Quote Originally Posted by TinCow View Post
What kind of numbers do you think we need at a minimum? 20+? 50+?

If it's successful, I'm sure it will draw more later, but establishing a good starting level would be mandatory.
That would be a good start as long as we can draw more.

Our own working ELO system would be nice, but it's also nice to have replays of matches, know ones wins/losses, know if they are on a win streak and know who they played and when and how many times. I don't wanna look at someone and just see a rating on them and that's it... because if there can be so much more then there should be. When you look someone up it should have their ELO rating and stats... some or all the ones I listed.

The thing that makes it a grind is where someone who plays a ton more has a better chance to be on top of course, that's why you need stats as well to keep it more real and interesting. You also can't have someone milking out someone else playing them a tons, so there should be a cap on games vs the same person and after a certain time has passed you can play them again. Maybe a cap of 5 games vs the same person in a couple months and only can start playing that same person again as the last game vs him/her has passed that date and then not play again until the next game has passed that date etc.

Maybe have a cap where each player has to like 10 different people best of 3 and no more after that. Then you can put people in different tiers and continue the cycle having top players move up and bottom players move down in tiers. Something like the clan meta just ALOT better. :p

Maybe later down the road once it is establisted and running smooth to start offering prizes to help draw more people in and make it more rewarding to play.


Quote Originally Posted by 00owl View Post
Yeah I think the current ladder version that is live in-game, is a mixture of the ELO and some messed up half-baked system.

Though it is technically possible in the ELO system that someone with more losses could be higher than someone with more wins if the wins of the first person, though few and far between, were all against the highest ranking people, and the wins of the second person were against the lowest ranking people.

200 wins at 1 point each is less than 50 wins at 10 points each.

EDIT: *Historical Note*
I believe that the ELO was designed specifically for, and is still used by, professional chess leagues.
Whatever they have now isn't that great and of course the exploiting isn't helping and they lack so much info. I wanna be able to look up people and see stats like who they played , when they played them, how many times, results of the matches, and replays.

p2p = fail