TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

**THIS IS JUST A TEST. YOSHL IS CREATING SOMETING BIGGER AND BETTER. BUT FOR NOW, TO GENERATE THOUGHTS**


Click Here For Spreadsheet


General:
- Games must not be jTWG games
- Games must be at least majority over year it took place
- Games must end before the new year
- Top 13 will compete in an All-Star game at end of the year, separate from Ranked
- I might have an IRL reward, but that's a big might. We shall see.

Points:
+5 Alignment win
+2 Host Game
+1 Loss
+1 Replacing In
-5 Being Replaced
-10 Modkilled


This is still a work in progress, but feel free to give me any recommendations, because I am still balancing and perfecting this. Also, this might help for the TWG awards at the end of the year. Thanks!

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

rocking that 0% win rate :D

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

cool idea and i'm interested to see where it goes

i don't see why jtwgs don't count, more stats the better imo

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

initially it was to relieve pressure on new TWG'rs for how relaxed they normally are. If people want them to count I'll def throw them in

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

Ayyy im all for this. Good idea

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

I know I haven't played any games since coming back here but I plan on playing in the next one so please add me to the spreadsheet tia

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

I support this very, very, very mildly

It gives people less incentive to host games

Winrate is not a good example of how good someone is in a team game like TWG, but its \ok\ It misses a lot of things like whether or not someone got carried in a few victories or not, and rewards people for winning while being very, very wrong.

Its still \ok\ though.

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

Yeah, i'm trying to figure out how many points hosts earn, if any. I kinda wanna say that it's 3? I don't know yet. Remember this is like super super Alpha version 0.00001

If I recall correctly, Jrodd suggested a meathod that 2+2 uses, where the farther along town got as a whole, they got more points. Like more points if team got to final 3. I'm trying to figure out how that might be able to fit in.

\ok\ is exactly how I would describe it atm. I'm slowly breaking down everything into its own section so I can adjust accordingly.

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

Adding jTWG's were recommended so I will try it out if I see more support for it. And once you sign up to play the next TWG game I will automatically put you on.

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

i do think jtwg's should count or at least as their own ranking if there are enough of them

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

So far this year there have been 1, so if I would add it in it would be to the main group.

Would jTWG's count as much as normal TWGs?

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

it was actually the opposite, like the quicker the town won the more points they got

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

jTWG's are less stressful and more a learning/practice experience for real TWG games, and with that no, jTWG's should not count as much as normal games.

They should be counted as some modified number or half of the values of a normal game, and if I recall jTWG's are on the shorter time/shorter player count side of things which would warrant them lower in "value" than a normal TWG game.

EDIT: iirc there were single digit jTWG games (or it at least seemed so in the second half of the year/when I started to play) so if the general idea was revitalized so that there are more, then it should be its own like Makilaz stated or equal in value.

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

Yep. Most of the jtwg games seem have a lot of vets anyway, isn't always majority newer members with only 1-2 vets.

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

jtwg's should either count for ~1/2 of a normal game or be completely separate

junior games tend to be much simpler mechanically compared to "real" twg games regardless of how often veterans like to play in them

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

And ''real'' twg games could easily have simpler mechanics. Are all the ''real'' twg games with these setups also going to be 1/2 counted?

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

i think jTWGs should be 1 point for losing and 3 for winning. it shows that playing a jTWG is still important, but also shows that its not as hardcore in a sense as normal TWG.
i Think a good host number is 2. on average it gives less points than playing a game (assuming 50% winrate) while still rewarding points for actually hosting.
a good way to reward players for playing well could be to give them an extra point if they were alive when the game ended. This also means that even if the team lost the game, you managing not to die can get rewarded,

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

More thinking out loud here, but then:

1 point per player, so 13 games = 13 points total. Goes down 2 point per day (till 3)

So..
13 player game, town wins d3 = 7 points
13 player game, town wins d4 = 5 points
13 player game, town wins d5 = 3 points

Then...
20 player game, town wins d6 = 10 points?

That way, the more people play, greater risk? I dunno.

If my formula above isn't broken and stupid and it works, then jTWG might be a standard 3 win 1 loss, regardless of players?

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

I agree with this completely. I never try ever when doing jtwg, and actually usually attempt to get caught by newbies :P

Re: TWG 2016 Ranked Test Thread
 

Also, how about getting a +1 point for replacing IN?