HTOTM: FUSION
Original Post
ELO-system...
Why not just use a simple formula like :
( Total Matches / 10 ) * Ratio = RANKSCORE
or something similar? Then amount of total games played will affect rating more.
And really, the ELO-system doesn't really make any sence at all.
Re: ELO-system...
To change the system would need a ranking restart, and a hell'uva lot of modifications. Just leave it be, who cares about ranking? Challange the top 10, and if you can beat them, you know you should be there. You need nothing else...
Re: ELO-system...
Originally Posted by SSJokker
To change the system would need a ranking restart, and a hell'uva lot of modifications. Just leave it be, who cares about ranking? Challange the top 10, and if you can beat them, you know you should be there. You need nothing else...

everybode loses sometimes, one win doesent mean ur better yet :P
(I used to want to beat all the torigods and beat most of them a few times but that didnt mean i was better.)
Re: ELO-system...
Originally Posted by Atlas[ReDuX
]
Why not just use a simple formula like :
( Total Matches / 10 ) * Ratio = RANKSCORE
or something similar? Then amount of total games played will affect rating more.
And really, the ELO-system doesn't really make any sence at all.

Maybe you'd like to explain how you think the ELO-system works and why you think it doesn't make any sense.
Re: ELO-system...
Maybe you'd want to learn how to search.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating_system

And it doesn't make sense. It's based on an algorythm that basically means if you just joined and win 10 matches(and don't lose even one), you're ranked higher that a veteran that winned 100 matches and lost 10...Yeah, it's just not okay...
Re: ELO-system...
Originally Posted by SSJokker
Maybe you'd want to learn how to search.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELO_rating_system

And it doesn't make sense. It's based on an algorythm that basically means if you just joined and win 10 matches(and don't lose even one), you're ranked higher that a veteran that winned 100 matches and lost 10...Yeah, it's just not okay...

Please don't make flame post if you obviously have no clue how elo-works, eventhough you just posted the link where it is explained. Elo is not perfect, but it is much better than any other system proposed on these forums. Enough games and it its quite accurate. The only big downside is that, once you get to the top you can stay there without playing any games.
Originally Posted by Atlas[ReDuX
]
Why not just use a simple formula like :
( Total Matches / 10 ) * Ratio = RANKSCORE
or something similar? Then amount of total games played will affect rating more.
And really, the ELO-system doesn't really make any sence at all.

The idea is that you don't get ranking by just playing many games. Elo's strenght is that you get more points by winning high ranking players. Just win ratio would mean that you could get to the top easily by just kicking some noob or some friend who lets you win.
"Well, nevermind. We are ugly, but we have the music." -Leonard Cohen
Re: ELO-system...
So we have to agree on disagreeing then.
'Cause I find it hard to like a ranking system where a slacker may be on top. Activity should be rewarded.
But I guess it's impossible to satisfy everyone.
Re: ELO-system...
Elo is used by very serious gamers of Chess and Go. I assume those people have really thought out what system really reflects skill. However, it would be fun to here what other suggestion have been made by those communities, because there must some disagreement among them too.

Besides this conversion has already taken place before here: http://www.toribash.com/forum/index....p?topic=3264.0

And if you don't like elo there is always Toribash Fighting league. That system is pretty much like pro boxing challenge system, I think.
"Well, nevermind. We are ugly, but we have the music." -Leonard Cohen