Ranking system: Scores/number of games played & Games won/Games

[qetuol]

I think there should be other ranking system than order of score. I mean if player A has 10 000 points of score with 500 games won and 100 games lost and player B has 12 000 ponits with 3000 games won and 5000 games lost (im not sure the exact number but this can definitely happen with the current scoring system) then i think payler A is still better player than player B, altough the score says the opposite.
I think there should be an other ranking (alongside the current system) which ranks players with highest score against the number of matches.

[Jappert]

So you want to promote grinding AI3 with a winpercentage of 95%+ over FG grinding with a winpercentage of ~50%?

I think your solution will make things even more broken then it already is. If we're gonna change things I'd say make AI5/FG's give some more score.
Win:Loss ratio shouldn't mater at all I think, that's what we have score for!

[catalyzeme]

There have been a few suggestions to make a PVP-only score, which I think SG has mentioned to Zanz before. If it happens, it happens, but Zanz definitely knows that there are people bothered by the current scoring for PVP.

[Ashebrethafe]

Ranking based on games played or won rewards grinding AI0 (it loses the fastest). The current system, based on score, rewards grinding the AI with the highest expected return per minute (and usually skipping the spins -- but maybe not, if you expect the cards you'll win to help you significantly improve your rate of return). Ranking based on games lost punishes grinding, and is the only single-total ranking of the four that puts player A ahead of player B. However, ranking based on the ratio of any two of these four totals also puts player A ahead, by a factor of 20/9 (2.222) to 125/3 (41.667):
Score: B's score is 6/5 (1.2 times) A's score (A 10,000 vs. B 12,000).
Wins: B has won 6 times as many games (A 500 vs. B 3,000).
Games: B has played 40/3 (13.333 times) as many games (A 600 vs. B 8,000).
Losses: B has lost 50 times as many games (A 100 vs. B 5,000).

Wins/games: A is 20/9 (2.222 times) as good (A 0.833 vs. B 0.375).
Games/losses: A is 15/4 (3.75 times) as good (A 6 vs. B 1.6).
Score/wins: A is 5 times as good (A 20 vs. B 4).
Wins/losses: A is 25/3 (8.333 times) as good (A 5 vs. B 0.6).
Score/games: A is 100/9 (11.111 times) as good (A 16.667 vs. B 1.5).
Score/losses: A is 125/3 (41.667 times) as good (A 100 vs. B 2.4).

[qetuol]

So you want to promote grinding AI3 with a winpercentage of 95%+ over FG grinding with a winpercentage of ~50%?

I think your solution will make things even more broken then it already is. If we're gonna change things I'd say make AI5/FG's give some more score.
Win:Loss ratio shouldn't mater at all I think, that's what we have score for!

nope, i mean scores divided by the total number of games played. of course you can play against AI0 and you will win all the games, but you will score less.   its not broken, think of it. if you earn the same amount of score with less games played you are better. e.g. Player A has 10000 score with 500 games played total and player B has 5000 scores with 100 games played total. Player A is ranked higher , however player B is seemingly better.

[Ashebrethafe]

I was also leaning toward average score per game, after comparing the six ratios. (Plus, it's the least connected to the win/loss record, as it doesn't count either one.) I might want to change how I'm ranking my elemental accounts now -- I've been comparing how many games each one loses on the way to reaching 500 score. (And one or two times, they've actually reached 1500 ep first!)

[RootRanger]

if you earn the same amount of score with less games played you are better.

This is not true; thus, your system collapses.
Your above fallacy displays the "better" players as the ones who spend the largest percentage of their games mindlessly EMing the AI3. The better players are actually the ones who do well in PvP tournaments and events.
No matter what system you use, you cannot show the best PvP players through AI competition (unless the players are playing human decks, ie. T500).
The current score is not trying to rank players from best to worst; it is to provide an incentive for players to grind and spend a lot of time on elements. High score means you can make farms and show off your decks in T50.
Your idea for a score system would reward players who spend the largest percentage of their time in AI3; thus, playing any other opponent would be punished.

[qetuol]

if you earn the same amount of score with less games played you are better.

This is not true; thus, your system collapses.
Your above fallacy displays the "better" players as the ones who spend the largest percentage of their games mindlessly EMing the AI3. The better players are actually the ones who do well in PvP tournaments and events.
No matter what system you use, you cannot show the best PvP players through AI competition (unless the players are playing human decks, ie. T500).
The current score is not trying to rank players from best to worst; it is to provide an incentive for players to grind and spend a lot of time on elements. High score means you can make farms and show off your decks in T50.
Your idea for a score system would reward players who spend the largest percentage of their time in AI3; thus, playing any other opponent would be punished.

highly disagree.. playing AI3 and T50 gives maximally 20 scores per game. Playing PVP2 gives at least 20 scores per game even if you face against a player who has very low scores against your scores. so that means you wont get same score playing less games by playing against AI, in fact, this sytem would reward players who play PVP.

[RootRanger]

Meh, in hindsight I should've said AI5.
Nevertheless, AI grinding gets you more score per game for most people because at a certain point huge amount of score will be lost in PvP for each loss.

[qetuol]

Meh, in hindsight I should've said AI5.
Nevertheless, AI grinding gets you more score per game for most people because at a certain point huge amount of score will be lost in PvP for each loss.

so? lost games are OVERcompensated by won games. you gain much more by winning in PVP than losing especially if you are skilled. this is how good players/decks can be higher ranked with less games. the current system rewards newbie players who farm against AI, playing 100 games per day. My system awards PVPyers who gain more from PVP if they are skilled (of course losing much if they are noobs).

[xdude]

if you earn the same amount of score with less games played you are better.

This is not true; thus, your system collapses.
Your above fallacy displays the "better" players as the ones who spend the largest percentage of their games mindlessly EMing the AI3. The better players are actually the ones who do well in PvP tournaments and events.
No matter what system you use, you cannot show the best PvP players through AI competition (unless the players are playing human decks, ie. T500).
The current score is not trying to rank players from best to worst; it is to provide an incentive for players to grind and spend a lot of time on elements. High score means you can make farms and show off your decks in T50.
Your idea for a score system would reward players who spend the largest percentage of their time in AI3; thus, playing any other opponent would be punished.

highly disagree.. playing AI3 and T50 gives maximally 20 scores per game. Playing PVP2 gives at least 20 scores per game even if you face against a player who has very low scores against your scores. so that means you wont get same score playing less games by playing against AI, in fact, this sytem would reward players who play PVP.

Yet in the time you win a PvP game you win like... 5 vs AI.

[RootRanger]

Meh, in hindsight I should've said AI5.
Nevertheless, AI grinding gets you more score per game for most people because at a certain point huge amount of score will be lost in PvP for each loss.

so? lost games are OVERcompensated by won games. you gain much more by winning in PVP than losing especially if you are skilled. this is how good players/decks can be higher ranked with less games. the current system rewards newbie players who farm against AI, playing 100 games per day. My system awards PVPyers who gain more from PVP if they are skilled (of course losing much if they are noobs).

The current system provides an incentive for people to play a lot. It's not designed to be a perfect system for PvP. That's T500, and it's coming to a store near you!

Your system awards someone who joins, plays one PvP game against a high-scored player, wins, and never plays again. So that's skill, eh?