Stick-online pvp league down ?

[Celson]

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.

[Cactuscat222]

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.

[yottabyte]

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. :)

[stick d00d]

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

[Celson]

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.

[stick d00d]

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

[Lingus]

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.

[Cactuscat222]

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.

[krele]

How about just sorting it more than once?

Like, sort by Kill/Die ratio, Wins, Loses, etc.?

[stick d00d]

Is this still being worked on? It's been a long time.. just wondering.

[foG]

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?

[God-I-Suck]

I was thinking the same thing.

[krele]

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...

[Seifer]

This is Stick 2... Anyway, Scotty said he wanted to do this for when the clan update comes out. So wait for that.

[krele]

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