend was relative close and could easily have come down to any of the factors I mention above, and does not show that there's an issue with the system.
@@RockhoundBlack Again, no. I had the highest kills, damage and objective. Outclassing everyone on my team by miles. Understanding that there's many calculations to the rank dishout, why am I performing the best, with the highest score, (aside from support, which nobody gets high in TA anyways) yet am being paid the least? My friend going negative, playing horribly, was paid more ranked points. I was 17-6 KD, he was 3-8 KD. I had over 10k damage, he had around 1.8k. I was the same Gold rank as he was. I know there's further calculations, like enemy skill, objective, support, hidden MMR etc. But it's undeniable that the disparity between our performances proves a huge problem with the system. You cannot argue that both he and I, Gold players, should've been paid out anything close to what we got.
@@RND3YT this doesn’t prove there’s a problem with the system. However, what it probably tells us is that Embark likely uses a simple moving average or weighted moving average for your performance so that singular extreme results don’t push your rank score too much in that direction. If that’s the case, it’ll help to make sure your current rank score is consistent with your ongoing performance but it will also mean outstanding performance in a match, like you recall here, doesn’t impact the Rank Score as much as people might expect. The converse, of course, is that one-off terrible performance also isn’t punished as harshly, which, overall, is probably a good decision.
in my case as a player who places highest rank in any game ive played. biggest flaw in this system is cheaters. IMO you cant implement this kind of system while majority of top 500 is cheaters or boosted, as ive have countless games with a cheater lower than 20k in the enemy team, i and my friends are around 45k area and losing point for no reason sucks. + some bugs with the ranking aswell, but i wont say the ranking system is instantly a bad system just because ive had 1 or 2 games that wrongly gave me points.
L take 1. Ranked TA is universally hated and doing opposite of bringing in new players. 2. Basing heavy individual performance on a mode with no regen, heals or revives is stupid af. That would have been perfect in Cashout NOT TA. 2. Embark does not need time to cook all they had time do was leave ranked Cashout and make world tour their playground for Cashout changes SIMPLE…….. they didnt do that because they are desperate to grow game and decided to chase a trend with an inferior mode. No one is biting because one week later steam player count dropped into the 11k and barely can hold over 20k players consistently. 13k to 15k is the range which is pathetic for new season.
chronically online 😂 also lil guy you are only grabbing from steam charts. do yourself a favor and stop playing video games and as a whole maybe quit the finals because its very obvious the game isn't for you. you bring up playercount like matchmaking times for most playlists aren't less than a minute. the game has 20k on steam at 10am est during a weekday. you seriously URGENTLY need to quit video games. you are mentally ill
The system shouldn’t make you lose points for winning even if you don’t play well. Give someone a minimal amount of points, so they didn’t benefit from it much, but not lose points if you win. Why would I want to play a game I get punished for winning.
A ranking system for individuals playing in team competition isn’t about wins and losses though. Its purpose is to rank players by their current level of skill. If someone happens to be a low skill player teamed up with high skill players, they should not climb ranks simply because their team wins a lot. The purpose of the system is to still rank all of those players by their individual skill levels. Choosing great teammates is not a skill.
@@RockhoundBlackWhile true, I think he's onto something. Even a measly +10 will leave the player more satisfied than a 0 or a negative number right after winning. And I think that matters the most.
@@RockhoundBlack Sure, but there is still a way to calibrate an ELO system where someone getting "boosted" will never receive that boost if their contribution to a win is negligible. As for players not intentionally looking to be "boosted," if SBMM is working correctly, the games in which players benefit from better teammates is typically going to be offset by the games in which they are burdened with weaker teammates. Contrary to an argument I see often among devs, using an ELO system exactly like the formula used for chess would work just fine, I believe. Such a system can even be adapted to multi-player games such as Cashout using pairwise results. One feature of such an ELO formula is that a player never loses ELO points when they win, but that doesn't mean that a player who contributes little, zero, or even a negative amount to a win needs to get any substantial positive benefit (what's 0% or 0.1% or even 1% of a positive number when teammates are earning 20% or 30% of the same number?). Despite Embark's assertion that the new system is "more transparent," I'd argue it obviously isn't given the reaction of the player base. Now, having a mathematical formula that people could use to reproduce the results Embark shows would meet a much more sensible and intuitive notion of "transparent." I don't know why Embark makes this so difficult, when I truly believe it could be so simple.
@@RockhoundBlackbut if i may ask at what point is the player skill rating too low? Lets say everyone performed very good. Will the worst player of the game loose points even tho he performed well in terms of k/d if that even matters for the performance? Or is it like the higher the own ranked points the more you are likely to loose points if you performed less good in the overall round? I think i still missed something how it actually works
@@TheIntelligentVehicle It's unlikely Embark would ever share their formula for the ranking system - a good ranking system will be considered highly proprietary. Also, doing that would probably open the conversations from community members thinking they know better than the devs. Also, your idea of lower skilled teammates not continually benefitting from better teammates doesn't work when you have a 5-stack that always play together. Personally, I don't see why people are getting hung up on receiving negative RS in any situation that deserves it - the job of the ranking system is to rank individuals by skill, not make them feel good by handing them a few points when they played poorly, even if their team won.
I played a match and my team had 9k more rating. 100k vs 91k, 7-6 match and lost 340, RS was too close to count as a loss after a win. Abysmal way to play the game
I fully got demoted -2800 rank points, the screen went black in between rounds and didn’t let me play the next round so I had to dashboard and when I rejoined I went from 14800 > 12000 and it’s still happening but I’m loosing around 800 which is still bs tho cause I shouldn’t be punished for a poorly made and unfinished game
Amm.. Kind'a not believe at this because I have case like: My team 110,420 - enemy team 15,527 I did 0 kills (yeah, I'm such bad) and get +857 to my rank Why do we even get so much rank at this situation?? As I my consider - HUGE part of new system is > "How much time you spend to win" Because, it seams right - because we won 7 / 0 so, don't think individual performance means a lot but - win or loose + rank overall + time to spent it is... Prove me wrong ahaha) love it, thanks!
If your ranked system can put you in a game against a team with literally half your skill rating then the system is completely broken and needs redoing. This is not a casual mode, it's ranked. It's the one game mode that SHOULD have skill based matchmaking. If you put a team together that can literally only lose skill rating then that game is a complete waste of time for the higher ranked team. If you're saying thats the only game they could find then they need to completely redo the ranked system and just make it flat increase or decrease based on win or loss. Otherwise there's literally no point in playing ranked.
I agree with this. While the system might be working as intended, the lack of matches around your skill rating really degrades the point of playing ranked. You would have to do astronomically better than the entire team to minimize losses, but might end up losing points anyway because of the difference in skill rating. I'm not sure how common this would be though. Definitely shows the lack of players Ranked has for this to be the way it was designed. I don't envy the developers here and wish them luck with finding a balance.
@@thesunkendream While I don't disagree, this issue would still exist in TA if they had a separate ranked for both modes. It's something that Embark seems to be using due to the low player pool in the first place. Cashout Ranked had its own set of problems (the inconsistency of going up or down compared to your teammates is very similar). I'd still prefer Cashout as it tends to avoid this problem more often in my experience.
Yeah... All the more reason for me to never touch ranked again. This isn't just this season because my rank would consistently go down last season too, even after tournaments that I won the final round in and had a decent enough performance. So, they may have something in mind but I'm not buying it until a couple of seasons down the line (if it even exists that long that is).
That's crazy. We finally get an ACTUAL RANK SYSTEM BASED ON PERSONAL PERFORMANCE... and people complain. Embark really outing these Triple AAA developer studios rn for shitty ranked systems. EDIT: This is the best system because, instead of having players cope and complain for the win, they will now realize the ball is in their court to play well, and actually try. This whole system is based off of individual performance, not TEAM performance.... Which is how ranking a player... SHOULD BE!!!
Bro it is literally the worst system becaus eits terminal attack lol . No one cares about ranking up or down people want to play cashout . End of story . Period.
@@julianowen6670 They are working on the cash out one… someone is butt hurt 🤮🤮🤮. looks like you have a case of “mass media got your tongue” BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
![Yailin La Mas Viral, @kreizyk.official - Dale 2 (Remix) [Video Oficial]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JaYHBzgqz94/mqdefault.jpg)
I had a game of comp terminal attack where half of my team left and the other two players gave up and didnt do much, in this period I managed to go on a solo rampage a few times because the enemy team got reckless chasing after me, ended up as a top scorer between both teams, but the game still took away from me like 500 points. After that game I never touched ranked again, it sucks.
Similar thing happened to me. 2 team mates left and we lost so I lost 1000 elo. -.- it’s such a joke. People keep leaving matches and the game doesn’t compensate for it or punish harshly enough.
@@Zlittlepenguin the game shouldn't have to punish. devs should focus on making their game fun instead of on punishment
And i think theres another point where the system needs adjustments. It should not punish you because the whole team gave up. If someone leaves it should be more rewarding to keep going
@@BenFoster-cx4emi think it should not be focused on the fun aspect. It is ranked and not unranked but you are right that it should not punish the team because someone left maybe resulting in a loss because of that
@@basti0567 Yeah, I agree with this - with one out clause - a player leaving a match shouldn't be used as a way for a team of 5 to protect all their rank scores. I don't know how the devs could best treat these situations without it being abused.
Now that its more transparent, people dont like it. As if before it could have been doing the same, but they wouldnt know because "arrow go up or down." But in reality they had no idea what was happening.
This would be interesting if they had that system for cashout.
Since it was probably designed for it and they changed the mode at the last second
I’m a new player starting with s3 and I just unlocked ranked so this was a cool video to see. I’m still a little nervous to play ranked because unraked terminal attack (while still very fun) seems to flip flop with very unbalanced teams, I almost never have a close match and instead have my team bulldoze the opposition or get destroyed ourselves. Hoping ranked will be more balanced.
I dunno I still have a couple issues with your explanations here. First off, I’ll say “there aren’t enough people playing to balance the teams” makes me feel like the move from a 3 person team to a 5 person team is a little bit more baffling.
I also want to say: I haven’t personally experienced losing elo for winning just yet, but the whole narrative being spun around the change to terminal attack was that it’s a more “tactical” game mode, implying that working together as a team will lead you to more wins. I never really put any stock into that myself - if anything, cashout requires way more team work in strategy in my opinion - but all of that is to say that skewing the elo so hard on individual performance discourages teams of solo players from actually trying to play together and even win. If you win the game, your elo should go up. Period.
What’s preventing me from getting a kill or two per round and then completely running away and hiding and doing nothing all game when I’m still going to gain elo regardless if I win or lose? If the most important thing that matters is my k/d, why would I care about the objective? It’s just silly to me, I dunno…
they better make cashout the best ranked for s4
As of now there is no way in hell this game will survive as is for 100 days till S4 LMAO
Its been ONE week and Im half way through with Battle Pass and I hardly play now in S4. WAIT TILL THE MASSES finish it…….. this game player count will CRATER and im one of them 🪦
@TheDarth24 good thing they update the game literally every week. The doom and gloom in the finals community is comical, for such a fun game the community is miserable
@@Zizou19989True that, community is full of retard
@@Zizou19989those weekly updates created a thousand new bugs. They just add and add and add without polishing what they already have.
Every game I run into at least 4-5 bugs.
In season one I was surprised to run into one every 10 matches…
@RoccoAintCheap yea you definitely don't represent the majority of players. I will admit I've had more bugs since season 3s release but before that it has been smooth sailing. So you're either severely exaggerating or you're a 0.1% case
My initial anger at TA being the ranked mode for season 3 likely won’t fade away, as I find search and destroy antithetical to the design of the game prior and its balance needs are necessarily different than CO. But I get that they want to bring in more new players with a more familiar game mode so whatever. As long as they don’t make power shift ranked for season 4, we’ll be golden!
Really good explanation. If your team barely wins (7-6) against a lower-rated opponent, and you're one of the higher ranked players in the match, and your performance ranks near the bottom, then you are overrated based on the evidence from that match, therefore it is fair to lose some rating. It doesn't *have* to be that way, but only gaining rating for a win means players in parties will more easily get carried to inflated ranks and solo players will struggle even more.
Even if the rank system makes sense, it should NOT be throwing people into matches rigged against them under any circumstances. THAT is the problem.
This! Let’s not justify this… it shouldn’t punish you for being better.
If by this you mean in matches where your opponents are too strong, that’s not about the rank system. It’s actually that there aren’t enough players for the system to provide you an equal opponent, so it will find the next best option. This is why we need to support Embark’s steps in bringing new players to the game.
What makes you think you’re getting rigged matches as opposed to the closest match possible in that moment in time? (Meaning players of same or similar skill looking for a match at the same time and place) statistically speaking it’s impossible to achieve 100% of the time no matter the population size
he addressed this in the video, did you not watch it??
@@RiskofTrainsthe person that made the is comment has brain rot, they only know how to complain and echo the talking points of online forums, ignore them brother
i dont know guys it's barely been a week, lets just see how it plays out
The only part of the current system I disagree with is losing RS at a win. I think that regardless of how you performed you should not lose RS, you could get 0 or just a little, like 10.
Over many matches, if the player who gained RS through these "false earnings" actually performs, than awesome. If not, then they'll simply lose RS.
thank you for this video!
As far as i know individual performance does not affect ranking in counter strike for example. Actually in counter strike ranking is only affected by the binary win/loss rn.
They had performance of the individual and performance for the team affect ranking, but they changed it to this far more fair and simple method. Win or Lose.
@@tech6359so say you get no kills, no support points, no objective points and die every round. Yet despite that your team pulls a win. You think you deserve to go higher in rank, despite actually having contributed nothing?
the reason the ranked system is still bad is because of TA. No one wants to play it.
good informativ video thx ^^
This video sadly isnt true.
The system is broken.
There's major inconsistencies in the ranked dishout of points.
I won a game of TA and got the lowest amount of points while performing the best.
The game was 7-4, I had 17 kills, 6 deaths and only received 523 points, while my friend had 3 kills, 8 deaths and received 541 points.
Your own performance has slight impact, but sometimes doesn't even work at all. Why sweat to be the best in the match, only to be paid out the worst?
This argument doesn't stand up because you're missing key information about what performance is. You can't assess that without knowing the RS of all players (yours, your teammates, and your opponents) as well as the combat (includes assists and non-elimination damage), support and objective scores. If it was only about K/D and match score the system would not work because, for example, support-style players would be underscored.
@@RockhoundBlack No, that's still false.
If my friend and I are gold 1, and I am the best performer, with kills and objective score, but get paid the least points, than the system is broken.
What's the incentive to perform the best, if you're paid the worst? There's no explanation other than the system calculations are off and need fixing.
@@RND3YT You're not understanding what performance is correctly. Kills are basically meaningless - you could have made the last shot on a bunch of opponents that your friend scored most of the damage against. Performance also has to include things like the support score.
On top of that, Embark can potentially look at a much deeper level of detail than they'll ever share publically. For instance, the skill level of each opponent you engaged with and even whether they were shooting back at you as you damaged them (vs damaging them from behind). That sort of info would never be made public because a good ranking system will be highly prioprietary to the devs.
In the example you gave the points difference between you and your friend was relative close and could easily have come down to any of the factors I mention above, and does not show that there's an issue with the system.
@@RockhoundBlack Again, no.
I had the highest kills, damage and objective. Outclassing everyone on my team by miles.
Understanding that there's many calculations to the rank dishout, why am I performing the best, with the highest score, (aside from support, which nobody gets high in TA anyways) yet am being paid the least?
My friend going negative, playing horribly, was paid more ranked points.
I was 17-6 KD, he was 3-8 KD.
I had over 10k damage, he had around 1.8k.
I was the same Gold rank as he was.
I know there's further calculations, like enemy skill, objective, support, hidden MMR etc. But it's undeniable that the disparity between our performances proves a huge problem with the system.
You cannot argue that both he and I, Gold players, should've been paid out anything close to what we got.
@@RND3YT this doesn’t prove there’s a problem with the system. However, what it probably tells us is that Embark likely uses a simple moving average or weighted moving average for your performance so that singular extreme results don’t push your rank score too much in that direction. If that’s the case, it’ll help to make sure your current rank score is consistent with your ongoing performance but it will also mean outstanding performance in a match, like you recall here, doesn’t impact the Rank Score as much as people might expect. The converse, of course, is that one-off terrible performance also isn’t punished as harshly, which, overall, is probably a good decision.
in my case as a player who places highest rank in any game ive played. biggest flaw in this system is cheaters. IMO you cant implement this kind of system while majority of top 500 is cheaters or boosted, as ive have countless games with a cheater lower than 20k in the enemy team, i and my friends are around 45k area and losing point for no reason sucks. + some bugs with the ranking aswell, but i wont say the ranking system is instantly a bad system just because ive had 1 or 2 games that wrongly gave me points.
L take
1. Ranked TA is universally hated and doing opposite of bringing in new players.
2. Basing heavy individual performance on a mode with no regen, heals or revives is stupid af. That would have been perfect in Cashout NOT TA.
2. Embark does not need time to cook all they had time do was leave ranked Cashout and make world tour their playground for Cashout changes SIMPLE…….. they didnt do that because they are desperate to grow game and decided to chase a trend with an inferior mode. No one is biting because one week later steam player count dropped into the 11k and barely can hold over 20k players consistently. 13k to 15k is the range which is pathetic for new season.
chronically online 😂 also lil guy you are only grabbing from steam charts. do yourself a favor and stop playing video games and as a whole maybe quit the finals because its very obvious the game isn't for you. you bring up playercount like matchmaking times for most playlists aren't less than a minute. the game has 20k on steam at 10am est during a weekday. you seriously URGENTLY need to quit video games. you are mentally ill
I just don't wanna play TA...lol, 27 mins for a round is crazy to me. Might as well go play warzone or fortnight then
That's a pretty similar time to making it all the way through a cashout tournament.
The system shouldn’t make you lose points for winning even if you don’t play well. Give someone a minimal amount of points, so they didn’t benefit from it much, but not lose points if you win. Why would I want to play a game I get punished for winning.
A ranking system for individuals playing in team competition isn’t about wins and losses though. Its purpose is to rank players by their current level of skill. If someone happens to be a low skill player teamed up with high skill players, they should not climb ranks simply because their team wins a lot. The purpose of the system is to still rank all of those players by their individual skill levels. Choosing great teammates is not a skill.
@@RockhoundBlackWhile true, I think he's onto something. Even a measly +10 will leave the player more satisfied than a 0 or a negative number right after winning. And I think that matters the most.
@@RockhoundBlack Sure, but there is still a way to calibrate an ELO system where someone getting "boosted" will never receive that boost if their contribution to a win is negligible. As for players not intentionally looking to be "boosted," if SBMM is working correctly, the games in which players benefit from better teammates is typically going to be offset by the games in which they are burdened with weaker teammates. Contrary to an argument I see often among devs, using an ELO system exactly like the formula used for chess would work just fine, I believe. Such a system can even be adapted to multi-player games such as Cashout using pairwise results. One feature of such an ELO formula is that a player never loses ELO points when they win, but that doesn't mean that a player who contributes little, zero, or even a negative amount to a win needs to get any substantial positive benefit (what's 0% or 0.1% or even 1% of a positive number when teammates are earning 20% or 30% of the same number?). Despite Embark's assertion that the new system is "more transparent," I'd argue it obviously isn't given the reaction of the player base. Now, having a mathematical formula that people could use to reproduce the results Embark shows would meet a much more sensible and intuitive notion of "transparent." I don't know why Embark makes this so difficult, when I truly believe it could be so simple.
@@RockhoundBlackbut if i may ask at what point is the player skill rating too low? Lets say everyone performed very good. Will the worst player of the game loose points even tho he performed well in terms of k/d if that even matters for the performance? Or is it like the higher the own ranked points the more you are likely to loose points if you performed less good in the overall round?
I think i still missed something how it actually works
@@TheIntelligentVehicle It's unlikely Embark would ever share their formula for the ranking system - a good ranking system will be considered highly proprietary. Also, doing that would probably open the conversations from community members thinking they know better than the devs. Also, your idea of lower skilled teammates not continually benefitting from better teammates doesn't work when you have a 5-stack that always play together. Personally, I don't see why people are getting hung up on receiving negative RS in any situation that deserves it - the job of the ranking system is to rank individuals by skill, not make them feel good by handing them a few points when they played poorly, even if their team won.
I hope they revert ranked back to cashout.. terminal attack is exactly what isnt fun about shooters
I played a match and my team had 9k more rating. 100k vs 91k, 7-6 match and lost 340, RS was too close to count as a loss after a win. Abysmal way to play the game
Can you recall what your own performance was like for that match?
Not my problem, im not playing ranked😂
I fully got demoted -2800 rank points, the screen went black in between rounds and didn’t let me play the next round so I had to dashboard and when I rejoined I went from 14800 > 12000 and it’s still happening but I’m loosing around 800 which is still bs tho cause I shouldn’t be punished for a poorly made and unfinished game
Well said
Amm.. Kind'a not believe at this because I have case like:
My team 110,420 - enemy team 15,527
I did 0 kills (yeah, I'm such bad) and get +857 to my rank
Why do we even get so much rank at this situation??
As I my consider - HUGE part of new system is > "How much time you spend to win"
Because, it seams right - because we won 7 / 0 so, don't think individual performance means a lot but - win or loose + rank overall + time to spent it is... Prove me wrong ahaha) love it, thanks!
If your ranked system can put you in a game against a team with literally half your skill rating then the system is completely broken and needs redoing. This is not a casual mode, it's ranked. It's the one game mode that SHOULD have skill based matchmaking. If you put a team together that can literally only lose skill rating then that game is a complete waste of time for the higher ranked team. If you're saying thats the only game they could find then they need to completely redo the ranked system and just make it flat increase or decrease based on win or loss. Otherwise there's literally no point in playing ranked.
I agree with this. While the system might be working as intended, the lack of matches around your skill rating really degrades the point of playing ranked. You would have to do astronomically better than the entire team to minimize losses, but might end up losing points anyway because of the difference in skill rating. I'm not sure how common this would be though.
Definitely shows the lack of players Ranked has for this to be the way it was designed. I don't envy the developers here and wish them luck with finding a balance.
@@InsomniacUN Nobody is playing ranked because they made terminal attack ranked, it's as simple as that. Cashout should be the ranked mode
@@thesunkendream While I don't disagree, this issue would still exist in TA if they had a separate ranked for both modes. It's something that Embark seems to be using due to the low player pool in the first place.
Cashout Ranked had its own set of problems (the inconsistency of going up or down compared to your teammates is very similar). I'd still prefer Cashout as it tends to avoid this problem more often in my experience.
Yeah... All the more reason for me to never touch ranked again. This isn't just this season because my rank would consistently go down last season too, even after tournaments that I won the final round in and had a decent enough performance. So, they may have something in mind but I'm not buying it until a couple of seasons down the line (if it even exists that long that is).
That's crazy. We finally get an ACTUAL RANK SYSTEM BASED ON PERSONAL PERFORMANCE... and people complain. Embark really outing these Triple AAA developer studios rn for shitty ranked systems.
EDIT: This is the best system because, instead of having players cope and complain for the win, they will now realize the ball is in their court to play well, and actually try. This whole system is based off of individual performance, not TEAM performance.... Which is how ranking a player... SHOULD BE!!!
Bro it is literally the worst system becaus eits terminal attack lol . No one cares about ranking up or down people want to play cashout . End of story . Period.
@@julianowen6670 They are working on the cash out one… someone is butt hurt 🤮🤮🤮. looks like you have a case of “mass media got your tongue” BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA