Simple Remodel for Spar Leaderboards
 

I sent a forum PM to two of the scripters a while ago, but it was ignored. I'll post it here:

TL;DR: We need a new system to encourage activity and penalize players less (or not at all, as I suggest) for losing. The current leaderboard that we use works perfectly IMO, but the community is full of pansies who won't let it work properly and try their hardest to cheat as some way to prove they're the best.

I agree with this. I spar actively, you might have seen me around.

With the current leaderboards, anyone can get a high ranking on them, fairly easily. Right now my rating is about 7,200, but I could probably get close to 8,000 if I selective sparred. I like this idea, however I think that a sort of 'KDR' setup would be cool.

This is my take on it:
The spar leaderboard is divided into a day, week, and total section.
Every player has a ratio, however it is a exact decimal.

Basically the formula is Total spars, divided by spars won, = ratio.

Your idea is pretty cool too though. At this point, I would be happy with any type of change for the better.

As for the spar hats, I think they should be re-added. There should be a hat for 5,000 wins, 10,000 wins, and 20,000 wins. Also, ratio hats would be cool. For example, you must be 2-1 in order to get a certain hat. If you don't maintain the same or a higher ratio, the hat will be unwearable.

Also, there should only be one spar leaderboard PER IP.

I'm tired of seeing alt accounts with Top 25 spots.

I think that's a lot better than the current system we have, but I think it still rewards "abuse" like selectively sparring only very poor sparrers. With what I'm suggesting, you'd be getting less than a single point on the leaderboard for sparring anyone who is negative, so it's not extremely appealing.

I'm 10:1 right now, so beating me would get someone 10 points. It'd take them 20 spars against 1:2 noobs to get that many. I think people would much rather try their luck against beating the better player, which is really healthy and encouraging for the spar community overall.

I didn't play actively when the hats were around, but everyone claims that spar hats stopped because the admin who was (manually) giving them out quit? That's just stupid, I know that it can be done manually and it should be done manually.

Yes, that'd also be good. However, again, if the changes that I proposed were put into place then you'd only be hurting yourself by making alt accounts.

Basically, your most realistic chance at becoming #1 would require you to spar actively and on a single account and it would incentivize sparring against the players with the best ratio overall. There's really not any realistic and effective way to manipulate a leaderboard like that. I guess you could have some really stupid player with a high ratio pause against you numerous times, but that problem takes care of itself because they're gradually tanking their own ratio.

Thallen, if you hate to see alternate accounts. Suggest them to make us verify by phone and once the phone number is used, it can not be used again for another account.

The problem is not the alternate account. The problem is the idiot who makes the alternate account and then uses it so abuse the leaderboard system. Alternate accounts are fine.

Plus, this game is played by 8-year-old kids, and it's Graal. Phone verification is pretty much out of the question.

Now I see your idea.

A few questions about it though;

Now that I understand how the actual ratio is calculated, would it be a single section like how it is, or would it be divided into day/week/total?

If a player with a high ratio loses to a player with a low ration, would they lose the same points as if a player with a low ratio lost to the same person?
Ex: You lost to a 1-2 person and x points are taken off your score. Someone that is 5-1 loses to the same person, would the same points be taken off their score?

~I like this idea though

I think it'd just be best as a seasonal 3-month thing, like it is right now. The daily/weekly stuff works well for PKing and towers and should probably be kept there, because sparring is really different. I personally wouldn't feel encouraged to top a leaderboard that only lasts a day or a week.

If we're not going to do spar hats and we're going to completely neglect singles sparring, then why not offer a seasonal hat prize to the winner of each sparring season? I guarantee if spar hats or if a hat prize for a sparring season that promotes activity was announced, the Battle Arena would probably double in size. People are just so bored with how plain it is.

No. One of the core elements of the idea is that you don't lose points, ever. You only have the potential to gain them. I think the main issue with the leaderboard structure as of today is the fact that you can get up to a high enough amount of points, and then it's like, "Well, I can win 20 spars and then lose 1 and only gain 5 points. Is it even worth the risk to keep sparring?"

If you structure it so that there is absolutely no potential to lose points in any circumstance, it has to encourage active sparring. The consequence to just brainlessly queuing 24/7 and losing a lot is that your spar record in your profile will be awful, and no one wants that. There's still incentive to not lose. When you lose, you're ruining your personal spar record and gaining 0 points for the effort.

I support this.

I very much like the idea of this spar leadership reform especially have it on a seasonal basis to show who's a good/great sparer over a considerable amount of time. However my only problem is that I believe that however small it maybe there has to be a punishment for losing a spar this would be worked out by taking away the equivalent in points to whatever ratio you have. So for example I have roughly a 3:1 ratio therefore for losing a spar I would lose 3 spar points, its really not much. For those that have negative ratio there would be no punishment for losing so not to discourage or put them of from sparring and to encourage them to continue sparring to improve their ability.

As for the sparring hats I'm really not a huge fan of them as I can see them being easily abused by boosters or selective sparrers that in no way deserve them nor do I wish to have the sparring community turn into a bunch of hat chasing buffoons. I recall you being very close to the 9000 points landmark so if sparring hats were to be introduced I believe they should be for such a feat as with the current system I believe this is extremely difficult to achieve which I don't believe anyone could discredit the ability of the person who achieves this, as well as being near impossible for boosters to get to such a point. Of course this 9000 point landmark should be adapted to the new system you've proposed which after one season of implementing you'll get a rough idea of what the landmark should be.

I look at that and agree that it would shape the leaderboard so that it was more true to showing who the "best" sparrer is, but I think it would have the same exact problems that the current leaderboard shows. People will camp and otherwise find ways to abuse it, and then the people who play the board legitimately will struggle to reach the number of points that the abusers are at, and they'll just camp. The sparring community is not confident enough and too afraid of risk. I think it'd work out if it was used properly, but I can see it being abused. It'd basically be impossible to camp at the #1 position in the way I propose, unless you're someone who goes into no-life mode for the first 2 months and you're something like 10,000 points ahead of everyone else.

Wasting the time in a lost spar to gain 0 points and adding a loss to your stats permanently is a pretty considerable punishment.

"Hat chasing" is an idea that doesn't personally bother me, but boosting and stuff like that does. Rather than spar hats for win milestones, I would much prefer if the seasonal leaderboard "winner" was awarded some prize. It'd only be four prizes every year. Towerers (essentially PKers) are awarded way, way more than that amount per year when you consider how many guild reach 1K hours.

Not to mention, I'm not seeing any progression towards a singles tournament. If staff would actual restructure the leaderboard in a way that would make it extremely competitive and impossible to game and manipulate, I'd be satisfied with the leaderboard itself being a substitute for a seasonal tournament.

I feel this may increase the alternate account issue, only for a few players though. Let's say someone gets like, 4-0 on an alternate, if they lost they're first spar, it would be only a loss of 3 points or so? So, if there account sucks hard, and they hop on an alternate account they could in theory lose less points per spar loss in contrast to their main account. Thus increasing the alternate account issue. Of corse, I'm probably just talking out my ass out of a lack of understanding, but i think thats how it would probably go. Though it would take more time for them to climb the leaderboards which is always a good thing, :P

There's no way to lose points with the way I'm suggesting. If you lose a spar, you gain and lose nothing. The risk involved is in giving yourself a terrible ratio and wasting your own time. Creating an alternate account would effectively be a waste of time, because the only chance you'd have at being #1 would be if you play very actively on a single account and win the majority of your spars.

I'm about 99% sure there's no way to game or manipulate the leaderboard in the way that I'm suggesting. The only drawback is that you can argue that it doesn't prove who is the "best" sparrer, but instead weights more on who spars the most actively.

I likey

I really would like to see how this works. It sounds like it'll run smoothly, and effectively gets rid of the alternate account annoyance in the spar community. Really highlights the whole season instead of the past few days.

Just so you guys can kinda visualize what the points would be like:

So their positioning on a 4-man leaderboard would be:

1. Player D (2500/60%/2:1) 3000
2. Player C (2800/40%/2.5:1) 2800
3. Player A (3000/45%/2:1) 2700
4. Player B (2600/52%/1:1) 1352

So, just a few random points to help you understand why this leaderboard style is kind of cool:

• Player D managed to come in first place mainly because of their high win percentage. They sparred the least number of times, but won against an average 2:1 ratio significantly more than the rest of the field.
• Player C came in second place with only a 40% win rate. This is because Player C sparred a high number of times, 2800, against players who are better (on average) than the rest of the field. This proves that even "bad" sparrers have a decent chance at placing high as long as they are brave enough to spar good sparrers and remain active.
• Player A sparred 200 more times than Player C and has a higher win percentage, but still placed below them. This is because they sparred players with a worse overall ratio when compared to Player C.
• Player B came in last. They sparred more times than Player D, who came in first. Their win percentage is also higher than Player C and Player A. However, Player B only sparred against players with an average 1:1 ratio, which are (at best) players who are half as good as who the three other players were sparring against. This is an example of selective sparring (and bad sparring) not being rewarded. If this guy continued sparring the same players and maintained this same win percentage, he'd have to spar nearly 5800 times to reach first place. If he can do that, he deserves it (IMO at least).

If I was to look at those numbers, without any knowledge of what their "points" would be, I'd personally say that Player D is the best sparrer in that group. And that's good, because with the points in consideration, he'd place first.

There's a lot of possibilities for who could win out the season. It could be someone who just spars an insane number of times. It could be someone who has a poor win percentage but consistently spars the best sparrers. It could be a sparrer with a very high win percentage who spars less than most. In any situation, I feel like this system would award a first-place win to the person who probably deserves it. I wouldn't be mad if any of those types of people won.