Ranking vs. Skill

The ferocity with which I compete via online shooters has steadily decreased since leaving college. I have to believe that most of it has to do with the decline and near abolishment of my motivation to be the best. Perhaps back in my childhood, when the pool of contestants consisted entirely of my immediate family, I could hold my head high and claim the title of best gamer. But that pool has grown to seemingly infinite levels and over the years, the realization has occurred that I’m not the best there is and probably never will be. 

Everyone should be subject to such a pride swallowing event. 

Despite this, I still consider myself capable when it comes to games, even in the realm of online shooters - SOCOM especially. I love this franchise. Thus it came to pass that I noticed an interesting discrepancy somewhat recently in how games determine how good you are.

Having played the previous four SOCOM games, I came to the 5th installation (SOCOM 4) with a grasp of the mechanics and a feel for the game play. I started out well enough, helping my team win, blowing up objectives, capturing proverbial flags. I soon wanted to join a clan. So I shopped around and found someone looking and after a tango where I showed off my skill - they sent me a clan invite. Two hours later, after participating in a match with that clan and winning, I was kicked from the group. Why? Because I had a very low rank - so in their minds, I was not very good. 

This is not a place to complain. I don’t care so much as to do that. What I do care about is the interesting social perspective of these players and how that perspective is based off of a system that rewards rank not based on skill, but on time played. 

It’s something we see all over the realm of gaming. MMO’s have a notorious reputation for such a thing. Time Invested = Better Gear and Better Gear = Higher Rank. However, games aren’t exactly lying to us. Leader boards are dominated by those who throw the most time at the game - so really, the board is tracking, for the most part, time spent. 

The player’s view of a leader board, however, is all about skill. When you see a level 80 character in an MMO, decked out in all the top gear, most likely the first thing that comes to mind is “Wow, he must be good.” And that’s not untrue. Those who spend a lot of time gain skill along the way and may very well be the better players. But it is also likely that someone far down the list is just as skilled, they just lack the time investment. 

It’s worth noting that many companies are circumventing this problem with what is, in my opinion, a bigger problem. They are essentially selling leader board spots by allowing player to spend money instead of time. 

So what’s the problem here? Is the problem just that our leader boards aren’t representing what we think they do? Is it that skilled players with little time to spend may feel unloved? Is there a problem at all?

At the end of the day, the race to the top of the leader board is a motivator - and if it’s based on time spent, that means people are being motivated to play your game for longer periods of time. For games based on subscriptions and micro-transactions, this is a goldmine.