Ideas for Leagues
Page 1 2
| Author | Message | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
popman909
|
06 Dec 2005 01:14 am |
|
||
 |
I am a man of un-limited ideas, which is why I am suggesting some ideas for the leagues.
I know you guys don't want to use the ELO system, but atleast make it "almost" ELO by having the following system implemented: Wildman - 0-200 Brave - 200-400 Spy - 400-600 Warrior - 600-800 Priest - 800-1000 Firewarrior - 1000-1200 Shaman - 1200+ Every new player starts out as Warrior with 700. If the warrior loses to a spy (1 grade below) -2 points If the warrior loses to a brave (2 grades below) -4 points If the warrior loses to a wildman (3 grades below) -16 points Every grade below is x4 more...if that makes sense. If a Shaman loses to a Wildman that's a loss of (2x2x2x2x2x2) which equals a total loss of 64 (if my math is right). The same goes for gaining points. If a Wildman beats a Shaman, that's a immediate gain of 64. So not only is this system of leagues based on skill but it is also based on experience. When a rank beats a lower rank, it is simply one point for the lowest they can beat and then two for the second to the lowest they can beat. For example, if a Shaman beats a wildman one on one, there is only one point he can earn. But if a Shaman beats a Firewarrior one on one, there is 6 points to be won. This will discourage noob bashing as more points can be won by playing grades closer to the player. If a Shaman beats a Shaman one on one, there is 7 points to be won For team battles just add up the positions. If a Preist and Shaman (5+7) fight a Wildman and Brave (1+2) and lose, thats a difference of 9 (12-3) which equals a loss of 512 for the losing team. (This lowers the chance of stacked teams because a loss is so big) Let's just do some more. Wildman/Warrior (1+4) beat a Brave/Priest (2+5) = difference of 2 = gain of 4 points. Wildman/Warrior (1+4) beat a Brave/Spy (2+3) = difference of 0 = gain of 10 points (bonus for equally matched teams?) Shaman/Priest (7+5) beat a Wildman/Wildman (1+1) = difference of 10 = gain of 1? See, there are some problems and complications with team matchups, but I hope you've all read this and thought it over, I think it'd be interesting. |
|||
Koen
|
06 Dec 2005 05:09 am |
|
||
 |
Interesting way of creating leagues, but I don't agree with 'everyone starts as warrior'. The problem is that most new players have no experience with playing online, and can be seen as wildmen (or maybe braves) and ok... it's fair that they start as warrior, but if someone wins from a new player (a warrior!) that player would gain a lot of points! So would it be fairer to let new people start as wildman, or as warriors? | |||
|
Penguin
|
06 Dec 2005 09:48 am |
|
||
 |
It would be fairer as Wildman, But to start off, You should have the old system, so people win points to get up to warrior, earning it, that way, the good people are actually warriors not wildman, or the crap people arent warriors =/ | |||
|
Koen
|
06 Dec 2005 10:23 am |
|
||
|
On the other side, if a shaman loses to a wildman he loses 64 points. What if the wildman is a new and GOOD player. Losing 64 points isn't really fair then. | |||
|
popman909
|
06 Dec 2005 11:44 am |
|
||
|
I don't know.
I just don't agree with the current leagues system that is based completely on how much you play. And if the Shaman does lose to the wildman (and the wildman is a good new player), well, that is why I wanted everybody to start out at 700 like the ELO system. If a person who's a warrior is a noob, he'll surely sink down until hes a wildman. There are questions to be answered, such as how many points does a wildman lose when he loses to a Shaman? I think it should go for the same if a Shaman beats a wildman. You earn the distance close to you x1...if that makes sense. For example, if a wildman loses to a Shaman, he loses 1 point...if he loses to a Firewarrior, he loses 2...if he loses to a Priest, he loses 3 points, and so on until if he loses to his own grade, a wildman, he would lose 7 points. But the problem with that is that noobs can really drop in the points quickly. But like I keep saying, this system would discourage Shamans from playing wildmen and visa versa. There are many questions to be answered that I havn't figured out. Such as: would it be right for a warrior to lose to a warrior and lose 10 points because of evenly matched teams (a little bonus) and also, what about 2 vs 1 games and ffas... Personally, I like the ELO system of leagues, but since you guys don't want to do the ELO system, atleast do one that is modled after the ELO system but also has to do with how much you play... |
|||
tedtycoon
|
08 Dec 2005 08:24 am |
|
||
 |
Maybe we could have more grades.
WIldman Blue Brave Blue Spy ect. Red Brave to Green Shaman |
|||
|
Koen
|
08 Dec 2005 08:27 am |
|
||
|
But then we throw away the idea that people may choose their own color. :/ |
|||
|
stuffie
|
11 Dec 2005 11:08 am |
|
||
 |
i think you should make the rank of players according to the win/lose ratio.
so when a player begins, he will have a ratio of 0/0 then you have something like: win : lose = ratio ratio 0 = wildman 0.5 = brave 1 = spy 1.5 = warrior 2 = firewarrior 2.5 = preacher 3 = shaman |
|||
|
Penguin
|
12 Dec 2005 01:13 pm |
|
||
|
Cool O_o | |||
|
boyd
|
12 Dec 2005 04:37 pm |
|
||
 |
This is still sort of like PopRe's ranking system. A player will still be able to be a shaman just because he plays a lot and noob bashes. It should be based on who you beat/skill. |
|||
Rank: Guest
Points: 0
Wins: 0
Losses: 0