Ladders, consultation on a challenge tweak.

Now I can see the number of people joinging and playing on the site ladders, I want to propose a tweak to the way challenges are issued.

If you are a top 100 placed player, you can challenge 10 above, as now.
If you are player 101 to 200 placed player, you can challenge 20 above.
If you are player 201 to 300 placed player, you can challenge 30 above.
If you are player 301 to 400 placed player, you can challenge 40 above.

And so on.

Thoughts?

the only thing i don't like about the ladders is that if your opponent in your attacking board is playing really slowly and you finish a defense of your position you can be challenged to defend your position again without ever finishing an attacking game. i'd like to see some sort of block put in place, once you've defended your position (successfully or unsuccessfully) once (twice max) before finishing an attacking game. in theory if you're a fast mover you could end up defending your position 5 or 6+ times before ever completing a game where you were the attacker if your opponent was quite slow. i don't think that should be possible. plus it would prevent deliberate slow playing of defending games by certain people.

as for your suggestion, maybe have a limit of 30? a jump of 40 seems like a bit much.

Originally posted by Russ
Now I can see the number of people joinging and playing on the site ladders, I want to propose a tweak to the way challenges are issued.

If you are a top 100 placed player, you can challenge 10 above, as now.
If you are player 101 to 200 placed player, you can challenge 20 above.
If you are player 201 to 300 placed player, you can challenge 30 above.
If you are player 301 to 400 placed player, you can challenge 40 above.

And so on.

Thoughts?

The only people this will benefit will be the higher rated players that join(ed) the ladders late. Rather than having to slowly move up the ladder, they will be able to jump from 400th to the top 100 place by winning only 8 games.

Given a period of time the ladders will eventually become no more than the current player tables, as everyone "finds their place".

Originally posted by Russ
Now I can see the number of people joinging and playing on the site ladders, I want to propose a tweak to the way challenges are issued.

If you are a top 100 placed player, you can challenge 10 above, as now.
If you are player 101 to 200 placed player, you can challenge 20 above.
If you are player 201 to 300 placed player, you can challenge 30 above.
If you are player 301 to 400 placed player, you can challenge 40 above.

And so on.

Thoughts?

I think this is a good idea.

Originally posted by Traveling Again
I think this is a good idea.

I think it's a good idea too. I agree that everyone needs to start at the bottom, but the good players need more of an avenue to climb the ladder. I just lost a couple of my challenge games & when I looked to issue another challenge, all my potential opponents were already in play, on holiday or the player who had just given me a hiding. Having more people to pick from for those near the end of the ladder is a good thing. Does anyone really want to see atticus2 beat 50 1200s & take 5 years just to get to where he should naturally be? If this is the case, why would any good player bother joining?

I have looked at the general player table & I see plenty of top players not playing other top players. This forces the good players to play other good players - and we get to learn from those games as a result.

As time goes on, there will be more competition at the top. At this stage, there are only a handful of great players in each top 10 - that will soon change.

Originally posted by Russ
Now I can see the number of people joinging and playing on the site ladders, I want to propose a tweak to the way challenges are issued.

If you are a top 100 placed player, you can challenge 10 above, as now.
If you are player 101 to 200 placed player, you can challenge 20 above.
If you are player 201 to 300 placed player, you can challenge 30 above.
If you are player 301 to 400 placed player, you can challenge 40 above.

And so on.

Thoughts?

Why can Mr. 101 challenge 81 and Mr. 100 only up to Mr. 90? 😉

Originally posted by heinzkat
Why can Mr. 101 challenge 81 and Mr. 100 only up to Mr. 90? 😉

Because it was an ill thought out idea.

Originally posted by heinzkat
Why can Mr. 101 challenge 81 and Mr. 100 only up to Mr. 90? 😉

Because there's always some happy person and some whiny person on opposite sides of a rating step. Hardly a valid complaint.

I might put this to a vote, and message all current ladder players. I didn't think there would be any resistance to this change.

Originally posted by Russ
I might put this to a vote, and message all current ladder players. I didn't think there would be any resistance to this change.

I don't think a vote is necessary - something like this really needs to happen. I think really only one person is resisting.

Originally posted by heinzkat
Why can Mr. 101 challenge 81 and Mr. 100 only up to Mr. 90? 😉

Why not redefine the rule a little to avoid this dilemma:
When challenging someone, anyone, at the 100 top in the ladder list, you must be at maximum 10 from the challenged.
When challenging someone, anyone, at the 200 top in the ladder list, you must be at maximum 20 from the challenged.
When challenging someone, anyone, at the 300 top in the ladder list, you must be at maximum 30 from the challenged.
...etc.

I think the proposal of Russ, otherwise, is sound. Otherwise it takes an eternity to climb to your right level in the ladder from the bottom. No voting's needed.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I think the proposal of Russ, otherwise, is sound. Otherwise it takes an eternity to climb to your right level in the ladder from the bottom. No voting's needed.

Surely the whole point of the ladder games was to play games to get yourself to the top of the ladder, or as high up as you could. Why should higher rated players that join later get a "free pass" to the top?

If you want players to be at their right level in the ladder why not just organise them by rating in the first place? 🙄

Originally posted by adramforall
Surely the whole point of the ladder games was to play games to get yourself to the top of the ladder, or as high up as you could. Why should higher rated players that join later get a "free pass" to the top?

If you want players to be at their right level in the ladder why not just organise them by rating in the first place? 🙄

"If you want players to be at their right level in the ladder why not just organise them by rating in the first place?"
It did, in the first place. Noone complained then, why now?

"Why should higher rated players that join later get a "free pass" to the top?"
Same rules for all. No special rules for higher rated. As a fact, rating has nothing to do with it, not at all.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
"If you want players to be at their right level in the ladder why not just organise them by rating in the first place?"
It did, in the first place. Noone complained then, why now?

"Why should higher rated players that join later get a "free pass" to the top?"
Same rules for all. No special rules for higher rated. As a fact, rating has nothing to do with it, not at all.

No special rules for higher rated. As a fact, rating has nothing to do with it, not at all.

while true in theory it's obvious that it's the higher ranked players who benefit most from this rule. it should be a challenge to get into the top 100 from the bottom, you shouldn't be able to do it in 6 games.

Originally posted by trev33
[b]No special rules for higher rated. As a fact, rating has nothing to do with it, not at all.

while true in theory it's obvious that it's the higher ranked players who benefit most from this rule. it should be a challenge to get into the top 100 from the bottom, you shouldn't be able to do it in 6 games.[/b]

Ladders has nothing to do with ratings, only with skill. Starting from the bottom, two members with the same skill but with different ratings has exactly the same chance to get to the top in the same amount of time or games.