• As part of the relaunch of Skullheart, ALL previous threads have been archived. You can find them at the bottom of the forum in the Archives (2021) section. The archives are locked, so please use the new forum sections to create new discussion threads.

[Suggestion] Leaderboards

Colossi

Colossi

THE ONE THAT DODGES
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
1,305
Reaction score
1,324
Points
113
Age
11
Location
Brazil
Steam
Colossi
Fukua Cerebella Unknown
Leaderboards points should be classified as Points = Wins - Loses
Classifying it only with Wins points is not (by far) the best way to rank players.
 
Going by win/loss ratio is kind of stressful. You're bound to lose a shit ton when you first start to learn, so punishing people for losing during that phase with a massive discouraging negative number doesn't sound like a great idea.
Honestly I think the leaderboards are fine as is; they're never going to be a proper ranking of the best players, so they might as well rank the people who play the most.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Merlock
idk, I think that would be more rewardable to the player seeing himself going through the leaderboard as he wins. Of course he'll be stomped when he starts. It happens to everyone, but we grow as we play and I think would be nice to see some number results on it.
 
This has been discussed before. A player's win/loss ratio effects who they get paired with in match-making, along with other factors. I agree with Horseman in that having a player's leaderboard position based on their win/loss ratio is a poor decision. For the vast majority of people that play this game it will simply be a discouraging and unforgiving means of quantifying a player's worth.

That being said, I would like to be able to view a player's win/loss record, or at least my own record. I just don't think the leaderboards should show that ratio.
 
Win/Loss record is meaningless. In order to make the leaderboards mean anything, you'd need a proper Elo system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fernando
I think best way is to introduce a point system like most fighting games, it's fairer at least.
But I don't care about leaderboard because I don't understand leader like best player.
The actual system is fine in my opinion.
 
why dont they do something like nintendo is doing with smash bros 4?
 
Wins only ranking is the best. It's much less discouraging and the frequent players will be at the top.

Points sucks. Lose to someone with less points, lose a ton of points. Win vs someone with less points or same, hardly any points.

Win Ratio sucks. It's awful for frequently playing. And those people who play once get 10 wins and 1 loss and never return or avoid rank at the top are dumb.

Wins - Losses sucks the least. At least it would be more possible to dig yourself out than ratio.
 
Mr. X said:
Wins only ranking is the best. It's much less discouraging and the frequent players will be at the top.
Massgaming with no care about results puts you at the top spot, to be precise. Someone with a 3000-10000 w/l will be (or rather: is) in front of someone with a 2500-150 w/l, which is a plain joke.

Points sucks. Lose to someone with less points, lose a ton of points. Win vs someone with less points or same, hardly any points.
Lose to someone who sucks, lose a bunch of rating. Win against a beginner, don't get any points.
Lose to someone who is great at the game, don't lose much. Win against someone great, get a huge point boost.

I don't see how that sucks? It's how any ELO type system in any sport ever works, and it works GREAT and accurately.

Wins - Losses sucks the least. At least it would be more possible to dig yourself out than ratio.
Wins-Losses is at least less terrible than just Wins, but runs into the issue that a 'noobfarmer' will have much better rating than someone playing strong players.
IE I play at EU hours, dodging all the top US players and just keep winning against the same 10 beginners over and over, while someone else gets much harder competition and lands behind me not because he is worse, but because he's playing stronger opponents.

At the same time, this is much worse for beginners to deal with - they will lose their first 100 matches and be on a -100 rating before they start winning, and then they have to dig their way out of a piece of crack rating slowly.
Compare to ELO: They will still lose their first 100 matches, but only lose 1 or 2 points (starting with say 1000, so they end up at ~850) every time. Then they get better, win 3 matches against decent people, getting +30 rating every time and woop they're 'back in business'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Falso L
how did PSR work in BB and P4A? wouldnt having a system like those work? and be fair?
 
Honestly, the reason I don't really care about how shitty the leaderboards work is because I always thought fighting game leaderboards were laughable. They've never been good for bragging rights, since the real bragging rights come from tournaments, so in the end they just kind of make people stressed when playing ranked matches and are occasionally used as a tool to mock people with bad scores or ratios. The skullgirls leaderboard succeeds at not having either of those downsides at the cost of not really measuring anything worthwhile, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
 
Horseman said:
Honestly, the reason I don't really care about how shitty the leaderboards work is because I always thought fighting game leaderboards were laughable. They've never been good for bragging rights, since the real bragging rights come from tournaments, so in the end they just kind of make people stressed when playing ranked matches and are occasionally used as a tool to mock people with bad scores or ratios. The skullgirls leaderboard succeeds at not having either of those downsides at the cost of not really measuring anything worthwhile, and I'm perfectly fine with that.
Leaderboards for all games are awful. Hackers/Boosters are at the top regardless of the formula, especially the 1000 kills - 1 death accounts so they have an unsurpassable 1000.00 ratio through regular play. But this a thread where people suggest stuff not hate leaderboards.

IsaVulpes said:
Lose to someone who sucks, lose a bunch of rating. Win against a beginner, don't get any points.
Lose to someone who is great at the game, don't lose much. Win against someone great, get a huge point boost.

I don't see how that sucks? It's how any ELO type system in any sport ever works, and it works GREAT and accurately.
Sport analogue doesn't work. There's a set # of game for the "season" and it resets.

The guy with less points =/= he sucks.

All it ends up doing in actuality is promoting people to quit playing ranked once they get high on the leaderboards or make a new name. A system that promotes playing is better than any system that promotes retiring accounts at the top.

The only one I am willing to call a successful points ranking system I have seen would be Sega's for arcade VF.
 
Mr. X said:
Sport analogue doesn't work. There's a set # of game for the "season" and it resets.
Are you silly? Chess rating doesn't reset after a 'season'. Not like there is any season to begin with.

All it ends up doing in actuality is promoting people to quit playing ranked once they get high on the leaderboards or make a new name. A system that promotes playing is better than any system that promotes retiring accounts at the top.
Yeah, Magnus Carlsen did stop playing after he reached #1

THE solution to your 'problem' would be to have a Hall of Fame with the Top100 highest ever achieved rankings (only one entry per player), so someone with 6000 Points could keep playing easily, knowing that even if he loses points, he'll be immortalized in the HoF.
(E: Or just save 'Peak Rating' for every player)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back