hidden skill rating

Mag!cGuy · 11-05-2013, 04:25 AM

(11-05-2013 03:58 AM)=) Random Task (= Wrote: I think the system isn't broken. It is fine as it is but I realize that there is little incentive to play many league games once you are very high on the list...

I'm one of those who think they are never high enough in the ranks, and I'm surely not the only one (I hope) Big Grin

Maybe the elite championship is bad for top ladder activity, since players spend their outwitters time on complicated matched of the tourney and thus don't start league games anymore. :/

DimebagDerek · 11-05-2013, 04:40 AM

I know playing less games makes playing a quality game easier. But being at the top should require you to have to fight to keep it. You shouldn't get to hold the spot without a fight. I don't see why bumping top players down for inactivity would be bad. Many top players have proven they can easily rise to the top under other names. I doubt they would be worried about losing spots for not playing. When they started worrying about it they would just get it back.

Mag!cGuy · (This post was last modified: 11-05-2013 05:17 AM by Mag!cGuy.)

I disagree!

Someone who suddendly has priorities in real life and can't play outwitters (or could play games but not seriously at all, thus it would not be worth starting games to directly lose them) shouldn't have his rating skill decreased. It's not because some players show they can rise the ranks quickly that every top player would have the time to do it. To me it would seem extremely unfair that we tell these players "you don't play the game so you have to be sanctionned. When you come back you will have your rank plunging, and you'll probably get demoted to master. Next time make sure you play." A game is not a story of sanction, especially a game like outwitters, where a big part of the players are adults with important responsabilities like family and work.

Removing players from the list if they don't play any league game (that means don't send turns) during one werk looks like a way more reasonable solution to my mind. This time we tell them "okay you won't appear on the list of the top 200 players because you currently can't play. But we will warmly welcome you as soon as you come back and are ready to fight!".

.Memories. · (This post was last modified: 11-05-2013 05:26 AM by .Memories..)

If we add a new "hidden activity rating" then we can have that decay over inactive time. It is factored in to the rankings, but is reset on any league activity. So it would make non-playing players slide down, but they wouldn't have to climb back up once they start again.

*EDIT: When I said any league activity, I meant activity in a particular league. So, if they play a 1v1 league game, then they pop back up on the 1v1 list.

HuskyPete · 11-05-2013, 05:49 AM

That makes sense to me. I understand there are times where life gets in the way, I just don't think they should keep their name in this list. I am not talking about demotions or anything. I feel I am pretty objective since I know my name is far from this list! Lol. But I would be frustrated if I am 10 spots out and 50 guys ahead rarely play league games.

DimebagDerek · 11-06-2013, 06:22 AM

I disagree. You are competing. You cannot just reach the top and be king for life, regardless of your situation. I don't think it needs to be immediate loss of points for inactivity by any means, just as long as they are still competing at their level occasionally then they should still be the leaders. What you propose makes it alright to just reach the top and make no effort to become even better. Just play as little as possible and risk as little as possible and be the best forever. (Which is not what they are doing, I am just pointing out that the current system is flawed, including the fix you suggest)

Mag!cGuy · (This post was last modified: 11-06-2013 06:30 AM by Mag!cGuy.)

They disapear from the list if they don't play, so what is wrong for you? I don't understand. Why would their level decrease if they stop playing for a moment? Also, if someone is that good, he will rise in the ranks and kick the "inactive" ones out. If he isn't good enough, he doesn't reach the top, it's as simple as that. Thus if no one is good enough to be better than you, that means to be higher ranked than you, why should you have your rank decreased. You are ranked as the best if you are the best, it's the role of the others players to come steal your places. They just have to be good enough.

I'm not saying the top is right to be almost inactive, but it's not because it's called "ladder" that you have to kick the ones not playing. They're here because they deserve it, and if you don't want them to be the best anymore then come to be the best.

His_Daddy · (This post was last modified: 11-06-2013 06:46 AM by His_Daddy.)

I guess there is a misunderstanding due to the lack of information about the ranking system.
Jenmin0 seems thinking that if one reached #1 and stop playing, he'll be there forever since no one is able to defeat him.
Mag!c seems thinking about a score system so no matter the #1 plays or not, everyone can replace him as long as his score become higher.
I personally don't know who's true. Since I've only seen Poweewee and Alvendor be there.

**TheQwertiest** · 11-06-2013, 06:47 AM

terence was there. and before him was pinoyboypj

His_Daddy · 11-06-2013, 06:57 AM

wow the ancients! cool to know Smile