Volk Ranking System

[「tea.leaf」]

Nate's ranking system was far too convoluted, so I made it better.

 

This is all pretty experimental, so of course we'll be discussing changes before implementing it.

 

I think eventually we might have to have a vote between this or Nate's system.

 

And, obviously, not everyone has to participate.

 

To clarify, there will be one ladder for each service, along with one ladder for overall ranking.

 

NEW: Team ranks will be calculated by the average rank points of its members.

 

[spoiler=Rules and Procedures]

1. Rank is determined by greatest rank points, rank points may be negative.
   • New players (including players switching between service-specific ladders) enter with no rank points.

[*]Matches will be played in three games, and rank points adjusted based on results:

• Rank points added 2 for a 2-0 victory, 1 for a 2-1 victory, 1 for a default victory.
  
• Rank points deducted 2 for a 0-2 loss, 1 for a 1-2 loss, 1 for a default loss.
  
• Rank points do not carry over between service-specific ladders.

[*]Challenges may only be issued to a player in the same ladder that ranks directly above the challenging player.

[*]Challenges may not be denied, unless there is a time constraint.

• Players take default victory if challenged player does not respond within two weeks.
  
• Players must announce extended absences lasting one week or longer.

[*]Rank tags will follow this format in Custom User Title, Signature or Bio:

• (rank position) :: (rank points) :: [four-character clan tag] (service username) (service identifier)
  
• Example: 01 :: 234 :: [volk] Citrus Juicebox (YVD)

 

 

[spoiler=Recognized Service Indentifiers]

• DMU :: Duel Monsters Unlimited
  
• NET :: Yu-Gi-Oh! Network
  
• YVD :: Yu-Gi-Oh! Virtual Desktop

 

[「tea.leaf」]

Nobody cares what you play, and the rank doesn't care either.

[The Nightmare Anatomy]

Ahhh. I see now. But there are still many flaws with this.

[「tea.leaf」]

Ahhh. I see now. But there are still many flaws with this.

 

How about you point them out instead of wasting everyone's time?

[The Nightmare Anatomy]

Ahhh. I see now. But there are still many flaws with this.

 

How about you point them out instead of wasting everyone's time?

 

Calm down there ma'am. Your not everyone.

 

The problem is that you are using 3 different systems to do the ranking. Someone may have YVD and be better than someone who has DMU but the DMU duelist has i higher ranking because they cannot duel.

[「tea.leaf」]

Ahhh. I see now. But there are still many flaws with this.

 

How about you point them out instead of wasting everyone's time?

 

Calm down there ma'am. Your not everyone.

 

The problem is that you are using 3 different systems to do the ranking. Someone may have YVD and be better than someone who has DMU but the DMU duelist has i higher ranking because they cannot duel.

 

Why do you think I have service identifiers?

 

There's obviously going to be three ladders.

 

Beyond that there will be an overall ladder.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

This is what I'm gonna do: I'm going to make a sticky poll, asking the members themselves which rule set they prefer. Most votes after a week gets made official.

[「tea.leaf」]

This is what I'm gonna do: I'm going to make a sticky poll' date=' asking the members themselves which rule set they prefer. Most votes after a week gets made official.

[/quote']

 

Okay.

 

Although, I'd like to get more comments on improvements.

[iAmNateXero]

Your system is great. Its everything I wanted, except it punished a lose. I don't think a single loss outside of a Lower ranked person should result in so many point reductions. As Im sure you are aware, luck is still a factor in this game.

[「tea.leaf」]

Your system is great. Its everything I wanted' date=' except it punished a lose. I don't think a single loss outside of a Lower ranked person should result in so many point reductions. As Im sure you are aware, luck is still a factor in this game.

[/quote']

 

Life isn't fair, so why should this system be any less realistic?

 

Your system is terribly confusing when it comes to overcompensating for losses.

 

I made several updates.

[Phantom Roxas]

I like this, since it looks much more organized than Nate's.

[iAmNateXero]

Your system is great. Its everything I wanted' date=' except it punished a lose. I don't think a single loss outside of a Lower ranked person should result in so many point reductions. As Im sure you are aware, luck is still a factor in this game.

[/quote']

 

Life isn't fair, so why should this system be any less realistic?

 

Your system is terribly confusing when it comes to overcompensating for losses.

 

I made several updates.

 

Realistic? How does a person with 1 loss fall under a person who has yet to play? There can never be a negative because it falsely awards unwilling people greater skills. My Decimal system was nothing more than a generic Tiebreaker system that kept balance. I shouldn't start as -2 because I lost to you but Joe blow who hasn't even dueled in the system is higher then me with 0. Its bananas.

[「tea.leaf」]

Your system is great. Its everything I wanted' date=' except it punished a lose. I don't think a single loss outside of a Lower ranked person should result in so many point reductions. As Im sure you are aware, luck is still a factor in this game.

[/quote']

 

Life isn't fair, so why should this system be any less realistic?

 

Your system is terribly confusing when it comes to overcompensating for losses.

 

I made several updates.

 

Realistic? How does a person with 1 loss fall under a person who has yet to play? There can never be a negative because it falsely awards unwilling people greater skills. My Decimal system was nothing more than a generic Tiebreaker system that kept balance. I shouldn't start as -2 because I lost to you but Joe blow who hasn't even dueled in the system is higher then me with 0. Its bananas.

 

Why not?

 

You've failed, and he hasn't; of course he's higher up than you.

 

This applies to everything in life, not just card games.

 

How do you judge people?

 

How do you get impressions?

 

It's the same basic idea.

 

And besides, if you really suck that bad, a lot of people do, why shouldn't they have negative points?

 

In life, a fresh start, a zero, is expensive, and this system only reflects that.

[iAmNateXero]

Your system is great. Its everything I wanted' date=' except it punished a lose. I don't think a single loss outside of a Lower ranked person should result in so many point reductions. As Im sure you are aware, luck is still a factor in this game.

[/quote']

 

Life isn't fair, so why should this system be any less realistic?

 

Your system is terribly confusing when it comes to overcompensating for losses.

 

I made several updates.

 

Realistic? How does a person with 1 loss fall under a person who has yet to play? There can never be a negative because it falsely awards unwilling people greater skills. My Decimal system was nothing more than a generic Tiebreaker system that kept balance. I shouldn't start as -2 because I lost to you but Joe blow who hasn't even dueled in the system is higher then me with 0. Its bananas.

 

Why not?

 

You've failed, and he hasn't; of course he's higher up than you.

 

This applies to everything in life, not just card games.

 

How do you judge people?

 

How do you get impressions?

 

It's the same basic idea.

 

And besides, if you really suck that bad, a lot of people do, why shouldn't they have negative points?

 

Realistically, that's not how the world works. If this were true the people on the streets doing nothing in life (your hobos if you will) would be the better of people in the world.

 

1. They never applied for the job, so They never suffer through the hardships of loosing one.

2. They don't own anything, so getting hit by the repo man doesn't affect his life.

 

Your logic here shows him as a better off human being because he never... failed? o.O Well Im sure a lot of other people would agree with me when I say Not taking a chance if failure enough.

[「tea.leaf」]

Your system is great. Its everything I wanted' date=' except it punished a lose. I don't think a single loss outside of a Lower ranked person should result in so many point reductions. As Im sure you are aware, luck is still a factor in this game.

[/quote']

 

Life isn't fair, so why should this system be any less realistic?

 

Your system is terribly confusing when it comes to overcompensating for losses.

 

I made several updates.

 

Realistic? How does a person with 1 loss fall under a person who has yet to play? There can never be a negative because it falsely awards unwilling people greater skills. My Decimal system was nothing more than a generic Tiebreaker system that kept balance. I shouldn't start as -2 because I lost to you but Joe blow who hasn't even dueled in the system is higher then me with 0. Its bananas.

 

Why not?

 

You've failed, and he hasn't; of course he's higher up than you.

 

This applies to everything in life, not just card games.

 

How do you judge people?

 

How do you get impressions?

 

It's the same basic idea.

 

And besides, if you really suck that bad, a lot of people do, why shouldn't they have negative points?

 

Realistically, that's not how the world works. If this were true the people on the streets doing nothing in life (your hobos if you will) would be the better of people in the world.

 

1. They never applied for the job, so They never suffer through the hardships of loosing one.

2. They don't own anything, so getting hit by the repo man doesn't affect his life.

 

Your logic here shows him as a better off human being because he never... failed? o.O Well Im sure a lot of other people would agree with me when I say Not taking a chance if failure enough.

 

Entering the ladder is a symbol of you having tried.

 

You have not yet played any games, so no judgment can be made against you.

 

What we're judging here is relative skill, after all, right?

 

You will only have a severely negative rating if you continuously lose, and that means you are relatively worse.

 

Besides, what's to say a negative rank is bad?

 

Numbers are all relative and subjective.

 

Rankings around -3 to +3 are to be expected, and is within normal range because this game does factor in luck.

[iAmNateXero]

Entering the ladder is a symbol of you having tried.

Wrong' date=' it only means that you were interested. After that it takes initiative, determination, dedication, and the demonstration of skills.[/b']

You have not yet played any games, so no judgment can be made against you.

Then how can you properly place a person below another without a demonstration of another persons skills. That would allow me barging rights on an unlucky person and I haven't even turned on my computer yet.

 

What we're judging here is relative skill, after all, right?

Yes through all the motions dictated above, not just win or loose. Life isn't always so straight forward.

You will only have a severely negative rating if you continuously lose, and that means you are relatively worse.

Yes, agreeable, but you can't rightfully place him/her under a person who has yet to show any skill. Its unjustifiable and would lead to fewer people ready to participate in the rankings at all.

Besides, what's to say a negative rank is bad?

The rank still demonstrates skill right?

Numbers are all relative and subjective.

Not as cut and dry as you make it seem.

 

Rankings around -3 to +3 are to be expected, and is within normal range because this game does factor in luck.

Again correct, but we're looking for skill. A person who is willing to demonstrate it isn't as far off as a person who doesn't. It also allows idlers to stay in higher rank once they reach a certain point just because they don't play.

[「tea.leaf」]

Entering the ladder is a symbol of you having tried.

Wrong' date=' it only means that you were interested. After that it takes initiative, determination, dedication, and the demonstration of skills.[/b']

You have not yet played any games, so no judgment can be made against you.

Then how can you properly place a person below another without a demonstration of another persons skills. That would allow me barging rights on an unlucky person and I haven't even turned on my computer yet.

 

What we're judging here is relative skill, after all, right?

Yes through all the motions dictated above, not just win or loose. Life isn't always so straight forward.

You will only have a severely negative rating if you continuously lose, and that means you are relatively worse.

Yes, agreeable, but you can't rightfully place him/her under a person who has yet to show any skill. Its unjustifiable and would lead to fewer people ready to participate in the rankings at all.

Besides, what's to say a negative rank is bad?

The rank still demonstrates skill right?

Numbers are all relative and subjective.

Not as cut and dry as you make it seem.

 

Rankings around -3 to +3 are to be expected, and is within normal range because this game does factor in luck.

Again correct, but we're looking for skill. A person who is willing to demonstrate it isn't as far off as a person who doesn't. It also allows idlers to stay in higher rank once they reach a certain point just because they don't play.

 

If you think you can determine skill from a ladder, you are dead wrong.

[iAmNateXero]

Entering the ladder is a symbol of you having tried.

Wrong' date=' it only means that you were interested. After that it takes initiative, determination, dedication, and the demonstration of skills.[/b']

You have not yet played any games, so no judgment can be made against you.

Then how can you properly place a person below another without a demonstration of another persons skills. That would allow me barging rights on an unlucky person and I haven't even turned on my computer yet.

 

What we're judging here is relative skill, after all, right?

Yes through all the motions dictated above, not just win or loose. Life isn't always so straight forward.

You will only have a severely negative rating if you continuously lose, and that means you are relatively worse.

Yes, agreeable, but you can't rightfully place him/her under a person who has yet to show any skill. Its unjustifiable and would lead to fewer people ready to participate in the rankings at all.

Besides, what's to say a negative rank is bad?

The rank still demonstrates skill right?

Numbers are all relative and subjective.

Not as cut and dry as you make it seem.

 

Rankings around -3 to +3 are to be expected, and is within normal range because this game does factor in luck.

Again correct, but we're looking for skill. A person who is willing to demonstrate it isn't as far off as a person who doesn't. It also allows idlers to stay in higher rank once they reach a certain point just because they don't play.

 

If you think you can determine skill from a ladder, you are dead wrong.

 

Then what is the purpose of your opposing ranking system?

[「tea.leaf」]

Entering the ladder is a symbol of you having tried.

Wrong' date=' it only means that you were interested. After that it takes initiative, determination, dedication, and the demonstration of skills.[/b']

You have not yet played any games, so no judgment can be made against you.

Then how can you properly place a person below another without a demonstration of another persons skills. That would allow me barging rights on an unlucky person and I haven't even turned on my computer yet.

 

What we're judging here is relative skill, after all, right?

Yes through all the motions dictated above, not just win or loose. Life isn't always so straight forward.

You will only have a severely negative rating if you continuously lose, and that means you are relatively worse.

Yes, agreeable, but you can't rightfully place him/her under a person who has yet to show any skill. Its unjustifiable and would lead to fewer people ready to participate in the rankings at all.

Besides, what's to say a negative rank is bad?

The rank still demonstrates skill right?

Numbers are all relative and subjective.

Not as cut and dry as you make it seem.

 

Rankings around -3 to +3 are to be expected, and is within normal range because this game does factor in luck.

Again correct, but we're looking for skill. A person who is willing to demonstrate it isn't as far off as a person who doesn't. It also allows idlers to stay in higher rank once they reach a certain point just because they don't play.

 

If you think you can determine skill from a ladder, you are dead wrong.

 

Then what is the purpose of your opposing ranking system?

 

Skill, and luck, but it's mostly just for fun and bragging rights.

 

Honestly, how you can possibly derive true skill from just a chart of names and numbers?

 

The problem is you can't.

 

A player who has been playing longer, under any system, is going to have more point.

 

There's no way a new player, no matter how skilled, can match him, even though they may have the same skill.

[iAmNateXero]

Skill, and luck, but it's mostly just for fun and bragging rights.

 

Honestly, how you can possibly derive true skill from just a chart of names and numbers?

 

The problem is you can't.

 

A player who has been playing longer, under any system, is going to have more point.

 

There's no way a new player, no matter how skilled, can match him, even though they may have the same skill.

Not under your system. I can be a veteran in the game (which I am), Lose a shitload of matches as well wins, however more losses then wins, Im still playing longer, and gets blown out by some new player at rank 1 and im probably (by your system) -2

[burnpsy]

I only have two problems with your system, the first one is relatively minor:

 

Why do you need to restrict everyone's Custom User Title to state the "rank tags"? I think that should be changed to be put in the Bio, but that's just me.

 

The second problem's simple and straight-forward:

 

Why must one need to announce their absences? It's really unnecessary and isn't anyone's business but their own. Seriously, especially since one doesn't always have time to log into forums and announce that they'll be absent for a while.

[「tea.leaf」]

Skill' date=' and luck, but it's mostly just for fun and bragging rights.

 

Honestly, how you can possibly derive true skill from just a chart of names and numbers?

 

The problem is you can't.

 

A player who has been playing longer, under any system, is going to have more point.

 

There's no way a new player, no matter how skilled, can match him, even though they may have the same skill.

[/quote']

Not under your system. I can be a veteran in the game (which I am), Lose a shitload of matches as well wins, however more losses then wins, Im still playing longer, and gets blown out by some new player at rank 1 and im probably (by your system) -2

 

And that's exactly how good you are.

 

Experience doesn't equate to skill.

 

You can be driving for twenty years and still suck more than a teenager.

---

I only have two problems with your system' date=' the first one is relatively minor:

 

Why do you need to restrict everyone's Custom User Title to state the "rank tags"? I think that should be changed to be put in the Bio, but that's just me.

 

The second problem's simple and straight-forward:

 

Why must one need to announce their absences? It's really unnecessary and isn't anyone's business but their own. Seriously, especially since one doesn't always have time to log into forums and announce that they'll be absent for a while.

[/quote']

 

The rank tag can go anywhere, really, and I'll fix that.

 

It's best for absences to be announce because then we won't have misunderstandings about defaulting.

 

Someone can just dodge challenges by ignoring them, and then saying they've been away.

 

Making people say so beforehand takes this cheating out of the equation.

[「tea.leaf」]

Bump.

[tonisanoob]

but i can only duel via msn...and id really like to show everyone im better than eveyone :P

[「tea.leaf」]

but i can only duel via msn...and id really like to show everyone im better than eveyone :P

 

There are numerous reasons why IM clients are not recognized services.