[Guider456]

i didn't unsticky

[Pein]

Guider456Today, 03:00 PMThread UnstuckThread How should be top trainers rank calculated
Forum: General Discussions

[Guider456]

dei ninjd me >_>

[CeFurkan]

This is how I believe it should go:

Different Monster Count : 2.0
Ancient Gem Count : 1.5
Different Monster Count Average Level: 1.5
Different Monster Count Average Exp: 1.0
Different Monster Count Total Exp: 1.0
Legendary Monster Count : 0.5
User Money : 0.25

I know you're all probably thinking (You just did that so you have a major advantage), but think about it in this sense. Role-play wise, would you rank a trainer higher that has an awesome 6 monster team and tons of gold, or would you rank higher a trainer who had 50 monsters at level 100 and not that much gold?

I don't think money should have much to do with top trainer rank, it's not about how rich you are, it's about how awesome your monsters are. I already know, because of the way this game ranking is currently set up, that even if I get all 659/659 to 100 I will probably not even be in the top 5 because of Average Exp and User Money. That is... sad, to me. That I could get 659 monsters of a different name to level 100, and NOT be considered one of the top 5. This is why I believe that Average Level, Average Exp, and Total Exp should only be counted towards a monster of the same name ONCE. So if you have 50 miro, it only counts one of those in the ranking. You may say that's unfair to the player who spent all that time catching 50 miro and leveling them to 100, but at the same time.... Does it really say you are the best trainer just because you can sit in Outpost Island catching Miro all day long?

by this " Different Monster Count Average Level: 1.5 "

You mean different monster count * AVG level (of all monsters) ?
It seems like logical

we can do that way i suppose

[Shoshinryu]

This is how I believe it should go:

Different Monster Count : 2.0
Ancient Gem Count : 1.5
Different Monster Count Average Level: 1.5
Different Monster Count Average Exp: 1.0
Different Monster Count Total Exp: 1.0
Legendary Monster Count : 0.5
User Money : 0.25

I know you're all probably thinking (You just did that so you have a major advantage), but think about it in this sense. Role-play wise, would you rank a trainer higher that has an awesome 6 monster team and tons of gold, or would you rank higher a trainer who had 50 monsters at level 100 and not that much gold?

I don't think money should have much to do with top trainer rank, it's not about how rich you are, it's about how awesome your monsters are. I already know, because of the way this game ranking is currently set up, that even if I get all 659/659 to 100 I will probably not even be in the top 5 because of Average Exp and User Money. That is... sad, to me. That I could get 659 monsters of a different name to level 100, and NOT be considered one of the top 5. This is why I believe that Average Level, Average Exp, and Total Exp should only be counted towards a monster of the same name ONCE. So if you have 50 miro, it only counts one of those in the ranking. You may say that's unfair to the player who spent all that time catching 50 miro and leveling them to 100, but at the same time.... Does it really say you are the best trainer just because you can sit in Outpost Island catching Miro all day long?

by this " Different Monster Count Average Level: 1.5 "

You mean different monster count * AVG level (of all monsters) ?
It seems like logical

we can do that way i suppose

Anything that would put more of an emphasis on different monster count would be awesome, because the main point should be to catch all the monsters.

Although, it does really make sense doing DMC * AL All Monsters because if you have 659 * 100 it would be 65,900 where if it was only 100 * 100 it would be 10,000.

Same goes for DMC*AvgExp and DMC*TotExp... I think that would work out fine for balancing out.

You should totally change it and see what happens at rank update tonight

[Guider456]

This is how I believe it should go:



Different Monster Count : 2.0

Ancient Gem Count : 1.5

Different Monster Count Average Level: 1.5

Different Monster Count Average Exp: 1.0

Different Monster Count Total Exp: 1.0

Legendary Monster Count : 0.5

User Money : 0.25



I know you're all probably thinking (You just did that so you have a major advantage), but think about it in this sense. Role-play wise, would you rank a trainer higher that has an awesome 6 monster team and tons of gold, or would you rank higher a trainer who had 50 monsters at level 100 and not that much gold?



I don't think money should have much to do with top trainer rank, it's not about how rich you are, it's about how awesome your monsters are. I already know, because of the way this game ranking is currently set up, that even if I get all 659/659 to 100 I will probably not even be in the top 5 because of Average Exp and User Money. That is... sad, to me. That I could get 659 monsters of a different name to level 100, and NOT be considered one of the top 5. This is why I believe that Average Level, Average Exp, and Total Exp should only be counted towards a monster of the same name ONCE. So if you have 50 miro, it only counts one of those in the ranking. You may say that's unfair to the player who spent all that time catching 50 miro and leveling them to 100, but at the same time.... Does it really say you are the best trainer just because you can sit in Outpost Island catching Miro all day long?

by this " Different Monster Count Average Level: 1.5 "



You mean different monster count * AVG level (of all monsters) ?

It seems like logical



we can do that way i suppose

I just mean that for Average Level, Average Exp, and Total exp, it should only count the Different Monster's, it shouldn't be all monsters. So, it should only count a monster of a single name once, not 50 times if you have 50 of them.



For example, if you have 5 Alaclipse at level 100, it would only count one of those towards total exp, average level, and average exp. However, also, if you have 5 alaclipse but only one of them is at level 100, the level 100 one would be the only one counted and the other 4 wouldn't affect your rank.



But, anything that would put more of an emphasis on different monster count would be awesome, because the main point should be to catch all the monsters.

which you can't do since not all of them are catchable lol

[Shoshinryu]

This is how I believe it should go:



Different Monster Count : 2.0

Ancient Gem Count : 1.5

Different Monster Count Average Level: 1.5

Different Monster Count Average Exp: 1.0

Different Monster Count Total Exp: 1.0

Legendary Monster Count : 0.5

User Money : 0.25



I know you're all probably thinking (You just did that so you have a major advantage), but think about it in this sense. Role-play wise, would you rank a trainer higher that has an awesome 6 monster team and tons of gold, or would you rank higher a trainer who had 50 monsters at level 100 and not that much gold?



I don't think money should have much to do with top trainer rank, it's not about how rich you are, it's about how awesome your monsters are. I already know, because of the way this game ranking is currently set up, that even if I get all 659/659 to 100 I will probably not even be in the top 5 because of Average Exp and User Money. That is... sad, to me. That I could get 659 monsters of a different name to level 100, and NOT be considered one of the top 5. This is why I believe that Average Level, Average Exp, and Total Exp should only be counted towards a monster of the same name ONCE. So if you have 50 miro, it only counts one of those in the ranking. You may say that's unfair to the player who spent all that time catching 50 miro and leveling them to 100, but at the same time.... Does it really say you are the best trainer just because you can sit in Outpost Island catching Miro all day long?

by this " Different Monster Count Average Level: 1.5 "



You mean different monster count * AVG level (of all monsters) ?

It seems like logical



we can do that way i suppose

I just mean that for Average Level, Average Exp, and Total exp, it should only count the Different Monster's, it shouldn't be all monsters. So, it should only count a monster of a single name once, not 50 times if you have 50 of them.



For example, if you have 5 Alaclipse at level 100, it would only count one of those towards total exp, average level, and average exp. However, also, if you have 5 alaclipse but only one of them is at level 100, the level 100 one would be the only one counted and the other 4 wouldn't affect your rank.



But, anything that would put more of an emphasis on different monster count would be awesome, because the main point should be to catch all the monsters.

which you can't do since not all of them are catchable lol

I have them all, because I donated. I also started a shop that allows people to buy starters from me to make sure that everyone can get them with in-game gold, at the very least. You can also donate to get them yourselves, so it is possible to have them all. I won't close down my shop so if people are determined to have all 659, it's possible. Expensive, but possible.

[CeFurkan]

i am working on new system right now

it will be mainly about different monster count

but not all classes will give same point

Regular 1x
Superior 2x
Emissary 3x
Zenith 4x
Legendary 5x
Ancient 10x

[Shoshinryu]

i am working on new system right now

it will be mainly about different monster count

but not all classes will give same point

Regular 1x
Superior 2x
Emissary 3x
Zenith 4x
Legendary 5x
Ancient 10x

Awesome! I really believe that making it more based on Different Monster Count is the best way to make it more balanced and fair. All people do now-a-days is catch legendary's and level them to 100. That's fine and all, but I don't think it should have more of an affect than DMC.

You're the best CeFurkan!

[CeFurkan]

The new ranking system will work like this:

Different Total Monster Points (DTMP) =

(Different Regular Monster Count x 1) +
(Different Superior Monster Count x 2) +
(Different Emissary Monster Count x 3) +
(Different Zenith Monster Count x 4) +
(Different Legendary Monster Count x 6) +
(Different Ancient Monster Count x 12)

Starters will not be counted because they are unobtainable.

Example : A player owning 3 regulars, 2 superiors, 4 emissaries, 2 zenith, 3 legendary, and 1 ancient will get =
(3 x 1) + (2 x 2) + (4 x 3) + (2 x 4) + (3 x 6) + (1 x 12) = 3+4+12+8+18+12 = 47 DTMP points

Each rank category will have a maximum points, if you reach the maximum points then you are number 1 in that category.

Category 1--- AVG EXP * DTMP // Maximum Points: 300,000
Category 2--- AVG Level * DTMP // Maximum Points: 300,000
Category 3--- Ancient Gem Count // Maximum Points: 200,000
Category 4--- Total EXP // Maximum Points: 150,000
Category 5--- Total Gold // Maximum Points: 50,000

Ranks are calculated by first checking how many points you have. You then take your points divided by #1 players points and multiplied by the maximum points in that category.

For example, Category 1-----

#1 Ranked Average Exp*DMTP Player has 1,000,000 AvgExp and 25 Zenith Monsters. The 25 Zenith would count for 100 DMTP.

The equation for his points would be 1,000,000*100 (AvgExp*DTMP). This makes his point value 100,000,000.

As he is the #1, his category equation would be 100,000,000/100,000,000*400,000 = 1*400,000 = 400,000 or, the maximum points for Category 1.

Now comes Player 2, they have 500,000 Average Exp and 75 Superior Monsters. This gives them 500,000*150 = 75,000,000 Total Points.

To figure out where they stand in Category 1 Rank, you would have to do the Category Equation which is:

Player's Total Points / Number 1 Ranked Total Points * 400,000

In this case, that would be 75,000,000 / 100,000,000 * 400,000 or.... 300,000 Points

The category point value will determine where you stand in the ranking.

[Pein]

When will this new system be put in place

[SparrowHawk]

I am looking forward to this.

[CeFurkan]

working on new system right now. you won't be able to rank with very few monsters anymore. for example utku will become 191 at new system Now he is number 4

[CeFurkan]

first post of the thread updated read it and comment on it

[SparrowHawk]

This way, players won't have their rank depending on how much gold they have

Now, I have to calculate the math for my profile >.<

[Pein]

ah so in other words catching different monster adds to rank more than anything else,and will this update have this one in it

If so time to get some monsters

[Shoshinryu]

Yes, with the new ranking system having a high DMC - Different Monster Count - will be the most effective way to gaining rank. Going on then to training all of the (currently 659) monsters up and raising your Average Exp and Average Level will further raise your rank. Gold has an affect, but very little. Total EXP is only fair to add in with some effect because people do deserve to be recognized for having a lot of level 100's even if they are of the same name.

[CeFurkan]

Still Under Development First Preview : https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/8775...opment.png

[orboknown]

This means sooo many people plummet.
...

[Pein]

eh looks alright new design is ok, and well new factors seem to be alright

[Guider456]

so... i would drop to 43? thats not bad as long as i stay in top 50-100 its fine with me

[SparrowHawk]

Shoshin is rank 5 '-'

Arrgh now I has to get more monsters '-'

[Shoshinryu]

Shoshin is rank 5 '-'

Arrgh now I has to get more monsters '-'

It won't last for long, once the former high ranker's start raising their DMS I'll get booted lol...

[SparrowHawk]

Wait, I has a question..

What about pvp records? Shouldn't they count for ranking as well? O.o

Like.. 1.0 - 1.5

[Shoshinryu]

Wait, I has a question..

What about pvp records? Shouldn't they count for ranking as well? O.o

Like.. 1.0 - 1.5

That will be implemented when the new PvP stuff is implemented with the big update.

[SparrowHawk]

Indeed it shall, indeed it shall.

Thank ye matey for thy answer.

(Sorry, I feel like a pirate right now.)

[CeFurkan]

we are not taking actions based on how people will drop or raise. we are taking actions which are more logical current system sucks because you can get top ranked with only 1 monster

[Shoshinryu]

we are not taking actions based on how people will drop or raise. we are taking actions which are more logical current system sucks because you can get top ranked with only 1 monster

I want a like button.

[orboknown]

We had that...
went crazy.

[CeFurkan]

everybody read first post of the thread