Originally Posted by Ryan Zelazny
One ranks your skill level, I'm not sure on the actual math on how this is determined, but I know it's a mix of the time it takes for the battle to finish, how many units you created / lost vs. your opponent, and your opponent's own rank with a few other things thrown in for good measure.
I'm highly reserved about this. The problem I see here is that certain strategies may be rewarded score-wise while others are penalized score-wise. A strategy that utilizes heavy attrician may produce many casualties (thus lowering your score) but resulting in a resounding win. Is it necessarily "low skill" if you intended to get your units killed, and you ended up winning because you used that fodder effectively?
The biggest issue I see here is smurfing. I don't know where the term came from, so don't ask. Smurfing means you intentionally keep your skill level low so that the automatic matching system gives you weaker opponents. This lets you attain an account with a ridiculously good win/loss ratio. If there is even a small exploit, there will be people who will use it, and it really can **** off everyone.
While I understand the logic of rewarding someone for playing harder and playing to end, it might actually backfire in many ways. The one thing I will say I like about your system is that it would encourage people to play to the end. A last stand may be hopeless, but it could be semi-redeeming.
For a ranking system, you need two things. You need the player's current level, and the player's projected level. If someone wins their first five matches, they haven't "earned" the skill level of a high level player, but they've demonstrated that they may do so in the future. You should scale the difficulty of their matches appropriately, as a result. Conversely, their opponent shouldn't be penalized too much for losing to a "newbie" since that newbie is actually a rising star.