Unless I'm missing it, there isn't any ranking system for Domination yet. A few thoughts:

In MA, the original wargaming.net ranking system didn't work that well, because it was more an indicator of experience than anything else.

On the other hand, I think the alternative ranking system at massiveassaultnetwork.com does a good job identifying the best players. Well, at least it rates me highly! But seriously, Rocklizard, Pitor, Shura-by, etc. are at the top of these charts and are also some of the best players I've played so far.

Still, Glicko has the most interesting "breakdown" so you can see how every game affects your overall rating. I wish the other rating systems would do something like the game-by-game stats as in Glicko. I think Glicko is okay overall (it sounded good in theory) but it acts so strangely. For example, when I beat a really difficult player with a high score on a map I am sometimes awared very few points, but when a beat a new player I might be awared more! And it just doesn't seem to be consistent. I could give a bunch of examples here where the Glicko numbers didn't seem to reflect the reality of skill required.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the ranking systems in MA, what do you all want to see in a ranking system for Domination?

1) do not change anything
2) remove ranking from the game and destroy even Glicko forever
3) unite all three ratings and provide facility to see available rankings from the game engine. For example each user can use ratings that shows him better

An overall rating in Glicko is just that, an overall rating. If their ranking for the map you played them on for the side they played as is low (and yours is high for both, even if your overall isn't so good), then it doesn't matter what their overall rating is, you won't get many points.

For example, one of the Emerald masters could play PL and beat Tiger, but despite their ranking being a lot lower, they won't get many points for it because as on the PL on Emerald they have a high score, probably because it's all they ever play.

I don't like the "alternate" system as it assumes the bigger the map, the harder to win. Personally, I used to find Anubis a lot harder to win on than New Paradise, and IMO Glicko reflects such things much better.

"alternate" assumes that it takes more time to win on large maps.
2 games won on Emerald in 4 hours equals 1 game won on New Paradise in 4 hrs.

Since a good system should simply work more effectively the more games you play, time shouldn't come into it.