Elements PvP League - Suggestions and Feedback

[AlainJohns]

So, I came up with this: multiply the number of wins by the percentage of wins. Would that work?

In this case a player A with a winning pct of 100 an 40 challenges would still be ranked below a player B with a winning pct of 50 and 100 challenges, which would still be very alike to your example.

I think the main problem is that if you just compare the winning pct of players, you can easily get a better one by always playing against the apparently weaker players, but if you just take care of the among of wins a case like Demagog and others mentioned can appear.

So wee need a system where it makes sense to play not just against the lowest ranked players as well as to play not just a few matches and then stop due to the good winning pct.

a few suggestions:

1) a volume-based system with a maximum among of challenges you have to play. so a player with much more time then others wouldn`t have an advantage.

2) a pct-based system with minimum among of challenges you have to play. if you have to play lets say at least 20 challenges then you can`t play one, win it and rest for the rest of the league with a 100 pct.

but in both cases it wouldn`t make much sense to challenge an apparently strong player.
so I´d think something like an elo-system would be great where winning against a high ranked player is worth more points then playing against a lower ranked one.

although this would require much effort...

[MyNameIsJoey]

... i think simply going with what dema said would be wonderful

[artagas]

First i would like to point out that Demagog's suggestion and my suggestion are actually similar in terms that we want to multiply the number of wins by some coefficient based on your succes rate.
(basically he suggests won*(won/(won+lost) and i suggest won-lost = won*(1-won/lost) )
While i think my coefficient is a bit better for league rankings is that this way a 50% winrate player will NEVER top the rankings (he will have 0 points and some people will have positive amount of points) which is the way it SHOULD be since a 50% winrate player has no edge over the league, how could he win it (while he still can in Demagog's system, and easily can in the current system.)

If you are bothered by the idea that people will have negative points and feel bad, meh just start everybody off 1000 points.

Also in my mind an optimal system takes into consideration the strength of your opponents somehow. Since repeatedly challanging and beating new players is not as big a deal as beating the best ones.
An ELO-type system is wonderful for this purpose but i think it is waay to difficult to be implemented. Maybe there is some freeware around the big internets to keep track of rankings in such a system though, i will google around.

[vagman13]

Well sorry for the offtopic,but this is the more logic place for me to post:

When are we going to get our reward codes? It's been too long already...

[lava golem]

Reward codes will be given out when Zanz gives codes to SG

[homoaddictus]

I agree with the others that the scoring system needs to be addressed. I was under the impression that the league is there for people who do not have time to do tournaments and marathon events. But the scoring system suggests that you still need to a lot of marathon playing to keep ahead in the standings. Joining the league mid season where half the players already quit means you simply can't climb up, except if you do some marathon gaming again.

Like the others, i would also like to propose a simple scoring system based on league standings. I propose that bonus points be awarded based on rank/strength of opponent.

Match points = 2 + Round Down[2*(Winner Rank - Loser Rank)/3]

With this you'll get a maximum bonus of 2 points for every 3 rank difference in the league rankings.

[Gocubbies1212]

when will the next league start?

[Demagog]

Another thought on the scoring: In conjunction with multiplying a person's wins by their winning percentage, what about then multiplying that number by the percentage of games they played out of the total number of games played? I'm kind of in a rush so I haven't thought out the different scenarios that could occur, so I'm just posting it before I forget. So if a person played 4% of the games played, you'd multiply their modified score (win% x wins) by .04.

I kinda think it wouldn't change anything, but like I said, in a rush.

[Demut]

Lets keep it simple. The six game limit placed will make it so such doesn't happen again. Therefore, your concerns are groundless.

[Demagog]

Huh? The six games per person rule has been in effect since 2010/2 and it hasn't helped at all. How well a player performs isn't a factor (almost) in determining who wins. Number of games played is all that matters.

[Demut]

Then make it based off the mean with a twenty game minimal have been played to be considered.

[homoaddictus]

Any computation based on wins, win%, games played or match results will never address the main problem: the more you play, the better your chances of being champion. A third component should be added to the scoring system, a bonus system based on strength of opponent. While the real strength of your opponent is subjective, one way to quantify this is through the player's current rank.

Like the others, i would also like to propose a simple scoring system based on league standings. I propose that bonus points be awarded based on rank/strength of opponent.

Match points = 2 + Round Down[2*(Winner Rank - Loser Rank)/3]

With this you'll get a maximum bonus of 2 points for every 3 rank difference in the league rankings.

Rank Difference	Bonus Points	Match Points
1	0	2
2	1	3
3	2	4
4	2	4
5	3	5
6	4	6
...	...

With this system added, winning against top ranked players will move you up the standings while defeating lower ranked ones won't give bonuses at all. Joining mid season will not be such a drawback. Judging from the functionality of the war standings table, it's safe to assume that adding this to the current league tables would be relatively easy.