[Viperianw]

Put me on, rock.

[GiantBlobofSlime]

My proposal, and my reasons:
1. Have points gradually drop if player is inactive
This is so that a player can't just jump to the top, and then never do anything again and still be one of the top rankers.
2. Have players lose points if they lose
Honestly, this one's a fairly no-brainer one. If players have no ways of losing points, then it won't be skill that decides how many points you have--it's age. The suckiest old player, if he/she battles enough, will still be at a high ranking for no real reason.
3. Is player vs player actually fully implemented? As in, it's not a player battling a computer using another player's team? O_o
I've really been out of it, huh.
4. Measures be undertaken to prevent abuse; i.e. someone battling his alts.
Even if they are at the same level, it is entirely possible to have one player use just non-attacking moves.
5. Pick the rating qualifications; does one constantly battle those at a similar ranking, or does one just pick a level bracket instead and fight only players who are using monsters in that level bracket, regardless of ranking? Or do we use both, with players picking a level bracket and then fighting only players close to their ranking in that bracket?

All said, it's a good idea. Competition is usually a good way to make games more fun.

EDIT:
Optional thing I thought of; possibly have the PvP function temporarily scale your monsters to a certain level, for the duration of the PvP battles?

[SlimJimForHim]

Definately support this

[SkyRock]

Rock bumps the thread with edits by what GBOs said.

1. Have points gradually drop if player is inactive
This is so that a player can't just jump to the top, and then never do anything again and still be one of the top rankers.

Yes, I agree on this. Added.

2. Have players lose points if they lose
Honestly, this one's a fairly no-brainer one. If players have no ways of losing points, then it won't be skill that decides how many points you have--it's age. The suckiest old player, if he/she battles enough, will still be at a high ranking for no real reason.

True as well, added.

4. Measures be undertaken to prevent abuse; i.e. someone battling his alts.
Even if they are at the same level, it is entirely possible to have one player use just non-attacking moves.

I already put that IP checker up.

5. Pick the rating qualifications; does one constantly battle those at a similar ranking, or does one just pick a level bracket instead and fight only players who are using monsters in that level bracket, regardless of ranking? Or do we use both, with players picking a level bracket and then fighting only players close to their ranking in that bracket?

The point rewards vary with the other player's PvP rank, not the Top Trainers system.

And yes, Live Player vs Player has been added since Alpha

[swjfire]

great idea, supporting !

[SlimJimForHim]

I realy like the concept here but i have a question that i wonder about

If the system is just, whoever garners the most points is at the top of the ranking then it seems like players who have been playing a while would always be at the top and new players that join, even though they may be good would never get a top rank, simply because they joined later and cant catch up in the points.

How would we work this out?

I havent thought about it too long but ima just throw an idea out there

What if every month rankings points reset... but if you reached a certain level of points and were a top player your ranking points dont reset back to 0. Maybe they would only go back down to 100. There could be tiers. The best players would reset to 100. the next best in rankings would reset to 75 and so forth... the lowest would reset back to 0.
This way New players still can get into the top rankings and Players who already got there dont have to reset to zero and completely lose their positioning.

BTW i just completely threw those numbers out there, the numbers required to make this idea work and applicable are probably completely different.

[SkyRock]

Then, let this be bumped.

[SlimJimForHim]

Yeah, well, my idea above would definately need some refining, but i believe the concept could be helpful

[zacherymatthews]

you have my support !

[Anduril]

Question: Why is everyone set on creating a level playing field? To my mind, it makes sense that players who have been around longer should receive some sort of advantage.
Another system that could be more level is, instead of making it purely points-base, there could also be a percentage (%) win that would translate into rankings. If you required a base number of battles to qualify for the list, then after that, it would reflect the ranks well regardless of time spent or battles fought.

[zacherymatthews]

To sum it all up,all old players dont like how they used to be high rank and how they have such a low rank bc of new pvp system

[SlimJimForHim]

Question: Why is everyone set on creating a level playing field? To my mind, it makes sense that players who have been around longer should receive some sort of advantage.
Another system that could be more level is, instead of making it purely points-base, there could also be a percentage (%) win that would translate into rankings. If you required a base number of battles to qualify for the list, then after that, it would reflect the ranks well regardless of time spent or battles fought.

Answer: because in what highlevel sports or competition field do the veterans get advantages over the newer players? None that i can think of. If a basketball team is older than the team their playing they dont get spotted 10 points just cuz their older. Rookies are given the chance to come in and dominate... if they can

That aside, i actually like your idea. We're all adding ideas here that will just make this system better i think. To have points and percentage as a combo part of the equations. Because if there was no percentage of wins stats then someone could just be losing a lot but be having a lot of battles and racking up points even though hes losing. And he could be higher rank than someone who cant get on as much but wins his battles.

[zacherymatthews]

exactamundo ^

[SkyRock]

Question: Why is everyone set on creating a level playing field? To my mind, it makes sense that players who have been around longer should receive some sort of advantage.
Another system that could be more level is, instead of making it purely points-base, there could also be a percentage (%) win that would translate into rankings. If you required a base number of battles to qualify for the list, then after that, it would reflect the ranks well regardless of time spent or battles fought.

Although, my main plan is that PvP rankings is a separate rank from the top trainers and will run independently on PvP wins and losses.

[SkyRock]

We have ten supporters. I'll go get a pm to Cef.

[SparrowHawk]

Whenever you get 10 supporters, you don't need to pm CeFurkan =.=

[kunwarkharbanda]

i support

[Dark.Zero]

i support, this surely would be easy for me to be in rank top 5

[muhammet199797]

i support

[CeFurkan]

PVP rankings will come when the real PVP maps added

currently people can easily abuse

There has to be a system where people will loose things when lost to enemy player

also at the pvp maps you will be able to own other players without their permission

those maps will give extra gold, exp etc

[Dark.Zero]

nice very nice i cant wait when you go to this map and you pvp you would lose things, this would be fun

[SlimJimForHim]

PVP rankings will come when the real PVP maps added

currently people can easily abuse

There has to be a system where people will loose things when lost to enemy player

also at the pvp maps you will be able to own other players without their permission

those maps will give extra gold, exp etc

If you can own other players without their permission, then i suspect there will be different maps for different categories of battles. Emmissary, zenith, legendary and such.

[CeFurkan]

PVP rankings will come when the real PVP maps added

currently people can easily abuse

There has to be a system where people will loose things when lost to enemy player

also at the pvp maps you will be able to own other players without their permission

those maps will give extra gold, exp etc

If you can own other players without their permission, then i suspect there will be different maps for different categories of battles. Emmissary, zenith, legendary and such.

There will be different maps but there won't be any categories

The strong will own the weak

[SlimJimForHim]

welp, i guess the smart ones will only be on the pvp maps when they have at least a full legendary team

[CeFurkan]

welp, i guess the smart ones will only be on the pvp maps when they have at least a full legendary team

well anybody can try

[Pein]

welp, i guess the smart ones will only be on the pvp maps when they have at least a full legendary team

well anybody can try

But not all will succeed

[SlimJimForHim]

welp, i guess the smart ones will only be on the pvp maps when they have at least a full legendary team

well anybody can try

True dat, true dat

[Guider456]

ill say this i had a freaky dream last night...i dreamt that the newest topic on here was npcs and pvp maps and i went to the topic and i saw a bunch of pvp maps lol, like there were 2 maps that were like twins, by the design and the name on the map i mean, 1 was fire, 1 was ice.

[SlimJimForHim]

ill say this i had a freaky dream last night...i dreamt that the newest topic on here was npcs and pvp maps and i went to the topic and i saw a bunch of pvp maps lol, like there were 2 maps that were like twins, by the design and the name on the map i mean, 1 was fire, 1 was ice.

Wow, ill say this guider, you made one tough decision to take a step back from this game and not play as much because it is apparent that this game is a big part of your life. I mean, dreaming about its forums, sheesh, i hope all the staff here are as devoted as this dude

[Snes]

what do you mean when you say, you can own other people without there permission??