Jump to content

Vote on your preferred ladder system! Nate vs. Tea

Chaos Pudding

Which ladder system do you prefer?  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. Which ladder system do you prefer?

    • Nate's.
      7
    • Tea's.
      16

Recommended Posts

Guest Chaos Pudding

Guest Chaos Pudding

Posted
Posted

I'm kinda not on a computer right now, so I'll leave the posting of the opposing systems to the people who have copy/pasting abilities. I'll edit them in later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
「tea.leaf」 Newbie

「tea.leaf」

Posted
Posted

Here's a link to the Volk Ranking System.

 

[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:

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

 

 

 

There will be one ladder for each service and one overall ladder for cross-service ranking.

 

More services will be recognized as they are release and enter popularity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iAmNateXero Newbie

iAmNateXero

Posted
Posted

YCM Official Ladder System

[spoiler=Name]

[*4 character Clan tag if you have one*][Your Points](+/- decimal of points)Your Name[your programs of choice]

So an example of mines would be.

 

[oL_O][0]Nate12345[YVD, DMU]

 

 

 

[spoiler=Winning Rubric]

2-1 = +1 point. 2-0 = +2 points. Simple no?

 

 

[spoiler=Loosing Rubric]

2-1 = 0 points. 2-0 = -1 point from looser. Simpler.

 

 

 

[spoiler=Basic Rules]

-Only one Ladder duel is allowed every 2 hours. 5 Times a day. (starting from the time stamped on your duel Request post.)

-Post all Ladder Request in This Thread until further notice. (Assuming that the mods agree that The Ladder request should be separated from regular Duel Requests) a request stays open for 1 hour from the time you post it.

-If there is an open request from a participant within 10 ranks of you, YOU MUST ACCEPT THAT REQUEST before making a request of your own. (Of course this isn't the case if compatibility of software isn't available.)

When you accept a players request, The Hour starts over. This is to prevent the abuse of a Last minute acceptance.

-With every request you must also post your current Tag.

-If you open a request and do not play if challenged you immediately add -1 rank.

-If you quit before a match is over you accept the loss for what it is. A -1 point.

-LOG ALL DUELS! This is very important. It verifies every win and lose. In YVD its a simple as ticking a box. With DMU mute all other players, then C&P the duel. * Its also good if you have a witness in DMU*

-If you are found cheating, you will be banned from the ladder for 1 month loosing 50% of your total rank. ON FIRST OFFENSE. Complete removal from the Ladder on the second offense and a report to any Mod interested in overseeing YCM's Ladder system.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iAmNateXero Newbie

iAmNateXero

Posted
Posted

out of the two' date=' I'd sat tea's is better, but personaly, I would like it as something more like a star-chip betting system.

[/quote']

 

It's a little difficult to rank under something like that.

 

It's a bit more difficult to compensate for losses.

 

Wait, you actually care about compensating for losses?! o.O

Link to comment
Share on other sites
「tea.leaf」 Newbie

「tea.leaf」

Posted
Posted

out of the two' date=' I'd sat tea's is better, but personaly, I would like it as something more like a star-chip betting system.

[/quote']

 

It's a little difficult to rank under something like that.

 

It's a bit more difficult to compensate for losses.

 

Wait, you actually care about compensating for losses?! o.O

 

In a Star Chip system, you can no longer progress once you lose all of your chips.

 

In my system, you can progress regardless of your rank points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iAmNateXero Newbie

iAmNateXero

Posted
Posted

out of the two' date=' I'd sat tea's is better, but personaly, I would like it as something more like a star-chip betting system.

[/quote']

 

It's a little difficult to rank under something like that.

 

It's a bit more difficult to compensate for losses.

 

Wait, you actually care about compensating for losses?! o.O

 

In a Star Chip system, you can no longer progress once you lose all of your chips.

 

In my system, you can progress regardless of your rank points.

 

Were not talking about star chips here and you know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
.:pyramid:. Newbie

.:pyramid:.

Posted
Posted

Yes' date=' because you can't judge someone who has yet to duel, yet you can judge someone who has dueled, and lost. So yes, I do think that a person who has lost once is worse than a person who has yet to duel.

[/quote']

 

but by not judging them what the point of giving them a rank value, surly you could just use an equation that will just = the rank to n/a or 0 untill they have dueled once.

 

i'm working on my own ladder system now

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iAmNateXero Newbie

iAmNateXero

Posted
Posted

Yes' date=' because you can't judge someone who has yet to duel, yet you can judge someone who has dueled, and lost. So yes, I do think that a person who has lost once is worse than a person who has yet to duel.

[/quote']

 

With this in mind, how can you say a person who never dueled is better than a person who has? That is what I want you to understand, and that is the major fault to Teas system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest PikaPerson01

Guest PikaPerson01

Posted
Posted

Doing it with fractions and such takes too much work.

 

If anything, why not always make it full numbers? +0 for a 0-2 loss. +1 for a 1-2 loss. +2 for a 2-1 win. +3 for a 2-0 win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
「tea.leaf」 Newbie

「tea.leaf」

Posted
Posted

Doing it with fractions and such takes too much work.

 

If anything' date=' why not always make it full numbers? +0 for a 0-2 loss. +1 for a 1-2 loss. +2 for a 2-1 win. +3 for a 2-0 win.

[/quote']

 

This compensates too much for experience.

 

There are plenty of long-time players that are still retards.

 

Yes' date=' because you can't judge someone who has yet to duel, yet you can judge someone who has dueled, and lost. So yes, I do think that a person who has lost once is worse than a person who has yet to duel.

[/quote']

 

With this in mind, how can you say a person who never dueled is better than a person who has? That is what I want you to understand, and that is the major fault to Teas system.

 

What's difference between a 0 and a n/a anyway?

 

There is absolutely no one else complaining about this minor detail more than you.

 

Take your whiny sheet and shove it up your ass; I've had enough of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
iAmNateXero Newbie

iAmNateXero

Posted
Posted

Doing it with fractions and such takes too much work.

 

If anything' date=' why not always make it full numbers? +0 for a 0-2 loss. +1 for a 1-2 loss. +2 for a 2-1 win. +3 for a 2-0 win.

[/quote']

 

This compensates too much for experience.

 

There are plenty of long-time players that are still retards.

 

Yes' date=' because you can't judge someone who has yet to duel, yet you can judge someone who has dueled, and lost. So yes, I do think that a person who has lost once is worse than a person who has yet to duel.

[/quote']

 

With this in mind, how can you say a person who never dueled is better than a person who has? That is what I want you to understand, and that is the major fault to Teas system.

 

What's difference between a 0 and a n/a anyway?

 

There is absolutely no one else complaining about this minor detail more than you.

 

Take your whiny s*** and shove it up your ass; I've had enough of it.

 

Its not a 0 its a - that im worried about. Building back from less then nothing is discouraging. Its not a minor detail, its a major flaw. A flaw that you want to put into effect and aren't paying any attention to. Your system wouldn't last for more then month with people feeling as though they had no chance to come back from a horrible loosing streak.

 

You build your system on childish out looks of "winning is everything." And its not, only fools believe so. At this point, I don't give a damn anymore. If you people want to put a system in effect governed by a person who shows they have no interest in fixing the pointed out flaws in front of their face than let it be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...