I suggest change Rating System

[Harmony]

The system is fine all the system is trying to do is basically find what your rating is honestly, it's not really a point of gaining rank or more rating but a system that pretty much finds out what players are close to your skill level after you play 40-50 games for example I was at 292 beginning of season but once I started to play more and more I found out that wasn't my skill level I kept losing and got my rating to 260 and now I play fairer opponents now

So basically the rating system is more then showing how hood you been doing but what league of players your in

[Fristar]

The system is fine all the system is trying to do is basically find what your rating is honestly, it's not really a point of gaining rank or more rating but a system that pretty much finds out what players are close to your skill level after you play 40-50 games for example I was at 292 beginning of season but once I started to play more and more I found out that wasn't my skill level I kept losing and got my rating to 260 and now I play fairer opponents now

So basically the rating system is more then showing how hood you been doing but what league of players your in

So basically you beat someone whos a higher score of 50 points than you and you get nothing for it cause after a certain number of games the ranking system is broken and you receive no points.

[A1 Surprise]

So basically you beat someone whos a higher score of 50 points than you and you get nothing for it cause after a certain number of games the ranking system is broken and you receive no points.

You can always get lucky and beat a high rated player. When you start doing it consistently your points will go up I promise

[ericxp]

Hehe, you all feels the system good? Seems no one want to face fact.
Rating Rank:
1. BP Emigor 367 48-9-1
2. A1 Wolverine 360 77-24-7
3. A1 Burnout1985 358 30-2-1
4. RS PhillipW 355 43-12-0
5. A1 DrNude 351 53-18-6
6. SK FlameMamba24 350 44-19-8
7. A1 Sir Prize 350 22-8-1
8. A1 Surprise 350 215-101-17
9. Boricua88 349 190-84-9
10. A1 InsanoMango 348 38-12-6

I want to say only No.8 and 9 are admirable in Top10 Rank.

[maxi1230]

Why should your rating be higher just because you play more? That's like saying you should be higher rates than a chess grandmastee just because you play 10 blotz games per day and he doesn't. Consistency is way more important than the amount of games you play.
In this list A1 Burnout is more impressive to me than the two who played more
And the rating system in Shadow Era doesn't get stale, each month you have the option to start pushing again.
And ladder prizes are awarded for activity + amount of games anyways, which is how it should be.

[ericxp]

Why should your rating be higher just because you play more? That's like saying you should be higher rates than a chess grandmastee just because you play 10 blotz games per day and he doesn't. Consistency is way more important than the amount of games you play.
In this list A1 Burnout is more impressive to me than the two who played more
And the rating system in Shadow Era doesn't get stale, each month you have the option to start pushing again.
And ladder prizes are awarded for activity + amount of games anyways, which is how it should be.

Hey, play more game no mean you rating be higher, you must win.
What I mean is, for example, A play 300 games and win 250, and B play 30 games and win 26. Who you think should be more rating? I want to choose A, but system let B higher.

[Harmony]

It depends on who you play to

[Fristar]

It depends on who you play to

You are being intentionally ignorant.

Everyone knows the top boards barely play any games to get where they are. 1 game every 3 days, and you think the system isnt broken. Go post in a different forum.

If they required the tops boards to play a minimum of 150 games then most of them wouldnt be there on that top list.

[maxi1230]

Hey, play more game no mean you rating be higher, you must win.
What I mean is, for example, A play 300 games and win 250, and B play 30 games and win 26. Who you think should be more rating? I want to choose A, but system let B higher.

B should be higher because he played more consistently and 30 games are a good enough indication. Rating is just a way to determine who you play against. Also there is a rating decay so you can't just sit on your rating all time long

[Demnchi]

To me it sounds like there is a misunderstanding of how the points are actually determined and used for. The rating system is used for matching which means you'll be matched with people near the same rating normally. So everyone's rating will eventually stop dramatically increasing as you begin to lose matches, which means you've hit a point where you are playing against evenly skilled players. Thus the system doesn't want to award you many more points because you're in your ideal zone. Of course, that's a simplified version of what it's doing. You also don't lose as many points when you get to this point either. Yes, you'll likely lose more rating when you lose than you gain when you win, but that's part of how it does what its supposed to be used for.

So, I really don't think there is a problem with the rating system itself, but rather that you guys don't like that it's also used as a measure of skill. Beyond this, you guys seem to value constant play with a high win rate, rather than just a high win rate. So basically, there are two types of measurement preferences for skill here and the rating system only seems to cater to one. That being said, score was added for a similar reason, to cater to the other type of measurement. In my personal opinion, determining rather or not score is an acceptable measure of win rate + constant play is probably the better place to start.

You are being intentionally ignorant.

Everyone knows the top boards barely play any games to get where they are. 1 game every 3 days, and you think the system isnt broken. Go post in a different forum.

Just because he disagrees with you doesn't warrant that kind of response. I've been on here long enough to know that doing so means people take you less seriously and won't listen to any points you try to make, no matter how valid. Debates can be heated, but I don't think there needs to be fire.