Can I make a kind suggestion?
Please listen to me , this is done in an effort to make the game better as most old players here, wish.
When you enter a custom "ranked" game, that is with default rules, the number of games played in custom games, appear in your information. So far so good.
But this is used erroneously by many, mainly new players as an index of your ingame online experience, which in great many of cases can be misleading.
There are players mainly old ones , that have huge game experience playing ole good ladder. Players with hundreds or many thousands of games in ladder as opposed to custom, badly labeled ranked games(but this is another discussion).
How can people rely on such an unreliable index? Yes, it's clear , that no matter how many games you played , there is the personal skill factor, and two people with 1000 games played don't have the same skill ingame. But still , 1000 or 10000 games make a huge difference when you enter a game with 50 or 100 custom ranked games and people think you started playing yesterday.
What I am suggesting is include the ladder games on your overall games played as a more natural way for people to assess your game experience.
Now , it is true , that even that may be misleading for these of us that were forced to stay on secondary accounts through all these years, because we bought a second, third or 10th pc , or subscribed to a second third or fourth internet provider, or because game transitioned from GPG net, to the first FAF and the forced adaptations we had to make along the way for various reasons , the last major being the linking with Steam.
I am a fervent proponent of the ladder, but since nothing is always completely black or white , it is necessary to make a concession accepting the custom games as ranked.
But jumping the gap and going to the other side accepting as ranked the custom games and letting the ladder games out of the equation, goes just too far and does not help much,
especially the newcomers.
Maybe this should be renamed as experience vs skill. They are not the same but they have common elements. Skill is not only related to your training hours but also physical condition. An experienced player would be rather rusty at responding but has accumulated many automated habits some useful , some not. Point is , the experienced player would win against a more fit but still learning player. Or at least until the new player has accumulated enough training hours to overcome the handicap of a lack of years of experience.
For this reason , not all 2000, 1000 and 500 players are the same. This can have a negative effect on the mood of players , that have just begun playing and see ratings with an absolute and rather naive way.
This maybe one of the main reasons newcomers get quickly disappointed. If a young and promising player, say 700 with lightning fast responses but crude skills, got matched with an old rusty player , say 600,but with countless hours of playing could lose a game like that. Erroneously assuming about smurfs and so on.
@Psions are people still cheating in FA?