Ranking Reform

[Footpöp]

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.

No it doesn't, it just chooses whoever won the match and moves them up, that's all. It doesn't count anything at any time, there is no score. Here's the textbook definition of "Score":

noun
1.
the record of points or strokes made by the competitors in a game or match.
2.
the total points or strokes made by one side, individual, play, game, etc.
3.
an act or instance of making or earning a point or points.
4.
Education, Psychology . the performance of an individual or sometimes of a group on an examination or test, expressed by a number, letter, or other symbol.

You don't like that I use anything even remotely unprovable, now there's a flat out FACT, copypasted from Webster's dictionary! Now that hairsplitting's out of the way and we can say that Ladder system does not determine rank via counting things, we can conclude that it does not use a score system of ANY sort, and as such is more alien of a system than the Win method which uses a score system. Whether or not this fact will gain or lose activity is what we're debating right now.

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. It doesn't detract anything from the losing clan, it doesn't detract anything from one clan at any time. It counts matches and victories, then makes a percentage between them to make things fair. That's all, easy peasy.

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. We already agreed that we can't judge what the clans will do with either system. TSA, PHS, NI etc. are proof that some clans will fight anyone who challenges them, while others will refuse for whatever reason. You can't judge who will do what with either system. You can't say they'll me more or less motivated to do anything at all, saying one will do such-and-such cannot be proven. That's why we stopped making conjecture about who'll do what and agreed to move back to the origins of what we set out to do: Increase activity.

All systems use points to match teams up, but neither the ratio nor the ladder use them to rank each other. 

Win Ratio: Rack up points by winning matches and warring often, move up in rank.

Ladder: Win, move up in rank. Don't play constantly, lose rank.

We can stop discussing this, we've exhausted all that can be discussed about what either one does and it's not getting either party anywhere. I'll admit that, even though I've proven it doesn't use points or scores, that fact has done nothing for either discussion other than prove that it's less popular of a method than using scores. lets move on now.

KZ, I feel disrespected by your constant denial of arguments presented to you. Both systems use points because that is the way GG2 works, if you keep arguing it doesn't after Trog and I have told you that you are wrong in multiple occasions already it will just show how unwilling to even listen to other's arguments.  You are twisting the definitions of words to try to make your system better and the other worse without a clear understanding of either, and it shows.  You have not proven anything because you are wrong.
 "that fact has done nothing for either discussion other than prove that it's less popular of a method than using scores." 
The only reason you are advocating the ratio system is because you think it is more familiar. It isn't, and it isn't more popular.  The ladder system is by far the more familiar and common system, as Trog pointed out with his list, don't try to pass this off as a victory for yourself when all you have shown is your inability and unwillingness to listen to our arguments.  If you'd like me to point out point for point why you are wrong, I will, but Trog and I have already done so multiple times and you've just ignored them on basis that they don't agree with your opinions. 


The ratio system doesn't encourage activity; winning one match against the weakest clan gives the same rank as truly being "the best" and besting every other clan out there.  The ratio system punishes "improving" clans because their score will be hounded by their previous defeats until the slate is cleaned.  The ladder system encourages activity and practice because it accurately ranks clan's skill levels in accordance to each other.  Once they stop being active/retire, they can continue to have a "historical" rank, but no one can keep a high rank without warring like they can in the ratio system.  The ladder system rewards and therefore encourages clans that challenge clans higher than their own perceived skill level by giving them a higher rank if they win.  This creates more activity.  It is good.  The ratio system isn't.  You are wrong and I am right.

[Waterfall]

Why is it that you're able to speak as the figurehead of the general public? I think his system is pretty refreshing and sensible, though I disagree with the bit about adjusting the stakes. Makes it seem like poker.

[Killah Zillah]

Why is it that you're able to speak as the figurehead of the general public? I think his system is pretty refreshing and sensible, though I disagree with the bit about adjusting the stakes. Makes it seem like poker.

Math isn't fun for the vast vast majority of human beings, that's a provable scientific fact. The human brain has a very hard time processing mathematics, I could link to the articles and studies that prove this. It'll scare off new players, that much is absolutely certain, and I have no idea how this would entice people who're sick of GG2 to come back to it. Maybe this is fun for you, maybe you love math, but there's just no way I can see this being fun for the general public. THIS DOESN'T MEAN I THINK I'M RIGHT, JUST THAT I DON'T SEE HOW THIS WOULD WORK AS A MEANS OF MAKING PEOPLE SICK OF GG2 COME BACK. So again, the question is how does yours generate new activity?

I hope you see this part before you post:

You say this will make things more strategic, but you're forgetting that most people are tired of GG2, this is the inherant flaw of the ladder system. How does it generate new activity? How does making a new ranking system encourage people who're ALREADY sick of GG2 pick the game back up? My system ignores the people who're already here (who're already sick of GG2) in favor of picking up new players through a system they're familiar with. People like familiarity, they like what they can jump right into without needing a rule book, something they can just look at and understand right away. Mine satisfies this criteria, making it far more open without the person needing to scroll down to read the rule book in order to understand what's going on without getting confused.

As for you Footpop, if the facts written in a dictionary can't prove what the meaning of "score" and "points" is to you, then there's no hope. I give up. If you'll quarrel with a book, then there's no way I'll ever convice you of a single word I'll ever say. I could paste direct links to all the articles in the internet, I could call experts from around the world, I could debate any subject until I'm blue in the face with you with bruised knuckles, and you would still think that scores don't use points, and points aren't a list of things being counted. You ask me to start using actual facts, so I give you a provable written FACT, such as what you wanted. You throw that back in my face like mashed apple and call me dismissive, the word I used to describe you previously. I can't keep talking to you anymore.

I'm not trying to be dismissive, if my word isn't enough, I'll gladly go get the articles you want to prove that that level of math is too complicated for the average person to have fun with. I'm not saying this ISN'T fun, or that a lot of people WOULD'NT enjoy it, that's why your poker analogy works and I can't argue it. The only thing I can argue is that poker isn't as enjoyable as say.. baseball is, something with very basic math. I'm not an expert on human behavior, but I don't make a claim without having SOMETHING provable to back it up, and after 26 years on this planet, I'd like to think that I can get a pretty good grasp on trends! That last part was a joke. If you still think I'm being irrational and dismissive, I'll stop talking about BW's idea altogether. I don't want to upset anyone or start a flamewar, that's not what I'm here for. I'm here to give an opposing viewpoint, something to give a different perspective. A one sided, one perspective debate is hardly a debate at all.

[Teekytots [PC:CWD]]

KZ, I feel disrespected by your constant denial of arguments presented to you. Both systems use points because that is the way GG2 works, if you keep arguing it doesn't after Trog and I have told you that you are wrong in multiple occasions already it will just show how unwilling to even listen to other's arguments.  You are twisting the definitions of words to try to make your system better and the other worse without a clear understanding of either, and it shows.  You have not proven anything because you are wrong.
 "that fact has done nothing for either discussion other than prove that it's less popular of a method than using scores." 
The only reason you are advocating the ratio system is because you think it is more familiar. It isn't, and it isn't more popular.  The ladder system is by far the more familiar and common system, as Trog pointed out with his list, don't try to pass this off as a victory for yourself when all you have shown is your inability and unwillingness to listen to our arguments.  If you'd like me to point out point for point why you are wrong, I will, but Trog and I have already done so multiple times and you've just ignored them on basis that they don't agree with your opinions. 


The ratio system doesn't encourage activity; winning one match against the weakest clan gives the same rank as truly being "the best" and besting every other clan out there.  The ratio system punishes "improving" clans because their score will be hounded by their previous defeats until the slate is cleaned.  The ladder system encourages activity and practice because it accurately ranks clan's skill levels in accordance to each other.  Once they stop being active/retire, they can continue to have a "historical" rank, but no one can keep a high rank without warring like they can in the ratio system.  The ladder system rewards and therefore encourages clans that challenge clans higher than their own perceived skill level by giving them a higher rank if they win.  This creates more activity.  It is good.  The ratio system isn't.  You are wrong and I am right.

No shit sherlock. I'd rather beat 5 good clans, than 1 good clan and 20 other shitty clans.

If a clan just plays one game, I will be guaranteeing, you will look at that ratio and record and say, "You aren't the best clan, you only played one goddamn game. Try later."

And ahoy! There's something called strength of schedule. I'd want to see a team that won against very good clans (based on players and record) 75% of the time versus someone who has a 90% winning percentage against mediocre and bad teams.

And if you look at ratio (which shows your winning percentage), the strength of schedule (won 50 games against a shitty clan and lost 4 games to really good ones hurp derp), and how many games you played (50 compared to 10), then I guarantee we can find the best clan in the forums.

[Smokey Joe]

I don't want to be mean, I really don't, but I stated what good my system would do about 12 times in this thread, 3 on this very page. You must understand, I've been repeating myself so much that frankly, I'm... just.. tired of it! You didn't answer what yours would do to make people who're already tired of GG2 want to play again, nor did you explain how yours would bring in new members, you simply stated that it's simple to you. I can't even BEGIN to wrap my head around this system, it's far far too..... MATHY. Math isn't fun for the vast vast majority of human beings, that's a provable scientific fact. The human brain has a very hard time processing mathematics, I could link to the articles and studies that prove this. It'll scare off new players, that much is absolutely certain, and I have no idea how this would entice people who're sick of GG2 to come back to it. Maybe this is fun for you, maybe you love math, but there's just no way I can see this being fun for the general public. So again, the question is how does yours generate new activity?

The reason why I ask how your system is more inviting than mine is because I don't see how it's going to attract new players (correct me if I'm wrong since I haven't read the whole thread, but you recently seem to have just said "it will" and not "here's why"). And aside, you could have just quoted your previous post.

To elaborate, I don't think what's intimidating is the ranking system itself, although it could definitely could use improvement. What I think is that people aren't joining the clan wars because of multiple factors:

a) Serious play isn't appealing to some people when the game has serious problems with lag, dropouts, or lack of formality in the "competitive" system
b) Setting up a successful war is difficult
c) Our general influx of players are simple "nobodies" who waltzed onto the game without any knowledge of TF2 or competitive play.

To put it more simply, our game appeals to those who are casuals who have no concern over clans. You're not going to reel them in by giving them obligatory points for participation. You're not going to reel in more hardy players without a stable competitive environment. And you're most certainly going to have a difficult time getting clan war activity when our current setup for warring is as hard as it is.

The problem isn't going to be solved just by changing the ranking system, but you can start by appealing to those who want to play more seriously. My solution is simple enough to be understood by a new clan, but balanced enough to hold up a healthy competitive environment.



On the whole "math" thing... as I've already said, the only person who has to do math is the person that keeps track of rankings page. It's a complete nonissue.

[Footpöp]

KZ, I feel disrespected by your constant denial of arguments presented to you. Both systems use points because that is the way GG2 works, if you keep arguing it doesn't after Trog and I have told you that you are wrong in multiple occasions already it will just show how unwilling to even listen to other's arguments.  You are twisting the definitions of words to try to make your system better and the other worse without a clear understanding of either, and it shows.  You have not proven anything because you are wrong.
 "that fact has done nothing for either discussion other than prove that it's less popular of a method than using scores." 
The only reason you are advocating the ratio system is because you think it is more familiar. It isn't, and it isn't more popular.  The ladder system is by far the more familiar and common system, as Trog pointed out with his list, don't try to pass this off as a victory for yourself when all you have shown is your inability and unwillingness to listen to our arguments.  If you'd like me to point out point for point why you are wrong, I will, but Trog and I have already done so multiple times and you've just ignored them on basis that they don't agree with your opinions. 


The ratio system doesn't encourage activity; winning one match against the weakest clan gives the same rank as truly being "the best" and besting every other clan out there.  The ratio system punishes "improving" clans because their score will be hounded by their previous defeats until the slate is cleaned.  The ladder system encourages activity and practice because it accurately ranks clan's skill levels in accordance to each other.  Once they stop being active/retire, they can continue to have a "historical" rank, but no one can keep a high rank without warring like they can in the ratio system.  The ladder system rewards and therefore encourages clans that challenge clans higher than their own perceived skill level by giving them a higher rank if they win.  This creates more activity.  It is good.  The ratio system isn't.  You are wrong and I am right.

No shit sherlock. I'd rather beat 5 good clans, than 1 good clan and 20 other shitty clans.

If a clan just plays one game, I will be guaranteeing, you will look at that ratio and record and say, "You aren't the best clan, you only played one goddamn game. Try later."

And ahoy! There's something called strength of schedule. I'd want to see a team that won against very good clans (based on players and record) 75% of the time versus someone who has a 90% winning percentage against mediocre and bad teams.

And if you look at ratio (which shows your winning percentage), the strength of schedule (won 50 games against a shitty clan and lost 4 games to really good ones hurp derp), and how many games you played (50 compared to 10), then I guarantee we can find the best clan in the forums.

No shit sherlock.  The ratio system doesn't take into account strength of schedule or any other methods to decide the strong clans it has faced, and therefore it is not good to rank clans as a whole.  If I had my way, I'd probably make my own system lol!! but out of the two originally presented in this thread, the ladder system is the only one that makes any logical sense in order to accurately rank clans in relation to each other.

[trog]

KZ you do not understand the distinction between scores and points. These are not dictionary terms by the way, rather I am explaining how each term is being used in this discussion. Scores are numbers used to decide who is best on a micro scale, points are used to decide who is best on a macro scale. Ignoring this distinction is like saying people who are familiar with addition will be familiar with calculus because they both use numbers. You ignoring this distinction is what is causing this to go in circles.

Now all your examples are examples of numbers being used on a micro scale (individual matches), but we are talking about the macro scale (who is best overall). Examples you should be using are tournaments, or indefinite rankings like the ones we're designing. Want to know how every tournament for the games you listed decides the winner? Either elimination, or a combination of elimination and points. That means the same logic behind the ladder system is equally, if not more, popular than the points system in tournaments, and that anyone who has watched a tournament is familiar with it.

But seriously even if it wasn't equally if not more popular (which it is), it is such a simple concept to grasp that to be honest if you did not understand it I don't think you should be spending your time playing in a clan, you should be spending your time redoing kindergarten. You beat someone, so you are better than them. That's all you need to understand.

"Win Ratio: Rack up points by winning matches and warring often, move up in rank."

Not true, if you stop warring your win ratio will remain the same, so once you obtain a good ratio there is no need to continue warring. Which doesn't really matter because we decided activity is not something ranking should take into account.

Changing the rankings system to have numbers will not bring in new players. I have no idea why you think this. Do you think people will see a number and say "oh my god i saw a number when i was in grade 1 this must be the best thing since sliced bread let me in!"? Well that's insulting, because people are not that stupid and can grasp basic concepts which are present in every tournament ever. The only reason we are changing the rankings is because it was convoluted, combining two unrelated measurements with too many rules. The whole point of the changing the system is to remove all the frills, not cater to retarded people who have a number fetish. Since both systems are simple enough (win ratio requires extra rules to stop stupid stuff from happening, but I'm assuming people aren't retarded and can handle it), what becomes priority for rankings is accuracy and skill encouraging growth.

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

HOW ABOUT THIS:
Don't have rankings

You're an idiot.

[trog]

As for BW/Teeky's/Simplified ELO system:

Although I disagree with KZ that the concept is difficult to grasp, I do not see what advantage it brings over the ladder system. It is definitely better than win ratio though.

[Waterfall]

Can you rework the poll with BW's system? Or at least a bit later, when there's been more discussion concerning it?

[Teekytots [PC:CWD]]

I just want the ladder system because you can't choose who to fight and that's not cool man.

And really, why do we need rankings, clans were so much fun with the clan tourney and a winner through that.

[Footpöp]

We can never seem to finish a tournament unless Snare is hosting it.

[trog]

I will replace win ratio with "mario kart system" when we go through the pros and cons.

(please give a better name)

[trog]

I just want the ladder system because you can't choose who to fight and that's not cool man.

And really, why do we need rankings, clans were so much fun with the clan tourney and a winner through that.

No we aren't doing ladder where you can only fight people who are within x of you, it's unrestricted. Probably should have said that.

[Waterfall]

Call it the "Scaled Point System"

Also I'm pretty surprised the poll managed to bring in 30+ votes. I wish they would actually share their thoughts on it, though.

[Killah Zillah]

The reason why I ask how your system is more inviting than mine is because I don't see how it's going to attract new players (correct me if I'm wrong since I haven't read the whole thread, but you recently seem to have just said "it will" and not "here's why"). And aside, you could have just quoted your previous post. Thank you for reminding me that you haven't read the whole thread, I was about to get very exasperated (not at you, but in general). I added to that post you quoted (sadly, you didn't see it before you posted, that's my fault) that'll encourage new members because it's far far more familiar to people than either the ladder system or Trog's current system. Making things more accessible by making them familiar MIGHT (please don't make me put so much emphasis on these passive words all the time ) MIGHT make people who glance at the clans thread go, "Hm.. I could see myself having fun with this", who won't have to look at the rules to understand it, who'll then go looking through the clans to see which they like. Another point that I haven't brought up in a while is that rankings give clan wars context, purpose and direction. Only two clans out of all the clans were using Trog's method, meaning the only wars taking place (in the majority) were unranked. Random skirmishes will only be so entertaining for so long. That doesn't mean that his system was bad, only that it wasn't as accessable to the everyman as a simpler system.

To elaborate, I don't think what's intimidating is the ranking system itself, although it could definitely could use improvement. What I think is that people aren't joining the clan wars because of multiple factors:

a) Serious play isn't appealing to some people when the game has serious problems with lag, dropouts, or lack of formality in the "competitive" system (something that remaking the competitive clans system might help, not that I think that's a point in my favor, just sayin')
b) Setting up a successful war is difficult This is true, which is why I think that the ladder system won't be as rabid and active as Troggy might think it is.
c) Our general influx of players are simple "nobodies" who waltzed onto the game without any knowledge of TF2 or competitive play.Yes, but the nobodies who take a look at the rankings system and see only two clans playing it won't even bother looking at the clans themselves, they'll assume the clans section is dead.

To put it more simply, our game appeals to those who are casuals who have no concern over clans. You're not going to reel them in by giving them obligatory points for participation. You're not going to reel in more hardy players without a stable competitive environment. And you're most certainly going to have a difficult time getting clan war activity when our current setup for warring is as hard as it is. A fine point, I'll relinquish that much, but at least simplifying the scoring system makes it more open in general.

The problem isn't going to be solved just by changing the ranking system, but you can start by appealing to those who want to play more seriously. My solution is simple enough to be understood by a new clan, but balanced enough to hold up a healthy competitive environment. We've already got plenty of serious clans, but even PHS, the clan that's exclusively ABOUT serious play, seems to be beginning to lose interest in GG2. A new system might encourage more people to challenge us, and without rosters in the way, we could challenge them back to make it a ranked match. With an open, easily played system, they'll be more inclined to say yes to a ranked match, we both agree on that.. I was about to add, "do you think yours is more simple than mine?", but of course you don't, and neither of us can really prove that our systems would be more fun to the people already here, all I can do is prove that people in general like smaller amounts of math over larger amounts. It's a personal preference sure, but the more simple the math, the easier it is for the majority to get into.

On the whole "math" thing... as I've already said, the only person who has to do math is the person that keeps track of rankings page. It's a complete nonissue. It's very much an issue, because the person keeping track would have to be cool with math as well. If Nukleus isn't willing to it, and if you aren't willing to keep track of every single match all the ranked clans make, then who's going to do it?

Troggy, we've gone over that so many times.. I'm sick of it.. I don't even care anymore if you disagree with the actual meaning of the word, potato potatoe, I don't care anymore. I'm not arguing semantics anymore!!