Ranking Reform

[CrazNoDale]

I honestly can't decide, I still like the traditional way that you made up better.

[RedBluYellow]

http://pastebin.com/QTqkVGCg
result of talking with wareya and kz, they were both in favor in the end

pasting either way:
Ladder system: At the beginning of the ladder, all clans get placed like this
Clan 1
Clan 2
Clan 3
Clan 4
Clan 5
 and then in a randomized order with a web service, example:

Clan 5
Clan 2
Clan 3
Clan 1
Clan 4

Currently, clan 5 is winning as it is at the top of the ladder. Clan 4 is losing. In order to gain Clan 5's position, a clan has to challenge them. Let's say clan 3 challenges them and wins. This is what happens:

Clan 3
Clan 5
Clan 2
Clan 1
Clan 4

Ladder matches are free to everyone and no rosters are required for them, go nuts.

Official tournament: A single(?) elimination tournament in which rosters for each clan are required. You can only be in 1 roster. The clan that wins this tournament is automatically placed number 1, regardless of position. As soon as the tourney ends, a new one will be started.


It's what we think would be best.
[19:03] <Killah_Zillah> That's a neat idea, RBY!
[19:04] <Killah_Zillah> A tournament that both advertises the new system, while also finding a place for the roster system that people won't be able to complain about!

[Killah Zillah]

Okay so rankings based on wins wins. Now to decided on an actual system. So far 2 have been suggested, please suggest more if you have any.
Cons:

• Reward is not scaled with the skill level of opponents. Getting 50% wins off of bad teams ranks you just as high as getting 50% wins of the top teams, and allows power leveling.
• Lack of activity bias combined with no scaling with opponents means new clans can get 100% by winning their first match.
• After large amounts of matches it becomes difficult to alter your percent, eventually creating stale rankings where there is barely any movement.
• Punishes losing, which may discourage taking on team who are better than you.
• Trying to solve any of these removes the simpleness of the system which is half the reason why it would be chosen.

1. Really, who's going to go through all that trouble for a number? I doubt that there's any clan leader who would drag their team through fight after intentionally boring unchallenging fight for some points.
2. I already proposed the "10 ranked matches before you qualify for leading positions" idea, but you didn't reply to it..
3. Maybe a yearly purging of points? Also, RBY suggested a grand yearly tournament that would allow people to automatically get the #1 spot if they win, reguardless of points (at least until they lose to someone, but it's nice to be in the spotlight for a time..!)
4. Don't we play in clans so we don't have to deal with unchallenging and boringly predictable pubbies? We aren't talking about normal uncommited people here, we're talking about clanners who enjoy fighting other clanners! That wouldn't really be an issue, don't you think?
5. Adding a SMALL rule here or there wouldn't be too big, that's why we're discussing this method right now.

The name of the game right now is to encourage new players. Making it as simple to get into is the point, people like what's familiar. Therefor, even if it's the superior method of choosing who's best (I disagree, but that's irrelevant), it's still a very alien method that many newcomers just wouldn't bother with for its newness. As much as I hate to say it like this, making it more... *gulp..* mainstream would be very beneficial in bringing in fresh new faces who aren't tired of GG2 yet.

[RedBluYellow]

Not yearly tournament, just one that is held as often and fast as possible

[Killah Zillah]

Not yearly tournament, just one that is held as often and fast as possible

A trii-monthly tournament? You've gotta allow all the clans to get ready for it and have room warring days, as well as normal ranked matches, of course!

[RedBluYellow]

I think one tourney every 4 months should be doable

[Killah Zillah]

I think one tourney every 4 months should be doable

That'll do! A summer solstice tourney, and winter solstice tourney, both taking place during the seasonal school break times. I could really see this doing some good!

[Intel Guard]

If we're gonna do that, make it a first come, first serve, limited spot tourney so the teams that actually care can join up and be more likely to complete the damn thing.

[Killah Zillah]

If we're gonna do that, make it a first come, first serve, limited spot tourney so the teams that actually care can join up and be more likely to complete the damn thing.

Or you could PM the leaders of the clans and ask them ahead of time if they have any intention of playing AND completing it. Same effect without limiting anything.

[trog]

stuff

so basically the current system without points?

sounds good

[trog]

Okay so rankings based on wins wins. Now to decided on an actual system. So far 2 have been suggested, please suggest more if you have any.
Cons:

• Reward is not scaled with the skill level of opponents. Getting 50% wins off of bad teams ranks you just as high as getting 50% wins of the top teams, and allows power leveling.
• Lack of activity bias combined with no scaling with opponents means new clans can get 100% by winning their first match.
• After large amounts of matches it becomes difficult to alter your percent, eventually creating stale rankings where there is barely any movement.
• Punishes losing, which may discourage taking on team who are better than you.
• Trying to solve any of these removes the simpleness of the system which is half the reason why it would be chosen.

1. Really, who's going to go through all that trouble for a number? I doubt that there's any clan leader who would drag their team through fight after intentionally boring unchallenging fight for some points.
2. I already proposed the "10 ranked matches before you qualify for leading positions" idea, but you didn't reply to it..
3. Maybe a yearly purging of points? Also, RBY suggested a grand yearly tournament that would allow people to automatically get the #1 spot if they win, reguardless of points (at least until they lose to someone, but it's nice to be in the spotlight for a time..!)
4. Don't we play in clans so we don't have to deal with unchallenging and boringly predictable pubbies? We aren't talking about normal uncommited people here, we're talking about clanners who enjoy fighting other clanners! That wouldn't really be an issue, don't you think?
5. Adding a SMALL rule here or there wouldn't be too big, that's why we're discussing this method right now.

The name of the game right now is to encourage new players. Making it as simple to get into is the point, people like what's familiar. Therefor, even if it's the superior method of choosing who's best (I disagree, but that's irrelevant), it's still a very alien method that many newcomers just wouldn't bother with for its newness. As much as I hate to say it like this, making it more... *gulp..* mainstream would be very beneficial in bringing in fresh new faces who aren't tired of GG2 yet.

1. It doesn't have to be a boring fight. If a bad team fights teams that are as bad as they are they'll have the same rank as a good team fighting teams that are equally good. None of teams are purposely trying to exploit the system, they're just fighting clans of equal skill level.
2. That's what I was talking about with point 5.
3. A year is a long time though, and if we're constantly resetting the rankings it might as well be a tournament type thing instead.
4. That's why I say it might discourage it. If rankings are so important now that it stopped people from playing, would it be important enough to stop people from challenging much better clans? I dunno.
5. I guess, but small rules here and there start to add up. Having small little rules every where feels like bandaid solutions instead of fixing the big problem.

Ladder tournies aren't alien, they're quite common in many sports/games. It's also not a very difficult concept to grasp; you proved you're better than a team by beating them, so you deserve their rank.

[Killah Zillah]

Ladder tournies aren't alien, they're quite common in many sports/games. It's also not a very difficult concept to grasp; you proved you're better than a team by beating them, so you deserve their rank.

I've never heard of ladder system being used in the very very long term, and I've NEVER heard of it used in any shooter games. Heck, I'd never heard of it at all until today. Have you? Can you list some examples of popular video games that used that type of scoring system without any numbers involved?

• 1. A boring fight as in an unchallenging one. Again, can you name any clans that have ever done that for any reason at all? Why would they, it's a pain in the ass to set up matches, why would the intentionally seek out people outside their skill range just for a measley point? And besides, clans are made up of multiple skill ranges. Sure, some have more skilled players than others, but it's unrealistic to assume that TSA, SOS, NI and PHS (the only four clans with enough skilled players for this to apply) are going to go out of their way to this great extent just to pick on newbies for points.
• 2. It's one more rule, and all the clan has to actively pay attention to with this system is two rules (play often, win often), both of which are the same core rules that're in the other system, the difference is that this system we made also giving the players something tangible to look at and admire for their hard work other than a mere shifting of levels. Then again.... Maybe the mere act of resetting ranks at each solstice tourney would be enough on its own? What do you think of that?
• 3. How about we reset the scores every solstice tourney? That actually makes more sense than my version, now that I think about it, since it shakes things up more and gives new or underperforming clans a fair chance again without having to wait a whole year. Still, I'm worried that doing that twice a year would get aggrivating for clans and make the whole thing less appealing, but this is at least worth experimenting with.
• 4. This is something RBY brought up. The ranking system ITSELF wasn't killing the clans section, it was the lack of context for random skirmishes. The ranking system is just a part of a greater problem, the one of apathy. You can only have so many pointless wars before the act of warring just seems like a waste of time. Without a goal to look forward to, without any REASON to war other than for the war itself, it'll lose its appeal over time and seem like less of a reason to set aside time on your valuable weekend to do it. That's why so many players went to other games or didn't bother showing up for their wars, they grew tired of the same old thing. Nobody but two clans used the old system because it was far too alien for them to enjoy, and as such, didn't seem worth it to bother working around. Take PHS for example, we wanted to be ranked because we're a serious clan, but we didn't want to deal with the current system (rosters and so forth) so we would end up puting it off. Without a ranking system, matches will eventually seem hollow and not worth the week of preperation that usually comes with it. Warring without ranks is like a PUG that takes a week to set up and only has 8 players.
• 5. As long as the rule doesn't directly influence anything the clan itself does, then they won't mind. Most of the things I explained in the FAQ thing were obvious things that only the most newbie of newbies wouldn't immediately assume off the bat, and the concepts within are so simple that they'd put up with it. All it basically says is that you can only war with other ranked clans for it to count, and consider how many ranked clans would come up now that rosters aren't hindering it, or clan limits!

[Footpöp]

The only way a pure win ratio system would work is if new clans didn't get placed in the "real" ladder until they've accumulated 3 or so matches and if the ranks take into account how many matches go into making that ratio, so that if a tie is made a clan with more matches should be ontop.  It's not really a display of skill because baby clans can fight each other like five times in a row as some have and pad their rank without having any real tests of skill to back it up.  The second system is much better.  Each team, below their rank and image, should have some quick statistics to make it neato, including win/lose ratio, etc etc.

[Killah Zillah]

The only way a pure win ratio system would work is if new clans didn't get placed in the "real" ladder until they've accumulated 3 or so matches and if the ranks take into account how many matches go into making that ratio, so that if a tie is made a clan with more matches should be ontop.  It's not really a display of skill because baby clans can fight each other like five times in a row as some have and pad their rank without having any real tests of skill to back it up.  The second system is much better.  Each team, below their rank and image, should have some quick statistics to make it neato, including win/lose ratio, etc etc.

Me and Trog's method is more of a DISPLAY of skill than the other method, which just showed you moving up without anything else for clans to look at. Without giving those statistics you mentioned any meaning, they'll be pointless to have and pointless to keep track of, mere padding as you said. And again again (I'm beginning to hate repeating myself) AGAIN, it's unrealistic to assume that clans will only fight only one type of clan or another because every clan has weak AND strong links in their members list and it's so much of a pain to schedule and show up for wars that no clan leader will put their clan though that to "grind" points. It's not an MMO here you can just wander into a forest at any time and bop a rabbit with your +100 Sword of Smiting, it's a ranking system that's put into use at MOST once a week. And again.. again.... AAAGAIN.. I've never heard of this ladder system being used in ANY popular game. It's far more alien than the other method, and the point here is to bring in new members.

There's the score reset each tournament and prizes to entice players, something the ladder system wouldn't have. If we go with the ladder option, the tournament is made as pointless as it was before the reform, since no prizes would be offered. Being at the top of the list would be the main prize of RBY's proposed solstice tournament, but with the top of the list being so NEBULOUS and open to random fluctuation at absolutely any time, it would mean that it's far less of a reward to bother showing up to compete for when they could get the same thing QUICKER AND EASIER by just warring at random whenever they feel like. Tournaments would be just as pointless as they are now, and the point here is to (A-BLOODY-GAIN) entice new players to come join the clans section.

[Footpöp]

Neither method is simpler than the other to the point that you should base your whole argument on that.
if anything, the infinite ladder is the easiest because you are just moving the clans around like shapes in preschool while the ratio actually takes math and knowledge of numbers.

It may be unfair to assume that some clans will rig matches to gain a decent ratio, but it is very accurate to say some clans have a tendency to have rivalries and fight many many many times against each other without really testing the waters outside.


Ladder systems get used everywhere in life and very often in sports and it translates easy into any sort of competition


Prizes can be given regardless of what type of system


When clans go inactive or dead, they should be grayed out, or anything else to show they are not current like a slash, and a new slot should be added for the rank that they held, ie
Multiple dead/inactive clans holding same "dead" spot should be on a first come first serve basis

#1 DMG
#1 INS
#1 NI
#2 ONE

or

#1 DMG
#1 INS, NI, KKK, etc etc
#2 ONE

ediitttt
Or to prevent clutter, inactive clans can be moved to a historical spoiler at the bottom of the thread
Clans shouldn't be outright removed from the list nor should they be allowed to stay at a "real" #1 indefinitely by means of declining wars, but inactivity/activity points are counter intuitive.  If a clan revives, they should be put back in their spot and both the current clan with the spot and the revived clan can share the spot until one of them bests the other or one of them loses.  If one clan sharing a rank loses to another clan with a lesser rank, the incoming clan should be placed above the newly revived clan but below the current rank holder.