Vote on your preferred ladder system! Nate vs. Tea

[~/Coolio Prime\~]

Just throwing this out there since I don't see any major flaws with this layout. What Pika said with two modifications:

 

1) Everything is subtracted by 1. 0-2 is a -1, 1-2 is a 0, 2-1 is a +1, and 2-0 is a +2.

2) You can't go below 0, so getting a 0-2 while at 0 results in a 0.

 

This way you can't go below someone who never played, but you can't simply climb up and up the ladder by repeatedly playing.

[「tea.leaf」]

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.

 

Who else gives a damn aside from you?

 

Stop being so deluded.

[iAmNateXero]

Just throwing this out there since I don't see any major flaws with this layout. What Pika said with two modifications:

 

1) Everything is subtracted by 1. 0-2 is a -1' date=' 1-2 is a 0, 2-1 is a +1, and 2-0 is a +2.

2) You can't go below 0, so getting a 0-2 while at 0 results in a 0.

 

 

This way you can't go below someone who never played, but you can't simply climb up and up the ladder by repeatedly playing.

[/quote']

I like this. Ive updated my Ladder system.

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.

 

Who else gives a damn aside from you?

 

Stop being so deluded.

 

Nobody gave a damn because nobody has played under your system. Sorry but YCM likes to be spoon feed their problems, while I like to tackle them head on. Sorry im not so lolycm.

 

So stop being Lazy, and look for the weakness in your system. If you don't, apparently nobody else will.

[「tea.leaf」]

Just throwing this out there since I don't see any major flaws with this layout. What Pika said with two modifications:

 

1) Everything is subtracted by 1. 0-2 is a -1' date=' 1-2 is a 0, 2-1 is a +1, and 2-0 is a +2.

2) You can't go below 0, so getting a 0-2 while at 0 results in a 0.

 

 

This way you can't go below someone who never played, but you can't simply climb up and up the ladder by repeatedly playing.

[/quote']

I like this. Ive updated my Ladder system.

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.

 

Who else gives a damn aside from you?

 

Stop being so deluded.

 

Nobody gave a damn because nobody has played under your system. Sorry but YCM likes to be spoon feed their problems, while I like to tackle them head on. Sorry im not so lolycm.

 

So stop being Lazy, and look for the weakness in your system. If you don't, apparently nobody else will.

 

Then it's all well.

 

I'm not going to over-complicate something just to dodge the possibility that I might offend someone.

[.:pyramid:.]

.:pyramid:. ladder system

 

.:introduction:.

firstly to make the ladder system effective you first need to set out the objectives/problems of the system to effectivly produce the correct formular to produce the most accurate results.

 

1. in the case of this ladder system i believe the easiest way to do this is a simple 1/10 rank, because this will sort out the problem new/old duelists gaining points, and secondly it more acuratly punishes lossing streaks of older players (who would have more points than new players) to new players who are on winning streaks with higher level players.

 

2. how you gain points for a win. these should be a vairable figures because then it can take into account your opponents rank, winning/lossing streak, how manny games within the match (for example a player should be awarded if in game 1 they lost, and in game 2 they won because they used a side deck, because this shows skill to have made the right call when building your deck, and knowledge of takking on other decks).

 

3. to be able distingsh between higher/lower level events, because their is going to be more skill at these events, so if an average player win over alot of skilled players, their should be an increased reward. (this point is determind on whether people would then use my first point as an entry requirment)

 

im sure im missing alot of things however im going to attempt to put this into a forumla by my next post. i'm pretty sure that using these as the basis to the ranking will produce accurate enough results though

[Azuh]

Honestly,

 

Do we even care?

[Kira the Savior]

Honestly they both confuse me....

 

Honestly' date='

 

Do we even care?

[/quote']

 

This would be part of the reason why. I really dont care enough to TRY to understand

[「tea.leaf」]

Honestly they both confuse me....

 

Honestly' date='

 

Do we even care?

[/quote']

 

This would be part of the reason why. I really dont care enough to TRY to understand

 

Basically, I made something simple and wonderful, and Nate's been jabroni-fitting about it.

[The Nightmare Anatomy]

.:pyramid:. ladder system

 

.:introduction:.

firstly to make the ladder system effective you first need to set out the objectives/problems of the system to effectivly produce the correct formular to produce the most accurate results.

 

1. in the case of this ladder system i believe the easiest way to do this is a simple 1/10 rank' date=' because this will sort out the problem new/old duelists gaining points, and secondly it more acuratly punishes lossing streaks of older players (who would have more points than new players) to new players who are on winning streaks with higher level players.

 

2. how you gain points for a win. these should be a vairable figures because then it can take into account your opponents rank, winning/lossing streak, how manny games within the match (for example a player should be awarded if in game 1 they lost, and in game 2 they won because they used a side deck, because this shows skill to have made the right call when building your deck, and knowledge of takking on other decks).

 

3. to be able distingsh between higher/lower level events, because their is going to be more skill at these events, so if an average player win over alot of skilled players, their should be an increased reward. (this point is determind on whether people would then use my first point as an entry requirment)

 

im sure im missing alot of things however im going to attempt to put this into a forumla by my next post. i'm pretty sure that using these as the basis to the ranking will produce accurate enough results though

[/quote']

 

Forget tea's ladder. I want this.

[「tea.leaf」]

.:pyramid:. ladder system

 

.:introduction:.

firstly to make the ladder system effective you first need to set out the objectives/problems of the system to effectivly produce the correct formular to produce the most accurate results.

 

1. in the case of this ladder system i believe the easiest way to do this is a simple 1/10 rank' date=' because this will sort out the problem new/old duelists gaining points, and secondly it more acuratly punishes lossing streaks of older players (who would have more points than new players) to new players who are on winning streaks with higher level players.

 

2. how you gain points for a win. these should be a vairable figures because then it can take into account your opponents rank, winning/lossing streak, how manny games within the match (for example a player should be awarded if in game 1 they lost, and in game 2 they won because they used a side deck, because this shows skill to have made the right call when building your deck, and knowledge of takking on other decks).

 

3. to be able distingsh between higher/lower level events, because their is going to be more skill at these events, so if an average player win over alot of skilled players, their should be an increased reward. (this point is determind on whether people would then use my first point as an entry requirment)

 

im sure im missing alot of things however im going to attempt to put this into a forumla by my next post. i'm pretty sure that using these as the basis to the ranking will produce accurate enough results though

[/quote']

 

Forget tea's ladder. I want this.

 

These are just ideas, not something that can actually be used.

 

If these were manifested into procedures, they'd be just as complicated, if not worse.

[.:pyramid:.]

.:pyramid:. ladder system

 

.:introduction:.

firstly to make the ladder system effective you first need to set out the objectives/problems of the system to effectivly produce the correct formular to produce the most accurate results.

 

1. in the case of this ladder system i believe the easiest way to do this is a simple 1/10 rank' date=' because this will sort out the problem new/old duelists gaining points, and secondly it more acuratly punishes lossing streaks of older players (who would have more points than new players) to new players who are on winning streaks with higher level players.

 

2. how you gain points for a win. these should be a vairable figures because then it can take into account your opponents rank, winning/lossing streak, how manny games within the match (for example a player should be awarded if in game 1 they lost, and in game 2 they won because they used a side deck, because this shows skill to have made the right call when building your deck, and knowledge of takking on other decks).

 

3. to be able distingsh between higher/lower level events, because their is going to be more skill at these events, so if an average player win over alot of skilled players, their should be an increased reward. (this point is determind on whether people would then use my first point as an entry requirment)

 

im sure im missing alot of things however im going to attempt to put this into a forumla by my next post. i'm pretty sure that using these as the basis to the ranking will produce accurate enough results though

[/quote']

 

Forget tea's ladder. I want this.

 

These are just ideas, not something that can actually be used.

 

If these were manifested into procedures, they'd be just as complicated, if not worse.

 

lol i know it would be complicated, however this can be sorted out using a database and excell so you just end up putting in;

 

.the players name

.game1,2,3 results

.whether they side decked (y/n)

 

then the user of the system could just post a report each week to show rank.

 

dont get me wrong it is hard, because iv only just worked out a forumla for the first bullet point so im testing it atm.

[Psycho Shocker Android]

Why not use something similar to Shoddy Battle for our rating system it covers every aspect treated in this thread.

 

link here for the description : http://shoddybattle.com/ladder

 

That way you can classify new players and players who don't play consistently.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Why not use something similar to Shoddy Battle for our rating system it covers every aspect treated in this thread.

 

link here for the description : http://shoddybattle.com/ladder

 

That way you can classify new players and players who don't play consistently.

 

I personally like Shoddy's system, but there is the matter of effectively implementing it.

[Guest]

I don't care and think this is all unnecessary, but I voted Tea's just because it is zero-sum and Nate's is positive-sum. A positive-sum system puts far greater emphasis on how often you duel than on how well you duel; someone with far less consistency who just duels the most often will quickly soar to the top of the ladder.

 

So you guys believe that a person who losses 1`match is worse then a person who has yet to duel? o.O

 

I think you'd have to be an idiot to attempt to rank someone who hasn't dueled yet in the first place. However' date=' I also think that, yes, fewer losses is better than more losses.

 

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.

 

Let me get this straight: You're trying to construct a ranking system but also think that winning isn't everything? Why on earth are you constructing a ranking system in the first place if you don't want to count wins and losses?

 

A ranking system can only measure two things: how much you duel, and how many of those duels you win. You seem to think that the former is far more important than the latter, that experience trumps all else, and as such I suggest you just discard all ranking systems and use YCM's post count as your ladder.

 

Also, if a losing streak can't be recovered from, then one of two things is true:

 

1) If the streak is short, then you just don't duel often enough for any ranking system to give a statistically significant evaluation of your skill anyhow.

 

2) If the streak is long, maybe it's not a streak and maybe you suck. I don't see any problem with having bad players who lose go to the bottom of the ladder, and if you do, then again, maybe a ladder isn't right for you.

[「tea.leaf」]

I don't care and think this is all unnecessary' date=' but I voted Tea's just because it is zero-sum and Nate's is positive-sum. A positive-sum system puts far greater emphasis on how often you duel than on how well you duel; someone with far less consistency who just duels the most often will quickly soar to the top of the ladder.

 

So you guys believe that a person who losses 1`match is worse then a person who has yet to duel? o.O

 

I think you'd have to be an idiot to attempt to rank someone who hasn't dueled yet in the first place. However, I also think that, yes, fewer losses is better than more losses.

 

Its not a 0 its a - that im worried about. Building back from less then nothing is discouraging. Its not a minor detail' date=' 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.

[/quote']

 

Let me get this straight: You're trying to construct a ranking system but also think that winning isn't everything? Why on earth are you constructing a ranking system in the first place if you don't want to count wins and losses?

 

A ranking system can only measure two things: how much you duel, and how many of those duels you win. You seem to think that the former is far more important than the latter, that experience trumps all else, and as such I suggest you just discard all ranking systems and use YCM's post count as your ladder.

 

Also, if a losing streak can't be recovered from, then one of two things is true:

 

1) If the streak is short, then you just don't duel often enough for any ranking system to give a statistically significant evaluation of your skill anyhow.

 

2) If the streak is long, maybe it's not a streak and maybe you suck. I don't see any problem with having bad players who lose go to the bottom of the ladder, and if you do, then again, maybe a ladder isn't right for you.

 

kthnx

 

Zero-sum FTW.

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

If neither system has at least 15 votes by the time the poll ends, then obviously there wasn't enough caring going on and neither system is established.

[「tea.leaf」]

Not a lot of people even bother to read stickied threads, I hope you know.

 

Why do you think people break rules?

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Not a lot of people even bother to read stickied threads' date=' I hope you know.

 

Why do you think people break rules?

[/quote']

 

If they can't be bothered to read stickies, then why should they be bothered to participate in a ladder system?

[「tea.leaf」]

When does this end?

[Exyst]

Tea's won anyway =/

[Guest Chaos Pudding]

Well, this was a bust. :/