is a question, why does a team that comes in week four get the same starting points as teams that came the first week? they got a 1000 points to start and didn't have to play the last 3 weeks. I know they are good, and would win anyway but at least next time we should start people out -100 points for every week they didn't participate, this would also go for the teams that skip a week, if they didn't like the map or something else, that would get the teams to show up every week and play harder.

My teams also want to know about these weekly drawings? who wins each week, is it posted who wins, are they even having drawings yet????

See you Tuesday,

Robb Hanes
face2facecgc.com

This is Combatex?s first Ladder in any game and I have put together a team 14 year olds. So I am learning, and I have a lot to learn.

I agree with face2face a deduction is needed for weeks not played. I would deduct for all weeks not played. As an example if a team misses 3 out of 12 weeks, they would loose 25% of their 1000 points. Even if a team misses a week in the middle of the ladder there also should be points deducted. I do not know at what point mathematically a superior team could still start late in the ladder and win the major prizes. However I though this ladder was for casual gamer (but I know a casual gamer could be very good). Maybe there should be to categories as face2face states: a Pro and a casual ladder. We would have to rely on the game center positioning the two categories. I would not know if we would have enough teams for both categories.

I also I feel that the finals should be based upon points, not games played. As an example my team can only be at the game center for about two hours. I knew from the start I am limited to 2 matches a night. Some weeks it may be one match if one of the kids does not have his homework done. Even for a team that can play a lot of matches in a night the point system is not all bad. The team that plays a lot has a chance to make points by winning but looses points when they loose. The matches won or lost control the risk and rewards.

However to reduce the mathematical factor of a superior team enter a ladder late,
I think everyone should start at zero upon entering the ladder, no matter when they enter. They are given so many points for playing that week. Then they are rewarded with points for games won, and loose points for games lost. Weeks played would have a higher priority over games won or lost. In this way a superior team would also have to overcome the weeks played, even against the poor casual team

---

Peter Shores
Combatex
Houston, TX

A deduction would be bad.

A good new team would enter the ladder ranked even lower ... and beat a highly ranked team and the affect would be huge.

---

69 6E 74 65 72 50 65 65 72

Rike
I do not understand what you mean? Could you explain please?
Thanks

---

Peter Shores
Combatex
Houston, TX

Team A (1300 points) vs Team B (1000 points)
Team B wins (off the top of my head) Team B goes to 1250, A goes to 1050

Team A (1300 points) vs Team B (700 points)
Team B wins Team B goest to 1250 points A goes to 750


This is not exactly how it works since it is a probablity scale, but a 1300 point team is supposed to whoop a 700 point team and when they lose they take a big hit.

So deducting points is meaningless.

---

Martin "MrFurious" Kruse
Xtreme Gaming Cybercafe
www.goxgaming.com

IGames Community Member Since 2003

Other areas to address with ELO:

1.) I wanted to check Mr.F's calculations above ... but can not find the ELO caluculation/method on the iGames site anymore. Is it still there somewhere? If not ... there should be an explaination of the scoring system used.

2.) There is no history ... no way to re-construct a teams score. And there should be data available to do this. In the original ladder system ... the one in which players joined a team ... each match/opponent was available. Now there is no info except the overall standing.

3.) There are bugs in the automated scoring system that needs to be corrected.

Ron ... ELO attempts to rank players by assigning a score to them ... the higher the score the better the player. An average player is given a score of 1000. Better players obtain scores over 1000 and less than average players get scores under 1000.

ELO uses a probabilty of a bad player beating a good player. A player ranked 1700 has a 95% chance of beating the 700 ranked player (total wag on numbers). If the better player wins he is rewards a couple points in rank and the weak player only loses a couple rank points ... because he was not suppost to be able to win.

But if the weak player wins ... the higher ranked player takes a big hit in points ... might drop frrom 1700 to 1300 or something and the 700 ranked player gains from 700 to 1000 or something.

Ergo ... ELO is only good when teams/players have an established skill history.

---

69 6E 74 65 72 50 65 65 72

In reply to #2, i believe that time was the issue (and amount of effort it would take) to allow players to look at the match history to the team ladder. At some point in the future it might be available, but i think before they spin any more wheels we should finalize something.

(And yeah, #1, those numbers i pulled out of my rump but i was just trying to clarify what would happen)

---

Martin "MrFurious" Kruse
Xtreme Gaming Cybercafe
www.goxgaming.com

IGames Community Member Since 2003

I still don't understand why all the changes where made to the ladder to support teams.

It was already built in ... all you had to do was think a 'player' was a team ... tada!

---

69 6E 74 65 72 50 65 65 72

Rike and MrFurious
Thank you for clarification. I think I now understand.

I hereby withdraw my "great" idea, I do not want to act defeated :p

Really thank you for help

---

Peter Shores
Combatex
Houston, TX

[QUOTE=Rike]I still don't understand why all the changes where made to the ladder to support teams.

It was already built in ... all you had to do was think a 'player' was a team ... tada![/QUOTE]

Same here, but i think it was modified so it could support mixed teams, so 4+4 vs 8, then the points for the team would be determined by a percentage of the 4man squads and then the points for the win or loss would be then shared.

Other than that, its about the same.

---

Martin "MrFurious" Kruse
Xtreme Gaming Cybercafe
www.goxgaming.com

IGames Community Member Since 2003

None of this matters because Team CyberHub is gonna win the whole thing anyway..

K, no more argument

Hey All,

Like MrFurious mentioned, the reason we can't use win totals to determine the top team is because not all teams play the same amount of games. If this was a league, we can simply just use win total as the method to rate teams.

If we use a point system where each team gets 2 or 3 points per win, it would not accurately rank teams based on skill, but just on who is able to play the most games.

We are looking into our point system to see how we can modify it so if a team loses, they will not lose as many points, but this can also mean that when your team beats a really high ranked team, you will not earn as many points.

Also what do centers think about having a seperate league for the top teams in the ladder. The league will be more organized with set matches, as opposed to the flex format of the ladder. For the first league the top active teams are invited. Most of the better prizes will be allocated to the league. The ladder will have more prize drawings, as opposed to competition prizes.

After the first league, the ladder will act as a qualifier to get into the league.

that sounds pretty good, but its the casual gamer I am worried about, I can put a team together of cal I and cal O people and have a team that would almost be unstopable. My two teams are made of all but one guy is cal-o and he is just a back up on his cal-o team. My guys are just guys/kids that come to my center for fun and are making my tuesdays profitable. The casual gamer will never win any prize, they are good but not as good as some of the teams just playing for the big prize. CS:S is a popular game if not the most popular game at most gaming centers. if you have two ladders of sort one for the really good teams and one for the casual gamer, you could have the same prizes for both maybe, but there is no one of knowing if the is a ringer playing or not or if a team is just losing to be on the other ladder. So its kinda like a double edge sword. why would the points work 3 if you win and 1 if you lose and make it 3 matches a night, no more no less. this would give the people that play week 1 the advantage over a team that comes in week 4 or week 5!!! the most points you can recieve is 9 and the least would be 3. I know nothing can change this ladder but I am glad you are looking into ways of making them more fair or more fun for the casual gamer, which is what keeps our game centers open not the pro that comes only when there is a tournament.

Robb "Jad3F1r3"
face2facecgc.com

This thread is a perfect example of how CS players complain non stop. We have had a ton of leagues already with the same point system and not one person complained.. Now we bring in CS, a game in which the average player is probably 12 years old, and all we have is complaining about standings. Who cares? The standings are fine and built off a system that works and has worked in the past.. Plus last time I checked there are no prizes for ladder standings anyway so who cares. "You people" need to stop taking things so seriously and just go out and have a good time. It is not like there is a $200,000 prize on the line. We don't need 2 leagues what we need is to ban immature game center owners that want to whine about the process we have already. Now that we all have our big-boy pants on can we please lock this thread and do something more productive like say playing more BF2 :)