We had a point system Rilla came up with when we had ranked fights so long ago. I never judge characters only the writer. A character is only as good as their writer.

I wouldn't mind points. That way if you're epically winning every battle then just lose one battle you won't go down a place. Winning the battle would get you a certain amount of points and you can get bonus points through other means. You can loose points for randomly dropping out, loosing the match (of course), refusing to get hit to a questionable degree, etc. If you are a great sport during the battle then you might not lose that many points if your character loses.

We had a point system Rilla came up with when we had ranked fights so long ago. I never judge characters only the writer. A character is only as good as their writer.

What was Rilla's system like?

I may have subconsciously taken my cue from it.

I wouldn't mind points. That way if you're epically winning every battle then just lose one battle you won't go down a place. Winning the battle would get you a certain amount of points and you can get bonus points through other means. You can loose points for randomly dropping out, loosing the match (of course), refusing to get hit to a questionable degree, etc. If you are a great sport during the battle then you might not lose that many points if your character loses.

The root of my system was more the idea that even a person that loses can still have put a reward-worthy battle.

The way I had constructed it involved a point-value per participant in a battle. A standard one vs. one in yhis was worth ten points (five points per participant). At the end of the battle, whether via a player being defeated or a judge calling the match, the players would be awarded their share of the total ten points ascribed to the battle.

The plan also involved larger point sums for tournaments and any 'special condition' battles that myself or the other manager could have come up with.

In general I don't think that writing ability should have a lot of points added to it - as far as whether or bot you can still take what would amount to a loss, and still come out on top. If I WERE to have it judged for instance I would have it like the Way of the Warrior judging, where writing/prose were worth like 10% of the total points, while everything actually related to the battle were worth more - like damage and the like.

I don't think I would like extra points for things, I believe I saw they mentioned. At had it for GFFNR and it really came down to the judges discretion and can have a bigger effect on she outcome.

The point system I had was based off 10% Of the opponents total points coming into the fight. If both had 1000, them the loser would lose 100, and the winner would gain 100. Ten the losers fights would.be worth 90 and.the winner woulds would be worth 110.

I'm a fan of rank/place hopping with wins, either by beating a higher ranking guy, taking their spot and pushing everyone down one(perhaps this too can be coded in to be under the person's name.or on their profile somewhere), or.by points which would do the same thing. if a person is aiming to be number 1 them they'll likely steal points.anyway.

Skally; Yeah it would, but that shouldn't be too hard. Hahaha. If they don't wanna learn then they can learn the hard way.

Judging is important, sometimes people will take liberties in battles, and its important to have a third (more experienced) opinion to keep things fair. But yeah it really should come down to who wins the fight, the writing clearly just makes it easier to know whats going on and if you are descriptive then you are going to be in favor of who is judging it.

As far as tiers, like I said before its only there if you need it, dont come at me like I'm some tier advocate, Its something I incorporate with newer players on the guild so I don't have to fuck about trying to explain why a Demi God Warlord can be damaged by a skateboarder's punch. Good matchups make good fights.

Personally, I think that a critiquing of posts is a good thing. So maybe not a grade that affects the points one would get from their fight. But, we could add an optional tag for those that would like their fights looked at and some extra help. Or maybe I’m alone on this; I always enjoy others helping me become better at writing. I’m also a fan of getting points based on wins/losses, that way one loss doesn’t all of a sudden drop you to the bottom.

Thinking it over I think that if we choose Player or Character grading will depend on if we set it up as a persistent world or not. If we make it more of an ‘Arena’ RP, than character grading makes more sense. But if we simply take the RP out and make it Arena battles than I think Player graded makes more sense.

I wouldn't mind pointing people to fights that would help them improve. Often o try to look up an old fight that made me want to get into more Arena Based RPs. However I've never been able to find it again.

I think the rankings should be separate from the PW. You can add your own story to each individual fight, but that's up to your discretion.

The PW would be a bigger beast to tackle.

I think you're right on that Rilla, a PW would take a lot of work. Perhaps even more than its worth with how high of a rotation Arenas seem to have with Players.

If we take out the PW then adding in Tiers is something incredibly easy to do. Stick with the three that were mentioned earlier and let players work out the details between them. Maybe offer more points if someone of a lower tier beats someone in a higher tier, and less points if someone in the higher tiers wins.

Or, you could just restrict it so you have to stay in your Tier, than have three seperate 'point' systems for each tier. But, you could still record the overall Win/Loss Ratio.

I think the three tiers work fine with the simple point system of 10% of opponents total going into the match. Its easy to keep track of, and cab perhaps be coded into the system by Mahz one weekend.

The 10% plan is better then the stealing the place for one victory plan so I'll go with that one.

So what does everyone start out at? 100?

That would make the most sense.

I like it.

It's easy enough to figure out and the more points you get, the more you have to lose.

Do you think their should be a maximum you can get from some person?

Say Player A has 100 Pts and Player B as 2000 Points, Player A wins. Winning 200 Points would certainly be a lot.

If they manage to defeat such a skilled player then they deserve a bonus. I'm not for or against putting up a maximum win/loss number.

With this system it's kind of odd, though, that the inactive people will probably have more points then at least half the people. If people win/lose the same amount then it will average to the starting amount, but they could end up with more points if less then 50% of people win matches, making there more losers so more people under the starting amount. Of course there could be more winners than losers as well, but that would stink for the one guy loosing to everyone. Poor thing.

Good point. With the relativley few number of players we'll have, there will certainly be a division between the more skilled and less skilled players.

It's not a perfect system, but it's something to start with. I'm not sure how you would improve/fix that aspect of the point system.

Bonus points would do the trick, although Rilla is against it. That way people would loose points for making people wait and be inactive so they wouldn't end up with potentially higher than average points then the good sport active people.

Bonus Points are tricky. I don't know if thats the right answer.

Though, penalizing someone for skipping out of an RP would be a good idea. Say, they lose an additional 10% on top of what the other person earns?

Or maybe make it so people have to be somewhat active in the Arena. If they vanish for a IRL month without warning, remove 10% or more?

1000 Actually. :p

Also yes, in your example Player A would get 200 points for winning, player B would only get 10. If possible I would also like to look into a possible flexible "wager" system. 10% is standard, but it would be interesting if players could determine the amount of points themselves.

As far as inactive people, we would just have to have a work around for that. I don't see it as a big problem, except to where it comes to rankings themselves. Any ideas?

I like the Wager System idea. Good call.

I wouldn't fault them for leaving continuously in that fashion. If in the middle of a fight, after a set period of no excuse or warning, them they should lose the match and the requisite points. After that they are just gone. Could.be for any reason, like a personal emergency.