[OOC] RPGuild Ranking Headquarters!

[MelonHead]

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.

@Innue

That brings us back to the point I made earlier, where there may just have to be a limit to how many ranked fights you can start in a month period.

[Rilla]

I don't know. It sounds a lot like simple participation points, similar to the current system foe those who lose. Which is what spurred this conversation anyway.

We'll have to figure out something though.

[Innue]

I think we either need to scale down the points the higher ranks get per match or have the higher ranks lose some points when they lose (or degrade if they don't fight after awhile). I'm still in favor of the latter.

[Tuujaimaa]

You should be punished for losing to a lower ranked player, and you should be rewarded for beating a higher ranked player. If there is no risk vs. reward, the entire purpose of the ranked system is null.

[Skallagrim]

How about we limit the ranked matches to 3 per month, excluding any tournaments that may be ongoing?

To work off what Melon said, if the base points per a victory are 100 points. You can only challenge someone a maximum of 300 points more than you. i.e. Player A is 1000 vs. Player B is 1300 points. If player B wins they get the base 100 points (now 1400) and are now no longer within Player A’s range for fighting. If Player A wins they get the base 100 points + 10 points per difference or +30, giving them a victory total of 130 points. Player B, being the higher pointed player, loses the 30 points and drops to 1270. Player A then rises to 1130.

[MelonHead]

You might get bored if you win a tournament and get a tonne of points though.

[Innue]

Limiting the number of matches per month isn't an effective solution. It then becomes a requirement to be competitive to do those three matches a month or lose out on potential points.

A system that inherently scales (based on the factors of current standings (either points or rank)) is much smarter long term. If done properly it would eliminate the need to do seasons to deal with massive point inflation and prevent the quantity problem.

Right now the ranking system is more of a very simple experience system. Great if these were just levels, ineffective if you are trying to make a meaningful ranking system. There are very few competitive sports that don't have any form of ranking change if you lose a match you shouldn't have.

[Rilla]

This here is gonna take a while, isn't it?

[Innue]

I'll ponder a system. Hopefully tonight or by tomorrow I can post something for feedback.

If there is anything almost a decade of systems design has given me...

[Tuujaimaa]

It will take less time if people accept that the current system disincentivises both: A) Quality fighting, and B) Meaningful competition.

[Skallagrim]

This here is gonna take a while, isn't it?

@Rilla

Look how long it took to get rid of the BCS and implement a playoff system. No one said it would be easy.

[Rilla]

What do we all need in a system?

[Skallagrim]

Sexiness. I want to be rated on my dead sexy looks. . . No?

[MelonHead]

I suppose the only system that will work in the long term without the need for resets (though why you would discount resets I don't know, as almost every leaderboard system in sport and the like relies on it to keep things interesting.) is something where the amount of points are finite, with no new points (other than new people entering the leaderboards) being introduced, and where the winner gains the losers points in some fashion, somehow linked to how many points they had in the first place.

Someone who's better at math will have to work it out.

[Innue]

Even with many seasonal games, you still lose points when you lose. I'm not saying seasons are bad, they just aren't inherently needed in a ranking system that scales appropriately.

[Automaton]

So, anybody wanna judge me and Important nobodies match xD.

Also I agree we should change to no points for losing. Infact you should get minus the points you bet. (everyone has to bet points for a ranked match)

[Rilla]

At the moment that's what the wagers are for

[ImportantNobody]

I agree with MelonHead. Get 10% of the difference between the two fighters if you, the lower point fighter, beats the higher point one.

I strongly disagree with only being able to challenge people within a certain point value. Both players might love to have a chance to fight each other but realize they may only do so if one of them looses tons of points if the other is unlikely to gain enough points. Well, I suppose you could just say "then don't do a ranked battle together" but that would still be at least mildly annoying.

No comment on if you loose points or not.

[ShidenBlades]

Please remove me from the tourney standings.

I'll soon be taking a leave of absence from RP'ing and wouldn't be able to dedicate any time to it.

Thanks and good luck to all of you.

[Skallagrim]

Oh great you guys went and scared off someone else. . . .