How to improve rainbow six siege's ranking system

[Void Eyez]

The siege community manager, or whoever is in charge of posting steam updates, had stated that their ranking system is perfect the way it is. well I made a video 5 MONTHS ago showing why it wasn't. Give it a watch, not even trying to gain clout. Just want people to see how the ranking system could be improved https://youtu.be/kN_YmQeJwaI

[Void Eyez]

Messaggio originale di -|Nur|-:

Messaggio originale di smokytehbear:

Yeah. And that "large enough number of games" isn't even remotely large enough to warrant a complete overhaul of the system. This is the only way a points-based system of MMR makes sense. For something like PUBG with a hundred players, yeah, you're going to need something other than just 1 winner everyone else loses. R6S is just not like this. A 5v5 actually provides little room for randomness.

The ideal case is a 1-on-1 in a modern Quake game (simple maps with fixed item locations and nothing else); you don't need to play many matches to determine the better player. 5v5 is not bad but takes more than a handful of games to become accurate (which is why they put that uncertainty factor in Siege). PUBG is fundamentally different from both Siege and Quake in that it has randomness built into the game's very core: random loot and random blue zones. You can also "freeride" your way to the top in PUBG even if you're terrible player simply by hiding in a bush. You can't consistently do that in Siege, unless you have friends with smurf accounts.

If people fully watched the video they'd understand that

[-|Nur|-]

Messaggio originale di BIGEYES92:

Messaggio originale di -|Nur|-:

The ideal case is a 1-on-1 in a modern Quake game (simple maps with fixed item locations and nothing else); you don't need to play many matches to determine the better player. 5v5 is not bad but takes more than a handful of games to become accurate (which is why they put that uncertainty factor in Siege). PUBG is fundamentally different from both Siege and Quake in that it has randomness built into the game's very core: random loot and random blue zones. You can also "freeride" your way to the top in PUBG even if you're terrible player simply by hiding in a bush. You can't consistently do that in Siege, unless you have friends with smurf accounts.

If people fully watched the video they'd understand that

You make the suggestion that kills should yield rank points; more if you win, less if you lose. But this would yield no benefits whatsoever over the current system; in fact, it'd create perverse incentives for players to engage in petty fraghunting. Players should only care about wins and losses. To the degree that kills are beneficial to winning, players will naturally try to get as many kills as possible so as to secure a win; you're already rewarded for kills with a higher likelihood of winning. An additional incentive to get kills for the sake of rank points would be detrimental; it'd be merely to satisfy those who think they're always the best on the server but cannot rank up because of "bad teammates" (that somehow always seem to end up on that player's side but never on the opponent's team). A perfect ranking system needs to incentivize winning alone.

Your second suggestion, that MMR losses should always be a fixed number within a given tier, sounds quite arbitrary. What would be the point of a system like that? If you combined that with the uncertainty factor affecting your gains from wins, you could end up having the gains of ten matches be wiped out in a single loss.