Simple Fix for Ranked Battles

churchill50: Measuring performance in Ranked battles solely off of winrate (as this proposal would do) is a pretty flawed idea in my opinion OP. Winrate is a good measure of skill, but not in the short-term. In the short-term, as we've all probably experienced, winrate can be incredibly random. It's only when it attains the stability of a large sample size that winrate becomes a viable metric.What this change would mean is that some people would be randomly screwed over by getting a bad winrate over the 3 weeks of Ranked, and wouldn't get the rewards they deserve. Others would get lucky by getting good teams and place higher than their skill merits. This is why WG threw the bone to personal performance that is the top few players on the losing team gaining chevrons as well. This allows your personal performance to make up for bad winrate over the course of a Ranked battle season.Sadly, that does, as you point out, lead to horrible gameplay as everyone would rather be one of the top players on the losing team rather than take the risky, non-selfish play that would leave them in the bottom of the winning team. Happily, there is a solution to this in my opinion. But sadly WG has not seen fit to implement it yet. That solution would be to make Ranked 7v7, like the Team Clash mode. In battles of that size, personal influence on the outcome of a battle is much higher, so using winrate as the metric is much more viable.7v7 Encounter mode with a shortened cap would also be good for Ranked for other reasons (for instance, preventing some camping since you're forced to play around the cap), but those don't apply to this discussion.