Okay gather round everybody.
Here are some examples of what the ladder would have looked like under the two systems proposed so far. (But not ELO just yet). Note "2016 Official Rank" equals their current standing on the 2016 Ladder under current rules. Names listed are in order based on the player average of the new system in place. If you want to know what it would be without the average just look for the biggest number in the darker shaded column.
Firstly @Nelson1812 with what I'm calling the 'Soccer League Approach.' (Alright Football). It's simply 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw. Nothing on size of battle and no point change depending on the degree of victory or defeat.
Essentially it's whoever plays the most games that gets top overall score. The averaging against the number of games that player has played also doesn't do much to make it a more level playing fields since there is only values of 3's, 1's and 0's to play with. Real strong chance of gaming the system and also for draws to occur on the ladder rankings at the end of the year. Simple methods work in the professional sporting arena where the number of games are fixed and teams rotate, but CM of course has to be a bit more complicated.
@Meat Grinder 's system is essentially changing the values assigned to the current ladder setup including the introduction of negative values for losses. (Scroll up for point breakdowns). It does provide some greater weighting towards the number of wins you receive I grant you, but the top ranked players are generally still in the mix in some way.
Changing point values is easy and if the club wants to go down that route I can implement any changes that in literally a minute. However for the amount of change it actually does on the ladder is it worth it? No to mention this is a friendly club ladder, there isn't a $100 000 prize waiting for the winner around Christmas. (Unless @Bootie has been hiding something from me
) Not saying it's a problem but I think what's throwing a lot of people is the fact we award 50% of the potential available points to battle size which means the straight win's vs losses don't have as much effect as a serious competition ladder. Again, the answer is probably not simply removing the battle size points since that would just encourage everyone to play as many tiny battles as possible.
ELO... yeah still looking into integrating it into the current setup.
Have fun.
Here are some examples of what the ladder would have looked like under the two systems proposed so far. (But not ELO just yet). Note "2016 Official Rank" equals their current standing on the 2016 Ladder under current rules. Names listed are in order based on the player average of the new system in place. If you want to know what it would be without the average just look for the biggest number in the darker shaded column.
Firstly @Nelson1812 with what I'm calling the 'Soccer League Approach.' (Alright Football). It's simply 3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw. Nothing on size of battle and no point change depending on the degree of victory or defeat.
Essentially it's whoever plays the most games that gets top overall score. The averaging against the number of games that player has played also doesn't do much to make it a more level playing fields since there is only values of 3's, 1's and 0's to play with. Real strong chance of gaming the system and also for draws to occur on the ladder rankings at the end of the year. Simple methods work in the professional sporting arena where the number of games are fixed and teams rotate, but CM of course has to be a bit more complicated.
@Meat Grinder 's system is essentially changing the values assigned to the current ladder setup including the introduction of negative values for losses. (Scroll up for point breakdowns). It does provide some greater weighting towards the number of wins you receive I grant you, but the top ranked players are generally still in the mix in some way.
Changing point values is easy and if the club wants to go down that route I can implement any changes that in literally a minute. However for the amount of change it actually does on the ladder is it worth it? No to mention this is a friendly club ladder, there isn't a $100 000 prize waiting for the winner around Christmas. (Unless @Bootie has been hiding something from me
) Not saying it's a problem but I think what's throwing a lot of people is the fact we award 50% of the potential available points to battle size which means the straight win's vs losses don't have as much effect as a serious competition ladder. Again, the answer is probably not simply removing the battle size points since that would just encourage everyone to play as many tiny battles as possible.ELO... yeah still looking into integrating it into the current setup.
Have fun.
