Is the rating decay high enough?

**Rated GG** · 10-12-2013, 12:05 PM

I definately prefer rating decay over nothing as it promotes some activity rather than none. With the shorter season... after you've gotten where you wanted to in terms of rating, you only have to play about about 1 match for each remaining 5 days... rating decay promotes SOME play. I'm curious what others think. Is rating decay too lenient or too strict or should it be implemented in a completely different.

IMO, with the shorter season. Rating decay should start 3days after your last played game and it should bring you down the equivalent of 1 loss per day or 3 pts (whichever is higher).

I guess I prefer it like this because more activity seems like it would be even better for SE. I'm pretty active but seeing people rating sit makes me less active since I don't have an ALT to play on.

Opinions?

**Junk Style** · 10-12-2013, 12:11 PM

I find this game has an unusually high number of alt accounts, considering card sets have monetary value.

It has a bigger effect on the rating system than the decay. Making a system that punishes people for having a life isn't appealing to game designers. They generally like the carrot over the stick.

**Mongoosey** · 10-12-2013, 12:21 PM

Good point Junk. The top 100 is likely the top 60 players in reality.

**SET Colosal** · 10-12-2013, 12:27 PM

Agreed that Wulven should implement more punishments for "campers" in the ladder. Also that with the new monthly reset, decay times should be shorter (3 days or perhaps 4).
I've been busy with PFG and i forgot to play qm and i just lost 7 rating points.

@Junk Style we are all busy and have works and family but is so easy to find 20 minutes every 5 days to play 1 qm to avoid decay. I don't think that this was implemented to "punish ppl with lifes", is more to encourage activity

**Junk Style** · 10-12-2013, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Colosal

Agreed that Wulven should implement more punishments for "campers" in the ladder. Also that with the new monthly reset, decay times should be shorter (3 days or perhaps 4).
I've been busy with PFG and i forgot to play qm and i just lost 7 rating points.

@Junk Style we are all busy and have works and family but is so easy to find 20 minutes every 5 days to play 1 qm to avoid decay. I don't think that this was implemented to "punish ppl with lifes", is more to encourage activity

You missed my point completely. I was saying that making the decay more strict than 5 days could be bad.

**Pandevmonium** · 10-12-2013, 01:43 PM

The actual decay system is already too strict, moving it to 3 days would be horrible. A better way to promote activity and keep a custom schedule would be to award a spot into top 100 only to players who played at least a certain number of games, let's say 50 for a monthly season. That way you would be forced to play more than once every 5 days, but you would still be free to play whenever you want; there would also be no punishment if for some reason you can't play Shadow Era for several straight days.

**Raphael Majere** · 10-12-2013, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Pandevmonium

A better way to promote activity and keep a custom schedule would be to award a spot into top 100 only to players who played at least a certain number of games, let's say 50 for a monthly season. That way you would be forced to play more than once every 5 days, but you would still be free to play whenever you want; there would also be no punishment if for some reason you can't play Shadow Era for several straight days.

Liking this idea a lot.

**danae** · 10-12-2013, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Pandevmonium

The actual decay system is already too strict, moving it to 3 days would be horrible. A better way to promote activity and keep a custom schedule would be to award a spot into top 100 only to players who played at least a certain number of games, let's say 50 for a monthly season. That way you would be forced to play more than once every 5 days, but you would still be free to play whenever you want; there would also be no punishment if for some reason you can't play Shadow Era for several straight days.

Someone suggested this before and I think it might work. Maybe even have different types of rankings 50 games for normal ladder, hardcore ranking requires 150 games or so.

**Conquestadore** · 10-13-2013, 12:25 AM

You all should also really know that being at the top (not sure about monthly style anymore) limits your range of players a bunch, so waiting for a game (previous seasons) may require up to hours, and if you're unlucky, its not unusual to not find an opponent 3 days of 5 hours of waiting.

Not sure about monthly season, but it's supposed to be easier. Even so, I think it's okay.

**Rated GG** · 10-13-2013, 12:57 AM

Originally Posted by Conquestadore

You all should also really know that being at the top (not sure about monthly style anymore) limits your range of players a bunch, so waiting for a game (previous seasons) may require up to hours, and if you're unlucky, its not unusual to not find an opponent 3 days of 5 hours of waiting.

Not sure about monthly season, but it's supposed to be easier. Even so, I think it's okay.

Its hard to find an opponent because... top players don't NEED to play until 5 days later. I'm sure that if rating decay promoted more activity, matches would be easier to come by for top players.