Ranking system for PVP board

[Dbzruler72]

I'm not a DMer myself, though I used to PK in Edgeville a lot on every hybrid/pure in F2P. I can't say I know how a hardcore DMer thinks or feels, but I will voice my concerns.

 

 

 

The PVP board is not active anymore, & judging by the pattern of the BTS news items, PVP is stuck where it is with Duel Arena & Bounty Hunter. DMers, not BHers, no longer have incentives, for staking is gone. To revive DMers' motivation & bring some life back to the PVP board, I suggest some sort of ranking system. I'm leaning toward something like the TWR, but I know clans aren't the same as DMers. The list should be comprised of at least 100 spots, & the PVP board will need new moderators to tackle something of this size.

 

 

 

 

 

[hide=Replies before the roll-back]

I like the idea, but one thing, highly incorporate pures into it. There's still tons of active pures longing for something to do with the PvP aspect, and a forum board type of thing will go a very long way, though reaching these pures will prove difficult.

 

 

 

Not saying it should be 90% pures, 10% mains, but to increase Tip.It's activity in the PvP section pures would be a tremendous help - and the snotty, ill-mannered pures have left/gotten defense, so immaturity from them isn't an issue.

 

 

 

That's just a tid-bit of thought though, and don't hate me because I'm suggesting the incorporation of pures, they are basically a dying 'type of player' in RuneScape, and Tip.It should be there preventing it, if they can, which this gives the opportunity for.

 

 

 

-----

 

 

 

I'd suggest a beta version going out first, comprised of 40-50 slots (don't expect a lot if Tip.It isn't going to somehow find, or advertise this). See how that goes, and then bring it back for further discussions.

 

 

 

I'd also suggest a F2P, and a P2P list for both groups of people.

 

^ Might be worth organizing by combat for each list, as a 30-50 combat area, 51 to 70 combat area, 71 to 90 combat area, 91 to 110 combat area...etc.

 

^Though that does need a lot of people doing this, a thing would be to incorporate TET to have an event, which would be this forum in-game events first real shot, thus giving everyone a good look and run through of the list...?

 

 

 

Those combat 'areas' would be the only way people would actually compete, as low levels, or pures, or even mid levels aren't going to participate if they get wiped out by level 100s, or 90s. Perfect example is how lousy BH is to fight if your even level 70.

 

 

 

The rules would probably be anything goes, unless predetermined, though the rules themselves are a tricky thing to actually set especially when it's 1on1 type of fights.

 

 

 

Overall seems pretty interesting, I may even participate in this if it's done. And I see no reason why it shouldn't be done, but I can see getting people to participate would be, thus the TET suggestion.

I don't know if i am fully following you on this one. Are you saying we come up with a system that would be a ranking system that is similar to the Duel Tournament Hiscores but pertains to Pvp? If this is so it would be widly used by the "pre-staking" community. As you say this would really hard to incorperate. I have some suggestions in mind but it may be way off your subject of mind.

 

 

 

Odds are this has nothing to do with what you posted but. Tourneys ran by tip.it would require a whole new section of staff.

 

 

 

These staff members would include many organizers and referee's. The hard part is that everyone of these people would have to be chosen on their honesty. There would need to be a team of planners who take into consideration stats and technique of pures that would take into consideration the time that players played. Also it would take a large amount of advertising to make the whole thing work. With at lease 50-100 people as mentioned by above poster. Divide the winners by different categories and skills.

 

 

 

It would be very similar to tournaments in history where people sign up for different evens such as jousting and swordsmanship but relate it to the game.

 

 

 

All the above simply put.... a pvp version of the Duel Tournament. It would work and would be great for publicity on the behalf of tip.it.

 

 

 

If this is somewhat what your are suggesting I strongly support!

This is a good idea. PvP goes hand-in-hand with Graveyard (which goes hand-in-hand with the clan forums), so I doubt there'll be any profound influx of new users until the clan forums pick up. Nonetheless, some fun can be had from it.

Oh I really like this idea...it's like a Duel Tournament, except without those silly tournament rules and just 1v1 fights.

 

 

 

Rules would have to be set universally though (best would be just to have no rules) so that it's not 'who's the best at the duel arena' but instead would be 'who's the best PvPer'.

 

 

 

If this ever does become a reality I'm in

Hmm, I do think this is a good idea. Perhaps a new Duel Tournament sub-board/board could be added? As after all, some people like to fight for fun and not for ranks.

[/hide]

 

 

 

The idea I have in mind goes something along these lines (used template from TWR):

• Death Match Tournament
   
   
   
  Free-to-Play
   
  1]
   
  ...
   
  100]
   
   
   
  Pay-to-Play
   
  1]
   
  ...
   
  100]

• How to DM
  • -You are not restricted to only one list.
     
    -All death matches must be accepted or declined on this board, but specifics can be discussed elsewhere.
     
    -All challenges must be made in the

Player vs Player board (the board you are on now). <--That's when the thread is in the PvP board.
 
1. Create a new thread.
 
2. In the title, indicate the list in which your plan to participate in.
 
3. In the title, indicate who you are challenging (one challenge per thread).
 
4. In the post, it is suggest you include the following information or use this format:

[b]RuneScape Name:[/b]

[b]Participating list:[/b]

[b]I Challenge:[/b]:

[b]Date/Time/World[/b]:

[b]Stake (optional)[/b]:

[b]Restrictions (optional)[/b]:

5. If the challenge is accepted, go fight.
 
6. Post the results of the war in a new thread; do not continue the original one.

Rules

• 
   
  -No picture, no proof
   
  -DMers may decline if he or she has DMed in the past week.

Structure

• -After a death match, the winner takes the loser's position if it is higher.
   
  -If a spot has not been filled, anyone that wants the spot must seek a challenge.

List Explanation

• -DMers that can achieve rankings on the

Free-to-Play list must war on a Free world.
 
-DMers that can achieve rankings on the Pay-to-Play list must war on a Members' world.

[Were]

I support.

 

 

 

Nothing to add really :oops:

[Dbzruler72]

Updated first post with the layout, rules, & details for the on-going tournament.

[n_odie]

I'm glad this is being thought out. I would say have 2 versions. One where you choose your challengers and the otherone a ongoing torney of assigned player. :)

[InkofDeath]

I would fix the words 'clan' in there...?Or have I misunderstood that?

 

 

 

And I'm going to laugh as all the level 120+ are in the top 30, while the level 80s have no chance whatsoever.

 

 

 

Level restrictions, or limits?

[Dbzruler72]

Are you suggesting another two lists?

 

 

 

F2P

 

3-90

 

90+

 

 

 

P2P

 

3-90

 

90+

[InkofDeath]

I don't think I was suggesting anything but to prevent such large combat gaps.

 

 

 

The BH level gaps is a perfect example. Impossible for level 10-30s to participate in the mini-game, while 60-80s have a difficult time as well.

 

 

 

The same thing will happen here on this if it does go live. I'm merely suggesting to think of something to prevent this, and get everyone involved, not just the 115+.

 

 

 

This is probably the only real hard issue to tackle, as having enough lists to cover the combats is impossible with activity levels already in the PvP boards..

[Beaumonde]

Hrm ... the combat levels are a problem, what if we have:

 

 

 

F2p:

 

Level 3 - 55

 

Level 50 - 70

 

Level 70 - 100

 

 

 

P2p:

 

Level 50 - 90

 

Level 90 - 115

 

Level 115+

 

 

 

It ignores low levels on P2p and super high levels on F2p which shouldn't affect to many people, it still might be to many lists thought.

[InkofDeath]

It ignores low levels on P2p and super high levels on F2p which shouldn't affect to many people, it still might be to many lists thought.

 

Disregarding the lists themselves, the vast majority will want to do F2P over P2P for numerous reasons. There's always been a higher demand for F2P pking than P2P pking at a higher level, or so the impressions from RSC and from 'main' clans have stated.

 

 

 

Though I kind of agree with the low levels being cut...perhaps though if there's a large demand, or at least one manageable a list could be formed?

 

 

 

Also, the p2p list could be 70 to 90, allowing level 50+ to join in on it, but the recommended would be 70?

[Beaumonde]

It ignores low levels on P2p and super high levels on F2p which shouldn't affect to many people, it still might be to many lists thought.

 

Disregarding the lists themselves, the vast majority will want to do F2P over P2P for numerous reasons. There's always been a higher demand for F2P pking than P2P pking at a higher level, or so the impressions from RSC and from 'main' clans have stated.

 

 

 

Though I kind of agree with the low levels being cut...perhaps though if there's a large demand, or at least one manageable a list could be formed?

 

 

 

Also, the p2p list could be 70 to 90, allowing level 50+ to join in on it, but the recommended would be 70?

 

 

 

I'm not sure from your post, it was rather vague, but are you saying to just have a F2p list?

[InkofDeath]

I was stating that the higher levels are going to want to do F2P just as much as in p2p.

[Dbzruler72]

So how many different lists are we looking at? This is my version of Lordofrah1's post:

 

 

 

F2P:

 

Level 3 - 55

 

Level 56 - 75

 

Level 75+

 

 

 

P2P:

 

Level 3 - 80

 

Level 81 - 115

 

Level 115+

 

 

 

This way, pures & main accounts can participate, so neither group is discriminated. In my opinion, this still doesn't look fair.

 

 

 

EDIT: Changed to skatedog's suggestion.

[InkofDeath]

I think it should be 80 to 115, with it being 3 to 79 Seems a bit better. For p2p.

 

 

 

The middle and highest list to me aren't going to work.

[Dbzruler72]

The solution to that would be to add more lists. It'll get way too messy, though.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe just have one F2P list & one P2P list. The lower the rank, the more likely users will have a lower combat level.

[InkofDeath]

The solution to that would be to add more lists. It'll get way too messy, though.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe just have one F2P list & one P2P list. The lower the rank, the more likely users will have a lower combat level.

 

Pretty much, just set up a standard level area, and proceed with Trial and Error.

 

 

 

Though your taking out a lot of people by having only one list, and having lower levels unable to compete fairly.

 

 

 

It seems like a lot of trouble, lol.

[Beaumonde]

The solution to that would be to add more lists. It'll get way too messy, though.

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe just have one F2P list & one P2P list. The lower the rank, the more likely users will have a lower combat level.

 

Pretty much, just set up a standard level area, and proceed with Trial and Error.

 

 

 

Though your taking out a lot of people by having only one list, and having lower levels unable to compete fairly.

 

 

 

It seems like a lot of trouble, lol.

 

 

 

We could add more spots to the list as time goes on ... top 50, 51 to 100, 101 to 150 ect.

[Dbzruler72]

I don't think I've seen this kind of system anywhere else, so, naturally, we'll be tweaking it to the user's needs. All we need now is an administrator's input; I will ask them today.

[InkofDeath]

I like what LordOfRah posted. It would just somehow need to explain how it's organized right, and it would properly be acceptable in most cases...I like it, I think that's where it should start.

[Dbzruler72]

I like what LordOfRah posted. It would just somehow need to explain how it's organized right, and it would properly be acceptable in most cases...I like it, I think that's where it should start.

Are you referring to this?

F2p:

 

Level 3 - 55

 

Level 50 - 70

 

Level 70 - 100

 

 

 

P2p:

 

Level 50 - 90

 

Level 90 - 115

 

Level 115+

[Beaumonde]

I like what LordOfRah posted. It would just somehow need to explain how it's organized right, and it would properly be acceptable in most cases...I like it, I think that's where it should start.

Are you referring to this?

 

 

 

I think he means this post about adding more sections while keeping certain levels in sections where they can all compete fairly without strictly dividing the list. If lower levels want they can always try for the higher rank in top 50 or they can just stay in the mid levels in 51-100 and so on.

[Dbzruler72]

viewtopic.php?f=59&t=751197

 

 

 

Opinions?