New ranking system

[Risktaker17]

Subject: To lessen the importance of rank (I know this has been rejected) with a new ranking system.

Body: I propose a new ranking system,
10(loser's score/winner's score)+10
This will take off some of the importance of rank but still leave some importance, As a captain if I take on a cadet I'm risking 60 points for 7, but with the new system I would be risking 40 but would have a chance of winning 13. I think this is a good idea and should be thought over. If you encounter any flaws please feel free to say something.

Priority=5, Very important to change

[Risktaker17]

Responses would be nice

[Ronaldinho]

Responses would be nice

Patience is a virtue.

[cena-rules]

Change it back to the old way and changfe the scoring to this.

So dont have none of the fancy new ranks.

[Herakilla]

i see where your coming from but his is just more power to those at the top of the scoreboard

[Risktaker17]

Yeah, but they deserve to be up there, losing one game shouldn't make them lose 100 points.

[Optimus Prime]

There isn't anything wrong with the way the rankings system is right now. Ever since they added in the new ranks it is easier to achieve a new rank (for the lower ranks) which gives those players a feeling that they are actually accomplishing something.

I don't have a problem with the scoring system. It doesn't need to be changed. I think it is fair for a low scoring player to be rewarded for defeating a high-scoring player. It is not the lower scoring player's fault if that high ranked player got there by only playing triples games against New Recruits.

I've lost plenty of points and gained plenty of points. It's not broken, so there is no need to fix it. Changing the formula doesn't do anything. You still are risking more points than you have a chance of winning, so what is the difference?

[Herakilla]

Yeah, but they deserve to be up there, losing one game shouldn't make them lose 100 points.

if they are up there then arent they good enough NOT to lose? and if someone happens along that is BETTER (i.e. beats them) than them shouldnt he/she be awarded?

[joecoolfrog]

Yeah, but they deserve to be up there, losing one game shouldn't make them lose 100 points.

Your idea would simply mean far more unbalanced games with the higher ranks forever targeting lower ranks for easy points. The way things are at the moment are as fair as is possible,if you dont want to take the risk of losing huge points then simply play games with those of similar rank. If you are good enough to beat your equals then you will rise up the leaderboard and this is the way it should be. Nobody has to ever play against those much lower than themselves so if they lose 100 points then it is their own fault,I cannot set games but have no trouble finding good opponents.

[yorkiepeter]

well i like the suggestion. It would be ok if skill was the only factor, but there is a considerable amount of luck involved that would mean high ranks can out play well their opponent(s) and still get screwed by the dice

[Risktaker17]

Whatever, just a suggestion.

[Herakilla]

well i like the suggestion. It would be ok if skill was the only factor, but there is a considerable amount of luck involved that would mean high ranks can out play well their opponent(s) and still get screwed by the dice

yes there is that. but thats called LUCK (unless you dont believe in it) it would be asinine to try to make a scoring system to account for that cuz its RANDOM and theres NOTHING you can do about it

[soundout9]

I think its fine the way it is. The only thing that could change is that second place in 5 or 6 player games gets some points.

[Optimus Prime]

Man, if second place in 5 or 6 players games got points I'd be a Brigadier in no time.