Skunk3 is right, when I am rank 2 I should not be able to be get matches vs. rank 10,9 etc. It should be +/- 1, maybe +/- 2. So as a rank 2 player I would only play vs. rank 4,3,2 and 1.
I hope you don't just throw noob vs. pro into ranked matches and call that good match making. 
What I'm saying is that wins should be worth a certain amount of points, not just +1 if you win and -1 if you lose.
If you play a bunch of rank 10 people as a rank 2 player (if that is even possible), you should get very little boost to your score/rank. (If anything.) However, if you're a rank 10 newbie player and beat someone who is a rank 1, you should get a ton of points. Otherwise the noob only gets +1?? That's dumb.
As far as the range in which you can play others in ranked matches, I dunno. I imagine that as you go higher in rank it would be harder and harder to find a match, so keeping it to +/- 1 or 2 might not work, depending on how many people actually decide to purchase and seriously play WMD.
This is why an ELO system would work so much better. There's no real incentive for a high-ranking player to play a low-ranking player, aside from a very marginal increase that goes down every time you play that person within a certain period of time. This would prevent noob bashing and present a much more accurate representation of who actually has skills and who doesn't. One should only be able to progress in rank by earning it by beating decent players, not by mowing through noobs or setting up dummy accounts and faking wins.
If it is just +1 if you win and -1 if you lose, I won't even play ranked. There's no incentive because that ranking system means nothing for reasons I already illustrated. It'd just be a boring, meaningless grind.
Forums
