the Ranking System

[Godbody]

ya'll need to address this...newcomers get turned off by the fact they have to drop 300 battles or some shit just to break Top 10

imo ya'll should have someone code an algorithm for a skill-based ranking system...

where everyone has a skill level with a value from 1-10, 1-100, 1-500, w/e

keep the ranking system we have now, just wipe the leaderboard..and add a skill based ranking system where people are put into tiers

like Bronze, Silver, Gold, Diamond etc

Diamond being the highest skilled battlers, Bronze the worst...and people go up and down in those tiers based on the skill of the opponent they battle & how frequently they beat people in their tier or a higher tier

[Godbody]

ya'll need to address this...newcomers get turned off by the fact they have to drop 300 battles or some shit just to break Top 10

imo ya'll should have someone code an algorithm for a skill-based ranking system...

where everyone has a skill level with a value from 1-10, 1-100, 1-500, w/e

keep the ranking system we have now, just wipe the leaderboard..and add a skill based ranking system where people are put into tiers

like Bronze, Silver, Gold, Diamond etc

Diamond being the highest skilled battlers, Bronze the worst...and people go up and down in those tiers based on the skill of the opponent they battle & how frequently they beat people in their tier or a higher tier

[AfterThought]

@Godbody Cool idea, but how do we exactly determine where every battler belongs on that list?

[AfterThought]

@Godbody Cool idea, but how do we exactly determine where every battler belongs on that list?

[Godbody]

Everyone starts at Bronze

If we're all Bronze, and I win 5 battles in a row against Bronze cats, or maybe 4 out of 5...I'll either be Silver or at the end of my Bronze progression

If a Bronze dude has no battles and beats me, he pulls more rank vs beating another Bronze dude with no battles or 1-2 battles

When you're Silver you get less skill from beating Bronze, but you get marginally more if you beat a Bronze dude on the verge of hitting Silver

And apply that to Gold, Diamond etc

[Godbody]

Everyone starts at Bronze

If we're all Bronze, and I win 5 battles in a row against Bronze cats, or maybe 4 out of 5...I'll either be Silver or at the end of my Bronze progression

If a Bronze dude has no battles and beats me, he pulls more rank vs beating another Bronze dude with no battles or 1-2 battles

When you're Silver you get less skill from beating Bronze, but you get marginally more if you beat a Bronze dude on the verge of hitting Silver

And apply that to Gold, Diamond etc

Like a 2k method

Like a 2k method

[Godbody]

I've seen this shit in mad places....not even 2k

and I've learned to fuck with it. Cuz it makes sense

[Godbody]

I've seen this shit in mad places....not even 2k

and I've learned to fuck with it. Cuz it makes sense

[V3numb]

LEAGUE OF LEGENDS elo up in this bitch.. anyone under 10k is considered ELO HELL


really niggas are gold tier shun


Godbody you forgot platinum,masters, and challenger lol

[V3numb]

LEAGUE OF LEGENDS elo up in this bitch.. anyone under 10k is considered ELO HELL


really niggas are gold tier shun


Godbody you forgot platinum,masters, and challenger lol

[Godbody]

I dont play League of Legends

point is 100 games implement this shit and its dope

i got the idea from the Halo 5 beta to keep it 100 with ya'll lol

[Godbody]

I dont play League of Legends

point is 100 games implement this shit and its dope

i got the idea from the Halo 5 beta to keep it 100 with ya'll lol

[V3numb]

lol but yeah,. i wdnt mind tiers/divisions either, seems more prestigious than numbers.. nad maybe defines more of who's "heavyweight,featherweight,etc"

[V3numb]

lol but yeah,. i wdnt mind tiers/divisions either, seems more prestigious than numbers.. nad maybe defines more of who's "heavyweight,featherweight,etc"

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Godbody

ya'll need to address this...newcomers get turned off by the fact they have to drop 300 battles or some shit just to break Top 10

imo ya'll should have someone code an algorithm for a skill-based ranking system...

where everyone has a skill level with a value from 1-10, 1-100, 1-500, w/e

keep the ranking system we have now, just wipe the leaderboard..and add a skill based ranking system where people are put into tiers

like Bronze, Silver, Gold, Diamond etc

Diamond being the highest skilled battlers, Bronze the worst...and people go up and down in those tiers based on the skill of the opponent they battle & how frequently they beat people in their tier or a higher tier

We already have a skilled based ranking system. It's the stars under each person's name. It will say something like 8.1 or 7.63 and it is the average of every rating you have ever received in Text (if its your text stars) or Audio. It's based on how the community ranks your skill level with the way they have been rating you. What we could do is create a listing of top 100 based on the star ratings. However, it might be a bit skewed because people who have been on LB for some years are more likely to be overrated star-wise due to the fact that giving 9's and 10's were common in the past whereas now, a lot of people are dropping more realistic rates and you have to be REALLY good to get anything more than a 6. So someone who just started within the last year might actually be equally or more skilled than someone who has been here for years and still have less star points than the older member. It won't be perfect, but it would probably be the easiest and most practical way to accomplish what you are asking for.

[NOBLE]

Originally Posted by Godbody

ya'll need to address this...newcomers get turned off by the fact they have to drop 300 battles or some shit just to break Top 10

imo ya'll should have someone code an algorithm for a skill-based ranking system...

where everyone has a skill level with a value from 1-10, 1-100, 1-500, w/e

keep the ranking system we have now, just wipe the leaderboard..and add a skill based ranking system where people are put into tiers

like Bronze, Silver, Gold, Diamond etc

Diamond being the highest skilled battlers, Bronze the worst...and people go up and down in those tiers based on the skill of the opponent they battle & how frequently they beat people in their tier or a higher tier

We already have a skilled based ranking system. It's the stars under each person's name. It will say something like 8.1 or 7.63 and it is the average of every rating you have ever received in Text (if its your text stars) or Audio. It's based on how the community ranks your skill level with the way they have been rating you. What we could do is create a listing of top 100 based on the star ratings. However, it might be a bit skewed because people who have been on LB for some years are more likely to be overrated star-wise due to the fact that giving 9's and 10's were common in the past whereas now, a lot of people are dropping more realistic rates and you have to be REALLY good to get anything more than a 6. So someone who just started within the last year might actually be equally or more skilled than someone who has been here for years and still have less star points than the older member. It won't be perfect, but it would probably be the easiest and most practical way to accomplish what you are asking for.

[Godbody]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

We already have a skilled based ranking system. It's the stars under each person's name. It will say something like 8.1 or 7.63 and it is the average of every rating you have ever received in Text (if its your text stars) or Audio. It's based on how the community ranks your skill level with the way they have been rating you. What we could do is create a listing of top 100 based on the star ratings. However, it might be a bit skewed because people who have been on LB for some years are more likely to be overrated star-wise due to the fact that giving 9's and 10's were common in the past whereas now, a lot of people are dropping more realistic rates and you have to be REALLY good to get anything more than a 6. So someone who just started within the last year might actually be equally or more skilled than someone who has been here for years and still have less star points than the older member. It won't be perfect, but it would probably be the easiest and most practical way to accomplish what you are asking for.

I know, I alluded to the points system ya'll have in place and all but its flawed. The star ranks are flawed too. Those are ratings given to you by other people. Dickriders can give wack dudes 10s and haters can give nice dudes 1s... It's a flawed system

now if I just have a tier, like Bronze or some shit... I can battle someone in my tier, or higher...and algorithms will determine how many points I get or lose if i win/lose to them, and those points count towards my progression

for example... I could be Bronze tier and 2/3rd's of the way to Silver...but if I lose to a really low Bronze, I go back down to 1/3rd of the way or even less...or if I'm 2/3rds done with Bronze and I beat someone that's Silver, I automatically shoot up to Silver, or close to it. If I beat someone that's Gold as a Bronze tiered dude with 2/3rds of his progression done, I'll shoot up to Silver tier with 1/3rd of the progression for silver done. or if I beat a Diamond nigga I'll shoot up to Silver & 2/3rds of the way to Gold. Idk, something like that. Ya'll figure out how many W's it'll take but thats the general idea

its similar to what ya'll have now, but the thing with this current system is its based on how many battles you have, not the quality of the people you battle. and that's what ya'll should do, is create a separate leaderboard entirely with tiers alongside the shit ya'll have now, or wipe the leaderboards completely and implement the tiered shit and only the tiered shit

because while the shit ya'll have now does have some kind of skill based shit goin on, it's more based on how many battles you win. & that's a problem when dudes do 10 snipes a day against shitty cats and reach #1 on the all time leaderboard

[Godbody]

Originally Posted by NOBLE

We already have a skilled based ranking system. It's the stars under each person's name. It will say something like 8.1 or 7.63 and it is the average of every rating you have ever received in Text (if its your text stars) or Audio. It's based on how the community ranks your skill level with the way they have been rating you. What we could do is create a listing of top 100 based on the star ratings. However, it might be a bit skewed because people who have been on LB for some years are more likely to be overrated star-wise due to the fact that giving 9's and 10's were common in the past whereas now, a lot of people are dropping more realistic rates and you have to be REALLY good to get anything more than a 6. So someone who just started within the last year might actually be equally or more skilled than someone who has been here for years and still have less star points than the older member. It won't be perfect, but it would probably be the easiest and most practical way to accomplish what you are asking for.

I know, I alluded to the points system ya'll have in place and all but its flawed. The star ranks are flawed too. Those are ratings given to you by other people. Dickriders can give wack dudes 10s and haters can give nice dudes 1s... It's a flawed system

now if I just have a tier, like Bronze or some shit... I can battle someone in my tier, or higher...and algorithms will determine how many points I get or lose if i win/lose to them, and those points count towards my progression

for example... I could be Bronze tier and 2/3rd's of the way to Silver...but if I lose to a really low Bronze, I go back down to 1/3rd of the way or even less...or if I'm 2/3rds done with Bronze and I beat someone that's Silver, I automatically shoot up to Silver, or close to it. If I beat someone that's Gold as a Bronze tiered dude with 2/3rds of his progression done, I'll shoot up to Silver tier with 1/3rd of the progression for silver done. or if I beat a Diamond nigga I'll shoot up to Silver & 2/3rds of the way to Gold. Idk, something like that. Ya'll figure out how many W's it'll take but thats the general idea

its similar to what ya'll have now, but the thing with this current system is its based on how many battles you have, not the quality of the people you battle. and that's what ya'll should do, is create a separate leaderboard entirely with tiers alongside the shit ya'll have now, or wipe the leaderboards completely and implement the tiered shit and only the tiered shit

because while the shit ya'll have now does have some kind of skill based shit goin on, it's more based on how many battles you win. & that's a problem when dudes do 10 snipes a day against shitty cats and reach #1 on the all time leaderboard