Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
I guess Patrick will have to answer this sense Jimmy know's nothing of losing
What's this about in the new season when you lose a game you get points taken away. I think that's going to make a lot of the newer players not consider joining MaG league for fear of losing, I'm certinaly not very interested in losing points which I have barely any of. Is that going to be a new feature?
------------------ All hell that ends well -Me Are you accusing me of planting the bomb in that building that I put a bomb in??? -Me (url="http://"http://www.weebl.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/b3ta/pie.html")Weebl and Bob(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.liquid2k.com/ethan_sucks/quiz6/pumpkin.jpg") Pumpkin Puke(/url) | (url="http://"http://www.magleague.com")MaG League- Overrider(/url) The Underdogs Smiles:(url="http://"http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/gallery.htm")Underdog Smiles(/url)
Well, there's some sense to it, but there shouldn't be very large penalties for losing to a player of your own rank. Perhaps a loss should always count 1 against you, and, (in a battle between a major and a sergeant or such), the higher player also stands to lose the difference, while the lower stands to lose half that.
All wins count for at least 5 points anyways, and if you only win 20% of your games, you may gain points slowly, but you'll still gain them.
------------------ "My older brother, Magni, is king of the Dwarves. My younger brother, Bran, is a renowned explorer. If I didn't kick so much ass... I'd feel a tad awkward." -Muradin Bronzebeard, WC3
Actually Pallas, we're using a new system for Season 2-if you've played the battle.net ladders for WC2 or SC you'll be familiar with it. The only change we made was to take account the difference in ranks between you and your opponent when determining the percentage chance of you winning against your opponent.
Everyone starts with 1000 points- people with no games aren't ranked on the ladder so those who have sub-1000 will still be ranked.
The points that you win/lose are based upon the percentage chance you have of winning against your opponent, calculated using both differences in your clan rank and difference in your ladder score.
So say you're a new player and have the starting score of 1000. If you play against another player with 1000, you'll gain 25 points for winning and the loser will lose 25 points-reverse is true if you lose.
What if you play against a player with a 1500 score on ladder and a rank of General or Marshall? Then, if you win, you'll get about 50 points, and the General will lose about 50.
But what if the General wins? Well then, you'll lose only 2.5 (rounded off I guess..) while the General will gain a similar, low number.
This system prevents players from newbie-bashing their way to the top while still allowing you to play MaG games against higher-ranked players without having to worry about serious damage to your record.
You can read all the new rules and about the full scoring system at (url="http://"http://www.magleague.net/bbs2")http://www.magleague.net/bbs2(/url)
This really shouldn't cause any problems in my opinion
------------------ (url="http://"http://www.aresaxis.net")Ares Axis(/url) Admin (url="http://"http://www.magleague.net/bbs2")MaGLeague(/url) Ares Admin GR/(url="http://"http://magleague.com/downloads/chat.html")MaGChat(/url): Col. El Patrick #2 on MaG Ares season 1(just don't ask what I placed in the tournament!)
(This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 07-24-2002).)
Hmm... 1,000 points is a large number. Also, this system seems stacked against better players, making it more difficult for them to advance, while new guys can rack up points faster. Shouldn't you just keep the same point values you have now, and subtract a percentage (proportional to rank) for loosing?
------------------ "The art of medicine consists of amusing the patient while nature cures the disease." --Voltaire
Also, if you always subtract the same amount that you add to the other player, then there's no possibility of net point gain anyways.
If a bunch of evenly matched players choose to fight amongst themselves for a while, then presumably they should have as many wins as losses. Even if they are good players, it's absolutely impossible for them to ever gain points. What does this mean? In order to gain points, they either have to bash newbs, or challenge people above them.
Now, under the new system, there's no longer any incentive to accept a challenge from too far below. Only Jimmy's record is perfect, so even if a captain can win 4 matches out of 5 against a sergeant, the 1 loss will stop any useful gains. Plus, higher players will face constant pestering from their inferiors.
well i'm glad people are pointing out possible weaknesses in the system. Pat is in charge of all that since i suck at math and anything involving math.. lol
If someone can think of their own perfect system truley ranks people according to skill, we're welcome to hear it. The system we have now will not work. There are too many ways to abuse it, and admins can't always be changin things to make it right.
thinking of such a system is no easy task-- pat has thought of a decent one. Still, you can keep the ideas flowin if ya have em. He will definately listen to em.
------------------ ramble on.. --Jimmy Page <UL TYPE=SQUARE> (*)(Leader of TΔΉG, Leader of Ares Empire, Magleague Ares Admin and guitar legend thoughout the sol system)
(This message has been edited by Jimmy Page 1 (edited 07-25-2002).)
Well, here's one. It's simple, and (theoretically) effective.
Each player starts with 100 points. Each victory is worth 20 points, multiplied by the loser's score, and divided by the winners. Each loss is worth a quarter of the victory score.
Example Matches:
Two 100 points players: - Winner gains 20 (120) - Loser loses 5 (95)
A 100 point player defeats a 200 point player - Winner gains 40 (140) - Loser loses 10 (190)
A 200 point player defeats a 100 point player - Winner gains 10 (210) - Loser loses 3 (97)
A 100 point player defeats a 500 point player - Winner gains 100 (200) - Loser loses 25 (475)
A 500 point player defeats a 100 point player - Winner gains 2 (502) - Loser loses 1 (99)
Usually, the reason a lower ranked player defeats a higher ranked player is because the lower player is a new, high-skill player that hasn't yet advanced in the ranks. This system allows the lower player to advance a little quicker without penalizing higher players.
It also allows evenly matched players to gain in rank, however slowly. Experience is a factor,, not just wins.
Now, for normal scoring, officer ranks shouldn't factor in. However, it should be the only factor in clan scoring; good clans should have to assign ranks well.
(This message has been edited by Pallas Athene (edited 07-25-2002).)
(edit: wow pallas posted 2 hours before me and I still didnt see his post, heh) If anyone has a full-fledged proposal they think is better, you can post it and I'll take a look. We haven't implemented scoring for the non-clan ladder yet so there is still time to change the system. I really think the one we have now is pretty much the best one around. This is basically the same rating system that is used in competitive chess, golf and tennis(source: (url="http://"http://www.battle.net/ladder/ladderfaq.shtml")http://www.battle.ne...ladderfaq.shtml(/url) )
Er, basically what Jimmy said. This system should solve pretty much all of the problems with the old ladder: a. people like Firebird/Fyrephin or anyone else who just happens to play lots of games vs newbies but really aren't all that good at ares compared to top players can get rated high on the ladder. fix: you CANNOT get anywhere by playing newbies once you reach a reasonably high ladder ranking b. people who play the most games will usually be ranked reasonably high simply because they get some wins in there-see me who has a 60% win percent(compare to Jimmy's 95% wins) and I'm ranked pretty close to Jimmy and even had #1 for a while. fix: you will lose points when you lose c. even if you lose to weaker players you don't have a significant drop in ranking(if you are losing to lower ranked players you are ranked too high and need to have your rank lowered. fix: you now lose a significant amount of points when playing against a lower player.
(This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 07-26-2002).)
I think Pallas' idea would be a bit better. For one, its easy to understand without the probability stuff, so people can evaluate and pre-determine their possible outcomes in rank before chosing to play an opponent, rather than have to use a complex formula. It also addresses all the issues you mentioned.
------------------ "I hate that! Your answers are always short, precise, and utterly useless!" "Yes."
Quote
Originally posted by Pallas Athene: **Well, here's one. It's simple, and (theoretically) effective.
Usually, the reason a lower ranked player defeats a higher ranked player is because the lower player is a new, high-skill player that hasn't yet advanced in the ranks. This system allows the lower player to advance a little quicker without penalizing higher players.**
This system will reward those who play more and also a player who is the best player at Ares(see Jimmy ) and gets #1, has 51/49 or better percent of games won against the top group of players will still fall behind if he goes off on vacation due to all other players gaining in score without gaining in skill. I really think the ladder as much as possible attempt to rank players by skill level and not by the amount of time they have to waste on MaG
** It also allows evenly matched players to gain in rank, however slowly. Experience is a factor,, not just wins.**
The problem here is that your evenly matched group of players will gain rank in proportion to the amount of time they spend on Ares, not their skill. I think that if they are: a. evenly matched( win/lose of approx 50/50) b. evenly ranked(same scores) Then they shouldn't be gaining in rank as they are already at their maximium skill level. The only way for them to gain in rank should be to become better players so that they can go 60/40 or better against their former group, or go 50/50 against the formerly better players who have a higher ranking.
** Now, for normal scoring, officer ranks shouldn't factor in. However, it should be the only factor in clan scoring; good clans should have to assign ranks well.
**
You can blame Jimmy for that one He told me to use the clan rank for normal scoring