Titles

Would it make sense and/or be possible to have it correlate points awarded for wins to the difference between a battlers ranks. So if "#1 bnas", beats "#60,000 just joined the site and had his first battle, Nobody", then bnas gets almost no points. But if newbie beats #1 He gets a butt ton of points for that battle.

I'm not articulating this well currently cuz it's late on a weekend, and I does this. But I think you get the drift.

Would it make sense and/or be possible to have it correlate points awarded for wins to the difference between a battlers ranks. So if "#1 bnas", beats "#60,000 just joined the site and had his first battle, Nobody", then bnas gets almost no points. But if newbie beats #1 He gets a butt ton of points for that battle.

I'm not articulating this well currently cuz it's late on a weekend, and I does this. But I think you get the drift.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Aggo

Would it make sense and/or be possible to have it correlate points awarded for wins to the difference between a battlers ranks. So if "#1 bnas", beats "#60,000 just joined the site and had his first battle, Nobody", then bnas gets almost no points. But if newbie beats #1 He gets a butt ton of points for that battle.

I'm not articulating this well currently cuz it's late on a weekend, and I does this. But I think you get the drift.

I think it already works that way to some extent. It's related to the stars system. If you have open battles and you look on your page, it tells you how many stars each battle is worth, and that also ties into how high up the hotlist it reaches depending on what other battles are up.

If you check out the exclusive league rankings, for example, you will see that some people are rated higher and have more points off the same amount of wins than others. This is because they got more points off those wins.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Aggo

Would it make sense and/or be possible to have it correlate points awarded for wins to the difference between a battlers ranks. So if "#1 bnas", beats "#60,000 just joined the site and had his first battle, Nobody", then bnas gets almost no points. But if newbie beats #1 He gets a butt ton of points for that battle.

I'm not articulating this well currently cuz it's late on a weekend, and I does this. But I think you get the drift.

I think it already works that way to some extent. It's related to the stars system. If you have open battles and you look on your page, it tells you how many stars each battle is worth, and that also ties into how high up the hotlist it reaches depending on what other battles are up.

If you check out the exclusive league rankings, for example, you will see that some people are rated higher and have more points off the same amount of wins than others. This is because they got more points off those wins.

Makes sense. I wonder what the numbers look like though and if they could be adjusted to better reflect our ideals.

Makes sense. I wonder what the numbers look like though and if they could be adjusted to better reflect our ideals.

Splitting things up into divisions would make things interesting for both the hardcore users who have been around and the new heads because it gives you another layer of shit to strive for and the format of the site as a whole. Say you hit the top 25 of the rankings, then you can only battle people from 1-25 and that would be division 1, 26-50 can be division 2, and so on. This would eliminate people racking up wins on much weaker opponents and make things more competitive / interesting imo.


EDIT: And we can let people battle outside of their division battle eachother but the further away you get from your opponent rank wise the less reward you get for wins. So say Bnas is #1 and he battles a straight noob who is 0-3 he should get 1 point per win. While if he battled someone in his division, even ranked a bit lower than him and won he would get 15 points.

The out of division battles should be more rare, maybe you only are allowed 5 a month or something

Splitting things up into divisions would make things interesting for both the hardcore users who have been around and the new heads because it gives you another layer of shit to strive for and the format of the site as a whole. Say you hit the top 25 of the rankings, then you can only battle people from 1-25 and that would be division 1, 26-50 can be division 2, and so on. This would eliminate people racking up wins on much weaker opponents and make things more competitive / interesting imo.


EDIT: And we can let people battle outside of their division battle eachother but the further away you get from your opponent rank wise the less reward you get for wins. So say Bnas is #1 and he battles a straight noob who is 0-3 he should get 1 point per win. While if he battled someone in his division, even ranked a bit lower than him and won he would get 15 points.

The out of division battles should be more rare, maybe you only are allowed 5 a month or something

[Dirty Work]

Originally Posted by Bleu

Splitting things up into divisions would make things interesting for both the hardcore users who have been around and the new heads because it gives you another layer of shit to strive for and the format of the site as a whole. Say you hit the top 25 of the rankings, then you can only battle people from 1-25 and that would be division 1, 26-50 can be division 2, and so on. This would eliminate people racking up wins on much weaker opponents and make things more competitive / interesting imo.


EDIT: And we can let people battle outside of their division battle eachother but the further away you get from your opponent rank wise the less reward you get for wins. So say Bnas is #1 and he battles a straight noob who is 0-3 he should get 1 point per win. While if he battled someone in his division, even ranked a bit lower than him and won he would get 15 points.

The out of division battles should be more rare, maybe you only are allowed 5 a month or something

Pretty damn good idea

[Dirty Work]

Originally Posted by Bleu

Splitting things up into divisions would make things interesting for both the hardcore users who have been around and the new heads because it gives you another layer of shit to strive for and the format of the site as a whole. Say you hit the top 25 of the rankings, then you can only battle people from 1-25 and that would be division 1, 26-50 can be division 2, and so on. This would eliminate people racking up wins on much weaker opponents and make things more competitive / interesting imo.


EDIT: And we can let people battle outside of their division battle eachother but the further away you get from your opponent rank wise the less reward you get for wins. So say Bnas is #1 and he battles a straight noob who is 0-3 he should get 1 point per win. While if he battled someone in his division, even ranked a bit lower than him and won he would get 15 points.

The out of division battles should be more rare, maybe you only are allowed 5 a month or something

Pretty damn good idea

Then put the resetting credits idea into play and you really could have a good formula going.

Then put the resetting credits idea into play and you really could have a good formula going.

[J u s T C]

If you earned it you keep it unless it's interchangable ala LBT. I'm al for less titles. Shit I was more than happy removing my Patriarch as it's a life service/honorary title. But competitors who win tourneys earned the right to wear their titles with pride.

Unless 100 % of them vote yes. And I mean 100. They shouldn't be removed by vote of a bunch of randoms who haven't won shit. Do that and you're shitting on titlists and shooting yourself in the foot. Don't go there.

[J u s T C]

If you earned it you keep it unless it's interchangable ala LBT. I'm al for less titles. Shit I was more than happy removing my Patriarch as it's a life service/honorary title. But competitors who win tourneys earned the right to wear their titles with pride.

Unless 100 % of them vote yes. And I mean 100. They shouldn't be removed by vote of a bunch of randoms who haven't won shit. Do that and you're shitting on titlists and shooting yourself in the foot. Don't go there.

I actually was pretty proud of Patriarch...until Fiji OSa.

I actually was pretty proud of Patriarch...until Fiji OSa.

[Mindless]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

I can think of certain ways to make rankings reflect battler strength rather than amount of wins, but incorporating ELO into the rankings might be rather complicated, and I don't know if X is up for coding that.

I already did all the formulas and stuff for this. All it needs is implemented.

[Mindless]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

I can think of certain ways to make rankings reflect battler strength rather than amount of wins, but incorporating ELO into the rankings might be rather complicated, and I don't know if X is up for coding that.

I already did all the formulas and stuff for this. All it needs is implemented.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Mindless

I already did all the formulas and stuff for this. All it needs is implemented.

Dope! Any idea when it will get implemented? And will we also have the tiered weight classes that some have been asking for? I can see the unranked arena being re-purposed for such a thing. It's rarely used at all, so we might as well make some other use of it.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Mindless

I already did all the formulas and stuff for this. All it needs is implemented.

Dope! Any idea when it will get implemented? And will we also have the tiered weight classes that some have been asking for? I can see the unranked arena being re-purposed for such a thing. It's rarely used at all, so we might as well make some other use of it.