Win/Loss formula?

[DayOfRage]

How would 26-70 be better than 25-0. The 25-0 went the whole league playing, and went undefeated. And he loses to someone who loses 3x the amount of games he won. I just don't see that as being right. You're making it so you have to be really active in order to win, this might be a reason why not a lot of ppl sign up.

[Wuss]

chris forget it
they never experienced the system that we had, on ts, and therefore have no clue what we mean unless they try it for themselves

i think we should umm, make a 2nd mod cup
if u catch my drift

[Wuss]

im bored, so lets test stuff, using this syetem, and our system

my system
Joe vs bob
joe won
joe 32pts
bob 0 pts

joe vs bob
bob wins
bob 35
joe -3

matt is in first place with 400 pts
joe plays matt
matt wins
matt 7 pts
joe -3

they rematch
joe beats matt
matt has 407 pts, joe has 26
joe beats matt, now they have
joe 57 pts
matt -46


see how it works, it calculates pts according to your opponents rank/record

now your system!
joe plays bob 5 times
bob wins 3, joe wins 2

but matt is in first with a record of 5-0
joe plays matt, and beats matt

so now the standings are!

matt 5-0       15 pts
joe 3-3         9pts
bob 3-3        9 pts

our system were talking about is more fair, if a newb beats a pro, he gets rewarded for that, and feels good about himself, that he did well, and will try again

also it will be more even, where a guy that is 20-0 may not necessarly win because the 2nd place guy is 15-5, but he played people with more pts




basically. its more balanced

[uberbacon]

i am aware of your system, and i was an active player at ordspel.se for a long time. they have a similiar ranking system. if we had a ladder or longer seasons this would be great. but for seasons that only last a month.. it will depend on who played most games

[nars2]

i am aware of your system, and i was an active player at ordspel.se for a long time. they have a similiar ranking system. if we had a ladder or longer seasons this would be great. but for seasons that only last a month.. it will depend on who played most games

Indeed. Short seasons won't fit that system. I also experienced that at yetisports.org . Same system where beating higher ranked gets you more points.

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.

I agree, competitions can be agressive and friendly. Ours here is somewhat friendly.
Man, really, are you telling me all soccer tourneys that go 3 points for a win 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss are not intense?

Also, if you are pro you just need to worry about yourself. Get your games going and win 80-90% of them and you won't have to care about active players.

You need to make it that ANY game u play, it could push u to 1st place, or smack u down to 5th place.

That doesn't seem much more fair than our system. Imagine I can beat 90% of the players. Imagine I beat them in the season start, where everyone has got 0 points. I wouldn't win many points, but with many wins I'd accumulate a considerable amount of points, but as soon as I lost to someone, I'd lose LOTS of points in one single match. To recover them, I would have to only challenge people with big ranks.
This system discourages noobs playing among themselves.

our system were talking about is more fair, if a newb beats a pro, he gets rewarded for that, and feels good about himself, that he did well, and will try again

also it will be more even, where a guy that is 20-0 may not necessarly win because the 2nd place guy is 15-5, but he played people with more pts

Here too. If a newb beats a pro, he gets rewarded 3 points. His name will appear in the played list games, he will be famous and happy, he will feel good about himself and will try again. Also, people with more points don't necessarily means better people, so that system might present weird results too.

I'll tell you what, activity doesn't win a league by itself. You must be a very versatile and complete player to be able to succeed in everyone's different rules.

[Wuss]

which makes it more like a competition
u have your losses and wins, and makes it somewhat more realistic
it willencourage newbs to play better, and try harder to beat the pros
especially if they see that they can win 50 pts in 1 game vs pros, they will try, and possibly play them 5 times just trying to win once

the length of the season means nothing, from where i got this system from the season lasted 25-30 days, same time as this

the only problem with this system that i see is that not many people play many games
especially in the team league, with excuses like
"we only do 2v2, not 3v3 or 4v4", where MANY of the "newer" players prefer 4v4 than 2v2

this way would be much more competitive, many more pros could join, instead of the usual 5-10 which win 99% of the time
and give more challenges to these pros

i guarantee, me, buda and chris, and the ravaged crew, can bring hundreds of people to this forum, and reqruit them into the league
and i guarantee most of them wont like this form of points

maybe this season, or next
ill do a side project and calculate every win / game thats played in this league
then when season is over, we compare the stats

[DayOfRage]

That doesn't seem much more fair than our system. Imagine I can beat 90% of the players. Imagine I beat them in the season start, where everyone has got 0 points. I wouldn't win many points, but with many wins I'd accumulate a considerable amount of points, but as soon as I lost to someone, I'd lose LOTS of points in one single match. To recover them, I would have to only challenge people with big ranks.

If you lose to newbs constantly and lose all your points, then u shouldn't be a pro in the 1st place. If you can stand your ground at the top of the list playing anyone, then u definetely deserve to win. Of course mistakes are made and u lose games, take it like a man and put yourself back at the top of the list. And just playing top ranked players is a bad idea? That'll make it extremely intence, the ranks will shift dramatically, it'll be a fight to the end.

Man, really, are you telling me all soccer tourneys that go 3 points for a win 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss are not intense?

Yes, but when they get their accumulative points at the end of the season, they go into play offs vs other teams who are just as good as them, if not better. Unlike here, we don't have that, it's like season games all the way through, so it's not as intense as it could be.

Indeed. Short seasons won't fit that system. I also experienced that at yetisports.org . Same system where beating higher ranked gets you more points.

I tend to disagree. Here's some screen shots of the cncgamer ladder for tiberian sun. They run a league such as this, and it runs for 1 month.



Here's a picture of what the ladder looked like for Red Alert 2. Notice the person with most wins didn't finish 1st. Also, they haven't played as many games as the ppl on this forum, and u say we're not "active" enough.



Here's a picture of the games played. We play more games than these guys.



Here's another picture of the point exchange, record, and total points.



It's completely possible to run this for this league, we have more participation than most leagues out there.

[nars2]

Well, it sounds reasonable after all the debate.
I agree it's not as intense as this could be because there is lack of playoffs. But the lack of playoffs contributes I guess, the best person through out the league wins.
Well, I like the idea of your system, but hmmm, tell me frankly, can't you play 100 games in one month? I'm pretty sure anyone can, it's all about the best winning rate in the end if everyone gets to 100.

Finally, lets see how this system you propose behaves during the season. We might consider debating about it further.

[DayOfRage]

tell me frankly, can't you play 100 games in one month? I'm pretty sure anyone can, it's all about the best winning rate in the end if everyone gets to 100.

Of course i can play 100 games in a month. But there's 2 flaws i see in this case.

1) Some ppl CAN'T play 100 games, so they won't even bother playing, knowing they wont win.

2) The fact that u HAVE to play 100 games just in order to win in most cases. You have to pressure urself to make sure u keep playing games.

[Wuss]

lol
it makes sence now

some clans say "we only 2v2, not 3v3 or 4v4" yet then few min later they go in a 4v4 vs newbs for the league
and others say "we cant play, our leader isnt on"
no wonder only like 10 games have been played
should let your clan, those who r signed up, to play whoever they want, not saying "we would love to play u but we cant cuz our leader isnt on"
god

people need permission now?

[nars2]

4v4??!?! the league is only 1v1 and 2v2, there is no possibility to play 4v4.

Also, here are my game stats for the leagues I played.

League #5
Games: 68
Wins: 58
Losses: 10
Points: 174

Leauge #6
Games: 100
Wins: 87
Losses: 13
Points: 261

Leauge #7
Games: 74
Wins: 65
Losses: 9
Points: 195

League #8
Games: 66
Wins: 58
Losses: 8
Points: 174

I played leagues 3 and 4 but this system wasn't implemented at that time, so I ain't got the records for them. Still, you can't say the most active won by checking my game logs.

[DayOfRage]

I talked to Nik about 3v3 and 4v4. He said it was fine as long as the other team cooperates. It should be more of a "team" league, than a 2v2 league in my opinion.

[uberbacon]

uh, the leader doesnt have to participate.. only the leader can report losses though.
some team leaders prohibit their members to play without him/her, that's up to them!

[nars2]

well, I would love to have 4v4 league, but:

- its hard to unite 8 specific people at the same time
- 4v4s take too long. Imagine what you would have to do to get to 20 games if 4v4 are first to 3

[Aperama]

Groooar. You didn't listen to me.

I'm not up for a moderated points system. I'm up for a challenge system, probably.

Simply - at the moment, the current system awards people for "noob bashing". While I'm aware of the problems (timezones etc), it's usually possible for one person to meet up with one person... even if it means being up at 1 AM on a weekend to do so. As such, wouldn't it be okay if the 1v1 league had a challenge system of some sort to promote people not just going down the list, beating up the people they find easy, rinsing, lathering and repeating?

Meh, just my way of looking at things, I guess.