I will say this; it is a lot less punishing than 4's. If it was like 4's point system combined with individual point selection, the result would probably be tons and tons of early match quits and people constraining their allowed rank match-ups such that finding matches would get a lot harder. So I'm glad it looks nothing like that. Could do worse than pure quantity, I guess.
There were good things and bad things about 4's system, which I assume must be discussed considering 5 didn't do better.
Getting 1000 points for beating a higher-ranked opponent? Cool
Losing 1000 points against a lower-ranked opponent? not cool.
The online ranked system was obviously built around some kind of weird "point-economy" where everyone started off at C with a certain amount of points, and could either gain points all the way up to SS, or lose points all the way down to F-. It was very give-and-take, and it's too bad the Tournament mode didn't allow for buying-in to a jackpot pool for the winner.
What I would have done for DOA5 is start everyone at the lowest rank (like all other fighters), but have the ranks not be named after grades. Then, when you win a ranked-match, you'd get a "minimum-win" point jackpot {let's say, 100 points minimum}, plus "technical-points" for how much life you had left in the rounds you won / how much time was left / how well you performed holds / how well you took advantage of counter and hi-counter hit status / Maximum amount of damage done in a combo / etc. Which would amount to at least a couple hundred points, and at most one-thousand points. Both players would receive "technical-points", but obviously the winner of the match would receive more, even if only simply based on "how much life you had left," and only the Winner would receive the "minimum-win" point jackpot.
The "minimum-win" point jackpot would be based on the rank of your opponent (either being the same rank, or lower), which would dynamically increase against an opponent of higher rank, depending on how far they were into their rank.
100pts = same rank or lower
101-200pts = 1 rank higher
201-300pts = 2 ranks higher
301-400pts = 3 ranks higher
usw etc.
Basically, no one truly "loses" points for losing, but rather just miss out on the opportunity of getting "even more" for winning.
And that would be the
very least that DOA5's rank system could have benefit from, as well as true online ranked lobbies. I think VF and Tekken have more rewards for rank ups and stuff than just simple points, like costume accessories or something, but DOA5 doesn't even have costume editing so whatever ya know. No skin off anyone's knee besides Team Ninja's.
Edit:
After reading another post in another thread about ranks not being a true representation of skill, there should also be a "relative skill rank" on top of the universal-points rank. A rank that dynamically represents the average "technical-points" of your last 20 or so games. For example, first time playing the game online would obviously have you sitting at 0 points at the lowest rank, but say you're very familiar with the game and play extremely well, netting you a high ranking in the technical-points category. You'd still have a global "low rank", but your skill-rank would immediately be bumped up to (for example) "A+" or "S" so other players know just how solid your game is. Honestly,
that's what the Grade system should be used for.
.
