Win/Loss formula?

[DayOfRage]

Basically wuss has it right. Every win and loss should count for something. This system only counts the wins.

As for the 100 game cap per month, this system wouldn't change that? The only thing that would change it the players points, nothing to do with games.

As for the cncgamer are pros/elite. Basically it's sorta true. They use that system there to learn from their mistakes. Basically if they lose vs someone they lose points and that's their punishment to improve against them. Unlike here, if u lose, u can just go beat a newb 50 times, and get points, and u dont lose anything.

I understand it's more competitive, but as for myself i enjoy competition. It's not real life over money or an award or something. It's an online community game, and we have a fine bunch of friendly competitors on this forum. I don't believe fighting will happen over this game. And if it does...so be it, nothing's perfect.

The only reason i go by this idea, is what wuss said...

18-72 would beat 17-0. Just don't think someone who has all those losses deserves 1st over someone who goes undefeated. But then again, those 17-0 might be vs newbs, and the 18-72 would win. Brings more interest into it .

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.

As for this ^^. If a newb challenges only top players, and wins every one of them. Then here's the situation...That newb isn't really a newb..and his points will sky rocket and he'll be a "pro" now. And he'll have to play lower ranked players if he's at the top of the list.

[nars2]

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

That's the thing you didn't get yet. We give awards for both GOOD and ACTIVE players.

Think with me. The guy that has 27-89 must be somewhat noob huh? Well, the guy loses most of his games but still plays. If this guy didn't play, the guy that went 26-1 would have never reached 26-1. The noob must have lost to the pro in the middle, but he persevered and reached one more win. He deserves it.

Here, we got the 100 games limit. Every loss means one less possible win. Ideally all players should reach 100, so we would have the best winning rates awarded. However, for many people to reach 100 games, we need people who lose but still play.
Ideally, we should have fixed matches of everyone vs everyone, but that isn't possible, so we use this system.

I'll illustrate this with my example.
I played 6 consecutive seasons, winning them all. Every season my winning rate was around 80~85%. Some seasons I won easily, others I had very close battles with one or two other guys. The fact is that I basically got to win this more disputed seasons because I won direct confrontation with the guys that had chances to pass me.
It all comes down to your quality in the end. If the guy is 50-50, he had to play 100 games to do the same thing you can do with 60 games, being 50-10. So if you are pro, you probably won't be beaten easily by someone who is just more active than you.
Really, all seasons I have presenced I have only seen winners that had quality over quantity. Sometimes we get active players on 2nd or 3rd spots, and still that's something we enjoy

[rubiks777]

my vote would be to something like sticking with 3 points per win. but minus one point for a loss. this makes it to where you are still rewarding active players, but not so much for a loss :-/ just my thought

[DayOfRage]

Well basically what ur saying Nars is. Whoever plays the most wins? If anyone plays 100 games, they're most likely gonna win a good % of them. So they'll most likely win the season. Yes awards should be given to activeness and skill. But the actual ranking shouldnt be based on activeness. That's how it is now. Look at the top 3-4 players from last season. It went in rank by games played. You see?

[Wuss]

http://tibfields.com/forum/index.php?act=A...pe=post&id=1984


points calculator
this is a rough version, but its clear

[rubiks777]

rage: i know what you are saying but the league doesn't seem active enough for this to take place. :-/ kinda sad too cause i think that would be a better way of doing things. so if everyone gets a bunch of their friends to come and play then we're good to go and we can start emplementing a ranking sys so that if you beat better players you get more points and so forth. but first thing first

[DayOfRage]

Yeh i know it's not as active as it could be. But i asure u, more ppl will come to the forum/league. Just need to advertise a bit more, i have been anyway. But i'm not saying that it should be implemented in right this second. We could wait a season or so before putting it in, depending on activeness. Just a suggestion for the future to try and get things a little different and possibly more interesting.

[uberbacon]

it becomes a race between the people who play most. the best of the dedicated players win, that's about it. last season we didn't reach 100 games due to lack of dedication. i have been here the past 6 seasons or so, and it has always worked fine. the best of gbgl wins!

we will not intend to discourage people for losing! sorry  

[Aperama]

Well, about the only thing I can agree with here is the thought of less points for winning against lower-ranks.

Allow me to give you an example made of my own.

1 - Tim (90 wins 1 loss)
2 - Jack (70 wins 21 losses)
3 - Kurt (31 wins 60 losses)
4 - Kim (30 wins 60 losses)
5 - Scott (1 win 90 losses)

Okay, here, it's pretty obvious. Of the five people, Tim has won purely by killing Scott. Jack, Kurt and Kim have all played one another (and while Jack is fairly better than Kurt and Kim, they've still got their strong points obviously.) Here, the more experienced player (Jack) didn't win just because Tim was sitting there, beating down on one random noob...

While this isn't as frequent here due to the weekly limit.. let's say there's 12 "bad" players. One guy plays against all of these 12 "bad" players 4 times, winning each time. 12 * 4 * 2? 96. So a guy can go 96 wins 0 losses purely due to selective opponents...

...There's just something fishy about that.

[DayOfRage]

it becomes a race between the people who play most. the best of the dedicated players win, that's about it. last season we didn't reach 100 games due to lack of dedication. i have been here the past 6 seasons or so, and it has always worked fine. the best of gbgl wins!

we will not intend to discourage people for losing! sorry

I understand that dedication is important, but you're basing the whole league around it. Competitions should be about playing your best and skill, not showing up the most times.

i have been here the past 6 seasons or so, and it has always worked fine. the best of gbgl wins!

it becomes a race between the people who play most. the best of the dedicated players win, that's about it.

We shouldn't have to race to play 100 games, we should just calmly play eachother, this will have less stress on us anyway. A lot of ppl probably aren't playing the leagues because they know they can't get 100 games in anyway. This way u won't have this problem.

Of course the system's worked fine, there's nothing wrong with it, this could just be an improvement. Basically all this is about is skill should be rewarded more than punctuality. If you play constantly and you're extremely punctual, eventually u'll be rewarded skillwise.

While this isn't as frequent here due to the weekly limit.. let's say there's 12 "bad" players. One guy plays against all of these 12 "bad" players 4 times, winning each time. 12 * 4 * 2? 96. So a guy can go 96 wins 0 losses purely due to selective opponents...

...There's just something fishy about that.

You got it right. If we implemented in this formula, he'd probably only get like 13 of 96 points or possible less.

[nars2]

That fishy thing just doesn't happens really. People are allowed to decline challenges, but we will certainly notice if the person only goes after noobs.

my vote would be to something like sticking with 3 points per win. but minus one point for a loss. this makes it to where you are still rewarding active players, but not so much for a loss :-/ just my thought

We don't reward losses, we reward activeness (if such a word exists).

Well basically what ur saying Nars is. Whoever plays the most wins? If anyone plays 100 games, they're most likely gonna win a good % of them. So they'll most likely win the season. Yes awards should be given to activeness and skill. But the actual ranking shouldnt be based on activeness. That's how it is now. Look at the top 3-4 players from last season. It went in rank by games played. You see?

Erm , not really. A person can reach 100 games but win only 50. Last season Dain beat Uberbacon, who had 10-15 more games I guess.
Now I am serious. IF you are really a skilled player, you will find no trouble in beating the active ones. You will probably win the direct confrontation, and will also play 20% less games in order to achieve the same score.

I really plan on coming back this or next season to prove you your point is wrong. I'll show you quality will easily beat quantity. EASILY.



FURTHER ADDED:

I understand that dedication is important, but you're basing the whole league around it. Competitions should be about playing your best and skill, not showing up the most times.

We shouldn't have to race to play 100 games, we should just calmly play eachother, this will have less stress on us anyway. A lot of ppl probably aren't playing the leagues because they know they can't get 100 games in anyway. This way u won't have this problem.

No, the league is NOT based only on quantity of games.
Really, think with me. An active but not very skilled players will reach 100 games with something around 60-40. Are you telling me you can't play like 70 games in one month so you can reach something around 60-10 and beat the opponent's score?

You have 30 days to play 100 games. There were seasons where I reached 100 games in 2 weeks.

Also, if the guy can't reach 100 games, he probably won't win the system you proposed too, because people will pass him using quantity.

[uberbacon]

we never said this was a competition to find the best player. the best player doesn't always deserve to win!

we've discussed this a lot, and this is our conclusion our system will remain the same!

[DayOfRage]

Erm , not really. A person can reach 100 games but win only 50. Last season Dain beat Uberbacon, who had 10-15 more games I guess.

Uberbacon played 2 more games than dain. Dain had 95, uber had 97. Dain won by 3 points.

Now I am serious. IF you are really a skilled player, you will find no trouble in beating the active ones. You will probably win the direct confrontation, and will also play 20% less games in order to achieve the same score.

This is the thing Nars. Skilled players shouldn't have to compete with active players. Basically what you've said so far is that u don't discourage ppl for losing. That's not what a competition is. Competitions can be agressvie and friendly. Not completely friendly. You need that extra hit of competiton instead of making sure you've played 15 more games than 2nd place. You need to make it that ANY game u play, it could push u to 1st place, or smack u down to 5th place. It needs to be intence. Look at Toasters for example. They've already outplayed everyone, they dont even need to worry considering they're already like 10 wins ahead. Only a few active teams are playing, they can only win 2 times a day. They have a good lead. And now we have to rush to play more games just to keep up with them.

[DayOfRage]

we never said this was a competition to find the best player. the best player doesn't always deserve to win!

we've discussed this a lot, and this is our conclusion our system will remain the same!

we never said this was a competition to find the best player. the best player doesn't always deserve to win!

we've discussed this a lot, and this is our conclusion our system will remain the same!

A gunbound league where u face teams 2v2,3v3,4v4 or 1v1, and achieve points and rating points, and then possibly giant gold prizes at the end of the season with the most points isnt a competition? Of course it's a competition, and the best player DOES deserve to win. It's not a competition to find who the best player is. It's a competition of who played the BEST during this season length. If a newb goes 25-0 against all pros, and some pro rapes newbs 26-70, there is no way that he should win. 25-0 is by far a way better record than 26-70, and he should be rewarded the chance to win the league, not worry about trying to race someone for wins.

[uberbacon]

26-70 is better if you ask me. if the player who gets 25 games can't play more than only 25 games.. why should he win? the target is to win as many games as possible but you only get 100 games. if we had like, 20 active competitors in the top, then we could possibly rearrange the system.

in the end it WILL come down to the top 3 players and they usually get around 100 game each. dot.