BL Points System!

[*DAMN Elandrion]

ok, I see that the current points system isn't really brilliant, so I'm going to change it. this is no problem because every battle since the restart of the BL was logged. so when I have Mauti's OK I can recalculate the points.

If you have any suggestions, post them here.

[Bondo]

Here is my proposed point system as was detailed in the other thread.

5 points per CB played
CB win % times 12
Game win % times 10
Kill ratio times 8
Quality win bonus for wins over top teams
10 points for 1
8 for 2
6 for 3
4 for 4
2 for 5

Add all these together to get their score.

Also coward penalty of 5 points for ducking a challange considering that a clan can only be challanged by one clan at a time and can only be challanged by any one clan once in three months. ?The challanged clan has two weeks to accept and play. ?If the challanger withdrawls the challange they are penalized 3 points. ?These rules only apply to forced challanges, casually set up battles are outside this rule.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

If you are going to set up a challenge device, you have to spice it up a little bit. Make it a gamble to challenge so a clan can't dish out challenges left and right to all the clans on the ladder. What I am saying is if clan A challenges clan B and loses, clan A gets -10 points for issuing the challenge while clan B gets the 10 points clan A lost. If clan A were to win, there would be no deductions in points.

This would be the only fair way to set it up - make challenges worth something.

[Grifter]

If you are going to set up a challenge device, you have to spice it up a little bit. Make it a gamble to challenge so a clan can't dish out challenges left and right to all the clans on the ladder. What I am saying is if clan A challenges clan B and loses, clan A gets -10 points for issuing the challenge while clan B gets the 10 points clan A lost. If clan A were to win, there would be no deductions in points.

This would be the only fair way to set it up - make challenges worth something.

I have to say I disagree Ass(assin). ?The whole point of a penelty for ducking challenges is to get clans to CB more frequently, and against more clans. ?By putting a penalty on a clan that looses just because they wanted to CB will only slow CB's down, not encourage them.

If you are worried that clan A will challenge the same clan 20 times, or challenge ever clan in the league in one day... Bondo has already proposed to make it so a clan may have only one active challenge at a time... ?both for or against I imagine. ?As for the clan challenging not showing up, well, that should be treated like a forefit, no? ?



Bondo, as for the three month time limit... That seems a bit long. ?If we just set it up so that they could only be challenged by one clan at a time, it would "force" no more then two CB's a month at worst on a clan that didn't want to CB. ?I'll give an example (even if it is outlandish) ?AK has ducked SWAT since the start of the new battle league. ?SWAT challenges AK. ?SWAT looses. ?SWAT wants a rematch, but AK ducks again... ?with the one challenge at a time window, SWAT can challenge AK again as long as another clan hasn't. ?Otherwise, 1/4 year goes by before they could force a rematch.

Also, as to the point system of Bondo's....

• first, CB win %? ?I don't know what that's there for. ?So a clan with 4 CB wins beats a clan with 0 CB wins and you tie that into the score? ?Your skill points are covered below (and I'll talk about them next) but for scoring a single CB, game win % * 10 and kill ratio * 8 seem to take care of point differences for close games vs blow outs. ?But I don't see where CB win % comes in. ?Also, using % and ratio's is a trap that the current BL is in.... gotta make sure you don't divide by 0 in any of those, or it throws off the forumla. ?Also, a question... ?does the loosing team get points too?
  
  
• As for the quality win, I like it except that 1) it's got an error in the numbers.... goes 10, 8, 6, 4, 5, not 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, and 2) you mentioned in a different post that it would be the place AFTER the CB, not before. ?I think it should be what place the team battled was in BEFORE the CB started... ?i.e. if you knock off the team that was in first place, and you knock them into second (because you take first I assume) you should still get 10 bonus points, not 8. ?

Now, after all that, I'd still like to give Bondo credit for coming up with this.... it may sound like I'm tearing it apart, but I'm actually just looking for little holes that could set us back. ?All in all, I like his suggestions.[/color]

[Bondo]

First of, I suppose the three month part could be changed but as they are two week periods, two months would only have 4 challange periods before a rematch so two months would seem to be not too long or too short.

The reason for the CB win % is to factor in the difference between a 4-0 team and a 2-2 team which is the main place where points are given for a win. ?About losing teams getting points, yes, they get the 5 points for having the battle same as the winners do. ?While they would likely lose points in every other category, they would lose less if they play a close match.

Finally about the quality win, now that I think about it it would be easier and better to have the points based on the standings prior to the battle like you say. ?Sorry for my typo in the points for place, switched 5 and 2 there.

P.S. ?In my system there is no danger of having a problem dividing by a zero because all the numbers are computed seperately and then added so if one of the numbers is zero, it just doesn't add points, it won't affect the score at all.

[Bondo]

Delete this post, or don't, I can always use the extra help towards 500.

[Matt]

you can edit your own posts, just hit the modify button you double posting bastard!

I think that bondos system is good except that the points deducted should be more than 5, depending on hte average points gotten for a CB. because if clan A was challenged by clan B, and if clan A didnt want to risk losing many points they could just decline and lose 3... also, i dont know how you will re-tally the points but would negative numbers be a problem? i'd have to see an example CB with points for this system to understand it more clearly... just trying to think of some problems that you could run into.

[Bondo]

Thanks for reminding me how stupid I was, I've stopped asking the moderators here to wipe my perverbial ass.

To clarify a few things, if a clan that is challanged ducks, they lose 5 points which is the same amount a team gains from playing a CB which I think makes it in good proportion.  If the team that is doing the challange backs off, then it is a forfeited match and the normal applications would happen with the team that is forfeiting not getting their 5 points that would be gained had they battled. (actually I may want just a non-battle punishment of 3 points to forfeiting clans as the other team would get such a boost from getting the perfect game that usually applies for forfeitures.)
Also, negitive points could happen, but only if a clan is continually dodging and pulling out of battles.

To follow I'll draw up an example CB result and standings for two teams with varied stats.

[Bondo]

First lets set the picture before a battle of the #1(A) and 5 (B) teams. (For the example all games are 2v2)

A is 4-0 but had some close calls so they have game score of 28-12 and a kill score of 60-30. They also have a win over a team that was #3.  You take 4 battles times 5 points/battle (20) plus 12 times their battle win % of 100 (12) plus 10 times their game win % of 70 (7) plus 8 times their kill ratio of 66.7% (5.33) plus the quality win points (6).  Their score going into it is 50.33

B is 2-2 winning convincingly and losing just barely with a game score of 25-15 and kill score of 60-30.  B gets the same (20) for four battles plus 12 times 50% (6) plus 10 times 62.5% games (6.25) plus 8 times 66.7% kills (5.33).  Their total entering the battle is 37.58.

Now in the battle B beats A with a game score of 7-3 and a kill score of 16-8.  Now lets look at how the scores are changed.

A now is 4-1 (25 for CBs played) +(9.6 CB win%)+31-19 (6.2 game win%)+68-46 (4.77 kill%)+ (6 quality win points) for a total of 51.57

B now is 3-2 (25 for CBs played) + (7.2 CB win%) + 32-18 (6.4 game win%) + 76-38 (5.33 kill%)+ (10 point quality win) for a total of 53.93 putting them ahead of the team they just beat.  It could be assumed that the #5 team would move to #1 as they have more points then the #1 team had before and the other teams wouldn't gain points from this battle.

It would be more interesting to see how the real numbers would go into this and change about the current standings.  The problem is for the moment quality wins can't be applied as we can't know who is in what place at the time of the challange.  I think having no quality win bonus for the matches already played would be beneficial though as having the quality points awarded with few matches played would be inconsistent as a crappy team might have been there towards the beginning and not deserving of earning the bonus points for.

[*DAMN Elandrion]

well Bondo, I really like your idea, and just now i'm programming a small script which will show you the scores the different systems produce...

*DAMN Elandrion

[Bondo]

Just wanted to say that with my points system (minus quality win points that wouldn't factor in this early anyway) M7 is in first place as they have played many more games than anyone else. ?But it seems to sort teams fairly. ?I'm considering lowering the value of CBs played but I think having it as high as it is encourages active play, but I don't like the idea of a team that joins late having no chance to catch up other than by playing loads extra.

[PsYcO aSsAsSiN]

I hope typing MIB was a typo, because they have only played two games...if your system launches them to first place, it is just as faulty as the current one.

[Bondo]

Indeed it was, in fact M7 is the clan at the top using my point system.  I knew it was something with an M  

[*DAMN Elandrion]

Everbody can take a look at the BL with the different points systems - click there --> ../clanladder/index.php?comment_ID=56 to read more...

*DAMN Elandrion

[Grifter]

First, thanks Elandrion for showing those 4 examples.

So, here's what I see..

• First, the old BL way... tried and true, it still works.
  
  
• Second, Bondo's way... seems to reward clans that play but don't win.  A clan that is 3 and 5 is ranked as high as a clan that is 6 and 0, and over clans that are 5 and 1.
  
  
• Third, the current system...  flawed.  One win against a good clan and a new clan can be in first place with only 1 win...  it's a disadvantage to CB early, or against teams that are ranked lower (so why would a good clan CB lesser clans.. they'd not stand to earn points).
  
  
• Fourth, Elandrion's Improved System, better then the current system, but still a bit skewed...  an 0 and 1 clan has 999 points, while the top two (5-1, 6-0) have only 100 points more...  I'm assuming that every clan starts with 1000 points and points can go in either direction (depending upon win or lose).

So, to me it seems that either the old BL way (tried and true) or Elan's latest are the best options.  I'd have a better feel for it if I saw your new example with some higher scores (and maybe all the information that leads to those scores).

Thanks for working so hard on it!  That's my 2?.

[/color]

[Bondo]

Grifter, after seeing the results I too saw that too many points were going towards just playing. Elandrion, if you have time, could you lower the points per battle to 3 instead of 5, I think that should make it less of a direct factor but still make it helpful to battle more. ?Depending on how things look at 3 it might even go down to 2 or 1 but I think in needs to be a factor.

Addition
After doing a little adjusting in my head I think 2 is the best number for the battles played multiplier.  At 2, M7 and SWAT would be in a dead heat.  The additional 7 games played being the main factor keeping M7 close despite the other numbers being there.  If Swat played another battle they would move ahead.  So Elandrion, if you could actually set the number to 2, maybe my systme will be more to Grifter's and everyone else's liking.

[*DAMN Elandrion]

Info about the ELO-System:

This system has been used in chess games/tourneys for a long time. Depending on the points the 2 clans have before the match, a win-probability (expected winrate) is calculated. If the result is as expected, the points will be evenly spread. If the "better" clan wins with a higher winrate than expected, the winning clan gets fewer points. But if the "better" clan loses, it will even lose some points depending on how the winrate differs from the expected winrate.

I can't explain it very well, but here are some links:
http://gobase.org/rating/elo.html
http://home.clear.net.nz/pages/petanque/ratings/descript.htm
http://www.chesslinks.org/hof/elo.html

@Bondo: I'll change the script within the next few minutes  

*DAMN Elandrion

[*DAMN Mauti]

Grifter: "Third, the current system... ?flawed. ?One win against a good clan and a new clan can be in first place with only 1 win... ?it's a disadvantage to CB early, or against teams that are ranked lower (so why would a good clan CB lesser clans.. they'd not stand to earn points)."

Well thats because we have a bug in the script the start value should be 10 points for every clan so for example currently SWAT has 83 points and you lose against a newbie clan(start value 10) in a 4 vs 4 cb the newbie clan would get approximatly 48points and if wins another cb against SWAT he would have 69points. Only after a 3rd win against the #1 he would be better than you(88points) and I think that would be fair!

Bye,

*DAMN Mauti

[$hadoW]

I think that bondos way is the best because new clans actually get a chance unlike the current u wou;d have to fight win fight win fight win fight win etc... just to get in the top 10 Bondos way is the best!

[Precious_Roy]

Whatever is chosen is good by me, provided that there are no bugs in the system. ?For example, currently on the R6 ladder a team with 13 points is ranked below a team with 12 points. ?That seems rather foolish.

I just want to make sure that the system makes sense and is laid out well so that it is easy for those of us with low IQs and SATs to understand.

May I also suggest that the system gives points for winning games, not just CBs? because as it is that does not occur.  I'm betting that's been suggested, but it may not have been.