I was just wondering if the pvp league was down because when I tried to go to it recently it went to this go daddy thingy.
Quote from: scsox on October 28, 2009, 08:06:56 PM
I was just wondering if the pvp league was down because when I tried to go to it recently it went to this go daddy thingy.
The PvP League is currently down because it wasn't really used to it's full potential, and maintaining it costs money. Go Daddy, I could be wrong, is the web host that is used to host it. Also, this was all set-up by GaZ and his brother, so it's down to them where it goes.
Depending on what's going on, I'd be willing to get it back up. Gaz, I'll send ya a PM, but if ya catch this, let me know what's up. I can always add a sub-domain to my site. If not, any objections to letting me taking a stab at it?
I've pm'd you Scotty
Just an FYI, I am re-working the PvP League. The version of the PvP league is being built from scratch, from the ground up, and you can expect a lot of expanded functionality from the previous version. Things like player hosted tournaments, team battles, weapon brackets (ie whip-only fights, etc...), and much more. I'll keep you posted as more comes along. You can expect an initial release of the new PvP League this week sometime. I already have a substantial start on it, and if everything goes as planned, you can expect more to come very soon!
Something people can look forward to as well, is that I will need a team of PvP League moderators. These people do not have to be part of the GM staffing for SO, and can be anyone. I do obviously hold a some level of standards as to whom will be selected, but if you feel you would make a good moderator for PvP battles, get ready!
Quote from: Scotty on November 08, 2009, 08:30:30 PM
Just an FYI, I am re-working the PvP League. The version of the PvP league is being built from scratch, from the ground up, and you can expect a lot of expanded functionality from the previous version. Things like player hosted tournaments, team battles, weapon brackets (ie whip-only fights, etc...), and much more. I'll keep you posted as more comes along. You can expect an initial release of the new PvP League this week sometime. I already have a substantial start on it, and if everything goes as planned, you can expect more to come very soon!
Something people can look forward to as well, is that I will need a team of PvP League moderators. These people do not have to be part of the GM staffing for SO, and can be anyone. I do obviously hold a some level of standards as to whom will be selected, but if you feel you would make a good moderator for PvP battles, get ready!
:o Ahh awesome. I really liked the pvp league. And this new version of it that you speak of sounds really awesome :)
I may be interested in becoming a moderator of your team.
Quote from: Scotty on November 08, 2009, 08:30:30 PM
Just an FYI, I am re-working the PvP League. The version of the PvP league is being built from scratch, from the ground up, and you can expect a lot of expanded functionality from the previous version. Things like player hosted tournaments, team battles, weapon brackets (ie whip-only fights, etc...), and much more. I'll keep you posted as more comes along. You can expect an initial release of the new PvP League this week sometime. I already have a substantial start on it, and if everything goes as planned, you can expect more to come very soon!
Something people can look forward to as well, is that I will need a team of PvP League moderators. These people do not have to be part of the GM staffing for SO, and can be anyone. I do obviously hold a some level of standards as to whom will be selected, but if you feel you would make a good moderator for PvP battles, get ready!
Sweet. This is going to be awesome, I can tell. I would also be interested in being a moderator for the League.
Exiting stuff Scotty! Definitely can't wait to see it finished ;)
I have an idea for a ranking system.
Orginally the SO PVP League top pvp list was ordered by peoples Total wins - Total losses. Let me show some examples...
Stick One
Total Wins: 25
Total Losses: 7
Stick Two
Total Wins: 15
Total Losses: 0
In that case, Stick One would be ranked higher than Stick Two. Even though Stick Two is undefeated. And Stick One is only ahead because he has competed in more fights.
So my idea is that instead of using the formula Total wins - Total losses, it should be Total wins / (divide) Total Losses. That way it would of ranked Stick Two on the top.
I don't expect you (Scotty) to use this idea, since you may have something else better in mind. But it's just merely a suggestion that might improve the PVP League ranking system :).
Quote from: Celson on November 13, 2009, 02:46:01 AM
So my idea is that instead of using the formula Total wins - Total losses, it should be Total wins / (divide) Total Losses. That way it would of ranked Stick Two on the top.
Not a bad idea, but, you need to be able to take things into consideration such as, if someone is 1-0 he would be above someone that is 20-5 (depending on how it is calculated)
Also perhaps level could be taken into account, e.g, someone kills a level 5 player 20 times and gets 20 wins for it or whatever.
also maybe HP left could add a percentage section to it so as if 2 people have the score 20-3 than whoever had the highest percentage of their health left when they won their matches it would take them into consideration and whoever had the higher percentage would be higher.
But it will never be completely perfect and accurate, but IMHO that is pretty close
Quote from: Celson on November 13, 2009, 02:46:01 AM
I have an idea for a ranking system.
Orginally the SO PVP League top pvp list was ordered by peoples Total wins - Total losses. Let me show some examples...
Stick One
Total Wins: 25
Total Losses: 7
Stick Two
Total Wins: 15
Total Losses: 0
In that case, Stick One would be ranked higher than Stick Two. Even though Stick Two is undefeated. And Stick One is only ahead because he has competed in more fights.
So my idea is that instead of using the formula Total wins - Total losses, it should be Total wins / (divide) Total Losses. That way it would of ranked Stick Two on the top.
I don't expect you (Scotty) to use this idea, since you may have something else better in mind. But it's just merely a suggestion that might improve the PVP League ranking system :).
So...A stick has 5 wins and 0 losses...So that is 5 divided by 0....DIVISION BY ZERO. FAILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. :) Not a bad idea though...just get yer mathematics right.
Quote from: Matty_Richo on November 13, 2009, 03:40:00 AM
Quote from: Celson on November 13, 2009, 02:46:01 AM
So my idea is that instead of using the formula Total wins - Total losses, it should be Total wins / (divide) Total Losses. That way it would of ranked Stick Two on the top.
Not a bad idea, but, you need to be able to take things into consideration such as, if someone is 1-0 he would be above someone that is 20-5 (depending on how it is calculated)
Acctually, 20 divided by 5 = 4. So he would be still ranked higher.
Quote from: Mr Pwnage on November 13, 2009, 02:26:59 PM
So...A stick has 5 wins and 0 losses...So that is 5 divided by 0....DIVISION BY ZERO. FAILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL. :) Not a bad idea though...just get yer mathematics right.
Yikes. Didn't think of that. Well here is a solution formula for it...
Total Wins / (Total Losses + 1)Stick Man 1
Total Wins: 10
Total Losses: 0
Score: 10 (10 / (0 + 1))
Stick Man 2
Total Wins: 15
Total Losses: 2
Score: 5 (15 / (2 + 1)
The formula actually makes sense now. Thanks Mr Pwnage for letting me know that mistake :)
The +1 is only necessary when you have 0 losses. So I suggest a max function with the parameters 1 and losses: max(1,loss). No matter what the scenario, it will line up (I believe).
~Aqua
well
20 wins / 4 loss = rank 5
100 wins / 20 loss = rank 5
So they would be tied. Even when the 2ed stick had a much bigger killing streak. (unless i misunderstood your suggestion.)
I think if you win you should get 1 point and if you loose you get -1 point.
Okay, so change it up then: Stick One has 20 wins and 5 losses, and Stick Two has 5 wins and 0 losses.
According to the formula, Stick Two would be ranked higher than Stick One - But why should he be ranked higher than Stick One?
One has participated in far more battles, and came out victorious, so therefore he should be ranked higher. Why should a player who has barely participated in battles be ranked higher?
EDIT: Just saw Art's post, I definitely agree. A point system would be far more better.
Quote from: ARTgames on November 13, 2009, 05:35:20 PM
well
20 wins / 4 loss = rank 5
100 wins / 20 loss = rank 5
So they would be tied. Even when the 2ed stick had a much bigger killing streak. (unless i misunderstood your suggestion.)
I think if you win you should get 1 point and if you loose you get -1 point.
But if they have those wins and losses. Then that means they are quite evenly matched, since there wins is a lot higher than there losses. But with the + and - of your points... it just makes it inaccurate.
The first guy would have 16 points, and the other guy would have 80. That would make the second guy looks like he's 5x better than the first one, but they would be pretty much evenly matched. Trust me, doing the formula my way would be a better way for the ranking system. Because you wouldn't have to go off and win heaps of battles just to get a score of someone who is pretty much your equal.
Quote from: Celson on November 13, 2009, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on November 13, 2009, 05:35:20 PM
well
20 wins / 4 loss = rank 5
100 wins / 20 loss = rank 5
So they would be tied. Even when the 2ed stick had a much bigger killing streak. (unless i misunderstood your suggestion.)
I think if you win you should get 1 point and if you loose you get -1 point.
But if they have those wins and losses. Then that means they are quite evenly matched, since there wins is a lot higher than there losses. But with the + and - of your points... it just makes it inaccurate.
The first guy would have 16 points, and the other guy would have 80. That would make the second guy looks like he's 5x better than the first one, but they would be pretty much evenly matched. Trust me, doing the formula my way would be a better way for the ranking system. Because you wouldn't have to go off and win heaps of battles just to get a score of someone who is pretty much your equal.
You are assuming that Wins/Losses determines your skill, which is not true. A person with 20 wins and 5 losses can be massively better than a person who has 5 wins and 0 losses.
Scientifically, there is not enough data to determine fully - it takes a very large amount of matches before you get a good solid number.
Just make it like this; first list by the W/L rate and if they are tied, list by the amount of wins. Problem solved. :)
Quote from: ARTgames on November 13, 2009, 05:35:20 PM
well
20 wins / 4 loss = rank 5
100 wins / 20 loss = rank 5
So they would be tied. Even when the 2ed stick had a much bigger killing streak. (unless i misunderstood your suggestion.)
I think if you win you should get 1 point and if you loose you get -1 point.
agreed
Quote from: Cactuscat222 on November 13, 2009, 06:54:43 PM
Quote from: Celson on November 13, 2009, 06:50:00 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on November 13, 2009, 05:35:20 PM
well
20 wins / 4 loss = rank 5
100 wins / 20 loss = rank 5
So they would be tied. Even when the 2ed stick had a much bigger killing streak. (unless i misunderstood your suggestion.)
I think if you win you should get 1 point and if you loose you get -1 point.
But if they have those wins and losses. Then that means they are quite evenly matched, since there wins is a lot higher than there losses. But with the + and - of your points... it just makes it inaccurate.
The first guy would have 16 points, and the other guy would have 80. That would make the second guy looks like he's 5x better than the first one, but they would be pretty much evenly matched. Trust me, doing the formula my way would be a better way for the ranking system. Because you wouldn't have to go off and win heaps of battles just to get a score of someone who is pretty much your equal.
You are assuming that Wins/Losses determines your skill, which is not true. A person with 20 wins and 5 losses can be massively better than a person who has 5 wins and 0 losses.
Scientifically, there is not enough data to determine fully - it takes a very large amount of matches before you get a good solid number.
I realize that it doesn't determine your skill. I'm just suggesting an idea that would make it as accurate as the original system. Ratio's work much better in my opinion, although they do have small faults. Such as someone getting a few easy wins at the start could have a higher score than someone else that is better fighter, but all you have to do is beat that person and then suddenly it begins to evens out.
that is true... but i'm sure that since we don't have a HUGE community compared to something like MW2 or COD4, that people can determine who truly is better then another, ratios aside.. and that is why i think ART has a good idea.. +1 pt win -1 loss
I agree with Celson's take on this. It makes more sense to consider wins and losses the way he is doing it.
I'm just thinking this through, but consider a win percentage. Take the number of wins and divide it by the total number of fights. Someone with 1 win and 0 losses will have 100%. Someone with 20 wins and 5 losses would have 80% win rate and be ranked lower. Essentially the same thing (except there's no division by error, and no weird +1 thing).
Now, what I will concede to the opposing viewpoint is that it seems unfair for someone who has just started, and only fought in a single battle and happens to have won would receive the highest possible ranking. To get around this, what if there were some kind of rank points system. Every fight would depend on the rank of the two individuals fighting. The higher the rank difference the more points awarded/deducted.
Just a few brief examples:
Rank 1 beats Rank 1 - Loser -1 point, Winner +1 point
Rank 10 beats Rank 1 - Rank 10 +0.1 points, Rank 1 -0.1 points
Rank 1 beats Rank 10 - Rank 1 +10 points, Rank 10 -10 points
In those examples, you take the rank of the loser and divide it by the rank of the winner. If they are evenly matched the points add/removed is 1. If a higher ranked person beats a lower ranked person, the points added/removed is very small because it was the likely outcome. Conversly if a lower ranked person beats a higher ranked person, the points added/removed is very high because it was not the likely outcome.
Of course, the numbers can be tweaked, but the general idea is there. I'm thinking rank would not necessarily be the number of points a person has, but would be based on their points. Maybe average points over number of fights. Something like that.
I play a game that does exactly that. Every player that starts the game start with 1500 PSR (Public Skill Rating, I believe). From there, you gain points if you win, and you lose points if you lose. The amount of points you gain/lose depends on the PSR of the other players, and so far, it works very well, and is fairly accurate of a persons skill.
Of course, a lot of people don't consider the PSR in that game to represent a person's rank that much, as a person can do terrible in a game, but still end up winning since its a team game, but that is beside the point, and I doubt SO3 would be anything like it.
How about just sorting it more than once?
Like, sort by Kill/Die ratio, Wins, Loses, etc.?
Is this still being worked on? It's been a long time.. just wondering.
Couldn't find the topic in which Scotty posted he'd recreate a pvp league with a fanzy clan section and all, so I figured I'd use this topic since it is the same subject. So, scotty what happened? Did the idea already die again?
I was thinking the same thing.
Well, the site would be, considering how "big" SO playerbase is - useless...
Rather wait for Stick Online 2... Or you could make this now, and later just use it for SO2...
This is Stick 2... Anyway, Scotty said he wanted to do this for when the clan update comes out. So wait for that.
Quote from: Seifer on September 06, 2010, 01:46:17 AM
This is Stick 2... Anyway, Scotty said he wanted to do this for when the clan update comes out. So wait for that.
The game is officially called Stick Online... And the new one will be called Stick Online 2, as far as I know... But does it matter anyways? haha
Quote from: krele on September 06, 2010, 08:19:09 AM
Quote from: Seifer on September 06, 2010, 01:46:17 AM
This is Stick 2... Anyway, Scotty said he wanted to do this for when the clan update comes out. So wait for that.
The game is officially called Stick Online... And the new one will be called Stick Online 2, as far as I know... But does it matter anyways? haha
Actually, even Meiun references the current version has V2 and says the currently developed version is v3, as the rest of the community does.
Progress is slow but certain. I've been getting tangled up in multiple projects, and work is effectively draining me of motivation. As of right now, the account system is complete, and I've begun working on 1vs1 battles. Once I feel confident that that is completed and stable, I will be sending out invites to members via these forums for beta-testing of the application. I'll send out invites to the GMs as well as a select list of a few members who I intend to offer staff positions to, for moderation purposes.
Quote from: krele on September 06, 2010, 08:19:09 AM
Quote from: Seifer on September 06, 2010, 01:46:17 AM
This is Stick 2... Anyway, Scotty said he wanted to do this for when the clan update comes out. So wait for that.
The game is officially called Stick Online... And the new one will be called Stick Online 2, as far as I know... But does it matter anyways? haha
Then almost the whole community has giving the developing Stick online the wrong name. As most people say SOv3, Stick online V3, or Stick online 3. Meh I guess it dosen't matter though, if Meiun feels it's important to address us on witch one it is, he will do so.
~Looperpuck
Haha, sorry, I was convinced you all call it SO2...