Ranking

[s9^]

In all Clanbase ladders, players who have played less than three matches gain (or lose) half of the ELO points they would have normally gained (or lost). This way, no new players can quickly climb to the top of the rankings.

What do you think about ripping off this rule from CB and adding it to the current rating system of the Nex Ladder?

[GreEn`mArine]

no, won't do that. it wouldn't be that easy either

[The mysterious Mr. 4m]

I havent said anything yet because I thought that ELO system has been discussed up and down by people who understand it more than I do and that they know what they're doing, but now seeing this makes me wonder: Why not just start with 0 points and gain points by playing matches? The more matches and wins you have the higher you are ranked. This would require two parallel ladders tho. When a noob beats you he will be above you but on the noob ladder next to the total rank ladder. Maybe it can be combined with the ELO system. Sorry for noobism.

example:
1 match = 1 point
1000 points = 1 win
1 win = 1 rank

a vs b = a1001, b0001 = a wins
c vs d = c1001, d0001 = c wins

a1001 vs c0001 = a1002, c1002

ranks:
1. a, c,
2. b, d,
3. ...

[tChr]

The ELO system is based on the number of players being directly paralell to the amount of points available. if you sum up all players points, and if you calculate the average of the existiong points you should end up at 1000

The way the ELO works is based on a statistical approach to determining players ranks without all players having to play agains all other players, and still you should end up with a somewhat correct ranking, however you need some 20 or more matches pr player before it is "correct".

The statistical approach to the ELO system is the reason for chess (that uses ELO) having a more accurate ranking system than, say Tennis or Golf.

However, the ELO system is only good for two-player games. (or two sided team play)

more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system