Mana Games

[ahmedcoolio]

ok im not much satisfied with the way the system of giving points on the ladder .here is why i say tat .... imagine i beat swilliamz(if a miracle happens lol) an di get 12 point sok and then if he beats me he gets 6 points or soemthin but in the end 1-1=0 no one will get any points
i beat swilliamz once and i dont get points:O it shud rather be 12-6=6 (12 points which i won and 6 points whch he won and in the end i shud get 6 points)rather than takin sets into account .....or u can just award points for each set won and add them up for each player and do the rankings accordingly .

If u have any other suggestion or system u wud think is appropriat go ahead suggest it .

[Togtdaylttai]

I have something else to say about the ladder. The points given for beating different ranks on the ladder should be much more staggered. I have beaten lower ranked players numerous times, though I haven't beaten any of the top 3. In spite of this, I am #2 in the race rankings.

Instead of 1 point for low rank and 12 for #1, I believe it should go something like 1,2,4,6,9,12,15,19,23,27,31,36

[S.Williamz]

I know there are some flaws in the current scoring system lol...but I'm working on making it better actually...so suggestions are very welcome thanks...

[S.Williamz]

The reason the scoring system is like it is now is because I wanted to have head to heads in it...if points were given for each set won, the head to heads would become meaningless, and that would lead to other issues, I believe...

[Togtdaylttai]

A compromise between the two could be to have 1/2 the points given for wins past the h2h margin. But I see that having points for each set won would mean that people would just play all the time to get more points for either of them. Of course a counter to that would again be the limit on points from beating one person.

[S.Williamz]

A compromise between the two could be to have 1/2 the points given for wins past the h2h margin. But I see that having points for each set won would mean that people would just play all the time to get more points for either of them. Of course a counter to that would again be the limit on points from beating one person.

I see but how do you have a limit for sets won? Say, 10 sets won is a max againts one player per month? What if 2 players play 30 times a month against each other and the head to head is 20-10? With this suggested system the head to head is meaningless... Let's say Chiller is the n.1 player and I am the n. 2...so I get 12 points for winning 1 set against Chiller and he gets 11 points winning against me...We play against each other 30 times during a month...Chiller leads me 20-10...but because of the scoring system, we only count 10 set wins for me and 10 set wins for Chiller...so I get 120 points while Chiller gets 110...and I go to number 1...doesn't seem quite fair to me.

This same problem can happen with any rankings...players just max out 10 set wins or whatever the cap is, get max points regardless of head to heads...would totally mess up the rankings imo.

[S.Williamz]

The thing is, I did spend a good afternoon planning this scoring system and I can say having the head to head records count for a lot is absolutely crucial for this thing to make any sense! lol

[S.Williamz]

I have something else to say about the ladder. The points given for beating different ranks on the ladder should be much more staggered. I have beaten lower ranked players numerous times, though I haven't beaten any of the top 3. In spite of this, I am #2 in the race rankings.

Instead of 1 point for low rank and 12 for #1, I believe it should go something like 1,2,4,6,9,12,15,19,23,27,31,36

This is a good suggestion and something I thought about...I don't think scoring like you suggested(1,2,4,6,9,12,15,19,23,27,31,36) is much better than the current one...however I have something in mind that might work(or might not lol)...I'm prolly gonna try it out next...

PS. You are sixth in the race as of now. lol

[kyuuji]

I choose the 2nd.

[ahmedcoolio]

Swilliamz wrote:
"so I get 120 points while Chiller gets 110...and I go to number 1...doesn't seem quite fair to me. "

ok u said if i was no.1 and u were no.2 ok and u get 120 and i get 110 an tat u wud be no.1 so i think its fair coz u wud then deserve being no.1 becoz u have just beaten the no.1 10 times so u wud definately deserve tat spot. see u r no.1 in ladder rankings u beating a 6th ranked player ,or somethin, is not the same as he beating u? Thats wat i wanted to bring across .

[S.Williamz]

Swilliamz wrote:
"so I get 120 points while Chiller gets 110...and I go to number 1...doesn't seem quite fair to me. "

ok u said if i was no.1 and u were no.2 ok and u get 120 and i get 110 an tat u wud be no.1 so i think its fair coz u wud then deserve being no.1 becoz u have just beaten the no.1 10 times so u wud definately deserve tat spot. see u r no.1 in ladder rankings u beating a 6th ranked player ,or somethin, is not the same as he beating u? Thats wat i wanted to bring across .

But it's not fair, cuz the n.1 player is clearly better than the number 2, yet the number 2 player gets to be number 1, only because he won ten sets...that not something that is fair to me.

Giving points for each set sounds good at first if you haven't thought about it much, but if you do, you will find out it would tell rather poorly who deserves each ranking...

[S.Williamz]

Also with the current system, there are no meaningless wins. Even though you beat the n.1, you might not get direct points for it, should the head to head be 5-1, but you are actually making the number 1 lose points.

[Togtdaylttai]

No one really payed attention to my compromise system it seems: Have the head to head margin count for like 2 or 3 times more than the other wins. You still get points for winning each set but the head to head is not meaningless.

[S.Williamz]

No one really payed attention to my compromise system it seems: Have the head to head margin count for like 2 or 3 times more than the other wins. You still get points for winning each set but the head to head is not meaningless.

I don't really understand what you mean...could you elaborate?

[ahmedcoolio]

Swilliamz wrote:



But it's not fair, cuz the n.1 player is clearly better than the number 2, yet the number 2 player gets to be number 1, only because he won ten sets...that not something that is fair to me.

well dont u think if the no 2 player beats no1 ten times then he is definatley good player how can u say tat no.1 is clearly better tat makes no sense if he is then why did he lose in the 1st place lol well i proposed two ways just not oner so u can think abt the other option too