*DAMN R6
.:Navigation:| Home | Battle League | Forum | Mac Downloads | PC Downloads | Cocobolo Mods |:.

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
May 15, 2024, 12:30:14 pm

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
One Worldwide Gaming Community since 13th June 2000
132954 Posts in 8693 Topics by 2294 Members
Latest Member: xoclipse2020
* Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: New Points Systems  (Read 1283 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Typhy
God save the Royal Whorealots
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3431


Woot


WWW
« on: June 09, 2003, 06:22:35 am »

:::Head in hands:::

Wrong direction! The problem is, and still is, that it's very hard for top clans to gain points, where as, it's very easy for low ranked clans to gain points, you didn't make this better, you made it worse.

What you should do, is make a system much like this:

20 + Losers Points/Winners Points x5 + 2( Number of players ).

Example:

Team 1: 100 points.

Team 2: 60 points.

Team 1 beats team 2 in a 3v3: 20 points + 3 + 2(3).

Total: 29 points.

Team 2 beats Team 1: 20 points + 8 + 6.

Total: 34 points.

In this case, there would only be a 5 point difference. This is what the Rogue Spear ladder needs. Of course, if a clan with 10 points beats a clan with 100, they will still gain lots of points, all that this system would do is close the gap. It'd make it easier for top clans to gain points, and nearly eliminate Ladder Tactics.

In my opinion, wrong directon, no advantages over the old system.

 
Logged

"Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively." - National Association of Procrastinators<br /><br />Kerry & Edwards in 04' <br />Knowles for US Senate
*DAMN Mauti
Webmaster
God save the Royal Whorealots
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4878



WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 09, 2003, 11:49:01 am »

Alright I finally know what your main concern is: tactical use.

Well back to your system: the problem with your algorithm is that it supports to beat noobie clans and that you can easily collect points to close the gap/or that the number one can get ahead easily with mass instead of quality battles because the relation from static win points to dynamic points is too high.

However lets compare the outcome of your Team1 and 2 with the current system:


Typhy: Team 1: 100 points.
Team 2: 60 points.
Team 1 beats team 2 in a 3v3: 20 points + 3 + 2(3).
Total: 29 points.
Team 2 beats Team 1: 20 points + 8 + 6.
Total: 34 points.

After ranking:
Team1: 129points
Team2: 48points
------
Team 1: 80 points
Team 2: 94 points

*DAMN: Team 1 beats team 2 in a 3v3: 10 + 3 + 0
Total 13points
Team 2 beats Team 1: 10 points + 27 + 0.
Total: 37 points.

After ranking:
Team1: 113points
Team2: 48points
------
Team 1: 80 points
Team 2: 97 points

Analysis: If the worse team wins the results are almost the same but in Typhy's version if Team1 wins against a much weaker enemy he gets 16 points more than in my version.

Typhy's version: The advantage of this he can escape easily by mass of wins, the disadvantage is that noob clans can beat noob clans and capture him easily again.

*DAMN: Pro: you can easily gain many points by beating higher ranked clans and get much less for beating weaker clans.
Contra(in your opinion if I understand you right Typhy): the choice of the enemies you play is important for the ranking not the mass of cbs

Well an aim of the *DAMN league was always to come away from mass instead of qualtiy cbs. The current system supports that and is a very dynamical one(although differences seem to be large 80points+ differences can be closed with one win against each other) which means you need constant skills to stay at top. Clans that only battle much weaker clans don't have a chance to come away if the other clans battle higher or equal ranked clans. Clans that start late to gather more points can do so only at the first 2 won cbs if they win against 1 medium and 1  top 6 clan. Then they are ranked at the middle due the 60points limit.

This system would also work fine for the RS ladder if there would be more participants because now with one win against the 8th clan you can jump on place 5. But then you have to beat higher or equal clans to catch up.

Just got a great idea how to make the weak/strong cb wins to make progressive instead of linear...
Alright I have updated the rankings again but now it is "even worse" for you Typhy but in general it is an improvment.

However about your concern regarding tactical use - a good clan could wait until 2 weeks before the finals and then win against some medium ranked clans and gather enough points to be in the finals and may he wins all 3 rounds there. Could  happen if the ladder is so small and inactive as the RS ladder is. Your system would help to make sure that the clans from the start can earn enough points to be sure to be in the finals.

My intention was to make the main season exciting until the very last second and if I look at the current ladders it is.

However one thing I could do is to make a resistriction for clans that start late to cb. Listen Typhy, may this wouldn't be such a bad idea: if you have less than i.e. 100skillpoints you can only earn at max. 30 points(half of the usual limit) and if you have over 100points you can earn up to 60 depending on your enemy. So a clan that starts late needs to win at least 3 cbs until he can go for the big points. So waiting wouldn't give you an advantage anymore considering that you get already 20points for the first win in a season. If you wait you will only get 10 points more but that's it. As a consequence clans that start early to cb can gain a medium gap and can be sure that a new starters can't gain cheap points. Just an idea that would preventing tactical use to a certain degree without changing the ladder to a mass system.

Team 1: has started early and fought very hard to gain 80 points(appr 3 - 4 wins).
Team 2: is a tactical ladder user and waited until the very last second of the main season to gain as much points as possible with only 1 win. Team2 has 10 points.

Team 1 beats team 2 in a 3v3: 10 + 0 + 0
Total 10points
Team 2 beats Team 1: 10 points + 640(if algorithm wouldn't have a limit) + 0.
Total: 60 points after old limit but due skillpoint value lower 100 he only gets 30.

After ranking:
Team1: 90points
Team2: 10points
------
Team 1: 56 points
Team 2: 40 points

without limit for clans below 100points he would gather 60 points for the win.


bye,

Mauti
« Last Edit: June 09, 2003, 01:47:44 pm by *DAMN Mauti » Logged

*DAMN: One Worldwide Gaming Community
since 13th June 2000
www.damnr6.com | army.damnr6.com
10 last played songs - CLICK ME!
AK_Rap1d
Guest
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2003, 05:32:16 am »




As long as you have it so you can't beat n00b clans over and over to be on top, Typhy will always be mad... Grin

::pats typhy on head::

                   Cool
Logged
Typhy
God save the Royal Whorealots
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3431


Woot


WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2003, 06:13:52 am »

Yes, Rapid, I will always be mad when 10-100,000,000 could beat 49-0.  
Logged

"Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively." - National Association of Procrastinators<br /><br />Kerry & Edwards in 04' <br />Knowles for US Senate
sick of Typhys whinning
Guest
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2003, 06:56:41 pm »

Typhy, you dont seem to understand...this point system isnt based on record, it is based on skill of a clan. Get it through your thick skull!! Just dont loose and you have nothing to worry about.  Cool
Logged
Typhy
God save the Royal Whorealots
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3431


Woot


WWW
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2003, 07:38:16 pm »

Why should I be complaining about the points system? Look who's in first.

Well, I'll tell you why. I want to win this battle league. I don't want to win because of a bullshit points flaw.

mi and MP5 have the same wins pretty much, the good clan on our win list being 2 against TF6, for each of us. Somehow though, MP5's 5-1 record beats mi's 6-0 record.

 
Logged

"Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively." - National Association of Procrastinators<br /><br />Kerry & Edwards in 04' <br />Knowles for US Senate
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  



 Ads
Powered by SMF 1.1.7 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC
Page created in 0.056 seconds with 21 queries.