Player Point System (need your oppinion)

[Frag]

Suh dudes,

Im currently fixing my surftimer based from some nm players, especially for the new CS:GO servers coming soon.

My current system is pretty much shit right now, since it just gives static points for top10 and ONLY for top10. 25 for 10th up to 250 for 1st.

I want to change that pretty much and I still have no idea how to manage this with group stages as you guys requested.

I kinda saw a new system from a friend's timer which has a algorithm point system for player times.

It has a point system based on completions and average time. (It has no tiers & no stages)

So I want to suggest 2 ideas for our new point system:

I will use surf_aircontrol_ksf - Tier 1 - 2000 Completions as our example

System 1.

Im a pretty fan of this one, it doesnt use groups at all.
You gain with every map rank improve points. This is probably huge for casual servers, since lets say KSF CS:GO, their group 1 ends at map rank 900. If you finished as rank 500, you probably have no use to play the map elif you can top10 it, which is pretty hard on that map.

(((Completions - MapRank) * AverageMapTime) / 100)

surf_aircontrol_ksf - Average Completion Time: 46.92

Rank 1 - 937.9308
Rank 2 - 937.4616
Rank 3 - 936.9924
Rank 4 - 936.5232
Rank 10 - 933.708
Rank 50 - 914.94
Rank 150 -868.02
Rank 424 -739.4592
Rank 890 - 520.812
Rank 1400 - 281.52

2nd System:

First of all every tier starts with "minimum points to give out".

Tier 1 - 10
Tier 2 - 25
Tier 3 - 50
Tier 4 - 100
Tier 5 - 150
Tier 6 - 200

and additional some "balanced" calculations based on completions which will be for every tier the same, just with the different bonus points from each tier. (Havent found a formula yet).

I realy want to hear your guys oppinions on the systems, especially on the first one since its something new.

If you have a suggestion feel free to add it below.

[Rickzter]

Yeah the points defo need to have a bigger gap tho. Top50 and wr is almost the same, u dont want rank 1 to be som1 with 100% completion but rank 50 on every map

[Frag]

Thats true.

Im gonna try to tweak the formula to get bigger gaps.

But without the example points, how do you like the idea? Worth or just stay to the default "ksf" point system which cgn used too?

[Rickzter]

I dont think the map length should decide points but i do think that higher tier maps need to give more points than they usually do on ksf point system. Just a tiny bit higher multiplier per tier since t1s r always gonna have the most conpletes anyway

[roxy]

(08-26-2016 06:20 AM)Rickzter Wrote:  Yeah the points defo need to have a bigger gap tho. Top50 and wr is almost the same, u dont want rank 1 to be som1 with 100% completion but rank 50 on every map

This

(08-28-2016 06:47 PM)Rickzter Wrote:  I dont think the map length should decide points but i do think that higher tier maps need to give more points than they usually do on ksf point system. Just a tiny bit higher multiplier per tier since t1s r always gonna have the most conpletes anyway

and this


The idea without groups aint bad. Theres pretty much no motivation to rank up once you have reached a group when you can't top10