Change The Ranking System

[Godbody]

Ya'll got some Call of Duty type of ranking shit going on..

Where the bummest nigga of all time can achieve the highest rank just by battling

It's unrealistic to say somebody like Mokane is the #1 battler

But if he has 1,000 battles won on this site that's how it'd be.

It should be SKILL based, not POINT based. & Surely ya'll can get someone to do some extra coding and devise a skill-based ranking system with if-then-else statements and whatnot

instead of "Hey, if I keep battling I'll be #1"

it should be more like "Hey, if I keep battling the best of the best I'll be #1"

[Just C]

Fuck the rankings, Change the record.

[GRizzEAT]

Niggas sufferin from tha MaCc-Syndrome:confused:

[Phoenix]

Fam Mokane is the G.O.A.T.

[Phil Banks]

top 5 audio got like 16 k battles between them shit is just to much tbh

[Student]

How Would You VIRTUALLY Count Skill Though?

[Phroxen]

Neat idea, but it would never work because "skill" is an immeasurable object (as far as coding is concerned).. whereas you can count wins/losses. What needs to happen is it needs to be more obvious about how many points you're losing/winning when you face someone. When you beat more people with higher points, you're "worth more" for a battle.. whereas someone with very few battles, or a bunch of losses to lower rated people, will have far fewer points to distribute. But if someone "high ranked" (take MaCc for instance) loses to someone who is lower ranked (take me for instance), then he would lose tons of points, and I would gain tons of points. Since he's ranked so high, if I were to lose, I'd lose very few points, and he'd gain very few points.

So it could look like this, out of 100 possible points per match:

MaCc (+10/-90) vs. Phroxen (+90/-10)

The number in red would be the total number of points you lose if you lose the battle, and the number in green is what you gain if you win. People who have similar "ranks" would be more of a (+50/-50) scenario.


On top of this, those who haven't been active for more than... 6 months... will be taken off of the "Active Ranked List", so it isn't clogged with people who have 10k+ battles from four years ago on the top 10 list. If they get active again (say.. dropping 3 battles within a certain period), then they're back on the Active Ranked List. The site could still have an "All Time List", but it would just measure who had the most battles, and not necessarily who is the "best". The "best" at any given time would be found on the Active Ranked List.



Two more things:

One: Open Battles are basically practices and snipes.. they should count for fewer points.. maybe a total of 25 instead of 100. This would ensure that you can't just snipe people to get to the top.. as we see in our "top lists"...
Ex: MaCc (+5/-20) vs. Phroxen (+20/-5)

Two: Challenges and Tournament Battles should account for more, since they're usually more important.. maybe give Tournament Battles a sum of 200 points..
Ex: MaCc (+20/-180) vs. Phroxen (+180/-20)

Just a few thoughts, but I think with the right tweaking, this could be great.



Thoughts?

[Revan]

^
Makes sense tbh.

[Godbody]

Skill system is simple

Everyone starts off as a Bronze battler. The votes are from 1-10...So you take the average score of what someone gets rated in a battle

For example: On your first battle there's 10 votes and for some reason everybody gave you an 8

So your average score is 8/10 or 80/100

That would be 80% rating.

On this note

10% - 50% Bronze (In other words you average anywhere from a 1 to a 5 on your battles)
51% - 70% Silver (You average from a 5 to a 7 in the votes you've tallied)
71% - 80% Gold (You average from a 7- 8 in your votes tallied throughout all battles, etc)
81% - 99% Platinum(You average from an 8 - 10 etc etc)

or w/e increment of numbers

You'd have a true skill ranking system, and based on that, you could code a "suggest battles" page that'll match you up with people to your skill. You get +10 points for beating someone of your skill @ bronze

+20 points if they're Silver
+30 points if they're Gold
+40 points if they're Platinum

& If you're Bronze, for example, and you beat someone considered Platinum, you can jump a whole entire category into Silver..shit like that


The point is, the higher ranked people you beat, the more points you get & with a true skill system you'd have to code a situation where beating X amount of Bronze battlers as the majority of your wins doesn't really count for shit

So you could be 100-0 but if 90 of those people are bronze battlers the shit doesnt mean much and you're not ranked

[ILLoKWENT]

i like proxens idea better..that points scale shit workd well at goldmic.back in the day...kinda like wagerin your cumulative points against someone elses.

[Phonocide]

Seems like most of you are referring to a "ladder" system. Case's Ladder System comes to mind. I'm not sure how realistic it would be to implement, but without getting heavily into details, it basically works like the professional chess rating system. If you beat somebody below you, you only get a win, your rank doesn't change. If you beat somebody above you, you move up HALF of the distance between your rankings.

Examples: If you are ranked 30, and you beat the guy in 95th, you just get a win, but you stay #30. If you are ranked 50 and you beat 49, you swap places. If you're #3 and beat #1, you move to #2. If you're #600 and beat #1, you move to 300.

Basically, it eliminates "newbie bashing" for rank, and gives incentive to battle people better than you. The system itself provides an ideal ranking system. I just don't know how hard it would be to implement something like that. However, I *do* know that the actual mathematical formula is available online. If, by chance, LetsBeef is interested in checkin' it out, let me know and I can send you in the right direction.

[Godbody]

That points system is already around though. You beat someone thats a way higher rank you get more points

vs beating someone thats closer to you or lower than you in rank

My idea redefines the whole game and is the closest you can get to having a true skill-based ranking system

[Just C]

Yeah I'm digging Phroxens Idea.

[NOBLE]

We already have a points based system. The main thing that is different about Phroxen's suggestion is making it overt where people can see exactly how much points they would gain/lose by battling someone.

[Godbody]

People keep co-signing "Phroxen's idea" as if that idea hasn't been on the site for the past 6 years..lulz

& on a side note...

of all people, a MOD doesn't know how the ranking system works? shame on you Just C

[Student]

Maybe Someone Should Ask X Or Pugz How The System Currently Works And We Can Go From There Lol Y'all Tryna Fix Something Without Knowing The Inner Workings Is Like Banging The TV When It Doesn't Work

[ILLoKWENT]

People keep co-signing "Phroxen's idea" as if that idea hasn't been on the site for the past 6 years..lulz



lol, how would we know its been on the site,? show me where to look it up, and how many points i get for beating or losing to certain opponents...

[Godbody]

It's easy... I battled somebody that was way higher in rank than me this month

I had gotten more points for that battle than I would've for battling someone else.

You can do it yourself

Write down the amount of points you have, battle someone with a wack rank, you'll get a FEW points.

Battle someone with a higher rank, you'll get more points.

[KingBankstou]

pulse ya idea is dumb cause shitty people can vote for shitty people and rate them 10s

or dudes can vote dope verses 7's just because they hating .



that chess ladder is the best idea in here