What do you want in a Ladder?

[TinCow]

I was trying to think of way to combine the two but do as you like, I was just throwing out ideas.

Playing each player only once and not best out of 3 isn't the best I think and let alone having to play everyone in their tier especially if you have alot of people in the tier. That's why I said a cap amount of players in each tier before that player can be regulated at the end of a season. Having an ELO rating and win/losses is best because it gives an idea if that player has more or less losses/wins against higher or lower ELO opponents and allows people to be ranked by ELO rating in their tier.

Your way works for course, but maybe not the most satisfying way. I'll still play in it reguardless.

The hybrid system I'm thinking of now actually gives us a ton of freedom and opens up a lot of the options you were asking about. Since I'll handle promotion/relegation manually, we can easily add in that minimum number of games played rule.

You're actually getting confused by the 'best out of 3' and 'playing only once' aspects of the system. Each match between two players would be best out of 3. First to two wins claims victory in the match, which counts as a single win on the tier. We can then use the specific result of the three games (either 2-0 or 2-1) as the 'score', which will give additional information about how the match went. A 2-0 win really does mean something different from a 2-1 win, and it'll be nice to have that officially recorded.

Regarding ELO and win/loss, we can have both stats recorded, but we'll have to pick one of the two methods as the official ranking method. Is ELO the proper method for that, or is it win/loss?

[AMP]

The hybrid system I'm thinking of now actually gives us a ton of freedom and opens up a lot of the options you were asking about. Since I'll handle promotion/relegation manually, we can easily add in that minimum number of games played rule.

You're actually getting confused by the 'best out of 3' and 'playing only once' aspects of the system. Each match between two players would be best out of 3. First to two wins claims victory in the match, which counts as a single win on the tier. We can then use the specific result of the three games (either 2-0 or 2-1) as the 'score', which will give additional information about how the match went. A 2-0 win really does mean something different from a 2-1 win, and it'll be nice to have that officially recorded.

Regarding ELO and win/loss, we can have both stats recorded, but we'll have to pick one of the two methods as the official ranking method. Is ELO the proper method for that, or is it win/loss?

Ah ok I thought you just meant everyone plays each player only 1 match, my bad, so yeah best out of 3 is very much needed and the best way to do it. Yes a 2-0 win really means something different from a 2-1 win, you don't need to tell me that. :)

Well for ranking... if two players or more have the same wins/losses and one of them has defeated opponents or an opponent with worse win/loss stats then ELO will be needed to help decided who is on top. Unless you have each player play everyone in their tier before any regulation is done, but that probably wouldn't be the best way to keep things rolling at a steady pace. Might be best to put a cap on amount of matches needed to be played by everyone depending on the amount of players that join of course.