Jump to content


Photo

Are ELO Rankings Moving Too Quickly?


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#41 Luckypapa

Luckypapa

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 738 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:47 PM

I think that one solution to see more players in the ranks could be to delete all these accounts  which are the last months no active. Every player must have at least few games played every month (5  or 10) if he wants to be ranked.

 

I think this is a good idea, only some :rolleyes: of us go with hollidays for several weeks. Change every month to 3 of 4 months. And instead of losing all your ELO-points at once, it is a better idea to loose points after a year. I mean, take tennis for example. Players loose points after a year, so they must play (and win ^_^ ) to defend their points  and keep their position in the ranking.

If you do it this way, you need less points to reach the bronze ranking. The interval (is this good English??) between ranks has to be changed then, so players can reach faster the silver, gold and platinumleague.

 

Thinking about it, I think it is just a brilliant idea. Thanks Karaiskakis! 

 

                                                                                                        Lucky


The secret of happiness is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you should do.


#42 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 03 May 2013 - 08:15 PM

I think this is a good idea, only some :rolleyes: of us go with hollidays for several weeks. Change every month to 3 of 4 months. And instead of losing all your ELO-points at once, it is a better idea to loose points after a year. I mean, take tennis for example. Players loose points after a year, so they must play (and win ^_^ ) to defend their points  and keep their position in the ranking.

If you do it this way, you need less points to reach the bronze ranking. The interval (is this good English??) between ranks has to be changed then, so players can reach faster the silver, gold and platinumleague.

 

Thinking about it, I think it is just a brilliant idea. Thanks Karaiskakis! 

 

                                                                                                        Lucky

 

Temporary removed from the leaderboards should be enough, totally removing points or losing points for not playing is just rubbish


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#43 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,102 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 04 May 2013 - 03:10 AM

 

If you ask me atleast 1000 players play this game on occasion, but only 320 appear on the leaderboards..

It's time to extend the leaderboards..

 

 

 

I feel we ought to just list everyone, or everyone above 150, and start calling this list a "Ranking Board".  If we are going to continue to have a "Leader Board", then it by all means should just have a few "leaders" on it and the boards are fine the way they are.  But if we are after the ranking of all or a large percentage of players here, then let's put everybody on one list and call it what it becomes then...a Ranking Board.

 

Don't get me wrong.  I like the names of the various ELO ranking levels, and the fact we are labeled as Bronze or Silver.  I think these things are fine and should stay.  But the two different Leader Boards are not workable, in my opinion, and will inevitably be problematic as the site continues to grow.  

 

The very real fact is that one day there will be more than 250 Silvers and that the 251st Silver player and lower will not make the Silver Leader Board.  That they will not make any board, with the system as it is, and that the top 250 Bronze players (who are all BELOW them) will be on the Bronze leader board is ironic to the max, to me. 


Posted Image
The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/
Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931

#44 Manning2Cruz

Manning2Cruz

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 205 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 12 May 2013 - 02:11 AM

who is regurgitate? i know hielco and sohal but whos regurgger



#45 maribo

maribo

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Marshal

Posted 19 July 2013 - 03:13 AM

The silver versus bronze difference is not a difference at all, it is just a line on your monitor. Ignore it.

If more than 250 players become ranked higher than 599, they can either bump the list up higher than 250, or adjust the "monitor" line to a different number, say 625. This would solve that problem and also give a hit to Werners ego (probably an alias who has a silver rating anyhow)

 

 

But the easier solution is to have a toggle link that displays all players who have ever played x games, then toggle it back on to show active players. You lose your appearance on the board if you've not played a game in x days (30 for example). When you 5 more games in the next 30 day period your name is back on this list. Or just hit the toggle link to display all players.

 

What is all players? Anyone who has played at least 20 games ever.

 

Duplicate accounts from 1 ip, are not as much of a problem because the system picks your opponent.

Maybe 1 in 15 of those duplicates actually has another hhld member playing but I doubt even that high.

 

rating points go up by 10 if I beat someone 100 points better than me, but I only lose 9 points when they beat me.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users