I really want to discuss ranked systems in games. There are many systems out there, but which do you think are best?
I feel like an arbitrary system to measure skill will always be flawed, because there is just so much an algorithm can have as it's variables, and sometimes winning certainly isn't everything, since there are random factors that could have played into it, but that doesn't mean that they don't give a general idea of how skilled a player is, and the more games/play sessions that are taken into account, the best it gets to an actual representation of skill.
Now, online competitive videogames are obviously based around measuring skill (and having fun) and most of them have picked up ranked systems to give out an idea and to make equally skilled players play with/against each other. Not all games used this, but for example I remember games where you could enter a server with random people that had very different skill levels, i.e. Quake or CS. I think this had 2 effects, it could either discourage new players (constant stomps) or make them learn the ropes if they opt to watch closely what they do.
Before that, it wasn't terribly bad, but it had clear flaws that systems like the one on ICCup for Broodwar tried to fix, it gave a better look at how good or bad a player was based on some variables (and the win ratio), but it was still rudimentary. Warcraft III had a basic system too, where you got XP with wins and ranked up by having enough XP to reach the next level, and I would say that from there they tried to make the Starcraft 2 system, which is the best for 1v1 type of games since going from one rank to the other felt meaningful and rewarding. ELO in chess is probably very accurate and a great example too.
However, I think that team-based games are where ranked systems start to get kind of strange and probably not a good idea, not because they are wrong or always flawed, probably they are 100% right on determining the general stroke of skill; players higher on the ladder are better than those bellow; but it feels weird that team-games and the dynamics of it should go in hand with the the skill required for it. A good player is that which has the most skill or that who works best with the team or that which can lead his teammates? I think this makes games inherently frustrating and drains the fun of them, if MOBAs have a caustic community, it's in part because ranks and ladder matter so much that players start hating on each other as soon as they see a loss coming, and it doesn't help either that the matches are at least 30-mins long on average on the lower spectrum. Measuring solo-skill on a team-game is kind of weird as a premise.
Nowadays there are tons of team games and all of them seem to force their own flavor of rank and ladders, but I don't get why would they feel the need for them and who has the best system?