Stop the Count(ing of Rating)

1

A division system is already being implemented.

0

Of course, divisions will not be reflected in regular games.
By the way, it would be great if the divisions calculated the average rating by the sum of the ladder and the global

Sorry for my English)

0

Then we could make a limitation not by the rating but by the rating of the divisions (if we assume that the 1st division is the weakest and the 5th is the strongest) In this case, for the tournament, you can make a limitation in the total division max 6 or 7 for example

Sorry for my English)

0

@pryanichek said in Stop the Count(ing of Rating):

it would be great if the divisions calculated the average rating by the sum of the ladder and the global

Some people never play ladder, or they haven't played in years.

Other people only play ladder.

How do you average that?

If someone has 1600 global and 800 ladder, they would be treated the same as someone with 1200/1200? That would create an incentive for certain people to never join the ladder. Or an incentive to "throw" ladder games to keep the rating down so they can get a better spot in Seton's.

There is already the possibility of people throwing games to manipulate global rating. But if you're 1600/800 you might have to throw 20 global matches to get the same impact on a "combined" rating compared to throwing a single ladder match.

The best way to prevent smurfing is to make it difficult to pull off. Fewer people will do it if it's harder to do. And if people have to put more effort into it, it should be easier to catch them.

My ladder rating gone down about 100 points while my global has gone up 100. Mostly because I'm out of practice. Does that mark me as a "smurf"? If there was a combined global + ladder rating, some people might think so. And I wouldn't have an incentive to get my ladder score up. My best move would be to abandon the ladder completely. If I play and win, I hurt myself on "combined rating" for Seton's placement. If I play and lose, people will call me a smurf.

0

Forgive me @FtXCommando , I should have said "frustrating events with not enough players that meet the requirements but sub in less-qualified ones to make up for it."

0

I don’t really think subs are going to be that big of a problem. It can be handled on a case-by-case basis just as always. The bigger issue with this stuff relates to the fact there will be a closing of signups which will hit the FAF habit of signing up 2 minutes before the tournament starts hard.

1

This is inspired by the gene centric model of evolution as really popularized by Richard Dawkins.

  1. People of any rating can join, low rated are encouraged to join in fact.
  2. Each game is either a 3v3 or a 4v4 depending on player availability.
  3. People are assigned to games first based on location and then randomly.
  4. Each game is set to all random auto balance.
  5. Being on a losing team means you lost, which in a knockout means you are out.
    Being on the winning team is less obvious, at least it means you are NOT out yet.

This system will basically select those players that played well for their rating these games.

Determining winner is somewhat more difficult as it is possible a well playing 500 rated and a 2200 rated would come out in #1 and #2 position. A 1v1 as final would be pointless.

  • Selecting a single winner would require an extensive number of rounds and points counting
  • You could get 3 winners by going into a knockout 3v3 finals where again each game is all random auto balance.
2

N-nice tourney format you've got here ;d

0

I'm gonna be honest, I'm really confused by the tourney format.

0

@archsimkat I will post it soon-ish again in its own topic with better explanation and examples.