Site Ideas
10 May 05
10 May 05
Originally posted by LuckView their rating graph. That way you can see their rating over the last 300 games they have played. Should give some indication.
Would it be possible to have the players highest rating (ever) to be posted in the profile?
This would really help to identify the player you are playing against since the player may have been inactive for few weeks and the rating has dropped well below the ability level.
Harri / Luck
10 May 05
Originally posted by Luck.
Would it be possible to have the players highest rating (ever) to be posted in the profile?
This would really help to identify the player you are playing against since the player may have been inactive for few weeks and the rating has dropped well below the ability level.
Harri / Luck
i know where you are coming from ... BUT ...
this will encourage people to have massive swings, seesawing up and down ... to see how high they can get.
i can envisage players usually rated 1300 starting 500 games and not resigning in any until they hit 2000, then plummetting back to 600 points.
it can be nice to see better who you play ... but this is not the way.
10 May 05
Originally posted by LuckI think that's a good suggestion and something I would like to see too. If people did the "see-sawing" thing, that wouldn't matter as the highest ever rating would show you what the player is capable of reaching, which is the whole point.
Would it be possible to have the players highest rating (ever) to be posted in the profile?
This would really help to identify the player you are playing against since the player may have been inactive for few weeks and the rating has dropped well below the ability level.
Harri / Luck
10 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by flexmoreSadly I have to concur, It is amazing what people will do to try and "beat the system": even a system that had no intention of ever defending itself.
...this will encourage people to have massive swings, seesawing up and down ... to see how high they can get... this is not the way.
10 May 05
Originally posted by kw72ukBut a 1300 player isn't capable of reaching 2000 and isn't anywhere near the playing strength of a 2000 rated player.
I think that's a good suggestion and something I would like to see too. If people did the "see-sawing" thing, that wouldn't matter as the highest ever rating would show you what the player is capable of reaching, which is the whole point.
However by the mechanism flexmore described (start lots of games, win say 25% and get the points for them but move slowly in games you are losing so they don't finish) a 1300 rated player would have a highest rating of 2000. This of course doesn't help you determine their true strength at all which is what Luck is looking for. It is also extremely distrupting to all those players said player plays in their rating catapault.
10 May 05
an all-time high figure appearing alongside the current rating when CLAN CHALLENGES are set up would be useful.
i've suggested this before.
it would also mean there was an incentive for people to NOT manipulate their rating to get their all-time high figure as high as possible as this would work against them in future clan challenges (ie they would be matched up with people they couldn't beat).
10 May 05
Originally posted by murrowWould an all-time high not be unfair on players who play lots of games.
an all-time high figure appearing alongside the current rating when CLAN CHALLENGES are set up would be useful.
i've suggested this before.
it would also mean there was an incentive for people to NOT manipulate their rating to get their all-time high figure as high as possible as this would work against them in future clan challenges (ie they would be matched up with people they couldn't beat).
If you play 1000 games you might have a freak wave of wins and end up 150 points above your true value. If you have played just 100 games this statistical anomally is far less likely to occur.
10 May 05
Originally posted by invigorate
Would an all-time high not be unfair on players who play lots of games.
If you play 1000 games you might have a freak wave of wins and end up 150 points above your true value. If you have played just 100 games this statistical anomally is far less likely to occur.
i guess it would a little, but no more than the 30-day high that already appears on people's profile - some players pack a lot of chess into 30 days!
in any case i'm not suggesting that it should be the ONLY statistic used ... it should be shown next to the current rating when setting up or bouncing clan challenges.
even the 30-day high figure would be better here than nothing... the only thing you see at the moment is the current rating.
a big discrepancy between these figures would simply alert the clan leader that it would be worth looking at the player's graph.
13 May 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZSay you do as you suggest - the 25% thing - surely you would have to win those games against higher and higher rated players as your rating went up after each win to gain points, and to reach 2000 would still show that you are a very strong player....
But a 1300 player isn't capable of reaching 2000 and isn't anywhere near the playing strength of a 2000 rated player.
However by the mechanism flexmore described (start lots of games, win say 25% and get the points for them but move slowly in games you are losing so they don't finish) a 1300 rated player would have a highest rating of 2000. This of cou ...[text shortened]... is also extremely distrupting to all those players said player plays in their rating catapault.
I do agree though that it would be very distrupting to all those players said player plays in their rating catapault.
13 May 05
Originally posted by flexmorePlease!
.
this will encourage people to have massive swings, seesawing up and down ... to see how high they can get.
i can envisage players usually rated 1300 starting 500 games and not resigning in any until they hit 2000, then plummetting back to 600 points.
Everyone wants to get their ratings up. What's stopping someone from doing this now?
