Quote Originally Posted by xTysonx View Post
Its a coin flip either way you determine "personal skill", you could argue the same thing [in terms of solo rank] about being on point as your role, pvp timings, etc etc
That's true, and I understand people's concerns with it. In theory, a player could just have gotten super lucky and advanced in rank even though they actually suck. Vice versa, they could be the best player in their given role and never advance because they get really crappy teams. It's a frustrating thing to see in practice, and I get that. My question, though, is what is the proposed alternative?

Saying that you would rather have the system judge player rankings based on top percentage within specified jobs rather than top overall is fine and dandy, but what are the criteria for making it to the top ranks? How would we be evaluated? If the answer is simply "by our overall number of wins," then not a lot actually changes. Making it a percent value rather than a strict number value simply increases the pool of qualified players (which, admittedly, is preferable), but it doesn't change the fact that your personal ranking is at the mercy of how lucky you get with your teams. You still have to win to make it to that top percentage, and you still have to put up with random players for your qualifier matches. Nothing about that would change just because the ranking rewards are determined by percentage. If you don't make it to diamond rank, then you don't get a seat at the table no matter how big the table is.