1. Joined
    10 Jan '08
    Moves
    16942
    01 Dec '09 14:46
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    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.
    🙄 so you don't tghink the 'skill' of a person has anything to do with the 'rating' of a person? 🙄 go back and chance the word 'rating' to 'skill' in my post, is it saying anything differently?
  2. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    01 Dec '09 15:161 edit
    Originally posted by trev33
    so you don't tghink the 'skill' of a person has anything to do with the 'rating' of a person? go back and chance the word 'rating' to 'skill' in my post, is it saying anything differently?
    I've seen members who has tons of timeouts, therefore with a rating around 1000 but a skill around 2000. So I say, in ladders, rating has nothing to do with anything. Skill has. Let's skip the talk about rating.

    I say that a member with a high skill deserve a place high in the ladder. Let him find his place. Let him be challenged by others from his rightful place.

    But what do I care. It's good as it is now. Or it's good as Russ proposes. Or whatever. I go with the majority. I don't fuzz. I think the majority favors Russ proposal anyway. And as Russ is the Creator, he do what he pleases anyway. And that's good. I support Russ. He knows what he's doing.
  3. Joined
    10 Jan '08
    Moves
    16942
    01 Dec '09 15:31
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I've seen members who has tons of timeouts, therefore with a rating around 1000 but a skill around 2000. So I say, in ladders, rating has nothing to do with anything. Skill has. Let's skip the talk about rating.

    I say that a member with a high skill deserve a place high in the ladder. Let him find his place. Let him be challenged by others from his rig ...[text shortened]... he do what he pleases anyway. And that's good. I support Russ. He knows what he's doing.
    you're seriously missing my point. it clearly benefits the better players and this is unfair.
  4. Joined
    25 Apr '06
    Moves
    5939
    01 Dec '09 15:35
    Originally posted by trev33
    it clearly benefits the better players and this is unfair.
    Those stronger player are always having all the fun 😠
  5. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    01 Dec '09 15:371 edit
    Originally posted by trev33
    you're seriously missing my point. it clearly benefits the better players and this is unfair.
    Is it unfair that some players have more skill than others? Isn't this what it's all about? To be better, to raise the skill for oneself?
  6. Joined
    10 Jan '08
    Moves
    16942
    01 Dec '09 15:46
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Is it unfair that some players have more skill than others? Isn't this what it's all about? To be better, to raise the skill for oneself?
    no it's unfair that other players with more skill are given an easy route to the top. lets say you enter a ladder with 500 people, under russ's idea if you play 2 games you can jump 100 places... 20% jump in 2 games. that's crazy. and ladder positions will mean nothing the lower you go in the ladder, they weren't made just for the 'skilled' payers everyone will have a certain pride about their ladder position, why should those further down to treated any differently to those higher up?
  7. Joined
    11 Nov '05
    Moves
    43938
    01 Dec '09 15:55
    Originally posted by trev33
    no it's unfair that other players with more skill are given an easy route to the top. lets say you enter a ladder with 500 people, under russ's idea if you play 2 games you can jump 100 places... 20% jump in 2 games. that's crazy. and ladder positions will mean nothing the lower you go in the ladder, they weren't made just for the 'skilled' payers everyone wi ...[text shortened]... der position, why should those further down to treated any differently to those higher up?
    I think you have a point there. Perhaps it should be a laboursome and timeconsuming way to the top. Even if your idea prevent high skilled people to entering the ladder, it might be an idea to consider. If you have a skill reflecting a rating of 2300 and start a 500 member ladder with a thinking time of 21 days, then it will take how many games to reach the top?, and with a average number of moves in each game multiplied with say 21 days if you play at max speed and your opponent play with a minimum speed, than it would take, how many years to reach your well deserved top place? Well, I certainly think you have an idea there.

    And this is my last posting in this thread.
  8. Joined
    10 Jan '08
    Moves
    16942
    01 Dec '09 16:02
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I think you have a point there. Perhaps it should be a laboursome and timeconsuming way to the top. Even if your idea prevent high skilled people to entering the ladder, it might be an idea to consider. If you have a skill reflecting a rating of 2300 and start a 500 member ladder with a thinking time of 21 days, then it will take how many games to reach t ...[text shortened]... ? Well, I certainly think you have an idea there.

    And this is my last posting in this thread.
    with regards to the 14 or even 7 day ladders as stated in my first post in this thread a game with those time controls can last well over a year, even if you were moving as fast as possible. so the time argument shouldn't rally come into it, it's going to take a while to climb the ladder no matter now many games it takes to reach the top.
  9. Subscriberpakeha
    pakeha
    New Zealand
    Joined
    27 Jun '06
    Moves
    18980
    01 Dec '09 16:47
    after you win your above game and move up to be one place above them (perhaps 10) and then you lose your below players game, where does the below player go

    I feel there is a FREE jump here and should go to one above where you were

    each win is getting you one place above a won game
  10. Joined
    07 Jun '05
    Moves
    5301
    01 Dec '09 17:00
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    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.
    ...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.
    Sounds good to me.
  11. THORNINYOURSIDE
    Joined
    04 Sep '04
    Moves
    245624
    02 Dec '09 02:50
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    I've seen members who has tons of timeouts, therefore with a rating around 1000 but a skill around 2000. So I say, in ladders, rating has nothing to do with anything. Skill has. Let's skip the talk about rating.

    I say that a member with a high skill deserve a place high in the ladder. Let him find his place. Let him be challenged by others from his rig ...[text shortened]... he do what he pleases anyway. And that's good. I support Russ. He knows what he's doing.
    So a member with a high skill rating (2000) but who suffers loads of timeouts deserves a place higher in a ladder than a player with a skill rating of 1800 who doesn't time out?
  12. Standard memberatticus2
    Frustrate the Bad
    Liverpool
    Joined
    01 Nov '08
    Moves
    92474
    02 Dec '09 15:59
    I appreciate that Russ's proposal is trying to be helpful. It is a step in the right direction, but only a small step in practice.

    I've belatedly joined 1,3 & 7 ladders. By rating rank, I should be 1,2,2 respectively. In fact I'm 213, 541 & 415. Under current rules, benchmarked against the 3-day ladder only, I'd reach my ranked position in c. 50 hops, mostly involving games v. much weaker players and likely taking years. So the proposed changes need to offer incentives for me to stay in the ladders, otherwise I'd have little to gain from remaining. The same will apply to other higher-rated players.

    But it would still take me c. 25 hops under the 'new' rules, with c. 15 or more involving mismatches. If I'm keen to play mismatches - and I'm not - I have plenty of alternatives on the site. So I don't see any incentive to stay in the ladders as things stand, nor under the new proposals.

    Not sure what a solution might be though - divisionalisation maybe, as I suggested on a different thread..
  13. Joined
    10 Jan '08
    Moves
    16942
    02 Dec '09 16:28
    Originally posted by atticus2
    I appreciate that Russ's proposal is trying to be helpful. It is a step in the right direction, but only a small step in practice.

    I've belatedly joined 1,3 & 7 ladders. By rating rank, I should be 1,2,2 respectively. In fact I'm 213, 541 & 415. Under current rules, benchmarked against the 3-day ladder only, I'd reach my ranked position in c. 50 hops, m ...[text shortened]... tion might be though - divisionalisation maybe, as I suggested on a different thread..
    if you had joined the ladders before they started you would've been placed by your rating. if you don't want to take the time playing the lower ranked opponents to climb the ladder then i suggest leaving them. just because you have a higher rating than others doesn't mean you should be given any help in reaching the top.
  14. Standard memberatticus2
    Frustrate the Bad
    Liverpool
    Joined
    01 Nov '08
    Moves
    92474
    02 Dec '09 16:45
    So in your model, it's OK to be ranked by rating if you join before the start, but not if you join later for whatever reason. Why is this the case? Will you be saying the same in a year's time when many higher-rated players may have quit in frustration, but highly-rated newcomers will have been forced to join at the bottom? Or maybe no higher rated players will bother. Perhaps that would suit you.

    By the way, a higher rated player needs no help in reaching the top of the ladder. He just needs to win 50 games against far weaker players - easily done. As things stand though, that will take him about five years. Frankly I don't think such a player would think that a useful or enjoyable way to spend his time.
  15. Joined
    10 Jan '08
    Moves
    16942
    02 Dec '09 17:21
    Originally posted by atticus2
    So in your model, it's OK to be ranked by rating if you join before the start, but not if you join later for whatever reason. Why is this the case? Will you be saying the same in a year's time when many higher-rated players may have quit in frustration, but highly-rated newcomers will have been forced to join at the bottom? Or maybe no higher rated players ...[text shortened]... kly I don't think such a player would think that a useful or enjoyable way to spend his time.
    i didn't say that but i would've been happy if at the start of the ladder everyone was given random positions but russ decided to go by ratings, no problem. i certainly don't think someone who enters the ladder should enter it around their own rating level... whats the point in having a ladder if that's the case?

    like every game variation on this site it's not going to be for everyone and no one is forcing to anyone to join a ladder.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree