[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]

Login:
Password:
Lost password| Sign Up
New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS · Profile · Logout
Forum moderator: El_Matador, ThaScience  
Forum » Off-Topic » RHHF Talk » Battle Ranking Points System? (a points system for battle rankings)
Battle Ranking Points System?
Should Judge Rankings Be By Points Instead of the way its done now?
1. yes [ 6 ] [75.00%]
2. no [ 2 ] [25.00%]
Answers total: 8
EmSeeD Date: Monday, 20/Apr/09, 0:55 AM | Message # 16

Heads
Posts: 11464
Reputation: 8
Offline
Quote (Lord_Meth)
theres a problem here...how is Lethaface higher in the rankings then me but he only has 3 battles?!
If were going on percentage then Pensmoke should be higher....no way

Quote (eboyd)
came to bitch about the same thing. WTF?!

http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
EmSeeD Date: Monday, 20/Apr/09, 0:57 AM | Message # 17

Heads
Posts: 11464
Reputation: 8
Offline
 TEXT BATTLE RECORDS UPDATED 19 April 8:13 pm Pacific Standard Time

1. Kiba: 8-0-1 94%

2. Eboyd: 5-0-1 92%

3. Em-See'D (aka Muzzy): 8-3-0 72%

4. PNobleDaLyricist: 8-4-0 66%

5. Meth: 6-7-0 46%

6. NtG: 3-2-0 60%

7. deadly_sin: (aka Strykah)3-4-0 43%

8. Montana213: 4-9-0 31%

9. El Matador: 1-0-0 100%

10. Pensmoke 1-0-0 100%

11. Lethaface: 2-1-0 66%

12. The Watcher: 1-1-1 50%

12. Prozac: 3-3-0 50%

14. Agent X: 1-2-0 33%

14. 11th Plague 1-2-0 33%

16. AruNavi: 2-5-0 29%

17. Uncharted aka Coolmon: 1-3-0 25%

18. Menace: 0-1-0 0%

19. J-Breakz: 0-2-0 0%

20. T-Nizzle: 0-4-0 0%

21. AceKat: 0-5-0 0%

http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
EmSeeD Date: Monday, 20/Apr/09, 1:00 AM | Message # 18

Heads
Posts: 11464
Reputation: 8
Offline
 if we go by points system the rankings will be basically the same way it is now but there will be a decent reasoning for it. if we go by percentage it would be like this:

1. El Matador: 1-0-0 100%

2. Pensmoke 1-0-0 100%

3. Kiba: 8-0-1 94%

4. Eboyd: 5-0-1 92%

5. Em-See'D (aka Muzzy): 8-3-0 72%

6. PNobleDaLyricist: 8-4-0 66%

7. Lethaface: 2-1-0 66%

8. NtG: 3-2-0 60%

9. The Watcher: 1-1-1 50%

10. Prozac: 3-3-0 50%

11. Meth: 6-7-0 46%

12. deadly_sin: (aka Strykah)3-4-0 43%

13. Montana213: 4-9-0 31%

14. Agent X: 1-2-0 33%

14. 11th Plague 1-2-0 33%

16. AruNavi: 2-5-0 29%

17. Uncharted aka Coolmon: 1-3-0 25%

18. Menace: 0-1-0 0%

19. J-Breakz: 0-2-0 0%

20. T-Nizzle: 0-4-0 0%

21. AceKat: 0-5-0 0%

http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
eboyd Date: Monday, 20/Apr/09, 1:14 AM | Message # 19

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
 yes, but we're not going by a percentage ranking. our system right now is based on separating people into two groups: those with 3 or more wins and those with less than three wins. the people with more than or equal to three wins are ranked by percentage. those with less are ranked below those with more or equal to 3 by percentage. it's working fine. the people who are in that specific rank are where they are rightfully i think. they've shown they can win a battle so they are above people who lose a lot and have a lot of experience but less than three wins, but they aren't above anyone who has won three or more. i think it's fair and just. no change is necessary, unless you can bring some miraculous x factor into the debate, but right now i see no problems.
my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

eboyd Date: Monday, 20/Apr/09, 1:16 AM | Message # 20

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
 i forgot to mention, people with the same percentage but more losses go below those with less losses.

and as for the Lethaface thing, that had to do with someone that had no clue wtf they were doing editing the records and nothing else. i fixed that shit up quick.

my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

EmSeeD Date: Monday, 20/Apr/09, 1:22 AM | Message # 21

Heads
Posts: 11464
Reputation: 8
Offline
Quote (eboyd)
yes, but we're not going by a percentage ranking. our system right now is based on separating people into two groups: those with 3 or more wins and those with less than three wins. the people with more than or equal to three wins are ranked by percentage. those with less are ranked below those with more or equal to 3 by percentage. it's working fine. the people who are in that specific rank are where they are rightfully i think. they've shown they can win a battle so they are above people who lose a lot and have a lot of experience but less than three wins, but they aren't above anyone who has won three or more. i think it's fair and just. no change is necessary, unless you can bring some miraculous x factor into the debate, but right now i see no problems.

this is the first i've heard of this

so then ntg should be ranked ahead of meth

http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
eboyd Date: Monday, 20/Apr/09, 1:30 AM | Message # 22

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
 this is correct. thanks for catching that.
my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

eboyd Date: Monday, 20/Apr/09, 1:31 AM | Message # 23

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
 ah, i see you already changed it as well. thank you very much.
my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Lord_Meth Date: Monday, 20/Apr/09, 10:10 PM | Message # 24

Heads
Posts: 6627
Reputation: 1
Offline
 We should do the battle points idea cuz the percentage thing is confusing
Sick With It
EmSeeD Date: Monday, 20/Apr/09, 10:46 PM | Message # 25

Heads
Posts: 11464
Reputation: 8
Offline
Quote (Lord_Meth)
We should do the battle points idea cuz the percentage thing is confusing

HA! see i mean at least we'd have a logical reason for the rankings instead of some percentage two lists thing. At least a points system would make it more clear.

http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
Lord_Meth Date: Monday, 20/Apr/09, 10:50 PM | Message # 26

Heads
Posts: 6627
Reputation: 1
Offline
Quote (EmSeeD)
HA! see i mean at least we'd have a logical reason for the rankings instead of some percentage two lists thing. At least a points system would make it more clear.

Yea I think we should go head and go with that idea, makes more sense and its easier to understand
Sick With It
EmSeeD Date: Monday, 20/Apr/09, 11:50 PM | Message # 27

Heads
Posts: 11464
Reputation: 8
Offline
 eboyd seems very opposed to it, idk why, maybe we should see what he will say.
http://chirbit.com/emseed
http://youtube.com/siwooot
eboyd Date: Tuesday, 21/Apr/09, 6:43 AM | Message # 28

Heads
Posts: 13145
Reputation: 2
Offline
 i am opposed because people are used to the win/loss/tie column method and it would look strange otherwise because of that. if you can do it that way and keep the win/loss/tie method, then maybe i'll be interested, but i'm not going to go off of the opinions of just the two of you, especially when Meth is semi-retarded by self admission lol
my new theme song



erikboyd60@hotmail.com

"True poetry can communicate before it is understood"

-T.S. Eliot

battle record:

7-0-0

Acekat00o Date: Tuesday, 21/Apr/09, 7:35 AM | Message # 29

Heads
Posts: 1642
Reputation: 0
Offline
 man i dont care ,im still the last one on the list no matter what ,maibe T-Nizzle will claim my title cool
Graffiti
Watcher Date: Tuesday, 21/Apr/09, 12:10 PM | Message # 30

Watchers
 So eboyd you ever get off IMMORTAL TECHNIQUE's tip last night?
Forum » Off-Topic » RHHF Talk » Battle Ranking Points System? (a points system for battle rankings)
Search: