BuzzerBeater Forums

There is no logic in your proposition. The ranking is not about one game, it's about how you do in a season. Depending on your team talent, you will eventually have to choose which games in the week you want to win and which you are willing to lose. Play out your first season, learn the game a little, then thourougly think through the ups and downs of your suggestion and then suggest it.

Maybe this helps you in understand the actual system, it the system which work on the nationalteams(2 Season basis), thx for rwystyrk for this work:

It looks like NT Rankings working this way

Each game has the certain amount of points, which are devided to both opponents:

scrimmage - 5 points
qualification 1st round group - 15 points (? not 100% sure, I started my analysis later)
qualification 2nd round group - 30 points
continental semifinal - 50 points
continental final - 100 points
second chance - 35 points
consolation tournament group - 15 points

Soon we will see World Championship points.

Winner
gives something between 75% and 100% points for the game and looser
something between 0% and 25%. The strength of opponent influences how
the points are devided. To gain 100% of points against weaker team
means that you have to win the game by better points differential than
to gain 100% of points against stronger team (strength is set by rank
on NT Rankings).

----

It looks like:
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td style="">> WC - 1st round group (2 groups by 6 teams) - 50 points
> WC - 2nd round group (1 group 8 teams) - 75 points
> WC - semifinal - 125 points
> WC - final - 200 points
>
>
But final and semifinal went in one week, so points went to U21
Rankings at one time for this matches. Sum for 2 semifinals and 1 final
was 450 points.
>
> My opinion of deviding points for this matches:
> Germany - Argentina 125:0
> Spain - Italy 107,2:17,8
> Germany - Spain 179,7:20,3
>
> Kind regards
> rwystyrk</td></tr></table>

A ladder with up to 7000 teams like in italy is maybe a bit confusing, and also i believe that it didn't consider scrimmage in the team ranking and succes stays a bit longer then two seasons.

I agree how you do over a season is relevant. But in general, a better team should beat a worse team the majority of the time. I think the ranking system works too slowly at the moment, it might provide more accurate results in 3 or 4 seasons time, but at the moment it is not accurate except for maybe the top teams.
The ranking system I suggested is a quick moving ranking system with changes constantly taking place, which might take a little while to settle down, but at least if it is fast moving people might be more enticed to actually compete more with higher teams and see where they are ranked. In the current ranking system a team ranked 600th in Australia might be considerably better than someone ranked 400th in Australia. This would probably take a whole season or 2 to reverse itself and become accurate, where as in my system if the 600th team beats the 400th team then they switch places. Safeguards could come into this, like for example both teams must play at the same effort level.

hmmm...maybe if instead of seeing the ranking we could see the ranking and the number of points we have. That way we can see the difference in points between us and the team ranked just above us. This way we can see who we overtake and how close we are ranked to the other team and what wins are important to overtake the team.

hmmm...maybe if instead of seeing the ranking we could see the ranking and the number of points we have.

ilike that, this would make the system more understandable - probadly they should also mention the "intervall" of those ranking else people will say i won but i lost points because they didn't notice that a better win drop out of their stats.

Yes I agree. I think 2 seasons, maybe 3 is suitable as an interval. What do you think?

The ranking system is fine as it is. You are the situation I was in last season where each week you beat up on Bot teams and noobs who have no clue. Last season was my first season and my team was out of the cup before I started so the only games that counted were the league games which as I said were vs noobs and bots so I didn't gain much despite a 26 game in a row win streak. This season in my first season of DIV III I lasted 4 rounds in the cup and am currently in 3rd place in my division and my rating has vastly improved.

Next season when you are in DIV III (and trust me the competition is MUCH MUCH harder) if you keep on winning your rating will go through the roof too. You just need patience. Swaping ratings over one game is just silly and not the way any rankings in the real world work.

As for why I think the ratings are currently excellent, take me as an example.
There are 16 ABBL teams all better than me. Total 16
There are 16 x 4 DIV II teams, all better than me. 64 + 16 =80.
There are 16 DIV III leagues and I estimate there are about 3 teams per league that are better than me. 48 + 80 = 128.

So if I had to rate myself I would guess roughly 128 in Australia. What does the computer say? 135! Seems amazingly good and accurate to me!

It's not exactly that I think there is a problem with the rankings. It's more that no one really knows EXACTLY how the rankings work. So I reckon if they did something like show how many points you were on as well as your ranking, then you could see how many more points you needed to go up a place. I think this ould make things more competitive.

Also there is too much emphasis on the cup. A team in my league drew 3 or 4 bots in a row, so his ratings went up massively.

Also there is too much emphasis on the cup. A team in my league drew 3 or 4 bots in a row, so his ratings went up massively.

thats a weakness of the system, but i like the importance of the cup, because it is the best comparision betwen leagues. A strong league, could be a bottle neck for several good teams who didn't promote but who are quality wise on a level that they could play in the league above -> maybe they show it through cup games that they deserve this level + teams who regualary play them also should be profitate for their listing so that you a cross league comparision so that maybe the leader of the IV.2 is considerred weaker then the third of the "strong" IV.4