Ranked points idea

The concept of introducing individual RP deductions based on separate actions is interesting and rational.

However, evaluating players solely on "outcomes" like death count or revives carries the risk of encouraging distorted, low-effort gameplay (leeching). For example, a player might avoid combat entirely and focus only on repeating revives. Therefore, while maintaining the overarching framework of awarding and deducting points based on individual behavior, the system could be improved by shifting the assessment to focus more on the gameplay process itself.

Specifically, what if the system referenced individual statistics such as survival time, damage dealt, damage taken, and kills/assists as outlined below? That way, it would be possible to evaluate not just a player's strategy, but also their tactical execution, making the system potentially more effective.

To prevent the system from becoming overly complex by using raw statistical values, I propose a method where each category is ranked within the team, and the integrated sum of those rankings is used.

Note that for "damage taken," the player with the lowest value is ranked 1st.

・Example 1: Strategic "Scapegoat" Points (Damage × Damage Taken × Survival Time)

Player A: Damage (1st) × Damage Taken (3rd) × Survival Time (3rd) = 9 pt

Player B: Damage (2nd) × Damage Taken (2nd) × Survival Time (2nd) = 8 pt

Player C: Damage (3rd) × Damage Taken (1st) × Survival Time (1st) = 3 pt

In this scenario, the strategic "scapegoat" points rank as A > B > C. Consequently, RP would be deducted from Player A and awarded to Player C, while Player B remains at ±0.

・Example 2: Tactical "Scapegoat" Points (Damage × Damage Taken × Kills/Assists)

Player A: Damage (1st) × Damage Taken (3rd) × Kills/Assists (1st / 2K, 0A) = 3 pt

Player B: Damage (2nd) × Damage Taken (2nd) × Kills/Assists (2nd / 0K, 1A) = 8 pt

Player C: Damage (3rd) × Damage Taken (1st) × Kills/Assists (3rd / 0K, 0A) = 9 pt

In this scenario, the tactical "scapegoat" points rank as C > B > A. Consequently, RP would be deducted from Player C and awarded to Player A, while Player B remains at ±0.

・Conclusion

The proposed idea is both interesting and logical. While keeping the fundamental concept of including penalties alongside point additions for individual actions, refining the assessment method to prioritize the actual process of the match would likely yield a better system.

This text has been translated by Gemini.

Well who cares if some low effort leech happens, this will happen in any ranked system. The goal is to measure result to get players classified at the right place in the end. Right now you think there is NO low effort leeching?? Just hiding for placement point is actually a thing.

So if you die many times it means you are a burden on your team that have to revive you because of your risky behavior,, that penalty point could have those type of players grind slower or lower so the good players that play smart can grind the ladder together and faster. Right now the opposite is true, reckless players go up fast as long as they have decent teammates.

Then you contradict yourself by suggesting using stats like time alive, damage taken , damage done which are way worse for Low effort leeching than what I suggesteed, a player would hide to have more time alive, he would snipe from far away to do useless damage and not help his team, hide to not get damage received.

"The fact that it happens in any system" does not justify leaving it unaddressed.

If the logic is that no measures are needed because "leeching already exists anyway," then your proposed penalty system would also be unnecessary because "reckless play already exists anyway."

Rightness is not absolute. How things appear changes easily depending on the situation and one's perspective. Of course, I do not believe my proposal is absolute either. 

However, regarding the concern that it would encourage toxic play, my system multiplies the rankings of each category within the squad. Because it utilizes the product of these rankings, any unbalanced or biased gameplay will fail to yield a high score, effectively suppressing any advantages from such behavior. As shown in Examples 1 and 2, Player C receives a point addition for individual RP on the strategic side but a deduction on the tactical side. This clearly demonstrates that executing extreme or biased gameplay is ultimately fruitless. ( Conversely, Player A receives a deduction on the strategic side but a point addition on the tactical side.)

This text has been translated by Gemini.