An idea to fix the ranking system

**alfa666** · 11-30-2014, 01:10 PM

There have been countless post on this and we all know what are the main issues with rankings and rating system.
We want people to play all the season but at the same time have ranks based on skill and not on how much you grind the quick games.

What I suggest is:

1.- ADD a ranking list based on rating (as it was before) but enforce a condition of minimum games played to access this rank. Let's say that if you want to be listed then you need to have played at least 50 games during the season AND at least 10 games every week (meaning you have to play about 10 games a week plus 10 more games distributed during the season whenever you like).

2.- Keep also the current ranking system that will reward most active players even if they are a sort of "second league", not excellent players but we all will know it's an award to participation and not to best skills.

As a result, there will be high activity among high rated players, so they will be able to play without endless waitings for a match. Whoever sits on their 400 rating score and then plays one match a week won't be allowed in the golden list of the most skilled players.

**Lahiri** · 11-30-2014, 06:03 PM

I like this system, definitely better than the one used now, but I have an alternative proposal:
Top 100 based on score (calculated as it is now) of the last X games, where X should be something like 100.
This way a player who played 100 games with a rating of about 300 will score a lot more than a player who played 500 with a rating of 250, but he can't just play a small number of games at the beginning of the season to reach an high rating and stop playing because he needs to pass the threshold of X games.
Consider that you start from 0 rating so to score the maximum of points you need two play more than X games.
The only concern is that rating system seems to be flawed and towards the end of the season ratings decrease faster, but this is a problem that would be present in any system unless a better rating algorithm is implemented.

**Secruoser** · 12-01-2014, 01:37 AM

I don't understand when you say "not on how much you grind the quick games." and "you need to have played at least 50 games during the season AND at least 10 games every week". Aren't the two statements contradicting each other?

**Pteronophobic Wizard** · 12-02-2014, 03:52 AM

I think the problem with any minimum number of games is that to be the highest rated you are best off playing exactly that number. Look at the top 10 in any score and you will see that their ratings are low at the end of the season (less than 300 anyway). But look at them in the beginning of the season and you will see they often have very high ratings. They aren't bad players, but if you play that much you will end up with a lower rating. Set any minimum number of games and that is the number that the highest ranked players will play.

I think the best system might be something like what FDL proposed in his thread: some combination of rating and score as we have them now.

**GreyMouser** · 12-02-2014, 12:06 PM

I have always had the feeling that the problem with the loose of overall ratings through the season is because of the rating sinks, basically when someone retires from a game before turn 4 it looses rating and nobody gains it, same when you loose rating after not playing for 3 days, this sinks are steadily removing rating points from the system so everyday is harder and harder to reach the higher ratings.

I really think this has to go and instead as some other post says just consider for rating the best 100 games or something similar.

As an example in Heartstome they also reset monthly but there are no rating sinks and actually you have much better chances to reach the higher ranks on the last days of the month.

**alfa666** · 12-05-2014, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Secruoser

I don't understand when you say "not on how much you grind the quick games." and "you need to have played at least 50 games during the season AND at least 10 games every week". Aren't the two statements contradicting each other?

No, because anyone can play 10 or even 20+ games in a day (just not every day...). Currently the top 100 players are playing 250+ games a month, they can often play 30 games a day or more... So they get high ranks because they play in a couple days what i'm proposing as a minimum for a month. So, even if you only have just 1 free day a week to play SE, you could still be the highest in the ranks based on your skill.

**alfa666** · 12-05-2014, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Pteronophobic Wizard

I think the problem with any minimum number of games is that to be the highest rated you are best off playing exactly that number. Look at the top 10 in any score and you will see that their ratings are low at the end of the season (less than 300 anyway). But look at them in the beginning of the season and you will see they often have very high ratings. They aren't bad players, but if you play that much you will end up with a lower rating. Set any minimum number of games and that is the number that the highest ranked players will play.
I think the best system might be something like what FDL proposed in his thread: some combination of rating and score as we have them now.

With "FDL" I suppose you're referring to Lahiri?
I agree that it's a very good system, much better than the current one anyway. But I would set a minimum time frame on those games because otherwise we would fall again in the problems there were with the previous system. I don't have a problem with highest ranked players sticking to the minimum number of games as far as it means they need to play regularly and not just three games a week or less as it used to be.