Battle Ranking System
 

I think a ranking system would be nice, just to see where we all stand here, could be calculated by W/L, no shows, or whatever criteria would be best to judge each individual battler by, like an automatic system, i thought the battle stats feature would be better but honestly, its useless, and im sure you know it. For the sake of the site, it would be a great asset, im sure it would light a fire under some asses, atleast mine, because i strive to be the best at everything. But also it should be taken into account that battle records alone shouldnt mean youre at the top i mean i see some people have like 5 battles a day, and every line sucks, maybe a battle "ranking" system would be nice, you know, like "Users rated this battle 5 stars", or "Users rated this battle 1 because it sucked", and each star or point would be used in the actual Ranking along with wins losses and other things, ect, im sure you see where im going with this, anyway, a reaction or implementation of this would be sick, for the future of the site on a whole

I dont mean to sound ungrateful, but some of the features added just plain suck, like the "Rappers" thing, yeah it was cool for about the first week, than it got gay, and really, its no benifit to those who use it, atleast in a musical sense, right? No hate, just love, anyway just my $0.02. :thumbup:

Do you know of any mod or hack that does this automatically?

Strobe might look at it then.

that is like the fucking idea of the year...

that would def get me going more with my battles...

but its not like i dont battle shit i got like 5 battles up now lol....

go vote on them danm it....

but u got my vote for this system..

YOUR FUCKING UNGREATFUL!!!! AT LEAST U GET A PLACE TO RAP PEOPLE IN OTHER COUNTRIES WISH THEY COULD HAVE INTERNET TO TRY TO DO KEYSTYLES AND SHIT BUT NO THEY'RE ONLY ALOUD TO PLANT RICE IN A FIELD AND MARRY THERE SISTER!!!!!!!!! LMAOOOOO im kidding .......im just fuckin around.....

its a real good idea though.... this would make me wanna step up my shit more and stop bullshittin foreal cause i would want to get 4 or 5 stars not 1 2 or 3.....good idea man ~1~

Interesting, so.. who would be the ones rating the battles? The people who had casted a vote and/or left feedback? I would think letting anyone and everyone would kind of skew the results.

that is actually a really good idea

in response to strobe's post i think that there should be a board of about 5 members to vote on each battle and then take their average vote and put it forward as the rating of the battle...but we'd need a system to select the members...it should be people who are impartial but still fairly active on this site, and they'd have to be people who would take their responsibilities seriously enough

if you are gonna introduce it to the site then a thread could be stickied in LL to find the members

I can't see assigning people dedicated to voting on the battle as working. People seem to always be on board when things are first started and eventually the novelty wears off. When we had the voting council for the mixtape, we had a pretty decent sized list of voters that signed up and we ended up with like 4 votes after 2 months.

Yeah i dont so much agree with the board of voters, people leave, go inactive, ect all the time, it would have to be something automatic, but i do see the problem that an automatic system wouldnt necessarily judge the quality of the battles, creatin the problem of having more active, but wack battlers being at the top, rather than quality.

If the people who vote on the battles, judged the battles through like a 1-10, for each individual verse, not the battle own a whole, or whatever, and the automatic sytem then created an average from all votes, it wouldnt be to bad, the votes would still be the same swayed or not, but the 'hate' effect comes into play, if someone gets rated a 1 they will be like "amag he hates me, dq that", you know, the usual, but forgive me if my memories wrong but isnt there a blacklist still? So than i guess, you really cant say someone hates you and not have them black listed, its your own fault.

I dont mean to get your work cut out for you Strobe, lol, but i have a few ideas

Maybe, to prevent jockin votes, you can have something that says " You've already voted on a battle containing this person, please wait ___X___ammount of days"

You know, that would help some i believe, or create like a "Voting template" thats implemented, kind of like when you sign up, you have to fill in the info, and your reply has to be so many characters long like when you post.

Regardless of whatever ill still be here but i think it would be helpful to try some things out, fail or not atleast we give the effort, and we appreciate what you've already done but the cycle is endless

^^^ so true....

with every new system...
there are But What If...

i say give it a try and see how it works out??

Sllleeepttt onnnn :(

i wounder if we will get this or not?

So far what I've thought up is letting people who vote or leave feedback be able to rate the battle quality, with a rating from 1-5. The rating will then be tallied and averaged when the battle closes.

I haven't came up with how to rank the battlers with the average rating though. Maybe for all new battles from the time this is put into place, whoever gets the win will get the average rating as their score. Add up the score values for all their battles and we'd have the battler rankings. Thoughts? Problems with this method?

So, each battle, the people will vote, and rate the verses, than after the battle, all votes will be tallied and averages given to both sides? So I.E

I won 1 battle and got voted a 3
I lost 1 battle and got voted a 2
I won 1 battle and got voted a 4
I won 1 battle and got voted a 4

So my average rating is 3.25 rating

With a 1-5 system, wouldnt that just keep it at under 5? There would be alot of people ranked the same lol, i think.

Ransom, got voted all 4's except for 2 battles he was rated a 3 twice so, 52, 6, 58 / 15

so his would be 3.866666666666666

Theres nearly an 11 battle difference between me and Ransum and yet im only a few points behind him

We'll use Ransum again, Average Rating (3.86), Multiplied by wins, divided by losses, gives Ran a 15.44, that is alright but people with like 40 wins and no losses would screw up the system maybe

Say they have a 4.5 Rating, x 40, give them a 180, since you cant divide 180 by 0(losses), so if you have 1 loss, it really damages your rating

But this system could be effective given we workout a few hitches, and really, how many people are actually 40 and 0, or at that matter 0 losses, theres a few but not many

So the rating system could rank individuals by there rating score, and people with like 2 wins wouldnt be at the top where they dont deserve to be.

My explanation probably wasn't really clear on how the proposed calculations would work. Say you have a battle and there are 6 votes total. Five people who voted gave it all top rankings of 5 and one person gave it a 1, so the average for that battle will be 4.33. You won that battle, so you get 4.33 added to your score. The loser gets nothing. You battle again and you win again and the average vote is 3.0. So you now have 7.33 for your rank score. So the more battles you do and win and the better ranked the battles, the higher your score.

This is a really simple method to do the ranking, and I'm sure there are some kinks that needs to be worked out, which is why I'm looking for opinions/input on how it could be implemented/calculated.

Come to think of it, I would think only voters get to rate and not the feedback people since the system already have filters and checks like blacklists and etc to reduce cheating and swaying.

The old battles wouldn't count since there is no way to calculate the data when the system wasn't available yet, so the people who are 40-0 would start off even with everyone else

^- Much better explanation, I think that would work well