I’ve been saying that ranked is broken forever now simply because I can win off of disconnects without ever trying (and I’m literally not - the game simply decides to drop me on its own, despite my connection being fine more often than not). That alone is enough to prove that it’s broken.
I KNEW IT. Just as planned? 
Ranked is in a way better now (for me at least) since I face top 50 players more often, but I just get matched up against the same ones over and over again… and when I’m not fighting the same guy over and over, I still end up fighting the same characters. It makes me want to play Ranked less every time I jump in.
My Killer matches seriously went like this right now (“counter pick” meaning I know that player mains another character):
Fulgore
Fulgore (counter pick)
TJ
Maya (counter pick)
Maya (counter pick)
TJ
Fulgore (counter pick)
Fulgore (counter pick)
Glacius
Fulgore
Fulgore
Have you ever said the word “Fulgore” so many times, it starts to lose its meaning?
A high-level player getting counter-picked by other high-level players using Fulgore, and people still say that Fulgore is terrible? Hmm, this makes me think not… 
I would love to see an option where a Killer ranked player could voluntarily surrender their killer rank and be reset to qualifier or bronze. But this would also give them some kind of medal (not a pro medal) for having reached killer. This way the people who reach killer could begin the journey again if they really wanted.
…and allow skilled players to continuously beat down on newer, less-experienced players and scare them away from the FG scene? No thanks…
As a Fulgore main I’ve never said he’s terrible. I don’t think he was OP and needed to be nerfed like he was but he’s still strong and viable.
Oh yeah, in fact the actual ranked system would never put together a killer with a bronze player. OH WAIT…
On a serious note, another suggestion for the ranked system would be something similar to HearthStone rankings mixed with the actual: victories will give you a promotion, losses a demotion. But, depending on the tier you’re facing, you’re going to get a lot more/less and viceversa with losses depending on the skill difference. Like Hearthstone, each tier will have stars instead of a precise reaching score with the exception of Killer that preserves an elo system. Tiers can be done as following:
- TIER 1: Wood, Iron, Copper. Each one with 2 stars (that means 6 victories in the same rank tier to proceed to tier 2).
- TIER 2: Bronze, Silver, Gold. Each one with 3 stars (that means 9 victories in the same rank tier to proceed to next tier).
- TIER 3: Platinum, Diamond, Insert material here. Each one with 4 stars (aka 12 victories in the same rank tier to proceed to tier 4).
- TIER 4: Material 1, Material 2, Material 3. Each one with 5 stars (15 victories in the same rank tier to reach killer).
- TIER 5: Killer, with actual elo score.
The reset could be monthly, but there’s going to be some safe checkpoints, like the actual system. These checkpoints are the starting grade of each tier (if you reach silver, you can demote to bronze 1, but not below it). This new system would conciliate also a problem regarding skills (who’s a great winner will reach killer quickly) and time (with the current system, you need 51 consecutive victories to reach killer from bronze, if you consider you’re facing all opponents of your same rank).
Of course, remember that you need also a balance of stars gain depending on ranks. Victories in the same rank grant 1 star. Victories against upper ranks will give more stars (1 1/2, 2 and so on), while victories against lower ranks will grant less stars (3/4 of star and so on, until 1/4 of star). Possibilities of rewards in ranking with consecutive victories and penalties with loss streaks might be included, up to the devs decision.
At last, concerning the monthly reset, the rank for the following month can be set by the numbers of stars gained in the previous month in a certain formula criteria (like in Hearthstone).
This is not significantly different than the rank system now.
You guys can come up with all the multi-leveled, complex ranking schemes you want to, but it won’t change anything. The fact of the matter is there aren’t enough low-ranking players playing the game to make the matchmaking give you constant, unique matches with players of your own skill level. It doesn’t matter if you call them Killer, or bronze, or taupe. Its not the system, it’s the number of people playing.
1 Like
You need an appealing ranking system, that’s the problem. But overall, a ranking system that makes people to constantly playing it, at least at the beginning.
Of course, this implements the fact of changing many other things because the ranking system itself isn’t effective. But you know my ideas, I did a loooong post regarding this.
Oh sweet you have the numbers for people playing? Where can I see them?
No match-making system will ever give you an opponent of equivalent skill every time, or even most of the time.
A player’s skill is, in some ways, a totally subjective thing, making it extremely difficult for software to manage.
Further I think it’s vital to be exposed to better players for the betterment of your playing; likewise, it is important to remember how to beat a button masher, as it’s an experience very much unlike higher level play.
Same with me… Literally:
Maya
Maya(Counter)
Fulgore
Fulgore
Spinal
Jago
Jago
Jago
Jago
SO Many Jagos…
To be honest, the only other characters I’ve fought in the span of two weeks was: @STORM179’s Hisako, Your Aganos, @swordman09’s Cinder, A Kan Ra, and Waterhorses’s Glacius…In two whole weeks. 
Ok, but one thing is having a balanced matchmaking where you can find both killers and same rankers, but another thing is finding only and always killers when you’re bronze/silver.
If you consider this situation was starting to be annoying just in March/April, think about now. Of course, we need more people, but this system has flaws and it’s based a lot on grinding (you can rank killer by just winning 50% or less of your matches)
I can understand this concern. However I do think it’s best for matchmaker to throw you SOMEONE in lieu of having an equivalent rank. Seems like this harkens back to the point @BigBadAndy was making:
This definitely seems, in my eyes, to be the crux of that issue. Perhaps this is reason enough to tweak/optimize ranked. That being said, it can only help to fight higher level players, it never helps to be discouraged.
This is also a tough point. How does one improve skill in fighting games without grinding? How does one observe a difference between grinding, and just having fun playing some online multiplayer?
I do agree that perhaps too much weight is being placed on sheer # of matches played, as opposed to # of matches won or even some other tangible metric by which skill can be measured. But that circles back to my point about skill being subjective and not easily expressed in numbers (therefore making it difficult for software to understand).
There’s about 5,000 Killers that get ranked every month. If you are a killer and you start off by losing a few matches so that your score is zero, you will be ranked around 2000 at the beginning of the month and about 5000 at the end of the month. Suggesting that about 5,000 Killers played ranked matches in any given month.
You’re welcome.
Well, if you had bothered to fight me recently, you would’ve fought:
My Aganos
My Cinder
My Glacius
My Hisako
…and many more.
…but more often than not, fighting higher level players, particularly in the extreme ranges actually encourages discouragement. I know because I myself almost went through this with the old ranking system. I was constantly put up against players that were 10+ ranks higher than me and could never truly progress in rank. It was very disheartening and it made me almost quit the game because there were concepts that I just couldn’t figure it out. If it wasn’t for my own stubborn tenacity, the change to the current ranking system, and especially @Infilament’s guide, I likely would’ve stopped altogether (and unfortunately, not everyone knows about his guide).
That sounds like a set challenge to me! 
…and indeed it is; I’ll be waiting.