User rank and points

[Awaredis]

Why is user ranks chosen after victories and not points?
Being number one only shows you're dedicated and not skilled.
Having it chosen after points would make it so it represents skill.
Changing this would make it more competitive and less grinding.

 

[Hystericallify]

No, victories were meant to be your real 'score'.
Points are like 'money', heard that they were going to be used in the Survival server as a currency.

 

[Awaredis]

No, victories were meant to be your real 'score'.
Points are like 'money', heard that they were going to be used in the Survival server as a currency.

Well, that's just silly.
This isn't even the survival server. Points you got from playing survival games shouldn't have anything to do with the survival server. Also as I said, what's the point of having a competitive game mode if you're ranked after how much you play; not how good you are. That doesn't help the competitive side of it at all.

 

[Antster360]

Well if you didn't have any wins and then someone bounties like 10,000 Points then you kill that person well guess what your # 1!

 

[Awaredis]

Well if you didn't have any wins and then someone bounties like 10,000 Points then you kill that person well guess what your # 1!

Making some small changes to how bounties work would fix that;
putting a cap on how much you can gain from one kill for example.

My point with this thread is too see some changes in how you're rated here, because the way it is now isn't the best (IMO) in representing skill.

 

[Zeno]

You can only win a lot of games if you have

A. PvP skills
B. A good chest route
C. Proper situational awareness
And yes,
D. A good amount of time available

Wins are not a perfect measure or skill, but they are much more accurate than points. For example, I have ~10,000 points currently. I am not skilled enough to achieve that number on my own nor maintain it, yet I am still #3 on /top, due to the power of bounties. You talk about changing the bounty system (nerfing it in a way), but that would detract from a powerful element of the game (or at least something to give teams a bit of a laugh).

I agree, victories are not a perfect marker of your score, as time spent is equal to actual skill in gaining the amount you have, but it is still better than points. The most accurate form of ranking would be your wins/loss ratio, but it's much simpler to use victories as a concrete form of measurement, where you only go up on the leaderboards, not fluctuate wildly.

 

[The_Great_Tito]

I agree with Zeno the most accurate way to measure skill would be to base it off of Win/Loss ratio.

 

[Hystericallify]

Making some small changes to how bounties work would fix that;
putting a cap on how much you can gain from one kill for example.

My point with this thread is too see some changes in how you're rated here, because the way it is now isn't the best (IMO) in representing skill.

Big flaw in programming, changing B to fit the needs of A. Changing B can also change C, creates a lot of issues.

 

[Zeno]

I agree with Zeno the most accurate way to measure skill would be to base it off of Win/Loss ratio.

I prefer victories though, because they can only go up. Win/Loss ratios fluctuate A LOT.

 

[Travis007]

Victories are the best because of the things Zeno said. They are all pretty true and also if someone bounties 5000 points you can go to the top 10 even as a total noob with no skill! Just gotta get a lucky kill and BOOM! That would be lame...

 

[ShaunDepro]

By default I think the leaderboards should be based by highest win/lose or kill/death.

 

[teovald]

first of all you should remove bounty so points would be valid second yes points are more fair since you can lose them unlike victories, this would prevent just some nolife to get high userrrank...