| 1 |
@malric I'm not sure what you mean by "for every X league points you get a bonus on the league ladder". Are you saying that receiving league points should boost you on the skill ladder? This is far from what I have in mind, so if you have a suggestion for a system you should spells yours out explicitly rather than as a modification of what I've laid out.
|
1 |
@malric I'm not sure what you mean by "for every X league points you get a bonus on the league ladder". Are you saying that receiving league points should boost you on the skill ladder? This is far from what I have in mind, so if you have a suggestion for a system you should spells yours out explicitly rather than as a modification of what I've laid out.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
In my proposal league points and the ladder are separate:
|
3 |
In my proposal league points and the ladder are separate:
|
| 4 |
* League points don't affect any part of the MM ladder. They don't change people's rankings or change who they can play.
|
4 |
* League points don't affect any part of the MM ladder. They don't change people's rankings or change who they can play.
|
| 5 |
* League points just keep accruing as you play MM games. They aren't modified any other way.
|
5 |
* League points just keep accruing as you play MM games. They aren't modified any other way.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
[q]To the extreme to explain the point: if top 5 players are always online (only ones incentivized by league points) and other players come each day at random time and play one game, the top 5 positions will be completely real (that's good) because they played a lot, while positions after top 5 can be quite inexact because people play mostly with top 5 (that's bad). I know in reality it will not be as this extreme case, but if the system works for top 5, why wouldn't it work for everybody?[/q]
|
7 |
[q]To the extreme to explain the point: if top 5 players are always online (only ones incentivized by league points) and other players come each day at random time and play one game, the top 5 positions will be completely real (that's good) because they played a lot, while positions after top 5 can be quite inexact because people play mostly with top 5 (that's bad). I know in reality it will not be as this extreme case, but if the system works for top 5, why wouldn't it work for everybody?[/q]
|
| 8 |
Here is why I think league points may work for the top 5 but not for everyone:
|
8 |
Here is why I think league points may work for the top 5 but not for everyone:
|
| 9 |
* If you're in the top 5 you have a decent shot at winning the league, both through the relative rate at which you gain league points and due to the possibility of advancement.
|
9 |
* If you're in the top 5 you have a decent shot at winning the league, both through the relative rate at which you gain league points and due to the possibility of advancement.
|
| 10 |
* The top N player has less opportunity to feel unfairness at the top N+1 player is beating them in league points, purely through activity, because the unfairness is mitigated by the top N+1 player gaining league points at a significantly lower rate.
|
10 |
* The top N player has less opportunity to feel unfairness at the top N+1 player is beating them in league points, purely through activity, because the unfairness is mitigated by the top N+1 player gaining league points at a significantly lower rate.
|
| 11 |
* The incentive for resigning quickly to gain points is significantly reduced when the rate of point gain changes dramatically if you gain or lose a rank.
|
11 |
* The incentive for resigning quickly to gain points is significantly reduced when the rate of point gain changes dramatically if you gain or lose a rank.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
| 13 |
Basically,
to
someone
at
position
80
league
points
would
be
almost
entirely
based
on
how
active
they
are
compared
to
players
of
ranks
20
to
200.
Is
rewarding
pure
activity
in
this
way
useful
and
helpful?
I'm
coming
around
to
the
idea
that
points
for
everyone
may
have
enough
advantages
to
outweigh
the
issues,
but
it
does
introduce
issues.
We
would
probably
need
to
do
a
bit
more
to
combat
resigning
for
rapid
point
gain,
and
possibly
introduce
rate
limits.
|
13 |
Basically,
for
someone
at
position
80,
their
league
point
standing
is
almost
entirely
based
on
how
active
they
are
compared
to
players
of
ranks
20
to
200.
Is
rewarding
pure
activity
in
this
way
useful
and
helpful?
I'm
coming
around
to
the
idea
that
points
for
everyone
may
have
enough
advantages
to
outweigh
the
issues,
but
it
does
introduce
issues.
We
would
probably
need
to
do
a
bit
more
to
combat
resigning
for
rapid
point
gain,
and
possibly
introduce
rate
limits.
|
League Ideas