Why is losing punished with points?

[Anubis]

Hey, I was thinking about the league system and I was asking myself why you lose points as a penalty when you already lost time (time=potential points by winning) and thus have to re-earn them which costs even more time. I also believe that when you penalize people for losing with points loss that it encourages avoiding better players; better players sitting on a big lead so they don't risk losing them and general inactivity. It also makes you feel less "discouraged" if you don't lose your hard earned points. What are your thoughts? There are many examples from other leagues back in W:A as well as completely different video games as well as real life sports where losing doesn't penalize the looser with the loss of points.

Wtf loose/loosing fail. xD fixed.

[HHC]

Cause all that would matter is how active a person is. People like me, who have nothing to do all day, would easily pwn the guys with a real life. That's pretty wrong 

As far as I can see the more active league players are already mostly near the top in the current system. It's by no means a handicap.

[franz]

You can try suggesting an alternative, not just the 'idea' of an alternative that you claim exists in other games, and be detailed.  Then we may better understand what you'd rather prefer in a league system so we can react to it, not just saying that you dislike losing points.

You can find previous discussions on this in Announcements forum threads
https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/announcements/write-leagues-system-from-scratch-6453/
https://www.tus-wa.com/forums/announcements/new-plan-for-leagues-started-7003/

And I'm sure there were more threads, in other subforums around that time, but you can start another here if you really want to get detailed about a new idea to spark a new conversation.

[TheKomodo]

If you couldn't lose points then what HHC just said, imagine someone with 60-70% winning ratio and plays 100's of games a season lol.

Compared to someone who plays 50 a season with win ratio of 80-90%

[Anubis]

Woah, slow there franz don't jump on conclusion so quickly! I was not saying I dislike the current system, I was just asking the reasoning behind the current one and arguing with the benefit of having no loss of points when losing. I would expect that encouraging people to play vs. each other is a driving source of motivation and thus I believe that taking away points from people that lost when already losing ground to the persons that are winning and the time investment you lose is enough and that it "can" cause avoiding better players as well as players with huge points pool to stop playing once they reach a certain threshold where noone can kick them out of the top position (PO spot for example).

I am just throwing in some food for thought about the current system and what in my opinion would be beneficial to activity.

[franz]

If anything, the system in place can give more incentive to beat better players because it's usually at low risk/high reward due to the Season Rating/Overall Rating relationship.

[Peja]

If you couldn't lose points then what HHC just said, imagine someone with 60-70% winning ratio and plays 100's of games a season lol.

Compared to someone who plays 50 a season with win ratio of 80-90%

this reminds me on playing this weird pes online league where couldnt lose points, i owned muhahaha.

[Doubletime]

I personally think that failiure should be severly punished..But avoiding a battle due to fear of failiure should be punished even more..However this is hard to achieve in a leauge of this nature and in a leauge of this kind no system will be perfect...

Perhaps making players who have alot of points lose less points when losing to a lesser opponent while the lesser winner still earns the same ammount of points would work well as many people are cowards who do not want to risk losing points.

[Anubis]

Fair enough, I just aimed to get an idea what people prefer and/or like about the current system, there was no hidden agenda that I strive to change anything.
Seems like many people favor the current system and I was just unaware of the fact that it has been discussed to it's full extent already. Well kind of forgot it, I do remember the threads you provided franz.

[DarkOne]

The points show how strong someone is that season(or overall).

The point is that if you reach the rating that accurately shows how strong you really are, then if you play 10000 games, you would keep the same rating; if you play only against Mablak, you'd lose 10 times 5 points for the losses but gain 50 points for the one win (just an example). If you were to play me, you'd win 100 times 1 point and when I get lucky 1 game, you lose 100

If your rating is too high, then obviously, playing would ultimately cost you points. If it's too low, then playing would ultimately gain you points.

[Anubis]

Yeah I can see that, makes sense D1. But wouldn't it be possible to keep the core system (balancing out your true rating that reflects your skill) without negative points? If you lose vs. someone that is obviously so much better than you that it will result simply in a loss so you are not worse standings wise, just that it is the expected result reflected from the rating and doesn't need adjustment. Something like the first half of the season determines your (balanced) rating (with + and -) and further games just use that static first half rating to determine if you gain points or not.

[franz]

I think what you're describing Anubis is likened more to a simple Ladder system, which actually has been done before back in the day actually.  Just google 'worms 2 ladder' and you'll find the old Case's Ladder: Worms 2: B&G standings and Worms 2: Roperz subdivision as well.  In that system (taken from their Rules page):

-When you defeat a member that is ranked higher on the Ladder, you move up in rank half the distance between their rank and your own.

-Your rank on the Ladder does not go down if you lose a match unless your opponent is ranked DIRECTLY below you.

-When members ranked below you are victorious against members ranked above you, it's possible the member will jump over you in rank and you will move down one rung. This depends on the ranks involved.

It's not necessarily all that bad of a system, in lots of cases it can be great, but as you can see --> these were for specialized one scheme standings, so such a system would likely not be a great overall system for a collection of schemes like we do for Classic.

[KoreanRedDragon]

You may not understand how ratings work, but you're still a better league admin than Kiros in my book, Kainubis.

[Anubis]

TGL is always gonna be there, it's unhackable because google is the sponsor!

[Phanton]

The points show how strong someone is that season(or overall).

The point is that if you reach the rating that accurately shows how strong you really are, then if you play 10000 games, you would keep the same rating; if you play only against Mablak, you'd lose 10 times 5 points for the losses but gain 50 points for the one win (just an example). If you were to play me, you'd win 100 times 1 point and when I get lucky 1 game, you lose 100

If your rating is too high, then obviously, playing would ultimately cost you points. If it's too low, then playing would ultimately gain you points.

+1 for u