[OOC] RPGuild Ranking Headquarters!

[Innue]

I think that if the person is higher ranked and they lose, they should lose some points as well.

[Rilla]

I think if one loses points, both should.

[ShidenBlades]

I disagree with Innue. I'm of the mind that no points are lost for losing, unless there is a bet.

Keep it stupid simple. You get points if you win, 10%. That's it.

Tournaments being the excpetion, where whatever rules the Tournament Host put forward are followed.

[MelonHead]

Losing points for losing vs lower ranked opponents is a bad idea, it's a de-incentive for higher ranked people accepting lower ranks challenges.

I'll reiterate that not taking your own points into account in the reward system is a bad idea though.

[ShidenBlades]

I don't think its right to call Innue's idea a bad idea. It's simply another way to track points, and while it has its merits, I do not think it would work so well with our relative small player base.

[LeeRoy]

Winners get 10% of the loser's points, the loser loses 10% of their points.

Simple enough.

[Innue]

Losing points for losing vs lower ranked opponents is a bad idea, it's a de-incentive for higher ranked people accepting lower ranks challenges.

I'll reiterate that not taking your own points into account in the reward system is a bad idea though.

@MelonHead

They don't have an incentive to do so now.

As it stands, point inflation will not encourage newcomers to participate in Arena battles say a year from now when someone could have like 4000 points.

[ShidenBlades]

I think having 'seasons' might be a good idea. Where points reset.

Winner gets some spiffy title for Season X Winner.

[MelonHead]

<Snipped quote by MelonHead>

They don't have an incentive to do so now.

As it stands, point inflation will not encourage newcomers to participate in Arena battles say a year from now when someone could have like 4000 points.

@Innue

They have the same incentive anyone has to accept a fight at the moment.

And with the system of gaining more points for defeating tougher opponents, any new person can easily catch up if they're good enough. If you have 1000 points and challenge someone with 4000, using the system I'd advocate, if you win you'd recieve an additional 300 points.

Though the simple answer to point inflation is saving the records and restarting the leaderboards each year >_>

As Shiden has already said (we posted at the same time apparently.)

[Rilla]

So yours ia :

Keep the 100 then get an additional 10% based off actual point difference?

[MelonHead]

So yours ia :

Keep the 100 then get an additional 10% based off actual point difference?

@Rilla

Yup.

[Rilla]

in your example it'll still be 10%

if one had 2000 vs 4000, then it'll be a 300 point gain. Is it designed to allot less points to people closerbin tier?

[MelonHead]

in your example it'll still be 10%

if one had 2000 vs 4000, then it'll be a 300 point gain. Is it designed to allot less points to people closerbin tier?

@Rilla

That's the idea, yes.

[Rilla]

But, why? It seems like a perfectly sound system, if numbery.

[MelonHead]

But, why? It seems like a perfectly sound system, if numbery.

@Rilla

Not entirely sure what you're getting at here? Why do I think it should be reduced if you're closer to the same tier? It's pretty much the exp system used in every RPG ever. You get less exp for defeating something which is the same level or lower than you, you get bigger rewards for greater difficulty.

[Rilla]

So, in your original example, how many points would the 4000 player get, if they win?

In the 10% example, they'd get less as well. The 4000 player would only get 100 from the 1000 player, whereas if 1000 won, they'd get 400

[MelonHead]

So, in your original example, how many points would the 4000 player get, if they win?

In the 10% example, they'd get less as well. The 4000 player would only get 100 from the 1000 player, whereas if 1000 won, they'd get 400

@Rilla

Oh no, it only benefits the person who is a lower level, the higher level just gets the base 100 points.

It's a system to keep everyone relatively close together. If you get too high (from winning a tournament or something.) other people have the chance to catch up by beating you.

[Rilla]

Then why would anyone higher actually accept the fight?

[MelonHead]

Then why would anyone higher actually accept the fight?

@Rilla

Because they can gain 100 points?

They're not going to lose anything, and it's supposed to be hard to stay on top.

Plus, if the leaderboard system ever becomes telling of skill level, it's a low risk low reward motive, someone significantly lower should be fairly easy to defeat, giving you an easy 100 points.

Plus, we're looking at very extreme examples here, it's more likely to be a fight between say a 1000 and 1200, where the bonus is only 20 points, which is not so significant.

[Innue]

I still think the current system favors quantity of fights too much. I think the gains should be diminished the higher in points you go or the higher rank you are.