Ladders, consultation on a challenge tweak.

Perhaps the main benefit of being on a ladder is getting fairly regular games at a rate you like against players who are a similar ability to you, which tend to be the most fun games to have. At least, that's the fun element in squash ladders and suchlike. Tournaments and Sieges on this site don't quite achieve that, although rating limited tournaments come close.

If its about having fun games, then it is to our advantage to let good players reach their level quickly, as otherwise they crush many more people on their way up which is no fun for either party.

Originally posted by atticus2
@orion25

You can have a Ladder as you describe. But strong players won't join it if they act rationally; and those that have will quit. All your model does is favour highly-rated players when the Ladder was first formed. Thereafter, highly-rated players are punished by being required to play way below their rank. Moreover, if you don't like higher-rated ...[text shortened]... ontent that some will remain who apparently take pleasure in beating far weaker players.

look, atticus, I'm not saying the current system is fair, or perfect. I totally agree and understand that the fun is off for high rated players entering the ladders, and I also agree there should be changed something. I just don't agree with this proposed solution. Why adress a problem creating a new one?

I mean, you must admit, it is also not fun to be in a messy position were everyone can change 50 or 60 positions in one game, wich is the situation that will be created by this solution.

iamatiger's proposed solution is slightly better but still not good enough I think

Originally posted by orion25
look, atticus, I'm not saying the current system is fair, or perfect. I totally agree and understand that the fun is off for high rated players entering the ladders, and I also agree there should be changed something. I just don't agree with this proposed solution. Why adress a problem creating a new one?

I mean, you must admit, it is also not fun to be i ...[text shortened]... lution.

iamatiger's proposed solution is slightly better but still not good enough I think

Ok, if it is not good enough how about something like the following:

As per Russ's plan, your minimum challenge range is (position-1)/10 where position is your current position.

The divisor of (10) there is adaptable, if you have won two consecutive challenges it decreases to 9, for three challenges to 8 etc. The maximum challenge range is 100 places. Your "winning streak" counter is incremented only for games you win in which you were the challenger.

Your winning streak is reset to 0 if you lose or draw a game on a ladder, whether this is a game in which you were defending or in which you were the challenger.

Everyone's winning streak can be seen on the ladder board and in their own status for that ladder.

This approach should let Atticus get to the top in about 10 games, would that satisfy you, Atticus?

I'm sitting here and enjoy the debate. The problem seems to be the speed you are allowed to raise to your 'proper position'. High rated vs low rated.

I cannot avoid comparing it with the rating system we have at RHP. How to find your proper rating relative your proper skill. Therefore we have special rules from game 1 to 5, then from 6 to 20, then your 'in'. Good rules bring you faster to your 'proper rating'.

In the ladder system, where rating has no importance (skill has of course), you enter in the bottom and raise. It will take some time, and that's the problem, right?

Okay, whatever the solution will be - please keep it simple. Too complicated rules will generate many questions in the Forums in the future, as the provisional ratings does now.

I tend to favour the 'free ride' ticket. Once. With the aditional rule that - if you drop out the ladder in order to reenter to have a new free ride you have to wait, say, three months. Or something...

Originally posted by orion25
look, atticus, I'm not saying the current system is fair, or perfect. I totally agree and understand that the fun is off for high rated players entering the ladders, and I also agree there should be changed something. I just don't agree with this proposed solution. Why adress a problem creating a new one?

I mean, you must admit, it is also not fun to be i ...[text shortened]... lution.

iamatiger's proposed solution is slightly better but still not good enough I think

The reason I liked Russ's solution, is that it sort of "heats up" the lower ranks, so there is more zooming around there, and it gives the higher ranks a slower and calmer state. This has nice parallels with entropy in some physical systems and more practically means that your position becomes more secure the higher up you get which seemed a good bonus for getting higher to me.