Agreeeeeeeed !!  

Just quoting this so people can see it at the top of the page:

Posted by Thallen

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

PHP Code:

Player A can spar 3000 times in a season, with a 45% win rate, against an average opponent ratio of 2:1 and end the season with 2700 points.

Player B can spar 2600 times in a season, with a 52% win rate, against an average opponent ratio of 1:1 and end the season with 1352 points.

Player C can spar 2800 times in a season, with a 40% win rate, against an average opponent ratio of 2.5:1 and end the season with 2800 points.

Player D can spar 2500 times in a season, with a 60% win rate, against an average opponent ratio of 2:1 and end the season with 3000 points. 


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.

 

bump, don't let this die without being given a thought.  

So if someone won against someone with 4-0 ratio, assuming they wouldn't get infinite points based off the ratio. Would 4-0 equal 4-1 point-wise?  

Posted by Hampton

So if someone won against someone with 4-0 ratio, assuming they wouldn't get infinite points based off the ratio. Would 4-0 equal 4-1 point-wise?

Either just count any 0-loss players as having 1 loss, or award some flat point value like 1 for someone with 0 losses so that it can't be abused in some way.

I'm still convinced this would be a whole lot better than the system we use right now.  

Agreed. Also like the seasonal rewards. Not too often, not abusable. What would some ideas for rewards be?  

Posted by Hampton

Agreed. Also like the seasonal rewards. Not too often, not abusable. What would some ideas for rewards be?

Doesn't even matter to me honestly, seeing people spar more actively would be rewarding enough.

Bump because "sparring is dead" (as quoted by inactive sparrers).  

Bump.

This needs to be implemented.  

Dusty pls  

newrating = ratinggain*(300/averagepingduringspar);

AMIRIGHT!?!?

edit: didn't see the post above before I posted, so to be a bit more serious... this sort of thing isn't really the kind of scripting I do. I could most likely achieve it, but it would be tedious for me to do, and would probably be buggy. Systematic sort of stuff just isn't my strongsuit, gameplay design/scripting is more my thing. Also I don't really make decisions like this.  

Posted by Dusty

newrating = ratinggain*(300/averagepingduringspar);

ya
or just ban every single player who doesn't live in the US
seems fair enough

give Ruxxter NC access for 2 days and he'll have it done
easy  

I can't believe I haven't read this yet. I still think the Win/Loss ratio is a better alternative. People have to work to maintain a high record and boosting would take a ridiculous amount of time to reach the top person and they would be caught before they even got close. The point system I've never liked. I just think it's too flawed and as you said, people can be lazy once they reach the top person on the list.  

Posted by Tyler

I can't believe I haven't read this yet. I still think the Win/Loss ratio is a better alternative. People have to work to maintain a high record and boosting would take a ridiculous amount of time to reach the top person and they would be caught before they even got close. The point system I've never liked. I just think it's too flawed and as you said, people can be lazy once they reach the top person on the list.

You have to understand this points system a little better and then I don't think you'd say that.

Wins leaderboard:

• You can selectively spar bad sparrers for free wins with absolutely 0 risk
• Being #1 is more dependent on how often you spar vs. how well you spar

This leaderboard:

• You earn less of a reward for sparring a bad player than you do for sparring a good player
• Being #1 is dependent on both being active, sparring against good sparrers, and how well you spar

There's absolutely no way to "boost" to #1 with this leaderboard system. The only thing you can do is no-life it and spar 24/7, and even then you still aren't guaranteed to reach the #1 spot because you need a high wins ratio and you need to be winning against players with positive ratios to really earn more points.

Assume you make a new account and pause-boost on it using some alternative internet connection. For the first win, you'll get 1 point. For the second, you'll get 0.5. Then 0.33. Then 0.25. Then 0.13. Then 0.6. So you've essentially earned 2 points for boosting 6 spars, whereas with a wins leaderboard you'd have been given 6 wins.

If I beat a 1:5 noob 100 times in a row on a wins leaderboard, I get 100 points (considering wins are then just another substitute for points).
If I beat a 1:5 noob 100 times in a row on this leaderboard, I get 20 points. You are rewarded less for getting easy wins, but you still don't risk anything (so it promotes activity).  

Let me just bump this real quick as it's now more obvious than ever that the current leaderboards can be exploited to the point of pure uselessness!  

Thallen Is A Genius.
It Is Sad Still That Dusty Can't Do It :/
But If It Get To Be Implant I Won't Participate If There Is A Seasonal Reward.
If There Are Rewards For Winning A Number Of Spar Vs Random People, Then I'm In.
Because Seasonal Rewards=Happy Wars=100 Person Getting Rewards All The Time Because They Don't Have A Life And Plays Graal Almost 24/7, Glitch & Hack Or Any Of Those Ways.

Posted by Thallen

ya
or just ban every single player who doesn't live in the US
seems fair enough

Ok I Take Back What I Said Thallen Isn't A Genius.
Still Since Canada Is Just Next To Us And One Of The State Of The US Is Like Surrounded By The Canada I'd Say Let The Canadian Play Too.
So Well From My Opinion, Rewards Should Be For Winning Spar With A Random Person.
In A System Working Like This:
First Of All You Select The Country You Are In(Will Make Sense at #7)
You Won't Be Able To Select Another One Without A Good Reason And You Will Get A Penalty If You Change.
1.You Get In A Room And You Select What Time You Can Spar.
2.It Will Look How Much Points And Wins You Already Have And Try To Match Someone Who Fits With Them. Something Like Points Divided By Number Of Wins + Number Of Lost Divided By Number Of Wins(Example:2 Wins, 5 Losts And 30 Points Would Give You A Rank Equal To 17.5 So The Others Would Have To Have 17 to 18 To Be Able To Spar With That Person)
3.If No One Match It Will Ask You If You Want To Spar With Someone With An Higher Rank Which Would Make You Get More Points If You Win Or Spar Someone With A Lower Rank Which Would Make You Get Less Points If You Win.
4.The Match Should Be First Approved By An Admin Who Would Be Able To Cancel It But With A Reason Or Accept It. So There Isn't Any Fake Accounts Of 1 Hours Who Gets To Spar Someone With 100 Hours.
5.In The Case Of People Lagging, None Gets Any Points From The Match. But You Need A Proof So I'd Say That Maybe:
(A)-An Admin Watch The Match (Not Really A Great Idea Still It's One Of The Most Secure One)
(B)-Random People Could Watch The Match And Be A Proof.
(C)-They Bring A Friend With Them Who Would Watch The Match.
6.For Seasonal Rewards, It Shouldn't Count On How Many Wins/Points You Get.
It Should Count On How Many Spar Did You Do, If The Spars Were Fair Or Not, If The Spars Followed The Rules (Like Giving Penalty To The Ones Boosting Or Lagging) And That Kind Of Things.
7.If There Is A Seasonal Reward I Think It Would Be More Fair If The Rewards Were Given By Country But They Would Have To Be The Same.
Because It Would Let More People Get Rewards So It's Not Always The Same Persons That Get Them.
8.Maybe Make It A 3 Rounds Spar And The Ones That Wins 2 Out Of 3 Wins.