Original Post
[War] Current ranking system.

I've been extremely "motivated" to play the game these past few months just because of the war system. I love competitive gaming and enjoy Toribash so combining those in a clanwar is so much fun for me. But I just heard from GM's (Moop, Smallbowl) that the ranking system is completely uncompetitive. For example the ranked #1 clan [Wapow] in the last 50 games have lost 24, which is almost half (26 wins 24 losses). On the other hand # 41 [Parrot]s full record is 25 wins 4 losses. [Wapow]'s full record is too long to document so I only took the last 50 games seen, so the data isnt fully accurate but still very clear. There should be no reason [Parrot] is ranked #41.

What is the point of a ranking system, if it does not encourage winning? How can you rank clans if the point system is unable to record even remotely accurately the best clan (which Im not saying we are)? Getting only points for winning in a ladder where you can war as much as you like is indeed a bit pointless.

In order for Toribash to generate even the slightest hint of esport viability (which would be awesome) fixing the ranking system should be high priority. At its current state it does not encourage winning other than "for honour", and it definitely does not give any gratification from being a high ranked clan. The knowledge that it doesnt really matter if you win or lose does really lower my motivation for warring.

I really hope to hear about the problems that my proposal might pose and would be more than happy to help the mod team in this problem to create a better ranking system and a better competitive enviorment for us all.

EQUATION FOR RANKINGS (important shit)



I will address the problems and solutions in PS.

1. How?

There are plenty of algorythms and scripts of ladder/ranking systems online, and If that is hard to implement, even a simple 1 point per lose 1 point per win would be better than the current system.

2. Would It cause clans to only play games that are certain wins?

If the point system rewards winning higher ranked team then definitely not. It would actually benefit the lower ranked teams to challenge higher ranked ones. Thus creating a richer and more diverse ladder.

3. Clans would only pick their own mods then?

My proposal is that in "ladder matches" if agreement on the mod cannot be found its half and half mods, each clan chooses an official mod and its split. If both are fine with lets say ABD, no problem.

4. It would deter casual players from warring?

Possibly, but then again the games casual nature is the largest part of the experience already. Dedicating a small part of TB to competition would be fine in my opinion

5. What about the current ladder?

That is up to the devs, I personally would be fine with a reset or implementation into the current standings.


-Easy to reward active clans and players with prizes for winning.
- Brings "professionalism" to warring.
-Competition is fun and so is winning, it is very satisfying to climb the ladder and achieve a higher rank when you really deserve it!


-Implementation could require some work/programming which I dont understand so I cannot comment on it.
Last edited by cowmeat; Oct 23, 2015 at 12:49 PM.
I completely agree with this.
Also you never know they may change it with 5.0
But i would like to see this changed.
Last edited by Aerotack; May 7, 2015 at 03:43 PM.
Personally im pretty neutral

Yeah could be better but imo toribash is more geared towards being fun that towards esports

therefore I think the priority for devs should be fixing bugs and looking for was to make the game more fun rather than more competitive

There is still initiative to win however as you get more points for a win than a loss. The reason you get any points for a loss is to encourage clans to be active and to war etc
Originally Posted by SmallBowl View Post
devs should be fixing bugs and looking for was to make the game more fun

well http://puu.sh/1AJEA

But seriously.
That is my goal as well. For some people like me competition is the fun part. Honestly speaking without competition in TB I would quit pretty fast
So this is focusing "on the fun"
Last edited by cowmeat; May 7, 2015 at 06:45 PM.
The Council have discussed changing the Clan War system at great length both on and off the forum. We need a lot of stuff done that relies on forum devs to do things but instead of actually doing stuff they prefer to shit up my log threads with mindless rambling (hi Fish).

Here's something that might interest you:
Originally Posted by Fish View Post
Just gonna clarify a few things about the existing system.
Originally Posted by Council Member #1
if we're going to start changing about the clan war system, it might be a good time to talk about reworking the point system and figuring out a way to rank clans based on wars won, score, etc. instead of having it solely based on activity. i can't imagine it would be too hard to implement, and it could be helpful for future clan leagues and sorting brackets

Clans are ranked by event points, which only active clans are able to get.
Originally Posted by Council Member #2
my idea of the clan war system would be something like this. Whoever makes the clan war would have some kind of dropbox of # of matches (5 min - 15 max). Lower the number lower the possible gain of points and opposite of that to the max. No idea how this would be coded, but here goes nothing.

- number of frames won in
- players participating(big emphasis on this)
- dismembers/fractures
- score
- did he DQ or the time run out
- overall score at the end - (a 15-0 would yield more rather than a closer match (9-6))

This level of information isn't recorded. We only know who won and lost.
Originally Posted by Council Member #3
I think this is a great idea. Big wars with lots of members are bigger events, so it makes sense that they should be weighted more. I think we should have a min no. of players in wars too. 1v1 and 2v2 aren't really wars, just battles. The min shouldn't be 5 or anything, but 3; on-the-spot wars would be far less frequent with too large of a min, and I think we should be encouraging those on-the-spot wars.

I also agree that wars where one side smashes the other 9-1 (or even victories by a larger margin than 1) should result in more points being doled out.

The current scoring system:
- the clan with the most wins, wins the war
- one member beating lots of different opponents in a war gives more points that repeatedly beating the same opponent
- the more people in the war and the more wins from each person results in a higher overall score (3 people winning 1 game each is better than 1 person winning 3 games)
- points gained from a war determine a clans rank
- points decay over time, but they do not completely decay. The goal here is that the clans at the top of the ladder are the best ones to have a war with. Also if you're at the top, it's because you're working for it, more than just being an inactive clan with lots of points from years ago.

As for the extra stats on the clan page, when someone comes up with a proper layout for the page I could take a look at it (that is if I set up another dev environment).

As you can see, not a lot of embrace for change. We were in early stages of discussing this stuff but outside of most of our ideas being cut down (for what I feel was more about Fish being lazy over our ideas being bad - I mean, there's clear improvements that could be made mentioned by CC member #2 by means of statistical tracking alone - the answer we got was "we don't track that so nah". Really?) I think we could have made a real go of handling Clan Wars in a more exciting, involving way. The current system is less than ideal but I'm afraid the biggest problem isn't figuring out how to improve it, it's getting a dev to implement it. There's other stuff the Council has been waiting to be done for months now and I believe only one dev I've contacted has even barely made a move on it (which I'm greatly thankful for). It's by far the least reliable usergroup to have to work with, especially when they decide to shit up my fucking log thread.
collect snots from the nose
The actual single member ranking system is piss poor as well. So I can only imagine how inaccurate the clan system is. I think that the events don't go as noticed as they should, but to my knowledge, I'm pretty sure no points are awarded that affect rankings from big events.

In a perfect system, you get points for winning, lose points for losing. Good opponents, relative to current rating, give more points for winning and don't punish you as hard for losing. Bad opponents, relative to good rating, give little points but punish severely. In addition, the amount of games makes the wars more influential, and clan diversity use of players, capping at around 5 unique players per team, also influences more points. That is to say using 5 people to win 20-0 against a good clan would boost more than 3 unique players for 11 games.

Think gynx said it best- not enough active devs
Last edited by Bodhisattva; May 7, 2015 at 07:23 PM.
Need help?
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
this might contain errors since i built it from the ground up
the values are arbitrary but the general idea is there



{G+[(S2 - S1) / 10]} x (W) x (R)


{G+[(S1 - S2) / 10]} x (W)

G: gain
S1: winning teams score
S2: losing teams score
W: Winrate multiplier:
Win:[100%+(winrate% -50%)] /100
Loss:[100%-(winrate% -50%)] /100... If winrate is lower that 50% the equation is [100%+(-50%+Winrate%)] /100
R: streak increase = 2% per win

Score= 1000 by default (0wins - 0 losses)
gain = 100 (static)


Team #1 800 score, 40% winrate, 2 winning streak

Team #2 1500 score, 60% winrate, 4 winning streak

Scenario 1:

Team #1 wins

Team #1 gains

{G+[(S2 - S1) / 10]} x (W) x (R)
{100+[(1500 - 800) / 10]} => 170 x {[100%+(40%-50%)]/100} x [(2 streak 4% = 0.04 + 1)= 159

=gains 159 score (100 being the average) because the opponent had higher score

team #2 loses

{G+[(S1 - S2) / 10]} x (W)
{100+[(800 - 1500) / 10]} => 170 x {[100%-(60%-50%)]/100} = 153

team 2 loses 153 points because the opponent was low scored (saved 17 score for positive win rate)

Scenario 2:

Team #2 wins

{G+[(S2 - S1) / 10]} x (W) x (R)
{100+[(800 - 1700) / 10]}=> 30 x {[100%+(60%-50%)]/100} x [(4 streak 8% = 0.08 + 1)= 36

team #2 gains only 36 points because of the massive differential in score

team 1# loss

{G+[(S1 - S2) / 10]} x (W(under 50))

{100+[(1500 - 800) / 10]} => 30 x {[100%-(-50%+40%)]/100} = 33

team 2# only loses 33 points because of the point difference


As we can see this formula benefits:
1. high win ratio
2. challenging higher ranked teams
3. not spamming only "noob" teams

So a team with high win rate and a lot of wins against high ranked teams is best ranked.

Other variables can be implemented to that formula later but that is the basis of it

Ps. hire me
Last edited by cowmeat; May 7, 2015 at 09:06 PM.
Can I just add that amount of members participating and winning their matches needs to be accounted for in the formula.
It'd be weird if a clan got top rank for just having one person solo all day, but still it should be a possibility for the willing.

Also regarding forum devs, I thought we had none. If we have had one all this time and they haven't done anything about the problem, that's scandalous.
If the claim is that it's impossible or just extremely problematic, I'd like to preemptively call that bullshit. There's been many suggestions of simple yet helpful fixes, such as recording wins and losses next to total amount of wars done, or changing the system to reset every month to prevent clans from getting 4000 points through spam and then sit on 1st place for months... *cough* WAPOW *cough*
Last edited by Hattersin; May 7, 2015 at 11:35 PM.
PM me with any and all questions
Originally Posted by Hattersin View Post
Can I just add that amount of members participating and winning their matches needs to be accounted for in the formula.
It'd be weird if a clan got top rank for just having one person solo all day, but still it should be a possibility for the willing.

i disagree. better way would be to not allow 1 player wars. Make min 2-3 players. I can add a multiplier on the amount of players but that is not relevant at this point.
Originally Posted by Hattersin View Post
There's been many suggestions of simple yet helpful fixes, such as recording wins and losses next to total amount of wars done, or changing the system to reset every month

Well that's what we're doing right now here. Making a new system from ground up. I would love to get everyone's help in this matter. So please, go trough that formula and check if there is something to improve or add
Last edited by cowmeat; May 7, 2015 at 11:39 PM. Reason: <24 hour edit/bump