A ranking suggestion in progress.

[lightnessking.]

Actually, what omega said looks like the best system so far.

[StatsZero]

Uhm..
Can u explain it maybe a little.. more clear? Omega?
Oh.. And if you want to... *MAYBE* make me a little sheet what YOU think is best, cause you've already proven you'r a man of decent opinion. You wud be a Saint

[Captain Nemo]

Okay couldn't find it so made a new excel sheet. Im not sure it can translate to english, if it can't lemme know Ill just write u the stuff and u can make it yourself.

It's omega's point system I did on this excel sheet btw. Basically it works like u put in the winner's points in player points and loser's points in opponents. It will calculate the outcome on it's own then.

[StatsZero]

Hey Nemo! Thanks bro for the sheet! So happy with all the help!
I see future in this "formula" we made with eachother. Though there is one barb wire in my thought:


Everyone starts with 1000 points...
Meaning if noobs play vs noobs all day they also get those +10 pts every game.. Or something in that area.. Meaning the player on rank is probably not even that good... Somehow we need to invent a formula which is rank connected.. So the best players from the sett will be in the top 10.. And not for example Samuel in rank 520 in Liga because he just can't be online all day. We need some kind of motivation so that very good players will be motivated to be only to keep their rank and the less good people motivated to steal that rank from him Can anybody think of something? Ive been puzzling with this now for quite a while! And most likely going to be puzzeling on it tommorow again because im busy coming hours.

@ Nemo: Ill log in this time tommorow on Lobby 2 talk to you about it thanks!

[StatsZero]

Basically what my point in this matter is, and which i want to avoid is that if we use this sheet, we'll get the no lifers on top.. And since we all know the real good players these days are'nt all online every hour of the day because they played this game so long already or have better stuff to do, they will lose faith and interest in the site and the idea because they can't keep up..

Sorry Nemo and Omega for the great effort you guys put in this sheet, but we have to use this sheet to find a better formula.. Because this one is basically about online time.. And not really about skill.. In SOME way its skill but 50 procent of the top 10 won't even be that good.. And just alot online ingame..

Do you guys get what i mean?

[Captain Nemo]

I see your point and it was a bit on an issue on our previous ladder, that some people avoided playing those they knew would beat them. it didn't interfere with the very top players but some noobs did reach a proper hight. That was also because it was an allsett ladder tho.

Basically the higher a bad player gets the quicker he can move down the list again cause he will be facing tough opponents or perhaps lose to a bad player and suddenly be short 19 points.

I propose implementing a challange system, where u can challange a player for say 2 games, which could potentially be like 30ish points if both games are won. That would probably solve the "noob in high rank" issue since who wouldn't want to play a bad player that has high rating? Free points... Of course some kind of a limit to how many challanges one can make must be implemented aswell.

Btw sam plays alot he'll be sure to be in the top of liga Doesn't take long to play 5 liga games and if he's down the list thats alot of points.

I can tell from experience this kind of point system worked fine, but not excellent, because some players did avoid playing good players. I hope a challange system could solve this. Better ideas are welcome On the other hand I don't mind activity being rewarded a bit, more activity on ee is the overall goal imo. We even had a couple of bonus points for playing a game last time.

[lightnessking.]

What if the formula is rebuilded with a plug-in . Which would be: If you already played versus that player earlier on/in this day/week, you'll get 25% points rounded down. (25% of 103 would be 25 instead of 25,75.)

[Arntzen]

On the other hand I don't mind activity being rewarded a bit, more activity on ee is the overall goal imo. We even had a couple of bonus points for playing a game last time.

I think so too. Maybe 25 games a week gives 100 points in the end of the week? Something like this. Also I'm pretty sure that every ladder consist of very active players (or no lifers) on top. Atleast 8/10. Imo this is not an issue. If it turns out beeing a problem we can just make a new season where beating people in lower position of the ladder gives less points than the first verson of this ladder.

[Manni]

-

[Captain Nemo]

manni no offense but plz host your own ladder instead.

Kaz 100 points is extremely much. really alot. after playing over 75 games I think krass reached something like 1200 points (gained 200) in last ladder. And he came in 1st of the non cheating people lol. Once u have alot of points it's very hard to earn more. Obviusly the longer the ladder runs for the bigger the differences will get.

I don't think we need to have "ladder staff" observing each game, just the winner makes sure he can proove his victory with screens or saved game. Most often I don't expect it to be a problem with losers denying a game.

Man I have a good feeling with launching a new ladder I hope it will be possible.

On a sitenote I think if we implement a challange system and GR/save ee becomes I problem, I think it should be forced played on lobby since at least for experts it's very important to avoid as much lag as possible and secondly, this will probably be the forum for the ladder. We don't control GR, but we do control lobby.

[Arntzen]

Kaz 100 points is extremely much. really alot. after playing over 75 games I think krass reached something like 1200 points (gained 200) in last ladder. And he came in 1st of the non cheating people lol. Once u have alot of points it's very hard to earn more. Obviusly the longer the ladder runs for the bigger the differences will get.

Those numbers were just symbolic, I have no idea what is much/little. Maybe 10 or less? Atleast we need to encurage people (good or bad) to play more. I dont want it to end up with one guy with only 5 wins against good people an no losses being higher than a guy with 25wins vs average players and 80losses vs good people. Maybe I'm thinking totally wrong about this, if thats the case just ignore this.

[StatsZero]

@ Cpt. Nemo:

Yes i know, I was making an example with Samuel know hes good at liga and he probably deserves to be up there with the very best ( Pokemon song reminder somehow LOL ).. But he wouldnt get a chance if he studies some days vs decent no lifers who play all day..
And what i mean to say is that no lifers would avoid playing good players, and they would just pick off those standard 10 pts. from a 1 v 1 with a noob.

And i totally aprove you're statement on the more online reward maybe the system isn't as bad as i said/thought after all.. Hmm.. I"ll have a brainstorm about it tommorow with you?

@ LightnessKing:

I like that idea bro! But i do not think 0.75 pts does really matter.. I think it's actually better if a 1 v 1 is lost by someone, and they want revenge.. And they lose again they only lose 75 percent of the normal pts. For rewarding the consistency!

@ Kazter:

True! Good players are or were always no lifers to get a certain skill they posses! You guys are right
Im personally thinking of "Double EXP fridays " :')

@ Manni:

Thanks bro! Great! I will look intoo it.
Though i would like to have the watch over the site and PROBABLY the GR division of "Game-eyes"
But i think the 5 games per month isnt such of a good idea because of people want to play more.. No lifers will forget about it after a while

@ Cpt. Nemo part 2

Yes. I will have a look out in games, and i will have a look intoo some kind of Photo uploader in the website so they can prove they won so i can proceed it to the site.. Though i need to make to youre attention that screens show no date..
We'll brainstorm tommorow, again?
Kind of happy about you'r enthousiasm!

@ Kazter part 2:

Totally true bro! And everyone who supports the idea of getting joy in the game back, i welcome with a warm heart intoo a "task" in the idea if they want to

[Omega]

1. As already pointed out, the most active players will always have an advantage on any ladder. An advantage has to go to someone, and it's better for it to go to active players--more activity, and more games played that way. If the advantage goes to inactive players... you'll have the best people play a handful of games and then do as little as possible, which is the opposite of what you want.

2. If you're really worried about rewarding activity too much, increase the number of points that are 'up for grabs' each game from the 20 I used in my earlier example to say, 30. An increase in this will change how fast players move up or down the ladder.

3. Another option would be some sort of formal ladder-based tournament system (monthly or bi-monthly), which everyone above a certain threshold in the ladder would be required to participate in (say, top 20 players). Make these games best of 3, and increase the points 'up for grabs' in these matches dramatically, say to 60 or 90. The best way to do something like this to try and maximize how consitent the rankings are would be to make the tournaments swiss style. You can see elsewhere on these forums for information about swiss style tournaments.

Personally, I think the idea of ladder based-tournaments like this are fantastic because they're not only really fun, but also are the best way to ensure the top ranks reflect reality.

4. Yet another option, as already suggested, would be a challenge system. You could make challenges matches worth more points as well, although you'd need a limit on how often players can reuqest a challenge, and in addition to that how often players can be challenged. The idea a lot of people might challenge a noob who's too highly rated will be partially true, but since you have to cap how often someone can be challeneged, it won't entirely work. ESPECIALLY since that person can get friends/fellow noobs to just flood challenges to them, ensuring that the amount of legitimate contests are much lower than the limit anyway.

I do like the idea of a challenge system, but as a supplement to tournaments, not a replacement. I think one challenge request per week along with being required to play 1 challenge per week would be reasonable. I also think that in the case one player gets 52 challenges in a week, there needs to be a selection process on who gets to actually play them. My suggestion (please change the numbers, since they're random) would be to remove all the players who have had multilpe matches (maybe 3 or 4 being the cap?) with that person in a 2 week (or 1 week?) period

5. If it were possible, a fantastic thing to do would be to have random matches versus people of a similar rating. This would of course require a coded ladder system. A person is online and playing ladder games, and 15 other people are too. Of the people not in-game, your next opponent should be chosen almost at random, but with a higher probability of it being someone close in rating to you. Maybe don't require 100% random matches, but even 25% random matches or something would be more than enough to stop people from getting to a higher rating then they deserve.

[StatsZero]

Hey Omega!
Wow wall of text haha I'll read it in the morning.
I just want to react on you're last point about randomness:
There are a couple of options to create that kind of randomness:

How about battle someone +(certain numer) or -( certain number) on the ranking already?
Or i would trough psycial dice at home..

Cya tommorow!

[StatsZero]

Goodmorning lads!

First of all;
I am going to ''invent'' a whole new system/formula for my ladder, which is actually based on a new idea, Cpt. Nemo's idea, and pretty much above all the input of Omega.

Second of all;
I expect to be ''Done'' with the BETA version of the ranking by the end of this weekend, and MAYBE sooner, which means we can maybe fire up a game or two over the weekend to make the first rankings available!

Third of all;
Over the weekend im *probably*, so don't pin me down on it, coming to ask some of you guys to actually contribute a little more if you guys feel like it?

And for the fourth and last of all:
I was brainstorming a little about the site, and i think that if we put up a 'News' section on the website aswell, since i saw Manni with the great storys the other day, we could actually get a good site for the fun when you're not ingame aswell
To be exact: This idea would be coming when the site if going to launch to a .com/.net because the system, which brings this news, i can only implent on a php base

Greatings,
Zero

P.S.

I ACTUALLY want some kind of vote on these 2 options regarding the ranking system:

A) Leave the ranking and their points forever untouched
B) Every first of the month the winner [ Rank #1 ] will go in a 'year-book' on the site with his/her name and we start the new rank for the new month the same day.