I don’t know how many people remember how this ranking system worked, but everyone is all worried about the Halo 3 system. Halo 3s system was extremely simplistic, it was simply based off of your Wins vs Loss and Streaks. Thus you could stay at the level you’re at and never go up if you didn’t get a 50 within so many games.
Halo 2s system was so much better. It actually moved up and down based on how well you were doing based on your statistics. It was a true representative of how good a player was. I was a 46 in Snipers, but if I had a bad week I would drop down to 42. Doesn’t mean I’m stuck there since I’ve played 200 games in Snipers.
The difference is Halo 3 used Microsoft’s TrueSkill system. How fast you could move up and down was based on how many people were in the game and even further, how many people were on the team. Even still, if you research it, Microsoft themselves say that in the early stages you move up and down quickly, but if you play a higher amount of games, the step-sizes become smaller. I had a friend who was a 33 in MLG that was stuck due to amount of games played but he was as good as me and I was a 45.
This is my personal opinion but the point of the skill rating system is to show you how well of a player you are and place you with people around your skill level so the game isn’t so one-sided. ( Look at any Halo 3 forum, this was it’s major downfall.)
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but personally I don’t think your Wins : Loss ratio has anything to do with how good you are individually.