|
I can't believe I haven't read this yet. I still think the Win/Loss ratio is a better alternative. People have to work to maintain a high record and boosting would take a ridiculous amount of time to reach the top person and they would be caught before they even got close. The point system I've never liked. I just think it's too flawed and as you said, people can be lazy once they reach the top person on the list.
|
You have to understand this points system a little better and then I don't think you'd say that.
Wins leaderboard:
- You can selectively spar bad sparrers for free wins with absolutely 0 risk
- Being #1 is more dependent on how often you spar vs. how well you spar
This leaderboard:
- You earn less of a reward for sparring a bad player than you do for sparring a good player
- Being #1 is dependent on both being active, sparring against good sparrers, and how well you spar
There's absolutely no way to "boost" to #1 with this leaderboard system. The only thing you can do is no-life it and spar 24/7, and even then you still aren't guaranteed to reach the #1 spot because you need a high wins ratio and you need to be winning against players with positive ratios to really earn more points.
Assume you make a new account and pause-boost on it using some alternative internet connection. For the first win, you'll get 1 point. For the second, you'll get 0.5. Then 0.33. Then 0.25. Then 0.13. Then 0.6. So you've essentially earned 2 points for boosting 6 spars, whereas with a wins leaderboard you'd have been given 6 wins.
If I beat a 1:5 noob 100 times in a row on a wins leaderboard, I get 100 points (considering wins are then just another substitute for points).
If I beat a 1:5 noob 100 times in a row on this leaderboard, I get 20 points. You are rewarded less for getting easy wins, but you still don't risk anything (so it promotes activity).