You have just stated that when playing low ranks, luck will cause you to have a net loss of points, correct?
If that is the case, then score is being determined by luck rather than skill.
When a cook wins a game with a bunch of colonels/brigs/generals in it, how many times is it because he outplayed his opponents, and how many times is it based on luck? I think the answer is fairly obvious, that most of the time that happens, it is luck that determines the score.
Agreed. But that is also what keeps people's scores from getting out of hand, which is what I like most about the current point system. If you were able to set it so that only people of the same rank joined your games, the point system would be more of a flat rate of always 20pts per game. There's not much risk in that. The higher you get the more you have to lose, which makes it more challenging in itself.
lol, I've been wondering why obliterationX foed me. This is the first I've heard of the foeing all the good players thing so that you can farm noobs in freestyle, but it makes sense.
I think it all depends on the game-type which one is easier, restricted ranking or open. The restricted ranking system would make sequential games easier to gain/keep pts imo. Freestyle on the other hand it would be more difficult obviously. But even with the set ranking system, high ranked players could choose not to use it in their freestyle games and farm low levels, and then use it in their sequential games to only allow high ranked players to join. So it would seem you'd be getting the best of both worlds?