Suggestions for the Launch of a Ranked System
Abstract: The game itself should not launch a ranked system, and ranked status should not be used as a personalized display feature for players within the game. If the goal is to pave the way for esports, a ranking query system could be considered to provide reference data for future development.
The author believes that large-scale battlefield games are not suitable for introducing a ranked system, for the following reasons:
1. The game genre is different, making it unsuitable to force-fit a ranked system.
Compared to other esports titles, large-scale battlefield games are characterized by high complexity, meaning that the impact of individual players on the outcome is not as significant as in other esports games (e.g., CS). Take CS2 as an example: CS matches involve a small number of players per round and lack specialized roles, meaning every player’s in-game role and function is identical. Consequently, player skill levels can be measured using simple algorithms. The introduction of a ranking system thus helps retain players and foster a healthy community ecosystem, which in turn supports the esports industry. Taking *Overwatch* as another example, although the game features distinct roles, the small number of players per match means that individual skill has a significant impact on the outcome. In particular, the execution of ultimate abilities tests each player’s skill level, so *Overwatch* can also utilize a ranked system as a product feature to support esports.
However, *Battlefield 6* is different. Large-scale battlefield games feature highly complex gameplay content and interactive dynamics. In most cases, a single player cannot turn the tide of battle; victory requires coordinated efforts from players on the same team. Take the Breakthrough mode as an example: capturing a control point might be achieved because a player with poor aim, playing as a Support, revives a critically wounded teammate, giving the team a one-player advantage inside the point. Subsequent teammates then push into the point to secure it. How should such a situation be evaluated? Looking at individual statistics, this player’s skill level may not appear particularly high; however, from the perspective of the match as a whole, this action was crucial and deserves high praise. Therefore, large-scale battlefield games are filled with randomness and variables, where many “minor players” and low-probability events can influence the outcome of a match. This poses a challenge to the evaluation mechanisms of the ranking system. For a ranking system to gain credibility among players, it must effectively measure a player’s in-game contributions. However, in large-scale battlefield games, the weight of individual player factors on the outcome of a match is not as high as in other esports titles; therefore, introducing a ranking system is not recommended.
2. Resistance to Product Development
Battlefield games feature distinct class roles, and the in-game experience varies significantly between them. Due to considerable individual differences among players, each player tends to favor different classes. Additionally, because of the inherent design of each class, their ability to earn points varies. Consequently, once a ranking system is implemented, many players will feel compelled to choose classes they are not skilled at but that are easier to rank up with, in order to meet the algorithm’s requirements. This approach diminishes the player’s gaming experience, even if they win the match. Furthermore, during version updates, players may become dissatisfied if their preferred characters do not receive sufficient buffs to improve their ranked performance, or if their preferred weapons are not strengthened. Ultimately, this could lead to any adjustments or updates made by the development team being met with criticism, directly impacting the game’s reputation. This, in turn, may result in a decline in new players, the loss of existing players, and a decrease in game revenue.
3. Negative Impact on the Player Base
Once ranked matches are introduced, players’ objectives in large-scale battles shift from winning to climbing the ranks, which can alter player behavior. For example, since it is easier for vehicles to eliminate infantry units than for infantry to eliminate other infantry units, vehicles become highly sought after. However, the number of vehicles in the game is limited, so competition for them among players on the same team becomes common, leading to a deterioration of the in-game environment. Furthermore, since vehicles require personnel to repair them, players who repair vehicles effectively forgo the experience of engaging in gunfights, which may also negatively impact their rank progression. Consequently, it is likely that no one will repair the vehicles. Not only that, but since attacking enemy vehicles makes one more vulnerable to being killed by the enemy, it is highly probable that even players on the same team will refrain from engaging enemy vehicles. Some might argue that increasing the weight of match wins and vehicle repairs would solve these issues. While this would address the problems mentioned above, the reality is that if the weight of match wins is too high, complaints about teammates during matches will become more severe, leading to a worse player experience; if the weight of vehicle repairs is too high, many players will choose to repair vehicles instead of competing for control points and enjoying the game. Consequently, the introduction of ranked play has turned teammates—who should be united against a common enemy—into enemies within the same faction, blaming and turning against one another. This leads to a decline in the player experience and is likely to result in player attrition. Furthermore, due to the terrain on certain maps in Conquest mode, one side may have a higher win rate than the other, and Breakthrough mode faces similar issues. Consequently, ranking rewards based on match wins will encourage players to choose the side with the higher win rate, which directly prevents matches from starting quickly. This increases wait times, reduces playtime, and ultimately leads to a poorer player experience and potential player attrition.
Furthermore, if ranked mode is separated for matchmaking, it will cause player fragmentation, leading to longer matchmaking times and consequently affecting the player experience.
If a ranked system must be implemented, it is recommended to design it as an in-game query tool that allows players to check their global ranking within each class. Furthermore, this tool should display a tier (or percentage) rather than a specific rank. The results should not be displayed as part of a player’s profile. This approach ensures that even if the game later expands into esports, it will not interfere with professional organizations’ evaluations of players. It also preserves the existing game ecosystem, avoids increasing development and maintenance costs, minimizes negative impacts on the game itself, and maintains a positive atmosphere for player interaction. One more point to note: a game is meant to bring joy to players, not to leave them feeling exhausted or frustrated. Therefore, personally, I hope that *Battlefield 6* will encourage players to engage in deep discussions about strategy and tactics—even extending beyond the gaming community—rather than having players resort to every possible means to prioritize their own enjoyment at the expense of others’ gaming experience.
The English text is for reference only; the Simplified Chinese version in the attachment shall prevail.
