We are finally going to implement these changes to make the ladder more accessible to new players and less prone to cheating...
- There will no longer be an uncertainty limit.
- Player A and B will be considered "similar" to each other if rating A is between rating B and rating B - uncertainty B*2-25 or rating B is between rating A and rating A - uncertainty A*2-25.
so if your uncertainty is higher you will match more people.

- Points for a game will now take into account the players' uncertainties and players with higher ratings will get slightly higher points.
- The Exact formula is complicated but here it is: ((250+(Rl - Rw)+ (Rl/100)^1.5-22)) * (2/((Ul+Uw)/100)^2) /2^n
-- where Rl is rating of the loser, Rw is rating of the winner, Ul is uncertainty of the loser, Uw is uncertainty of the winner, n is number of games they have played.
-- (Rl/100)^1.5-22) this is only added to the winner's score not subtracted from the loser's
- Everyone will start with 600 ladder points each week.
- Resigning a game at any time will cost you ladder points.

These should go into effect after this weeks the ladder ends on wednesday.

I assume that says B minus uncertainty B *2 rather ending with "- Player A and B will be considered "similar" to each other if rating A is between rating B and rating B "

So this means that higher level players will still have the same hard time getting games? If my uncertainty is 50, that means I can only play players that are lower than me by less than 100 or players that are higher than me by less than 100 (assuming that higher level players will all have 50 uncertainty)?

Or did I misunderstand.

This does mean that playing players with 1350 ratings will still count towards the ladder even if they are brand new, right?

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

I increased the spread of similar players for even the most certain ratings to 125 rating points apart.

> This does mean that playing players with 1350 ratings will still count towards the ladder even if they are brand new, right?

yes just not very much

Cool. Can I start lobbying for 150 now?

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

I have no idea what any of this means but hopefully you fix the ladder and abusers like Emancipate.

ummmm

Surprises around every corner today! I say we clear the streets so that the cowboys can duel without interruption!*!

, or we could just have a pizza party. either way...

DarkJello

_________________
Ad astra per alia porci!$!

abusers like emancipate? wow at least that was direct, I don't see how though since you could ask anyone I haven't thrown a game, while your naming names why don't you list those with multiple accounts and play ladder for a week, then make another account?

I don't know why you say emancipate is an abuser. He's just a relatively good player that just happens to have a very very low ranking because... eh.. because... well.

Names aside, I don't see how the new system solves that problem, nor how it can be expected to. The problem seems inherent to the idea of the ladder: rewarding players who do well compared to other similar players. A player who throws games in order to deliberately tank his/her rating will always benefit from such a system.

i think we should address the atcual problem, where players lower their ratings, so they can sim with more players.

Lets say player xx has a rating of 1000. he wins 5 games straight, and increase to... 1500.
At 1000, theres probably 4 players, 2 above, 2 below ready to sim at any one time.
At 1500, theres probably 2 players ready to sim, and they are probably below him.

By going so high in ranking, you have less possible players to sim, slowing down your ladder progression, and probably will gain less points due to being the higher rating.

Agreed?

The biggest problem, imo, is that you have less players to sim with. You then get less points in a week, not because you are bad, but because no one wants to sim with you, or cant sim. Is it fair to limit strong player's options, just cos they are good? Possibly, it lets us newbies catch up.
But then, its not fun to have an opportunity cost just because you are good and keep winning.

Possible solution:

I noted we are now all starting with 600 points. So, if you lose too many games, you pretty much can't come back, where as last time, you have nothing to lose by simming someone if your score wont get you any gold currently. Makes players more cautious and less sims may be resulted. (not as cool, imo, but heh.)

So, the solution is based on the recent change.
The basic idea is that your ladder score is seperate with your ranking score. If you win, you get [(Loser's Ladder score)/50+75], and lose [(Winner's Ladder score)/50+65] worth in ladder points.
(formula is an example only, not atcually calculated. It is made, so total ladder score increases over time, as you would win more, and lose less.)
Your ratings will go up or down as normal.
Ladder ratings are reset every wed. Ratings, you keep.

With this, ratings atcually show the player's skill, with good ones keep incresing up and up. Older more experienced players will have tons of ratings for example. But it doesnt effect your ladder.
It should be noted, ratings should change significantly less with this system.
Imo, ratings should rate the player, from the time they started. Ladder points is just to count this week's performance. Dont mix em, no problems.

You guys missed the important change. You get more ladder points if your rating is higher. So if you tank your rating it is doubtful you will get to the top of the ladder.