Moderator: Community Team
Clanlord Carl wrote:Current ranking system at the top is currently broken. The majority there gamed the system by playing team games with low ranked partners. I certainly dont think of any of the 'top' 25 are actually the best players. They would quickly lose their puffed up points if they played in competitive tourneys against all comers.
They know it, we know it - so fix it. For example a team is treated as the ranking of the top player in it not the average. This would immediately remove the team rating exploit.
Clanlord Carl wrote:Current ranking system at the top is currently broken. The majority there gamed the system by playing team games with low ranked partners. I certainly dont think of any of the 'top' 25 are actually the best players. They would quickly lose their puffed up points if they played in competitive tourneys against all comers.
They know it, we know it - so fix it. For example a team is treated as the ranking of the top player in it not the average. This would immediately remove the team rating exploit.
Dukasaur wrote:Clanlord Carl wrote:Current ranking system at the top is currently broken. The majority there gamed the system by playing team games with low ranked partners. I certainly dont think of any of the 'top' 25 are actually the best players. They would quickly lose their puffed up points if they played in competitive tourneys against all comers.
They know it, we know it - so fix it. For example a team is treated as the ranking of the top player in it not the average. This would immediately remove the team rating exploit.
+1
IcePack wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Clanlord Carl wrote:Current ranking system at the top is currently broken. The majority there gamed the system by playing team games with low ranked partners. I certainly dont think of any of the 'top' 25 are actually the best players. They would quickly lose their puffed up points if they played in competitive tourneys against all comers.
They know it, we know it - so fix it. For example a team is treated as the ranking of the top player in it not the average. This would immediately remove the team rating exploit.
+1
This is an awful take. In addition to what don / swim said, typically theyāre lower ranked for a reason. Inexperience, more mistakes, missed turns, etc. even if perfect directions are laid out, a high ranked guy probably plays it well regardless of the outcome. Lower rank will blindly follow directions / miss picking up on changed conditions or considerations because of failed or excellent dice. They take risks playing w lower ranks and time to team them proper play (not everyone does that but some do).
This āsolutionā is awful. Itās fixing a problem that doesnāt exist
Clanlord Carl wrote:IcePack wrote:Dukasaur wrote:Clanlord Carl wrote:Current ranking system at the top is currently broken. The majority there gamed the system by playing team games with low ranked partners. I certainly dont think of any of the 'top' 25 are actually the best players. They would quickly lose their puffed up points if they played in competitive tourneys against all comers.
They know it, we know it - so fix it. For example a team is treated as the ranking of the top player in it not the average. This would immediately remove the team rating exploit.
+1
This is an awful take. In addition to what don / swim said, typically theyāre lower ranked for a reason. Inexperience, more mistakes, missed turns, etc. even if perfect directions are laid out, a high ranked guy probably plays it well regardless of the outcome. Lower rank will blindly follow directions / miss picking up on changed conditions or considerations because of failed or excellent dice. They take risks playing w lower ranks and time to team them proper play (not everyone does that but some do).
This āsolutionā is awful. Itās fixing a problem that doesnāt exist
Ok so you think we should continue with a broken system and offer no new ideas. Almost All the 'top' players are team averagers. Thats broken.
Mad777 wrote:To me i think itās more how the āConquerorā is represented today, with the way the site is, or has be represented in the past, canāt speak for earlier site time since i wasnāt really paying attention (cheating case to reach the conqueror medal), my personal thought would be based on āvariable playingā, meaning the monthly score those days would be the most accurate view of how the site is currently dynamic and who ādeserveā to receive such a reward, being Conqueror to play only few games and in very few maps and settings is far to represent a valid scenario of being declare a āConquerorā.
However, and to be granted as ātop playerā should have more data to be embedded as it is now. Even āmonthlyā shouldnāt be the best but more āquarterlyā, with data collection such as;
how many different map win in a quarter, how much game type played (multiplayer, 1v1, Poly, Team), average of ranked opponent should be at āxā amount.
Adding all the above factors and a players fulfilling those within a āxā decided timeframe, could be seen as a real value to deserve such a āConquerorā. This is only to name few in order to qualify being into such a scoreboard.
Clanlord Carl wrote:Mad777 wrote:To me i think itās more how the āConquerorā is represented today, with the way the site is, or has be represented in the past, canāt speak for earlier site time since i wasnāt really paying attention (cheating case to reach the conqueror medal), my personal thought would be based on āvariable playingā, meaning the monthly score those days would be the most accurate view of how the site is currently dynamic and who ādeserveā to receive such a reward, being Conqueror to play only few games and in very few maps and settings is far to represent a valid scenario of being declare a āConquerorā.
However, and to be granted as ātop playerā should have more data to be embedded as it is now. Even āmonthlyā shouldnāt be the best but more āquarterlyā, with data collection such as;
how many different map win in a quarter, how much game type played (multiplayer, 1v1, Poly, Team), average of ranked opponent should be at āxā amount.
Adding all the above factors and a players fulfilling those within a āxā decided timeframe, could be seen as a real value to deserve such a āConquerorā. This is only to name few in order to qualify being into such a scoreboard.
I think very much the same more thought needs to be put into the ranking system. With a few exceptions i'm fairly sure the 'highest' players will get there ONLY by playing a low volume of team games with trusted friends. You sure won't see any of them playing in 1v1 tourneys against dozens of different players on a wide range of maps.
Clanlord Carl wrote:I think very much the same more thought needs to be put into the ranking system. With a few exceptions i'm fairly sure the 'highest' players will get there ONLY by playing a low volume of team games with trusted friends. You sure won't see any of them playing in 1v1 tourneys against dozens of different players on a wide range of maps.
Donelladan wrote:Clanlord Carl wrote:I think very much the same more thought needs to be put into the ranking system. With a few exceptions i'm fairly sure the 'highest' players will get there ONLY by playing a low volume of team games with trusted friends. You sure won't see any of them playing in 1v1 tourneys against dozens of different players on a wide range of maps.
1vs1 is the worst setting ever. It's mainly luck.
Why do you want good player to play that setting ? That wouldn't prove anything about skills.
Btw, even though you try to ignore it, top 25 players are really good are what they play and they don't abuse the system to get there - at least the vast majority of them.
It's not because they don't play every settings of the site that they aren't good.
let's just appreciate for a second that some settings are more luck based.
Playing multiplayers games with noobs also increase the luck factor.
It's not that surprising if many high ranked players mainly play team game because 2 team games have a lower luck factor than most other settings.
Clanlord Carl wrote:Donelladan wrote:Clanlord Carl wrote:I think very much the same more thought needs to be put into the ranking system. With a few exceptions i'm fairly sure the 'highest' players will get there ONLY by playing a low volume of team games with trusted friends. You sure won't see any of them playing in 1v1 tourneys against dozens of different players on a wide range of maps.
1vs1 is the worst setting ever. It's mainly luck.
Why do you want good player to play that setting ? That wouldn't prove anything about skills.
Btw, even though you try to ignore it, top 25 players are really good are what they play and they don't abuse the system to get there - at least the vast majority of them.
It's not because they don't play every settings of the site that they aren't good.
let's just appreciate for a second that some settings are more luck based.
Playing multiplayers games with noobs also increase the luck factor.
It's not that surprising if many high ranked players mainly play team game because 2 team games have a lower luck factor than most other settings.
1v1 most certainly isnt luck if you dared venture into a competitive tourney you would notice the same players managing to win a higher percent than others. Go take a look at the map masters series where we play a tourney on every single 243 map and by 'luck' the same players manage to win.....almost every time.
betiko wrote:I personally don't think it's fair to remove points from the top 10; I'm not sure I just looked quickly at naruto's games and he seems to play a lot of guide games and bot games because he is so bored of not being able to play point games, in fear of losing... because once you are that high it takes a lot of victories to recover from a lost game.... he is basically trapped by the system.
Caymanmew wrote:Make it so only the top player's score is counted... it won't make much of a difference. Sure Random and MC will be screwed but most of the guys between 3500 and 4000 points are rarely losing team games to teams with no one over 3k and almost never losing to teams with no one over 2500.
swimmerdude99 wrote:I think Naruto and PAP are two that come to mind that highlight the way to be people with good insights to emulate! Pick one map, one setting, and play them over and over since you can guarantee a high win rate. Points are genuinely a joke because as everyone knows, there is no motiviation to play outside certain settings. Naruto would never play something public, something multiplayer or something other than bots or Das Schloss. Its too risky. As he points out, he could and most likely would lose points, even if he were good enough to win on other maps/settings, he'd suffer big losses with what I would bet would be about a 65% winrate at best on other games. There is no motivation to play outside the games that got him there, it's too costly. And as long as bot games or one clan game is enough to keep people as "active" it will stay that way... probably until the site dies, or he leaves for good.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users