2 things in regards to this part(before I read hikarus post):

1. I think these players you mentioned would still be on top, but without having to spar excessively.
2. If it was only wins there would be no need to segregate the boards between pc and mobile.

This was before I saw hikarus post, but I think he brings a common ground to the argument.




This is actually a good compromise.

The only way any of that would work is by blindly queuing and not knowing who you can end up sparring against. Making a system in which you queue anywhere on the map, and it tells you "searching for opponent, opponent found, starting match" then it warps you to an arena where you fight someone you didn't know would be there. This would make spar matches instant, and people can't selective spar.

Edit: And they could keep streak, and have it as a viewing room like the ones for gst, so everyone can watch(anywhere on map) a bad ass sparrer break the current streak record.

I honestly don't think there's any reason to segregate the leaderboards regardless, the PC vs. iDevice argument is old and dead, no one even uses the iDevice or PC rooms anymore, it should all probably just be one leaderboard
as a PC player though, that's not my decision to make because I generally think mobile players are the mechanically disadvantaged of the two if we have to compare them in that way

I don't think it does any harm with them being separated though, so I don't have a strong opinion on that

And also, semi-on topic:
http://puu.sh/iqzpe/18f12cb04b.png

It has bothered me forever, can we please add padding or a space after the damn scores past 10k? I hate how they are right beside the names, drives my OCD nuts...

It's not a misconception, it was a part of suggestion. I was suggesting the ladder system and aside from that normal leaderboard could be used like a pk board. So whoever has the most wins = top.
Skill test = the ladder system.
Tbh Current board is the mixture version of both

I agree. Lol i think i have suggested this million times, it was never paid attentioned by any developers -.-;;

Also another addition to the blind matchmaking system on my previous post.

If it is possible Graal should add tier ranks, so that people fight others around their rankings, and if they win enough matches their tier rises (Ex: broze, silver, gold, crystal, diamond, legendary, etc), and if you lose enough matches you fall down a bit.

This would definetely be the best overall skill based system.
Cause 1: You can't see who you will fight, and you have to fight people around your level if you want to climb the ranks.
2: You can't selective spar and have a fake ratio, because if you win x amount of matches you will start fighting better people, until you start losing and losing and losing.
3: It will show which people have real skill when facing real opponents, based on which tier you are in.

Edit: since no one else has posted this yet.

Streaking should have more shout-outs to encourage players to streak more often. Let's say you get 10 wins which means you are at least decent, (Got these names off of vainglory, can be changed) "Aguzo is impressive", 25 wins "Aguzo is kind of a big deal", 50 "Aguzo is a big deal", 100 wins... geez "Aguzo is a nightmare!".

This way people can't get streaks off of nubs when no good people are on, and gives motivation to get a shout-out of your name, one of the things I like from era's pk streak system.

Same goes for sparrers with a high amount of wins and the L in "W:L" gets in the way on your profile. It's really frustrating.

I really hope the current system isn't using my old spar points code.

Let's make a leaderboard to flatter everyones ego so everybody gonna be happy. :)

"Ego" rofl

When I implemented ranks on Classic, it was a ****ty system (at least based on some code I probably wrote forwarded to me upon request). It was also used for PKs, but I haven't re-analyzed the PK bit as much.

The number of spar points relied solely on the rank of the player you defeated and declined logarithmically. It makes sense until you consider that certain cliques spend a lot of time sparring and could run away with the most spar points.

I still like the concept of logarithmic point assignments, but think that the gains should be based more on difference in rank between two players rather than solely the rank of the opponent. That way there's diminishing returns for the top ranks and the maintenance of greater returns for lower ranks defeating top ranks. Then again, I'm pretty sure my ranks were a competitive failure, and before I had the code forwarded to me, I thought that this was how I implemented it.

Have to ask, how's it implemented these days?

Hello

Currently, you gain a number of point's equal to your opponent's ratio multiplied by 10. It's extremely simple.

The previous leaderboard system was practically the same as Graal's default rating system. There was some glitch where players could log on to multiple accounts and reset their rating deviation back to /350, spar a few noobs, then reach the #1 spot pretty effortlessly. It basically rewarded players for avoiding the best sparrers, camping after you reach a number of points, and abusing a glitch. I reported it plenty of times, but staff claimed they couldn't fix it.

iClassic sparrers aren't competitive and mature enough to let a leaderboard like that flesh out naturally. They will always abuse it and turn it into a contest where the most crafty player who avoids the best sparrers and uses the most tricks wins. It's dumb.

The leaderboard many are claiming would be better in this thread is just a flat-out wins leaderboard. Zero measure at all put towards the skill of your opponent. I don't think that they realize that it'd be literally the exact same as the current leaderboard, except without any consideration at all of your opponent's skill. I honestly think people are just bored and looking for something to complain about. In no way is converting a point gain of roughMeasureOfOpponentSkill*10 to a point gain of 1 going to do anything for sparring. No one in this thread seems to be explaining it, just claiming "it's better." I don't understand.
Many who seem to support it seem to be the players with the highest amount of all-time wins. Are you surprised?

The current leaderboard achieves a lot of things that is healthy for the spar community in general, it just drags out for too long. It naturally encourages people to spar boosters/selective sparrers for their points. It doesn't punish players for losing, so people can queue freely and comfortably. It encourages and rewards players for sparring actively. And guess what? There's never been a mess of glitch abusers or alternate accounts ranked near the top.
It should be daily or weekly by default, not seasonally.

But at the end of the day, like I said:
No one has ever used any leaderboard as law of the land to who the best is. After the first few months, it's dismissed as useless due to any number of flaws and we determine who the best is by community consensus. At the very least, this leaderboard's flaws are flaws that encourage people to spar more.

I was thinking of adding something for losing, like the ratio for winning but in reverse. If you lose to someone good, you lose less points. Lose to someone bad and you lose more points.

I know that the part of the point of the new system was to have players not worry about losing, but I kind of feel like there should be some sort of penalty.
You could always weight it so the points you lose won't compare, but that could help fix the complaint of there being less skill on top of the leaderboard.

Plus no one would go threw the effort of losing hundreds of times on a noob to try and wreck other people's scores.

Everyone has already pretty much agreed that the season leaderboard is too long, so I won't bother.

Unless a really dominant idea comes out that would far surpass the current system, there won't be any change anyway.

All we had to do was get rid of deviation. :(

no idea how we're still gonna pretend the current leaderboard "both promotes activity and shows skill" when there are never even close to 20 positive ratios sparring at the same time (activity) and the #3 on the idevice side is nøøb with a 2500-4500 record and no signs of improvement (skill).

a simple leaderboard with wins and losses would attract people to spar because they understand that leaderboard and want to be on it (activity) and with enough decent people sparring, hopefully the side rooms will welcome more positive ratios who don't want to wait for the active streak room lines and we can witness the near-death of selective sparrers playing for a record (skill).

and if this is implemented and brings enough activity to spar, maybe, just maybe we can bring in that ranking system described in the other thread (even more skill shown).

don't see how there could possibly be an issue with any of this. don't pretend a win board wouldn't attract people to the arena.

Yeah I've always liked having a system where losses made you lose points.

Opponent's all time W/L ratio, the original rating system ratio, or the season W/L ratio? Either way, it sounds like it would have a similar outcome to the system I made, but that the overall points have potential to become a lot more exaggerated.

Let N be total number of people who have sparred during the season.
Let R be the current rank position of the defeated player compared to all the other people.
Let S be (N+1)/R; this provides the relative measure of skill for the defeated player.
Let P be 100*ln(S); the natural logarithm provides diminishing returns on the points gained due to the opponents' measure of skill; the multiplier of 100 (arbitrary) increases the spread of possible point gains.

The people you'd expect to win spars were ranking high. Why I consider it flawed: people with a higher rank can fight one another almost exclusively and boost off each other. Instead, if S were a measure of the comparative level of skill between the defeated opponent and the spar winner, it would make a lot more sense.

Aside from that there could be scalability issues in relying on overall rank, which essentially means maintaining an ordered list of all of the sparrers, as opposed to only the top sparrers. Maintaining a full list can become computationally expensive as it grows.

The system you described can be gamed in the following way: Spar a bunch of newbs to get your seasonal ratio high, then exclusively spar with other higher-ranked players. You'll get diminishing returns the more you fight each other, but if each players' ratio is boosted then each one will get a higher number of points by sparring amongst themselves as compared to the general population.

I say deadbird needs a thread to show everything he did in classic.

there are ways you could lower the full list of sparers. You could remove anyone hasn't spared in 7 days(arbitrary number), you could also have it be weekly or monthly. It would be based on the results of the previous week or month. There of course would be some worries in a static ranking, you would need some sort of requirements from appearing on the board. Maybe over 1k spars? The reason for that would be so you couldn't say, boost your noob to a stupidly good record, then boost off of the noob to gain a crap ton of points very quickly.

Now how that list would be decided would be more difficult.
Win ratio? Activity? Total points in the previous system? Community consensus?(okay, probably not that one). I just don't know how you could start it off.

It's been implemented before for everyone on the PC Classic server:

1. Add the winner to the tail of the list if they're not already there.
2. Add the loser to the tail of the list if they're not already there.
3. Assuming there's nobody else in the ranking lists yet: N=2, R=2, S=1.5, 100*ln(S)=41 (rounded)
4. Update the winner's position in the list

If nobody else spars, they do round 2, and the previous loser wins: they get 109 points. If they do round 2 and the loser loses again: it's another 41 points for the winner, or 82 total. As long as neither player is dominant, they can flip positions all day long. The major problem would be elitism in selecting spar opponents. If neither player fights player 3, then player 3 will never be able to catch up to them. Perhaps number of opponents would be a good factor to throw in?

If there's an upper limit on the number of ranked players:

1. If there are qualification slots, add the winner to the tail of the list.
2. If there are still qualification slots, add the loser to the tail of the list.
1. R=N+(arbitrary) for wins against unranked players.
2. Update the winner's position in the list.