list perverse incentives created by current point system

[bleu_falcon]

-higher ranks avoiding games with lower ranks
-higher ranking player losing a game suicides against the lower ranking contender to mitigate point loss
-high ranking players leaning harder on lower ranking players (similar to above)
-low ranking players ganging up on high ranking players to sweeten the pot

solution: make a fixed point value for each rank or percentage of score that doesn't factor in the winner's rank.

discuss. and list more questionable incentives, i'm sure they exist.

[GreecePwns]

Maybe a different amount of points depending on the rank match up.
Example: General beats Colonel=x amount of points
Colonel beats General=more than x amount of points
Continue the list with all possible types of rank match ups.

[Uranium-235]

What about this scenario? You start a triples game, the other team gets all the prime reality. 2 of your teammates' first turns result in taking nothing (but not for lack of trying); double whammy. You lose the game without ever having had a chance. Now, you are being ranked based on dumb luck? What is a ranking worth in a game where so much luck is involved? Shouldn't luck be factored in with rating changes? For instance I had a turn recently where I had 11 guys and I believe they only managed to beat 4 guy. Should my rating suffer because of that? Sure strategy has something to do with it, but luck plays a large part of a rating.