Close

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39
  1. #21
    Senior Member shannong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    323
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GondorianDotCom View Post
    I had a think in the car on the way to work.

    Here's some of my random thoughts:

    1) If all matches were best of three, there is reduced chance of a lucky win, so that change alone might make the current system better.

    2) In a one-game match, a winning challenger should only move up halfway, and the losing defender does not move unless they were next to each other already.

    3) That prick in the outside lane needs to move in, so I can get past.

    4) We could keep track of successful defences of a position on the ladder, so you can see whether someone is worthy of their current spot or not.

    5) If someone does get a lucky jump to #3, they can keep losing and only drop one place at a time and still be in the top ten after 7 losses. This does not feel right, but it is also how I am still in the top 20, despite losing so many games! But, if I knew I could drop further for a loss, would I have accepted all of those challenges?

    6) I really should pay my credit card bill today.

    7) Having an overall leaderboard, based on ladder position and win/loss ratio combined, would be a good way to see who the best players really are and prizes could be based on that leaderboard.

    8) Wow, that journey went quick!

    Discuss!
    Re #1, I would strongly discourage this approach. Much as we all love CCGs, it's very rare that i can sit down and play 3 consecutive games without interruption. It would greatly reduce my participation in the ladder if matches were required to be best 2 out of three deals.

    Re #2 and #5, If a defender loses, he should move downward. Doesn't seem logical to stay put. Most people intuitive want to see positive movement if you win, and negative movement if you lose.

    #2 and 5 are the really tricky ones, IMO. The way it is now, with a penalty of only -1 rung on the ladder if you lose, it makes you MUCH more willing to take on all challenges. If you start penalizing a losing defender too much, they're going to reject a lot more challenges. On the balance, I say leave it how it is now.
    Purveyor of Probability - Team A1 - How the rating system works and why high ratings act strangely
    I now play only unrated matches in the Shadow Era 40 Card Ladder at shadowera dot gondorian dot com slash ladder40
    If my IRC nick says shannong|L40 that means I'm open for a Ladder40 challenge. I'll take all comers no matter where you are on the ladder

  2. #22
    Senior Member arebelspy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,181
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by shannong View Post
    The way it is now, with a penalty of only -1 rung on the ladder if you lose, it makes you MUCH more willing to take on all challenges. If you start penalizing a losing defender too much, they're going to reject a lot more challenges. On the balance, I say leave it how it is now.
    Yes, I think basically everyone agrees the penalty for losing should just be -1 rung.

    We're just saying the reward for winning should be +1 (or slightly higher for beating someone way above you). So no one is penalized too much for losing, that stays the same, but you can't jump 20 rungs for a fluke win, you go up a rung or two, and climb the ladder through a series of wins.

    This will show skill much more than the current system.

  3. #23
    Devoted Fan Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,049
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1
    Hey Shannong. It's really good to get feedback like this. I was under the impression most people wanted best of three, but, thinking back to when I had the idea for the ladder last week (feels like months ago), I came up with the Instant Rematch concept as an alternative to Bo3. And then I even removed the guaranteed Instant Rematch because people might not have time for it.

    You are right that it is easier to accept incoming challenges if you know that you will only drop one place if you lose. I think this is why I have been playing so many matches against so many people. Not much to lose and if you do, you have probably learned something for the cost of one place dropped. Eventually, I will stop dropping and will arrive where I should be.

    Hmm, I think I will start a poll next Monday and find out what the general consensus is on all these things.

  4. #24
    Devoted Fan Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,049
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by arebelspy View Post
    Yes, I think basically everyone agrees the penalty for losing should just be -1 rung.

    We're just saying the reward for winning should be +1 (or slightly higher for beating someone way above you). So no one is penalized too much for losing, that stays the same, but you can't jump 20 rungs for a fluke win, you go up a rung or two, and climb the ladder through a series of wins.

    This will show skill much more than the current system.

    In your slow climb idea, if a loss always drops you a place, it puts the player immediately below you (who did nothing) above you.

    Can't people then climb the ladder simply because people above them are falling down?

    I guess the guy who just lost could challenge above and climb back again though, so the non-player still ends up lower.

    I will also have to implement a non-playing penalty as well, so you auto-drop 5 places if you don't play for a week.

    I can do all this, if the players want it.

  5. #25
    Senior Member shannong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    323
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GondorianDotCom View Post
    In your slow climb idea, if a loss always drops you a place, it puts the player immediately below you (who did nothing) above you.

    Can't people then climb the ladder simply because people above them are falling down?

    I guess the guy who just lost could challenge above and climb back again though, so the non-player still ends up lower.

    I will also have to implement a non-playing penalty as well, so you auto-drop 5 places if you don't play for a week.

    I can do all this, if the players want it.
    No no: only a *defender* loss should always drop you. If you are a *challenger* and lose, it's fine that you stay put. Sorry I wasn't more clear on that. Fuzzy thinking and fuzzy explanation.

    BTW back to my point about 2:3 matches being "not so good", Yesterday when I challenged Feyd he was at #15. We tied with 1 win each but ran out of time for the 3rd game. Today he's at #19. When we finally show up on IRC at the same time and finish that 3rd game of the match, who knows what rank he'll be by then?

    This is another reason why 2:3 matches should be consensual and not required.
    Purveyor of Probability - Team A1 - How the rating system works and why high ratings act strangely
    I now play only unrated matches in the Shadow Era 40 Card Ladder at shadowera dot gondorian dot com slash ladder40
    If my IRC nick says shannong|L40 that means I'm open for a Ladder40 challenge. I'll take all comers no matter where you are on the ladder

  6. #26
    Senior Member arebelspy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    2,181
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by GondorianDotCom View Post
    In your slow climb idea, if a loss always drops you a place, it puts the player immediately below you (who did nothing) above you.

    Can't people then climb the ladder simply because people above them are falling down?

    I guess the guy who just lost could challenge above and climb back again though, so the non-player still ends up lower.

    I will also have to implement a non-playing penalty as well, so you auto-drop 5 places if you don't play for a week.

    I can do all this, if the players want it.
    i think a decay of 2, maybe 3 a week, if no match was played by a player from sunday to sunday (or whatever) is reasonable.

  7. #27
    Regionals Runner Up kentuequi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Around my belly button.
    Posts
    6,668
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by arebelspy View Post
    i think a decay of 2, maybe 3 a week, if no match was played by a player from sunday to sunday (or whatever) is reasonable.
    I don't know why it needs a decay ?

    1) If a player is clagenged by somebody under his rank by five place and don't play, he will lose his rank.

    2) If a player don't play he will fall in the ranking because of the system, eg: i didn't lose a chalenge but i lost 3 or 4 rank, because of BDK16, Benumb & others who have won a match against a player above me in the ladder.
    "Rastas don't believe in violence... Rastas don't believe... Rastas know." -Bob Marley-

    Winner of the Multi-Post Streak Challenge
    *⁷ᵔᵕᵔ∞*゜゚⁰ᵒ☉⋆.ᵢᵢᵢ₇.。・'⋋ⓚⓔⓝⓣⓤⓔⓠⓤⓘ⋌'・。.₇₇₇.⋆☉ᵒ⁰゜゚*∞ᵔᵕᵔ⁷*
    ⊰☠ ℑcℯ ℰℒℱ ☠⊱

  8. #28
    Senior Member shannong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    323
    Tournaments Joined
    0
    Tournaments Won
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kentuequi View Post
    I don't know why it needs a decay ?

    1) If a player is clagenged by somebody under his rank by five place and don't play, he will lose his rank.

    2) If a player don't play he will fall in the ranking because of the system, eg: i didn't lose a chalenge but i lost 3 or 4 rank, because of BDK16, Benumb & others who have won a match against a player above me in the ladder.
    But #1 on the ladder won't fall naturally if they don't play. Only decay would make them fall, right? Or being challenged a lot and not answering the challenges?
    Purveyor of Probability - Team A1 - How the rating system works and why high ratings act strangely
    I now play only unrated matches in the Shadow Era 40 Card Ladder at shadowera dot gondorian dot com slash ladder40
    If my IRC nick says shannong|L40 that means I'm open for a Ladder40 challenge. I'll take all comers no matter where you are on the ladder

  9. #29
    Moderator danae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    In the forums
    Posts
    3,920
    Tournaments Joined
    4
    Tournaments Won
    0
    I definitely agree that the one-match mechanic NOT be removed as I normally don't have time for Bo3. As for the rankings, for me, the important thing to consider is to make sure that people that want to play can play. If the rule about challenging only five spots higher than you was a strict rule then I don't think I could have played more than 2 games because at the times I play, none of those players are around. So I think we need to consider that we cannot penalize the "defenders" too much because then they would be more likely to decline challenges.

  10. #30
    Devoted Fan Gondorian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    England (GMT+0)
    Posts
    24,049
    Tournaments Joined
    1000
    Tournaments Won
    999
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by danae View Post
    I definitely agree that the one-match mechanic NOT be removed as I normally don't have time for Bo3. As for the rankings, for me, the important thing to consider is to make sure that people that want to play can play. If the rule about challenging only five spots higher than you was a strict rule then I don't think I could have played more than 2 games because at the times I play, none of those players are around. So I think we need to consider that we cannot penalize the "defenders" too much because then they would be more likely to decline challenges.
    It's good to know this.

    The main aim of the ladder was to make up for the poor rating-based matchmaking system. People wanted to have a better chance of playing experienced players and have challenging matches.

    I think the ladder has achieved this aim, and you are right that if we limited who you could challenge, or made a bigger penalty for losing, then there would be fewer willing players and even more times where you have no choice but do a Quick Match against random opponent.

    We'll leave things as they are for another week and see how things are going.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •