[L4DDER] Feedback and Suggestions

[arebelspy]

Ah, I misread the 5 or more below. Got it. I still like the idea of just moving up/down one due to a loss and having to climb the ladder. (+2 if someone is 5 or more above you, +3 if 10 or more -- with a loss to one of them still just being worth -1, so there's no huge penalty from playing people too low, discouraging high players from accepting super low requests). Hope Gondorian considers it

[MattOG]

Yeah, it's about finding a balance between being able to play a lot, and making it fair.

If the penalty for losing is too high, people won't want to play, 1 spot drop is good.
If the gain for winning is too high, people will do what has been suggested, lose 50 games, get lucky against the top spot, and end up first.

We'll see. The ladder is growing, and the rules will be refined to make it more accessible. I am glad GDC started this, and even happier that I joined it.

[Gondorian]

Yeah, it's about finding a balance between being able to play a lot, and making it fair.

If the penalty for losing is too high, people won't want to play, 1 spot drop is good.
If the gain for winning is too high, people will do what has been suggested, lose 50 games, get lucky against the top spot, and end up first.

We'll see. The ladder is growing, and the rules will be refined to make it more accessible. I am glad GDC started this, and even happier that I joined it.

It's definitely a balancing act.

What I like at the moment is that a loss just drops you down one (no big deal) and a win can jump you up a long way. It keeps things lively and encourages players to make challenges because they might get a big jump.

If there were rewards for having a certain spot, other than brief happiness if it's short-lived, I can see the argument for making people climb slowly. But I can also see that the ladder positions will be more representative of skill if you climb slowly.

With regards someone who has been losing a lot and then gets a "lucky" win, what if they have been steadily refining their deck and strat and finally nailed it? It's not a lucky win, it's because their deck and game has got good. I suppose they still need to prove that against other players as well, so climbing slowly makes more sense.

I will think about this some more. In the mean time, I encourage people to treat the ladder mostly as a fun way to have competitive games and tweak their decks and gameplay. Accept as many challenges as possible because each game played is likely to be far more valuable to you than just doing a Quick Match.

[Gondorian]

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!

[Gondorian]

What about this?

http://www.shadowera.com/showthread....N-1st-4th-July

[He-Man]

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.

I have only played bo3 games so far, and I believe most people like this. I suggest just enforce this. Especially with the instant rematch option, it does not matter much time-wise anyway. It would be really nice if there was some way of controlling who goes first... (Kyle?)

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.

I say just get rid of 1-game matches, and make this a moot argument.

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

Ah, looks like that a55hole is on vacation in the UK

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.

This would be automatically apparent if we display win ratio (also see 7)

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?

I think this is alright the way it is. You don't want it to be too easy to change things on the ladder. In addition, it is relatively easy to climb up many spots, so if a lot of the people below you really are a lot better than you, they would have won a challenge from someone above you and you would have fallen further. And if you have lost a lot games without moving too much, that may simply mean that you made a lot of challenges yourself, in which case a loss wouldn't change your ranking.

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

no comment

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.

yes. also add the ratio of challenge / being challenged or the percentage of games that you were a defender, something like that. (or simply the numbers...)

8) Wow, that journey went quick!

Discuss!

Imagine how quick it'd have been if that guy from 3) had not been there!

[He-Man]

What about this?

http://www.shadowera.com/showthread....N-1st-4th-July

I won't have time to play that weekend...
(It's independence day in the US on July 4th, and a lot of folks will be out celebrating for the weekend)

[Gondorian]

I won't have time to play that weekend...
(It's independence day in the US on July 4th, and a lot of folks will be out celebrating for the weekend)

Ah OK. I thought people would have time off work and play more. I didn't consider people might leave the house! But that's what iPads are for.

I can delay it, if no one is going to be around.

[arebelspy]

With regards someone who has been losing a lot and then gets a "lucky" win, what if they have been steadily refining their deck and strat and finally nailed it? It's not a lucky win, it's because their deck and game has got good. I suppose they still need to prove that against other players as well, so climbing slowly makes more sense.

if that's the case, they should have no trouble proving it and winning more and more and climbing the ladder the regular way, one, two, or three steps at a time, depending on how low they're starting. it gets rid of lucky wins, but doesn't prevent someone who has refined their build and/or gotten better from moving up as well, cause theoretically they'll be winning a lot more now and climbing the ladder quickly.

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!

1. it helps some, but people dont always have time for a best of 3, plus it doesn't help when hitting a bad hero matchup, you have the worse player getting "lucky" picking the right hero ftw and jumping 20 spots
2. halfway is more work for the person running the ladder. moving up one spot, 2 if 5 more more rank, 3 if 10 is good enough, imo, you can jump up a decent amount by beating someone way ahead of you, otherwise play games and move up
3. lol. i hate that
4. again, a more complicated way to do it that takes a lot more work.
5. well in both systems you'd only drop one spot for a loss.. so you still would accept all those challenges, knowing you can't drop further. but you don't have the lucky jump up to 3, you have someone climbing up to 3, so you won't have someone who has lost a ton being in the top 10.
6. yes, because paying interest is bad.
7. agree

thanks for considering it at least

[N3rd4Christ]

I don't like that the defeat makes the victor take the winner's place.

I think a defeat should move you down one rank, and a win move you up one rank (two ranks if the person is five or more above you).

Right now if I'm in the top spot (theoretically), I HAVE to accept all challenges from people in spot 6 or below, and if they beat me, they jump up to #1.

Instead they should only move up 2 spots, IMO. Jumping up 20 spots from a lucky matchup is silly.

I immediately signed up for the 30 card ladder when I read about it, but then when I realized this flaw it seemed a bit silly to play games with it, I'll just wait and only challenge the #1 ranked player. He has to accept.

IMO, one should have to "climb" the ladder through wins.

Completely agree.