I wanted to add this thread to keep the actual rules thread clean. Pleas post discussion here.

I am very willing to describe any logic (or lack of) behind each rule. When asking, make sure you reference using the Rule number Ie 4.3.3 (or whatever)

I have played in a few of these (F-16 sim, Warcraft, Quake, Darts in the frat house) , and each one had different aspects that were required for each game. I have taken something from each time, and tried to mold it into something very easy and workable.

There seems like a lot of rules, but there really not, most of them are jsut guidellines for when something abnormal happens.

Basically its like this: Bob posts a thread challenging Mark. mark accepts in the same thread. Bob defeats Mark 2-1 in a BO3 SNG match. Bob posts the results, mark aknowledges them in the same thread. Bob takes over Marks rank, Mark gets demoted one rank. Rinse and repeat.

BTW, I'm working on the examples thread to make the ranking system very clear and simple. bear with me a few there....

And, yeah, but about changing the rules.... I'm pretty much putting my foot down and saying the rules stay as they are for about 4-6 weeks or so, until we all get a feel for where this is headed, then we can mix it up a bit, but all suggestions are welcome, and if there are glaring errors I dont see, please speak up! I will change the obvious ones rather quickly....

__________________

Why I disagree with the system:

It encourages the number one player to play as few games as possible, as long as he plays (and wins) at least one match per week he can never be dethrowned. No other standings/ranking works in this method.

Example: After five weeks Bob number 1 with a record of 5-0, number 2 is Rick with a record of 10-1, in my opinion Rick should be be number one, having won more, though the one loss (probably to bob) prevents him from having a perfect record, Bob on the other hand has played far fewer games, simply maintaining his status, plus should he lose a game all he needs to do is win another game (against new #1) to reclaim the top spot, it could easily turn out that the number player has a terrible record compared to the other top players, yet because he wins certain key matches is able to stay number one.

This is why I favor a point system, it forces the players to keep playing and not just wade around keeping their position as long as possible.

Quality isn't an issue (in your case) as you limit the players to the three above or below, so saying well Rick just played cupcakes isn't necessarily true, although he has a bigger sample to play as he has more people available to play. I addressed this problem by assigning a modifier to wins to people more than 3 above or below your rank, it allows the higer ups not to have to play the same 3-6 people the whole time and at the same time doesn't reward them for beating up on the cupcakes (so to speak).

However, I suppose that your system could work I am just pointing out theoritcal problems that could arise.

__________________
Bean181818: some guy came up just grabbed my hand and starting massaging it, since it wasn't you, i told him to fuck off
xcrunman02: yeah only I can do that, i don't need some gook trying to get with my life partner
Bean181818: i've been faithful
xcrunman02: me too
Bean181818: peck tried to get all this but i told him this was all taken, all of it!

there are problems with a point system too, someone could just keep playing thee all day everyday challenging everyone

__________________
Thank you John McCain for picking a woman who represents the worst-case scenario: A cute wild buffoon who is proud to be dumb.

Why would a higher ranked palyer ever play a lower ranked one? He has no potential gain. An elo type system would probably work a lot better than one like this. I've played games on both types of systems. The ladder system has a lot of flaws in it, and probably would be worse for poker.(Poker players striving for a higher ev would probably never play lower ranked players.)

Also you shouldn't replace them if you beat them. You should move up half the distance between the ranks.

EDIT: I also remember when a player was forced to play (due to something like a formal challenge, which one could not decline) they would wait until the last possible date to play, so they wouldn't have to play more matches.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

I won't be playing in the ladder ( /cry ), but ELO type systems work the best from a lot of experience.

First, challenges can only go upwards, so a higher ranked player cannot challenge a lower one. therefore the top spot jsut sits there waiting for a contender to emerge. But they get plenty of traffic, so no worries in that regard. In the other ladders I have played for frun (which this one is) the leader usually plays quite often. It is more fun to play, than to sit there sandbagging and pissing off everybody else.

And, Pudds, I was thinking about that 3-1/10-1 scenario earlier. If we get some $ for prizes (Kid says we should get a sponsor, and I think thats cool, but hes the $ guy, so I'm hoping he'll pull something off ) I was thinking about 2 awards, One for the top spot, and one for the best record over the time period. Thats still in the works...

__________________

Somoebody PM with detyails on this system......

__________________

Here is my suggestion

it should be similar to the BCS with record and strength of schedule coming into play

A win vs the #1 ranked player (at the time of match) is worth 10 pts

vs #2, 9 pts

#3, 8 pts and so on down to 1 pt for a win over anyone

This way if #1 play #3 and wins he gains 8 pts while #3 gains 0. But if #3 win he gains 10 pts while #1 gains 0.

All standings updates can be done on sunday.

If #1 loses 3 matches in 1 week everyone who played him in that time period would receive 10 pts.

I also think there should be a limit on # of matches per week or you should only be able to use your 3 best results for the week. so if you played 10 matches and won 7 you would only be able to use the point totals from 3 of those wins

Just a thought use it, incorporate it into your existing plan, or ignore it

__________________
Thank you John McCain for picking a woman who represents the worst-case scenario: A cute wild buffoon who is proud to be dumb.

I like the idea, but that onlu works if you are computing ranks after a set amount of time (liek every staurday in CF), this is a changing daily thing, hourly in utopia...

I'm open for ideas, we got a week before we kick off... throw some ideas out here...

__________________

Not necessarily, in the rules marm stated that after completing a match in which you were the person who challanged the other person, you must wait 24 hours before you can challange another person, so at most one person could play 7 matches per week.

__________________
Bean181818: some guy came up just grabbed my hand and starting massaging it, since it wasn't you, i told him to fuck off
xcrunman02: yeah only I can do that, i don't need some gook trying to get with my life partner
Bean181818: i've been faithful
xcrunman02: me too
Bean181818: peck tried to get all this but i told him this was all taken, all of it!