Win/Loss formula?

[DayOfRage]

I just noticed that it's a standard formula for the ranking system. 3 points for a win and 0 points for a loss. This is just a suggestion. I played Tiberian Sun, and a fan forum made a league like this also, except their formula was a little different. Let me explain.

For a win, it would depend on who u played.

For example...If the 30th place team beat the 1st place team they would get say..25 points, and the 1st place team would lose...say 20 points. But in reverse, if the 1st place team beat the 30th place team, they would only get...say 4 points, and the 30th place team would lose..say 4 points. This way u wont see ppl with like 50 wins, 50 losses, but still end up winning. The amount of wins wouldn't be "as" important. It would depend on who u beat or who u lost to. This would bring a stronger competition to the board. It won't be "who can play the most games in the time limit". This is what happened with the last league. The top 5 ppl who played the most games got rankedf 1-5. Same with the 2v2 league.

This is just a suggestion. Give me some feed back.

[Blake]

The whole reason we have the point system in which losses do not count is because dedicated members (such as myself, last season I placed 3rd with only a record of 54-43) can attempt for the top. And it's all in good fun, why modify it so only the skilled players can go on top, dedication is just as important as skill.

[uberbacon]

but we want the most active people to win

[DayOfRage]

Of course dedication is important. But in a league, skill is just as if not more important. You'll have to most definetely dedicate time in both situations. I just thought that the person who plays the most shouldn't always be the winner. Some ppl don't have as much time to be online as others. And most of the top players are at the top anyway, you'll only see small changes, but it'll bring more "realistic scores" to the chart to look at.

[Blake]

Of course dedication is important. But in a league, skill is just as if not more important. You'll have to most definetely dedicate time in both situations. I just thought that the person who plays the most shouldn't always be the winner. Some ppl don't have as much time to be online as others. And most of the top players are at the top anyway, you'll only see small changes, but it'll bring more "realistic scores" to the chart to look at.

Our current system has worked for countless years seasons, why change it?

(Hey, where have I heard that before? xD. If you don't know what I'm referring to, you need to play less computer, or you don't live in the USA)

Dedication is a skill, so yeah. Think about it this way, if a skilled person doesn't have enough time, then they might as well not apply, it's a competitive league and is meant to keep players on their toes. Even if a skilled player is not on as much as they'd like to be, and a dedicated yet less skilled player outplays him, if the skilled player puts forth a little effort, he/she can easily blow away the competition.

EDIT:

And all this weird playing a certain rank stuff would have to be put into place...and then if you think about it this way, there are loopholes in the system. For example, player A wins his two first games. Therefore, he is at a disadvantage since he will now get less points when playing lower ranked players. Player B, loses the first round on purpose, and then gets to play higher ranked players for more points, kind of like hustling them. See what I mean?

Having it depend on the number of wins you have is the most fair and fullproof system in my opinion. The only change I could see put into effect would be to somehow incorporate win rate as well as wins, but I really like our current system as stated above.

[DayOfRage]

I'm not from America, so no i dont know where it's from(Bush?). As for the compeitive league. Yes it's competitive, but it can be MORE competitive. And we're all friends here, there's nothing wrong with friendly competition. As for dedication, I guarentee it that the 1st place finisher will have PLENTY of games, it'll just show who has more skill over who plays more gunbound. I see that as a more competitive competition. As for change..it's fun to switch things up every little while to see how things work.

[Blake]

Well, that was a good enough debate. Both sides of the argument were presented well, so just let the admins decide :.

(psst, uber, I'll give you avatar xD)

[DayOfRage]

(psst, uber, I'll give you avatar xD)

lol nice one m8.

But if anything, wouldn't u let the players of the leagues decide? .

If you want an example of the formula..i have it. I also have screen shots of the other league if u wanted to see what it looked like. Just in case ur interested .

[Wuss]

this is wuss, i played tiberian sun(command and conquer) online for 4 years

ill explain the point system a little more

of coarse this was coded by pros, but i believe its more accurate
ill post screen shots after

right now, these are the ranked 1 and 2 guys
notice the 2nd has 7 more wins, yet less points
this is because empero played people with higher ranks, or more pts, than illusion did

1   empero7  22 wins / 2 losses  419 Points      
2   jllusi0n  29 wins / 4 losses  402 Points  



for example

Apr 03, 2005 - empero7 ( 288 pts ) Defeats ooo00ooo ( 234 pts )

and the stats from the game

empero7 vs. ooo00ooo
Scenario:  terrace  
Game Duration:  30:51 minutes  
Type:  Player tournament  
ooo00ooo's point change: -25
empero7's point change: +32

now an example when he played some1 with less pts

Apr 03, 2005 - empero7 ( 348 pts ) Defeats pollutj0n ( 45 pts )

empero7 vs. pollutj0n
Scenario:  bbg4  
Game Duration:  14:45 minutes  
Type:  Player tournament  
pollutj0n's point change: -5
empero7's point change: +10

_____________________________________________
of coarse this is a website, and not a massive league
but i believe we can attract more players with a system like this, where they dont have to worry about having 10 more wins than any other team, but instead of playing higher ranked teams, and getting more points

of coarse this might be complicated to create, i can try to find a point calculator, which u can auto upload to the site, using this system

also maybe instead of this,, as it may be to hard
maybe have where a win is 3 pts, and a loss is -1 or -2

i dont think this will change the attitudes of the players, we all know its for fun
maybe try it next season, and try like a beta version of it, just to see if it works, if not, then go back to the old system

[uberbacon]

i know a lot of good systems too. the difference here is that we got a game cap per month. plus we dont have enough dedication yet, we might work something better out when more people play

[nars2]

Well, I see the same loopholes blake mentioned. Also, both systems rely on the same base: winning far more than losing.

Apr 03, 2005 - empero7 ( 348 pts ) Defeats pollutj0n ( 45 pts )

empero7 vs. pollutj0n
Scenario: bbg4
Game Duration: 14:45 minutes
Type: Player tournament
pollutj0n's point change: -5
empero7's point change: +10

If the guy with less points won, hge would have won something like 40 points right? There, we will have a situation where low rankers will only challenge the top players, they won't be willing to play among themselves.

The system has been doing fine really. 100 games is a possible amount of games to reach in a month.
The system would give -1 for a loss in previous matches, but it discouraged players to keep on going after losing 3 or 4 games. We found that no penalty for a loss is the way it works better.

Lastly, the same system is used worldwide on sports and I've never seen athletes complaining. Really, dedicate and be a pro, that's what every sport demands. By doing so, you will surely win.

[Wuss]

low rankers can play low rankers, as most of the low rankers would be less skilled as the high rankers
so if the "newbs" beat the "pros" they should be rewarded a bit more than just 3 pts

id rather see a team with 40 wins vs all good players win the league, than a team with 41 wins vs all newbs win

but meh

[buda]

u guys gotta remember 2 things

cncgamer was a community of dedication and of all elite players of ts. There was only a small percent of people who followed cncgamer, the ww, elite players of the game.

this community is more of a open type for all skill types thats why the point system for cnc wouldnt really work here, welll thats what i believe newayz

[nars2]

u guys gotta remember 2 things

cncgamer was a community of dedication and of all elite players of ts. There was only a small percent of people who followed cncgamer, the ww, elite players of the game.

this community is more of a open type for all skill types thats why the point system for cnc wouldnt really work here, welll thats what i believe newayz

That sounds something like: "Well, it worked there because only pros played, while here there are many noobs, so it won't work."

Well, that might even be true, but I insist, is there really any problem with the existing system? I mean, are the noobs winning while the pros lose? Not really. Are the pros only challenging the noobs? Not really. So what's the big issue about it?

[Wuss]

its the fact that u dont lose anything for losing a game

say buda has a record of  27-89
i have a record of 26-1
buda would win has he has 1 more win than me, yet i was the better player
this is why this system shouldnt be used
but honistly i dont really care for gb, so it doesnt matter
just trying to help