Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Of course it's trash. How can some code judge how good you are at a game and rate you adequately? It can't, at least not in a way that would otherwise make bad players rank bad, in which case nobody would play it 'cause bad players are like 98% of gamers.
Some games do pretty well. Combining individual performance with team performance/how much you win by. This game does an exceptionally poor job. Ranking systems have been around a long time. Making excuses for a really poor one makes me wonder if you've played any/many ranked games.
Honestly feel like this is accurate. I didn't want this. I want this game to do well. It just doesn't deserve to if they do nothing about the extremely high percentage of blatant cheaters. It actually deserves to do the opposite of well.