Ranking Reform

[Footpöp]

I didn't use sarcasm anywhere in my post, I'm sorry you feel that way.
As you said, if we just keep having the same discussion we will get no where, so I'd prefer to wait for trog or someone else to chime in on the matter so it doesn't seem like I'm just droning away on you.

[Nukleus]

I didn't see any sarcasm in Footpop's response KZ. He's not "filling in" for Trog, either. He was genuinely trying to help the discussion with valid points. You're being a little prejudice towards Footpop's posts. Sure the way he acted earlier was a little unorthodox, but he's trying to help.
Anyway you two, stop nipping at each other's heels and listen to each other's arguments. You're both putting in useful discussion.

[Killah Zillah]

I didn't use sarcasm anywhere in my post, I'm sorry you feel that way.
As you said, if we just keep having the same discussion we will get no where, so I'd prefer to wait for trog or someone else to chime in on the matter so it doesn't seem like I'm just droning away on you.

KZ, to take the words right out of your -uh- post, I don't blame you for missing a few things with all the piles of text being written.

It's the emphasized -uh- he used that gave it a very sarcastic tone. I swallowed Troggy's *facepalm* because that was the only time he got even a hint of frustration, and it was all my fault that he was frustrated since I wasn't understanding what he meant the first time.

Just watch how you word things, even if that wasn't sarcastic, right now I'm untrusting of you because you kept calling me a backseat moderator and kept telling me to shut up in the previous pages. Not that you're doing that now, it just looks like you're just being a tad sarcastic. I'm not taking it personally yet, nobody's going to get in trouble, nobody's offended just yet, I'm just saying to leave out your personal feelings towards me and keep it civil.

Secondly, if you want to keep debating me, by all means keep going! I debated with Trog for a straight six hours, you and I haven't even begun discussing the current topic yet. I love debate, I was raised on it with my daddy, picking subjects and debating our sides of it since I was 6, so please don't think that I'm in any way going to get tired of the act of debate any time soon! It's as fun to me as chess is, and chess is a long game if played right. If you simply don't want to at the moment, like if you want to do something else, that's fine, it's a late hour so that's perfectly respectable, but please don't quit on MY account!

[Footpöp]

KZ, that was just a literary device I used to quote you.  Basically it means something close to, "Like you said", I was just returning the "it's easy to get lost with all these pages" back to you because we have argued this before 

[Nukleus]

End of Offtopic discussion
-------------------

[Killah Zillah]

KZ, that was just a literary device I used to quote you.  Basically it means something close to, "Like you said", I was just returning the "it's easy to get lost with all these pages" back to you because we have argued this before 

End of Offtopic discussion
-------------------

I was about to say something about that, but I'll say it quickly in PM's. Once again, I'm not going to get tired of debate itself at any time, so please don't quit on my account (unless I'm starving after 6 hours and want something to eat/rest holy crap that was one of the longest debates I ever had x_x).

[Teekytots [PC:CWD]]

I broke the tie 

[Teekytots [PC:CWD]]

Wait, can we do the win ratio, but someone ranks the teams before hand so winning can be weighted.

This counteracts some clans beating some really shitty team just to be #1.

Okay, everyone use their power of imagination and and lets say there is 5 clans right now. So "Sneaky Clan" has fought "Shitty Clan" 2 times. But with my ranking system, Shitty Clan is ranked #5 from everyone. So we won't really give a shit until Sneaky team, ranked #3, beats #2 or #1.

So basically, you guys are giving me the power to rank people lolololol

[Nukleus]

Seeds? That could work. At the start of each season the forums could vote on the seeding order.

[trog]

Okay first let's make a distinction between points and scores. Scores decide who wins the match, and points are awarded based on whether a team won, lost or tied. Just because a match is decided on scores which are a number, does not mean that the game uses a points based ranking system.

I've explained this before but you didn't understand and mistook me for admitting the ladder system isn't popular. The ladder system works on the logic that if you beat a team you are better than them and your rank should instantly reflect that. This is the same logic behind elimination tournaments which are used in pretty much every tournament ever. If anyone has watched a tournament of the following (and many many more) they will have seen an elimination tournament and understand the ladder system: soccer, hockey, baseball, lacrosse, cricket, field hockey, tennis, badminton, football, rugby, chess, Team Fortress 2, GG2, Counter Strike, and any game covered by MLG (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, LoL, Brawl, Melee, Tekken, Gears of War, some Tom Clancy games). Seriously every tournament uses elimination at some point, so if you've watched any tournament ever you're familiar with the logic. Basically that list can be expanded to include any sport or game played in a tournament. I bolded some important games, most of them because you said they only use a points system which is quite obviously untrue.

Also Teeky that's basically making the win ratio system a complex ladder system. The only reason KZ has for the win ratio system is that it's simple and that removes that, and the only other argument I've seen that was understandable was that it showed stats, which any system can and will do. What reason is left for using win ratio??

[Madness9001]

30 voters
2 opitions
15 for both

WITCH SHOULD I CHOOSE

[RedBluYellow]

ladder
.

[Killah Zillah]

Okay first let's make a distinction between points and scores. Scores decide who wins the match, and points are awarded based on whether a team won, lost or tied. Just because a match is decided on scores which are a number, does not mean that the game uses a points based ranking system. Scores and points are the same thing, you can't have a score without numbers being counted, and the numbers are called points. Even if you want to split the tiniest hairs, the ladder system still has neither scores nor points, just randomly fluctuating ranks and nothing else.

I've explained this before but you didn't understand and mistook me for admitting the ladder system isn't popular. The ladder system works on the logic that if you beat a team you are better than them and your rank should instantly reflect that. (Not true, the team could have lost simply by one bit of lag at a crucial point, or one missed shot, or one moment of distraction. This doesn't automatically mean they're better, just that they lost) This is the same logic behind elimination tournaments which are used in pretty much every tournament ever. If anyone has watched a tournament of the following (and many many more) they will have seen an elimination tournament and understand the ladder system: soccer, hockey, baseball, lacrosse, cricket, field hockey, tennis, badminton, football, rugby, chess, Team Fortress 2, GG2, Counter Strike, and any game covered by MLG (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, LoL, Brawl, Melee, Tekken, Gears of War, some Tom Clancy games). Seriously every tournament uses elimination at some point, so if you've watched any tournament ever you're familiar with the logic. Basically that list can be expanded to include any sport or game played in a tournament. I bolded some important games, most of them because you said they only use a points system which is quite obviously untrue. Almost ALL the games you just listed use points in some way to judge who's best, and again, the ladder system has neither a score nor points to judge who wins. GG2 especially uses scores and points since every single game mode relies on numbers to determine leader, either by counting captured CP's or counting captured intels or counting how many people are still alive on the other team in Arena. The ladder system being proposed uses zero numbers of any sort, thus ALMOST every single game you listed is null (I can't speak for LoL and Tom Clancy games, but SSB count kills as points at the end of each multiplayer round to determine winner, as it always has).

Also Teeky that's basically making the win ratio system a complex ladder system. The only reason KZ has for the win ratio system is that it's simple and that removes that, and the only other argument I've seen that was understandable was that it showed stats, which any system can and will do. What reason is left for using win ratio?? Actually, I think there's potential to his suggestion! Consider that a team has been losing for a very long time, season after season they get a bad score, you could vote on if they get a higher rank or not. If the moderators are against this seeding idea, which I actually like as well, perhaps for the teams in DEAD LAST can get a sort of bonus to their victories, like a +5 for the one in the bottom, and a +2 for the second to last team above them? That's something the clans don't have to keep track of and the number can be smaller if they don't like it being that high, so they probably won't mind that one rule. It's just food for thought though, it has no bearing on our debate. The ladder system is a lot more rigid with how its rules work, the Win ratio system has more potential for tweaking it to make things fair. Again, not really bearing on our debate about which is the most beneficial to creating activity, but it's just food for thought. If the ladder system starts using numbers of any sort, it simply becomes an unbalanced version of the Win Ratio method.

[Teekytots [PC:CWD]]

Also Teeky that's basically making the win ratio system a complex ladder system.

No, if you choose who you fight all the time then it isn't? Listen, I know you want to have the ladder system, but not everyone should be forced to do that and twisting my words to fit around your epeen isn't going to work.

The only reason KZ has for the win ratio system is that it's simple and that removes that, and the only other argument I've seen that was understandable was that it showed stats, which any system can and will do. What reason is left for using win ratio??

You're just trolling now, so I will not talk to you.

HOW ABOUT THIS:
Don't have rankings, have the "best clan" title fought by the two undisputed top 2 teams. If not, just do a clan tourney, god you guys are all pussys lol

[Footpöp]

Okay first let's make a distinction between points and scores. Scores decide who wins the match, and points are awarded based on whether a team won, lost or tied. Just because a match is decided on scores which are a number, does not mean that the game uses a points based ranking system. Scores and points are the same thing, you can't have a score without numbers being counted, and the numbers are called points. Even if you want to split the tiniest hairs, the ladder system still has neither scores nor points, just randomly fluctuating ranks and nothing else.

I've explained this before but you didn't understand and mistook me for admitting the ladder system isn't popular. The ladder system works on the logic that if you beat a team you are better than them and your rank should instantly reflect that. (Not true, the team could have lost simply by one bit of lag at a crucial point, or one missed shot, or one moment of distraction. This doesn't automatically mean they're better, just that they lost) This is the same logic behind elimination tournaments which are used in pretty much every tournament ever. If anyone has watched a tournament of the following (and many many more) they will have seen an elimination tournament and understand the ladder system: soccer, hockey, baseball, lacrosse, cricket, field hockey, tennis, badminton, football, rugby, chess, Team Fortress 2, GG2, Counter Strike, and any game covered by MLG (Halo, Call of Duty, Starcraft, LoL, Brawl, Melee, Tekken, Gears of War, some Tom Clancy games). Seriously every tournament uses elimination at some point, so if you've watched any tournament ever you're familiar with the logic. Basically that list can be expanded to include any sport or game played in a tournament. I bolded some important games, most of them because you said they only use a points system which is quite obviously untrue. Almost ALL the games you just listed use points in some way to judge who's best, and again, the ladder system has neither a score nor points to judge who wins. GG2 especially uses scores and points since every single game mode relies on numbers to determine leader, either by counting captured CP's or counting captured intels or counting how many people are still alive on the other team in Arena. The ladder system being proposed uses zero numbers of any sort, thus ALMOST every single game you listed is null (I can't speak for LoL and Tom Clancy games, but SSB count kills as points at the end of each multiplayer round to determine winner, as it always has).

Also Teeky that's basically making the win ratio system a complex ladder system. The only reason KZ has for the win ratio system is that it's simple and that removes that, and the only other argument I've seen that was understandable was that it showed stats, which any system can and will do. What reason is left for using win ratio?? Actually, I think there's potential to his suggestion! Consider that a team has been losing for a very long time, season after season they get a bad score, you could vote on if they get a higher rank or not. If the moderators are against this seeding idea, which I actually like as well, perhaps for the teams in DEAD LAST can get a sort of bonus to their victories, like a +5 for the one in the bottom, and a +2 for the second to last team above them? That's something the clans don't have to keep track of and the number can be smaller if they don't like it being that high, so they probably won't mind that one rule. It's just food for thought though, it has no bearing on our debate. The ladder system is a lot more rigid with how its rules work, the Win ratio system has more potential for tweaking it to make things fair. Again, not really bearing on our debate about which is the most beneficial to creating activity, but it's just food for thought. If the ladder system starts using numbers of any sort, it simply becomes an unbalanced version of the Win Ratio method.

Scores and points are not the same thing, KZ.  Trog quite clearly outlined the differences.  Just because something has scores (ie, kills in gg2, amount of intels capped), does not mean it has points (+2 for winning, up ratio).  The ladder system takes into account who won via points to give them/not give them a rank. The ladder system uses points, as would the ratio system.  The ratio system wouldn't just magically take into account how many points each team had to account for their ratio, it would just be based on who won and who lost.  The ladder system is similar in that regard, but fairer because it actually compares clans on skill and not just on how many times they have won. 

In both systems, one moment of a "bit of lag at a crucial point, or one missed shot, or one moment of distraction" will make the losing team reflect that on the scoreboards, except in the ratio system it pads the score of whatever clan won and detracts from the losing clan.  In the ladder system, if a clan beat a better clan by a fluke, the better clan is then encouraged to rematch the clan to regain their spot, or fight an even higher ranked clan to be above the rest.  In the ratio system, they are just constantly encouraged to fight at their level or below, because challenging a "Grade A" clan and winning and a "Grade Z" clan have the exact same reward, whilst challenging the "Grade A" comes at a much more likely chance of losing and thus worsening the clan's ratio.

All systems use points to match teams up, but neither the ratio nor the ladder use them to rank each other.  Using the same argument twice won't exactly make it right  .  All tournaments use the ladder system because, while points are used to determine who won any individual game, the ladder system is actually used to rank the merit of winning said game.