Ladder Ranking System?

Welcome to the Tour of Generals forum.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
2

Ladder Ranking System?
Topic Started: Nov 25 2009, 12:01 AM (251 Views)
Patton	Nov 25 2009, 12:01 AM Post #1
Posts: 24 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: Nov 15, 2009 Clan: Ordinary Legends	ToG currently ranks Generals based on how many points they have accumulated. While this accurately reflects the commitment of the Generals, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person with the most points is the most skilled. I support having a ladder ranking system. Generals would be ranked not by how many points they have but through head to head matchups. This would be a great way of determining how we compare in skill to one another and would reveal those who rack up victories against lesser competition. This is a rough idea and I would appreciate any and all feedback.



TCTriangle	Nov 25 2009, 05:13 PM Post #2
Posts: 223 Group: Members Member #301 Joined: Mar 4, 2009 Clan: NONE	What about team games? Would they be ranked separately or together? Edited by TCTriangle, Nov 25 2009, 05:13 PM.



icadil	Nov 25 2009, 05:29 PM Post #3
Posts: 376 Group: Members Member #227 Joined: Jan 22, 2009 Clan: Good Natured Gamers	WAAAAYYYY too complicated. This would require almost everyone playing 1v1 matches versus multiple opponents. Personally, I get most of my points from team games, and I am not always on an unbalanced team sure to win. I also hate 1v1 matchups since I typically suck at them, and would surely lose. While currently the only top 10 ranked player with negative win ratio, I do host alot of games and I certainly win my share. I feel like this would not do much good, and would create a big headache.



Patton	Nov 25 2009, 06:07 PM Post #4
Posts: 24 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: Nov 15, 2009 Clan: Ordinary Legends	You guys mentioned the same faults that I noticed, too. It would be hard to measure except via 1 v 1 matchups and would become incredibly complicated with team games. Regardless, I would like to see the ranking system changed. Perhaps this isn't the way to do it but I don't necessarily equate more points with more skill.



Beavers	Nov 25 2009, 09:31 PM Post #5
Posts: 421 Group: Members Member #207 Joined: Jan 18, 2009 Clan: Good Natured Gamers	Perhaps a simple change that could be implemented would be to alter the number of points one gets for a victory based on the skill level of the opponent(s) they faced. Right now everyone gets 25 points per opponent regardless, but it could be changed to be scaled by opponent skill level. This could either by done by discrete steps, say, 25 for a no-star enemy, 30 for a 1/2 star, 40 for a one-star, 55 for a 1.5-star ... (OR) by some equation that takes the opponent point level and assigns victory points accordingly, perhaps: [Victory points] = 25 + [Enemy points]/100 * Numbers were just made up on the spot, if this were to be seriously considered, actual thought about them would be needed.



Patton	Nov 27 2009, 01:04 AM Post #6
Posts: 24 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: Nov 15, 2009 Clan: Ordinary Legends	Niels, that is something I would like to see. At the very least, it would provide incentive for Generals to face tougher opponents instead of racking up points against noobs. Granted I may be exaggerating about how often this occurs but I believe that there should be some reward for beating a better opponent.



icadil	Nov 27 2009, 09:50 AM Post #7
Posts: 376 Group: Members Member #227 Joined: Jan 22, 2009 Clan: Good Natured Gamers	Patton Nov 27 2009, 01:04 AM Niels, that is something I would like to see. At the very least, it would provide incentive for Generals to face tougher opponents instead of racking up points against noobs. Granted I may be exaggerating about how often this occurs but I believe that there should be some reward for beating a better opponent. That I can agree with



Beavers	Nov 27 2009, 12:11 PM Post #8
Posts: 421 Group: Members Member #207 Joined: Jan 18, 2009 Clan: Good Natured Gamers	icadil Nov 27 2009, 09:50 AM Patton Nov 27 2009, 01:04 AM Niels, that is something I would like to see. At the very least, it would provide incentive for Generals to face tougher opponents instead of racking up points against noobs. Granted I may be exaggerating about how often this occurs but I believe that there should be some reward for beating a better opponent. That I can agree with In that case, this is something we ought to consider in greater depth and then propose to admin for implementation here or in V2. Which of the two methods of determining points do you think is best and what numbers should be used? Looking at the 2nd one, the equation, I see that that number of points assigned grows by quite a bit so that a win against someone with 20k points provides 225 points, which seems excessive. I think that it would be needed to have multiple equations for this to work: if [enemy score] < 2000 [VP] = 25 + [enemy score]/100 if [enemy score] < 10000 [VP] = 45 + [enemy score]/500 ... etc.



Shogo Kawada	Nov 27 2009, 09:29 PM Post #9
Posts: 13 Group: Members Member #41 Joined: Jan 3, 2009	Niels Nov 27 2009, 12:11 PM icadil Nov 27 2009, 09:50 AM Patton Nov 27 2009, 01:04 AM Niels, that is something I would like to see. At the very least, it would provide incentive for Generals to face tougher opponents instead of racking up points against noobs. Granted I may be exaggerating about how often this occurs but I believe that there should be some reward for beating a better opponent. That I can agree with In that case, this is something we ought to consider in greater depth and then propose to admin for implementation here or in V2. Which of the two methods of determining points do you think is best and what numbers should be used? Looking at the 2nd one, the equation, I see that that number of points assigned grows by quite a bit so that a win against someone with 20k points provides 225 points, which seems excessive. I think that it would be needed to have multiple equations for this to work: if [enemy score] < 2000 [VP] = 25 + [enemy score]/100 if [enemy score] < 10000 [VP] = 45 + [enemy score]/500 ... etc. This sounds very good.
Posts: 13 Group: Members Member #41 Joined: Jan 3, 2009


Patton	Nov 28 2009, 09:43 AM Post #10
Posts: 24 Group: Members Member #438 Joined: Nov 15, 2009 Clan: Ordinary Legends	The bonus in the first scenario (scaling the points by star) seems too small to give any incentive for Generals to compete against top flight competition. I favor the second idea but as you mentioned, the number of points won would get excessive (beating Italiandude or Tharbakim would land the winner in excess of 800 points with the [VP] = 25 + [enemy score]/100 formula)! I suppose some scaling might need to be done in order to prevent point inflation but I like the premise.



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

<a href='http://delivery.zetabbs.com/adserver/www/delivery/ck.php?n=a731ce40&cb=106627369' target='_blank'><img src='http://delivery.zetabbs.com/adserver/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=29&cb=106627369&n=a731ce40&ct0=INSERT_CLICKURL_HERE' border='0' alt='' /></a>
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Version 2 Suggestions · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2