isn’t rank more of a function of time investment than skill?
The ranks are just names given to ranges of player ratings.
Ratings are calculated with a system similiar to ELO which adjust a player’s rating with each result weighted according to the ratings of the opponents and potentially some individual performance metrics.
This is a zero sum system so playing more games does not increase the rating in of itself, consistently winning games againt near or higher rated players does and losing lowers the rating.
Time investment is only relevant with respect to needing a minimum record of results for confidence in the rating (in counterstrike you do not receive a rank until this is met) and to the universal rule that it takes time investment to develop skill.
This is or something similiar is how all competitive ladders that I am aware of work.
The only scenario I can think of where the top of the ladder are not the most skilled players are when a game community is divided with the official ladders being shunned by skilled players such as the insular starcraft pro scene who essentially never played online (there is an interesting reason behind this I should make a post about) or CS1.6 and CSS pros and proam almost exclusively using ESEA.
This isn’t something you really see in modern games though as the matchmaking systems have now become somewhat figured out and standardised.
The ranks are just names given to ranges of player ratings.
Ratings are calculated with a system similiar to ELO which adjust a player’s rating with each result weighted according to the ratings of the opponents and potentially some individual performance metrics. This is a zero sum system so playing more games does not increase the rating in of itself, consistently winning games againt near or higher rated players does and losing lowers the rating.
Time investment is only relevant with respect to needing a minimum record of results for confidence in the rating (in counterstrike you do not receive a rank until this is met) and to the universal rule that it takes time investment to develop skill.
This is or something similiar is how all competitive ladders that I am aware of work.
The only scenario I can think of where the top of the ladder are not the most skilled players are when a game community is divided with the official ladders being shunned by skilled players such as the insular starcraft pro scene who essentially never played online (there is an interesting reason behind this I should make a post about) or CS1.6 and CSS pros and proam almost exclusively using ESEA. This isn’t something you really see in modern games though as the matchmaking systems have now become somewhat figured out and standardised.