What if winning spar points were simply based on opponent's (Wins)-(losses)?
Let me tell you why this would be better than the current system.

1/ Currently there are so many players who just chase noobs in side rooms, with that system sparring noobs will mostly give you negative points. For example, if you spar a noob with 40-100 and win, it will give you -60 pts! So there won't be any reasons to spar noobs anymore.

2/ If you spar a booster with 10:1 ratio + very little wins, you win 100 pts easily
But if you spar a person like Thallen who is also 10:1 ratio + 40k+ wins, you win 100 pts aswell but the hard way.
I always thought this situation was unfair.

Wins-losses takes in consideration your wins which means your experience in spar AND it also takes in consideration your ratio so you will get the pts you deserve to get.


I'm aware that this wouldn't be fair for a person that is streaking since noobs are queueing but this could be solved by not allowing new players in streak rooms it's only unfair for them they will only lose. They can spar people with the same level in side rooms until they get better.

I'm not asking to implant this, this is a suggestion. My suggestion might have flaws that I'm not seeing. PLEASE DO NOT DERAIL MY THREAD!
Credit: Thallen's duel discord bot gave me this idea.  

losing points from a win sounds a little too harsh, especially for the people who are negative in the first place and can mostly only beat other people who are negative.

also, does anyone know the math behind the current system?  

So basically you want spar rooms that allow players to join queue based on their sparring skills?  

I just realized that noobs will be getting negative points if they are forced to spar other noobs my bad. There still could be a solution I didn't think of!

Losing points isn't harsh at all, in the system we had before this system, if you lose the spar you lose pts.

Pretty much sparring system rn doesn't show how good you are but rather the activity which sucks.

Still think the first sparring system we had is the best one.  

Posted by Sarah_

What if winning spar points were simply based on opponent's (Wins)-(losses)?
Let me tell you why this would be better than the current system.

1/ Currently there are so many players who just chase noobs in side rooms, with that system sparring noobs will mostly give you negative points. For example, if you spar a noob with 40-100 and win, it will give you -60 pts! So there won't be any reasons to spar noobs anymore.

2/ If you spar a booster with 10:1 ratio + very little wins, you win 100 pts easily
But if you spar a person like Thallen who is also 10:1 ratio + 40k+ wins, you win 100 pts aswell but the hard way.
I always thought this situation was unfair.

Wins-losses takes in consideration your wins which means your experience in spar AND it also takes in consideration your ratio so you will get the pts you deserve to get.


I'm aware that this wouldn't be fair for a person that is streaking since noobs are queueing but this could be solved by not allowing new players in streak rooms it's only unfair for them they will only lose. They can spar people with the same level in side rooms until they get better.

I'm not asking to implant this, this is a suggestion. My suggestion might have flaws that I'm not seeing. PLEASE DO NOT DERAIL MY THREAD!
Credit: Thallen's duel discord bot gave me this idea.

I like the thought behind it, but I think it would have a few shortcomings.

1. Point values don't really impact people hunting noob players... At least from what I've seen they just do it for the profile ratio. We all have known for awhile who the noob hunters are, and they obviously don't care about points.

2. let's use my ratio as an example; I'm 500~ and 1000~. So in this system I would be relegated to the side rooms. This would be awful, because as the system you suggest says, I would always be earning negative points vs. people the "same level" as me... I would have to win 500 matches in a row to be allowed to actually earn points outside of sparring noob hunters. This would dissuade people like me from wanting to actually spar for a season trophy... Half the season would be used just to get out of the hole I'm in. Imagine how far below 0 I would be before I could join the streak room?(or could you not go lower than 0 points?)

3. If I understand what you're saying right, imagine how much beating you would be worth. It would be 90k points... That would let someone spar and beat you once for more points than if streaked for 10, likely. I would have to beat iHerc(just an example) 5 times before I reached the same amount of points a win vs. you would be worth. That seems crazy, because iHerc has 30k spar wins... What if it was someone like David? That would be worth 11k~ points... Should I really have to beat David 8 times to earn the same amount of points your worth? Again, it seems pretty skewed.

I like the thought, but I don't know if it could work in that iteration... Some adjusts would have to be made. Let me know if I misunderstood something.

I do agree that the system now is pretty boring and is more of a grindfest than a skill competition.  

an Elo rating system like in chess can practically work for anything, resets seasonally,top 50 get the reward, same thing as before but with people losing points for a defeat, and points gained depend on the ratio, last 100 ratio, activity in the past season, whatever, but it's fairly easy to implement.  

Posted by Areo

I like the thought behind it, but I think it would have a few shortcomings.

1. Point values don't really impact people hunting noob players... At least from what I've seen they just do it for the profile ratio. We all have known for awhile who the noob hunters are, and they obviously don't care about points.

2. let's use my ratio as an example; I'm 500~ and 1000~. So in this system I would be relegated to the side rooms. This would be awful, because as the system you suggest says, I would always be earning negative points vs. people the "same level" as me... I would have to win 500 matches in a row to be allowed to actually earn points outside of sparring noob hunters. This would dissuade people like me from wanting to actually spar for a season trophy... Half the season would be used just to get out of the hole I'm in. Imagine how far below 0 I would be before I could join the streak room?(or could you not go lower than 0 points?)

3. If I understand what you're saying right, imagine how much beating you would be worth. It would be 90k points... That would let someone spar and beat you once for more points than if streaked for 10, likely. I would have to beat iHerc(just an example) 5 times before I reached the same amount of points a win vs. you would be worth. That seems crazy, because iHerc has 30k spar wins... What if it was someone like David? That would be worth 11k~ points... Should I really have to beat David 8 times to earn the same amount of points your worth? Again, it seems pretty skewed.

I like the thought, but I don't know if it could work in that iteration... Some adjusts would have to be made. Let me know if I misunderstood something.

I do agree that the system now is pretty boring and is more of a grindfest than a skill competition.

1- People wouldn't spar noobs if they were discouraged to do it. Here is an example:



No offense but obviously Ndam is only sparring bad ratios, would Ndam spar noobs or even be #2!! on board if noobs gave negative pts? No

2- From what I see, negative ratios are only losing in streak rooms so it's better if they spar someone with the same level. We have all been there!

3- Why wouldn't I be worth than anyone? I sparred more than anyone and it's not like anyone can beat me easily. I'm not saying I'm the best or anything it's just the truth.


I'd also like to add that Anyone in our current system can make an alt boost a good ratio then boost their main. How do you know that people aren't doing that? I don't think GPs are monitoring if Carly took that long to get reset.
If you take in consideration the wins, then no point of doing that since u will need high wins  

better solution: bring back mmr but don't implement deviation  

I like the idea, but instead of losing points from winning against people with a bad spar ratio, I would suggest something different.

For example not gaining any points at all for a win, if Your spar ratio, compared to theirs is much better, but losing a ****ton of points if you lose against them.

I also wouldn´t exclude noobs from the normal streak room. Rather would it make sense to make rooms for people with more total spars and/or positive ratio.
If You win in these rooms, You would get more points per win, which would motivate players to spar in them, to get on the leaderboard quicker.  

Posted by Crono

better solution: bring back mmr but don't implement deviation

Never understood the point of deviation in the first place it was better off without it. That first system was always the best even though it promoted inactivity at times.  

Maybe something to do with hours/ amounts of matches played?  

Posted by Void

I like the idea, but instead of losing points from winning against people with a bad spar ratio, I would suggest something different.

For example not gaining any points at all for a win, if Your spar ratio, compared to theirs is much better, but losing a ****ton of points if you lose against them.

I also wouldn´t exclude noobs from the normal streak room. Rather would it make sense to make rooms for people with more total spars and/or positive ratio.
If You win in these rooms, You would get more points per win, which would motivate players to spar in them, to get on the leaderboard quicker.

This is better! Or maybe if you spar negative ratio, the current system can be applied so that the point you get from negatives are far less than positive ratio.

What's really annoying about any system is that we don't lose points when we lose a spar making it based on activity just like pking. Sparring shouldn't be treated the same way as pking imo  

So people who are trash aren't allowed to spar other trash.  

Posted by Crono

better solution: bring back mmr but don't implement deviation

best solution: don't spar at all  

This is a hard thing to address, because we want there to be a sort skill and deserved-points-system, but also encourage less experienced sparrers to want to try out sparring. There have been ideas about implementing rooms specified for sparrers with certain rations/spar wins so that the noob-chasers, who are positive from boosting noobs, will be forced to spar others with similar ratios, and that newer sparrers may build their skills against others without much trouble.

I like this idea because it may solve the noob-chaser problem, and may allow less experienced sparrers to want to spar again.

As for the point system that you mentioned, it can be difficult to implement. There are a few problems, and I think Areo described those problems very well. Void's idea of not losing points if ratios between two individuals is similar and losing a bunch against someone with a dissimilar ratio is probably the best way to go. Beating people with better ratios should be rewarding.

The only problem with this are those people on alt/noob accounts with less wins beating someone on their main. The person on their main, who could be 10k-4k, could lose to someone with 400-90. The 10k-4k person could lose a bunch of points because of how many wins the 400-90 person has, even though the 400-90 guy is actually good. Because of his ratio, he'll be getting a lot of points, and the other guy will be losing a bunch of points, even though their skills could be similar.

I like the idea of having rooms for people with different wins, so that we may allow less experienced people to spar in rooms without hindrance from noob-chasers. There would be a room or rooms for players with better ratios/wins, and those players would NOT be able to enter the lower rooms.

I think it would be fine if players from the lower rooms had the option of sparring in the higher rooms. They're less-experienced, and they may get rekt anyway, and they can at least try it out and figure out which room they belong in. If there were some kind of point system, players with ratios that fit the higher rooms will not get points from beating people with ratios that would fit in lower rooms.

The argument to specific rooms for specific spar wins is that there will be less people in certain rooms to spar. The main problem is just activity in the arena. If we get more people to spar and compete, we won't have this kind of problem, and every room will be packed with people who are going for the same things whether that be wins, points, respect, you name it.